Canon 1D Mk2- Opinions please (1 Viewer)

Hi All,

I'm considering upgrading from 300D to the 1D Mk 2. I've read a few reviews on the web, but wondered if any of you guys had had hands on in the field with one of these. Is the expense worthwhile in terms of detail etc. I cannot justify the expense on a 1DS, but as the Mk2 is almost half the price I'm rather tempted.

All thoughts gratefully received

Chris B.

chris baker said:

Hi All,

I'm considering upgrading from 300D to the 1D Mk 2. I've read a few reviews on the web, but wondered if any of you guys had had hands on in the field with one of these. Is the expensive worthwhile in terms of detail etc. I cannot justify the expense on a 1DS, but as the Mk2 is almost half the price I'm rather tempted.

All thought gratefully received

Chris B.

Click to expand...

Hi Chris,
Sports photographers have given the mkII rave reviews. It has the fastest autofocus of any SLR currently available(unlike all other digital SLRs it uses a separate processor for autofocus rather than using the processor that defines exposure). It also uses a Digic II processor & new algorithms to help produce less noise at high ISO settings-a real boon for action bird photography & low light situations & will autofocus up to an f8 aperture allowing autofocus with a 600mm f4 lens + 2x convertor which with its 1.3x lens conversion factor yields 8megapixel images at a whopping 31.x magnification. The problem is you can't get it for love nor money as Canon have limited production. I've been on a waiting list since April but seem to be no closer to getting one. For a relevant bird photography review check out Arthur Morris's comments (albeit biased as he is a Canon contract photographer) in his bulletin no:136 & subsequent bulletins: www.birdsasart.com/bn136.htm
best wishes,
Steve

Thanks for the steer Steve, superb photos, and despite being a Canon contract photographer he had a few gripes! I've just read Andy Rouse's review (Warehouse Express) and he seems quite taken with it as well, despite a few niggles. Guess I better join the queue!!!

Apart from the shooting rate I feel that the 1D mkII is maybe not quite the animal of a camera that it appears...... the image size is not a great deal bigger than that of the 10D and with only a 1.3x magnification compared to the 1.6x of the 10D the image at a given distance will not cover as many pixels as that from a 10D........ personally I will wait for a 1Ds mkII, that should be a much better and probably even more difficult to get camera!!!!!!!!!

nigelblake said:

Apart from the shooting rate I feel that the 1D mkII is maybe not quite the animal of a camera that it appears...... the image size is not a great deal bigger than that of the 10D and with only a 1.3x magnification compared to the 1.6x of the 10D the image at a given distance will not cover as many pixels as that from a 10D........ personally I will wait for a 1Ds mkII, that should be a much better and probably even more difficult to get camera!!!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

1Ds mkII-Interesting, your confirming the whisperings I've also heard.

nigelblake said:

the image size is not a great deal bigger than that of the 10D and with only a 1.3x magnification compared to the 1.6x of the 10D the image at a given distance will not cover as many pixels as that from a 10D

Click to expand...

Nigel,

Don't you have to factor in the higher pixel count as well as the lower crop factor? 1.3/1.6 = 81.25% of the 10D's magnification, but 8.2/6.3 = 130.16% of the 10D's pixels. 81.25% X 130.16% = 105.75%, so the 1D MkII should get about 6% more pixels on the bird. That's only a very minor improvement over the 10D in that respect, but it's not less. Or is that the wrong way to calculate it?

Glen

Thanks for input Nigel and Glen, all technical stuff but do you feel the extra expense is justified. Frame rate and rapid autofocus are major plusses and may allow you to get a shot that you may otherwise have missed. However as we all know it's the end result which counts. There's no way I could possibly justify six grand on a camera and a 1DS Mk 11 maybe even more expensive. Three grand is pushing my luck a little with her indoors but if the results were noticeably better, AF and f/rate a nice bonus, the extra expense
would be justified I feel. But is a 6% increase in pixels going to noticable?

If my calculation of the "pixels on the bird" is correct, it would apply to the 300D as well, which has the same 6.3 mp sensor and 1.6 factor as the 10D. I think a 6% improvement would be hardly noticeable and certainly doesn't justify the cost of the upgrade. I think the improved autofocus is the most intriguing aspect of the 1D Mk II -- sounds very promising for flight shots. The faster continuous shooting and larger buffer are less important to me since I don't shoot in continuous mode very often (though maybe I would use it more if I wasn't concerned with filling the buffer and then missing the shot of a lifetime). The 300D has a small buffer, so the improvement offered by the 1D Mk II would be more dramatic. If you find that you often have to stop shooting while you wait for the buffer to clear, the upgrade would be more useful to you.

