-=1D Classic Lovers !!!

[vreeke]

1D ìs for fun, imago, status, prioritysettings, need a caddy like a nice girlfriend, sports wow one day shoting on a 1 gig card, photoshop like's 4,2 mb RAW, speed included flash, just visual memories at an reasonable quality still

at this momernt, never ever sell a 1D

[wernersl]

thanks for the comments guys. about the grain, spaz...your right. the "noise" produced by this camera is very film-like. much more so than a lot of the newer digi's these days. now as for cropping...i need longer glass. those snowboard shots are cropped pretty tight, and are therefore best for web. dont think the prints would be very big, and thats ok for me. those are of a friend of mine and they will only see the web.
vreeke...talk about custom settings...i have little labels all over my camera reminding me which Pfn groups contain certain settings. also have little lables for the programmable whi bal settings. a little dorky but REALLY helps in a pinch. makes thinks like mirror lock up much easier to get to instead of digging through the (PITA) menus. i will admit that i (as a lot of people ive seen) find the 1D/5D combo awesome. 5D comes out in very low light and for hi rez "money" shots. just wish it had the 1D AF. again...thanks for the comments guys.

[aaronrider]

The main thing I WOULD LOVE to have from the original 1D is the 1/500th flash sync. It would be totally awesome for sports. It sucks how cameras now-a-days only go up to 1/250th. I know you can use the HSS mode, but its almost worthless sometimes...

[dfindr]

Originally Posted by wernersl

i think i just made a wet spot in my pants! f/1.0!!!!!! love it

LMFAO and I fell out of the chair!

[dfindr]

Originally Posted by wernersl

i think i just made a wet spot in my pants! f/1.0!!!!!! love it

LMFAO and I fell out of the chair!

[disneydork06]

wow dfindr, it was so funny that you fell out of your chair twice?

[dpastern]

I'm not made of money either, and as I've said previously, the 1D is a very good camera, I love mine to bits. and I wasn't bashing anyone, I'm simply making a statement that many people using the 1D are doing so because it's what I consider as being "cool". Yes, I know some people can't afford a newer 1 series model, and are using the 1D because of that, and that's fine with me.

I'm looking at this from several angles - the 1D is losing money hand over fist. It is not a good investment $ wise. I bought mine for AU $2200 just under 2 years ago, and it's now probably worth only AU $800. It will continue to drop as time goes by...if I'd paid an extra $800 or so dollars, I could have gotten a used Mark II, and that would have held its $ value better, and is a better camera to boot. Paying X amount of money, and having it devalue so badly in such a short period of time means I have to spend MORE money when I do decide to upgrade to a newer camera, because the 1D is getting less resale value...that's why I said to the OP that it's better to wait, and get a used Mark II/n.

Dave

Originally Posted by saab

Seroiusly, if I could afford the extra money, I would have loved to pick up one of the newer models. It has nothing about being "cool", but more about a different set of priorities. My family is not made of money, and they will always come before my hobbies. I just don't think there is any reason to bash anyone who has found great enjoyment from a fantastic peice of equpment (even if there are newer/better/more expensive versions available.)

[dpastern]

Fair enough. If you shoot at ISO 800 or less, don't print larger than A4, and don't do a lot of heavy cropping, then the 1D is fine. If you do any, or all of the above, it will start to show the weakness of the 1D imho. The newer 1 series cameras have less weaknesses imho, at least in the long run.

I also consider the lack of a LCD magnifier a major faux pas by Canon, inexcusable imho, especially at the price of this camera, and also considering that the D30 had one. Battery performance is shockingly bad, 130 shots from an AU $400 battery is outrageous imho. If governments were serious about protecting consumers, instead of pandering to the every need of large corporations (at the expense of consumers, who are the majority), then things would be better. Alas...long exposures? Dreadful - this is a major faux pas as well, and the damn camera should never have been released with this fault - period. Again, poor consumer protection allows Canon to release a model such as the 1D with this design fault.

Newer models fix these issues, and fix them well, so, from a design and engineering point of view, they are better. As with anything in life, you pay for what you get. Pay peanuts, get monkies. Not that the 1D is a monkey by any means, but the newer 1 series cameras are seriously better imho, and good enough to warrant taking a bit longer to invest in them, over the outdated 1D.

Dave

Originally Posted by Strick

I didn't buy it for the "cool" factor or nostalgia, I bought it because I wanted the capabilities of a 1D but at a low price. Considering a MkII is $1500 or more and a MkIIn is $2400 or more I found the 1D a much better choice at ~$700.

[Joe Cyr]

Originally Posted by dpastern

I'm not made of money either, and as I've said previously, the 1D is a very good camera, I love mine to bits. and I wasn't bashing anyone, I'm simply making a statement that many people using the 1D are doing so because it's what I consider as being "cool". Yes, I know some people can't afford a newer 1 series model, and are using the 1D because of that, and that's fine with me.

I'm looking at this from several angles - the 1D is losing money hand over fist. It is not a good investment $ wise. I bought mine for AU $2200 just under 2 years ago, and it's now probably worth only AU $800. It will continue to drop as time goes by...if I'd paid an extra $800 or so dollars, I could have gotten a used Mark II, and that would have held its $ value better, and is a better camera to boot. Paying X amount of money, and having it devalue so badly in such a short period of time means I have to spend MORE money when I do decide to upgrade to a newer camera, because the 1D is getting less resale value...that's why I said to the OP that it's better to wait, and get a used Mark II/n.

