Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1? - FM Forums

Register · Search · Software · Join Upload & Sell · Hosting

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 end

Archive 2009 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

Marcel VanEerd
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

I'm glad to see there's still support for older models. I can't wait to start using the original 1Ds. I posted in another recent thread the excellent deal I got on one, and after using the 1D classic for close to a year now, I have really learned to appreciate it and use it well. I've always wanted to go FF and I'll be posting some samples as soon as I have my camera back with the brand new shutter and mirror assembly.

Aug 14, 2009 at 06:14 PM

thedigitalbean
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #2 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

Thats a good point Steve. As you've said, its not something you can just take on its own. I.e. lower pixel pitch isn't an absolute indication of a superior sensor. As you indicated the design of the micro lenses are also very important.

Regarding the issue of light spill, I've seen nothing (either in my own observations) nor in any review to indicate that the newer FF DSLRs with decreased pixel pitch have issues regarding spill or blown highlights.

Your point however is very well taken for P&S cameras, but the pixel pitch difference between a P&S camera and a FF (or even 1.6x crop) DSLR is several binary orders of magnitude. Maybe when we start seeing FF DSLRs with 100mp sensors, this may start to become a real issue.

Aug 14, 2009 at 06:15 PM

lancemoreland
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

thedigitalbean wrote:

There is a notion that newer cameras capture less light / sensel than older cameras but achieve similar noise levels by fancy processing. This is isn't always true and in the case of going from the 5D to the 5D2 it definitely isn't true, so I would guess its not true going from the 1Ds to the 1Ds2 or from the 1Ds2 to the 1Ds3.

According to the white papers noise reduction is being applied even to low iso images of the 5DII. This is not mentioned in the 5D white paper. The 5DII white paper also states:

"Those are impressive sensor improvements,considering that the original EOS 5D had larger 8.2µm pixels compared to 6.4µm pixels on the EOS 5D Mark II, and that pixel noise usually increases as size decreases."

Lance
www.lancemoreland.com

Aug 14, 2009 at 06:23 PM

thedigitalbean
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #4 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

lancemoreland wrote:
thedigitalbean wrote:

There is a notion that newer cameras capture less light / sensel than older cameras but achieve similar noise levels by fancy processing. This is isn't always true and in the case of going from the 5D to the 5D2 it definitely isn't true, so I would guess its not true going from the 1Ds to the 1Ds2 or from the 1Ds2 to the 1Ds3.

According to the white papers noise reduction is being applied even to low iso images of the 5DII. This is not mentioned in the 5D white paper.

All CMOS sensors perform some level of on chip noise reduction, mostly to eliminate dark current noise. Check out this white paper put out shortly after the 5D's release for more information:

http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/White%20Papers/Canon_CMOS_WP.pdf

The noise reduction that they are referring to is applied at each photosite and is used to combat fixed pattern noise and is NOT the same as the noise reduction that we apply in software or that gets applied by the JPEG conversion engine which tends to smear detail.

The 5DII white paper also states:

"Those are impressive sensor improvements,considering that the original EOS 5D had larger 8.2µm pixels compared to 6.4µm pixels on the EOS 5D Mark II, and that pixel noise usually increases as size decreases."

Lance
www.lancemoreland.com

Exactly, what they are saying is that all else remaining the same, pixel noise increases as size decreases. However, what they stated earlier in the white paper is why this isn't true in the case of the 5D2 precisely because the photo diode size hasn't shrunk.

Aug 14, 2009 at 07:07 PM

thedigitalbean
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #5 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

I should add that as far as I know, no manufacturer does any reduction of random noise at the RAW stage (Nikon included). I have mistakenly claimed in the past that Nikon has been doing this on the D3/D700 based on stuff that an engineer friend told me, but that was because of poor communication (he was referring to the elimination of fixed pattern noise and not random noise).

Aug 14, 2009 at 07:13 PM

veroman
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #6 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

thedigitalbean wrote:
I should add that as far as I know, no manufacturer does any reduction of random noise at the RAW stage (Nikon included).

Let's hope so!

- Steve

Aug 14, 2009 at 07:28 PM

lancemoreland
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

thedigitalbean wrote:
I should add that as far as I know, no manufacturer does any reduction of random noise at the RAW stage (Nikon included). I have mistakenly claimed in the past that Nikon has been doing this on the D3/D700 based on stuff that an engineer friend told me, but that was because of poor communication (he was referring to the elimination of fixed pattern noise and not random noise).

