And why was using the 1D for your 4MP so much more enjoyable than using a smaller higher resolution body for these shots?

>>Good or bad, like or not, i don't care. I know i enjoy doing it, and I like them!

If I was mainly shooting daylight sport photography and my budget was low, the 1D was probably the highest cam on my list. Then again, for "general" shooting I'd much prefer the 40D for the same budget.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

It was Canons flagship camera and it did cost $ 6000. So it's rather funny when people are bragging about taking descent pics with it a few years later

Lars Johnsson wrote:
It was Canons flagship camera and it did cost $ 6000. So it's rather funny when people are bragging about taking descent pics with it a few years later

And even funnier to read comments like "the machine as a whole is useless".

If I were low in budget and I want a full featured pro body, I would pick the 1D. It's the best value (soon will be 1D II). I fully recognize it has limitations. Just don't understand all the bashing against an old pro body. How come all of sudden it became incapable of producing excellent images? As a gearhead myself, 1D still holds a special place. It's the 1st pro body I had which led to 1D II, 1D III and 1Ds II later.

The 1D did not make it possible for wedding and landscape photographers to switch from film to digital, It was not only the price tag, but the quality was not up there. With the 5D it was.

Pieces of equipment from the childhood of a certain technology are always expensive and underperforming.

alundeb wrote:
The 1D did not make it possible for wedding and landscape photographers to switch from film to digital, It was not only the price tag, but the quality was not up there. With the 5D it was.

Pieces of equipment from the childhood of a certain technology are always expensive and underperforming.


The 1D was never aimed for the wedding & landscape photographer. Neither was it's replacements. And there have never been any DSLR that will be perfect and the best for every kind of photography
The 5d was underperforming for sport shooters but that body was not aimed at those either

Lars Johnsson wrote:
alundeb wrote:
The 1D did not make it possible for wedding and landscape photographers to switch from film to digital, It was not only the price tag, but the quality was not up there. With the 5D it was.

Pieces of equipment from the childhood of a certain technology are always expensive and underperforming.


The 1D was never aimed for the wedding & landscape photographer. Neither was it's replacements. And there have never been any DSLR that will be perfect and the best for every kind of photography
The 5d was underperforming for sport shooters but that body was not aimed at those either

I partly agree, but the point finally is that the 1D does not deliver the best overall package for the money unless you specify sports and newsprint.

The latest-generation successor 1D IV is a true all-around camera, with image quality > 5D (higher res, same ISO noise) for landscape and wedding.....

The latest-generation successor 1D IV is a true all-around camera, with image quality > 5D (higher res, same ISO noise) for landscape and wedding.....

And it's 10x the price of a 1D. Agreed if money does not matter and nobody is arguing that old 1D can do what the latest generation of bodies can. Get it into prospective please.

Gee... I might just keep my eye out for a good used one after reading this thread. Cool camera.

pity, I am a poor photographer, so 1D for me just means all, thanks 1d

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.

From my experience, 1D images are very vivid straight out of camera. Colors seems to be somewhat different from newer CMOS based cameras - that is what i like on old 1D.
All A4 prints (8.3 × 11.7) from 1D i have at home are pretty detailed and absolutely no problem to do.
Beyond some disadvantages one can be pretty happy with this camera.

no more discussion, just 1D samples
#1 EOS-1D 1/400 f/2.2 ISO200 Canon 24mm/1.4L

#2 EOS-1D 1/400 f/6.3 ISO320 Canon 24-85mm @ 85mm

#3 EOS-1D 1/1000 f/4 ISO200 Canon 80-200/2.8L @ 200mm

#4 EOS-1D 1/320 ISO250 CZ Jena Flektogon 35mm/2.4

#5 EOS-1D 1/100 f/3.2 ISO250 Sigma 24mm/2.8 super wide II

Loved mine, but the censor was crap at anything over the lowest ISO. There were clearly two "sides" to the sensor, with different noise profiles, a clear line down the middle, and really, really bad banding. Apparently this was a common problem with some earlier serial #s.

I'll get another some day--one without the jacked up sensor.

I really dont get all these that knock the 1D. for what it costs its a great camera.
OK now imagine your on a tight budget (I know that might be hard for those around that can afford to drop $$$$$$ on the lates and greatest ).
Your target is to shoot stuff that moves. on your budget you have a choice of 1D or 2nd hand rebels 20D or possibly a 30D.
What will be the better image , the In Focus 4mp or the out of focus 8mp+ file?

The 1D came out 9 years ago, in those 9 year cameras have got much better , but I guess with the pace of progress we will still have the same aguement over the 1D4's piddley little 16mp against 1D8's 30-50+mp

Ariel Bravy wrote:
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.

.

The standards for high image quality existed long before the 1D.

In the digital imaging childhood, nobody took the image quality from digital cameras seriously. As they improved, they became useful for snapshots and photojournalism, and later for landscape and wedding work.

We probably disagree on where the 1D stands in this context, but the camera was not accepted by wedding and landscape photographers back then, and that was beacuse it could not meet the quality they already got from film.

I cannot see what all of the fuss is over the Canon 1D (Mk1) . I have two and love them for sports, all events too, and find them far more accurate in focusing than the newer Canon bodies. Why is it the 1D never needed the calibration but the newer cameras do?

Images have a film-like look and are totally different than the CMOS cameras out today. So what if it uses more power, CCDs usually do and we carry around extra batteries, but think about the guys in the Speed graphic days who had to carry around many many film holders, Grafmatics too, for shooting pics.

its great for Basketball with strobes..gotta love a sync faster than 1/250th!:


Football





track & field:






..and toss in a wedding pic too



and some misc. pictures too with available light:





Had the same two bodies for almost 4 years now and ( knock on wood) they still keep on ticking!

canonet wrote:

Images have a film-like look...




You mean "organic", don't you?

rocketpop wrote:
Loved mine, but the censor was crap at anything over the lowest ISO. There were clearly two "sides" to the sensor, with different noise profiles, a clear line down the middle, and really, really bad banding. Apparently this was a common problem with some earlier serial #s.

I'll get another some day--one without the jacked up sensor.

This was known as the 'split sensor syndrome' and it could be fixed by Canon.

molson wrote:
canonet wrote:

Images have a film-like look...




You mean "organic", don't you?