1D (Mk I) vs. 20D

How does the original 1D stack up against a 20D if I were to use it for sports (motorsports)?
Been wondering for a while and since they're quite different time period wise I can't find a side-by-side review of them elsewhere.

Thanks!

I haven't shot motorsports, but I do shoot action with my 1D, and compared to my long-gone 20D, the 1D is heaven and earth. Autofocus easily blows away the 20D, and 8.5fps is just mind numbingly fast. The 1D's focus system is still every bit the legend that it was.. it will take on most modern day cameras any time, except for its own 1-series successors. It even edges out my 5D by a little.. not by much, but it does..

45-point Area AF still makes it so much easier to track a moving subject and keep it in the reticle, and I trust their automatic focus point selection, which I don't on any other camera.

The only areas where the 20D beats the 1D are in-camera JPEG processing (I liked its JPEGs better), and 8 megapixels vs 4MP.

Lightstream wrote in post #2291355
The only areas where the 20D beats the 1D are in-camera JPEG processing (I liked its JPEGs better), and 8 megapixels vs 4MP.

And weight. If you're a girly-man that is. Some say that the 20D handles noise better at higher ISO settings as well.

Date introduced April 2004 = 20D
Date introduced December 2001=1D
Date discontinued April 2004 =1D (superseded by EOS 1D mark II)

Side by side comparative =http://photonotes.org …ra3=*&camera4=*​&camera5=*

Depending on how you look at it, the 1d is not that old of technology.

About the only advantage 20D has is resolution and high noise performance(800, 1600).

edpoin wrote in post #2291404
Date introduced April 2004 = 20D
Date introduced December 2001=1D
Date discontinued April 2004 =1D (superseded by EOS 1D mark II)

Side by side comparative =http://photonotes.org …ra3=*&camera4=*​&camera5=*

Depending on how you look at it, the 1d is not that old of technology.

Hmm.....good point! Wow, that 1D sure has hung on for a long time. If we're looking at 2004-2006, that means it's really not that old..

The biggest thing scaring me away from the 1D is the reported noise at high ISOs-- I use 16 and 3200 more than I do 100 and 200, so it's a major concern for me.

I had the 1D and it was like an extension to my hand. The 10D seems like just a camera. The 1D does everything I needed instantly. Even in low light if I shot 1D on RAW I could increase the exposure and it did an awesome job! i.e. my flash ddi not work on the 1d that's why I dont have it anymore and all my shots of my son came out at 3 stops underexposed. I brought em all up to normal and took them into B&W and they are usable photos. I don't think my 10D could've done that.

tsaraleksi wrote in post #2292223
The biggest thing scaring me away from the 1D is the reported noise at high ISOs-- I use 16 and 3200 more than I do 100 and 200, so it's a major concern for me.

If you really need those high ISO's it's gonna be a problem. I use my 1D for autosport and concerts and never go over ISO400 (with a little bit fill in flash). You can use higher ISO's, but not where it's dark. Sounds odd, but the noise is mainly in shadow areas. When it's well lit you can use higher ISO's to get the shutter speed up.
Mind you that the 1D has 1/3 stop increase in ISO speed. So you can use in between values and don't have to jump from 400 to 800, but you have 640 in between. So you can use what you really need. It can be done with a 1D, but you'll need fast lenses too. And be creative.


All that said, I'm looking for a used MkII just to get nice clean concerts shots.