Your thoughts on the Canon EOS 1Ds?

05/08/2005 06:28:00 PM · #1

NOT THE MARK II =)

I've been looking at purchasing a 1Ds, wanted to see what others thought of the performance, quality, etc etc.

Plexxoid

Canon EOS-30D

05/08/2005 06:33:55 PM · #2

11 megapixels, w00t! waiting for the 30D, should have 10 megapixels or so, right? Will be faster, newer technology, etc.

petrakka

05/08/2005 06:49:31 PM · #3

i dont think theres any questions usually about the top of the line most expensive (at least 2 yrs ago) d-slr out. You gotta ask yourself if you really need all that resolution.

05/08/2005 06:53:16 PM · #4

im looking for the people who've used one...

looking for responses of buffer speeds, sharpness, autofocus speeds, etc etc.

Spork99

Canon EOS M6 Mk II

Canon EF-M 22mm STM Lens

05/08/2005 07:07:07 PM · #5

Originally posted by jmlelii:

im looking for the people who've used one...

looking for responses of buffer speeds, sharpness, autofocus speeds, etc etc.

Honestly, DPC is probably not the best place to ask. You might have better luck in the forums at Fred Miranda or PDN.

DanSig

05/08/2005 07:39:20 PM · #6

the 1Ds is very slow, only 3fps and when shooting raw you really need the extreem III card just to be able to use the camera on something else than landscape and portraits. but if you are in no hury and not shooting sports than it´s one of the best you can get, buildquality is better than on the MarkII and some features are better on the 1Ds than the 1Ds Mark II, the new model is only faster, more MP and it has wireless ethernet connection.

if you are willing to spend $4000 on an old model then you can't go wrong with it, it's an excellent camera :)

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

05/08/2005 08:04:15 PM · #7

there were a lot of issues with the 1ds, nothing major but enough to hanger many people, color cast issues, freezing issues, AF freeze issues (which I experience regularly) and very slow write speeds It's obviously a good camera but it does have some anoying bugs.

Message edited by author 2005-05-08 20:05:07.

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/08/2005 08:08:44 PM · #8

Originally posted by Gil P:

They never made new firmware to correct the issues?

justine

Canon EOS-50D

05/08/2005 08:26:03 PM · #9

//forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1032

I'm sure you can learn everything you ever wanted to know in this group of owners.

wewillexplore

05/08/2005 08:29:22 PM · #10

I'd take a 1D MK II over the 1Ds MK I anyday.

05/08/2005 08:49:13 PM · #11

Originally posted by mavrik:

I'd take a 1D MK II over the 1Ds MK I anyday.

As would I, but unfortunetly $8000 isnt really in the near future budget. Maybe when im retired.

wewillexplore

05/08/2005 09:04:13 PM · #12

It's 4499.00. 1D MK 2 over 1Ds MK I

Message edited by author 2005-05-08 21:04:43.

05/08/2005 09:11:26 PM · #13

Originally posted by mavrik:

It's 4499.00. 1D MK 2 over 1Ds MK I

Ah the 1D Mark II.

3 megapixels less, Crop factor, and still about 1000 more than the 1Ds.

wewillexplore

05/08/2005 09:17:40 PM · #14

Buydig has it for $3500 and they're reputable.

3 less MP, but perfect 30x40s on the 1D MK II.
Better ISO ratings.
Less noise.
8.5 fps to 40 frames vs 3 fps to 10 frames.
Twice as good lcd resolution.
Better sensor.

I'd take the 1.3 crop as a bonus cuz I like zooms.

