Mark II or IIn or 1Ds

From my experience (1D and 1DMk2) and reading and debating about the 1Ds and 5D, the overall winner, a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none is: 1DMk2 (or Mk2n).

Jack of all trades and Master of many really
The 1D series has always been the master of Sports and fast moving wildlife..

ebann wrote in post #4189227
From my experience (1D and 1DMk2) and reading and debating about the 1Ds and 5D, the overall winner, a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none is: 1DMk2 (or Mk2n).

I really do agree that the MkII or IIn are most likely the best single choice, and that the MkII is probably the best value. To be honest though I think the MkIII so much of a different beast as far as useability, and that the 1D is so close in that regard to the II's that I can get the feel for 1D performance without spending the extra $1k for the II or $2k for the IIn. My goal is not to keep this 1D forever, but more likely try it and if I like it move to the III sometime down the road.

As well to shoot with all of the constraints I mention above will do wonders for my technique. I still shoot film in MF and LF because of the deliberateness of the process. Having to work a bit harder to get decent pictures with this older pro body is probably a good thing for me overall. We'll see if I finally bite on this one that has been offered or I move on down he road.

Stew

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #4189403
Jack of all trades and Master of many really
The 1D series has always been the master of Sports and fast moving wildlife..

True... after a little thought the standard saying doesn't really apply eh? Perhaps jack-of-all-trades-master-of-some!

Excellent AF
Excellent fps
Excellent body
Decent MP
Decent crop factor
Decent battery life
Decent high ISO performance
Bad weight

squiress wrote in post #4189482
I really do agree that the MkII or IIn are most likely the best single choice, and that the MkII is probably the best value. To be honest though I think the MkIII so much of a different beast as far as useability, and that the 1D is so close in that regard to the II's that I can get the feel for 1D performance without spending the extra $1k for the II or $2k for the IIn. My goal is not to keep this 1D forever, but more likely try it and if I like it move to the III sometime down the road.

As well to shoot with all of the constraints I mention above will do wonders for my technique. I still shoot film in MF and LF because of the deliberateness of the process. Having to work a bit harder to get decent pictures with this older pro body is probably a good thing for me overall. We'll see if I finally bite on this one that has been offered or I move on down he road.

Stew

Using similar reasoning, I am going to downgrade my 1DMkII to a 1Dino. With the extra cash, perhaps get some glass or maybe a 5D when the prices come down a bit (~$1,800 new would be great)

I agree with the others here - the Mark II/n is the best 'overall' choice for IQ, noise and performance (AF/burst speed etc). It has a lot going for it. It does lose a bit of resolution to the original 1Ds, but what you lose there, you gain in IQ and noise - it's at least a stop better in the noise department, probably more. Furthermore, the Mark II/n is way better in the batter performance as well. Then there's the buffer...and ISO range (the 1Ds only goes to ISO 1250 from memory, and down to ISO 100 - that's versus the Mark II/n going from ISO 50 to ISO 3200).

Against the 1Ds Mark II - the main thing is the Mark II/n's buffer is faster, but that's cos of the file sizes. Resolution is better for the 1Ds Mark II (as it should be). Noise is just as good, as is the ISO range. Where you lose is in price - with the 1Ds Mark II being almost double the price of the Mark II/n. Also, do you really need the 16mp? For most users, in most scenarios, the 8mp of the Mark II/n is just fine.

Against the 5D - the 5D lacks the weather sealing, body build, AF. It does have more MP, so that's more resolution, and the IQ is the best of the Canon cameras from that 'era'. Noise is better than the 1D/1Ds/1Ds Mark II/1D Mark II/1D Mark IIn, although by how much is the key question. Is it justifiable. It's also cheaper than the Mark II/n.

I guess it really comes down to what you shoot, and how you shoot. All are good cameras, although I'd gravitate to the latest generations to get the best benefits.

Dave

squiress wrote in post #4188795
I have read all the reviews I can find on the 1D. My expectations are to get a feel for a pro series body at reasonable cost (still trying to save for 500 f/4). I printed a full sized Jpeg last night from the camera I'm considering with a single pass of sharpening at 13x19 and was quite pleased with the results. I think the posts at various places out here to limit to 11x14 on enlargements, limit cropping if at all, stay at 400 or below ISO, and don't use the body for long exposure or low light situations are guidelines I would follow.

This would be an evaluation body for me, very low actuations, almost new in appearance, latest firmware. I don't have any plans to dump 5D or 20D with this add. I actually like the slightly larger pixels and have been okay with the dpreview comparisons between 1D, 1Ds, 1DII. The roughly 25% larger pixels may be a plus.

The goal in the end is to see if I'm willing to lug around the extra weight for the added benefits of the pro body. The 5D takes me totally off the 1Ds and the 20D will give me a good testing benchmark for 8MP versus the 4.3MP. No decision yet, but if I were to like the 1D, then I would feel much better about spending bucks on IIn or III. I would probably be paying a premium for the 1D, and would lose a bit when I sold it, but lots of value there to be able especially to evaluate the a 1D level camera where the AF actually works so that I can compare one day maybe to a 1DIII camera that may not.