Dave

Dave, it's still better than spending $1,200 for a 40d body, only to see that drop dramatically. The Prosumer bodies decline much more rapidly. I do share your opinion though. If I had the extra money, I would have purchased a MKII. Who wouldn't? But when I bought my 1d in May of 2007 (for $900), the MK II was still going for $2,500 used (us currency).

Bang for the buck, I would take a 1D over the 20d, 30d, maybe even the 40d. But that's because the body suits my needs as a sports journalist. And yes, I work in print media, and yes the photos print awesome.

[dpastern]

Oh I definitely agree with you there Joe!!!

I'm not trying to sound like I'm bashing the 1D, I'm trying to look at it from an analytical point of view, judging the pros and cons from a realistic performance base. Unfortunately, some people on the forums get personally offended if you "bash" their choice of camera, even if it's justified for a variety of reasons.

The 1D is fantastic value these days - and it was good value when I bought it I personally think. It has served me well, but my 1D is up for a new home. The Mark IIn does what I need...I am tempted to keep the 1D as a backup but...

Dave

[wernersl]

Originally Posted by disneydork06

wow dfindr, it was so funny that you fell out of your chair twice?

glad i could be of service. service.

[wernersl]

all of these arguments are exactly why the 1d AND 5d go in the bag together. i understand your points dpastern, but there is no such thing as a 1 trick pony. to say that because of the poor long exposure performance the camera shouldnt have been released is (no offense) ridiculous. this camera had (has) a specific niche. how many digi cams in that era were popping off frames @ 8/second? there were sacrifices that had to made to meet that need. i dont see many journalists/sports shooters waiting out long ass night exposures, do you? anyway...that is, again, why my 5D goes with me as well. i sure as hell wouldnt try to catch a snowboarder in action (in the snow) with my 5D; hence the 1D. and at the 775 USD i paid for mine i couldnt be happier!

food for thought...

[dpastern]

OK, let's apply this logic to Canon's pro film cameras...then you'll see how illogical your comment is.

A camera is made to take images - whether they are 1/8000 or 30 seconds or 2 minute exposures, it should do them all equally well. I could understand if Canon had released the 1D with a limit of 1 second on the exposure time and no bulb setting, but since they released it with a bulb setting, it is fair to test and use the camera under those settings. If it fails to perform, on such a basic thing as a long exposure, then there is a performance, and more importantly, a QA issue imho.

I always find it amazing that so many users on POTN blindly accept Canon's faults without any thought. Sure, Canon makes great cameras, and I genuinely believe that they do, but not every camera is perfect, many have had issues (1D Mark III, 20D just to name a few). To ignore or deny those issues is a disservice to the community of photographers that use them.

If Nikon had released a camera with such an issue, I'm quite sure that some Canon users here would have enjoyingly been bashing Nikon for it...I mean hell, look at the crap Nikon gets from Canon users on here about "noise" on their DSLRs!!!

Dave

Originally Posted by wernersl

all of these arguments are exactly why the 1d AND 5d go in the bag together. i understand your points dpastern, but there is no such thing as a 1 trick pony. to say that because of the poor long exposure performance the camera shouldnt have been released is (no offense) ridiculous. this camera had (has) a specific niche. how many digi cams in that era were popping off frames @ 8/second? there were sacrifices that had to made to meet that need. i dont see many journalists/sports shooters waiting out long ass night exposures, do you? anyway...that is, again, why my 5D goes with me as well. i sure as hell wouldnt try to catch a snowboarder in action (in the snow) with my 5D; hence the 1D. and at the 775 USD i paid for mine i couldnt be happier!

food for thought...

[jacobsen1]

yes but the purple corners are a non issue to almost every user here. Yes it's a problem, but as said the camera was ground breaking for it's day. This is like giving the D3 crap for noisy 25600ISO images. yes they're noisy, but it's the only game in town.

Also, you're looking at the price of the body wrong. Don't look at what you paid for it. Look at what it depreciated over time.

I owned a 1DmII for 2 years, it cost me $500.
I sold it and that covered both the 1D and 5D I purchased...

Both were awesome deals at the time. Yes they cost less now, but they were great deals at the time. If you're always looking at the prices you'll never buy anything. Just buy what fits your needs at the time. When it no longer meets your needs, THEN upgrade to what does and you can afford. Don't worry about it until then, just go shoot.

I realize it's not a perfect camera, but I'd argue it's more perfect than a 1DmIII is.

[wernersl]

now im gonna have to go out and shoot some night exposures with the 1. ill bet the corners are a non-issue. and youre right...i accept the faults. reason...the camera does what i want. youre ignoring the fact that in order to give the consumer what they want they had to sacrifice a few things...like the hot ccd sensor which was able to deliver the ultra fast frame rate equivalent to that of the 1v. the downfall...bad long exposures. so...with all this talk why do you even own a mark II? that camera had its fair share problems too. just didnt get the same attention as the mk III. anyway...i will take my flawed 1d and be happy as a clam...knowing i am just a blind consumer accepting these flaws. but hey...for under 800 bucks it should be way more flawed than it is!