I was basing my comments on the application of noise reduction being applied even at low ISO on the 5D mkii based on the information I picked up in the white paper. What leads me to believe that it is in fact also applied to the raw data is that the paper goes into great detail as to the noise reduction circuitry incorporated into the CMOS and they do not differentiate between raw data and jpg output, so I could be wrong. Here is a direct cut and paste:

"However, this second-generation sensor offers increased sensitivity and improved noise reduction circuitry that enables standard ISO’s ranging from 100 to 6400 and expanded ISO ranges from 50 to 25,600."

"High ISO noise reduction can be set to improve image quality at high ISO settings on both cameras.While some noise reduction is applied automatically even to images taken at low ISOs, turning on this function can further reduce noise in low and moderately low ISO images, especially those taken in very hot environments where heat tends to increase camera noise." My comment here: A heated sensor creates noise in the raw data.

The bottom line, whatever the reason the character of an image from one camera to another changes as pixel density increases.

Anyway, I am done, my head hurts, so I am going to go out and take some pictures.

Veroman, Sorry for the highjack.

Lance
www.lancemoreland.com

Aug 14, 2009 at 08:59 PM

thedigitalbean
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #8 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

lancemoreland wrote:
Anyway, I am done, my head hurts, so I am going to go out and take some pictures.

A fine idea! I'll have to do the same.

Aug 14, 2009 at 09:52 PM

Hal Olson
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

I purchased a used 1Ds from a fellow FM'er this last winter and I love the files I'm getting out of it! Yeah it's a bit slow, and has it's limitations, but the files are really nice. I also use a 1D classic and have no issues with the older cameras compared to the newer 30D and 5D that I've used as well.

Aug 15, 2009 at 02:09 AM

Hersch
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #10 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

I no longer have mine but still have some of the old files from it. Here's one with lots of detail but I don't think the exif is still intact.

2012 © Hersch

2012 © Hersch

Aug 15, 2009 at 03:50 AM

cubestwin
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #11 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

I love mine! My only nitpick is the sensor gets dirty much faster than my 40d but that camera has a pseudo sensor cleaning mechanism.... For what I use it for, landscapes, it was the perfect camera for me right now in the perfect price range!!!

Aug 16, 2009 at 12:30 AM

cameron12x
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #12 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

Did the 1Ds have the beloved DEP function?

What should one expect to pay for a good 1Ds on the used market these days?

Sep 24, 2009 at 01:06 AM

gpgt1998
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

Love mine to death. I love the film like quality of the files. I do plan to get a 1Ds mk III, though won't be getting rid of the mk I. Here's a few from recent shoots.

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

This image is copyrighted by the owner

Sep 24, 2009 at 02:06 AM

Daniel Heineck
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

veroman wrote:
thedigitalbean wrote:
Yea but why care about the pixel pitch? Its the size of the photo diode and the microlenses that are actually important since that is what actually does the light collecting.

Pixel pitch ... better known as the space between photo sites ... is something many of the manufacturers DO care about.

When tightly spaced — as they are in cameras like the Canon 5D II, Nikon D300, etc. — and unless properly compensated for by design, the light directed at one photo site can easily spill over to the next, causing blown highlights and other undesireables.

A poor choice in microlens design isn't something we lowly consumers would ever know about or hear about since microlenses aren't exactly a hot topic or something the reviewers dig deeply into. But that poor or relatively compromised design can make one camera just not quite right compared to another, where the microlenses have been specifically designed for a specfic pixel pitch and pixel size (ie the Kodak sensor made for the Leica M8).

I believe pixel pitch, more than pixel size, is what gives up so much trouble with p&s cameras.

- Steve

I don't agree with most everything you just wrote there. Put as strong a color filter as the 1Ds on a 5DII and then we'll talk. Pure and simple.

Alignment of the microlenses is not a big deal--in comparison to mask alignment in chip manufacturing (e.g. a 45 nm node or so) the minimum feature size in a DSLR chip is huge (>250nm or so). Heck, Kodak just made a new sensor for the M9, amazingly enough it's a full frame sensor, which was poo-poo'ed earlier by Leica as being impossible due to telecentricity.

If Sony, Canon, Panasonic, etc could make a scaled up 24x36 version of their tiny P&S sensors, the game would be over. The little sensors are much much better per unit area.

Daniel

Sep 24, 2009 at 02:33 AM

cameron12x
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #15 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

What is the used market like for the 1Ds? What should one expect to pay?

Sep 24, 2009 at 02:54 AM

gpgt1998
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

between $1500 & $800 is what I've seen them going for.

