Looking to buy a new 1d Mk2 or 1ds Mk2 but have concerns

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by f1-fanatic, Aug 16, 2005.

  1. Please excuse me if this has been addressed previously. I am looking
    to purchase a new EOS 1d Mk2 or 1ds Mk2 but have concerns regarding
    which one would be best for my application. I am coming from a 10D
    and need to output larger (poster size prints in the area of ~40")
    the problem is I shoot sports and have come to depend on the extra
    magnification of the sub-frame chip of the 10D (x1.6).

    My problem is if I go with the 1d Mk2 everything like with the 10D
    has to be spot on with my composition in order to avoid cropping
    later... If I go with the 1ds Mk2, I would loose the magnification
    associated with the sub-frame chip, get back the use of my wide angle
    lenses, and have the ability to crop later if my composition was off.

    My question therefore is if I needed a tighter shot would I be better
    off with the extra focal length of the 1d Mk2 (x1.6) or spending the
    extra money and cropping later?

    Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks.
     
  2. The 1D II is between the 10D and 1Ds II with a 1.3x crop. If you want 1D II resolution with
    a 1.6x crop, buy a 20d and save a bunch of money!
     
  3. Interesting dillemma. In any case, I'd wait a couple weeks and find out what Canon is going to
    announce in that time period. We may be getting a new body called the 1D Mk2 N. No idea
    what that means.
     
  4. The 1Ds Mk2 is a 17.2 Mp camera and the an APS sized region on its sensor contains nearly 12Mp so will offer the best resolution whatever the crop. However, at 3fps shooting rate is not best designed for sports applications.

    I would wait a it before spending that much dosh
     
  5. There are rumors that they are coming out with a new 5d that is almost 13 megapixels with a full size sensor and will run about $3500.00. I have read several places that is will be anounced officially at the end of the month (august 26th) and should be available by early october. If I were spending the bucks I would atleast wait a couple more weeks to find out. If it turns out to be accurate it would certainly have to be in the running.
     
  6. I rarely if ever use for lack of a better description the motor drive so speed isn't a factor and as far as the 20D goes the AF system isn't fast enough. My only option, as I need the camera for an assignment in 2 weeks, is to choose between the two.
     
  7. Cliff

    How did you come up with that calculation. My maths suggest that the 1Ds Mark II should only have a bit less than 8 megapixels when cropped to APS size. (area of APS/area of FF) x 16.7
     
  8. For sports I would use either a 1DmkII or 20D hands down. I'd never shoot with plans to crop later... what a post processing nightmare that would be. Plus there are budget considerations. You could get 2 1DmkII's for the price of 1 1DsmkII. Or you could buy a longer lens. A good lab should be able to get you 40" prints from your 10D, btw. They might not be razor sharp.. but this is sports, not studio portraiture.. right?
     
  9. If shooting rate is not an issue then the 1Ds Mk2 is the best choice bar none in terms of resolution but as I'm sure you know it ain't cheap. Compared to your 10D it will give you approx 2x the resolution in the equivalent sensor area.
     
  10. You are hitting the nail on the head... but I am a little picky a I am selling my prints and don't want to see pixellation regardless of the subject matter and edit only a few shots per outting for output so having to crop later isn't that big of an issue. I guess to boil it down, I am concerned with the end result quality of a native 8.2mp image vs a cropped 16.7mp image. I know there are a lot of variables such as how much I will be cropping and such, but you had a good point of being able to get more for my money if I were to go with the 1DMk2 such as another lens or backup body.
     
  11. If I were to shoot the same subject, say a Formula 1 car, with both cameras and output them to a 13 x 19" print.. Would the image from the 1ds be not only sharper but show more detail? My gut says yes but I am not entirely sure. That is the big question. If I print the same image from the 1DMk2 (untouched) and then due to the loss of the x1.3 crop the same image from the 1DsMk2 (cropped) will the image from the 1Ds be sharper and yield more detail?
     
  12. I would say the 1DsMKII would be my choice followed by the aquisition of whatever lens you need to get the shot without having to think about cropping. For example, if you were getting the shot with a 70-200 2.8 on your 10D then something like a 300 2.8IS and possibly a Canon 1.4TC are in your future.
     
