This price drop for the 1D is very tempting, but I have my reservations, since the 10D has made improvement on some features since 1D(for example, better high ISO performance, in-camera viewer zoom..etc).
Anyone here who has both(or used both) can tell me if 1D is worth double the price of the 10D? Should I get the 10D instead?
I don't really need super high resolution, since I don't print my work out often(I think I've made less than 10 prints in the last 2 years). I've been shooting with the Olympus C3030Z for the last 2 years. You can see my work here: My Portfolio
The 1D is an fast action camera in operation and capture, and still the best at it until the new Nikon D2H hits the streets soon.
I did peruse your photonet.com portfolio and while there is action happening it is not fast! So a 10D would save you dollars for another nice lens, and still do the job for you!
The 10x LCD review on the 10D is an excellent option the 1D does not have as you stated.
The 10D leaves a bit to be desired in AF performance for sports or fast action which I do, It is capable, but misses enough shots to be frustrating.
People rave about the low noise at high iso ratings of the 10D when really it is only compared to other digitals. Anything above 400asa is pretty noisy in shadow areas.
Professinal press 800asa neg film, Kodak and Fuji are better.
Those are the only areas that I can find fault with in my example of the 10D and they are minor really.
I could use the 1D AF speed and some of its other superior advantages but not enough in my opinion to replace my exsisting kit yet.
I would advise waitng a little while and see what Uncle Canon pulls out of the hat soon. It won't be any more expensive than the price of a 1D now, as a new D2H Nikon can be purchased for US $2999 from the right sources.
Heresy on this forum but Canon glass and Nikon glass are pretty much equivalent on the whole. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. Canon has more IS lenses and seems (IMO) to be a little superior on the long end. But you can split hairs all day; the simple fact is that both systems can produce incredible images in the right hands.
I think you might find Canon a bit cheaper, in lenses and bodies.
On the original question: Unless you need a fast action or ultra rugged, water-proof camera, I believe the 10D is superior and a lot cheaper. You could easily buy a 10D today and -- if you are still shooting very seriously a couple of years from now -- but whatever the version of the 1Ds is at that time.
I think you should start with the 10d. Yes, it has limitations, but with the $1500 savings that you get from the 1D, you could vey easily get your hands on a 85mm 1.2 or a 70-200 2.8 IS to do some more shallow DoF portrait work, which seems to be a hallmark of your style. The camera body is rugged enough for indoor and even some inclement weather outdoor work (take a ziploc bag), and the image quality is better than the 1d, especially in the area of high ISO noise control.
The thing to keep in mind before sinking lots of money into a digital body is that it's the lenses that will retain their value, far more so than bodies. So spend your money on good lenses, as they are not going to be rendered obsolete any time soon. Once you have a collection of 'L' glass that is rugged, waterproof, and optically pristine, you can really put whatever body you want on the other end. The 10D is a fine body that you can grow into and grow with for a few years, by which time there may be a 1 series camera that has comparable or superior image quality that is housed in the durable bodies characteristic of the 1D or 1Ds. And by that time, the 1Ds, which is a superb body and probably always will be, will be cheaper as well.
Lunatique wrote:
This price drop for the 1D is very tempting, but I have my reservations, since the 10D has made improvement on some features since 1D(for example, better high ISO performance, in-camera viewer zoom..etc).
Anyone here who has both(or used both) can tell me if 1D is worth double the price of the 10D? Should I get the 10D instead?
I don't really need super high resolution, since I don't print my work out often(I think I've made less than 10 prints in the last 2 years). I've been shooting with the Olympus C3030Z for the last 2 years. You can see my work here: My Portfolio...Show more →
Unless you need the 1D's large buffer, fast frame rate, and rugged durability, you'll be paying for features that you'll never use. The 1D has an amazing body. It feels like a solid chunk of metal the melts into your hand. The 10D is more solid than the D30 or D60, but it still feels like a consumer camera. It doesn't have the solid "chunk of metal" feel that the 1D and 1Ds have.
