Thinking of "upgrading" to 1D

Ok, I've had my Canon Digital Rebel 300D for over 2 years now, and was thinking about upgrading to something with faster processing, better ISO capabilities and just overall, a "better" camera so-to-speak. The 300D is excruciatingly slow at startup, and consecutive images in RAW are limited to 3 shots before the camera has to stop and process them to the card.

I was looking at the original 1D full frame camera. It is only 4.1mp, but I was curious to as how well it handles photos as compared to the 300D. They are in totally different leagues, but I've never experienced a 1D, so I haven't a clue as to what to compare it to. What will the limitations of having only a 4mp resolution? Will images be more "sharp" or "clear"? I understand good glass is the main contributor to sharpness, but I have to believe the full frame sensor in the 1D has to be better than the one in the Rebel.

If I were to purchase the 1D, would I be dropping back in technology and only falling more behind on the technology? I just do not want to purchase this camera if it won't be much of an improvement, or if I will simply want to upgrade in the next year or two. Would a 20D be a better choice than the older 1d?

I'm apologize in advance for asking so many questions, I just haven't found much info regarding the comparisons of these cameras.

You're mistaking the 1D and the 1Ds. The 1D you're talking about is not full frame and is only 4.1MP. The 1Ds is the full frame counterpart, at 11.1MP.

as glen said, 1D is 1.3 crop, and not full frame. the noise performance about the same as 300D. responsiveness and focusing is far superior. IT IS VERY LARGE and HEAVY. go to store and pick one up. I was very close to buying one, until I handled one.

Even the 1D "classic" is more advanced than the 300D. Yes, it's 4.1MP, but it's focus is much quicker & accurate. Shooting up to 8 fps is nice to have, even though you might not use it much. And if you properly expose a photo, high ISO doesn't look all too bad. The "noise" with the 1D Classic's CCD looks pretty much like the grain on high ASA film.

With the 1.3 crop factor, that would mean the sensor is still larger than what is on the 300D?

Sorry for mistaking it. I would just like some people's opinions from those whom have experience with this camera.

The 1D (aka 1Dino/1D Classic) is a beast compared to the 300D.

Auto focus, shutter speed, size, weight, image buffering ... the list goes on.

It's like a 20D on steroids 'so to speak'.

I'd link you to a current thread dedicated to 1D lovers, but my link pasting skills suck. Perhaps someone with a bit of savvy could do it for me with TIA.

kevindar wrote in post #4968872
IT IS VERY LARGE and HEAVY.

I can't argue this fact, it is built for work. With the right lenses, it's rain tight. It's shutter is made for long term use... should last 100,000+ actuations before needing replacement. It's battery life isn't stellar either...

samnz wrote in post #4968933
I'd link you to a current thread dedicated to 1D lovers, but my link pasting skills suck. Perhaps someone with a bit of savvy could do it for me with TIA.

Here ya go: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=453274

The size and weight isn't really an issue. The 300D itself is quite large, but with a plastic body, is probably much lighter. I am not a professional, but wanted something that is more capable than the rebel. It just seems like I'm constantly waiting for it before I can take a shot. Would the drop from 6.3mp to 4.1mp be a huge issue, or would the better sensor advantage outweigh those "numbers"?

GeneMan88 wrote in post #4968942
Here ya go: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=453274

You da man Gene!

I have to be devils advocate here and say to go with a 20D instead. The 1D can be a fairly intimidating beast, and although you havn't said what you are wanting to shoot, unless you really need the super fast focusing and 8FPS, the 20D is a much better choice of cameras for a casual shooter. Don't get me wrong, the 1D is still a capable camera, easily better than the 300D, but unless you are shooting sports or nature there not too many reasons to pick it over the 20D.

All the comments about size and weight are all relative. To me it's the perfect fit. All the rest are small for me. So you'll have to hold it yourself to make that decision.

Either a 1D or the 20D would be an upgrade to the original Rebel in my opinion. It depends how far you want to go and whether you have some specific requirements from the body.

For the price you can get the 1D at now, I would strongly consider that one first as it is still extremely capable.

I did the same upgrade: from a 300D to 1D. I was VERY happy for a while. But as billg said, I too went back to a 20D. The reason was that I never fully utilized the 8fps, and the 1D has no real ISO advantage over the 300D. The biggest drawback for me about the 1D was the very poor battery life. The only reason why I re-bought a 1D was because the CCD processes the image a little different (to my liking) than a CMOS sensor. I mainly shoot in JPEG with minimal PP, so it was a huge plus, as the images out of the camera came with a very pleasant color tone and contrast (to me, at least).