Used 1Ds or new 40D?

[Robert DeCandido PhD]

Hello,

 

We are primarily Nikon shooters, BUT we love the Canon 400 F5.6 AF telephoto

lens - particularly for birds in flight (raptor) shots. Nikon currently makes no

AF equivalent lens. (We also own the Canon 24-105 IS L lens.) For the last year

or so we have been shooting with a 20D and now would like to upgrade. The new

40D body is interesting and appealing...but we are also now seeing used Canon

EOS 1DS bodies (in mint shape) advertised for about $2200-2500...our question

is: which would you purchase to shoot birds in flight: a new 40D or a used (and

mint condition) full-frame Canon EOS 1DS with technology that is several years

old? Finally, we looked at the new Mark III but at $4500 or so, it is a bit

pricey particularly since all the bugs have not been worked out completely (almost).

 

Thanks!

 

Robert DeCandido

[obelix]

I would say the EOS 40D, definitely, at 6.5fps it's really as fast as you would need. New DICIG III processor, more bit depth (14 bit).

 

And the 40D comes at a great price, you can already buy it for around euro 900, and I also own one...fantastic camera!

[jeromeaoustin]

The 40D with its 1.6x field of view crop would also be an asset for your raptor shots.

[bluphoto]

Yeah,

The 40D would be the best bang for your buck for birds on the wing, with its longer reach / tighter crop.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the 1Ds would work out about half the resolution ofthe 40D (or less) if you cropped the image to reflect the 40D's field of view..

 

That said, if you regularly shoot in poor weather conditions, then the 1Ds would serve you slightly better environmentally.

[phil_shaw1]

If you are talking about the original 1Ds (11.1 megapixels, 3fps, ISO range 100-1250), the files have a lot of noise above 400 ISO. The technology has advanced considerably in the five years since this camera was launched. I think you would be much better equipped to capture flight shots with a 40D.

[jason_hall4]

I have to say the 40D as well. The 1Ds may look mint, but that is not indication of shutter cycles, just that someone kept it in the studio and handled well. That is always my fear of used SLRs. My 30D looks mint, but has 15,000+ cycles. far cry for the expected 100,000 cycle life of that shutter, but alot of other wear and tear goes with that 15,000 cycles. beside who says it will last the full 100,000.

 

Not to mention what others have stated above. No need for me to repeat them :o)

 

Jason

[disneyry]

I don't mean to pick on anyone, but I have to point out that cropped sensor cameras in no way help telephoto photography (aside from camera cost). The "longer reach" that everyone talks about is a myth.

 

There is no image magnification. The image circle produced by a given lens is identical on both FF and cropped cameras, the usable portion of this image circle is the only change. This is why lenses appear longer on cropped sensor cameras.

[frank_dzambic]

If you're primarily going to be shooting birds in flight, or birds doing anything, then the (original) 1Ds is NOT the camera you want to be using. The buffer clears much too slowly once you've fired off a few shots, the frame rate isn't particularly great, and you can't even begin to imagine the frustration of waiting for the histogram to appear when you need to decide whether to apply exposure compensation or not. Believe me, the 1Ds is not the right tool for the job, and I'm speaking as an owner of one.

[tapani]

Ryan, technically you're correct about the image circle, but in practice the longer reach is real. In order to get equivalent image of a small object with an FF body you'd need (1) 2.56x as many megapixels (1.6 squared) for cropping and (2) viewfinder with 1.6x enlargement, and end up doing more work in post-processing anyway.

 

You can almost get (1) with 1DsMkIII but there's no convenient way of getting (2) - and don't underestimate its importance. If you're trying to get a picture of a bird, its apparent size in the viewfinder is critically important for accurate focusing.

 

For practical purposes cropped sensor cameras now available indeed give longer reach, even if theoretically a full-frame camera could be built to match.

 

Anyway, as to the original question I must echo everybody else: 40D is better for the stated purpose than 1Ds, probably even better than 1DsMkIII would be (now 1DmkIII or even 1DmkII would be a different story): you need speed rather than megapixels, and the crop factor doesn't hurt either.

