(posted here because I`m looking for an alternative)
I had some sad family news today so took the time to dig back on my drives for some old images.
during the search through I got stuck on my 1dsmk1 images, I just can`t justify leaving that camera in the cupboard anymore, it`s that good it just must see the light of day, period.
Now( I might well be missing something) but write times I can live with, battery life I can live with but the one thing that bugs me is the screen. I gather there isn`t a reasonably priced way of outputting the images onto a hot shoe type screen (yes I know it would add weight) and thinking about it the although the raws wouldn`t show(they don`t anyway as far as I know) I should be able to see the J pegs. I`m not worried about the studio but more in the field. I know there is the Zigview but they are purely for view like live view
I know it`s a stupid question and someone is bound to suggest a 32" lcd tv on the camera but in these modern do anything days you never actually know.
Does the Mk1 have video out? I know my 1Ds2 does, but I can't remember if my 1D did or not. If it does, just hook it up to any TV, and when you review your images on the LCD, it'll show up on the TV instead. Not the best resolution, but it's bigger.
I have a 7" LCD colour screen but you still have to carry a battery to power it and a cable to hook up to the camera. If it has a video output like my 1DsMk3 then why not try one of those video glasses you wear on your face.
Yeh, I`ve just realised that there is no video out on the mk1.
I`m gonna use my DMD-P20 Vivitar (digital multi media player} for anyone that doesn`t know them they are superb, they have CF and SD card slots and can play video, record video, built in radio and can record, Mpeg 2/3/4 and 20Gb hard drive and a decent screen, I`ll just have to take the CF card out now and then and view the files(BTW I was amazed to see that they read raw files but I suppose they are reading an inbuilt j peg?
Interesting topic Dave. You might want to change the title to read 'monitor' instead of 'viewfinder', as it's a bit misleading.
Can you remind me what the 1Ds captures that the later 1Ds bodies don't? I know that some people felt that the later sensors weren't as good in some ways. Was the sensor CCD?
Actually, everybody that had a 1D still dream of those big pixels that get everything sharp - that one had a CCD sensor as far as I recall. The 1Ds was the first 1-series with CMOS sensor. I shoot with one and have to say that paired with some nice lenses it is doing very well, only problem is a little noise in the shadows, but carefull exposure can hold post to a minimum and thus avoid some trouble with that one. But Dave is right : I never use sharpening on the pictures taken with it and a Zeiss Hollywood, but sometimes feel those images are too sharp.
Thanks slungu. Are you comparing the performance of this camera at equal magnification with its successors and the 5D, or is your assessment based on viewing at 100%? The problem is that I have seen so many opinions based on comparing 100% crops at differing magnification that I have become a skeptic about praise of older cameras with fewer megapixels. Has anyone really compared this camera at equal magnification with a 1Ds2/3 and 5D. I remember being fairly unimpressed with Guy Mancuso's 1Ds images even though he still seemed to think the camera was Canon's state of the art quite recently.
Richard, I had a 1Ds from shortly after its introduction. When I got a 1DII (non-s), I began to think about selling the 1Ds, but found a slight advantage to the old FF in large prints of landscapes. After getting a 1DIII, I found that the newer cam made equal or better 16x20 prints, in spite of slightly smaller sensor and 10 vs 11 MP. Sold the 1Ds.
I'd like to own a 1DsIII, but that is impossible now. At any rate, I'm only suggesting that my experience was that the original 1Ds could produce great IQ, but had no magical advantage over the later designs. Please note that I haven't worked with a 1DsII or III; I'm just skeptical that they would give up any desirable qualities unless one wanted a bit of graininess in the shadows of a picture that already featured a lot of texture.
My 2p minus inflation...
And in reply to the OP, I too have wished for ways to upgrade the LCD in older bodies (but never expected it), and am surprised that Canon hasn't yet put an articulated monitor on the newer live view bodies. I'm afraid we'll just have to give in and buy again when they offer enough of an advantage, even if we need no more in image quality and shooting responsiveness.
brainiac wrote:
Thanks Photon. Seems like a used 5D is a better deal in terms of pure image quality, then.
I'd say so, and I'm considering getting one to retrieve the FF advantages that I gave up. Either that or try to afford a 5DII when they are easily available!
brainiac wrote:
Interesting topic Dave. You might want to change the title to read 'monitor' instead of 'viewfinder', as it's a bit misleading.
Can you remind me what the 1Ds captures that the later 1Ds bodies don't? I know that some people felt that the later sensors weren't as good in some ways. Was the sensor CCD?
Yeh sorry should have read monitor
As slungu says, they are 11 million pixel CMOS. I sold my original(as you do) when the mk2 and mk3 came along but after looking at some of the old images from it I just had to replace it. For me, when the 1dsmk2 came along that is when i saw the drop in out of the camera pixel sharpness (even allowing for the larger file size as we have discussed before) A strange thing is that this last mk1 is later than my original and i was never satisfied with the colours from my first one but this one is a different kettle if fish altogether.
The plus and minus points can be lived with but as said earlier the monitor really is as poor as it gets but now the plus points of that are what looks like colourless poor images on the monitor out in the field becomes a wonder to behold when you get them onto the computer where as I`ve found with the mk3 the image look really good after taking them but not always as good when you get them home.
