Throwback Thursday: Returning to the Canon EOS-1D


CR Pro
Apr 3, 2013
Isle of Wight
Hi Orangutan.
I'm curious about which bondo to use to repair a failing sensor, (lots of dead pixels for instance) and how it affects the DR of the sensor one set. ??? ::) ;)

Cheers, Graham.

Orangutan said:
danski0224 said:
And of course, once/if it breaks, that's it.

There are still Model T cars running around out there; maybe we just need to encourage development of Vintage Digital Camera clubs, where members teach each other how to repair ancient (i.e. 10-year old) cameras using Bondo. ;D
Upvote 0


Apr 24, 2011
Orangutan said:
There are still Model T cars running around out there; maybe we just need to encourage development of Vintage Digital Camera clubs, where members teach each other how to repair ancient (i.e. 10-year old) cameras using Bondo. ;D

I bet that if someone started making USM focus motors for the first generation Big Whites, there would be a lot of interest.
Upvote 0
mistaspeedy said:
Every day is throwback thursday for me, with my 1D mark II from 2004 - the only camera I own! (I realize the OP is talking about the original 4mpx 1D)

8 megapixels @ 8.3 fps
Many of the technical aspects (besides dynamic range and resolution) of the sensor have it competing closely with the 80D, and beating the original 7D!

Just check out the comparison here:
Jump to the measurements tab and check the results. The dynamic range tab is the only place where the 1D mark II falls short of both cameras by quite a lot. Otherwise, it beats the 7D and comes close to the 80D.

That original 1D must also have some similar characteristics! Unfortunately, it is not in the DXOmark database, but we can hardly expect it to be. - So, lacking DXOmark lab tests for the original 1D, I guess the 1D mark II is the closest thing that we can see detailed specs on.

I'm currently comparing the 1D MKII, so far the perceived sharpness is very similar.
And the extra pixel count does help enormously for cropping, I have a few samples to compare so far.
As of now I still prefer the 1D MK 1 over the MK 2, but again its all preference art is art.

(1D mkII below)[email protected]/36516800471/in/dateposted/
Upvote 0
danski0224 said:
I haven't used mine for a while, and it really isn't worth selling at this point (I bought it used for little money).

The limitation I found was the file size, and as mentioned earlier, there isn't much room for cropping. I have printed 8x10 and 13 x 19 from that camera, and the images look fine, but the frame needs to be filled with the subject matter to be used as-is.

And of course, once/if it breaks, that's it.

Maybe I should dust it off again :)

Yes as I stated in my full article cropping is a no no, but if you can handle the challenge you'll be rewarded :D[email protected]/36522983224/
Upvote 0
Perio said:
A few times I wanted to get this camera, and I will probably do at a certain point. Just to add, this original 1d had 1/16,000 sec shutter speed which is amazing.

Yes the shutter is very unique to this camera, not to mention the 1/500 flash sync. Cropping has advanced but shutters.... not so much for creative uses.
Upvote 0


Nov 15, 2014
privatebydesign said:
Perio said:
A few times I wanted to get this camera, and I will probably do at a certain point. Just to add, this original 1d had 1/16,000 sec shutter speed which is amazing.

It also had 1/500 sec flash sync.

I've considered picking up one just for those two features. ;) otoh my speedlights have something like 1/250 flash duration at full power, so I'm not sure what there would be to gain anyways.
Upvote 0
Mt Spokane Photography said:
A even further throwback camera is the $30,000+ 1995 6mp Kodak DCS 460 which I happened to find locally for $100 a few years back.

It is basically a APS-C back for a Nikon N90 and used type III PC cards (those large ones with a hard drive inside) The camera output .tiff files in a older format, but Lightroom still processes them just fine. Colors are not quiet right, I don't know if its lightroom, or the sensor changing, the colors can be adjusted.

DCS 460 Camera Specifications
  • Image storage on removable PC cards, Type III; 42 images per 260 MB
  • 12 bits/color
  • Normal operation for camera exposure with all metering modes available
  • 18.4 x 27.6-mm imager magnifies focal length only 1.3X
  • SCSI interface with host
  • DCS 460 Color: ISO 80
  • DCS 460 Mono: ISO 160
  • Continuous-frame capture rate of approximately 12 seconds/image
  • 250 images per battery charge, with 1 hour to recharge
  • AC adapter/charger power requirements: 50/60 Hz, 100, 120, 220, 240 V AC
  • Approximate size: 6.7 in. W x 4.5 in. D x 8.2 in. H (170 mm x 114 mm x 208 mm)
  • Weight (without lens): 3.75 lbs. (1.70 kg)
  • Certified FCC Class B, UL, CSA, TUV

Now that would be fun!
Upvote 0
Camerajah said:
My nickname for that camera was the monster, it was my main PR camera have used it on more commercial shoots than I can remember,Did a shoot for small brochure for a client only to have the client said that they needed a life size print.
I uprezed the file to 12 megapixel when I saw the final print I was speechless and all was happy.