M

kyebosh

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 80-200 f/2.8L

05/08/2005 09:19:52 PM · #15

yeah... it's actually about $1000 less than the 1Ds. I've seen them go for as cheap as $2000 but usually they're right at $3000 used.

petrakka

05/08/2005 09:20:00 PM · #16

id mkII is droppin.....3500 w/ rebate right now. Id personally take that over the 1ds as well, newer faster, resolution still good enough for big prints and magazine spreads. 1.3 crop isn't nearly as noticeable as 1.6

//www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=316692&is=REG

gwphoto

05/08/2005 09:20:51 PM · #17

I guess it depends on what you are going to use it for. I have the Mark ll and I feel comfortable shooting for somehting as big as a 30x40 full frame. The Mark ll is plenty for 95% of professional work. However if you are going to be doing murals or high end magazine or catalog work then maybe the 1Ds will be worth it.

05/08/2005 09:25:39 PM · #18

fps doesnt bother me because I dont shoot sports.
the only time I go over ISO 400 is for band photography, any other time I shoot with a tripod.
I dont use the LCD except for the histogram.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

05/09/2005 12:00:34 AM · #19

Jeremy,

I just recently went through this decision. I went ahead and bought a used 1Ds instead of the 1DmII. I considered articles and comments written in Studio Photography & Design and Digital PhotoPro as well as several comments from FredMiranda's Canon and Professional Digital forums. Considering what I shoot and where I want to go, the 1Ds seemed to give me what I wanted (high resolution & sharpness) compared with the 1DmII.

Gil's comment on the write speed is dead on. I use 40x 1Gb cards and with a couple of features turned on (P.Fn 30 and/or P.Fn 31) the camera starts to pickup a serious delay in clearing the buffer. Images can get noisy at higher ISOs, too.

It is built like a tank but you'd get that with the Mark II. The one place I've seen any real measurements of the original still surpassing the 1D Mark II is in resolution and in image sharpness. I haven't shot a 1Ds Mark II (perhaps Gil can speak/type to this issue) but I've read several places where the AA filter on the Mark II bodies causes the images to be slightly softer (they sure seem to respond to editing, tho).

If you want speed or the ability to get the shot in the lowest light possible, I'd say go for the 1D Mark II. If you want to shoot in natural light or studio, go for the 1Ds. That was my choice. Frankly, I would love to shoot the 1Ds Mark II side-by-side with this one and see the difference in the ISOs and the AA filter effects.

Oooh, btw, you'll love any 1-series body with the AF; its dead on and faster than anything.

Kev

Mattel Barbie Photo Designer Digital Camera

05/09/2005 12:16:21 AM · #20

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Thank you Kevin, this is the exact kind of response I was looking for.

nsbca7

05/09/2005 01:12:34 AM · #21

Well I own a 1Ds and a 1D Mk II. I shoot on an average 500 shots per week. Sometimes as much as 2000. The 1Ds sits on the shelf. Enough said?

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

05/09/2005 01:44:17 AM · #22

MA,

Hey, I thought you sold your 1Ds. What do you like better about the Mark II now that you've shot both of them? Guess that goes for Gil or Brent or Greg or anyone else out there who's used both of these bodies. Where are the important trade offs?

Scenes don't tend to move too fast in the studio or when I'm shooting outdoors. I'm sure M.A.'s work with children probably lends itself quite well to that faster processor. Then again, maybe I shoulda gone for the Mark II with my daughter running around. :)

Kev

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

05/09/2005 08:56:45 AM · #23

I think one as to always consider the application before chosing, in the case of me (and Kevin I think) fast FPS and extreme write speeds were not all that important, I do glamour shots and I don't snap away (altough the 1DsMkII does permitt me that), I am a big fan of Iso50 and so I am very contempt.

I think that a good deal on a 1Ds is a good deal period, it's easy to split hair a to talk about all sorts of "possible issues" but in the end, your still talking about a top notch body.

I am extemely satisfied with my camera, it does have some querks, even at 9600$CDN but it also provides me with what I truly needed. the 1Ds will certainly provide you with the same.

theSaj

Canon EOS-20D

05/09/2005 09:36:10 AM · #24

Hey nsbca, why not sell him your 1Ds .... ;)

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II