BTW, I didn't realize my 1D was kind of special regarding high-iso . I myself was inspired with the images posted by DavidP long ago. IIRC, his 1D images were pretty good too regarding noise.
Claiming that the 5D doesn't have good enough AF, speed or BQ for "most users" is blatantly absurd. My EOS 650 was "good enough" in all these areas for the 15 years that I used it and it is nowhere near close to 5D.
Not saying a 1D doesn't have some capabilities or that it wouldn't be fun to play with...
jxsq wrote:
The 1D provides AF good enough for most user's needs, 5d does not.
The 1D provides speed good enough for most user's needs, 5d does not.
The 1D provides builds good enough for most user's needs, 5d does not.
Nobody here is saying that 1d is the best camera so far, in fact, i own a few more cameras myself. But there are certain things in 1d DOES make it very special, no newer bodies has these, and the combination of all these make 1d a wonderful 'TOY' to play!
Well, it is equally 'blatantly absurd' to state that 4mp is not while 5d is.
who is 'most user'?
And are you saying that 5d/650 have better AF, faster speed than 1d?
mh2000 wrote:
Claiming that the 5D doesn't have good enough AF, speed or BQ for "most users" is blatantly absurd. My EOS 650 was "good enough" in all these areas for the 15 years that I used it and it is nowhere near close to 5D.
Not saying a 1D doesn't have some capabilities or that it wouldn't be fun to play with...
charlesk wrote:
Maybe if the users you deal with happen to be the staff of Sports Illustrated.
In the real world of real users, the 5D is a far superior camera in most respects.
You didn't get it at all.
I am trying to show that in your logic, the 5d is also dated technology, but strangely enough you are still using it.
I like 5d, for its image quality. I think it is a special machine by itself.
But unlike you, i will not go to 5d's thread and flood it with words like 'obsolete', silly', or whatever.
And are you a better photographer than the ones at Sports Illustrated? Is there anything wrong with those people? Are they live in virtual world, or are they virtual human beings?
jxsq wrote:
I am trying to show that in your logic, the 5d is also dated technology, but strangely enough you are still using it.
Is it really that hard to understand that the 1D is below acceptable image quality, while 5D has acceptable image quality, and it will continue to be that way?
alundeb wrote:
Is it really that hard to understand that the 1D is below acceptable image quality, while 5D has acceptable image quality, and it will continue to be that way?
it is nothing about any particular feature, IQ or AF or speed, it is about the machine as whole. Is this hard to understand?
And please read the thread from beginning and put everything into context first.
jxsq wrote:
I am trying to show that in your logic, the 5d is also dated technology, but strangely enough you are still using it.
And I already *said* that the 5D is also obsolete. What's your point?
jxsq wrote:
But unlike you, i will not go to 5d's thread and flood it with words like 'obsolete', silly', or whatever.
I didn't "flood" anything, and I didn't introduce the word "obsolete" to the thread -- it's right there in the title.
Sorry that you're so emotionally attached to your camera.
jxsq wrote:
And are you a better photographer than the ones at Sports Illustrated? Is there anything wrong with those people? Are they live in virtual world, or are they virtual human beings?
Not the sharpest prime in the old Lowepro, are ya?
alundeb wrote:
Is it really that hard to understand that the 1D is below acceptable image quality, while 5D has acceptable image quality, and it will continue to be that way?
yes.
I just had a trawl back thru my LR dbase for the few 1D files that are on there and in the right conditions it had very acceptable IQ.
No one is saying the 1D is better than the 5D. the 5D is Bl%$dy good. but by some of the analagies on here the 5D is way past it and the 5d2 should be the minimum.
Truth is all the old bodies are capable of some great images even today
I'm sure a later 1 series would have done the job just as well or probably better but I didn't have one to hand.
and OK there is a bit of nostalgia involved as well. Its a bit like classic cars. the modern equivelent of any classic will be much better to drive and own but the classic is still fun
Edit :
Oh and the lens is 'obsolete' as well the old MDP
Very nice images, Ian!
What's that weird shiny area on the bird's back in #1?
To find something to complain about (I guess I have to ), I don't care very much for the noise in the otherwise smooth OOF areas and especially the in-foucus water.
When your hardware limits you to 200dpi on a 8x12" print, you are limited to this. If you never want to print larger than 8x12" then it doesn't matter. Even at 200dpi your print quality is not as good as some subjects demand.
Personally, I never wanted to print anything from my 10D larger than 8x12", but I like images with lots of detailed texture.
abqnmusa wrote:
It is the photographer that makes a quality image through good composition, exposure, and image processing
not the hardware used
I have beautiful images from the 10D -- The 10D can still repeat those same beautiful images
. I myself was inspired with the images posted by DavidP long ago. IIRC, his 1D images were pretty good too regarding noise.