  13. Norman,

    If you need it in two weeks and can't decide, why not rent one (or both) of them? If you
    can, I would rent both for a couple of days during the week of the event you are shooting,
    play with them beforehand, then use the one that really is best suited for your purpose.
    Either buy that one, or just keep renting for a while.

    With the rental costs in my area, I could rent a 1D II 15-20 times before I came close to
    paying the cost of buying one. If you will use it often, many places will credit the cost of
    the rental toward the purchase of the body you rented.
     
  14. Geoff

    Oopps, my mistake! It's late here. Delete the above b***ks, your estimation is right.
     
  15. Hi Norman, Using telephoto lenses on a 1.6x (or 1.3x) camera should give you (theoretically) a sharper picture than the same lens on a 1Ds2 *if you're cropping the 1Ds2 image* to get to the same size. Whether you'd notice it in a million years making 13X19 inch prints is debateable.

    From "Resolution Roulette" by Michael J. McNamara, Popular Photography, June 2005:

    "Cropping an image lowers the number of megapixels and affects its maximum photo-quality print size... For example, an image from Canon's 1DS2 that is cropped to give the same FOV as Canon's 20D... will contain 6.5MP in the cropped area."

    There is also the speed issue to contend with - a 1D2 should be a much more responsive camera for sports shooting than the 1Ds2.

    Having said all that, I recently sold a lot of crack (kidding!) and bought myself a 1Ds2 and it blows me away how much of the image I can crop away and still have a great shot. You can take almost 2/3rds of a shot away and still have around 6MP to play with! I think it's good advice to see if all these rumors are true about new Canon cameras that are just around the corner. I would think you could always rent something if necessary. Just my .02 cent's worth - good luck!
     
  16. What Beau said.

    cropping a 17 megapixel file to give a 1.6 crop, gives you about a 6.6 megapixle file - 17/(1.6x1.6). For most practical purposes you will not be able to see the difference between 6.6 and 8 megapixels.

    I am not sure how Cliff does his maths.
     
  17. Apoligies cliff, just saw you other post.
     
  18. I would try printing your sharpest image at a lightjet house like fototime.com . I use them for my large prints. I have printed 8-10 images at 24x36. The continuous tone of the lightjet increases the percieved resolution of the print. The sharp ones taken with a great lens look great to me. Printing this large is a gamble. Some will be acceptable and some will not.
     
  19. Will I see a difference from the 10D if I go to the 1DMk2?
     
  20. Going from the 10D to the 1D II will give you a 14% wider image at the same resolution (or
    1.4 inches at 300dpi).

    That's not very much.
     
  21. The 10D to the 1Ds II will give you a 62.5% increase in width.

    That is a lot!
     
  22. My guess is probably not for most purposes and at an 8x10 print size. The differences between 8 and 6 megapixels is not that much. If cropping to get the equivalent field of view then you will be left with 4.8 megapixels 8/(1.3x1.3). Again there is not much difference between 4.8 and 6 megapixels.

    I think the only way to find out at larger print sizes is to test it out.
     
  23. "The 10D to the 1Ds II will give you a 62.5% increase in width.
    That is a lot!"

    Not if cropping to give a 1.6 fov (actually going backwards). Even a doubling in megapixels is not that big a deal. Assuming a 8 megapixel image is at its limits at 12x18 (which it may not be) then a 16 megapixel image is at its limits at about 18x24.

    Norman if you want to really improve the resolution of your pictures what you need is the 1Ds Mark II and a longer lens.
     
  24. Geoff,

    My number was for uncropped full-frame. I agree that he can't really get what he wants
    (high resolution and magnification) without both a new camera AND a new lens.
     
  25. I wanted to thank everyone for helping me out here.. It's a lot of money for the pro body and it's bending my brain a little. ;) I should have mentioned that I usually shoot with a 300mm f/2.8 AND a 2xTC all of this with the 10D and it's 1.6x for a total of 960mm of focal length and at times use a 400mm f/2.8. I guess I am going to have to step up to longer lenses just to get the same result if I am going to be outputting such large files. I can't be the only person doing this... I know the pros are shooting for magazine and newsprint which is very low res, but am I being unrealistic here with my expectations? I guess in the end, I need to do some renting but it's an expensive proposition.
     
  26. My guess is that there aren't to many poster size prints of sports being shot from this distance. You must be a long way away.
     
