Which should I purchase 1D Mark II or 1Ds Mark II?

[mm1664877714]

Besides the three major differences between the two, price, capture

speed, and pixels per picture, what other major differences are

between the two? I use currently have a 1VHS and a 10D. Please

don't compare it to the 10D I know it is night and day, but I want to

know is it justified for be to pay 3K more to get the 1Ds Mark II. I

shoot all around photos which include sports, but I do have a studio

as well which I take pictures of models and events as well. Please

answer if you have used both cameras and you know there limitations

in actual real life situations. Paper is one thing and using it is

another.

 

Your help is truly appreciated. Thanks.

[beauh44]

Hi Mike, It seems to me that, besides bells and whistles, your 3K difference in price buys you two main things: 1) Resolution and 2) No "crop factor" for your lenses. Do you find yourself wanting to make very large prints and need those extra pixels? Does a digital camera's "crop factor" drive you nuts because it robs your wide-angle lenses of a good chunk of their width?

 

But there's a not-inconsiderable disadvantage to buying that 1Ds MKII too. I suspect you'll likely need a lot more and bigger CF cards to handle those huge files - not to mention your PC's storage (and RAM too) will get squeezed working on those same files in Photoshop.

 

The 8 megapixels of the 1D MKII will make a fine 13X19 print. Your wide angle lenses still won't be helped out but that small sensor size means your telephotos will. You won't be shoveling around twice the pixels either.

 

Still, if I could justify it, I'd spring for the 1Ds MKII. But that's the problem; For what I'm doing I can't justify it. Good luck!

[ky2]

It's actually 4K. The 1D-line is sports-oriented. The 1Ds-line is studio-oriented. Get both.

<br><br>

-<a href="https://www.subtlelight.net">Yaron</a>

[casey mcallister]

Not that I own either...

 

You did not mention crop factor, which is IMHO is the big bang.

 

Full frame performance at that rez...it's a digital microscope on steriods that is fast enough for most usage, but I've heard it is a real hog for large files and big time disk storage...longer file transfer and editing times. Quality has it's price even after you plonk down ~7K.

[ren__damkot]

Well, just MHO ofcourse, but if you have to ask, you probabely don't *need* the 1DS2. Go for the 1D2....

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste]

As a matter of interest, would it hurt that much to stick with film for another year and a half until the next 1Ds Mark III comes out with both resolution and speed?

 

It's just that it might be worth waiting so that your 8 grand will get both cameras in one body, film won't go extinct for a bit..

[del_gray]

Of course getting the 1D2 doesn't REALLY help with telephoto reach because you can simply do your own 1.3x crop on the 1DS2, and STILL end up with more pixels than the 1D2. Likewise, you can always shoot the 1DS2 at a smaller resolution if you don't want to fill up your storage cards/devices or slow down your computer. In short, both of these "advantages" of the 1D2 can be reproduced in the 1DS2 as well. The speed of the 1D2 becomes the big factor, then. As well as other intangibles, which it seems that Mike is asking about here.

[mm1664877714]

I thank you for your comments, but Del is correct, please focus what can not be between one and another. And by the way is there another model coming out which combines the portrate and sport capability in one body?

 

Mike

[jim_larson1]

Yes.

 

There will be a common model. . .you just have to wait a year or two.

[chrisjb]

Have a friend with 1Ds who confirms similar to `Steves camera review` that the edge to edge detail is amazing, so much so that his 16~35 show a great deal of distortion as with film, his 1Ds is confined to the studio, and feels the 1d2 less prone to this problem because of 1.3x crop althought it can be corrected in PS, It has prompted me to lean towards a 1Dmk2 for next body. Not sure if it helps a 1Ds user will help more.

[yakim_peled1]

<p> Another bonus to the no-crop-factor issue is having a bigger and brighter viewfinder. <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon-1d-mkii.shtml">Though the bodies are almost identical, the viewfinder on the Mark II is simply not as bright and large as the one of the 1Ds. This is due, of course, to the use of a 1.3X smaller than "full-frame" chip, and the fact that the viewfinder image is therefore smaller and thus less bright. </a> </p>

<p> If you don't need the fast frame rates of the 1D Mk II and 4 are enough then I'd suggest the 1Ds Mk II.</p>

 

<p>Happy shooting, <br>

Yakim.</p>

[mj_hixx]

I don't know if this will help you, but I have the EOS 1ds @11.1mp. I use it in studio and have unbeliveable prints. One is 30x40 on stretcher canvas, and the details and quality are second to none. If you do alot of weddings then the EOS 1d M2 would be good. More important is that you get the best glass (lenes) you can afford as this is what will make sharper images. I would like the 1ds M2, but am very happy with my 1ds. The full frame is really important to me and keeps all your lenses at the exact focal length. Money has to be a factor also. You only know what is justified for your next purchase. Be well....Mark

[ren__damkot]

Agree with the above post. I think its wiser to spend the 3k$ on glass....