Hi - I'm considering getting an original 1D, and one of the special things about that body is the sync speed of 1/500. However, the (typically) stop-faster sync speed is somewhat countered by the fact that the 1D starts at ISO 200, with ISO 100 available "only" as an expansion ISO.
How compromised is ISO 100 on the 1D? I looked at the dpreview.com review of the 1D, and it shows highlight detail blowing out more easily at ISO 100 compared to ISO 200. Is that the main difference? Is there one-stop less headroom (in RAW) at ISO 100? Are there other considerations?
There are several reasons why one might like a lower ISO (like using a slow shutter speed in bright light), but there are ways around having to lower the ISO beyond what is available or even capable on a given camera:
1> use of a ND or polarizing filter
2> use a smaller MINIMUM aperature lens
3> if possible, shoot subject in lower light, i.e. earlier or later in the day
Thanks for the replies! My main reason for wanting ISO 100 would be to beat down the sun for flash-lit outdoor exposures. The suggestion to use a ND or polarizing filter with ISO 200 is a good one.
Everyone fails to realize why ISO 100 on the 1dmkII isn't all that different from ISO 200 on the 1D.
Shutter speed...
The original 1D is the only one with a max shutter speed of 1/16,000...twice the shutter speed of any other 1D...thus making the ISO difference a moot point
It's an excellent body but eats batteries like crazy. The problem is so severe that ever since I got the 40D several months ago I always use it, despite lesser ergonomics (at least IMHO). It's collecting dust ever since. And yes, I have more batteries but I do not consider this a proper remedy.
It's an OT, I know, but I feel it's a consideration any future 1D owner must know beforehand.
I'm aware of the battery-hunger of the 1D... I am a 40D owner (previously 30D, 20D, 10D), and have not yet convinced myself to add the 1D. The arguments "for" are
-- the 1/500+ sync speed for outdoor-flash-overpowering-the-sun portraiture
-- weatherproofing, for shooting in the rain
-- 1-class autofocus, I suppose for shooting my kids in sports/motion-in-general
-- curiosity of what a 1-series body is like (may result in future purchase of more current 1-series body???)
The main arguments against are:
-- "only" 4MP (I know, they're "good" megapixels, but for shooting birds, I'm going to use the 40D to put more pixels on the subject)
-- learning the U.I. and quirks of a 2nd body
-- the heavy, short-lasting batteries as you note.
Not that I will necessarily buy anything if I don't buy the 1D, but the alternative may be a G9!
Paul,
before you discount the 4mp of the 1D, I have printed 13x19 crops of these 4mp images with tremendous detail. Also, with after market batteries, I have gotten as many as 1500 shots out of a battery in freezing temperatures. It all depends on whether you're using IS the whole time, refocusing or using AI servo a lot etc.
Its a great camera and a great way to get into a 1 series body at a reasonable price.
When I bought the 1D it was class leader for its frugal battery consumption. Coming from a Nikon D1x which could take as little as ten shots on a charge to 120 on a good day the 350 ~ 650 shots per charge of the 1D was so refreshing.
Also unlike the Nikon battery of the day, it would not just go flat in an afternoon, I've had the 1D battery last more than a week at times, remarkable when on was faced with a guaranteed flat battery every morning from the D1x.
Of course by modern standards where batteries last for months and take 3,000 ~6,000 shots, the 350 ~ 650 shots per charge form a good battery for the 1D makes it look bad.
But it was remarkable in it's day and was a significant factor in driving more professionals to Canon. What Nikon did with the same battery cells has since been rectified but not for many years after the problem was known.
TVRguy wrote:
If you want to overpower the sun, why not use FP mode (stroboscopic) on your flash?
If I understand correctly, the effective power of the flash goes down in FP mode - the faster the shutter speed, the worse the power loss. I figure also to be using power-robbing modifiers such as shoot-through umbrellas, so I don't think I can afford the loss of power in FP mode. Or... maybe I need not to use shoot-through umbrellas...
The only time I have found ISO 200 to be limiting is at the race track when I'm trying to drag the shutter at 1/100s or slower to blur the background and wheels on a sunny day. Even at ISO100 I could have used an ND filter so I wouldn't have to use F20or higher...
There are times when completely freezing the car looks good and the 1/16000 shutter is extremely useful. Catching a tire in the air or tire distortion in mid corner, but for panning shots, there needs to be a sense of motion and you can only do that with a slow shutter..
In these pictures, having a real iso 100 wouldn't have helped because it was so bright, so any camera would have been at F18 or higher....
re:1D battery fears... It's an OT, I know, but I feel it's a consideration any future 1D owner must know beforehand.
Just get Lenmar replacements over the Canon overpriced bricks and DOUBLE the
shots you'll get between charges. That's gotta be the worst reason not to try the 1D!
