old 1D mk1 v new 40D

[david_john_appleton]

Hi has any body got a 1d and a 40d i am thinking of getting another body to go

with my 20D and as a 40D with grip is simerly priced to a s/h 1D (in UK)i was

wondering how the image quality at low/hi iso and AF speed comper.

My lenses are manly L glass. if its a close thing i will go for the 40 as then

only 1 set of battery etc thanks dave

[asher]

<p>If you do not yet have a 1D series camera, you might like to know that the battery charger (NC-E2, I think) for the 1D series costs around $200-300...<p>

I don't own a 40D, but I am quite certain the newer digic processor and all the other advancements re: dust, speed etc, make the 40D a better buy vs. a used 4 megapixel circa 2001 EOS 1D.

[david_john_appleton]

yes it may only be 4 meg but may friends 1d has the edge over my 20D so the 40D needs to be a good jump up from a 20D Dave

[erlend sæteren]

You could consider the not that old 1d mark 2. It is a super pro machine that delivers nice

8mpix , and the usedprice have fallen to below 2000 dollars in Norway. This was only a few

years ago the best presscamara avialable, and is still super. The battery is large and lasts

long. It is a lot of them used right now because they are trading it to get the mark 3 d or

mark 3 ds. I theink the 1d mark 2 was better for me than a 40 d would have been, because of

the wider cmos. On the other hand: If your camerabag is loaded with nice optics for halfsize

cmos only, then a a 40 d can be the choice.

[mike_broderick]

Some people found problems with how the original version of the 1D2 handled detail in white (more accurately, how it failed to handle detail). I'd check out the specific copy of the 1D2 you might be getting.

 

The original 1D was an outstanding camera in its day, but similar to what Asher said, I see little reason to get one now except perhaps if you are on a very tight budget and MUST have the weather sealing or the improved autofocus is absolutely critical even at cost of other features.

 

If you do want to do that sort of upgrade, I agree that a copy of the 1D2 is a much better deal. Sounds like you've seen your friends 1D, so you realize that the 1-series is a massive heavy brick compared to the 40D, right?

[Fotos53]

I think the original Canon 1D is a better camera then the 40D, 30D or 20D. I have owned and used the 20D and 30D cameras for assignment work. I found that I was fighting the camera in response time and focus tracking. I just didn't like either camera for work. I did find that the battery lasted far longer in the 20D and 30D and they were lighter, easier to carry around with you all day, but when I needed to shoot a photo, they were just slow to response. They say the 40D is better in this, but I'm not sure yet.

 

I'm just starting to use an older 1D ( I got a good deal on one) for work. I'm finding that I really like it a lot. I love the raw file size I can set it and forget it. (no more trying to figure if I want to shoot jpegs or raw files). The raw file size is perfect for me, not to big or to small. Just one less thing to worry about on assignment.

 

Another thing that I'm finding out is that I love the color that the camera produces, the whites aren't blow out and the color is what I see. I shoot the camera in the Adobe 1998 setting, I thinks it's setting 4 with the standard parameter settings. The higher ASAs aren't as clean as the 20D or 30D, but with a Noise Ninja applied the photos look good. The 1D is a camera that you have to shoot tight, as in fill the frame with the shot that you want.

 

You asked about the focus speed of the 1D, it's far faster then the 20D or 30d. I'm sure that the 1D will focus faster in low light.

 

What I like about the camera is that, It's built to take a bump or two plus that it's sealed against the weather.

 

I really do like 1D camera, I prefer to use this camera over my 1D Mark II N. I thinking about getting another one.

 

Now I haven't used an 40D yet and from what I've read on the web, the reports are saying that it's better than the 20D or 30D. But nobody is saying that it's better than the 1D.

 

I just think that the Canon 1D is a hell of a camera still. Please check out my portfolio and you will see that I know what I'm talking about. Any questions please ask me.

 

John<div></div>

[nhut-nguyen]

I'm sure the original 1D is one hell of a camera in its own era, but I think it's rediculous to spend money on a used obsolete digital camera dated back to 2001.

 

Buy the 1D if you're a camera collector. 1D users, please upgrade, you're wait behind.

 

My 2 cents, and no hard feeling.

[asher]

<p><i>"Buy the 1D if you're a camera collector. 1D users, please upgrade, you're wait behind. </i><p>

 

The concept of obsolescence in DSLR technology is, in part, marketing psychology. When it just came out, the 1D was more than adequate for the jobs. A quote from famed wedding photographer, <a href="http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/eos-1d#fieldreport">Denis Reggie, on photo.net</a> in 2001:<p>

 

<i>"I actually thought that Canon's decision to go with a 4 megapixel camera was, well, brilliant. It seems that their camera line now handles consumers with their array of digital cameras, the prosumer/photobuff/enthusiast or photographer who works with slower moving targets -- like products, still lifes, even portraits -- with their very popular D30, and now, the 1D which seems near perfect for news and sports (two huge Canon markets) and surely to be a huge hit in the wedding photojournalism world (that's my area).<p>

 

Going to 6 or more megapixels would have:

<ol>

<li>Been overkill for my world given my primary need of images in album print sizes;</li>

<li>Surely have slowed the camera with a more limiting buffer for burst sequence ability</li>

<li>It would mean far fewer images on todays CF cards.</li>

</ol>

</i><p>

 

Just because new models come out, does not render prior models immediately useless. Just less marketable.

