Is D1 Mark II really better than a 10D/300D?

Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM

04/30/2005 11:02:40 PM · #1

Yeah, I know about the build quality and stuff, but look at the image under same condition and lens.
Other than the image being a bit bigger, is there a difference?
See for yourself here:
//www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page21.asp

Message edited by author 2005-04-30 23:06:51.

thatcloudthere

Canon EOS-1D

04/30/2005 11:04:24 PM · #2

you're asking for a big list there!

on dpreview, you can compare cameras side by side...that's your best bet.

comparison

Message edited by author 2005-04-30 23:05:26.

04/30/2005 11:05:38 PM · #3

on dpreview, you can compare cameras side by side...that's your best bet. [/quote]
yeah, check out the images on dpreview btwn D1 Mark II vs 10D on the link, what do you think?

Message edited by author 2005-04-30 23:07:29.

04/30/2005 11:08:07 PM · #4

Originally posted by yido:

Yeah, I know about the build quality and stuff, but look at the image under same condition and lens. Other than the image being a bit bigger, is there a difference?
//www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page21.asp

04/30/2005 11:10:33 PM · #5

And since you're comparing an 8 MP image to a 6, you will resolve more fine detail with the 1D. I'm sure if one thinks longer on it, the differences will become more apparent.

kyebosh

Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8L

04/30/2005 11:10:34 PM · #6

There are a lot of things you can do with a 1D that you can't with a 20D or especially a 300D!

04/30/2005 11:13:16 PM · #7

Consider the sharpening algorithm between the 1D and 10/20/300/350D. The 1D uses a much more sophisticated, halo-free method whereas the other prosumer level cameras use a more PowerShot-like approach as noted by Phil Askey. Comparing RAW to RAW, however, this advantage disappears. [/quote]

Cool... I only shoot in RAW. I'm planning on getting the 30D as an overkill when it's out, but I was also looking at the D1 Mark II. It seems like image quality isn't what you are getting. Just more buffer and more robust performance/durability. Since I'm not a pro and using the camera everyday, I really don't think I'll need the extra stuff. I can't remember which online reviewer said it but a cheap (film) SLR takes just about as good pic as an expensive one, you are just paying for more features.

04/30/2005 11:16:25 PM · #8

Originally posted by kyebosh:

There are a lot of things you can do with a 1D that you can't with a 20D or especially a 300D!

I agree, I would say most of the price difference is due to the extra features/robustness, less so the image quality difference (altough the D1 would have better image quality). But for a few grand more it should have better image quality.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

04/30/2005 11:16:31 PM · #9

Originally posted by yido:

Cool... I only shoot in RAW. I'm planning on getting the 30D as an overkill when it's out, but I was also looking at the D1 Mark II. It seems like image quality isn't what you are getting. Just more buffer and more robust performance/durability. Since I'm not a pro and using the camera everyday, I really don't think I'll need the extra stuff. I can't remember which online reviewer said it but a cheap (film) SLR takes just about as good pic as an expensive one, you are just paying for more features.

Oh, you're getting image quality over the 10/300D. How much more? Marginally, but it's certainly there.

KiwiChris

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/30/2005 11:21:45 PM · #10

Hi-ho,

Lower noise would be one reason to thinkg it is 'better':

//www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page18.asp

But..

If you are considering a '1' series body you've either got lots of money for your hobby, or other reasons. I'm considering one for later this year, for the following reasons (Everyone is different)

- 1.3 crop, gives me more wide for indoors and environmental PJ work. (Also means a bigger viewfinder).
- Weather proofing. Don't have to carry a damn brolley to shoot events in the rain.
- ISO range. Down to ISO50, great for work under strobes, and handy outdoors if you want slow shutter speeds in bright sunlight.
- Speed 8.3fps + 40 shot buffer. I've never missed a shot with the 20D, but the 1DII would have more margin for getting the shot...
- More info in the viewfinder.
- 9 cross sensors in the AF (better low light focus)
- quite shutter mode.

And is all this worth the premium? I think so. It's not a Resolution upgrade for me, but it'd be nice to be able to drive nails with my camera if I wanted to...

Cheers, Me.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

04/30/2005 11:21:59 PM · #11

You may not see the differences in image quality until you compare images of difficult light conditions. There, the 1D MII would probably handle it better given that it's got a larger sensor and pixel pitch size.

04/30/2005 11:23:31 PM · #12

//www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/page21.asp

Alright, everyone look at the comparisons above if you already haven't. What do you think of the images between the two, except the size.