  27. I was gonna say - is getting any closer an option? Perhaps a bribe is in order to get better seats! ;-)
     
  28. 300mm f/2.8 AND a 2xTC
    Sorry - I should've mentioned this thought: Would it be an option to sell your 300mm f/2.8 and buy a 500mm f/4L IS? If used on a 1D2 with its 1.3x crop factor, you'd be at 650mm. Adding a 1.4x TC would give you 910mm and a 5.6 aperture. If you keep your 2x TC and use that, you'd be at 1300mm and f/8. I think you'd still have autofocus on the 1D2 and you'd also have Image Stabilization too. Even if you didn't sell your 300mm f/2.8, the 500mm f/4L IS is around $5,000 and the 1D2 is what? around $3500? About the same money as a 1Ds2 without the "Bazooka" lens. I know that 300mm f/2.8 is a great lens but so is the 500mm f/4L IS. And it sounds like it might be an option for you to have both. Good luck!
     
  29. I second what beau said 1dmkII with the 500mm that would be sweet.
     
  30. Beau, I usually have media access so I am right on the track. Here is an example of what I am trying to get only with a larger file. And with the 500 and a TC you loose the AF at least with the one I used a few months ago at this race I needed to manually focus.
    00DFEh-25203784.jpg
     
  31. The above was shot with a 10D, a 300 f/2.8 and a 2xTC
     
  32. Nice shot Norman! I could be wrong but I think a 1D2 should retain autofocus up to F/8. Not all Canon bodies do though - just the expensive (Type 1) bodies like the 1V, 1D/1Ds & 1D2 & 1Ds2. So I *think* you'd still have AF using a 1D2 + 500mm f/4L IS + 2xTC. I don't own a 2X TC but I do have a 1Ds2 and the 500mm f/4L IS + 1.4x TC and I tell ya - that lens is *sharp* - even with the TC! Good luck!
     
  33. Thanks Beau. It might be either my 10D or the older 500mm lens that I occasionally rent. But I found that I lost AF and even focus confirmation when using that lens. The photo shown below was taken with the 500mm f/4.5 (non-stabilized) lens and my 2xTC on the 10D. I had to manually focus and (because I am pretty much blind) guess if I was in focus or not. Do you know if it is possible to change the focusing screen on the 1D2 or 1Ds2?
    00DFTG-25216884.jpg
     
  34. Yes, you can change focusing screens on the 1D series cameras. I don't think that either the 10D or 20D are "1 series" cameras and thus will not autofocus past a minimum aperture of f/5.6 (I hope I'm right on that) The 1-series cameras, like the 1V, 1Dx/1Dx2's should retain AF all the way up to f/8. So it makes sense that you'd lose AF using a 10D + 2xTC + and F/4.5 lens. Also, the focusing screen on the 1Ds2 is *great*! I've only played with a 1D2 a little bit and it's a vast improvement - the focusing screen that is - over either the 10D or 20D. You can actually see what you're doing. I'm blind as a bat too!
     
  35. Looks like you need two bodies, at least for now. Keep the 10D for sports until there is a 22 MP 1DsIII and in the meantime get a 5D (?) for wideangle photography and full bike side shots. Over the next 3 years you will lose a heck of a lot less money on a 5D than a 1DsII. These are tricky times.


    Love the shots by the way, I have seen your folder before. The 500 with 2x defintely looks a little soft and with a loss of contrast. I got my first press pass this year for a motorcycle race and loved my new vantage points. Too bad the sun only came out for an hour!


    Good luck in your decision.
     
  36. Thanks for the advice.. I am going to do some shooting with the 1d2 & 1ds2 at the US Open. From what I hear the 5D will not have the same AF system which is what I really need here. As far as the shot above with the 500mm and softness/contrast. I had to manually focus the shot and I have really bad eyes... Not having focus confirmation I was guessing so I attribute the softness to my eyes rather than the hardware. Also, as with your first press pass, the weekend I was shooting the bikes in my folder, it pretty much rained all weekend long.
     
  37. the 20d vrs 1ds mrk2 with the same lens with the pic cropped to meet the 1.6 zoom of the 20d the 20d image beats the 1ds i seen this in popular photography mag. i would love to have the 1ds but the speed & 1.6 factor i can't let go. i would just get the 20d and sell it later!
     

Share This Page