[John Crowe]

John Miller: Why would you choose a 1D over a 1D Mark IIn? Surely the resolution, frame speed, and focus speed of the later model are quite superior.

[nhut-nguyen]

Hi Asher, can you do me a favor? Please find out for me if Denis Regie is still shooting weddings with his 6-yr old 1D. I'm very curious :) I think he has like 20 of them stocking up in his closet...you know so he could have enough 1D until his retirement :)

 

"Just because new models come out, does not render prior models immediately useless. Just less marketable." Asher wrote

 

We're talking about 6 years of technology gap here, If we're talking about the 1D Mark II N vs the 1D Mark III then I agree with your statement.

[KenPapai]

To keep up with this DSLR obsession -- whether you are pro, semi pro, top amateur, or serious hobbyist, you absolutely have to have an upgrade strategy or be left behind with inferior hardware and software.

 

A 40D over an ancient 1D? A 40D blows it away.

 

And, LOL, I am sure Regie has totally forgotten in 2007 what he said in 2001 and you know for sure he doesn't use a noisy, old camera these days.

 

So, define you upgrade strategy and stick to it -- at least lenses are close to forever so that part is easy. Camera bodies improve in great measure every three years, which is why the 40D is a modern tool compared to the relatively ancient 10D and totally ancient 1D.

 

Nothing new's being said here. Cheers and enjoy the weekend!

[asher]

<p><i>"And, LOL, I am sure Regie has totally forgotten in 2007 what he said in 2001 and you know for sure he doesn't use a noisy, old camera these days."</i><p>

 

Of course, but do you think the 13 wedding clients he shot for with the 1D in 2001 are calling him now to upgrade their wedding photos, or to complain that their photos no longer look good because there are better cameras out there?<p>

 

My point was that even so-called obsolete cameras can still perform well in the right hands. So what was once worth $5500 as a pro camera can now be had by amateurs for under $1000. Nothing wrong with that.

[asher]

Sinh Nhut wrote: <i>"We're talking about 6 years of technology gap here, If we're talking about the 1D Mark II N vs the 1D Mark III then I agree with your statement."</i><p>

 

So you're saying a 4 megapixel camera that served demanding clients in 2001 is therefore now useless? I'm not arguing that the newer cameras are not significant improvements- in the first response to this thread I suggested that David would be better off with a newer model.<p>

 

I am merely stating that older technology is still capable of performing well in the right hands. Whether or not your hands have that ability is another issue.

[nhut-nguyen]

Yes Asher, the 1D is useless..because no body is using it now... or maybe there's one person still using it.

[asher]

<p><i>"Yes Asher, the 1D is useless..because no body is using it now... or maybe there's one person still using it."</i><p>

 

Useless= without use. A 1D <b>can</b> still be used to make beautiful photographic prints. Whether or not anyone is still using one is irrelevant.

[david_halterman]

Sinh Nhut Nguyen...you state in your profile that you are BRAND NEW to photography, still

learning and probably will be for the rest of your life. Well since you are so eager to learn,

I suggest you pick up an old, beat up 1D, strap some good glass to it, and make a

photograph or two. I assure you it will demolish that Digital Rebel your holding in your

picture, along with any of the xxD cameras ever made. I know, its only 4mp, but you have

no idea how magical those 4 million pixels are. Sure, you can buy any xxD camera, a

couple o' zooms, and a some flash, shoot as many weddings as you want, crop, alter,

enhance, etc etc until the cows come home. See, with an old 1D you have no room for

cropping, which disciplines you as a photographer. Want more discipline? Carry nothing

but primes.

 

The old 1D's are probably the toughest, most bulletproof tank of a camera ever made. A

Rebel wouldn't last two days in even moderately burley conditions. If you want a camera

to do everything for you, get a 40d. If you need something that can take some abuse

while producing amazing images, get an old 1D. Its the highest rated of any DSLR made

by Canon according to the up to date reviews on Fred Miranda's site, including the newer

1-series bodies. Read some of the reviews...having an incredibly inexpensive six year old

camera lying around is probably one of the most educating experiences you will have, if

you want to learn that is.

 

I drive a 1984 Toyota Landcruiser...23 years old, 216,000 miles, 3 tons of truck, no airbag,

no GPS, no automatic transmission, slow and horrible on gas. But using it for what it was

made for, it can easily put to shame all of the new, $40,000 dollar Landcruisers on the

road.

 

Don't fall for that "it's a six year old camera, get with the times, UPGRADE, UPGRADE,

UPGRADE! Nobody uses those things any more" hooplah. Just the act of saying that is

proof that these people have never even held one. The original 1D...not your mama's

camera. 100% Sucka-free. This has been said a million times, but essentially, "Its not the

camera, it's you" I urge people not to respond if they have no basis for giving David some

sound advice. Why bash something you don't even have experience with?

