Canon EOS 1Ds vs EOS 1D MKII

[andy10]

Hi

 

I realised that the price of a used 1Ds is almost similar to that of

1DMKII.. Give the choice that both of them are available at the same

price, which camera would you recommend to buy..

 

Is the 11Mpix resolution and full frame of 1Ds advantageous over the

later technology and faster write speeds of 1DMKII..

 

Thanks in advance

[astcell]

I was at CES with my 1DMkII and got to play with the 1DsMkII. The Canon rep told me it will be an expensive moment for me because I will love the extra pixels.

 

Truth is, I hardly notice. I did like the fact that my 24-70 became a true 24-70, but that was about all I enjoyed. The motor speed is half of my camera, and when I came home and played with the files, the 10.0MB 1DsII image beside my 1DII 6.5MB image did not pop out and grab me.

 

I will buy another 1DMkII and the 300/2.8IS before even thinking about the 1DsII. But that's just me.

[erik_ingvoldstad]

I considered those same options in November (I even posted a question on photo.net).

Decided to go for the 1D2, mainly because of the reduced noise in high ISO mode, the

blazing speed and the fantastic feeling of buying something new. I shoot food on location

for a gourmet magazine, and the resolution is more than good enough for that

application. I agree with Robert though, having full frame is an advantage - that's why I

kept my 1v for extreme wide angles. Good luck!

[eos 10 fan]

I think you need to work it back from the end result.

 

What do you plan to shoot? What are you going to do with the iages?

 

--

[ky2]

There've very different-- and not really comparable. Apart from the mpixels (that's IMHO a MINOR difference):<br><br>

 

The 1Ds gets you:<br>

1) A FULL FRAME CAMERA. AKA, you can get wide. REALLY wide.<br>

2) Right after (1), A FULL FRAME VIEWFINDER. That's equally important, at least in my opinion.<br><br>

 

The 1DMk2 gets you:<br>

1) FAST (8fps) shots.<br>

2) A 1.3x crop factor (an extra reach for your long lenses).<br>

3) Better high ISO.<br>

<br>

In a nutshell: Shooting Landscape/Studio/Portraits? go for the 1Ds. Shooting Sports/Wildlife? the 1Dmk2 is your choice.<br>

[yakim_peled1]

I'd get the 1Ds to get a larger viewfinder.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[phil vaughan - yorkshire u]

The camera I would recommend you to buy is the one that suits what you need. If the obvious differences between these 2 cameras (see Yaron's post) don't make that an easy decision for you, then I can't see how anyone else can help.

[scottelly]

I know this is an old post, but amazingly, I'm thinking about the same question. I'm leaning toward the EOS 1D MkII, because it has a shooting speed twice that of the EOS 1Ds MkII and it has a bigger screen for reviewing shots. The lower price tag is also a factor. I agree with others on this forum who say the 16 Mp is not that significant.

 

The wider angles I can get with a full-frame sensor might make the difference, but I'm planning to get a 70-200 2.8 L IS as my regular lens, and a 16-35 2.8 L as my wide-angle. That will give me very wide angles. The mid range will be covered with a 50 1.4 for shooting portraits with low depth of field. I've considered the 5D, and I think it might make a good addition to this package at some point in the future, but it just shoots too slow at only 3 fps. I could get a Rebel XTi with a 10-22 lens! I think I'll wait until there is something new to replace the EOS 1Ds before going for the full-fram. I think the speed is more important than the ultra wide angle of the full-frame sensor for now.

 

I also wonder about the drop in price of the EOS 1Ds, but I guess all of them will be replaced by less-expensive higher-resolution cameras with more capabilities in the future, rendering the current cameras obsolete and super cheap on the used market two or three years from now. (See the 4 MP high-end DSLR cameras from a few years back compared to the Rebel XTi today. Who would even buy one of those used 4 MP cameras?)

 

Does anyone have any insight about other differences between the EOS 1Ds Mk II and the EOS 1D Mk II N? As far as I know, the main differences are the size (and possibly viewing angle) of the LCD review screen, the light transmission of the viewfinder (bigger in the EOS 1Ds Mk II), the speed of shooting (single on either, but 3 and 8 fps. in 1D Mk IIn and 4 fps in 1Ds Mk II), the number of frames that can be buffered (almost twice as many in the 1D vs. the 1Ds, because of the size of the images - very important to me), the magnification factor (1.3 vs. 1.0), and the number of megapixels of the sensors (8.2 vs. 16.7) . . . OH! And the price. Does anybody here have extensive experience with both of these pretty new cameras? What other details are there that I'm missing? Does one shoot more photos on a battery or take larger capacity memory cards or something?