1D Mark II and Resolution: Am I just depressed?

Hey all,

I'm feeling silly tonight, looking at all these stupid consumer DSLRs, T1i, 50D, 40D etc and really wonder how much all this crap about megapixels really mean.

I bought a 1D Mark II because it looks cool, has 8.5FPS, weather sealed, etc. I love the thing to death. It really is magnificent. But it's only 8.3 megapixels. How much am I really losing out? Are my pictures grainy because of it? I'm not sure, I keep trying not to pixel peep but I find that I am.

**It's not my glass. I have all L lenses, with my most used being the 70-200mm f/2.8L. So with quality glass, am I going to see better looking pictures shooting a T1i or a 50D or even a 5D classic than my 1D Mark II? Should I get a 1Ds Classic? My shooting style is a mix of up close animals, like going to the zoo, and wide panoramas. I know, wide varitey, ick.

Anyway, is it gonna make a big difference?

My ideas are:

1. Keep the 1D Mark II
2. 1D MKII < T1i and lots more money
3. 1D MKII < 5D Classic
4. 1D MKII < 1Ds Classic (to keep weather sealing)

Here's some samples of what I like to shoot. Do they look grainy?

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

I just upgraded from a T1i to a 1DMkII and I think you're crazy for wanting to go back to a rebel/xxd class :P
If you aren't printing 5 foot x 9 foot prints then you really shouldn't need the extra resolution. I'd take body robustness over megapixels any day.

I shoot with a 1D Mark II all the time. I also shoot wiht a 1DS Mark III and a 5D Mark II so I can give you a good view. I have made large prints (16x24) with files from the 1D Mark II and they came out just fine. You shouldn't worry as much!

I had a MkII and a MkIIN and I now have the MkIII and a 5DMkII. Resolution wasn’t one of the things I wanted. I wanted better noise performance as I often shoot in conditions where a flash would ruin the ambience or is not allowed at all.

The MkII is still a fantastic camera and since none of the 3 pics you put up needed more light.. really I would say keep it till it feels like the 1D original to you and you sorely need the resolution or the ISO performance. I’m impressed with the size of the files of the 5DMkII but wow it sure eats up lots of space on my HDD.

The second one could use some better PP, but I don't think there's anything at all wrong with your camera.

Thank you, I was kinda leaning that way. I should count myself blessed to have a 1D series.

Did you sharpen these at all?
I have a 1DIIN and it is a great camera.
If your not printing larger than 16x24 than 8MP is big enough.
You can try shooting in RAW and using some adjustments in photoshop to add some pop.

Hey! I recognise that lioness!:

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/10611750@N07/4​015749783/

Those are some great shots and no they do not appear to be grainy at all and should print very nicely. Only thing missing is maybe a touch bit more contrast IMO but that's up to personal tastes.

I know I would never trade mine for a Rebel or xxD series.

The 1d2/1d2N is still the workhorse body for many pro photogs today and the images that it produces are amazing.

I was listing it and the 5D forsale but then reconsidered and pulled them off. Still a great camera and the price really doesn't do it justice

The most recent shot with the 300 f2.8 and 25mm tube

I think that the problem is not the camera but stops.
First shoot is f2.8, the second f5.6, even if you have L lenses, try to use the best stops of the lenses (see tests for that).

I have several 18x24 and 12x18 prints made from my 1d2n hanging on the wall right next to me. They look absolutely amazing. So no, you aren't missing out on anything with only 8.2mp. I'd say all you really need to do is work on your settings, use a tripod for those landscapes, and work on post processing. The 1d2n is an amazing camera in every respect, not having 15 bazillion megapickles doesn't hurt it any.

Your shots look good to me, certainly no grain in those shots that I can see. For the type of shooting that you do I don't see how the having extra megapixels is going to help much.

The auto focus on your 1d would no doubt be WAY better than on the T1i or the 40D, 50D. It would be as good if not better than even the 7D.

To me the extra megpixels could be a good thing if you find yourself often doing some extra cropping of animals or birds that you just can't get close enough to. But since that doesn't sound like its that way for your style then the 1DII should be perfect.

8MP is not enough for what? I use it for daily work (ok it's more or less shooting sport for news agency), and never had problems. But even then, I had prints as big as 12x4m (40x13 feet) out of it. So to be honest, I doubt 8MP would really limit you

I agree with the others. But if you do crop alot you might find more mp useful.

Last family trip I compared my brothers d40 pics with ones out of my g10 and if you pixel peep yes the higher resolution made a huge difference. A good camera is a good one even if fewer mps but the higher resolution news ones do a great job if you need to crop heavily.