Canon 1Ds and 1D an upgrade?

<p class="MsoNormal"]I&rsquo;m currently shooting with a 20D and 40D.<span> I like both cameras; my only complaint is the
auto focus doesn&rsquo;t seem to lock on in low light situations very well.<span> I&rsquo;m also not convinced that the focus points
are that accurate. <span>I shoot mostly
between 1.2 and 2.0 so I&rsquo;m sure some, if not most, of it is my fault.<span> I still can&rsquo;t help but think at that aperture
there may be better tools.<span> My original
thinking was that I would spend my money on good glass and get by with a lower
end camera.<span> I feel like I have a great
collection of glass now and I think it&rsquo;s time to start thinking about a better
camera.<span> I shoot mostly portraits and
high school sports.<span> I did second shoot
three weddings last year and have am going to do three or four next year.<span> I shoot at 200 ISO most of the time with the
exception of football when I&rsquo;m at 1600 ISO.<span>
The 20D/40D has been a little noisy, but I can live with it.<span> Auto focus is the one thing I most want to
improve from my 20D/40D.
<p class="MsoNormal"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]My first thought is that as soon as the replacement for the
Mk III comes out the 1DMkIII will really drop in price.<span> It seems to have received a bad rap and I
can&rsquo;t imaging people getting top dollar for a used model.<span> This seems like the perfect camera for me as
most of my sports shooting is indoors or evening.<span> Bright light seems to be the bad time to
shoot with this camera but I would imaging it would still be better then my
40D.<span> Do you think this camera used will
come down to under 2,000.00?
<p class="MsoNormal"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]The other option is a 1DsMkII that I see for around
2,500.00.<span> That is a little more then I
want to spend, but that may come down in price as will with the release of the
MkIII replacement.<span> Also the 1DMkIIn is a
possibility&ndash; not sure what that is going for at the moment.
<p class="MsoNormal"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]However, after thinking through all this I started wondering
about the original 1Ds and 1D.<span> Would the
auto focus in these cameras be better then the ones I&rsquo;m currently using?<span> How much has technology improved over the
years?<span> How much better is the auto focus
on the MkII versions over the original 1Ds and 1D?<span> If the auto focus is great, I could use the
1Ds as my portrait camera and the 1D as my sports camera (8x10 is about as big
as I print the high school sports stuff so I would think 4megs would be enough.)<span> I could probably pick both up for the price
of a used 1DMkIII.<span> Any thoughts?
<p class="MsoNormal"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]Thanks for any help with this,
<p class="MsoNormal"]<o:p></o:p>
<p class="MsoNormal"]JT

<div>


I have thought a lot about this. Canon doesn't have a market segment for the kind of camera that I want the most: a normal-bodied (non-integrated grip), fully-sealed camera with 1D-class AF that's full-frame. Rather than make a 3D-type camera, they seem very content on protecting their pro features in the 1Ds and treating the 5D-series like an amateur's camera even though it is used by pros alike. I have the 5DmkII and can attest to the many improvements over the 5D, but AF and speed are not (more than the minimum improvement) one of them. I have also owned the XTi and 30D. All are GREAT cameras for what they're designed for.


In my limited experience with a 1DmkIII, the AF, as well as the handling and ergonomics, is in a different class on the 1D-series than any of Canon's other cameras. Why Canon can't share it with some of it's mid-to-high-end line is a pain point for me. There are two things that keep me from ever wanting a 1D camera and that's size (I'm not a pro&mdash;don't need the kind of battery life the mandatory grip dictates or the attention a camera that size attracts) and the APC-H sensor. Both deal-breakers. It sounds like for you, the 1DmkII would be a good investment, as it has the most reliable AF.


My problem is wishing my 5DmkII (and my old 30D) was more of a PJ camera. At the moment, Canon only really bestows that honor to the 1DmkIII. On a tripod or handheld with static subjects, I find all of Canon's pro-sumer lineup to work fabulously. I continuously get so-so results shooting candids and kids, mostly with regard to focus. Much to my chagrin, there is a camera that perfectly fits my requirements. It's called the <span style="text-decoration: line-through;"]Canon Nikon D700! Despite the cost of having to own two systems, I'm strongly considering buying one for all the fast-moving things in my life. Good luck.



</div>

I went from a 20D to a 40D and now own a 1D mark III. They were all huge upgrades. The AF on the 1D is much better than the 40d. The AF points are better situated, the AF is faster, the high sensitivity points on the 1D allow me to use any of those nine points versus just the center one of the 40D....I could go on ad nauseum.


That being said. I love the 40D and it takes great photos. The 1D clearly outperforms at hight ISO. I will go to 1600 with the 40D and 3200 with the 1D. I think a stop of improvement at high ISO is a conservative assessment.


With center point selected and comparing focus lock, I can't say that the AF of the 1D is in another league than the 40D. But if you take all of the AF features and custom functions and compare it to the 40D, then the 1D is miles ahead.


I really doubt the 1D will ever get that cheap. I think the used market will go cheap but there is so much to the 1D that I can't see a new one getting cheaper than 3,000 rather than the 2,000 you are hoping for. Even at 3 grand, it is worth every penny. And for what it is worth, I have had zero issues with the AF.

