old 1D mk1 v new 40D

I brought the Canon 1D because I got a hell of a deal on one. I've found that the camera,

that's about 6 years old still produces images that I like and my editors like also. BTW

they never ask what brand, kind, size of camera of equipment that I use. All they want is

good images that they can use and meet their deadlines.

 

Just because camera equipment isn't the latest, fastest or brand new, doesn't mean that

you can't use it and still get good results. I think that for $1000 (mostly less), you still

get a hell of a camera.

 

The reason that I picked the 1D over the Mark II N is that, I like the color and the images

that it produces, I also like the smaller raw file size. It fits real well into my workflow. The

focus speed is about the same as the Mark II N, I don't notice any difference at all. The

high frame rate 8 vs 8 1/2 is not that big of deal to me. Plus for basktball with overhead

strobes it syncs at 1/500 not 1/250, which makes a difference. It freezes the action better.

 

Another thing that I and a buddy of mine have noticed that the 1D uses a CCD and not a

CMOS. We have found that the 1D with the CCD doesn't blow out the whites, which the

CMOS (which we think does), but there is a trade-off. The CCD produces more noise at

higher ASAs. This isn't a test, it just something we started to notice in the images.

 

The sum it up...I still think the 1D is a better buy then the new 40D. The 1D is a pro

camera and that makes a big difference.

Times (or rather, the field of photography) have changed -- in the film days pros would fight over which film was best for their jobs. These days there is a WHOLE NEW DIMENSION with computer-based photography. It's a huge deal how many MP your sensor is, how little noise it produces at ISO 400 and faster, and the bit depth of the Raw file.

 

Also of concern now is CMOS, CCD, and how wide of exposure latitude you have. Digital sensors are still a few stops behind color negatives but improving every year -- which is why being somewhat obsessed with the latest technology is Very Important if you think about DSLRs 24x7x365.

 

There is not one camera, not one DSLR built in 2003 that is better than anything newly available in 2007. (Obvious points made for re-emphasis.)

I realize I got to this thread a little late, but having just reconfigured my kit in a manner pertinent to this discussion, I thought I'd throw in my two cents' worth.

 

Within the past week, I sold my 1D Mk II N and purchased a 40D (my other body is a 5D). Why? If you're interested, you can read my original post at http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00NMnz .

 

The bottom line... Doing mostly performance, portrait and event photography (no sports), I don't need a rate of fire to match an Uzzi. I have also never come close to the end-of-life-span on shutter actuations. I do need, however, high dynamic range and good high ISO/low light performance. I also wanted something lighter (something you'll appreciate as you get older). Even with the battery grip, the 40D is noticeably lighter than the 1D (and yes - I'll admit that the 1D feels like a million dollars in my hand).

 

This weekend was my first chance to use the 40D in the stage/performance environment. I wasn't disappointed. There is definitely a lower noise level - especially in the dark and shadow areas - than with my 1D Mk II N. I had no issues with the speed of the autofocus with the 40D or the camera's ability to focus in low light situations. It's a great performer. An added bonus is the fact that the 1.6 10MP sensor (versus the 1.3 8MP sensor in the 1D) puts more pixels "on target" with my long lens.

 

Just for what it's worth...

 

Rob

<p>Ken: <i>"It's a huge deal how many MP your sensor is, how little noise it produces at ISO 400 and faster, and the bit depth of the Raw file."</i><p>

 

A huge deal to whom? "Advanced amateur" consumers who gobble up all the marketing that inundates us, or professional photographers and editors who actually make a living producing images?<p>

 

From the posts by actual pros above and from my personal communications with other professionals, it's clearly the former.

