D or Ds?

While I won't be making the move for quite some time, I'm always looking at the strengths and weaknesses of different cameras/lenses. I think that when I upgrade I want to go right up to the 1-series.

Here's my big $ question... Which would be a better suited towards a wide variety of photography, a 1DmkIIn or a 1Ds(mkI).

I really never hear about these being compared. Is there anyone who has used both and has a preference? I won't be buying either for quite a long time, and there will probably be different options available at that point, but I would be very interested to learn a bit about the differences in these two.

they are diseigned for totally different things.

Obviously the D is designed for sports/wildlife
the ds is more for portraits/commercial/f​ashion/landscape


the d is the better overall camera, but the ds has superior resolution and is full frame. both are dur for updates, and theres still a possibilty of seeing a combo camera from Canon like the Nikon d2xs.

The 1D series are a little more versatile compared to the 1Ds series. This takes into consideration ($$$ and applications).

If you want to dump money into a 1DsMKII, you better be sure you want to do stuff that it allows you to do. A lot more money invested there than a 1DMKII.

a 1DmkIIN is easily better than the 1dsmkI IMO, unless you NEED full frame. the 1DmkIIN is a very versitale and great camera and wont dissapoint.

I have both...the 1Ds is a bit slow to be an action sports camera, but it really shines for most everything else....the 1DmkIIn is a dream when it comes to high speed shooting for sports events. I usually have both with me and have no problem shooting with either regardless of the intended subject.

I've actually been leaning more and more towards the 1DmkIIn as I shoot and study more. Maybe by the time I can afford to make that jump there will be something more in between the two. I think the 1.3 crop is about perfect, giving some extra reach, but not making your wides too long. It would be nice to have around 12mp for larger images. I know I don't have the use for a 1DsMkII, especially when you consider the price factor.

Mostly I haven't seen much said about the original 1Ds and I'm curious about it.

the original 1ds wasn't that great at high isos. the 5d outperforms it in most ways, except the the 1 series body and functioanlity.

braduardo wrote in post #2290928
I've actually been leaning more and more towards the 1DmkIIn as I shoot and study more. Maybe by the time I can afford to make that jump there will be something more in between the two. I think the 1.3 crop is about perfect, giving some extra reach, but not making your wides too long. It would be nice to have around 12mp for larger images. I know I don't have the use for a 1DsMkII, especially when you consider the price factor.

Mostly I haven't seen much said about the original 1Ds and I'm curious about it.

one major disadvantage of the 1dsmkI is it has horrible noise performance in comparison to the newer cameras.

Billginthekeys wrote in post #2290943
one major disadvantage of the 1dsmkI is it has horrible noise performance in comparison to the newer cameras.

I had a feeling that would be the case.

Horrible according to whom? The ISO range of the 1Ds extends from 50 to 1250....The noise at 1250 is no worse than on any other camera at that value. But unlike the 1DmkIIn there is no option to stretch it to 3200.

1Ds is reasonable at ISO 1250 *if you expose right*.
It's fine for studio, or controlled shooting outside the studio. The 1D2 wins in less then ideal circumstances IMO.

That doesn't look very sharp to me.

I have both the 1DMKII and the 1DsMKII and the only reason that they both go on assignments is for a backup. One or the other will always be the primary body and it chosen by the nature of what I happen to be shooting.

I started out with the 1DMKII. I had a look at your gallery and given what I see there I think this camera (the N version now) would be more than adequate. I have enlarged my 1DMKII as big as 24X30 and you could look at it up close and it was outstanding. The 1DsMKII was purchased due to work I am doing with one client on an ongoing basis that wanted (and was willing to pay for) the additional resolution.

My personal shooting, which tends to be allot of wildlife and nature, is done predominantly on the 1DMKII. Quite honestly I have never really had the need for more than this in most of professional work, let alone my personal.

Out of sheer curiosity, how large of prints are you making that you require more resolution than that of the 1D series.

ssim wrote in post #2291350
Out of sheer curiosity, how large of prints are you making that you require more resolution than that of the 1D series.

Mostly I want some extra resolution so that I can crop a bit more. I will print 13x19 sometimes, and have printed 16x20 from my 6.3mp but it can be pretty tricky. I can't really crop down much from a 6mp image and still print large without quite a bit of work. I don't think that I need 16-20mp to start with, but every little bit helps.

I think that when I make my move it will probably be to the 1DmkIIn or equivalent. By the time I can afford it, it could be 2-3 versions down the line. All around, it seems like the best of everything I am looking for.

The 1DMIIN will be more versatile because you can buy more lenses with the savings