In terms of sharpness, you likely won't notice a difference between a 10D shot and a 1D shot. The 1D produces very sharp photos straight from the camera, wheras the 10D shots will require some sharpening to look like a 1D shot. Also, due to the smaller photo cells on the 10D, the overal image quality seems closer to consumer cameras like the canon G5 than the 1D. 10D photos just look like they are lacking detail that should be resolved. The 1D does a lot better resolving the detail, which IMO makes up for the 2MP difference. The 10D has the advantage of having a workable ISO 100 though.
That said, the 10D is probably better suited for the work you do. It'll give you the clean, low ISO shots for your portrait work.
I'd guess that the 10D is the one best suited, i've used mine alot in the last month and have yet to find a limitation!!! It's a great camera for someone who is not a pj/sportsshooter/newsshooter!!!
Go for the 10D and as many people have said, build up your "L" glass stable!!!
Both cameras have its pros and cons, unless you were doing PJ/Sports, the 10D is very capable, plus when the 1D replacement comes out, you could use the unspent money towards that.
Hehe, all my money would be depleted by the L glasses anyway...
Thanks for the suggestions guys! I read up on the D2H, and it's a beauty! But I'd need to research into Nikon glasses though.
See, the main reason I considered the 1D is for the fast framerate. There are times when I ask the model to do something like, flip her hair, and it's a pain to capture a perfect shot like that without fast framerate. The 3 frames per second is barely enough for that purpose. Also, I love candid style, and I'd love to just let the model be herself and lounge around the livingroom, while I fire away at 8 frames a second as she does lots of feminine and cute things that only girls can do.
Heresy as it might sound, I'd buy a 300D/rebel and be prepared to sell it in a year (or less) when the next generation 10D/1D comes out which will probably be an upgrade of both. The 300D sounds like it takes excellent pictures (certainly in RAW) and that leaves you more cash for the essentials - lenses, which you would keep anyway.
Rob, if you can afford the 1D get it as it is the better camera. I have the 10D and the 1D. I would never dream of using the 10D on a "must have" shot if I had the 1D with me. The 10D is a fine camera but it is a far cry from being a 1D.
I also don't get the issue that has come up lately about the high noise on 1D images. That is just plain BS. The 1D is very clean at higher ISO's. If you don't expose the shot correctly then it isn't the camera's fault.
Image quality from a 10D is inferior to the 1D as well. I have used these cameras side by side for a month now and know what I am talking about. My customers do too. They pick 1D images much more often than images from the 10D.
Is the 10D a bad camera? Not at all. Is it a competitor for the 1D? Not at all. It wasn't designed to compete with a 1D and it doesn't.
Ron- Wow, that was unexpected. Can you give me some specific examples of the differences that made you go "hmmmm," or post pics if you have them(for comparison)?
BTW, on your site: http://home.hiwaay.net/~rlwarren/photography.htm you listed your photography site as:www.ron-warren.com. That doesn't work, since you've got the - in there. I took it out and it worked.
Ron Warren wrote:
I also don't get the issue that has come up lately about the high noise on 1D images. That is just plain BS. The 1D is very clean at higher ISO's. If you don't expose the shot correctly then it isn't the camera's fault.
Well spoken Ron
It's a pity so many people deciding on a camera have to filter the BS on the forums to make the right decision
Go for the 1D. For the kind of photography you show in your portfoliio, shooting models at available light, the 1D has the edge over the 10D. AF speed and shutter response is more important than some of the "this is not a fast subject" posters probably realize. The 10D is almost good enough to not disappoint you ;-) , but the 1D will make you feel like you have the right tool for the right job.
A Nikon D2H is a good alternative if you want to have the Nikon system instead of Canon's. But it is not significantly better as a camera than Canon's 1D. I have a preference for Canon's system and would pick the 1D for your photography. Not a second of hesitation.
Thanks Peter. Good points. But can you tell me in what ways might the 10D make me feel like I should've gotten a 1D?
