DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Is D1 Mark II really better than a 10D/300D?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 51, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 04/30/2005 11:53:15 PM · #26
Originally posted by gwphoto:
Originally posted by yido:
Now how come no one is looking at the studio comparisons and commenting on them :)


Probably because there are many more factors that just looking at an image on a monitor.

But how can we objectively say one camera is sharper than another unless we examine same shots using same lens? I agree a printout would be better, but that's not practical in a forum like this. So 100% crop will have to do. What do you think of the 100% crop difference between the two?
 04/30/2005 11:56:19 PM · #27
I have or have had all three, it is my opinion all the picture quality (assuming same lens) is the same. What is different is the speed, for most users the price is not worth the cost, IMO only serious sports and wildlife photographers would really benenfit from this camera. Also people who live in very rainy climates, since it is weather proof.

04/30/2005 11:56:45 PM · #28
Originally posted by yido:
Now how come no one is looking at the studio comparisons and commenting on them :)


There is extra detail in the 1DMKII shots, though the differences are subtle. Bottom line, the 1DMKII only has 14% more horizontal & vertical pixels than the 10D. That's not a big difference. The 1DMKII is asking a bit less of the lens, however snce the pixel pitch is larger. With a lens like the 50/1.4, the lens outperforms either sensor when stopped down, so you won't see any difference there.
this is exactly the type of test that will not show the differences between these two systems.
 05/01/2005 12:01:45 AM · #29
Originally posted by ellamay:
I have or have had all three, it is my opinion all the picture quality (assuming same lens) is the same. What is different is the speed, for most users the price is not worth the cost, IMO only serious sports and wildlife photographers would really benenfit from this camera. Also people who live in very rainy climates, since it is weather proof.

Now that's an interesting statement from a person that has/had all three cameras in question. :) Remember, I'm only talking about the image quality, not robustness/performance/weather sealing, which I know the D1 is better than just about any other camera out there.

Message edited by author 2005-05-01 00:03:39.
 05/01/2005 12:06:17 AM · #30
//www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page18.asp

If you want to start seeing where the 1DMKII will shine, look at the noise results. Look closely, not only at the numbers, but at the characteristics of the noise.
you'll have better results with a 1DMKII at ISO800 than with a 10D at ISO400. I guarantee you'll see even greater differences as exposures get long.
 05/01/2005 12:18:58 AM · #31
ISO 3200 handheld, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens at f/2.8 Scene lit by the candles only.

100% crop, ISO 1600, UNSHARPENED, Handheld 70-200mm f/2.8L IS at f/2.8

Message edited by author 2005-05-01 09:20:30.
 05/01/2005 12:22:35 AM · #32
Both thumbs link to the same (larger) image. Stunning proof of low light capability regardless.

R.
 05/01/2005 12:29:21 AM · #33
Originally posted by doctornick:
ISO 3200 handheld, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens at f/2.8 Scene lit by the candles only.

100% crop, ISO 1600, UNSHARPENED, Handheld 70-200mm f/2.8L IS at f/2.8


Fixed the thumb issue...

THAT's low noise!

Message edited by author 2005-05-01 00:30:18.
 05/01/2005 12:30:20 AM · #34
Originally posted by doctornick:
ISO 3200 handheld, 70-200mm f/2.8L IS lens at f/2.8 Scene lit by the candles only.

100% crop, ISO 1600, UNSHARPENED, Handheld 70-200mm f/2.8L IS at f/2.8


I note that the image description says that, rather than handheld, the first image was taken using a monopod.
 05/01/2005 12:33:17 AM · #35
YOWZA! Anyone wanna trade me a 1D for cooking lessons or something? I'll never be able to afford one of these on my very linited income, but I'm truly deserving...



Robt.
 05/01/2005 12:35:08 AM · #36
Originally posted by jemison:
...I note that the image description says that, rather than handheld, the first image was taken using a monopod.