[KenPapai]

<i>"but do you think the 13 wedding clients he shot for with the 1D in 2001 are calling him now to upgrade their wedding photos, or to complain that their photos no longer look good because there are better cameras out there?"</i><p>

 

How is anyone supposed to answer that without sayying, well duhhh... of course they were fine back then. You also think, had he a time machine and could've shot instead with a 1D3 then the 100% choice would be the 1D3 camera? That answer makes as much sense as your question.

[asher]

<p><i>"of course they were fine back then."</i><p>

 

... and are still perfectly acceptable prints now. I was simply making a point that "old" does not necessarily equal "useless". Thanks for reaffirming that point with your comment.

[asher]

Also, BTW Ken, mine was a rhetorical question...

[john_bellenis]

This is an interesting thread and really shines a bright light on our desire for the latest and

greatest and our admiration for over engineering. It would surely make a marketing man

proud to read some of this stuff... For some reason we love equipment that not only

exceeds our abilities, but has features we happily pay for, but will never use (how many

Hummers and SUVs never see the dirt? How many Porsches never see a track? How many

expensive cameras never produce prints above 8x10?)

 

On the subject of obsolesence, did the Nikon F5 render the F4 and F3 obsolete? At what

point do we decide if a piece of equipment is obsolete? When it has been replaced by a

newer model or when it can no longer produce goods of the required standard?

 

From my perspective, all equipment is a means to an end. Photography is about images -

concept, content, impact, originality, composition, lighting, mood and emotion - as long

you are not limited technically or creatively by your equipment, then the focus of the

pursuit shoud be on making images. Becoming obsessed with owning the latest and

greatest with little or no gain in the actual IMAGE seems counter productive if your

concern is genuinely with creating images. If it is with camera collecting, pride of

ownership, a fascination with technology or pixel peeping and shooting test charts, that's

fine too - but buying the latest and greatest, just because it exists, does not lead to better

images.

 

As a working professional I use 4x5 (transparency and scan on Imacon), MF digital and

Canon DSLRs - all of my equipment now, and when shooting solely film, has produced

images that I stand behind and reproduce perfectly on a magazine double truck ad or

poster. My clients judge my work on content - as all photography should be judged - and

care not one whit how many letters or numerals appear on the cameras name.

[nhut-nguyen]

Hi David Halterman..I didn't bash anything, all I said was "I think it's rediculous to spend money on something used and obsolete" That's my opinion and advice for David.

 

and let me ask you this, if you're looking for a different car right now? would you go looking for another used 1984 land cruiser with 216k miles?

 

oh and yes I'm eager to learn and I'm learning by taking advantage of the advancement of technology. I guess your kids are still using typewriter to type up their essays :)

 

by the way I've never held a 1D before, why would I want to hold one when I have something much newer and better? and please don't tell me your 1D is better than the 1D Mark III.

[asher]

Sinh- you're totally missing the point. Read John Bellenis' post above.

[bestactionshots]

I have 1D and still shooting with it and mostly sports. It's one amazing camera especially with AI servo tracking and AF speed. I've seen this machine can rack up over 500K actuations and still keep on going. One heck of a machine for $800-$1000.

[nhut-nguyen]

Honestly Asher, I didn't read John Bellenis' post. I wrote my reply before he wrote his, but I had to go somewhere in a hurry before I could submit it. Anyway, I totally understand all your points. I know I said "1D users, please upgrade, you're way behind" ok I might have offended the 1D users and I apologize for that, I hope ya'll forgive me, seriously. I also understand that "when a new model comes out it doesn't mean that the previous model becomes useless right away and you can't use it anymore". Even though I have a new and better body now, I still use my Rebel XT and it still gives me fantastic results.

 

Yes, I am 22-year-old college student, with 2 years of photography experience; I know many folks here with photography experience that exceeds my age. However, I still stand on my point though, I just don't think it's wise to spend money on getting something used and 6 years old, especially if it is a DSLR.

 

Hey, if you've been using a 1D for the last 6 years, and it's been working well for you, by all means, please keep using it. If you want another camera, why bother getting a used 1D when you can get something with much newer and better technology all at the same price.

 

I still want to know though, would Denis Reggie buy a 1D to shoot weddings now in 2007 and would David Halterman buy a 1987 Toyota Land Cruiser with 256k miles again now in 2007?

 

P.S I'd consider buying a 1D only if it's sold for $235.99, in mint condition with 9385 actuations. :) (: Now, I need to stop offending folks and start spending my valuable time photographing.

 

Nathan Sinh-Nhut Nguyen

[asher]

<p>Nathan Sinh-Nhut: <i>"I still want to know though, would Denis Reggie buy a 1D to shoot weddings now in 2007 and would David Halterman buy a 1987 Toyota Land Cruiser with 256k miles again now in 2007?"</i><p>

 

They wouldn't, and nobody was arguing that point. The point is that those tools <b>could</b> still be used to produce <b>great results</b> (photographs, off-road transportation) in the right hands, in 2007, <b>at a fraction of their respective original costs</b> and are therefore not useless.<p>

 

And I don't think you offended anyone, at least not me. What I or anyone else here shoots with is irrelevant.