Hi Bob very VERY useful answer, this is what i was looking for some one that had used both body's. Been away from the PC for a bit cannot believe the response, My 2 penerth to what out of date whats not out of date weather it is computers/ cameras/ Toyota etc etc its only outdated IF it will not do something you wont it to do, like my 4X4 is a 1969 land rover it will do every thing i need a 4X4 to do so i will not change for the sake of change (but it would be nice if the doors are the same shape as the door hole so i not get wet in the rain LOL) SO a new 40D then, many thanks for the info and the entertainment

Dave

sorry ment Rob not bob

Asher -- I thought you only shot Leica?

 

I don't even know what you're taling about anyway when you say, "From the posts by actual pros above and from my personal communications with other professionals, it's clearly the former."

 

What is? That consumers not pros drive innovation? What are you so worried about? Are you trying to defend old, digital technology in some way? Show me one pro working the sidelines using an ancient 1D. LOL. If you think pros are into making inferior images with an old camera then go for it... "some" pro I'd have to say they are. Maybe we can take up a donation for them.

<p><i>"Asher -- I thought you only shot Leica?"</i><p>

 

I never stated that. It's not true, and it's totally irrelevant to the point I'm making. As I've stated several times in this thread, what I or anyone else shoots with is irrelevant to this debate.<p>

 

<i>"I don't even know what you're taling about anyway..."</i><p>

 

Simply put, it's amateurs such as yourself, who don't earn a living from photography, who are arguing that <i>"It's a huge deal how many MP your sensor is..."</i> when the pros who actually sell photographs are saying the exact opposite. It seems it's only a "huge deal" to amateurs who eat up the marketing and want to justify buying the latest technology, thereby "driving innovation" in a self-fulfilling cycle.<p>

 

<i>"What are you so worried about? Are you trying to defend old, digital technology in some way?</i>"<p>

 

I'm not worried about anything, and I have no interest in trying to "defend" any technology. I like good design improvements as much as the next person. I'm merely making the point that John Bellenis also made so clearly in his post further above: "For some reason we love equipment that not only exceeds our abilities, but has features we happily pay for, but will never use." I'm just a curious person.<p>

 

Hey Ken, if you want to spend $$$ on the latest and greatest bells and whistles, it makes no difference to me- be my guest, enjoy your hobby to your heart's content. I truly wish that for you. Canon's marketing strategy will also have paid off, such as the 40D ad that's currently blinking away at the bottom of this post. I am honestly glad to see a great company have continued success and ongoing technical advancements. It's a win-win situation for all involved parties.<p>

 

Actually, I should also thank you for arguing that older DSLRs are worthless and useless: drives the prices down even further for shooters like me.

Asher, FYI, ads have little to no affect on me. Who says older DLSRs are useless? Not me! But any DSLR made in 2003 or earlier is a figurative stone tool (still a tool) compared to the 2007 crop. I know.

OK Guys, I was the one who said the old 1D was useless and I APOLOGIZED. Get over it guys, David John Appleton has decided to get the 40D, that was the end of this. Can we all live in harmony now?

 

Cheers

Just as a slight diversion, but continuing my previous post (rant?) about photography

being about IMAGES and content, impact, originality, lighting, etc. (as long as you are not

hindered technically or creatively by your equipment). I would point out this excellent

portfolio of images which were taken with a sub $200 point and shoot... an old dinosaur

of a P&S at that. (Useless? Worthless? "Inferior images with an old cameras"?) Truly - it's

not the camera! I don't think Dickens or Shakespeare were hindered in their writing by not

having word processors, not does having the latest version of Word make you a Dickens or

a Shakespeare. Vision and creativity are not for sale a B+H. Does having a great set of pot

and pans make you a cook?

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=317651

 

I am not in any way arguing against technology, and I will buy the 1Ds MkIII the second it

comes out as it is my career, image and one of my 5Ds has hit 80,000 acctuatins so will

need a shutter and service soon. My point is that if you not hindered by any limitations of

the equipment you have, then buying something newer will make no difference at all.

