Upgrade 10D to 1D series ??

I have used my 10D for years now and love it, but was shooting grandsons soccer last night, and wasn't really happy with with SS at 1600 ISO. SS was only 125-180, not really ideal for nighttime sports. I am wondering about updating to 1D or 1DMkII series (cant really afford MkIII's yet). Not really sure which will benefit me more.

I shoot studio and outdoor portrature, commerical, and sports for local newspaper. I guess my main concern would be IQ between the 1D and the MkII. Which series would work the best for high ISO shooting?? Thanks for all the input..

I never owned a 10D, but did own a Mark IIn. I found the Mark IIn to have the same ISO noise as my 20D at the time. The selling point for me was the AF of the MIIn. Sorry I can't be of much more help.

Go the Mark IIn - basic lists of reasons:

*slightly faster/more accurate AF due to 2 AF modules, the original 1D only uses 1 AF module
*much better noise performance, especially at ISO 800 and above
*ISO 50 if you want it (1D only goes as low as ISO 100)
*Much larger LCD - 2.5" vs 2". Also the Mark IIn has a LCD magnifier, which the original 1D doesn't
*battery performance - the original 1D is horrid in terms of battery performance, on average genuine Canon batteries get around 130 shots per charge from both my experience, and from what Canon Australia has officially told me. The Mark IIn is MUCH better...
*Dual memory Card capabilities - the original 1D only takes CFs and microdrives. The Mark IIn takes both CF and SD cards (but not microdrives oddly).
*From my experience, the metering seems to be slightly better with the Mark IIn, although I prefer E-TTL 1 for flash metering. E-TTL II does not seem as accurate, at least for my genre of photography (macro). This may, or may not affect you, best to test yourself if you can.
*4mp vs 8mp - 8mp is nicer, and much better if you need to crop
*Reds - Canon's always seem to oversaturate the reds imho, the Mark IIn does seem a bit better in this respect than the original 1D from my experience
*Will hold better resale value in the future. Original 1D's seem to be dropping in price quicker than the RMS Titanic dropped to the Atlantic ocean floor...

Disadvantages of the Mark IIn

*Original 1D goes up to 1/16000 second
*Original 1D has flash sync up to 1/500 second

In all honesty, I doubt you'd rarely need the first, but the 2nd is something that is nice. I haven't really played too much with high speed flash sync, so I'm not sure how much that makes up for not having 1/500 second...

That's about it.

Dave

Thanks for the info Dave. I would love to see high ISO comparsion shots between the two 1D's. Last night was using 70-200 2.8, ISO 1600 with SS ranging from 125-180. The shots below just dont seem right to me for some reason.

Looks like it has a colour cast to me - are these before or after noise reduction via software? If these are before, then noise is pretty damn good, that's way better than my 1D is at ISO 800 in all honesty. The 1D Mark IIn is about a stop better in the noise department. Just make sure with the higher ISOs that you expose to the right and you should be find. Try and avoid darker subjects/backgrounds as well with high ISO shooting.

One more thing I forgot - the original 1D uses a Panasonic sourced CCD, and the amps (amplifiers) for the CCD are located at the top left/right of the CCD sensor. On anything long exposure, say 30 seconds or more, the 1D is useless, nice blue glows will be easily seen in the top left/right corners of the image. As far as I'm concerned, this was/is a design fault with the 1D and should have resulted in a full product recall by Canon, especially considering the 1D is a pro camera, the cost of the unit at the time of the release, and that the D30 and D60 did NOT exhibit this issue with long exposures.

Dave

Been there, done that...

Went from a 10D to a MK2. Do it. No comparison in regards to AI Servo, frame rate, buffer size and speed. It's just silly how much better these factors are compared to the 10D. High ISO wise, the MK2 is better than the 10D, but not ridiculously better. You still see noise at 1600. The thing I did notice is, for some reason, the MK2 responds better to noise reducing programs than the 10D did. I use Noiseware Pro, and although I still like the look with out it better, it does "clean up nice"...

Other things that aren't as important to everyone... Build quality, the view finder (waaaay nicer), feel, and the ability to customize it in every possible way. I had a 1 series film body before getting the 10D, so I was familiar with the layout and feel. The camera is just nice to use. I know you can get a wonderful picture with any camera, but using a 1 series just adds to the fun. And the truth is, equipment does factor in when you are shooting things like low light sports. You could take a picture of a static, well lit, subject using the 10D and the MK2 and probably not tell which cam took the pic by looking at the prints. Add to the mix low light and fast moving subjects, the attributes of high performance cameras and lenses show through...

