1D vs. 1D Mark II

Is the 1D still able to hold its own despite half the resolution of it's replacement? Or is it obsolete now that the Mark II and Mark II N's are out?

I guess what I'm asking is, if someone were thinking of buying one, would it be worth the difference in price if they won't be printing larger than 11x17" or so

I don't think the resolution alone would be the issue. The 1D has a CCD sensor and doesn't have the ISO latitude that the 1D Mk2 has, IQ wise the MK2 and Mk2n are better IMO.

But the 1D is still a fine camera, if you can find one at a good price then why not?

Hell yes. The 1D can hold it's own against a great many more technically advanced cameras on the market. The 1D set the standard and is the benchmark in which all pro level DSLRs are measured. Don't let the lower mp count fool you. I purchased one as a stop-gap solution when I thought my mkIIn was going away for repairs. My only regret I ever had owning that camera was selling it.

the 1D can hold its own IQ wise even against the best. as long as you don't plan on printing 30x40 or crazy stuff like that, you will be more than ok. there are only 2 things which i didn't about my original 1D: the high ISO noise oveer 800 (easily fixed by using noise ninja) and the battery power (i got about 300 shots from the battery which is really nothing but i solved it by buying 2 extra battaries). other than that, the camera was just amazing.

off topic- i see that you are having a hard time making up your mind, this is like the 20th thread you started about which camera you are going to buy...

I'd agree with Lord Malone. This was a great camera in its day and it still serves many people very well. I only had the chance to shoot with one of them once but it was treat.

It is true that the newer versions of the 1 series bodies are superior in many respects but if you want to experience the feel of shooting with a 1 series body at a good price this is certainly a reasonable option.

Actually, I said "someone" and it's the...3rd? We might as well make just one thread though: "Colin's Ultimate Consider Every Camera Under The Sun Thread."

There is not one thing I dislike about my 1D...I use it regularly in my wedding practice.

At less than half the price of the MarkII, it is an absolute bargain. Stellar build, great sensor, and beautiful AF system. I have a 1D and 5D. The 1D covers my speed when needed occasionally, and 5D for everything else. I couldn't be happier.

is the dynamic range of the 1D good?

My Porsche wrote:
Actually, I said "someone" and it's the...3rd? We might as well make just one thread though: "Colin's Ultimate Consider Every Camera Under The Sun Thread."

I have the ultimate solution to your problem!!!

Buy one of each model!!

Now if it were only that $imple.....

The only reason I sold my 1D was pure megapixels and a desire to keep one "small" camera.. (20D)

I regret selling it though.. but I don't know when I'd use it.. settling for 4MP would be a hard sell these days. Other than the MP.. the Camera is every boit as capable as the MkII. In same ways the AF seemed even better.. (but that may be simply the recollection of going from a 10D to a 1D)

If only we could rip the Sensor out of an XT and install it in a 1D

On the other hand, for anyone that likes to shoot jpeg,. I found the jpegs out of camera from the 1D CCD to be the most pleasing of any Canon DSLR I have used for color, contrast and sharpness.

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
If only we could rip the Sensor out of an XT and install it in a 1D

Hm...is that possible? Obviously the price of the rebel xt it would be bettrer to buy a mark II but i'm curious...

Were the images ok full size? Like I said 11x17 is probably the biggest I will print, but MAYBE a 20x30 if i take an amazing shot i want to frame really big

In all honesty, the 1D is a bargain. It does lose out in AF speed/accuracy to the Mark II/n version, but the differences are quite small and the average person would never notice the differences in all honesty they are that close. Noise? Yes, the 1D is noisier, but up to ISO 400 I don't think you'll see that much difference between the original 1D and the Mark II variants. And if you do see noise, use something like Noise Ninja or Neat Image to fix it. Amount of MP? 4mp is fine for most people. I've had several 8" x 12" prints done of my macro work and the quality is outstanding. I've had the photolab going "wow, what camera took this!" Cropping might be an issue, depending on how much you're cropping and if you nailed exposure, but it's certainly do-able to an extent. The higher MP counts of the Mark II variants really do help here.

A major issue is the lack of a zoom on the LCD screen, and battery performance is very average from my experience. The other issue is long exposures, the amplifiers for the panasonic made CCD sensor are very noisy and over a minute and they'll be obvious...this really should have been rectified by Canon imho.

Do you really need those super large print sizes, and do you really consistently shoot at higher ISOs all the time?

A good advantage of the 1D is the pixel size does allow a better resolution, especially when stopping down (as I do in my macro photography), this may or may not be important to you.

The 1D is an absolute bargain, I bought mine for AU $2k 3 months ago and don't regret it. When you think about it, a 2nd hand 1v film camera is going for around $1.8k in Australia, 2nd hand...so going digital is a few hundred dollars more.

As to pulling out the sensor from an XT and putting it in a 1D - forget it.

Dave

Hahaha I wasn't thinking about doing it, just curious if it's possible to perform a sensor transplant?

I knew you'd provide handfulls of information. No I usually shoot at ISO64...so I would'nt say i use high ISO's alot.

If you shoot low ISO a lot be aware the 1D classic has a base ISO of 200 rather than 100. 100 is an expansion mode and you will lose dynamic range, and speaking of dynamic range I don't have any numbers to compare but it seems to handle highlights better than my XT and the XT handles shadows better.