Sep 24, 2009 at 04:23 AM

cameron12x
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #17 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

gpgt1998 wrote:
between $1500 & $800 is what I've seen them going for.

Thanks for the heads-up. Where is the best place to shop for them?

Sep 24, 2009 at 12:32 PM

gpgt1998
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #18 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

I like KEH (tends to be the cheapest), but there's also B&H, Adorama, and Ebay.

Sep 25, 2009 at 05:37 PM

molson
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #19 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

jxsq wrote:
I am using it and i like it.

IQ was pretty good, but i am impressed more by files from 1d though.

Same here... I still love the files from my original 1D... it was worth every penny of the $8,000 I paid for it...

Sep 25, 2009 at 06:30 PM

cameron12x
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #20 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

Has anyone here used any of the Canon tilt/shift lenses with the original 1Ds? Or, for that matter, with the Mark II/III models? If so, what have your experiences been? Thanks!

Sep 27, 2009 at 01:14 PM

jamesf99
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #21 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

Beni wrote:
Had to process a 1Ds file for an order yesterday from a wedding I shot 4 years ago. I'd forgotten how much I hated the files from the 1Ds. ISO 200 and ugly as heck in the shadows.

I've seen so many beautiful images from the original. I'm curious, was the original underexposed? If so, it's no surprise that the shadows could be ugly. Still the case for many bodies, even today..

Sep 27, 2009 at 01:28 PM

jamesf99
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #22 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

Daniel Heineck wrote:
veroman wrote:
thedigitalbean wrote:
Yea but why care about the pixel pitch? Its the size of the photo diode and the microlenses that are actually important since that is what actually does the light collecting.

Pixel pitch ... better known as the space between photo sites ... is something many of the manufacturers DO care about.

When tightly spaced — as they are in cameras like the Canon 5D II, Nikon D300, etc. — and unless properly compensated for by design, the light directed at one photo site can easily spill over to the next, causing blown highlights and other undesireables.

A poor choice in microlens design isn't something we lowly consumers would ever know about or hear about since microlenses aren't exactly a hot topic or something the reviewers dig deeply into. But that poor or relatively compromised design can make one camera just not quite right compared to another, where the microlenses have been specifically designed for a specfic pixel pitch and pixel size (ie the Kodak sensor made for the Leica M8).

I believe pixel pitch, more than pixel size, is what gives up so much trouble with p&s cameras.

- Steve

I don't agree with most everything you just wrote there. Put as strong a color filter as the 1Ds on a 5DII and then we'll talk. Pure and simple.

Alignment of the microlenses is not a big deal--in comparison to mask alignment in chip manufacturing (e.g. a 45 nm node or so) the minimum feature size in a DSLR chip is huge (>250nm or so). Heck, Kodak just made a new sensor for the M9, amazingly enough it's a full frame sensor, which was poo-poo'ed earlier by Leica as being impossible due to telecentricity.

If Sony, Canon, Panasonic, etc could make a scaled up 24x36 version of their tiny P&S sensors, the game would be over. The little sensors are much much better per unit area.

Daniel

Huh? I'm all ears, or eyes.

Splain why Leica said it was impossible and why P&S sensors are better when we see evidence to the contrary daily.

Sep 27, 2009 at 01:32 PM

Daniel Heineck
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #23 · Anyone still using a 1Ds Mark 1?

James,

Just saw this, like a month late ;-)

On a per unit area, the pns sensors seem to be better. Why? Because manufacturers can be a lot more aggressive with the design spec than a ff or even APS-C sensor. The model for a 1/1.8 sensor is much much closer to a cmos design (even if they're making ccd's ) than the big chips are. FF Yield, which is probably not great as it stands would suck even more than it does now using the same design rules/fabrication as a pns sensor.

If you have a look around chipworks blog, I think they have the photon efficiencies and well density per area of these little sensors, and they better the bigger sensors by a lot. Of course, bigger sensors win on pure physics and I'm not going to deny that. Pixel density doesn't matter too terribly much and there doesn't seem to be a lot of cross-photodiode leakage in PnS. I could be mistaken. Higher photon efficiencies would allow ff sensors to either have better iso response or put more aggressive color filters in yielding higher color separation

I don't know why Leica said that going larger than 1.3x was impossible, but that was the official (or am I mistaken) alibi given when the M8 was released: they couldn't get rid of the vignetting. That and the whole m4/3 campaign on smaller sensors. Whoops. Microlenses do a pretty great job of focusing the light into the well, that's all.

Hope that helps.

Daniel

Oct 26, 2009 at 12:21 AM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end