MK2 or MK2n? You'll have to decide. There wasn't enough difference for me to pass up a decent deal on a nice MK2.

10D image quality at ISO 1600 is superior to 1D but a little worse than 1DMkII. I had a D30, 10D, 1D, and 1DMkII. Like you, I love shooting in the dark at high ISO and sports. So, I just bought another 1D (I sold the previous one) for daytime sports and will swap my MkII for a 5D for night time shooting (yes, I'll have to deal with only 3fps in this case). Depending on the specs of the future 5DMkII, I'll swap both for that instead. I'm hoping at least 5fps.

dpastern wrote in post #4153368
Looks like it has a colour cast to me - are these before or after noise reduction via software? If these are before, then noise is pretty damn good, that's way better than my 1D is at ISO 800 in all honesty. The 1D Mark IIn is about a stop better in the noise department. Just make sure with the higher ISOs that you expose to the right and you should be find. Try and avoid darker subjects/backgrounds as well with high ISO shooting.

One more thing I forgot - the original 1D uses a Panasonic sourced CCD, and the amps (amplifiers) for the CCD are located at the top left/right of the CCD sensor. On anything long exposure, say 30 seconds or more, the 1D is useless, nice blue glows will be easily seen in the top left/right corners of the image. As far as I'm concerned, this was/is a design fault with the 1D and should have resulted in a full product recall by Canon, especially considering the 1D is a pro camera, the cost of the unit at the time of the release, and that the D30 and D60 did NOT exhibit this issue with long exposures.

Dave

Taken right from the 10D, and only used PS on image size to send on web. I had the WB set on auto. I too think it has a color cast to it.

thought about the 40D? just a bit cheaper upgrade than 1Dmk2. oh and go for the mk2, I myself am deciding between 40D and mk2. btw, i also have a 10D.

disneydork06 wrote in post #4154701
thought about the 40D? just a bit cheaper upgrade than 1Dmk2. oh and go for the mk2, I myself am deciding between 40D and mk2. btw, i also have a 10D.

Nah, when I went from film to digital, and got the 10D, fell in love with it, and promised myself that when and if I ever upgraded, it would be to the 1D series. What worries me now is having this camera for over 4 years with daily shooting, and not really knowing actual shutter activations on it. If I remember right, the shutter life of the 10D was around 50,000??? Correct me if I am wrong..

at least that much. go for the mkII. I had the 10D and went to the 1D. I missed the high ISO quality a lot! went for mkII and was very happy with it.

fotodan wrote in post #4154870
Nah, when I went from film to digital, and got the 10D, fell in love with it, and promised myself that when and if I ever upgraded, it would be to the 1D series. What worries me now is having this camera for over 4 years with daily shooting, and not really knowing actual shutter activations on it. If I remember right, the shutter life of the 10D was around 50,000??? Correct me if I am wrong..

haha, then that would explain why I needed to get mine serviced...I don't even know the shutter count on mine either.

Get a 1D II and keep the 10D. Shoot the 10D at times so you continue to appreciate the 1D II.

fotodan wrote in post #4154870
Nah, when I went from film to digital, and got the 10D, fell in love with it, and promised myself that when and if I ever upgraded, it would be to the 1D series. What worries me now is having this camera for over 4 years with daily shooting, and not really knowing actual shutter activations on it. If I remember right, the shutter life of the 10D was around 50,000??? Correct me if I am wrong..

It's not "shutter life" it's Mean Time Between Failure. It's not a self-destruct feature, but an average life expectancy.

My old 10D (not the one I use now) failed after 162,000 images. I know this for a fact because Canon included the shutter count when sending my repair estimate (which was really a "Beyond Economical Repair" statement)

cdifoto wrote in post #4156552
It's not "shutter life" it's Mean Time Between Failure. It's not a self-destruct feature, but an average life expectancy.

My old 10D (not the one I use now) failed after 162,000 images. I know this for a fact because Canon included the shutter count when sending my repair estimate (which was really a "Beyond Economical Repair" statement)

Holy Mackrel! 162,000 images! Canon should have used you and your 10D in some advertising...