Is This A Good Price For the 1Ds MKII?

[darklord]

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span><span>Hi everyone,<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span><span><o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span><span>Just wanted to ask
your opinion on the following bundle which I was offered for about CAD $3800 to buy (I'm the buyer) (1CAD=0.95 USD currently)<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span><span><o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span><span>Canon 1Ds MKII
(16.8 MegaPixel full Frame)<span>

<span>Canon EF 70-200 L IS USM F2.8

<span>Canon EF 24-70 L USM F2.8

<span>Canon SpeedLite 580EX Flash<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span><span>I&rsquo;m not sure
about the going 1Ds MKII used prices but I know the lens and flash prices:<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span><span>$1500 Canon EF
70-200 L IS USM F2.8<span>

<span>$1100 Canon EF 24-70 L USM F2.8<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span><span>$250<span> Canon SpeedLite 580EX Flash<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]<span><span>Subtract the
above total from $3800, that would make the 1Ds MKII about $1000.<span> Is this a good deal to buy in your
opinion?<span> Thanks.<o:p></o:p>

[ShutterbugJohan]

I think so.

[StapledPhoto]

Sounds like a great deal to me if everything is working properly, not dinged up, and not super high mileage. You could part whatever you didn't want out of it and do very well. Is this local so you can inspect it? Just make sure it isn't stolen (does it all come in a nice bag without any boxes or receipts?)

[darklord]

Thanks for the reply. So the generalconsensusis that this is a good deal. Everything is about 5 years old from the talking to the seller. The reason I'm interested in the 1Ds MKII is that if my initial cost of acquiring the 1Ds MKII is around the $1000, I probably won't lose too much money selling it down the road.


From the raw file the seller sent me, the shutter actuation is less than 6000, so the 1Ds hasn't been used all that much. I'm now more confident buying this set, thanks everyone.


One more question, the other reason I'm buying a FF is I'm looking for shallower DOF when shooting outdoor portraits. Is this a good reason to buy FF vs the T2i I already have? Thanks.

[Keith B]

From the raw file the seller sent me, the shutter actuation is less than 6000, so the 1Ds hasn't been used all that much. I'm now more confident buying this set, thanks everyone.


One more question, the other reason I'm buying a FF is I'm looking for shallower DOF when shooting outdoor portraits. Is this a good reason to buy FF vs the T2i I already have? Thanks.






You can't trust file numbering for shutter actuation count. I'd have a real hard time believing someone owned a 1Ds MkII for 5 years and shot less than 6000. I've shot 40K in a year and a half on my 5DmkII. That said it still is a good deal.


If you like shallow DOF, FF is the way to go. If you like tightly cropped head shots you will be needing a lot of that 200mm. On my 5DmkII with my 85L and about 3ft. min focus distance, the tightest I can get is loose head and shoulders without cropping later.

[darklord]

<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]You can't trust file numbering for shutter actuation count. I'd have a real hard time believing someone owned a 1Ds MkII for 5 years and shot less than 6000. I've shot 40K in a year and a half on my 5DmkII. That said it still is a good deal.


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]


Thanks Keith. I though the shutter actuation number cannot be manipulated. I wasn't going by the file number but from PS CS5 in the manner described below to get the image number <span style="font-size: 10px;"](Shift-Ctrl-Alt-i)).


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00KFt6 ("http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00KFt6)

[IAMB]

Not trying to rain on any parades here... but I've been following sales of 1Ds mkII bodies for the last year and have never (and I mean never) seen one in good condition go for less than $1700 USD. Something is fishy.

[darklord]

Not trying to rain on any parades here... but I've been following sales of 1Ds mkII bodies for the last year and have never (and I mean never) seen one in good condition go for less than $1700 USD. Something is fishy.


<span style="font-size: 11.6667px;"]


Thanks, IAMB. It's always nice to be on the guard for something like this. I plan to do some cap shot and check for dead pixels while I'm at his house inspecting the 1Ds. What else should I watch out for when inspecting the 1Ds?

[IAMB]

Well... you should at least take an image file and use Cancount to get the actual shutter mileage. Also, look for damage around the battery door (easy to replace the part, but it'll cost you about forty bucks shipped), around the lens mount and also around the mirror box. You'll want to make the the hot shoe is still good, so take a flash. Also, take both an SD and CF card to make sure it'll recognize both individually and as a 1--&gt;2 backup (some of the used ones have a tough time recognizing two cards at once - I think it's a cleanliness issue more than anything). Beyond that, just make sure all the accessories are with it (both USB and FireWire cable, dual charger, strap, DC connector and dummy battery, etc.). If you have time, see how long the battery lasts as well. You can still good OEM replacements, but be sure to pick them up now as they'll get harder to find every year.





