[edit] What makes the 1Ds better then the 1D MkII?

Just wondering what everyone thinks. (No flame...lets just keep it civil here).

The 20D vs 1D debate has two very strong sides as far as 4mp vs 8mp. I personally feel that with "normal sized" prints the added 4mp of the 20d wont get you much but tighter crops.

That said, the 8mp 1DMKII is only 3mp smaller then the 1Ds.

What i'm wondering is, with the added shutter speed, ETTL 2, better ISO performance. Is the 1Ds really a worthwhile investment anymore?

Aside from the extra 3mp, which i feel arnt of much use, and the full frame sensor. What does the 1Ds give a person that the 1DMKII doesnt?

Is the dynamic range better? Are the colors better?

???

Actually.. this was talked about quite a lot when the 1DMkII came out all those months ago. (Going to be a year soon)

All that the 1Ds has is pure resolution and a full frame sensor. It is safe to say that the 1D MkII beats the 1Ds in every other way. It has higher dynamic range and better noise handling. And obviously all those speed advantages.

When the 1D mkII was introduced it took a SERIOUS chunk out of 1Ds sales.. it out sold the 1Ds in a matter of months in fact.. and many 1Ds owners sold theres.

Of course.. now they are selling there 1D MkII's for the just released 1Ds MkII (at least some are)

Well thats about when i joined, looks like i missed all the fun

I thought maybe the 1Ds MKII being out would spark this debate up now that 1Ds's are going to be selling for a little cheaper now, one would think.

I think your question as to whether it is a worthwile investment will come down to the simple question ... how much do the prices really go down?

Best regards,
Andy

One is not better than the other. They are different and serve different purposes. That's like comparing a hammer and a screwdriver. Sometimes you need a hammer. Sometimes a screwdriver. And yeah, in a pinch you can slam a nail home with a screwdriver.

RFMSports wrote:
One is not better than the other. They are different and serve different purposes. That's like comparing a hammer and a screwdriver. Sometimes you need a hammer. Sometimes a screwdriver. And yeah, in a pinch you can slam a nail home with a screwdriver.

And you can certainly use a hammer to drive a screw .. 8)

...Or a 1D for that matter.. there heavy and tough enough

I'm seeing 1Ds used for about the same price as the 1D MkII sold for ($4,500.00) .. so the price is definately still dropping.

For studio shooting the 1ds would be better than the 1D MKII. For action, the MKII. For even better studio, the 1Ds MKII.

Does this really apply though?

Is the 1Ds really better then the 1DMKII??

In a studio situation, yes I believe it is because of the (albeit slight) great resolution.

It was the studio shooters that held onto there 1Ds cameras when the MkII came out...

landscape is another good option especially for those who wanted all the width they could get out of there wide lenses.

I don't think your going to find that any one of these two cameras was the absolute best at everything. The MkII's sensor did have improvemnets over the 1Ds sensor do to it's beig two years newer...

But that does not take away a resolution advantage.. or the full frame issue for those that care about it.

It may be of interest to know that popular feeligs was that it would take about 9 megapixels to = the image quality/resolution of 35mm film.

This was espoused long before either of these cameras was availble .. and it it seems to be remarkably on the money.

the 1Ds was said to push the lenses farther than they ever had been on film.. highlighting the deficincies of lesser quality glass.

But.. the 1D MkII, despite being "only" 3 MP less does not seem to push the limits of the lenses resolving power or quality to nearly such an extent. (part of this though has more to do with edge to edge quality and full frame though.. given the pixel density issue)

I'm glad I can just afford the 20 D and stay away from the big $$$$$ bodies......