Whether any of these improvements are worth the money depends on your budget. The improvements don't justify the cost given that my wife would throw me out on the street if I spent $4500US on a camera, but I would be happy to put my name on the list if we had the money. Glen

Hi Chris,
I currently use the same camera as Nigel but can't take images approaching his. I suppose Nigel has been at it longer, takes it more seriously, spends more time at it, but most of all is just better skilled & naturally more talented.
Having said all that I have absolutely no professional aspirations & take images as record shots purely for the enjoyment involved. I miss out on good action images through lack of speed(in my responsiveness) & skill -which could be compensated for in part by a faster, more reliable autofocus system. This I find irksome. I also cannot deny that I would like to take better pictures but there is no hardware currently available that could bring me up to Nigel's standard (it would be a sad day if an expensive camera could ever compensate for skill & talent).
The 1D mkII remains attractive to me however as:
1) I could do with a 2nd camera body but can't justify another 1Ds
2) The new improved autofocus system has much to offer in bird action photography
3) The mkII's new digic processor produces cleaner, less noisy images at high ISO settings than the 1Ds. The faster shutter speeds this yields helps compensate for my poor technique & my persistence with inappropriate handholding of large lenses
4) The image magnification review in the 1Ds is poorly designed & unwieldy-that of the mkII is much slicker & allows incremental reviews
5) A recent tax-rebate would cover the cost of this camera-money my wife won't allow me to spend on a birding holiday!!
6) I'm sure I read somewhere that the 1Ds produces pixels of a size & quality that even allowing for pixel density on the cmos produce better quality images than the 10D.
7) Whilst the 1Ds produces the greatest resolving power & detail in recorded image the mkII is the current best compromise between this & user functionality-particularly for action photography.

Chris, I would suggest that if the 1Ds is not feasible for you then the 1DmkII would be a very worthy substitute. As Nigel suggests the putative 1Ds mkII is likely to be markedly more expensive & probably well over a year away by the time the pros have snapped up the first productions. It is in the nature of digital technology that you spend a small fortune on the best gear today & its outdated by tomorrow. At some point you have to take the plunge & the pundits seem to be suggesting that making a move now with the 1DmkII would be as good a time as any.

Well Steve, I am flattered by your comments, many thanks indeed.
To take up this point....... "The image magnification review in the 1Ds is poorly designed & unwieldy-that of the mkII is much slicker & allows incremental reviews" ..... I am very surprised that Canon have not been able to better this as it should be possible to match the 10D system as a firmware upgrade using existing buttons on the camera, I would imagine.

And Glen, yes your calculations are correct on rechecking, (I had had a few pints last night when I replied to this thread) I also feel that the increase of 6% is very little improvement for the £2K difference in price.

Ultimately though I have to agree with Steve that equipment alone, whilst it does have some bearing on the images produced, is no substitute for getting out, shooting and getting experience. I know that even if I could afford to own a Stradivarius violin I would still not be able to play it let alone be a great violinist!

Whoops, I was right first time.....
IDmk11 has a sensor size of 28.7x19.1 mm and 8.2million pixels this is a size of 548.17 sq mm giving 14958.86 pixels per square mm, (this is much the same as the 1Ds) whereas the 10D has a sensor size of 22.7xx15.1mm at 6.3 million pixels this is an area of 342.77sq mm and yeilds 18379.6 pixels per sq mm so there is a 22% increase in the number of pixels that the 10D image offers. However the number of pixels per square millimetre does not necessarily mean a better quality image. For my money I do not feel that the 1Dmk11 will give sygnificantly better quality for the huge price difference.

There a number of technical factors relating to "Airy disc" size (also called 'circles of confusion'. This is the diameter of a point of focused light at the plane of focus, i.e. sensor) that can conspire to degrade the way the image is recorded, the cameras software fit relating to how the image in processed does also make a big difference.

The problems arising from the sensor size/pixels per square mm are also relative to the lenses used i.e the amount of depth of field a lens offers decreases as you get closer to your subject, therefore as you will need to get closer to the subject with a larger sensor sized camera, to get it to a relative size in the frame, the aperture you will need to use to get the whole subject sharp will have to be smaller (stopped down), so a higher number of pixels per square millimetre may not give a gain in image quality as the light from a point of focused detail will be spread over many pixels because the Airy disc gets bigger with smaller apertures, and these points of focused light will, for want of a better description, overlap, the image will, despite having more depth of field, be much softer.

Thanks Guys, I really appreciate your time and advice. I also appreciate that it depends whose hands the equipment is in as to the results obtained. I'm getting better with the bits and bobs that I have and know that I've a long road to travel before I'm anywhere near Nigel's standard. I get the odd cracker, but wonder every time what it could have been like had it been taken with a pro job. I have the loot but I'm reluctant to part with it if the end results are only marginally different, hence the thread starter. In my novice way I saw 6 up to 8 (approx), a 25% increase in pixels therefore a significant increase in detail. I know this is simplistic and it doesn't work like that (and I had missed the different sensor size mentioned in the dpreview report) hence my question to you experts. Like you Steve I have no pro aspirations but would like to get the best results my pockets can afford. I was very much taken with the frame rate and rapid AF, but all the comparisons I read were 1Ds/Mk11, I wanted to get an unbiased opinion on the capabilites of the Mk11 especially the end results.

Thanks again for taking time out to assist and for the advice, presently I'm still sat on the fence, though I think the speed side may sway me.

Looked at your web site for the first time Nigel, Top Banana!!

Steve, we're not too far away from each other, if ever you're up Pitlochry way and fancy some company, mail me. Same goes for you Nigel, I could learn a thing or three!!