EOS-1ds vs 1d MKII. What's the best choice?

[erik_ingvoldstad]

After the introduction of 1ds MK II, I have the opportunity to buy either a demo used 1ds

or a brand new 1d MKII for roughly the same price. The camera will be used for studio

portraits, landscapes, nature etc., so versatility is top priority - speed is really not my main

concern. What would be my best choice? I would imagine that the demo 1ds has been run

for thousands of shots. I will buy three new L zooms to complement the camera. My

camera range includes an EOS-1v, an EOS-D2000, a Rolleiflex SLR MF and a Contax G1, so

this will be my final purchase (I've promised my wife ;-)). Any suggestions would be

appreciated. Thanks!

[endo_hanafi1]

If you do mostly studio works, and landscape go for 1Ds, if you take birds or sports more go for 1D mark II. IMHO.

[casey mcallister]

If you buy the demo be sure to test the sensor and make sure that it's clean and has no stuck pixels. Either way I'm in envy.

 

What's the warrenty for the demo?

 

For that much money I'd be inclined to buy something new so I felt comfortable knowing that it had never been mistreated.

[jake_cole]

For your application it is a no brainer the 1DsMkII.

[patricks]

Jake, how can a 1DsMkII be a no brainer!? It is out of his stated preferences, and I would assume budget (why an amateur would spend $8K on a body is beyond me, but that is just my personal opinion).

 

Erik, to your question, I don't really have a good suggestion. Do you really need to go digital at this point? What is more important, the advantage of full frame or a 'cleaner' image albeit smaller? If speed isn't important why not buy a really good scanner?

[sheldonnalos]

I've read commentary by people who own both cameras, and one specific comment I've heard is that above ISO 400, the 1D Mark II will actually give better final prints due to its lower noise characteristics.

 

However, for low ISO settings, the edge would go to the 1Ds for being able to produce a slightly larger final print. If you don't print over 15x20", I would choose the 1D Mark II over the 1Ds for the faster performance and improved high ISO noise characteristics.

 

Hope this helps!

 

Sheldon

[digitmstr]

The 1DMKII takes advantage of a new DIGIC sensor, lower noise, larger buffer, two cards, better white balance, more ISO range, newer technology. I would go for those improvements over the larger sensor.

[mark_chappell]

There are a lot of factors here. Do you like wide-angle lenses? If so, the 1ds is far

preferable to the 1d Mk. II (the later has a 1.3X crop factor, the former is full-frame). If

you like long telephotos, the situation is reversed: you'll probably do better with the 1d

Mk. II because it has a somewhat higher pixel density than the 1ds, so unless you can get

as close to your subject as you like -- usually not possible in wildlife work -- you'll likely

get better image quality from the Mk. II.

 

But in general, I don't think there will be a huge difference in the results from these two

cameras. Both are excellent.

[todd.]

Forgive my ignorance if this has an obvious answer, but what about the 20D? From what I've read, the 20D is very similar to the 1D MarkII at a fraction of the cost. Although I have not actually used one (yet) I have read truly wonderul things about it that seem to address many of the issues previously stated. - Just my thoughts.

<br><br>

Yes... I do understand that this is a question about two cameras and the 20D is not one of them, but I thought I would throw it in there anyway.

[mark_chappell]

Todd: because of its 1.6X crop factor, the 20D is inferior to either the 1ds or the 1d Mk II

for use with wideangle lenses (unless you want to get the 10-22 mm which works ONLY

on the DR and the 20D, thus far). But for the same reason, the 20D may be better for

telephoto work than either of the other two (it has a larger crop factor and a considerably

higher pixel density). Caveats: the 20D won't autofocus at f8 (important for many

telephotos with 2X converters), and of course the 20D won't shoot as fast as the 1D Mk. II

[jake_cole]

Oops... miss read that. Makes sense I thought they we demoing both the news ones then selling them.

 

I still think for the application the regular 1Ds is probably the ticket, studio and landscape don't really need the speed of the 1dMkII and the extra pixels have to be worth something in Landscape as well as the studio shots.

 

Of course I may be biased, FF to me is where it's at.

[scott aitken]

The 1D (and 1D mk II) is designed and intended to be used primarily by sports

photographers and photojournalists. A big part of the price tag is the screaming frame

rate and large buffer. If you don't need that kind of speed, then the 20D will get you just

as good an image for a fraction the price. Or the used 1Ds will get you a much better

image for the same price. So I would think the question you need to ask yourself is: do you

need the fast frame rate & buffer that the 1D mk II provides?

[todd.]

The price was my main focal point when suggesting the 20D. With the significant price difference, you would buy 2 or 3 nice lenses to compensate for the 1.6x crop factor. Although I still must say if I didn't care about being married, then I would have a 1D Mark II in my fat little hands right now! :)

[ky2]

<i>"A big part of the price tag is the screaming frame rate and large buffer..."</i>

<br>

<br>-- And weather sealing. And a larger viewfinder. And better wide-angle coverage. And a more rugged shutter. And?

[ky2]

Oh, did anyone mention a PC socket?

[robert_reiss]

According to dpreview.com the 1DMkII and 1Ds both have pc sync. For the 20D dpreview.com says "hotshoe&sync." That means pc sync too, I would think.

[erik_ingvoldstad]

Thank you all for putting your thoughts into this. I'm not 100% sure yet, but I'm leaning

towards the 1d MKII. I guess the idea of having a brand new camera is appealing, so is the

argument of better quality above 400 ISO. Perhaps the 20D would do, but I love the feel

and confidence a heavy pro camera gives...

 

Erik

[brian_tao]

<p>

Although I am completely in love with my 1D Mk2 and would never voluntarily give it up, the 20D does come very close in certain situations, and at one-third the cost (think: happier wife, or more lenses!). Having shot with a 20D for a few days when it was introduced, I would use it in the studio instead of the 1D Mk2, because of the better image review capabilities on the 20D.

</p>

 

<p>

Someone already covered the differences between the 20D and 1D Mk2, so I'll point out the similarities:

</p>

 

<p>

<ul>

<li>same CR2+JPEG capability

<li>same resultant image dimensions (3504x2336)

<li>virtually same ISO noise levels (1D Mk2 is slightly better past ISO 800)

<li>same maximum shutter speed (1/8000s)

<li>same flash sync speed (1/250s)

<li>same E-TTL2 flash metering

<li>same DIGIC II processor

</ul>

</p>

 

<p>

The 1.3x vs 1.6x argument should only apply if you already have wide lenses on your 1V that you want to preserve the field-of-view. But even then, it may be better just to get the 20D and attach the Sigma 12-24mm or the upcoming Canon 10-22mm on it. Stop it down to f/16 and away you go.

</p>

 

<p>

Take all the similarities and differences into account, and decide whether the 1D Mk2 (or used 1Ds) is worth spending three times the money over the 20D. Or to put it another way, think of what you could buy with the $3000 you save. ;-)

</p>

[yakim_peled1]

A demo 1Ds at 4.5K? Seems too cheap for me. Anyway, if it's real and if the seller is a legitimate one and if it has no problems, I'd get it. Reason? To get bigger viewfinder.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.