BTW, I thought the high ISO thing was based on the dpreview review where they talked a lot about the banding that happens in the dark areas at high ISO settings?
Sorry about the web site Rob. I haven't updated parts of it in a few years. I got rid of the ron-warren.com last year when ronwarren.com came available.
I guess the most glaring example was some cheerleading photos that I took a few weeks ago. I got 4 shots of each girl. 2 with the 1D and the 28-70 and 2 with the 10D and the 35 f2.0.
The 1D had better color and came out much sharper even though I was using the 28-70 which isn't the sharpest lens in the drawer. (This was after sharpening the 10D shots.) The 1D has a spot meter, more focus points, and is faster in every way. The 1D is one of Canon's two professional cameras. It is going to out preform Canon's pro-summer cameras. (and most of everone else's pro cameras.) The only thing the 10D has over the 1D is it's AI Focus feature. I like that a lot but it isn't a giant killer.
Beware those who have both of these cameras. When using them both at the same time the extened eye piece on the 1D may knock you out!
I am going on vacation starting tomorrow and I am working most of today so I will not have time to post examples. We will see you in Mammoth Cave.
I totally agree with ROn. I have owned a 1D, a 1Ds & now a 10D.
I sold my 1Ds for financial reasons & I am living with my wife's 10D but I'm not real happy about it.
Not only is the AF a lot slower in the 10D, it is much harder to use accurately. I think the problem stems from the AF points covering too large an area in the 10D.
I was shooting a ton of images of two & three year old kids last week. I try to always AF on the eyes & with the 1D/1Ds 99% of my images are in perfect focus.
With the 10D however, I am getting a whole lot more that show the AF point solidly on the eye, but the camera locked on something slightly to the left or right. Even when the 10D images are in perfect focus, they are not as sharp as my 1D/1Ds images either. Sharpening helps these images considerably, but they never seem to have the pop of the 1D/1Ds images no matter what I do to them.
I think the 10D is a nice camera, a great deal for the money & I have gotten some great images from it, but I will definitely be buying another Pro AF camera as soon as I am able to.
But can you tell me in what ways might the 10D make me feel like I should've gotten a 1D?
Most of all "responsiveness". The faster AF, the lower shutterlag, and the shorter mirror blackout time, and the much better buffer management make the 1D an instant reflex camera all the time. If you miss a moment with the 1D(and you still will even with this state of the art fast camera) it is nothing compared to the 10D.
secondary, but not of less value: the bigger viewfinder which not only gives better control over composition but most of all over manual focus Yes I mean manual focus, especially FTM is a very useful feature on the 1D. On the 10D the tiny finder is the thing that bothers me still the most. Really I like my 10D very very much, but the viewfinder is still one of the flaws it did inherite from the D30/D60 predecesors.
the 10D has a few pros over the 1D, like dust sensitivity, like better powermanagement and energy use, like a better skin tone in some lighting conditions, just to mention a few. But altogether the 10D is a money saver in the first place. If you were saying you wanted the extra money for extra lenses you need, I would maybe recommend to put your money in glass and go for the 10D. But your portfolio and the way you describe you like to work (the candid style) convinced me: you already have the glass you need for what you like to shoot and you need a responsive camera for this type of photography.
Don't go to a shop to testdrive the 1D if you are serious about the 10D!
Peter
Edited by Peter de Weerdt on Oct 06, 2003 at 07:21 PM GMT
JohnM both you and Ron know what you are doing and neither of you have a reason to fib about your findings...all I can gather from my results is that I was one of the super lucky ones who got a 10D that really fine focuses as it produces the sharpest images I've ever shot with any camera I've ever owned...I know exactly what you mean when you mention how your camera is inconsistant...I see these just slightly out of focus shots all the time from other shooters, I just chalked it up to noobies...but I guess the 10D problems still exist...and now my Rebel is producing some extremely fine detailed shots...maybe I need to take a trip to Vegas a nd see if my streak of luck will continue there...
The Reb
So a 10D would save you dollars for another nice lens, and still do the job for you!
