I recently sold my 1Ds II, but I couldn't be without a 1-Series body. You know how it is. 1-Series cameras are very addictive beasts. So I purchased a 1Ds Mark 1 from FMer mdraege. Near-mint. Less than 15,000 clicks. This is my 3rd 1Ds Mark 1 body.
This past weekend I took it out for a test drive. I didn't realize I'd had the camera accidentally set to the smallest JPEG size, around 2.7MP. No RAW files were shot that day. The images below were upsized from those tiny JPEGs to a little over 10MP, then resized for viewing here. The 1Ds Mark 1 remains a very impressive camera ... quirks, warts and all.
I've see one posted on the B&S board for $999. A bargain.
michael49 wrote:
Looks pretty good, especially considering they were upsized from 2.7mp files!
Well for the purpose of what's posted here, they were still _down_sized from the original. The fact that they did a stopover at 10MP doesn't matter much.
But yes I agree, I loved the 1Ds with my whole heart and my best photography was with it, too.
I also recently purchased a used 1Ds ($1100). Since I also purchased a 7D around the same time, I haven't used it as much as I'd like.
The 7D is far sexier, the but the 1Ds is one solid piece of high-quality machinery. It's a bit slower to operate, but the build quality is top-notch. Focusing is spot on and image quality is great. It can be a bit noisy at higher ISO settings, but a properly exposed image will yield wonderful results.
Many regard the original 1Ds (circa 2002) as the first full-frame digital camera to largely usurp 35mm film with respect to overall IQ. I'm keeping mine for shooting, and as a collectors item.
Nice shots Steve, somehow I thought there might be another 1Ds in your future, old habits die hard. As you look at shots from FF bodies, 1Ds, D700, D3, 5D, 12mp somehow does seem to be a sweet spot. Love the new high res sensors like the 5D2 but the 12mp images are sweet.
davenfl wrote:
Nice shots Steve, somehow I thought there might be another 1Ds in your future, old habits die hard. As you look at shots from FF bodies, 1Ds, D700, D3, 5D, 12mp somehow does seem to be a sweet spot. Love the new high res sensors like the 5D2 but the 12mp images are sweet.
Dave:
Dave: I agree, and I've been thinking about this for quite a while. There seems to be an optimum balance between pixel size and sensor size when it's 11-12MP full frame and 8-10MP crop camera. (Point-and-shoots are another matter entirely.)
I had a long conversation with a fellow from Mamiya about this. His point of view is similar. He believes that a pixel size between 5.8 and 7.2 microns is ideal for a 35mm-sized sensor and that cramming more pixels into the same area, while it does provide superior detail and other benefits, trades off a certain photographic integrity for the sake of resolution ... in other words, the increased resolution may very well give up the "sweetness" you refer to. Perhaps this is why Nikon's first full-frame cameras were 12MP.
On the other hand, digital is still in its infancy. Lots of improvements to look forward to ....
reno.peterson wrote:
Can we turn this into a guessing game? My guess is the 28-300L
Lens was the 24-105L. No way I'd carry around a 1-Series with a 28-300. Been there. Done that. During the course of a shooting day, that's way too much weight for me.
stanj wrote:
Well for the purpose of what's posted here, they were still down sized from the original. The fact that they did a stopover at 10MP doesn't matter much. But yes I agree, I loved the 1Ds with my whole heart and my best photography was with it, too.
You are quite right. The resize downward doesn't provide an indication of how well the files moved upward to 10MP from 2.7MP. I only mentioned the resizing for information purposes. I'll upload some 100% crops of the upsized 10MP images to show you how far you can push the pixels of the 1Ds. To my eyes, it's iimpressive.
veroman wrote:
Lens was the 24-105L. No way I'd carry around a 1-Series with a 28-300. Been there. Done that. During the course of a shooting day, that's way too much weight for me.
- Steve
I had actually guessed the 24-105L and then in "jest" decided to play with the Kahuna Zoom...Nice combo....
veroman wrote:
Lens was the 24-105L. No way I'd carry around a 1-Series with a 28-300. Been there. Done that. During the course of a shooting day, that's way too much weight for me.
You have actually carried a 1-series body with a 28-300? I really think that with such a categorical statement you're seriously limiting yourself. There were a number of cases where having the 28-300 on the camera was deciding between shot and no / bad shot.
SYN ACK wrote:
how is the 1Ds compared to the 5D or 5D mkII ?
i have a 20d now, but would love to try a cheaper variant of full frame (5d mkI or 1Ds classic).
any comments/comparisons? etc?
For low ISO stuff I'd take the 1Ds over the 5D in a heartbeat. Against the 5D2, the IQ question is a whole different one - the 1Ds image seems sharper, in part because the 1Ds has a much weaker AA filter, but mostly because there's simply less resolution and lenses "look better". Then again, the 5D2 AF is still pathetic compared to the 1Ds. So, pick your poison.
stanj wrote:
You have actually carried a 1-series body with a 28-300? I really think that with such a categorical statement you're seriously limiting yourself .....
