5d or 1ds

[bobthebrick]

Hi all.
I'm hoping that the CR geniuses will be able to help here; original 5d or original 1ds?
I shoot predominantly landscape and macro, though I need good low light performance and if possible reasonableish sports performance, minus the FPS of course. I think the 5d is probably better from what I've read so far, and I would like the weight savings, but it seems fairly inconclusive.

Thanks in advance,
Thomas.

 

[tron]

hello,

you mean the versions I?

It is a strange comparison and to tell the truth I haven't used either

I am an owner of a 5D mkII however and apart from its autofocus performance which is not excellent (but not very bad either)
I am satisfied with it. Back in the film days I had bought 2 used EOS 1n with boosters and I was happy with them!
So I have some experience with series 1. However the 1Ds is so old that I would suggest the 5D merely for its low noise capabilities,
especially because your main interest themes are static.

 

[Loswr]

DxOMark ranks the 5D sensor performance higher than the 1Ds (link). The 1Ds will have better AF for sports shooting. On the balance, I'd recommend the 5D over the 1Ds given the requirements you listed.

 

[K-amps]

I have a 5D and before it; used to have a 1d mk.ii (not DS though): I miss the frame rates and 7AEB on the 1D body, but apart from that it was a bag of hurt. I needed to resurrect an old XP machine to even load the software to control some of the 1D settings. Mine had USB 1 (not sure what the Ds has): Also image quality on the 5d is as good as any current DSLR out there. Much better than the 1D2 I had.

Don't think too hard about it... go with the 5d.

 

[bobthebrick]

Thanks so much guys for your help, that was really quick Yeah, I'm talking about the mk 1 versions of each cameras. The consensus seems to be the 5d, but there is a lot of mention of AF issues. How bad are they, will I be able to shoot sports at all? (mainly soccer, skiing, snowboarding, plus the occasional hockey, waterpolo. By occasional I mean once or twice a year, the others pretty much everyweek. And can it autofocus quick enough to take good candid shots of people, especially small children in low light?

Thanks heaps guys,
Thomas.

 

[K-amps]

Thanks so much guys for your help, that was really quick Yeah, I'm talking about the mk 1 versions of each cameras. The consensus seems to be the 5d, but there is a lot of mention of AF issues. How bad are they, will I be able to shoot sports at all? (mainly soccer, skiing, snowboarding, plus the occasional hockey, waterpolo. By occasional I mean once or twice a year, the others pretty much everyweek. And can it autofocus quick enough to take good candid shots of people, especially small children in low light?

Thanks heaps guys,
Thomas.

If you use the center point, the AF is very good. Otherwise it can be hit or miss... I shoot usually with centerpoint and never had issues with the AF.

 

[bobthebrick]

Hmm. Sounds like it could work. Would it make sense to try and pick up a 1d mk ii (n or not) as well in the near future? They go for next to nothing, unlike the 1ds which still fetches a grand.

Thomas.

 

[K-amps]

Hmm. Sounds like it could work. Would it make sense to try and pick up a 1d mk ii (n or not) as well in the near future? They go for next to nothing, unlike the 1ds which still fetches a grand.

Thomas.

I had a 1d2 before the 5d... I didnt care for the image quality a whole lot... it was ok. The IQ with the 5d is better. But you can buy one used and resell after 2-3 months for the same price range thats what I did...

 

[bobthebrick]

I had a 1d2 before the 5d... I didnt care for the image quality a whole lot... it was ok. The IQ with the 5d is better. But you can buy one used and resell after 2-3 months for the same price range thats what I did... [/quote]

What's your definition of ok? Would I be better off just not bothering if the images out of it won't be great? It holds its value well then, so I could give it a try then offload it if I don't like it.

Thomas.

 

[K-amps]

It depends if you shoot primarily RAW or use the jpegs too.. if RAW then it is much better, the jpeg rendering is not very good... even the 350d can render better jpegs and the T2i's can outshine it easily, they are less noisier; brighter/clearer... When you look at the raw renditions the margin closes, but still the level of clean details you can get from a 5d are far superior to the 1d2. I am going off personal experience here and have not done 1 on 1 tests on the two bodies, just a few months of taking shots with both.

