1D - Is it worth it?

I am contemplating buying the 1D. I have the 60D now. I mainly do dog action photography. I am an amateur doing it as a hobby but seriously. I am on the verge of trying to sell my photographs. I have taken some at the dog shows and I just can't seem to get the quality I am looking for compared to other professionals that also come to the shows.
Here is a picture Currey Photo took of my dog (the Great Dane) and my picture recently at a show (golden retriever). I can see the difference definitely.

Do you all think it is worth the investment to go with the 1D and will I get better results?

What lens are you using?

Honestly, no but some good post processing and attention to some details like the horizon on your first image (just sligthly uphill)

You might want to add a bit more contrast for separation and add a faster lense or shoot wider to blurr out those distracting background.

I would put your watermark to the bottom right, we read left to right...it flows better.

What is your current lens line up?
Do you shoot RAW?

Off the bat, my suggestion would be to start shooting and post-processing RAW if you don't already. A new body won't necessarily help improve image quality.

I can see what your line of thinking is, but like the above posters have asked, what lenses are you using? You should be using L lenses if you can afford them, and shooting RAW, check your local Craigslist for some used L lenses and 1D series bodies.

We are both using the same lense. Canon EF 70-200 1:28 L IS II USM. I did use a tripod when I was shooting. Not sure about Currey Photo.

You mean the original "1D" camera vs. your 60D?

Um.. I'd have to say no, it's not worth it. If you were talking about the 1D3... then I can start seeing arguments one way or another.

BUT, if you don't need the FPS, you can think about a 5D2 or a 6D. That said, the 2 photos you are comparing aren't really comparable because the lighting is different. Your photo was shot in more harsh lighting (sun relatively overhead casting shadows). Curry Photo was taken under seemingly overcast skies, nature's lightbox to help diffuse the light.

You've got a great combination. The "better quality" of the second photo is 2 things from what I can see.
1. better lighting (you're shooting with backlighting, which creates lack of contrast and blown out highlights)
2. background separation (somehow, you haven't managed to blur the background enough with your shot. I'd say you need to pick a better spot to shoot from, because with your camera/lens combo, it shouldn't be a problem at all.

your problem is your settings. you're shooting 70mm at f/5.6. Step farther back, shoot at the telephoto side of the lens, and shoot wide open. Also, move to a spot where you've got better light.


if you go from f/5.6 to f/2.8, you can change your ISO from 800 to 200, which will help your dynamic range and color as well.

Jewel wrote in post #16346323
We are both using the same lense. Canon EF 70-200 1:28 L IS II USM. I did use a tripod when I was shooting. Not sure about Currey Photo.

Curry is shooting Nikon D3s with Nikon 70-200

I think the difference has to do more with lighting than anything else and it appears the Curry shot is sharpened considerably more.

Great feedback. Yes, the day Currey shot my dog it was very overcast. The day I shot the goldens was very sunny. I need to not shoot the breeds I want to shoot. I need to concentrate on rings with the best lighting. I also need to work on my settings better I guess too. I have really tried to start shooting everything in either AV or TV to better my skills rather than shoot in the automatic modes. Still a learning curve for me.

I will also try to shoot in raw too which I do not do now.

What about going from the 60D to the 70D?

The problem is not in the camera nor the lenses, nor in shooting in RAW. You just need to learn the basics. Learn to use M mode, what is depth of field, light, how to do post production, etc.

Jewel wrote in post #16346366
What about going from the 60D to the 70D?

That depends on whether you're going to learn to use the 19-point AF or if you're just going to stick to center point. If you think you'll only care to use center-point focus (as you don't want to complicate your shooting further with more features to tweak), then stick with the 60D. But if you think the 70D's AF may help, or you plan on shooting video with liveview AF (or even stills using the LCD instead of the viewfinder), then 70D might be worth considering.

Or if you just want the 19-point AF improvement, but doesn't care about the liveview AF, then you can consider buying a used 7D instead.

You don't need to shoot in raw. shooting in AV is fine, just make sure your aperture value is 2.8.

her shot was at 200mm and f/4.5, that is why her background is blurrier.

Yes, I do need more practice in manual. It is not easy, that's for sure. Makes studio shooting a breeze comparatively. I do really love shooting dogs in action though. I knew the lighting wasn't ideal. I should have moved to a different ring. I will remember to change F stop to 2.8.