JT -


I've owned the 10D, 20D, 40D, 5D, 1D, 1D Mk II, and 1Ds. I currently still have the original 1D (my third now...), 1D Mk II (won't pry it from my cold dead hands) and my third 1Ds. You are right in your assumptions - even going from the 40D to the old (2001) 1D is in some ways an upgrade. The 40D is a wonderful camera, but the AF of the 1-series is light years ahead of the XXD series Canons. Your best bet is a 1D Mk II, which can usually be had for around $1250 for a very good example. There's a reason why most of the world used them (and many PJs still do!). The same goes for the 1Ds, though I find them to be slower in AF. I've now had three original 1D models and each time I sold a previous one, I regretted it. Average used price is $500-600 for a clean example, and they are bullet-proof. For that kind of money, there's nothing out there that can touch it. The 4.2MP file it creates is very clean at lower ISO settings, but anything beyond 800 is pretty useless. They were not known for their light sensitivity - get better glass instead!


For less than the price of a good used 1D Mk III, I would (and do) have a 1D Mk II and either a 5D or a 1Ds - personally the 5D is a better studio camera. Don't bother with the 1D Mk IIN, you really only get the bigger screen and slightly bigger buffer for an exorbitant price gouge. IMHO, its not worth the $500-600 price difference from the Mk II.


Hope this helps...feel free to PM me for any other questions.

Well, JT - you've gotten some good thoughts on your problem. Let me add to the stack.


I shoot a MkIII. Mine is a "Blue Dot", or one manufactured after the problem was found. I have had no problem whatsoever with it.


But, I doubt if the price for a good used one will fall below $2k for some time. I agree with your rational that the price will drop once the MkIV comes out simply because buyers won't know if they are getting a lemon or a good one. My suggestion is to find a good MkIIn. Many (most?) of the other shooters I see at sporting events are still using the MkIIn. Yeah - I get better high ISO performance and there are other differences, but the older camera still does very well indeed. Even if you have to repair a blown shutter after you buy it, you'll still have a bargain.


Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Doug Young

My suggestion is to find a good MkIIn. Many (most?) of the other shooters I see at sporting events are still using the MkIIn. Yeah - I get better high ISO performance and there are other differences, but the older camera still does very well indeed. Even if you have to repair a blown shutter after you buy it, you'll still have a bargain.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I'm not sure I agree that the Mk IIn is a "bargain" at the prices its trading for....IMHO it offers very little in the way of an upgrade from the Mk II for a lot more money - or am I wrong? What are the real advantages of the Mk IIn over the Mk II besides a slightly bigger buffer and the larger screen (with the same resolution)? Anyone care to chime in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob Gardner

JT -


I've owned the 10D, 20D, 40D, 5D, 1D, 1D Mk II, and 1Ds. I currently still have the original 1D (my third now...), 1D Mk II (won't pry it from my cold dead hands) and my third 1Ds. You are right in your assumptions - even going from the 40D to the old (2001) 1D is in some ways an upgrade. The 40D is a wonderful camera, but the AF of the 1-series is light years ahead of the XXD series Canons. Your best bet is a 1D Mk II, which can usually be had for around $1250 for a very good example. There's a reason why most of the world used them (and many PJs still do!). The same goes for the 1Ds, though I find them to be slower in AF. I've now had three original 1D models and each time I sold a previous one, I regretted it. Average used price is $500-600 for a clean example, and they are bullet-proof. For that kind of money, there's nothing out there that can touch it. The 4.2MP file it creates is very clean at lower ISO settings, but anything beyond 800 is pretty useless. They were not known for their light sensitivity - get better glass instead!


For less than the price of a good used 1D Mk III, I would (and do) have a 1D Mk II and either a 5D or a 1Ds - personally the 5D is a better studio camera. Don't bother with the 1D Mk IIN, you really only get the bigger screen and slightly bigger buffer for an exorbitant price gouge. IMHO, its not worth the $500-600 price difference from the Mk II.


Hope this helps...feel free to PM me for any other questions.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Rob,


I've been thinking to get either a 40d, 1Ds or 1D mkII. I heard that the 1ds and the 1d mkII is not really intuitive to use. The 40d is very intuitive(easy to change settings) but the AF is as you say "light years" behind the 1ds and1dmkII. I mostly do weddings(part time), so do you think the af of 1d series beat 40d's intuitive control?


thanks!

Those seem quite far apart in terms of performance and features. $800 vs $8000. Like playing an instrument, nothing worth doing is easy. Assume a learning curve for truly pro stuff.

JT -


I'm in a similar boat as you. I currently have a 20D that I've been shooting with for about 3 years now.
I'm an amateur, but now have my first real "job" where I will be shooting some motorcycle racing.


I just purchased what seems to be an EXTREMELY clean 1D mkII. (has not arrived yet, eagerly awaiting UPS man).
For me, the price of the mkII was just too right to pass up, I got a very low use (12,000 actuations) with extra battery and everything that came in the box for $1100. Thing looks like new in pictures.

I also was looking at the mkIIn, but there was not a large enough feature upgrade to justify the cost that people want out of the camera.


The 1Ds was never on my radar because I am wanting the fps over the MP.


For what you, and I are using it for the mkII seems like the best bang for the buck.

Ok, got it last night.


Wow, I like it. Haven't had the time to really get to know it yet, but have taken about 50 shots just playing around.
The AF definately seems faster. Shutter.....WAY faster! Makes a very different sound also.


Not as user friendly, you will want to read the manual, the holding a button to do functions kinda sucks, but I'm already starting to get used to it. (I read the manual .pdf before getting the camera)


Pictures seem better, now that may just be hopefull thinking, but they really do.


Unit is prestine, I put the shoulder strap on it.........it hadn't ever been used.
Look around, good cameras are out there and the deals are out there too.





Good luck!

Glad to hear you like the MkII - it will quickly become your best friend. I would ditch the manual and read this review backwards and forwards: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1dmkii/ - it really is the best out there IMHO and covers the camera in a way no manual ever could. Welcome to the Canon 1-series club and best of luck with it!


rob