Tight Budget... 1Ds or 50D?

[david_woeltjen1]

<p>Greg, You're right about the resale value of the 1Ds, at this point, the average value probably will not go down much more than $100 per year until it bottoms out. The 1Ds RAW file is output as a .TIF, however, it can not be opened as a standard .TIF file without being converted from its RAW format. High ISO's don't like too much post processing, anything 400 or under handles it fairly well. At base ISO there is quite a bit of latitude for exposure comp. Check out the graphs on <a href="http://www.DXOMARK.com">www.DXOMARK.com</a>. The overall rating of the 1Ds is fairly low, but the graph comparisons tell a much different story when comparing the 50D to a 1Ds.</p>

[david_woeltjen1]

<p>Greg, You're right about the resale value of the 1Ds, at this point, the average value probably will not go down much more than $100 per year until it bottoms out. The 1Ds RAW file is output as a .TIF, however, it can not be opened as a standard .TIF file without being converted from its RAW format. High ISO's don't like too much post processing, anything 400 or under handles it fairly well. At base ISO there is quite a bit of latitude for exposure comp. Check out the graphs on <a href="http://www.DXOMARK.com">www.DXOMARK.com</a>. The overall rating of the 1Ds is fairly low, but the graph comparisons tell a much different story when comparing the 50D to a 1Ds.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>David,<br>

 <br>

Where did you get the proprietary TIF info from? Mine open in any program that supports standard TIFF, Photoshop, LightRoom, Aperture, iPhoto, Preview etc etc. Heck even Safari opens them!<br>

 <br>

You do not need to do anything to 1D and 1Ds RAW files to open them in any imaging program, they are not proprietary. Well mine aren't.</p>

[lad_lueck]

<p>Wow, a whole lot of dick-measuring going on in this thread... Photonet didn't used to be that way.<br>

As someone who actually *owns* a 1Ds (for 6 years, now), I can give some insight into why a photographer might actually want one.<br>

1. Fast, accurate autofocus. It won't focus in absolute darkness (unless you put a flash with AF helper light on it), but it WILL grab small, fast-flying birds travelling directly toward, or away from you. You know-the kind where AF slew actually gets used. Using the rear panel programmable buttons, you can set up on button to use the center AF, and the other button use the 'ring of fire' (the whole array of AF points). So you can track a bird flying in front of contrasty background, and not lose focus, or you can track a wildly direction-changing flycatcher or swallow with open sky as it's background. (This mode works well for dragonflys that hunt 20' feet off the ground, and dart around like maniacs.)<br>

2. Weather-sealing that works. Remember that you must use a lens that has the rubber sealing ring at the camera mount, AND must use a lens filter to seal the objective lens area.<br>

3. Weight! That's right-weight. Enough weight so that you can shoot the 400 f5.6 lens, *with* the 1.4x TC, at 1/200 second, and still get sharp hand-held bird shots at sunset or on a cloudy day.<br>

4. SHARP, sharp single-pixel details. These pixels are HUGE at 8.8 microns. And Canon fitted a mild AA filter.<br>

Now, on to the myth of noise. On my 1Ds, auto-exposure values (or the EV meter calibration?) are dimmer than what the manufacturers use today. If you set the in-camera parameters to give a fairly linear tone curve, you can shoot +1/3 to +2/3 EV all the time without overexposing bright skies in the corners. When you do that, the 'noise' problem goes away. Yes-even at 1250 ISO, you can get great shots that you can print very large.<br>

There ARE downsides. The 1Ds has a slow processor, and a tiny, dim LCD. The batteries in your used find might be 6 years old, and NEED replacing with brand-new, very expensive *Canon* batteries. I've tried several third-pary batteries, and after half a year, they lose charge very fast.<br>

If you are a -photographer-, and not a digital technology junkie, the 1Ds provides images that photogs *still* rave about. Other than that last stop of dynamic range, I'll take my 6-year-old 1Ds over any D3 or D700. It produces full-bleed 13" x 19" landscape shots that you can 'grain-sniff' and still enjoy the tiny details. It's one of the truly great cameras of the digital age.<br>

1Ds tech and tips: <a href="http://home.earthlink.net/~ladlueck/">http://home.earthlink.net/~ladlueck/</a></p>

 

[symple]

<p>Greg,<br>

I really like your Lower Elk Lake image. I went from an XTi to a 1Ds and a 1D IIn because I had the same questions you did, and wanted to know where things would go if had a better viewfinder and larger sensor. I ended up finding the 1D IIn much more forgiving in terms of lens flaws, and was much faster to use than the 1Ds in every way though so similar. THe 1Ds helped me capture some satisfying images, but when using all three cameras with five lenses, mostly tripod use with L-Plates, I chose the IIn images most, then the Xti, then the 1Ds when making prints. The megapixel difference is inconsequntial really between the 1Ds and 1D MkII when making prints, and especially on web. The IIn is incomparable with the other two for focus speed and accuracy in all lighting conditions, and its buffer is huge. Its lowlight capability is similar to the XTi, but you have a larger sensor and pixels so prints do look a little better. After testing extensively I sold the 1Ds, gave away the XTi to a family member, and kept shooting with the 1D IIn. I have added a Tenpa viewfinder magnifier, a RRS L-Plate and Brightscreen fresnel to the IIn, and I love it. I could buy a 1D mkIII or 1Ds II any time, but I am really happy with my IIn. As a side note, I tried the 17-40 and compared it to my old 15-30 sigma, and just kept the sigma as the 17-40 was quite dissapointing optically, though great for aesthetic and focusing [i am going to try the 14mm 2.8L II next]. I would try and find a 1D mk II or IIn for your $800 and enjoy, it is an amazing camera! For really wide shots, or landscapes like your Elk Lake I would just stitch several images to get a large image file to print from. <br>

Not that is that great, but to see you can go large ( I printed a similar version of this to 96 inches on metallic paper) have a look at one of my images and just keep zooming in bearing mind how wide the whole image is from my IIn: http://gigapan.org/gigapans/37264/</p>

[gregcoad]

Wow. Thanks for all of the input. I just purchased a very lightly used 1Ds! Less than 10000 actuations (of course this can't be verified but I believe it based on the overall condition of the body). I feel as though I have entered a whole new world. Just looking through that viewfinder feels like stepping into a new, magical place!

 

I think I will be able to cope just fine with the menu system and the small LCD. Heck, I've been seriously considering picking up a decent film body and going back to film once and awhile and that would have neither an LCD or a menu system at all! I do think that we start to believe, or convince ourselves that we need all of the bells and whistles of the 'modern' DSLR when we in fact do not. I also wonder if sometimes those things tend to cause a distraction or add to the many elements that we are already trying to manage. Not that the 1Ds is a giant step back in time of course. But I do wonder if this will in some ways 'simplify' or 'declutter' the process a bit for the better. Maybe some small way it could take me back to the basics of exposure, composition and lighting the way that getting out a film camera once and awhile would.

 

Then again, maybe not... the manual for this camera is a bit thicker than that of the XTi!

[gregcoad]

<p>Oh and thanks, Simon, for the comment on my Elk Lake photo. I don't love that one, but it was the only thing I could salvage from an outing that hadn't gone exactly to plan to say the least.</p>