Ariel Bravy
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On
|
alundeb wrote:
Is it really that hard to understand that the 1D is below acceptable image quality, while 5D has acceptable image quality, and it will continue to be that way?
It is actually. It was fine back in the day. Why wouldn't it be today? Has the IQ of the camera changed over the years?
Newer cameras may have raised our standards and given us different options, but what we find acceptable is a very much a personal decision based upon the user's own needs. What one person finds acceptable enough another person wouldn't. So it's really a judgement call. Not really a black and white answer.
veroman wrote:
The 10D, which I owned, is a nice camera. But once you've shot with a 5D Mk 1 or Mk II, it's almost impossible to go back to the 10D — or even the 20D, 30D, 40D or 50D — and be comfortable with the results. The differences between these cameras are not at all subtle. Indeed, they are quite dramatic. Even the Canon xsi trumps the 10D when it comes to image quality.
I went from a 1D2 to a 1D, and even used most of the new 5D, 1D, and 1Ds incarnations quite a bit, yet I don't feel that limited by the 1D. If you gave me a 1DIV I'd gladly take it, don't get me wrong, but when the AF, handling, and overall performance satisfies your needs, it's nice to be out of the game of lusting out of more more more.
Not that I'm trying to defend the older cameras here and while I agree that it can be hard to go back after using something newer, but perhaps I'm just less demanding of IQ than most of you guys here? The 1D's 4mp don't feel very limiting in the ways I use the camera, yet at the same time I can totally understand that for others it would be. No doubt.
veroman wrote:
Diminishing the value and importance of the body steers newcomers astray. It leads them to believe that a 10D or NIkon D60 "will be just fine," and that they should invest in good glass before they spend big bucks on a camera body (how many times have we heard THAT one before!). It's simply not true, and it's not valid advice.
That's true, yes. More modern cameras offer FAR more bang for the buck for most newcomers and even though the whole "invest your money in lenses" thing holds a lot of water, it doesn't altogether invalidate the importance of the body.
veroman wrote:
A 7D, 5D II, 1D IV, 1D III, etc., will far, far, far outperform the 1D Classic or anything else from that era.
Yes, in the right hands, a 1D will produce some really good IQ. Imagine those same hands working with a 1D IV. Don't you think the outcome will be better images?
Better images? How so?
Better IQ noise-wise in low-light? Sure, if you use it that way.
More megapixels? If that matters for you, then sure, that'll help.
Better AF? It would be nice to have cross-points on some of the off-center AF points, but keep in mind that the older cameras like the 1D and 1D2 didn't have some of the funky focusing issues that we're seeing with new cameras like with the 1D3 and so they don't seem to need MA. I'd be curious to see if lenses that need MA on newer bodies perform fine natively on older bodies.
Live-view? I loved using it on the 5D2 and 1D3, but that too depends on if it's a must-have item for your shooting style.
14-bit images? I'm not too aware of the extent to which it helps. Perhaps someone else can help me out here.
How exactly would the 1DIV give you better images than a 1D more than giving you better ISO performance?
I'm not trying to be a sarcastic here. As someone with an older body who's scratching his head and wondering why people keep wanting something newer, I'm genuinely curious. Again, must just be a matter of what camera meets your own personal needs.
|
