1d Mark I vs. 20d - DPChallenge Forums

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

09/17/2005 11:42:06 PM · #1

It's just about time to begin phase two of my shopping spree to prepare for school and I am looking to find a nice camera to compliment my lenses.

So, the question is...used 1d Mk I or newish 20d? I have a used 1d available to me (used as 2nd body, moderate shutter count) for about $1550 CAD (about $1250USD) and was wondering if I should get that instead of a 20d.

I'll be shooting some sports and daily newspaper stuff over the first few years of my new career and this seems like just the step to take before upgrading to a Mark II down the road.

What do you guys/girls think? I'd love to collect some opinions on the 1d vs. 20d.

wavelength

Nikon D300

09/17/2005 11:47:47 PM · #2

If your really need a rugged body then go for the 1d...

But I'd think that the 20d's rabid fans and double the amount of pixels heavily tips the scale in it's favor.

09/17/2005 11:54:31 PM · #3

Hmmm...I really think that I'd prefer the almost-doubled framerate over the almost-doubled amount of pixels, though...I'm still researching, would love to hear more thoughts.

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/18/2005 12:12:31 AM · #4

what do you want to know? I went with the 1D over the 20D. The main features I wish the 1D had are... better long exposures, and previewing at more than 1x. Everything else about the camera just screams "i'm awesome".

ellamay

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/18/2005 12:14:30 AM · #5

Which mark 2 is it? Is it the 8 frames per second one or the full frame one? If it is the 8 frames that is a great price -- I have both cams it beats the 20d hands down. If it is the other version, not sure what to tell ya. --personally I think it depends on the kind of shooting you do

09/18/2005 12:20:59 AM · #6

Kyebosh, what about ISO 100? What's the deal with it not being set as a default for availibility...is the quality at ISO 100 unreliable or anything?

And are the high-ISO shots really bad? Unusable?

It doesn't have "FAT32" support? What does that mean...does that have to do with Macs (sorry for my boneheadedness here)?

Also, it seems to have a longer 'power up' time when first turning the camera on...has this been problematic for you?

Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS

09/18/2005 12:23:50 AM · #7

Originally posted by ellamay:

No...it's the mark I...1d...8fps but only 4 megapixels. The 1dMkII beats the 20d hands down, with the Mark I there are tradeoffs...

From what I can tell the tradeoffs are lower quality at high ISO, no zoom on preview and 4mp. If those are the tradeoffs, then I think I'll go with the higher fps and professional functionality (45 af points, spot metering, custom/personal functions, etc) and rugged body.

petrakka

09/18/2005 12:28:13 AM · #8

id get the mark1 over the 20d for sure.
I know its not a direct comparison, but I use a nikon d1h, and a d70. The d70's images have better color rendition but are less clear. The d1h makes images from my d70 kit lens look better.

the diff between 4 and 6 mp isnt that huge, and the diff between 6 and 8 isnt that huge. Double the resolution doesn't mean double the print size. 4 mp is pretty sufficient I would say.

ellamay

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/18/2005 01:15:10 AM · #9

Well, something to think about if you get the mark ii and only 4mp you will not be able to sell images to most stock agencies (if interested in that at some point in future, can to shutterstock but not the bigger ones that pay more)

09/18/2005 01:27:19 AM · #10

Originally posted by ellamay:

Just to clarify...the 4mp is called the "1d". It was superceded by the "1d Mark II", which is 8mp. You seem to have your cameras a little mixed up! ;0)

09/18/2005 01:54:01 AM · #11

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

ISO 100 isn't default because you lose dynamic range while using it. the 1D has twice the shutter speed though to compensate (1/16000), however it can't compensate with AV.

Hight ISO shots are usable, better than the 300D imo.

I don't know about this fat32 stuff, I just format in camera and haven't had a problem. i know that you can't use cards bigger than 2 gigs though.

I have not noticed a slow powerup... maybe half a second?

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 55-200mm f/4-5.6G IF-ED VR

09/18/2005 01:59:14 AM · #12

Originally posted by kyebosh:

ISO 100 isn't default because you lose dynamic range while using it. the 1D has twice the shutter speed though to compensate (1/16000), however it can't compensate with AV.

So do you use ISO 100 or 200 in perfect conditions?

JeremyFleury

Nikon D7500

09/18/2005 02:01:05 AM · #13

Don't know about the cameras, but will tell you that your camera has to do fat32 if you want to use cards bigger than 2 gig, otherwise you are stuck with smaller cards.

09/18/2005 02:04:29 AM · #14

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

Originally posted by kyebosh:

ISO 100 isn't default because you lose dynamic range while using it. the 1D has twice the shutter speed though to compensate (1/16000), however it can't compensate with AV.

So do you use ISO 100 or 200 in perfect conditions?

200.

09/18/2005 09:11:18 AM · #15

Oh man...I just got an email back from the seller and he is actually selling both of his 1d's (I would need two bodies eventually anyway). Here are the stats on the two bodies, which he's selling for $2300 CAD ($1900USD)!!

1) Used as main body
200k clicks
prominent brassing of body from daily use
works perfectly

2) Used as secondary body
90k clicks
little bit of brassing
works perfectly

Canon rates these things at 150k but tests show up to 400k clicks before shutter replacement.

I sure love the assurance of a warrantied product, but this sounds like a really good deal. He's a known shooter in Ontario so his word can be trusted...

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

09/18/2005 12:00:01 PM · #16

replacing the shutter is only about $300 and the sensor is good for over 1,000,000. If't it's $1900 for both WOW. I'm almost tempted to get in on that one haha.

zerocusa

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/18/2005 12:48:33 PM · #17

Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

I'll be shooting some sports and daily newspaper stuff over the first few years of my new career and this seems like just the step to take before upgrading to a Mark II down the road.

well, for sports the 8fps surely will help.. if u have the proper long lens to go with the 1D, coz 4MP leaves not much room for cropping. But then again, newspaper generally need low res images.

10/01/2005 10:28:09 AM · #18

I'd like to open up this thread again for debate to collet some more opinions.

Although I missed out on the deal I talked about a few posts up, I'm going to look at a 1d (used daily, fairly high shuttercount) in great condition for $1200 CAD ($1000 USD). Your thoughts?

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

10/01/2005 01:35:45 PM · #19

I see that you've got the 16-35L. This, I believe, is a weathersealed lens that would complement the 1D, so that you could go out shooting and not bother too much about the weather. Of course, this will almost certainly be too short for most sports, but for daily journalism it would probably be OK. 8 fps is better for sports than 5fps and if you plan to get a MkII in the future, coming from a Mk1 will probably mean that you already understand the menu system (which is quite significantly different from the 20D menu system).

The 1D is built to take the knocks, but I feel that I have to point out that I cannot really feel much difference in my hand between that and the 20D, except for the weight. The 20D feels quite well put together, too.

The deal you are looking at seems acceptable, although what exactly is meant by 'fairly high shuttercount'? 20,000? 200,000? I was looking at one on Ebay in the UK which had a starting price of Â£ 900 and a 'Buy It Now' price of Â£ 1100. This particular example had fewer than 4000 actuations on it.

These are just a few thoughts. I apologise if I've missed the point. Good luck, whatever you choose.

10/01/2005 01:55:39 PM · #20

again if you have any specific questions, i'll try to field them.