Canon 10D vs. 1D Mark II, is it worth the upgrade?

I realize that when asking whether it is worth spending the $4500 on

the Mark II vs. the $1500 on the 10D, the overwhelming response will

be that if I can afford the Mark II, I should get that. But it's more

a question of whether it's worth it to wait longer and save up, or

have the 10D now and upgrade sometime in the distant future. I am a

photo student now (hopefully a working professional in just over two

years from now), and this fall we will be starting digital imaging

classes. A digital camera is not required, but I know it would make

things a lot easier. I use Canon now, so these two cameras are the

only two I'm really considering. I could buy the 10D within a month

or two, whereas it might take me up to a year or so to save up for

the Mark II. I really like the durability, more megapixels, smaller

lens magnification, and shooting speed of the Mark II, but is it

worth the wait and triple the pricetag?

In a year, who knows what camera body will be the best? Maybe there will be a 1D-III, maybe there will be a digital EOS 3, who knows? Pictures you take with a camera you have are always going to be better than pictures you didn't take with a camera that you are still saving for, so go for the 10D, spend the rest of the money on good lenses that'll outlast both the 10D and the 1D-II. In fact, since you are a student, you might be better off with a used D30 or D60.

Right now, I shoot a 10D. I'm going to pass on the 1D MKII. I'm looking forward to a 10D MKII. I don't need the 8fps or the extra weight/size of a 1D MKII. If they deliver a 10D MKII with E-TTL2 and a few other improvements, I'll be happy to get it (I need another body). The 10D delivers excellent image quality as it is. I don't need a new sensor.

 

I would recommend you go for a 10D now (or whenever you have the money). There's no point in waiting another year to save up for a 1D MKII unless you absolutely know you need its tank-like construction, and ultra-high performance. It's better that you start shooting digital now, so that you can hone your skills. There is, after all, a learning curve going from film to digital. It's almost like starting over-- there's so much to learn. By waiting a year so you can afford a 1D MKII, you'll be denying yourself the opportunity to tackle that learning curve. You can always upgrade later if you need to. And who knows, by then maybe the 1D MKII will be a lot cheaper.

If you need to ask, then you probably don't need it.

Dear darren,

 

I have used film for years and have also had a D60 for over a long time. The D60 is amazing and I think boosts productivity, BUT I publish my photos and the 5 megapixels on the D60 just don't give the same quality as film. The art directors complain about my digital photos and prefer my chromes. If you want to go professional, the 10D will not give you the kind of files that you will be satisfied with. In a couple of years you will divide your files these categories: FILM, LARGE DIGITAL FILES and those second-rate digifiles from my old 10D. Unfortunately only the 1Ds can really be said to have attained real "film quality". At the moment the jury is still out on the Mark II. Photo agencies have not decided if they will accept to sell photos taken on the Mark II but they definately will not accept photos taken on the 10D. In the future, you will probably consider the money spent on the 10D as money thrown away. I know $4,500 is a LOT of money to spend but your photo sales could recoup that. With the 10D they definately will not. The 10D might be good if you want to work for a newspaper or for the internet.It's good enough for those applications.If you want to do books or magazines, forget it. This is my opinion and I'm going to sell my D60 at a big loss and buy a MarkII which I believe will give me quality comparable to my chromes. Good luck and tough call, BITE THE BULLET. Cheers, Alex.

Great question! what to do? 2 great cameras to choosse between.

 

Are you currently or will very shortly be shooting sports or breaking news

coverage? Then the 1dmk2 is gonna be worth it.

 

Otherwise: The 1Dmark2 is an approximately 8.2Mp camera (3504 x 2336

pixels ). The 10D is an approx. 6.3Mp camera ( 3088x2056 pixels). are an

extra 416 pixels in one direction and an extra 280 pixels in the other direction

worth the extra $3000.00 for you?

 

You do realize that you can get a damn good basic medium format system for

that or even a large format system for $3K, and that until you get up into the

11mp or higher range you won't be able to get the same quality as even the

baby (the 6x4.5cm ) of the medium formats. You could even get a pretty good

lighting kit for that amount of pocket change.

 

I teach professional/commercial photography at a pretty good, and well

respected school: www.portfoliocenter.com . I have taught there for a couple

of years. I know enough about what a single quarter (the photoraphy

discipline is an 8 quarter program). costs for the students. I can think of far

better ways for a student to spend $3,000.

 

If you are starting digital imaging classes in the fall, I think it would be pa

smartthing to have a camera you are already familiar with.

