I just processed some very old files from my old 1Ds (which I no longer own). Wow. I'd forgotten just how good the file quality is from that camera, even at ISO 800. There's a certain depth and clarity to the images that are clearly and distinctly 1Ds Mark 1 files ... that is to say, very unique. Makes me want to find another one ....
Had to process a 1Ds file for an order yesterday from a wedding I shot 4 years ago. I'd forgotten how much I hated the files from the 1Ds. ISO 200 and ugly as heck in the shadows.
Beni wrote:
Had to process a 1Ds file for an order yesterday from a wedding I shot 4 years ago. I'd forgotten how much I hated the files from the 1Ds. ISO 200 and ugly as heck in the shadows.
180 degrees from my own experience. Curious & interesting ....
I should pay more attention, or quit living by the axiom "Live In The Past…It's Cheaper."
Seriously, I continue to use the Ol' Beastie and none of my editors seem to blanche at the results. I've added a 40D for lightweight use, and when done "correctly" it's sometimes difficult to remember which is which. Apples n' oranges, with the occasional onion tossed in
I have no illusions that it's a Mark II or some-such, but it does what I require.
Beni wrote:
Had to process a 1Ds file for an order yesterday from a wedding I shot 4 years ago. I'd forgotten how much I hated the files from the 1Ds. ISO 200 and ugly as heck in the shadows.
Funny, my shots from 2003 are doing quite well, even at 24x36"... I guess my standards are lower.
stanj wrote:
Funny, my shots from 2003 are doing quite well, even at 24x36"... I guess my standards are lower.
What impressed me today were three files that I printed to 16" X 24." If it weren't for that certain "richness" (don't know a better word for it) of the 1Ds files, I'd be hard pressed to tell if the shots were from a 5D or 1Ds II. The color is also quite striking.
I think two things are at work here: the processing software is much better now than it was 5 years ago ... and my processing SKILLS are much better than they were 5 years ago! Ergo: the camera is actually better than I thought it was.
mttran wrote:
Mee too - i sold mine not too long ago
Yeah, it's one of "those" kinds of cameras ... you have one for a time, maybe a long time, then the new and improved version comes along — or just something else comes along — and you sell it and move on and up and out to your new whatever.
But something is missing from the new files ... something in the 1Ds files that just isn't there in the new ones, even though the new files are a bit cleaner, or a bit larger, even a bit more "refined."
Yeah, the 1Ds is that kind of camera. It's the real deal ... a missing link between film and digital. And you can blow those 11.1MP up to whatever size print you want, and they still hold together.
veroman wrote:
Yeah, it's one of "those" kinds of cameras ... you have one for a time, maybe a long time, then the new and improved version comes along — or just something else comes along — and you sell it and move on and up and out to your new whatever.
But something is missing from the new files ... something in the 1Ds files that just isn't there in the new ones, even though the new files are a bit cleaner, or a bit larger, even a bit more "refined."
Yeah, the 1Ds is that kind of camera. It's the real deal ... a missing link between film and digital. And you can blow those 11.1MP up to whatever size print you want, and they still hold together.
I'm using one and am perfectly content with it. Acquired it a little less than a year ago, and recently sold the 1DII cause it didn't get much use anymore after the "old tech" brick arrived
The 1Ds is more boat anchor than I prefer in the field, but it still rules in my studio. Lately I shoot ISO 50 JPEGs (guarding the highlights), and get cleaner shadows. http://patternassociates.com/rico/photo/misc/abboud1.jpg
I'm still selliing 32 x 48 inch prints from my 1ds. One of them is right down the road from Canon's Irvine center at the new Kaiser hospital. Yeah, it's not as sharp as newer cameras when you stick your nose right up to them but it does look a lot more filmlike than the newer models. Still, it was a lot slower in all respects, the menu system is clunky compared to newer cameras and it was prone to banding in the shadows, which, on my camera was sometimes there and sometimes not.
Peter Figen wrote:
I'm still selliing 32 x 48 inch prints from my 1ds. One of them is right down the road from Canon's Irvine center at the new Kaiser hospital. Yeah, it's not as sharp as newer cameras when you stick your nose right up to them but it does look a lot more filmlike than the newer models. Still, it was a lot slower in all respects, the menu system is clunky compared to newer cameras and it was prone to banding in the shadows, which, on my camera was sometimes there and sometimes not.
Hello Peter. Good to hear from you. Sorry I didn't get a chance to connect with you this past March like I thought I would. It was a whirlwind weekend trip. I never had the time.
Funny thing about these 1Ds cameras: I've heard about the banding and really terrible noise as low as ISO 200, but mine performed admirably even at ISO 1250, albeit with a fine but hardly image-destroying grain. Never had a banding problem. I agree the menu is clunky compared to the latest, and the LCD is pretty bad. But a properly functioning 1Ds does turn out some gorgeous files and, as you say, more film-like than some newer models.
Anyway, your old 1Ds II is producing gorgeous images for my clients (and for myself). I recently toyed with the idea of selling it, but then thought better of that after a long chat with the head doctor at the insane asylum. :-)
veroman wrote:
Yeah, it's one of "those" kinds of cameras ... you have one for a time, maybe a long time, then the new and improved version comes along — or just something else comes along — and you sell it and move on and up and out to your new whatever.
But something is missing from the new files ... something in the 1Ds files that just isn't there in the new ones, even though the new files are a bit cleaner, or a bit larger, even a bit more "refined."
Yeah, the 1Ds is that kind of camera. It's the real deal ... a missing link between film and digital. And you can blow those 11.1MP up to whatever size print you want, and they still hold together.
lancemoreland wrote:
What is missing from the newer cameras are big pixels.
I agree with you, Lance. The tradeoff in favor of higher resolution has worked out ok for the most part. But big pixels can't be beat. Even the Canon 10D is evidence of that.
I'd love to see Nikon or Canon or somebody get back to big pixel cameras accompanied with all the improvements they've made in the electronics, controls, LCDs, etc. of the latest cameras. An 8-11MP full frame with latest innards (firmware included) could really be some camera.
veroman wrote:
I agree with you, Lance. The tradeoff in favor of higher resolution has worked out ok for the most part. But big pixels can't be beat. Even the Canon 10D is evidence of that.
I'd love to see Nikon or Canon or somebody get back to big pixel cameras accompanied with all the improvements they've made in the electronics, controls, LCDs, etc. of the latest cameras. An 8-11MP full frame with latest innards (firmware included) could really be some camera.
Are you still using your 1Ds?
- Steve
This was discussed in another thread a while ago. The older cameras DO NOT have bigger pixels than the new ones (at least not the part of the pixel you care about). The portion of the pixel that you are most interested in is the photo diode area (i.e. the actual thing that is light senstive) which despite decreasing pixel pitch has remained the same.
Checkout RDKirk's posts in this thread (that was between the 5D2 and the 5D, but the situation is similar with the 1Ds):
It's been DISCONTINUED?!!! 