Also, If you know of an online registry for stolen photo equipment, get the serial number off the body and run it.





I'm sure I've forgotten plenty of important things, but it's a start.

[darklord]

Just wanted to report back on this deal as I went through with it. The two L lenses are in pristine condition 9.5/10 by my book and from the date codes of the lenses, they were purchased together with the 1Ds MKii. So if the lenses weren't being used much, the camera body shouldn't have been either.


The rubber parts of the camera body, however, exhibits some greyish white color rather than solid deep black. I'm not sure if it is due to aging or anything else. But the rest of the camera body is fine, shows not signs of heavy usage.


There are people interested in buying the two L lenses I got from this deal from kijiji so I'm confident the 1Ds MKii body will not cost me more than $1K, most likely less than that. So far, I have to say I'm happy to have gone through with this deal to jump into the world of full frame. Thanks everyone for the advice you've given me thus far.

[btaylor]

Good stuff!!! I think you've got a great deal there. That's excellent that you were able to inspect it in person before buying. A few scuff marks on the rubber shouldn't be unusual for a 5 year old body.


I've read profiles of pro photo photographers, and their images have really amazed me. When I read their bio I expect that they're using the latest and greatest of gear but have been surprised when they still use a 1Ds Mk II or even older. So it definately can produce the goods. Just goes to show that in the right hands the gear doesn't make the shot - not to say that the 1Ds Mk II isn't a superb camera.


Enjoy the new toy, I look forward to seeing some shots.


Ben.

[Keith B]

After much debate and lots of reviewing, I am in the market for a used 1Ds mkII as a back up/second camera. I want full frame and the 5DmkI would not really make much sense and the 1DsIII is still too expensive. 1DsII seems like it would be a great companion to a 5DII.


Good luck and enjoy your camera.

[darklord]

Oh, just found out that the 1Ds MKii doesn't have auto ISO. I blew a few shots going from indoor to outdoor without changing ISO as I'm used to having auto ISO. I guess this will force me into the habit of thinking about ISO setting before taking shots.

[JustinThyme]

Im newb here but not to several other forums.


Auto ISO isnt all its cracked up to be. Matter of fact Auto anything.


Allowing the camera to decide seldom yeilds the best exposure.

[Jon Ruyle]

Allowing the camera to decide seldom yeilds the best exposure.





But unless you shoot manual, you *are* letting the camera decide. In many situations, I'd rather choose the aperture and shutter speed and let the camera pick the iso than have the camera decide something important for me.


Of course, if you really want everything manual, then I agree, auto iso is moot :)

[JustinThyme]

I always shoot full manual. There is no difference from shooting M and using auto ISO or shooting P or Tv or Av. Choosing the correct ISO is the same as choosing one of the other two. The cameras metering system sees the entire area of the selected metering and uses that to calculate any of the above depending on what mode you have chosen with preference to preventing blown highlights. Problem is what if most of the frame is white? Its a guarantee you will walk away with an underexposed image, same goes for black but in reverse you will end up with an over exposed image.


I tried auto ISO on my MKIV once very briefly shooting a soccer game with clouds rolling in and out. The exposures were all over the place. Some over, some under maybe one or two out of a hundred exposed corrrectly. I tried it with every metering option and probably the best was evaluative and the worst (what I use most of the time) was spot. If everything is a constant, which it seldom is, and you get it dialed in then it will work fine but then it will never change. By the time you went to all that trouble you may as well have used full manual and not auto ISO.

[peety3]

There

[HDNitehawk]

I always shoot full manual. There is no difference from shooting M and using auto ISO or shooting P or Tv or Av. Choosing the correct ISO is the same as choosing one of the other two. The cameras metering system sees the entire area of the selected metering and uses that to calculate any of the above depending on what mode you have chosen with preference to preventing blown highlights. Problem is what if most of the frame is white? Its a guarantee you will walk away with an underexposed image, same goes for black but in reverse you will end up with an over exposed image.


I tried auto ISO on my MKIV once very briefly shooting a soccer game with clouds rolling in and out. The exposures were all over the place. Some over, some under maybe one or two out of a hundred exposed corrrectly. I tried it with every metering option and probably the best was evaluative and the worst (what I use most of the time) was spot. If everything is a constant, which it seldom is, and you get it dialed in then it will work fine but then it will never change. By the time you went to all that trouble you may as well have used full manual and not auto ISO.