Oops, yeah 1st one at ISO 3200 on a Monopod.
 05/01/2005 12:52:39 AM · #37
We had Colin Prior and Andy Rouse as Guest presenters at our convention last week. Both these well known Proffessionals use EOS 1 Mk11 with "L" lenses. both for the build quality and performance.
 05/01/2005 01:54:02 AM · #38
Originally posted by bear_music:
YOWZA! Anyone wanna trade me a 1D for cooking lessons or something? I'll never be able to afford one of these on my very linited income, but I'm truly deserving...

Robt.


Patience my friend...my first digital camera is now available on ebay for 15% of it's orginal price. You may not want a 1D then, as the 9D will be 100Mp and shoot 500 frames /sec for 30,000 frames...

Besides, you never heard of the Lottery? Perhaps there is some photo contest somewhere with that as the Grand Prize. "Enter and Win" the ads all say.


05/01/2005 02:20:42 AM · #39
Originally posted by kirbic:
//www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page18.asp

If you want to start seeing where the 1DMKII will shine, look at the noise results. Look closely, not only at the numbers, but at the characteristics of the noise.
you'll have better results with a 1DMKII at ISO800 than with a 10D at ISO400. I guarantee you'll see even greater differences as exposures get long.


But according to imaging resource, it looks like 10D equals Mark II and the 20D has less noise when directly compared to the D1 Mark II, espcially at ISO 1600 and 3200.
See this link
//www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E20D/E20DP.HTM
and according to dpreview, 20D seems as good as D1 Mark II
see
//www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page27.asp
//www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos20d/page28.asp
Perhaps the D1 Mark II may be better than the 10D/300D, but may be equal and and even noisier than 20D/XT at ISO 1600/3200.
Can it be???

Message edited by author 2005-05-01 02:41:15.
 05/01/2005 06:12:41 AM · #40
Originally posted by yido:
....Perhaps the 1D Mark II may be better than the 10D/300D, but may be equal and and even noisier than 20D/XT at ISO 1600/3200.
Can it be???


Same but definitely NOT noisier. The XT will NOT go to ISO 3200. The other main differences are the 45-point Autofocus, the BIG viewfinder (1.3x crop) compared to the 20D (1.6x crop), 8.5fps, fast autofocus, will autofocus with lenses with maximum apertures as small as f/8 (example the 300mm f/4 with the 2x teleconverter)....Now are these differences worth the extra money? The answer is up to you.
 05/01/2005 09:18:13 AM · #41
Has anyone here gone from a 20D to a 1D Mk II ? I'd be interesting in hearing a comparison of the focusing abilities of the two, especially in regards to moving subjects.
05/01/2005 11:10:12 AM · #42
Originally posted by coolhar:
Has anyone here gone from a 20D to a 1D Mk II ? I'd be interesting in hearing a comparison of the focusing abilities of the two, especially in regards to moving subjects.


Read Zueszen's previous post...
 05/01/2005 11:54:43 AM · #43
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Has anyone here gone from a 20D to a 1D Mk II ? I'd be interesting in hearing a comparison of the focusing abilities of the two, especially in regards to moving subjects.


Read Zueszen's previous post...


I've gone back and read z's post again, and it is helpful. So is ellamay's. But I was looking for a direct comparison of 20D and 1D Mk II, since that is the logical path for me. Considering the timing of their releases, perhaps not many have gone that route yet.
05/01/2005 12:19:20 PM · #44
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Has anyone here gone from a 20D to a 1D Mk II ? I'd be interesting in hearing a comparison of the focusing abilities of the two, especially in regards to moving subjects.


Read Zueszen's previous post...


I've gone back and read z's post again, and it is helpful. So is ellamay's. But I was looking for a direct comparison of 20D and 1D Mk II, since that is the logical path for me. Considering the timing of their releases, perhaps not many have gone that route yet.