I then added the 1DsII to complete my 2 camera kit.

It is a MONSTER!
I'm glad you had success printing with it, I'm still amazed how good it looks on a modern 58" display.
Ill be doing a follow when I get time for a poster sized print :D
Upvote 0
tomscott said:
Interesting perspective.

My opinion is that these cameras are nothing but antiques to put on the shelf. There are very few application where these cameras are useful now a days. They are more a hinderance than a help. Nice to look back on to reminisce.

Shooting with no post is a lovely idea in theory but pretty much lays waste to most of the practicalities of modern photography. You don't have to spend hours at the computer you set up profiles, use one click presets for things like exposure etc etc so the software does the work. One click two click three done. How do you think wedding and event photographers get through their workflow otherwise we would be at the computer more than shooting.

Certainly if you are practicing a trade, makes no sense to me to be shooting and in business using this type of equipment. In fact it would make me ask a lot of questions.

I'm a believer in creating an image from my minds eye, most people Lr presets useful but I have a very picky eye. I find spending the time to use light and shadow far more effective, my workflow is 90% lighting and 10% software. Light is light and photography is an art form, not a technology race. I chose the 1D for wildlife photography because its output helps me create the images I have in my head, no other reason.
As for wedding photography I use a 5D, as I stated in the full review its a portrait camera not a sports action camera.
Besides until I released all my EXIF data nobody knew I was using a 1D mk1, the BBC and ITV filmed me using the 1D and had no idea :D
Upvote 0
dak723 said:
Not that surprised by Kieran Elson's comments - though I am surprised that CA guy had the nerve to put an opinion like that on a primarily gear-head site where it is all about the latest and greatest and test numbers up your wahoo.

I used the Original Digital Rebel (6 MP) for about 9 years before getting a 6D. When I got the 6D I was somewhat concerned that all my 6 MP files would look poor in comparison and I would become disappointed in all those shots taken with the Original Rebel. But lo and behold, prints up to about 8 x 12 (which is as large as I do print) looked pretty much the same with the FF 20 MP 6D. And they, of course, looked equally as good on my computer screen. Turned out that all that extra resolution was not really apparent. And - even though there is no "metric" for it - those larger pixels do seem to make a difference in appearance. There have been a few comments on the forum over the years that people have mentioned that there was "something" better looking about those large pixels.

Interesting also that she mentions that "the output was more saturated and contrasty compared to the 7D." Well, that in all likelihood is because of the lower DR. I know I have mentioned this in other threads, but maybe less DR means better IQ. I know that I need to add more contrast now in PP with my M5 than I used to with my original rebel. I for one have no desire for more DR if it means less contrast and flatter pics (and it does).

Yes the extra pixels we all have really don't help for anything other than cropping, very few people need more than 10MP for at least 80% of applications. If you look at the full article I do show side by side comparisons, its very interesting how differently low mp cameras render images at normal print sizes.
Also Kieran is an irish male name, but no offence taking I get it all the time in the states ;)
Upvote 0
privatebydesign said:
I sold my 1D last year for $250.

It was a great camera, when compared to film cameras, but 4.2 MP was always a limitation and part of the reason for the dramatic gains in sensor capabilities over a short time period. The ISO performance stood up well when compared to film but that was it, again the sensor was outgrown technologically speaking very quickly. As was that dumb 1.3 crop that was not EF-s compatible so ultrawide angle coverage was non existent.

But anybody that uses one can't help but be frustrated with the non zooming replay, tiny screen the limited menu and whilst the IQ is good its nothing special and vastly outgunned by pretty much everything since.

As for the 'look' of the files. That is nothing more than the rendering programs algorithms interpretation, it is easily changed and if you take the time to make ISO specific camera profiles including color profiles and tone curves and apply them on import you can make pretty much anything look like anything else with no input or further time taken, it's digital for goodness sake!

I think you may have missed the why I love this camera, I did state in my full article all the hurdles that need overcoming. But once that is out of the way there's no competing with the colour saturation and sharpness this camera has, no amount of software can make up for hardware limitations.
The same reason film still holds its own, is the same reason this camera can.
Once you get over not being able to crop, the rewards are plentiful. And as for the 4.2mp? I will be doing a follow up with how big it can print, I think everyone will be pleasantly surprised...

I will definitely agree with you that the lack of a zoom function on a professional digital camera is nothing short of a joke, and the 1D has the worst screen on earth.
But I was very honest about this in my article[email protected]/36522983224/in/photostream/lightbox/
Upvote 0