I'm not saying that the D1 doesn't do more, it does. I'm just wondering if there is a noticible difference in image quality besides size when a same subject, lighting, and lens is used, that's all. I do see the point of having an ISO 50, that would be nice, but I'm not sure if it gives more detail/less noise than 100, looking at ISO 3200, it seems as noisy as the 20D at 3200, so I'm not sure there is an advantage there.

Message edited by author 2005-04-30 23:31:10.

04/30/2005 11:24:07 PM · #13

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Wouldn't the lens make more difference?

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

04/30/2005 11:27:40 PM · #14

Originally posted by yido:

Per Phil Askey, "In reality that's not a huge step although it is enough to see the resolution advantage in the crops shown above." I agree with him, I'm seeing this resolution advantage he's referring to. Not a huge difference but it's there.

The lens can make a bigger difference in difficult lighting situations, but all things being equal, that bigger sensor on the 1D will outperform the 10D.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

04/30/2005 11:30:47 PM · #15

I would imagine that the lens would make a big difference, but comparing cameras with the same lens I would think that the 1D MII would handle noise better and give better dynamic range and show more detail.

Originally posted by yido:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
You may not see the differences in image quality until you compare images of difficult light conditions. There, the 1D MII would probably handle it better given that it's got a larger sensor and pixel pitch size.

Wouldn't the lens make more difference?

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70 f2.8 L IS

04/30/2005 11:31:54 PM · #16

Originally posted by yido:

What Olyuzi is saying, I think, is when you look at things like shadow noise at higher ISO, you'll find that the 1D MkII has a significant advantage over even the 20D. The larger sensor also means it covers more of the image circle, and thus is able to capture more of the detail the lens has to offer.
Certainly a lot of the difference is in the sheer performance of the system, but there will be significant differences in image quality, though they might not be so noticeable in good light.
I too am awaiting the "tweener" camera, hoping it will be a 1.3-crop sensor. I'm tempted to jsut shell out for a 1D MK II with the $500 rebate, but that's still a $3300 investment at minimum.

zeuszen

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/30/2005 11:33:55 PM · #17

Precision and speed.

I've gone out on shoots with someone who uses the Mark II with a 100-400mm L shooting the same subject from the same perspective under the same conditions.

I have a 10D with a 70-200 L f/2.8 plus 1.4x.
We both spot-meter most shots.

When we shoot birds in flight or catching fish, we're often so synced that can hear it (shutter noise).

When we download the images and examine them, the Mark II has vastly more images to show for.
The exposures are consistently better, proving the advantage of a spot-meter over a partial one.
Critical (action) shots are always captured with the Mark II, whereas I need either luck or extraordinary anticipatory skills, mostly much of both.

When the fog is thick or it starts to rain, the Mark II is still shooting for a few minutes, while the 10D has already sought shelter.

This, to me, are the critical differences.

photodude

04/30/2005 11:34:17 PM · #18

Probably the best way to think of this is like the Film SLR's. If you had the same Film, same lens, same shutter speed and aperture you took the same picture whether you had a Rebel or an EOS1. Sure the better camera had enchanced metering, auto focus,etc, but at the end of the day both cameras could take the same photo.

With digital, there is one difference in the comparison. The film is now built into the camera. So you dont get to put the good film in the cheap camera. Now they can't do the same thing

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

04/30/2005 11:37:29 PM · #19

Olyuzi,
I agree, I expect, and mean expect, that D1 would handle difficult lighting situation better than a prosumer camera. After all, under a perfect lighting situation, you can get a good shot with a pinhole and a photopaper, but I've never seen side by side comparisons to see exactly how much difference there is. Bob Atkins has some side by side comparisons between lenses and dpreview has some studio set up (under good lighting) comparisons, but I've never seen real world type comparisons. Now that would be nice and enlightening.
One assumes that a $1500 20D would out image the Rebel XT, especially with more Megapixels, but it doesn't b/c they use the same/equivalent processing (DIGIC II), which the D1 uses as well. I'm being the devils advocate of course, but would n't the DIGIC II in the D1 process the light data the same as in XT and 20D?

Message edited by author 2005-04-30 23:43:15.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

04/30/2005 11:41:04 PM · #20

I'm not sure of the 1D's specs, but I'm assuming it's got a 1.3x crop factor. If so, then it's using less of the sweet spot of the lens that the 10D or 20D would be using and so may suffer more at the image's edges.

Also, I'm wondering if there's a difference in the processing algorithms for the two cams. A more aggressive noise reduction algorithm in the lesser cameras may reduce detail. Anyone know about this?

gwphoto

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/30/2005 11:43:30 PM · #21

Hands down the 1D is much better in many ways far to many to get into. That is like asking if a Cadillac is better that a Honda Civic.