 

I strongly suspect that a large number of photographers spend a lot more time and energy

thinking about and caring for their equipment than about making images - that's fine and

I'm sure very rewarding and fun - I have no problem with that, I am as interested in

technology as much as the next guy. However, if your passion is for images rather than

equipment, then your gear - cutting edge or older - becomes less important to the

process... at the end of the day it's just a capture medium and what's going on in front of

the lens is what matters.

Bravo, John- well said. All I want to add is "ditto".

<p><i>"OK Guys, I was the one who said the old 1D was useless and I APOLOGIZED. Get over it guys, David John Appleton has decided to get the 40D, that was the end of this. Can we all live in harmony now?"</i><p>

 

Nathan Sinh: We are merely using this thread as a nidus for a colegial debate that some of us find much more interesting than "which camera/lens to buy next". There's no disharmony here, just some good 'ole intellectual interchange. That's the only thing that keeps me coming back to PNet these days.

John, Asher. excellent points.

 

To John Bellenis, you are forgetting the "vanity" part of human beings' personality!

 

Sometimes, need or skill notwithstanding, people get cameras that "look cool" on them! I for one have had the misfortune of being asked this question before; "Which camera will look cool on me?"

 

So my thought was: "you don't care about the quality of pictures it takes, but care about how you look with it?" Guess not. It was more a fashion accessory and less of photographing instrument.

 

I for one, have had years of experience in photography, still use a 1D and now the 40D. I don't think I will ever sell the 1D for the various points mentioned above. It is a great tool, especially now, for the money.

 

-- Vivek

 

John Bellenis, on Dec 02, 2007 opined:

 

For some reason we love equipment that not only exceeds our abilities, but has features we happily pay for, but will never use (how many Hummers and SUVs never see the dirt? How many Porsches never see a track? How many expensive cameras never produce prints above 8x10?)

<p>Give me a good used 1D over a 40D anyday of the week, there is no comparison IMO. New technology is fine if it is useful to you. All my cameras, by the definition of what has been said by some during this thread, are obsolete. Canon 1Ds, 1D a 10D but I see no reason for change when they are more than capable of taking the pictures I want to take, and continue taking them for a lot longer than many of the ''newer'' fun filled technogical wonders we see being pushed towards us by the manufacturers. People do fall prey to advertising and having the latest ''gadget'' but I would rather have reliability and the ability to continue taking pictures, sometimes in extreme circumstances, than the newest overstuffed gadget filled consumer camera.. just my opinion for what its worth.</p>

<p>Give me a good used 1D over a 40D anyday of the week, there is no comparison IMO. New technology is fine if it is useful to you. All my cameras, by the definition of what has been said by some during this thread, are obsolete. Canon 1Ds, 1D a 10D but I see no reason for change when they are more than capable of taking the pictures I want to take, and continue taking them for a lot longer than many of the ''newer'' fun filled technogical wonders we see being pushed towards us by the manufacturers. People do fall prey to advertising and having the latest ''gadget'' but I would rather have reliability and the ability to continue taking pictures, sometimes in extreme circumstances, than the newest overstuffed gadget filled consumer camera.. just my opinion for what its worth.<br>

<img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3113/3234051400_88a4462b7b.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="368" /><br>

Taken on an old obsolete Canon 1Ds.....Mk1</p>

<p>I purchased two 1D bodies to use for sports a couple of years ago and they outshine my old 20D bodies ( which have both been sold BTW) as far as image quaity and snap for images. Plus, I shoot with strobes in basketball and nothing beats shooting something at 1/400 sec toally freezing action and there's a difference from 1/250 sec. My editor is happy and it's capable of making great 16x20 prints. To those who feel one needs to upgrade when a new model comes out, you could be wasting time. Besides, great images came from photogs with camera without lightmeters and 8+ fps.</p>

<p>Hi all i not notice this thread go on for so long ......in the end i get a second hand 5D for 750 ish GBP and over the moon. will always have a FF now as its has made a big improvement to my wide L glass ,still have the 20D <br>

Dave</p>

<p> </p>