Does the school have cameras for you to use? If they do then perhaps you should try them and see which you like best. They might have 10Ds, D100s or even a 1Ds, 1D (or MK II) or some other things including Nikon, Kodak or Fuji. Give them all a try if you can and try to see what you like and what you can actually afford should you need one.

 

I've had a 10D out all weekend just for fun from our equipment cage, and I had the 1Ds out at the end of last week to do a project. Both are very nice but they're very different, the 1Ds is more of what I would want down the road and since I'm not rushing to buy a DSLR I'll wait and see how the prices drop. I might have to wait a few years but so be it.

 

The 1D Mk II may be useful to you if you'll be shooting sports or perhaps doing photojournalism, but if you just decide to save your money for now by the time you know what you want/need you might be able to afford the 1D anyway. I like the durability of these 1D series cameras too, which is one reason I don't own any of the other DSLRs. I'm waiting. Perhaps a long time. :) I'm not downgrading from my EOS 3 or N90s.

Get a 300D and spend moeny on L-Glass.

 

dSLR bodies are disposable.

Only you can answer that question, not us. What is your need? Do you need 8fps or 3fps? Do you need 8megapixel or 6megapixel? We don't know what you need it for and cannot specify your need. If you are a sport shooter or like one of my partner that shoot 10fps, then I would recommend the MARK II. I don't think the quality of MARK II vs D10 is a big gap, and any gap differences can be fix by photoshop. So, what is your need? Do you really need all the functionality that MARK II provided or D10 is just more enuff than what you need?

 

The future is unknown and you can rather wait or be happy what is here now. I have D100 and Fuji S2 Pro, and I am very happy with them. I will never ever upgrade to d70 or d2h because D100 and Fuji S2 provide more then what I need. I don't need sync flash over 125/180 and I don't need 5fps or 8fps. The only thing I need for an upgrade is a FULL FRAME SENSOR and I don't think Nikon is making it, so I have to wait but for now I am a happy camper.

As a student you will find many opportunities to spend money!

 

Why spend more money now than you have to? The 300D can be run on fully

manual mode, the images are basically the same as the 10D, and reportedly the

AWB software is even better.

 

Buy the 300D, grip, extra battery, treat yourself to a nice lens, then as the time

nears for you to become a working professional you will have the experience to

make a wiser choice for your job.

 

-Dan

Only you can answer this question. In my mind, the major advantages that the 1D mk II

has over the 10D are: 8fps and a larger buffer, 45 point autofocus, built like a tank,

slightly higher megapixel count, slightly lower crop/magnification factor. There are some

other minor differences, but those are the major ones.

 

Neither the added megapixels nor the difference in crop factor are significant. A

difference, yes, but not enough to justify the extra $3K.

 

The 8 fps shooting, buffer, autofucus, and tank-like construction are what really justifies

the price difference. These features are mostly necessary for heavy use by professional

sports photographers and photojournalists. In fact, this camera is target marketed

specifically to those groups.

 

I'm sure that a 10D, or even a 300D would be perfectly adequate for anything you will

need to do in a digital imaging class. (If you will be using studio lighting, get the 10D, if

not, go for the 300D.) Like computers, anything you buy this year will be outdated in a

couple years anyway.

I use Film on the Canon Elan 7e. The Canon 10d is based on this camera. I use the eye control quite a bit for my type of shooting. The 10d does not offer this feature. The EOS 3 does. (45 points as opposed to 7 on the Elan. Which I hope to upgrade to soon.)

 

Digital does not work for my line of work as of yet. I shoot concerts and some street photos. I agree with purchasing the 300d and putting the money into the lenses. It's the glass that makes the image clear. Cheap lenses = no punch.

Cheap glass on a great body is a waist of a great body. Remember the body only adds features. It's all about the glass :-)

 

You have to decide which direction of photography you are getting into. I use chrome and fast lenses for the low light and movement of my subjects.

 

The beauty about Canon is that you can not go wrong with their lenses. They fit every EOS camera they have built. Digital or film.

 

Keep a good film body and a good digital body (300d) and spend the money on glass. You can't go wrong.

 

Enjoy shooting and always keep your eye on things.

 

Michael

If you only look at mega pixels the 1D Mark II versus 10D is 4:3

In reality this means that on average (maximum print size depends on image subject) one can print A4 8"x12" with 10D and 10" x 16" on the mark II.

 

In reality it such differences are nothing compared to using good glass and best printer.

 

And I have seen 10D photos printed on A3 and it still looked good. But what has said before will also be your fate; Nothing beats large film sensors, so don't waste big money on 'minor' improvements.