 

[bobthebrick]

Thankyou heaps I think I'll just continue to bid on used 5ds and see if that does what I want and go from there. Thanks everyone!!

Thomas.

 

[bobthebrick]

Thanks Great to know it will be useful for pretty much anything.

 

[niccyboy]

+1 for the 5D... I loved mine.

 

[wickidwombat]

with the new 7DII announcement on the horrizon, I would guess new 7D prices heading straight into your price bracket, just something to consider, with the 10-22 its very respectable for landscape, you get more benefit with macro on a crop body and the 7D will handle those sports shots you want that the 5D wont. and it'll be a new camera in warranty.

 

[bobthebrick]

with the new 7DII announcement on the horrizon, I would guess new 7D prices heading straight into your price bracket, just something to consider, with the 10-22 its very respectable for landscape, you get more benefit with macro on a crop body and the 7D will handle those sports shots you want that the 5D wont. and it'll be a new camera in warranty.

Hmmm, interesting. Pity I don't like the photos out of the 7d, otherwise it would be a great choice. To me though, having FF or APS-H at the very least is important for low light use and lens choice. I actually DON'T like the extra reach you get with crop bodies. I suppose it's what I deserve for shooting film

Thanks for your suggestion,
Thomas.

 

[briansquibb]

Hmmm, interesting. Pity I don't like the photos out of the 7d, otherwise it would be a great choice. To me though, having FF or APS-H at the very least is important for low light use and lens choice. I actually DON'T like the extra reach you get with crop bodies. I suppose it's what I deserve for shooting film

Thanks for your suggestion,
Thomas.

+1 ... and I thought I was alone with this opinion

 

[pwp]

I shot with a 1Ds (original) and actually replaced it with a 5D classic which I still own and use for it's unique "look" for some portrait jobs.

The 1Ds has some of the obvious 1-series advantages such as 45 AF points, weather sealing, buffer etc but the 5D files left the 1Ds for dead in my opinion.

Paul Wright

 

[KitFireburn]

Given your circumstances, i say go for the 5D, i used one that my friend owned at one point and i couldn't put it down.

I think you'll develop a strong bond with it the second you see the photos it produces. Good luck.

~Randy

 

[bvukich]

Hmmm, interesting. Pity I don't like the photos out of the 7d, otherwise it would be a great choice. To me though, having FF or APS-H at the very least is important for low light use and lens choice. I actually DON'T like the extra reach you get with crop bodies. I suppose it's what I deserve for shooting film

Thanks for your suggestion,
Thomas.

+1 ... and I thought I was alone with this opinion

+2 ... you're not even close to the only one.

As long as a FF has sufficient resolution to crop to the FOV you desire in the event you run out of focal length, there is precisely ZERO benefit to a crop body. The "extra reach" is an illusion. It is a net detriment, not a benefit. There is no sane argument to the contrary.

There used to be technological reasons why a crop had some desirable performance characteristics, i.e. sensor readout speed; hence the the development of APS-H. But the actual sensor size wasn't one of the desirable characteristics, merely a compromise that had to be made.

 

[Loswr]

To me though, having FF or APS-H at the very least is important for low light use and lens choice.

How does APS-H give you better lens choice? For that matter, how does FF give you better lens choice? Granted, they both give you shallower DoF than APS-C for a given aperture, but would you not want to shoot wider than 18mm (FF equivalent) on APS-H with a rectilinear lens (having good IQ, and I'm not counting the Sigma 12-24 in that category)?

As long as a FF has sufficient resolution to crop to the FOV you desire in the event you run out of focal length, there is precisely ZERO benefit to a crop body. The "extra reach" is an illusion. It is a net detriment, not a benefit. There is no sane argument to the contrary.

Ahhh...but compared to the final cropped size of some of my 7D images, cropping the 1D X to the same FoV would leave me with ~3.5 MP. Having more pixels on target is a benefit when you don't have sufficient focal length. But as you state, otherwise, there's no benefit to a crop factor (other than decreased cost - but I would think that lower cost is defenitely a sane argument for the benefit of APS-C, if one doesn't have >$2K to spend on a FF body...).