charlesk wrote:
I wouldn't trade my 5D for a 1D, and they aren't that different in price.
Great camera the 5D. I have one and love it. It no doubt meets your needs. But good luck shooting action sports with it. Even more good luck if the weather is bad, or if it bumps into the other camera/lens you have around your neck.
That's why I say the 1D gives such good bang for the buck. It will do it all. High speed action sports, photojournalism, birds and wildlife, weddings, even landscapes. Good weather or bad. Rough use or babied. Self defense too.
And for as little as $500.00 (or less). A greater "starter" camera. That is getting down into the point and shoot price range.
Megapixels are not the end all be all of camera performance.
LDR99 wrote:
Great camera the 5D. I have one and love it. It no doubt meets your needs. But good luck shooting action sports with it. Even more good luck if the weather is bad, or if it bumps into the other camera/lens you have around your neck.
That's why I say the 1D gives such good bang for the buck. It will do it all. High speed action sports, photojournalism, birds and wildlife, weddings, even landscapes. Good weather or bad. Rough use or babied. Self defense too.
And for as little as $500.00 (or less). A greater "starter" camera. That is getting down into the point and shoot price range.
Megapixels are not the end all be all of camera performance.
I'd take a 5D over a 1D anyday for landscape photography where my plans are to print large. And yes, megapixels do matter in this situation...much more so than the weather sealing and the "toughness" of the 1D.
chez:
I'd take a 5D over a 1D anyday for landscape photography where my plans are to print large. And yes, megapixels do matter in this situation...much more so than the weather sealing and the "toughness" of the 1D.
5D is not 1D and vice versa. Every camera has its own place. Realy don't see the point of argument for the sake of argument.
Clearly the 5D is the better landscape shooter. No question--no dispute. But the 5D doesn't have the speed or AF system required for action sports or the toughness for PJ or sport shooting. At least I always found my 5D wanting compared to my 1D when shooting action sports.
My point is the 1D can do it all. There are many cameras out there that out shine the 1D in the studio, or on a tripod shooting landscapes. The new action shooters are improved and better in many aspects to the original 1D. I shoot a Mk III now as well, and like it. I prefer it to my 1D, but I usually have the 1D with me around my neck as well with a different lens.
I stand by my claim: No other camera, regardless of maker, format, or vintage, can give you the all around performance of the 1D for the money.
Emphasis on "all around" and "for the money".
Of course, YMMV. Some people like vanilla and some people like chocolate. That's why they make both flavors.
Any camera can "do it all". It's just a matter of what areas it does better in, and what areas it does worse in.
You say the 1D can do landscapes? So can my old 10D. But neither is well suited to the task given superior alternatives for little additional money.
There's nothing special about the 1D, and yes, it IS an obsolete camera. Using it is IMO a very poor decision on where to spend one's money, except for the very specific and rare case of someone on an extremely tight budget *and* needing 1-series pro features.
Megapixels aren't everything, but they *are* something. I can't imagine many situations where I'd willingly give up that much resolution for... for what, exactly? To each his own, but I find it baffling that someone who owns a 1D3 would also schlep around an aging 4MP behemoth just to avoid changing lenses....
Anyone who has enough money to put together a proper SLR kit also has enough money to get a modern camera that will put it to good use. For most photographers, saving a few hundred bucks using an outdated camera is being penny-wise, pound-foolish.
charlesk wrote:
Any camera can "do it all". It's just a matter of what areas it does better in, and what areas it does worse in. You say the 1D can do landscapes? So can my old 10D. But neither is well suited to the task given superior alternatives for little additional money. There's nothing special about the 1D, and yes, it IS an obsolete camera. Using it is IMO a very poor decision on where to spend one's money, except for the very specific and rare case of someone on an extremely tight budget *and* needing 1-series pro features. Megapixels aren't everything, but they *are* something. I can't imagine many situations where I'd willingly give up that much resolution for... for what, exactly? To each his own, but I find it baffling that someone who owns a 1D3 would also schlep around an aging 4MP behemoth just to avoid changing lenses.... Anyone who has enough money to put together a proper SLR kit also has enough money to get a modern camera that will put it to good use. For most photographers, saving a few hundred bucks using an outdated camera is being penny-wise, pound-foolish....Show more →
I agree with and support most of the above ... maybe all of it. The fact that the 1D is a 4MP camera almost immediately obsoletes it as a candidate for everyday quality photography. Why? Because it leaves little to no cropping room. Try cropping just 20% of a 1D image and then blowing what's left up to 8" X 12" printed. You'll see a nice shot with a lot of junk floating in and around and between the pixels.
It's all so very easy to post really sharp JPEGs at fairly large sizes here on the web. You can do that with just about any camera. But in the real world, where photos needs to cropped, pushed, enlarged, color-and-sharpness-manipulated and then printed, the 1D isn't a viable option anymore. Its response to light and to manipulation in post-processing is simply poor compared to newer cameras and even to its successor, the 1D II. The Mark III puts the 1D to shame in every single respect.
For $500, I'd take a beat-up but functioning 40D over the 1D. If speed wasn't a priority, I'd take the Canon xsi. If edge-to-edge detail and accurate color were important, I'd opt for a Nikon D200. And if the speed and AF accuracy DID matter a lot, and if I had just a few bucks more, the 1D IIN.
There's a lot of nostalgia for the 1D, which is understandable. It produces very sharp and colorful small images. It's very fast, and it's built strong. But the images it produces, when analyzed a little more deeply than what is being done here, are often riddled with artifacts (the kind that were common in cameras back then), and it still has a hard time with accurate skin tone.
And I haven't even talked about the noise issues! .....
there is nothing posted in this thread that couldn't be done with the lowest Rebel body and a decent lens... and the Rebel images could be enlarged more.
Same text, you can replace 1d to 5d too. Why are you still using 5d?
And stop using words like 'silly', 'foolish', which can only make youself ...
charlesk wrote:
Any camera can "do it all". It's just a matter of what areas it does better in, and what areas it does worse in.
You say the 1D can do landscapes? So can my old 10D. But neither is well suited to the task given superior alternatives for little additional money.
There's nothing special about the 1D, and yes, it IS an obsolete camera. Using it is IMO a very poor decision on where to spend one's money, except for the very specific and rare case of someone on an extremely tight budget *and* needing 1-series pro features.
Megapixels aren't everything, but they *are* something. I can't imagine many situations where I'd willingly give up that much resolution for... for what, exactly? To each his own, but I find it baffling that someone who owns a 1D3 would also schlep around an aging 4MP behemoth just to avoid changing lenses....
Anyone who has enough money to put together a proper SLR kit also has enough money to get a modern camera that will put it to good use. For most photographers, saving a few hundred bucks using an outdated camera is being penny-wise, pound-foolish....Show more →
pingflood wrote:
While I agree the 1D II is worth a look since they are so inexpensive now, it does not really provide "double the resolution".
1D: 2464x1648
1D II: 3504x2336
That is around 42% higher res horizontal/vertical on the Mark II. Not insignificant by any means, but neither is it double.
I have both, shot many events with both bodies, as great as the 1D is, it's obsolete comparing to the 1D2. Poor battery performance and the lack of playback magnifier is a deal breaker for me. I will take the 1D2 any given day.
400d wrote:
I have both, shot many events with both bodies, as great as the 1D is, it's obsolete comparing to the 1D2. Poor battery performance and the lack of playback magnifier is a deal breaker for me. I will take the 1D2 any given day.
Same here, but for events under strong light, i like 1d more than 1d2.