There is a lot of difference between the 1D IV auto ISO and some of the older bodies. The ISO on the 1D IV is a true auto ISO. In manual mode if you select your shutter speed and aperture and auto ISO the camera is going to adjust the ISO through its full range and if you are not used to it you will find yourself shooting at ISO 3200 or higher when your really do not want to.


I have the 1D IV and I have never seen a problem with the exposure. It was me not understanding the camera. If you are going to use the full auto option on the 1D IV you set the range you feel would be acceptable to you. I set mine between 100 and 1600, if it is real sunny I might take it down to 100 to 800.


The 7d and 1D IV are true fully auto ISO, from what I understand any of the older bodies are not. I know the 5D Mark II isn't.

[JustinThyme]

Evidently other folks have had different experiences than I have had. I come from the old school where the camera did nothing for you. Most of my shooting is sports and very active with changing backgrounds, clouds moving in and out etc. The camera deosnt know what a highlight is is a true statement but I have found that the camera does give preference to limiting exposure based on the hottest part of the image which is the highlights.


My preference is to choose what I want and how I want the exposure to look and not let the camera decide. I call it painting with light. I am also fully aware of how the meter is faked out and apply that to my manual settings instead of using auto and exposure compensation as when shooting outdoors and the lighting changes so did the compensation amount, that would require to menu to exposure compensation reset that then back to shooting and adjusting your chosen method in Av or Tv. I can do the same in full manual with a roll of the controller for aperture or shutter speed in half a second.


Yes the metered area is certainly much smaller than the full sensor and is also changed dependant on what mode is used. Im a Canon junkie so my experience is limited to the Canon products begining with the original 1D and every body since then with the exception of no rebel series.


An example, had I shot this in auto anything the image would have been under exposed. I instead choose to meter a neutral place of the grass at such events and remeter as necessary if the clouds roll in or out.


Different folks have different styles, full manual always works flawlesly for me. About the worse case scenario for auto modes is mid day sun with shadows in the backround, at leastthat has been my experieince.


[View:http://www.rnmphotography.com/photos/612725817_pFpej-XL-1.jpg]

[HDNitehawk]

Justin


If it works it works, go with what works.


The point I was making is that when talking about auto ISO, if you are talking the old D series bodies as compared to the new 1D IV they aren't the same animal.


The new 1D IV will run the ISO up and down the full range before it lets you know that you need to adjust the shutter. It can turn out some very bad pics like that. The old bodies selected what it thought was an appropriate ISO and it set it. The bad thing about the Auto ISO on the 1D IV is that if you want to underexpose or overexpose as compared to what the camera suggests, if you have it in Auto ISO you end up with the camera running up to ISO 12800 or down to ISO 100 if you haven't changed the range in the camera.


Auto ISO has its place. If I am out and nothing is changing much and no action I stick with Manual ISO setting.


On the 1D IV it is real good if you narrow the range down in auto, mine is 100-800 or 100-1600 depending on my mood at the time, and I use it where there is a lot of fast action with light change. Birds in Flight, at dusk coming down from the over lit sky in to the shade is a good example.

[JustinThyme]

I may give that a go just to see how it performs. The only time I have found I have needed higher ISO is shooting night games under the lights or indoors and actually found the MKIV to be useable in real terms up to ISO 6400 although the post process noise reduction is a bit heavy the images are still very useable. On the MKIII I never went past ISO 1600.

[darklord]

I think in modern digital camera shooting in M vs in Av, TV or P are very much the same thing. Because even in M, you still rely on the metering but you can lock down the shutter speed, aperture and ISO when you think you got a working combination. When the lighting change, even in M, you still need the camera

[Jon Ruyle]

Because even in M, you still rely on the metering but you can lock down the shutter speed, aperture and ISO when you think you got a working combination.


I'm not sure I understand. How do you rely on metering in M? Or do you mean M with auto ISO? But in that case, how are you locking down ISO?

[JustinThyme]

I humbly disagree.