Thanks again and I'll let you all know what transpires.

Stew

This is essentially what I did. I bought the 1D as a stepping stone into the newer 1D II. I wasn't sure if the 1D body would be excessively large or heavy for me and the 1D original was an inexpensive way to find out. Ended up selling the 30D because it went unused. Got a 1D II shortly after to get the 8MP images back but honestly the IQ under ISO400 just isn't the same. I absolutely had to jump on that 1D II....under 6K clicks for just a shade under $2100 back in April.

cdifoto wrote in post #4194509
Got a 1D II shortly after to get the 8MP images back but honestly the IQ under ISO400 just isn't the same.

Can you clarify this statement. Not the same in what way? 1D better than 1DII?

Yeah, there's that additional $1k.

Thanks

Stew

Yeah at $2100 it was an absolute bargain. It was practically brand new!

The IQ from the 1D original is....I dunno it's hard to explain. With a weaker (or is there none?) AA filter, the images from the 1D are definitely crisper. Moire can be a problem, but it wasn't for me as I didn't shoot many things that created it (glass panels, window screens, etc). There's just something different about the 1D files at ISO400 and below, especially native ISO200.

Battery life in the 1D II is extremely nice compared to the 1D though so I'm loving that...and the dual card slots are nice to have too. It was/is nice not having to change batteries for an entire wedding day. That means I only have to carry one backup battery instead of four.

cdifoto wrote in post #4194597
Yeah at $2100 it was an absolute bargain. It was practically brand new!

The IQ from the 1D original is....I dunno it's hard to explain. With a weaker (or is there none?) AA filter, the images from the 1D are definitely crisper. Moire can be a problem, but it wasn't for me as I didn't shoot many things that created it (glass panels, window screens, etc). There's just something different about the 1D files at ISO400 and below, especially native ISO200.

Battery life in the 1D II is extremely nice compared to the 1D though so I'm loving that...and the dual card slots are nice to have too. It was/is nice not having to change batteries for an entire wedding day. That means I only have to carry one backup battery instead of four.

Thank you. I think battery life is important, but I don't do this for a living so my shoots are not all that long except that action and high fps may generate more activity than I am normally shooting.

Stew

I don't really think battery life is all that important. It's just a nice improvement. If it wasn't for the superior high ISO, doubled megapickles, and the fact that the Mark II was an awesome deal that sorta came out of nowhere on FM via a private message, I'd still be using a 1D original. Everyone else wanted $2500+/- for their 45,000+ click bodies and this one was practically given to me in comparison.

The 1D I'm contemplating has 10k clicks and looks new, just out of the box. I normally get my bodies as hand me downs from my brother (I pay for them but way less than market). He decided against the MkIII and is probably going to buy a 7x17LF film camera instead so I have to take all the risk myself if I want something 1D-ish.

Stew

I would go for it. It's a nice camera. Just don't pay too much.

cdifoto wrote in post #4194636
I don't really think battery life is all that important. It's just a nice improvement. If it wasn't for the superior high ISO, doubled megapickles, and the fact that the Mark II was an awesome deal that sorta came out of nowhere on FM via a private message, I'd still be using a 1D original. Everyone else wanted $2500+/- for their 45,000+ click bodies and this one was practically given to me in comparison.

Not trying to hijack this thread, but I am in same boat. wanting to upgrade to 1D series and keep 10D as backup, just cant decide on 1D or mkII. I shoot 40% portrature, 40% commerical, 15% wildlife, and 5% grandkids night time sports. I am really leaning towards 1D also, how do the 2 compare in those areas??

fotodan wrote in post #4194702
Not trying to hijack this thread, but I am in same boat. wanting to upgrade to 1D series and keep 10D as backup, just cant decide on 1D or mkII. I shoot 40% portrature, 40% commerical, 15% wildlife, and 5% grandkids night time sports. I am really leaning towards 1D also, how do the 2 compare in those areas??

The 1D won't be very sexy for nighttime sports, since it's high ISO isn't something to brag about. It's more film-like in quality compared to the 10D, in my opinion, but it's still prevalent. That being only 5% of your shooting I wouldn't really factor it in much unless you print posters of the g-kids. Even then it might be fine if you're not an anti-noise pixel-peeper.

For portraiture, the 1D is fine. A local girl won some modeling awards with a few images I produced using the 1D. I printed 8x10s very easily. I didn't have a reason to go bigger but it wouldn't be difficult to get a sharp 11x14 with good technique from start to finish.

Commercial work, I haven't done with any camera so I can't speak for that. It would depend what the client's requirements are.

Wildlife I imagine would be fine too. I don't shoot that either though. Just weddings, portraits, and a few sports.

The 1D II does everything the 1D does only better, except straight from camera sharpness, which is part of that certain "something" I can't really define.