Leslie168 wrote:
that's true.
the biggest print out for me is 20'x30' which from my studio shoot, the print out result just awesome, even let me dont want send it to my client.
Awesome is a very relative term here. At that size, the native pixels per inch is only 82, which would make for a very mushy image printed at 20x30. Take that same image with a 5DII and compare the prints. Everything looks great until it is compared to something better.
chez wrote:
Awesome is a very relative term here. At that size, the native pixels per inch is only 82, which would make for a very mushy image printed at 20x30. Take that same image with a 5DII and compare the prints. Everything looks great until it is compared to something better.
agree with you for the compared print can learn more result.
in fact I only got one time 20'x30' print from 1D file, mainly are 8'x10', so I also afraid that result of 20'x30', luckly that print out just great and I guess the reasons are that's from studio shot and with care post processing in LR.
anyway, any suggestion for the biggest print from 1D, is that 16'x20'?
I just sold my 1Ds II and 50D, so right now I am just getting by with my 1D. In normal lighting conditions, it is still a fantastic camera. Even at high ISO, it's not too bad.
Here is a few snapshots with ISO 1600 straight out of camera -
"Obsolete" doesn't mean "vanishes into a black hole" or "no longer functions". It just means there are superior options available, often for less money, or for little additional money.
Now is there any actual tangible reason to believe this camera, nearly a decade after its introduction, offers any worthwhile advantages over more modern alternatives? If not, this is just silly nostalgia, combined with more "mystical image characteristics" nonsense.
charlesk wrote:
"Obsolete" doesn't mean "vanishes into a black hole" or "no longer functions". It just means there are superior options available, often for less money, or for little additional money.
Now is there any actual tangible reason to believe this camera, nearly a decade after its introduction, offers any worthwhile advantages over more modern alternatives? If not, this is just silly nostalgia, combined with more "mystical image characteristics" nonsense.
charlesk wrote:
"Now is there any actual tangible reason to believe this camera, nearly a decade after its introduction, offers any worthwhile advantages over more modern alternatives?.
How about cost? Good condition 1D cameras are to be found for as little as $500.00. Please, show me another camera, in any format, by any maker, of any vintage, that can come close to the performance demonstrated on this thread for anywhere close to that amount.
It's called "bang for the buck", and the 1D is a mighty formidable performer for the money.
LDR99 wrote:
How about cost? Good condition 1D cameras are to be found for as little as $500.00. Please, show me another camera, in any format, by any maker, of any vintage, that can come close to the performance demonstrated on this thread for anywhere close to that amount.
It's called "bang for the buck", and the 1D is a mighty formidable performer for the money.
Lorin
+1
+ how about the much higher flash sync the 1D has over the newer bodies.
Just over a year ago I bought myself a 1D to see what all the fuss was about. didn't keep it that long but it was fun while I had it.
Geat gallery of 1D EOSfun It shows very well that some obsolete cameras are much more desirable than some of the latest greatest toys with zillions of buttons and custom functions in terms of image quality. However, and this is a big one, the photographer who knows his/her gear is the deciding factor (and this is meant as compliment to all the posters of great shots in this thread more than to the 1D).
LDR99 wrote:
How about cost? Good condition 1D cameras are to be found for as little as $500.00. Please, show me another camera, in any format, by any maker, of any vintage, that can come close to the performance demonstrated on this thread for anywhere close to that amount.
It's called "bang for the buck", and the 1D is a mighty formidable performer for the money.
Debatable.
Yes, I'm sure it takes some nice images, and it does have the 1 series pro features. But 4 megapixels is still 4 megapixels, even if they are "good" megapixels.
I wouldn't trade my 5D for a 1D, and they aren't that different in price. My guess is a 1D mark II isn't a lot more either, and it provides double the resolution. In a hobby/profession where most people spend thousands on lenses, saving a few hundred bucks using an obsolete camera rarely makes a lot of sense. And if you don't have a lot of money, you're probably still better off spending it on something else except for very specific applications.
well in the last 6 months 1D2 and N's have dropped in price enough to make these almost the new budget 1 series.
Just had a quick look thru past ebay sales and the 1D2 (not n) generally went £550 but the 1D was under £300. If all you need is a body to shoot for the screen then a 1D could be a good choice.
anonther use at that money is if you want/need a charger for a mk2/n/Ds2 . under £300 (inc charger) and you get a very good backup as well (if you can get a new one here they are about £230!!)
How does it not have the same "kind of micro details", whatever that means? The hair is just as detailed, even the fine hairs. There are even tiny blood vessels visible.
Yes, JPEG output, I don't recall the exact settings. Does it really matter? Point is nearly any modern camera can produce at least as good results. There's nothing "magical" about the 1D.