[colinsouthern]

Ryan Disney wrote: "I don't mean to pick on anyone, but I have to point out that cropped sensor cameras in no way help telephoto photography (aside from camera cost). The "longer reach" that everyone talks about is a myth.

 

There is no image magnification. The image circle produced by a given lens is identical on both FF and cropped cameras, the usable portion of this image circle is the only change. This is why lenses appear longer on cropped sensor cameras."

 

Ryan, you've got the first part of the optics right - but you've missed the compensating variables of sensor size and pixel density. When you have the smaller image circle projecting onto a smaller sensor - BUT WITH THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS - the sensor has more resolving ability - which allows magnification to a greater degree - which will give you more detail visable, but at the reduced FOV - which is (in terms of reach) equivalent to the "multiplication factor".

 

 

 

Which in PRACTICE results in a very real (and very much useable) increase in perceived reach.

[john_hanlon3]

Robert, purely in terms of image quality I don't think you would notice much difference between your 20D and a 40D.

 

If you are thinking of buying a 1DS body make sure it wasn't owned by a professional PJ, it will probably be almost worn out, plus they tend to hammer their equipment.

[freelance]

Colin Southern says:

''There is no image magnification. The image circle produced by a given lens is identical on both FF and cropped cameras, the usable portion of this image circle is the only change. This is why lenses appear longer on cropped sensor cameras.''

 

 

I think you are wrong. You could have talked about quality, noise, etc. But magnification is real. Exactly 1,6x . It is like you had and extender. Even you can crop this pictures and get a more ''virtual'' magnification. The FF 5d has 12 mega pixeles and the 40D or 400D have 10. Even having 21 megapixeles, if you can afford the 1Ds MK3, you wouldn't reach the 1.6x magnification of the 10 megapixels cameras. Quality apart. I wouldn't mind to own the MK3! :)

[john_hanlon3]

Antonio, you can say that Colin is wrong until you're blue in the face, but he's still right, and so is Ryan.

 

Of course none of this silly arguing has any relevance to Robert's original question.

[austin_luse]

You should go with the 40d. this may seem kinda wierd, but if you want to use telephotos, you'll be undoubtedly trying to move the lens, following the birds, right? have you ever held a 1d? they are heavy!Also i agree with however wrote that if you buy a 1d, itll be a pros old one, probably. pros practically throw their cameras on the ground, especially if they are a newspaper photographers:the company will give them their cameras. also, the 40d is a mutch better choice, in general. good luck, and happy buying.

 

-Auzzie

[freelance]

The more pixels you have, the more magnification you get. But to multiply by 2x the magnification, you need to multiply x4 the number of pixels. This means that with 40 megapixels you get double magnification than with 10.( 4 times, square root=2). Being the sensors of different size of similar number of pixels, with a crop factor you dedicate 1.6 more pixels (no matter how squeezed they are) than with FF. With 21 megapixels you get 1.449 times magnification more than with 10. (D1s MKIII) . You would need 25.6 megapixels to get 1.6x magnification. This can change a little according with the width and length of the sensors

 

If you crop a 25.6 megapixels image to get a 10 megapixels one, you get the same result (I do not mean quality or noise) that with the crop factor and 10 mpx. The objects are of identical size and the density of pixels, the same.

[freelance]

You can read this:

 

''Excellent diagram! You see purists are correct in saying that it is a 1.6 crop factor rather than resulting in what a 1.6 teleconverter would do, although the resultant field of view is the same. Purists also do not like converting 35mm format into 1.6 factor format. Purists prefer saying that a 50mm lens on a 1.6 factor camera gives a portrait-like view (ie. to non-purists an 80mm lens). So yes 1.6 factor cameras appear to help telephotos and at the other end they remove much of the image area projected by wideangle lenses. So those photographer's used to shooting a particular wideangle lens on their 35mm camera will see much less wideangle effect when they mount the same lens on their 1.6 factor camera. Good luck!''

 

john Crowe

 

in this link:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008jXD