40d or 1d?

considering a new camera. looked around and the 40d is in my price range, however the 1d is the same price(both used) on B&H. What does everyone think? I did some research of my own but i would still like to get a second opinion, thanks everyone.

Hmm, personally I would go with the 40D because it is newer technology and quite a nice camera. Not to say that the 1D isn't good, but the 40D is a lot newer. Now if you where thinking about a 1d II or IIn then I would probably change my mind.

1D is too old.
1D Mark III is of the same age as the 40D, so there's a big difference there.

Yeah, the 1D is old but it will sure as hell beat the 40D in terms of image quality and over all performance. If you don't need large MP's and if you're not going to use high ISO's often, get the 1D. I switched from the 30D to a 1D and never once looked back. I'm still using the "old" camera up to now with no problems what so ever. Just because something is "old" doesn't mean it's junk.

im using a 10d now with no problems making very large prints what so ever ( 24X36 i believe), and thats 6.3mp, just wondering what i can get with 2 less mp....

also the 1d uses a ccd sensor and is larger at 1.3X crop factor so theoretically the image quality should be better...

does anyone know how long it takes to review the pictures on the lcd? the only real problem i have right now is the ridiculously long time it takes to review the pictures on my 10d.

MClassImages wrote in post #8505253
Yeah, the 1D is old but it will sure as hell beat the 40D in terms of image quality and over all performance. If you don't need large MP's and if you're not going to use high ISO's often, get the 1D. I switched from the 30D to a 1D and never once looked back. I'm still using the "old" camera up to now with no problems what so ever. Just because something is "old" doesn't mean it's junk.

Nobody is saying the 1D is junk. I don't think I've ever heard anybody refer to it as that. For me I use high ISO's a lot so that's why I say I would personally get a 40D if I could chose only one. You make good points, it's really comes down to what the camera will be used for that will determine which one would fit the best.

Once you have a 1D series in your hands, any of the 1D's, you'll forget any other type of camera exists. Seriously though you shouldn't judge the 1D by it's age. Slap a fast telephoto or prime on a 1D and take a few pics. 8 fps, autofocus, tracking, and the colors of a large CCD sensor can't be matched by anything other than another 1D. You shouldn't expect anything less from a professional grade camera despite it's age.

Can I chime in here and ask about the focus capability of a 30D Vs. the 1D?

I'm also considering bumping up from a 30D to a new 1D MarkIII, primarily because I shoot a lot of action stuff. I'm wondering if just having the 1D will yield me more quality, sharp shots than my 30D when shooting motorsports.

S.C.

I went from a rebel xt to the 1D and also have the Sigma f/2.8 70-200 ex dg macro and the f/1.8 85mm. I seemed to have alot of problems focusing/tracking with the rebel (with those len's) that I don't have with the 1D. The Sigma especially so, I thought maybe I would have to send it into be checked. But not one problem since I have had it attached to the 1D.
I would also like to hear from someone else on this.

P.S. I have had the kit lens as well as the tamron 75-300mm on the rebel without any issues, just to clarify.

The 1D and the Sigma. They just look like they belong together, don't they?

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

1D and 24-70L works just fine mate

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

you have to literally write down each body at the top of a piece of paper and really get to the pros and cons. Don't let silly things like the 1d looks bigger change your mind. Sometimes I reach for my 40d over my 1dsmk2. Usually it's the other way round.Decide what kind of shooting you're going to do, and be honest with yourself. And sleep on it. They are both great cameras

Just to chime in, I've owned the 300D, 10D, 1D and 40D. I would say, easily, unless you need the higher FPS, 40D is a better, cleaner camera than the 1D. It's realistically about 6 fps and not 6.5, but it has custom modes, great, sensitive AF points, etc.

The 1D is definitely a nice camera, but if you use it and a 40D, unless your main concern is higher FPS, I'd say you're going to want the 40D.

For what it's worth, you can't use EF-S lenses on a 1D (duh!), and the EF lenses are weird focal lengths on the 1D.

I've used my 1D for indoor hockey, outdoor sports (frisbee, soccer, softball), and it was excellent. I've used my 40D for air shows, parties, concerts, motorcross, wakeboarding, skateboarding and several other events, and the images are cleaner, tracking is better, etc, when using the same lenses.

Just my opinion, but I've owned both so I thought that might help.

how long does the battery last on the 1d? and are they hard to find now?

my main concern isn't the FPS, LCD screen, weather proof, or the high MPs, which are all nice, but my area of work is mainly fashion and I need a camera that makes the highest quality photos, period.

I think, in this case, the 40D is going to produce higher quality photos than the 1D. The 1D will produce nice, even images at lower ISO's, but the 40D just seems smoother without loss of detail when working at mid to low ISO's. At higher ISO's, hands down the 40D wins, in my book.

As far batteries for the 1D go, I've seen fairly cheap aftermarket batteries, but I'm not sure if they're still making the Black Rapids (I think that was the name of them). They were like $20ish a piece, and lasted a while, but sometimes were off with the fit of the camera body. The original Canon batt's would likely be dead or dying by now, FWIW.