laupi wrote: Wow, way oversharpened for my eyes - it hurts...... Can you post the pics without the over-processing?
To my eyes, they're just sharp ... not oversharpened. USM was Amount 300, Radius 0.3, which is what Canon recommends for the 1Ds. It's not very much.
veroman wrote:
Not following you. What do you mean?
- Steve
You said: No way I'd carry around a 1-Series with a 28-300.. So I am asking if you have actually done it for some extended period of time. Also, "no way am I doing X" is an absolute statement, not accounting for unusual circumstances. For instance, out of a helicopter or a hot air balloon, the 28-300 is an absolutely awesome tool. But since you would never attach such a lens to a 1-series body, you just lost this option, and by limiting yourself to the 24-105 or similar, you're limiting your photography.
SYN ACK wrote:
how is the 1Ds compared to the 5D or 5D mkII ? i have a 20d now, but would love to try a cheaper variant of full frame (5d mkI or 1Ds classic). any comments/comparisons? etc?
This is a question and comparison that comes up all the time. There are probably 8 trillion threads about this, with the discussion pretty much ending up in the same place:
When everything is taken into consideration ... ie IQ, high ISO performance, versatility, LCD, battery life, dynamic range, write speed, etc., etc., etc ... the better camera overall is the 5D Mark 1 (and the Mark II is better than the Mark 1 in nearly every respect ... certainly in resolution of fine detail. Color accuracy is also superior with the Mark II).
But if you're willing to trade off some things ... like high ISO quality, write speed, weight, etc., etc., etc. ... the 1Ds has the edge over the 5D Mark 1 when it comes to IQ at ISO 100-640. Much more film-like imagery with a deeper, richer, sharper look.
The one area where the 1Ds has it all over both the 5D Mark 1 and Mark II is Auto-Focus speed and accuracy, something which should not be underrated. It can mean the difference between a great shot and a poor-to-bad one. The 1Ds is a dual-processor camera, as are all 1-Series cameras. The 5D and 5D II have a single processor doing everything, hence the slower and sometimes less accurate A/F.
I generally will recommend the 5D Mark 1 over the 1Ds to people like yourself going to full frame for the first time, especially when coming from a similar body like the 20D. The 1Ds is a very complex tool with a steep learning curve. Use it the way you'd use your 20D and you're likely to be disappointed with the results. It's a camera you have to ease into and coax the best out of.
I also own a 5D Mark II and a Nikon D2x. I would not own a 1Ds Mark 1 as my only camera.
stanj wrote:
You said: . So I am asking if you have actually done it for some extended period of time. Also, "no way am I doing X" is an absolute statement, not accounting for unusual circumstances. For instance, out of a helicopter or a hot air balloon, the 28-300 is an absolutely awesome tool. But since you would never attach such a lens to a 1-series body, you just lost this option, and by limiting yourself to the 24-105 or similar, you're limiting your photography.
Yes, I've used the 28-300 with a 1-Series body for an extended period of time. That's why I elected to use the 28-300 only with my 5D-series body.
alexandre wrote:
Too bad the 1Ds sucks at high ISO...
Lots of cameras suck at high ISO. Only a handful really do well above ISO 800. Even the Leica M8 is crappy at ISO 640. At least the 1Ds does a credible job at ISO 800. Beyond that, yeah, not so hot.
Back in the day alot of film sucked at High ASA...yeah push process ASA 100 to ASA 1600 see what you get...remember DSLRs are still really new techwise but people want everything from them..film has been around for how long? think about it...
my .02 cents
