Is a new 1Ds still relevant? Worth 6k?

<p>Is this camera still relevant or is it obsolete? I guess I don't get it, what does it have for 6K than I can't get from a 1D4 or a 5D2.</p>

<p>Well I own one and, at the moment, it is the best one body solution to my photography. Easily worth $6,000. Don't forget the 1Ds MkIV will be well over $8,000 and the 1D MkIV has the dumb unsupported by Canon wide lens non existence nonsense 1.3 crop. The 5D MkII doesn't focus like a 1 series and doesn't have the durability either.</p>

<p>Is it worth $6,000 to most people? No. Am I special? No.</p>

Are you referring to the 1Ds mark 3? I have 2 of them. For the abuse I but my gear through I'm glad to have them. I've had it in the rain, snow, and several degrees below zero. The weather seals alone are worth the value of this camera. Also, the dual card setup is a must to have for those situations in which you can' take a chance in card failing.

<p>Its the only full frame full blown pro camera. The 1D4 is not FF and the 5D MKII doesn't have all the pro features of the 1DS, the AF being a big one. Sure, the 1Ds isn't for everyone, but there are a few that would argue its worth every penny.</p>

<p>When you are buying for a business or a project $6K may not be a big deal. Justifying to a manager that you want to buy a fully-decked out pro camera for $6K that you know will work to is often easier than justifying an iffy $1.5K consumer-grade camera. </p>

<p>I mean the 1DsIII for the record.</p>

<p>Seriously dude, the Canon 1Ds3 is the premium 35mm DSLR, and will be until Canon brings out a 1Ds4. This is just such a no brainer, and it is worth that $6,000.00 or more you will likely pay for it, and a bargain compared to shooting medium format. However anyone purchasing a 1Ds3, should certainly be able to afford a 5D2 as a backup camera body.</p>

<p>The 1D4 / 7D have equal or better AF.<br /> The 5DII / 7D / 1D4 have equal or better noise handling.<br /> The 5DII is a full frame.<br /> The 1D4 can shoot 2x faster @ 10fps.<br>

The 5DII is same megapixels and 7D isn't far behind.<br>

<br /> 7D is weather sealed.<br>

<br /> This is what I am seeing off the top of my head.</p>

<p>When you compare it to some lens prices or the price of the average pro's lens colletion, its really not much. If a pro has $40,000 worth of equipment, then $6,000 for a body isn't a huge percentage of that.</p>

<p>after I got mine, I haven't used my 5d mark II. totally different camera. </p>

<p>Can I have it then ? ;-)</p>

<p>If you're paid to get the shot you will understand the value and "relevance". I shoot mainly sports, business portraits, weddings, architecture. I use the tools I believe will give me the best chance to get me the shots under any circumstance - a 1D3 and a 1DS3. Any other new Canon body has clear compromises built into the design (ex. new 1D4).</p>

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>It is the sum of its parts. Like Nathan said it is the only FF Canon pro camera. So the 7D is a 1.6 crop, if you could work with crops the 1D MkIV is the better route. The 5D MkII does not have the strongest AF, if you need/want really good AF, and a FF sensor, you only have one choice. The 1D MkIV is a crop camera, again, but with no ultrawides to suit it. High iso performance is, very generally, not the focus behind the Ds cameras, as all 5D MkII owners know, if you don't use a tripod then you won't get the best out of the sensor anyway. I do handhold a lot but that is not where it works best.</p>

<p>Many 1Ds MkIII owners also own a 1D MkIII or IV, for most it is not an either or situation, the best body for the job is the one they use. It looks like an anomaly in the lineup, and obviously the MkIV is due, but it has a feature set you can't get in any other body. If you want pro build and durability and AF and high fps is not your focus, the much larger sensor and lens choices make the 1Ds a much better buy than the 1D.</p>

<p>Personally I want one body to travel with, my last trip I took the 1Ds and a 24-70, no special bag nothing. Traveling light is so much fun and so much faster.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It looks like an anomaly in the lineup, and obviously the MkIV is due</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed. </p>

<p>But, as of today, Kevin, what could you buy that would provide the best IQ and the best AF etc etc in one body? Sure it will be improved upon in the next generation, but the MkIII will still be able to do then what it can now and you can't get that in any other body at the moment.</p>