There is no doubt that there is a bit of viewing difference going on with 11mega pixels vs 21 mega pixels at 100% (as we all know) but for sure those bigger pixels do a fantastic job. You do have to be more careful with exposure and keep the ISO down ( I only use ISO 100 or 200) shadows can be a problem and obviously you do need to compose more as you want the image to be as there isn`t anything like the headroom to crop. (you can get a bit lazy with the mk3 knowing that there is plenty of crop room)
The difference as I see it is that the mk3 needs and comes alive with the Contax 21 2.8 but the 1dsmk1 can produce a really decent image with my Sigma 20 1.8. You would think that the Contax would make the 1dsmk1 blow your socks clean off but actually (although excellent) it`s not the jump that you see when you put the contax on the mk3(does that make sense)
I had a Sigma 15-30 that I brought for my D30 to get a bit of width on the crop chip and carried it over to the 1dsmk1 where it performed superbly. It is just so much easier to get a decent crisp film like looking image out of the 1dsmk1 without spending an arm and a leg on lenses.
I haven`t used my 17-40 or 24-105 since seeing the results on the 1dsmk3, I didn`t have them when I had my first 1dsmk1 so maybe i should dig them out and try them on this mk1 seeing as it`s not as fussy on lenses.
That would be nice! it would give me the 17mm that I miss so bad for big wide Norfolk skies and the image stabilising and reach of the 24-105 that is hard to beat when needed.
brainiac wrote:
Thanks Photon. Seems like a used 5D is a better deal in terms of pure image quality, then.
Richard
I had a 5D ( I`m not going to completely knock it because it does produce some superb results as we have all seen but! I just didn`t like the toy town feel of the camera after using 1 series and (without digging out old images) I know I used to think the images were not as film like as I wanted(perhaps it was just mine? who knows) but the 5Dmk2 is going to suffer the same as the 1dsmk3 as far as lenses go.
dave chilvers wrote:
The difference as I see it is that the mk3 needs and comes alive with the Contax 21 2.8 but the 1dsmk1 can produce a really decent image with my Sigma 20 1.8. You would think that the Contax would make the 1dsmk1 blow your socks clean off but actually (although excellent) it`s not the jump that you see when you put the contax on the mk3(does that make sense)
...the 5Dmk2 is going to suffer the same as the 1dsmk3 as far as lenses go.
Personally, I think this sentiment is based on a misconception. There is nothing about fewer/bigger sensels that makes the lens perform better. The only reason someone would think that is if she were to compare 100% crops at radically different magnifications. 100% on a 1Ds is much less magnified than 100% on a 1Ds3, so of course the lens looks better. But make two equal sized prints, and the 1Ds image won't look better after all, because the images are equally magnified. You need to uprez your 1Ds files to 21 megapixels in order to see on screen how well your lenses compare on a 1Ds and a 1Ds3. In print, even quite poor lenses will give you more pictorial information on a 21 megapixel sensor than on an 11 megapixel sensor.
In other words, compared with the 1Ds3, the 1Ds ISN'T producing a really decent IMAGE with the Sigma 20 f1.8, it's producing really decent 100% crops, and usually worse prints.
I have discussed the great 100% myth in many other threads, but it is such a pervasive error that it crops up like bubbles under wallpaper. So here's the mantra again: the best way to avoid this misconception is to avoid comparing 100% crops from the two cameras UNLESS YOU HAVE FIRST UPREZZED THE LOWER MEGAPIXEL IMAGE TO THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS AS THE HIGHER.
I'm not saying that the 1Ds doesn't have some qualities that later cameras lack, but if it's sharp pixels you are looking for, then I suggest you invest in a 3 megapixel D30, which offers superbly sharp pixels with the widest range of lenses.
I agree with the comments on the upresing and everything. I have picked up a 1Ds and although it doesnt produce as sharp images as my old 20D it definitely feels like its closer to film. Now how does it stack up against 5D and 1Ds mkII I have no idea.
brainiac wrote:
I have discussed the great 100% myth in many other threads, but it is such a pervasive error that it crops up like bubbles under wallpaper. So here's the mantra again: the best way to avoid this misconception is to avoid comparing 100% crops from the two cameras UNLESS YOU HAVE FIRST UPREZZED THE LOWER MEGAPIXEL IMAGE TO THE SAME NUMBER OF PIXELS AS THE HIGHER.
Agreed with all what you said except that uprezzing does not bring any detail which wasn't recorded by the extra pixels of the higher resolution camera in the first place, so even then the comparison is somehow pointless. Good lenses need a high resolution sensor to show their valor while a great lens and a poor one may be equalized on a lower resolution sensor.
edwardkaraa wrote:
Agreed with all what you said except that uprezzing does not bring any detail which wasn't recorded by the extra pixels of the higher resolution camera in the first place, so even then the comparison is somehow pointless.
I am not saying that it brings more detail. The purpose of uprezzing is to remove the temptation to make fatal errors in comparison by comparing 100% crops from each camera, when in fact the magnification is very different, and therefore the comparison is thoroughly misleading.
>Good lenses need a high resolution sensor to show their valor while a great lens and a poor one may be equalized on a lower resolution sensor.
...but using a lower rez sensor never makes a picture look better, with any lens, it just makes the pixels look nicer. Cameras are for capturing pictures, not pixels.
should have read monitor