I was going through older files today while putting together a new portfolio and was surprised when I came across some shots from my old Canon 1D mkII.
It's probably been about 3 years since I owned it, but to date it's been the only camera I've actually missed. Even after putting some serious miles on my D3 (and D700, and 5D2, and 7D, and 5D), I can genuinely say that the 1D2 is still my all time favorite. It was just a blast to use. As a side note, I loved the 50mm focal length on the 1.3 crop. I have no clue why as it's such a weird one (65), but I've never like 50 on full frame. Weird.
Anyways, it's pretty impressive what modern software will do. Below is a web size and 100% crop of an ISO 1600 1D2 file, and below that is an ISO 1600 shot from my D3. Both shots are processed through Lightroom 3 with some quick and dirty noise reduction (maybe 1-2 minutes processing time). The D3 is clearly better, but I thought it'd be even more noticeable. Of course, things change dramatically once you go above 1600...
Maybe it's just my rush-job processing
I guess there's probably not much of a point in comparing an 8 year old camera to a 4 year old camera, especially with the impending 1DX and D4, but just thought I'd bore you guys with my late night discoveries
I love my 1d2 and 1d3. Shame on me not using 1d2 at all due to my new year's project "one photo a day of my daughter with 1d classic"... love all 1D cameras... but 1D classic is my current favorite.
since you brought this subject up, I think Im going to leave my 1d3 home this weekend and head out with 1d2 for some motor sports.
The NR software in LR3 is one of the things that has kept me very happy with my 1Ds2 and its (less than stellar) high ISO performance, especially compared to todays technology
I currently have the 1DII also, and don't really have any intention of letting it go anytime soon. It's files and those that came from my 1DsII seemed to have the most processing latitude from any of the other camera's I've had. I've never shot for keeps a 1DIII/DsIII/DIV, so I can't compare against those, but I keep seeing this same topic arise again and again, and just wanted to add my $.02 in there...
Picked up a 1Ds3 last fall and the 1D4 the winter of 2010...but the cameras I have with me no matter what are the 1D2,1D2n and the 1Ds2...and take more shots with the 1D2 and 1D2n then any of my other bodies for regular shooting,because of the smaller file size which still deliver great images.
I've been doing some comparisons the last few days, using the same lenses on two 1D2's and one 1Ds2 (50/2.5 Macro and 100L). The point of my exercise is to equalize white balance between the bodies.
I shot all images in RAW at ISO 200, and for the same subject magnification, the photos looked essentially the same, meaning it was almost impossible to tell which was shot with 8MP and which was shot at 16MP. I thought that was pretty remarkable for 100% details. Color, details, edge sharpness -- all were pretty equal. Granted, the 1Ds2 images were more magnified and overall have better detail, but still, when cropped to same subject size, very little gained with the 1Ds2. (The images were only imported to LR with the native settings.)
I certainly prefer the 1D2 over the 5D when the whole package of controls and build quality is considered. The 8MP images aren't far behind the 5D's near-13MP, especially for people, events and general activites. Only detailed techical subjects (products, architecture, landscape) have a big benefit from the higher MP full frame bodies. So I use the 1D2 whenever I can.
Gunzorro wrote:
I've been doing some comparisons the last few days, using the same lenses on two 1D2's and one 1Ds2 (50/2.5 Macro and 100L). The point of my exercise is to equalize white balance between the bodies.
I shot all images in RAW at ISO 200, and for the same subject magnification, the photos looked essentially the same, meaning it was almost impossible to tell which was shot with 8MP and which was shot at 16MP. I thought that was pretty remarkable for 100% details. Color, details, edge sharpness -- all were pretty equal. Granted, the 1Ds2 images were more magnified and overall have better detail, but still, when cropped to same subject size, very little gained with the 1Ds2. (The images were only imported to LR with the native settings.)
I certainly prefer the 1D2 over the 5D when the whole package of controls and build quality is considered. The 8MP images aren't far behind the 5D's near-13MP, especially for people, events and general activites. Only detailed techical subjects (products, architecture, landscape) have a big benefit from the higher MP full frame bodies. So I use the 1D2 whenever I can....Show more →
There should probably be more comparison threads with photos and crops on this forum, just to remind people that the higher MP lust is somewhat misplaced.
Even at home where I could easily use one of my higher MP bodies...quite often just grab a 1D2 or the 1D2n which I put on a side table in the dining room when I come home from work,because they are close at hand...shot through one of the picture windows in the dining room(the window wasn't spotless at the time,it needed to be cleaned...oh well,may as well take the shot,rather then no shot at all).
Like I said, anything above ISO 1600 and the D3 just stomps it (duh), but it makes me smile to think that I could do 90% of my photo journalism work with a $800ish setup - just the 1D2 and 50 1.8.
Chuck - I almost did scoop up a 1Ds2, but by that point I had just decided to switch over entirely to Nikon. No regrets on my move, just a little sentimentalism for my first pro body
Also, I think it's worth mentioning how abused mine was. The thing was beat to crap before I even got it, then I beat it up some more, then I eventually ended up selling it for $100 more than I paid for it about a year and a half later.