M is up to the photographer to decide using the meter as a tool knowing that center is not always the best place on the meter and where to have it is based on a lot of variables. Every other mode attempts center on the meter which you can adjust what is center with exposure compensation but that takes precious time and as soon as you move on to another composition that changes. On very rare ocassions I will shoot Av when clouds are rolling in and out faster than I can keep up with it but also count on having far less keepers and images that lack "POP" because I had to attempt bringing back dark detail on an underexposed image or recover blown highlights in an overexposed image. An example when shooting sports is something as simple as jersey colors. Say you are shooting a game that one team is in white and the other in black and using spot metering. and shooting Av ot Tv. If no exposure compensation is used the shots where the white jerseys are metered the images will come out underexposed as more reflected light affected metering and the inverse for the black jerseys. OK so now you try and use exposure compensation but which one do you choose? The white or the black? Which ever you do choose the other is not going to work well and as soon as a cloud rolls in its all out the window as the white is not as reflective and the black is even darker. The reason I chose the above image as an example is the meter changed drastically during that entire game from one end to the other but I never changed the settings from ISO400, f4, 1/3200 using a neutral place in the grass to set up before the game started and clicking off a few and viewing the histogram to make sure. In this particular image the meter was actually about a stop up from center becasue of the white jersey, move the camera to take that white jersey out of the metering area and catch the background and it goes 2 stops down. Either would have resulted in an incorrectly exposed image in an auto mode with an underexposed image on the white and severely over exposed and uselessly blown image if on the shadows.

[darklord]

In this day and age most people use the M mode by looking at the metering pointer in the viewfinder, start when the pointer is in the center, take a shoot, check the LCD and then adjust the exposure. So essentially, you still use the metering of the camera to a certain extend. Of course, there are people who rely on the sunny f/16 rule and ignore the metering of the camera completely.


That

[darklord]

I agreed with what you are saying Justin and I think in your case where it makes perfect sense to use the M mode.

[JustinThyme]

Here is another example taken during NY SkyBlue inaugural game vs LA Sol. Christe Rampone, former US olympic team captain, takes out Marta.


Im not even going to try and guess what would have happened in auto mode as all the enemies come into play on this one. Bright vs dark uniform and harsh mid day sun.


[View:http://www.rnmphotography.com/Sports/Professional-Soccer/SkyBlue-Vs-LA-Sol/4P8B0898/506282230_XGeMc-XL-6.jpg]

[darklord]

Great shots, Justine. Just wondering how do you get around the problem of using zoom lens in M mode. You need to reset the shutter speed when you change focal lenght right?

[jcrowe87]

The shutter speed shouldn

[darklord]

That

[JustinThyme]

All of the above!


By choice the only zooms I own are fixed aperture and the only one I use for sports is the 70-200 2.8L IS which is what the second shot was taken with along with a 1.4TC. The first shot was a 300 2.8 prime. Most venues I take two bodies with two lenses, one is always the 70-200 and the other depending on the venue is either the 300 2.8 or the 400 2.8 tripod mounted with a gimbal head. Some use two bodies and have the larger rig on a monopod but I cringe when I see them toss a $10K rig to the ground to use the 70-200. Those are the same people you see with the paint missing off the lens and call it battle scars. I also have found that these same people shoot for a company that provides the gear so the damage comes out of someone elses pocket. I have literally seen a PJ form the NY times pick up a 300 2.8 from Canon Jamesburg after repairs, walk out and pop the trunk on the way and toss the lens in the trunk unprotected from 2-3 ft away then slam the trunk. I buy a lot of used glass but never the battle scarred. While the big whites are built like tanks they are still precision instruments. In talking with a lot of repair techs the only ones they have that come in and actually need parts are the ones that have been abused.


There is no need to change on a fixed aperture zoom.


Using a variable aperture lens like a 100-400 gives you a few choices. You can either shoot full Manual and set the aperture to the highest setting at 5.6 or use the auto mode of choice. Me I would use the 5.6 for continuity although my personal tastes is for a bit more narrow DOF. IMO it doesnt yeild consistant results across a shoot when the aperture is constantly changing. Some will say 5.6 is too choked down and limits the light you can shoot in. Well if the light isnt good enough to use the entire range of the zoom in a variable aperture lens its time to get off the wallet for faster fixed aperture. Most of the time I am shooting sports the aperture is a f4, never above. Sometimes indoors or under the lights I am forced to open it up a bit to keep the shutter speed up but only open as much as necessary. F2.8 narrows the DOF considerably and I find too much of the compostion is OOF especially in close tightly framed shots when shooting sports involving more than one athlete in the frame. There are some instances like a "sportrait" where 2.8 yeilds nice results but f4 will as well as long as you have good separation from the background.