<p>1D4<br>

I think the sum of its parts were worth $6k pre 7D / 1D4. Now no more.</p>

<p>Get me a 16-35 equivalent for a 1.3 crop, indeed give me any good wide and I might agree, but they don't make one so it is moot. The IQ on large prints from a 7D do not compare to a 1Ds MkIII/5D MkII, they are nowhere near as cropable either, so again your point is lost. If you can get by with high resolution 24x36 images then 1.3 or 1.6 crops won't do.</p>

<p>Currently there is nothing to compare the 1Ds MkIII to, at $6,000 it is good value to those who need it. Another question would be, is an $8,500 1Ds MkIV worth $3,000 more than the last of the discounted new MkIII's?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The IQ on large prints from a 7D do not compare to a 1Ds MkIII/5D MkII, they are nowhere near as cropable either, so again your point is lost.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I bet the 7D IQ (large prints) looks just fine next to the 1dsIII at ISOs above 1000.</p>

<p>Kevin if your priority is shooting over 1000 iso then the 1Ds Mk anything is not the camera for you. It is analogues to saying, I shoot my 8x10 plate camera handheld, you could but why would you?</p>

<p>But if you want one body that can give you the highest IQ possible with the lens set available at FF and keep up with the latest wiz bang bells and whistles crop cameras at pretty much any iso speed that you would output from (and for large high quality prints no sensor, or film, prints out as well at 1000 iso as it can much lower) and be able to AF in that light, then again, you only have one choice.</p>

<p>Can most people reason or justify buying a 1Ds MkIII? No. Are there justifiable reasons for buying one? Yes.</p>

<p>It offers a feature set unavailable in any other Canon camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what does it have for 6K than I can't get from a 1D4 or a 5D2.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Compared to 5D2:</p>

<p>Built in grip<br>

Vertical shutter release<br>

Full weather sealing<br>

Far more customisable<br>

Better build<br>

Far superior AF<br>

Faster frame rate</p>

<p>Compared to 1D4:</p>

<p>Full frame (and all the inherent advantages)<br>

Superior image quality<br>

Capable of true ultra wide angle shots<br>

Price: As it currently stands, for very little extra outlay compared to the new 1D4 you get 21 megapixels of full frame gorgeousness.</p>

<p>Having said all that, the 1Ds3 is not for me. I use the 5D2 and would still choose the 5D2 over any other camera on the market right now. I like it's compact size, high ISO performance and HD video facility. If Canon made a 1Ds without a built in grip, with great high ISO performance and HD video I would want it!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Superior image quality</p>

</blockquote>

<p>when? @ iso 100?</p>

<p>Kevin,</p>

 

<p>Just out of curiosity, how large do you print?</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>I print 20x30s with a 40D.<br>

I know what you are getting at. The 1Ds is 3yrs old and is priced still from 3yrs ago. At the time it had by far the most megapixels, the best AF, and ISO. Now no more for any of what I mentioned. Lower the price to 4K-5K. And I will shut up. It is not unanimously the best canon camera anymore. Everyone knows gen IV is around the corner. So therefore I again say, is it worth it right now, for 6K? No. Even if I was rich, I would not buy this camera. I would buy a 1D4 and a 5DII / 7D. Maybe that is the problem. There is no 1 camera solution.</p>

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p> How is $6,000 the same as the $8,000 it was three years ago? It is now 75% of its launch price and that doesn't allow for inflation. You are still missing the point, it is the only camera to have all the features it does have, other bodies might have some of them, but none have them all together.</p>

<p>For me it is a one body solution, when the MkIV comes out I, personally, don't think I will upgrade, I don't need more MP, I don't need video either. For my photography, the 1Ds MkIII is the best body available and well worth $6,000.</p>

<p>If you want to double your image quality, ie print to 30x45 to the same quality you have now, if you want to do that at 5fps, if you want to do that in any weather, if you want to do that 300,000 times reliably, if you want it to focus as well as cameras can etc etc then you have one choice. The last MkIII's will be discounted, whenever that is, at $5,500, they would be a steal.</p>

<p>I'm with you Scott on no upgrades in the near future. If Canon holds true to past history their 1DS model always has at least twice the pixels of the respective 1D model. That puts a 1DS4 at over 32mp. Pretty much unnecessary in my opinion. A 1DS3 or the combination of 1D3/1DS3 will handle pretty much any assignment. Features such as 100,000 ISO, video and various other bells and whistles, while maybe nice don't really help me. </p>