I do have a bit harder time to get the 20d to focus than the mark ii, some of which I believe is user problems, the focusing is slightly different in the 2 models and remember ing to switch my brain over to how the other works is a big part of it. that being said, I think the mark ii is slightly faster in focusing.... Again this would only be noticable if you are shooting a lot of moving objects, sports, wildlife, for portraits, or landscapes, this is not worth the extra money.
 05/01/2005 12:22:47 PM · #45
oh one other BIg advantage with the mark ii, is the spot meter, I do absolutely love this ability.
I would also say that even though I think the actual quality of shots is the same between cameras, the amount of successful shots that I get in the field is probably 25 percent higher with the mark ii, than 20d. ( i don't use my rebel anymore so don't shoot side by side with them)
 05/01/2005 12:29:20 PM · #46
I have a 1D Mk11 and a 20D, I had a 10D and have used a 300 on many occasions. IMHO 1D is a superior camera in every way, but so you would expect for the price difference. Is it *worth* the difference and just how superior? That's a question only you can really answer, but for me apart from the speed, build quality etc which have all been covered, the 1D image quality wins out every time. It has a much greater dynamic range, superior detail, better metering (including spot) and more accurate focus which also contribute to overall image quality. Comparing the 20D to the 1D, the 20D undoubtedly moves you a lot closer than the 10D but if you *need* the speed in terms of autofocus and frame rate, IMO it doesn't compare.

05/01/2005 12:33:55 PM · #47
I find it's more common for people to be compairing the original 1D vs the 20D! They're closer to the same price... however the 1D is still a better camera in many ways than the 20D. Image quality is the only respect that the 20D wins at.

edit: Oh, and maybe battery life.

Message edited by author 2005-05-02 09:25:46.
 05/01/2005 02:16:37 PM · #48
I went from the 10D to the 20D and finally to the 1dMK2. Every camera was a huge step from the previous one. To me, performance of the camera came first.

I have found that image quality wasn't that big of a step up though (which I was expecting). I use the 20D as a backup camera to the 1dMK2 and I am hard pressed to tell which image came off of what camera just by looking at them on the computer when editing.

But the HUGE step was performance. The AF system is phoenominal! The crop factor is fantastic! My fisheye looks like a fisheye again. The frames per second burst is nice when I want it. All the additional focusing points are great.

on a side note since I have seen it mentioned a few times... the 1dMK2 is NOT water proof. Water resistant, yes. If you shoot in the rain, I would still use a cover.
 05/02/2005 09:10:43 AM · #49
Thanks ellamay, dan_pendleton, kyebosh and Jason. When I'm using my 20D for fast action sports, or birds in flight, it sometimes misses the focus and has cost me some shots that might have been pretty good. So I am wondering if the better cam (1DmkII) would help get more of these shots in focus. After four months and over 20,000 images I still don't know for sure if a) I am expecting too much from the 20D; b) my camera is not performing properly; or c) my technique is the biggest problem. A 25% increase in successfully focused shots, as ellamay has indicated, would be very significant, and maybe worth the cost of upgrading.
05/02/2005 11:34:03 AM · #50
Originally posted by coolhar:
Thanks ellamay, dan_pendleton, kyebosh and Jason. When I'm using my 20D for fast action sports, or birds in flight, it sometimes misses the focus and has cost me some shots that might have been pretty good. So I am wondering if the better cam (1DmkII) would help get more of these shots in focus. After four months and over 20,000 images I still don't know for sure if a) I am expecting too much from the 20D; b) my camera is not performing properly; or c) my technique is the biggest problem. A 25% increase in successfully focused shots, as ellamay has indicated, would be very significant, and maybe worth the cost of upgrading.


Caution.
Ellamay can skin me for speaking out of turn, but I often share locations and subjects with her, which should give me some insight into the matter. I would say that her primary camera is the Mark II. As a result, that's the camera she's most familiar with.

As we all know, it is easier to get the kind of results you intend with equipment you know well.

While I'm not, outright, denying the 25% she quotes, my observation might qualify it a little.

Message edited by author 2005-05-02 11:34:31.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 06/26/2025 09:00:03 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 06/26/2025 09:00:03 AM EDT.