1d over a 10d

I would say that you are not really gaining much.

I jump to a 1DmkII would be worth it, but not the MKI . Maybe the 1Ds.

Strick wrote in post #4069723
You are the only one selling one of the choices.

Just kidding.

I know you're kidding but OP has a 10D. I'm not looking to sell him another one.

I had both. Just sold both, actually, and upgraded to a 40D. But here's my opinions to compare/contrast with those above:

-the 1D is better at focusing, both speed and accuracy
-the ISO is better at all high ISO's, contrary to what others are saying. I loved the look at ISO1600 on my 1D - really
-the speed/responsiveness of the camera is better
-the options (settings) are better
-the viewfinder is better
-the weight sucks, but for sports with big lenses it felt right. I had a 10D as my regular camera and 1D as backup. I wouldn't have used a 1D only, mostly because of the weight
-the pixels are amazing, and look great even 11x14 with little to no cropping
-the non-zoom of the LCD sucks, but you get used to it
-the customizable tone curves are kind of useless if you shot RAW, and generally easily fixable in PS with jpegs
-it writes to the CF faster and has a larger buffer
-the lower crop factor actually wasn't a plus, as I liked the longer feel of my 70-200L with the 10D

Hope this helps a bit.

I've owned a 10D and CPS loaned me a 1D a few times. I now shoot with a 1D2.

1D is better noise wise IMO.
Here is a straight out of the camera jpg at ISO 3200. (Sorry about the motion blur, it's the only one I have online). Quite useable I'ld say. On a 10D I avoided ISO 3200 like the plague.

Way better AF then the 10D.
Faster in every way.
Battery life so-so.
Weight is okay IMO.
Way more customisable.
Flash sync at all shutterspeeds with a manual flash.

I'ld take a 1Dino over a 10D any day. Only reason not to is when you absolutely need the 6Mp (images with very small details, which get used big). Otherwise IMO the 4Mp image is better then the 6Mp image.

1D2 is better again, but more expensive.
If I come across a cheap 1D I'll buy it.

godzakka wrote in post #4069960
I had both. Just sold both, actually,

You sold your 1D? It's still active in the "sell" forum......

You can't even compare the 2 models. Like comparing a KIA against a Mercedes. Image quality isn't even close. Real question is what are you wanting to do? 1D has a specific use.

cdifoto wrote in post #4069667
It's not full frame.

Though it is worth noting that the 1.3x crop is pretty nice.

thanks guys i will keep an eye on it if stays cheap enough then I will buy and keep the 10 d as well

my opinion, if you're shooting street scenes or stationary stuff
probably the 10d or 20D, anything that moves the 1D...

cdifoto wrote in post #4069561
I wouldn't want a Mark I to be my only camera unless I could stay at or below ISO400, frame perfectly, and never had to print bigger than 11x14.

Oooh... such narrow constraints.

I use 20D and 1 Dino, tend to use 20D if I know I will need to do any severe crops otherwise I use 1D. I go up to 1000 ISO on it quite happily but never underexpose on it. I find mine quieter than my 20D which is useful for close bird picccies, if quiteness is paramount then my 300D gets pressed into service or my M4.

I still prefer the pics from my 1D, there is just something about them even though I use Capture One on my raws the 1D still to me look the best.

Rene and Godzakka have summed up the main points on it.

I've had both and would like to point out a few things.

-Unless you have a grip, the 1D is heavier. Are you ready for this? Poor battery performance?
-Difference in IQ and noise is probably not even worth comparing. I'd say they are both the same and can both print you small prints with comparable IQ.
-Both have poor high ISO performance. Don't even bother comparing crap with crap.
-1D costs 3-5 times as much as 10D (both used right now).
-The only reason you'd buy a 1D over a 20D or 30D would be for the 8fps and build. With the 1D cameras that I had/have, in hindsight my money should have gone to a xxD model and have saved money.

Not that I'm against a 1D. Out of all the cameras that I've used, I like the colors that came out of the 1D (even more than my current mk2). Awesome camera and since I only print 4x6, the 4mp was more than enough. I needed to get a 30D for the fill in flash for my wife.

cdifoto wrote in post #4069673
I think I'm the only one in this thread so far with experience using BOTH the 10D AND the 1D Mark I.

The 1D is great but it's only advantage over the 10D is speed and build. If those features aren't needed, then the 10D is a better choice, in my opinion. Look at my gear list. I think that says a lot. If you're unhappy with the 10D's speed, then sure go for the 1D. But don't expect IQ to blow you away...it won't.

I have a 1D and D60, whilst the D60 is not a 10D, it's reasonably close to chime in on the thread I believe. Rick - it all depends on what you shoot, and what sort of conditions you use the camera in. If you shoot sports/action/wildlife and need very fast/accurate AF, there's no question, the 1D will be a better choice. If you shoot in light rain, or sand, again, the 1D will be better. If you shoot at high ISOs, I'd say up to ISO 800 they'd be pretty even. My D60 at ISO 400 is about the same as the 1D at ISO 800, and the 10D was about a stop better in the noise department from everything that I read about it. The 1D is larger and heavier than the 10D, but you do get used to a 1 series body, and most people who own one never go back to Canon's prosumer range (admittedly for a variety of reasons). The 1D also has a better memory buffer for a string of shots.

Against the 1D are very poor battery life - probably anywhere between 150-300 shots per charge, 3rd party batteries seem to perform better than Canon batteries. The 1D's noise performance at ISO 1600 and 3200, from my experience, is well...not great at ISo 1600, atrocious at ISO 3200. I'm sure many will argue with me here, but it's my comment. Also, the 1D lacks a LCD magnifier, this is an absolute balls up by Canon. Another big issue is for long exposures - Canon's older bodies seem to have issues with lots of hot pixels at longer exposures, newer bodies seem to be better. Also, the Panasonic CCD that the 1D uses and the amp arrangement that Canon designed mean that there's a light glow caused by the amps when using the 1D for long exposures. You will see Whitish Blue glows at the top left/right corner of the image on anything above 30 or so seconds. If you do night time shots, forget the 1D. I consider this a manufacturing fault by Canon and in all honesty I believe the units should have been recalled as being faulty due to bad design.

My honest advice, hold off and get a Mark II or Mark IIn body 2nd hand - much better than the 1D in all respects (and of course, the 10D).

Dave

edit: Forgot to mention that the 1D is 4mp. For most shots, this isn't an issue, and it's a high quality 4mp if you ask me, certainly no worse than the 6mp 10D. Unless you do very heavy crops and blow those crops up to large print sizes, the lower mp of the 1D isn't an issue.