Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon 5D vs 1Ds

Go to last post
F

Fred Silver

New member
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Location
Toronto, CA
For those who have worked with both the 5D or a 20D and the 1Ds Mark II, for a serious amateur, is their a real difference in the end product and is the result truly worht the $4000 to $6000 difference in price?
 
Fred Silver said:
For those who have worked with both the 5D or a 20D and the 1Ds
Mark II, for a serious amateur, is their a real difference in the
end product and is the result truly worht the $4000 to $6000
difference in price?
Click to expand...
This is an impossible question to answer for anyone but yourself, because both money and image quality have different value to different people. There is some difference - check the comparisons with the 1Ds II in the 5D review. Are they worth $4000? Probably not, unless you can make it up with increased earnings from your photography or you are fanatical about image quality. If money is no object, on the other hand... :)

Note also that for those who buy the 1D series image quality is just one consideration - build, focusing, speed, etc. are equally important.
--
Misha
 
I was speaking to a colleague today and her says files from his 1DS mk11 blow away the 5D files and also his mamiya medium format files.
 
i actually prefer the images from the original 1ds , the jpegs are excellent. The jpegs out of 5d are overdone in terms of noise reduction. I wish we could turn that option off. The original 1ds had great grain in the images
 
caribou said:
I was speaking to a colleague today and her says files from his 1DS
mk11 blow away the 5D files and also his mamiya medium format files.
Click to expand...
Which, may I ask, is it that your colleage feels is blown away by files from the 1DsMkII? Because I just had a 645 slide scanned on a Nikon SuperCoolscan 9000 at 4000dpi and, in my opinion, no 35mm-based DSLR yet offers that kind of tonal range, gentle highlight roll-off, accurate fine detail, and in general 'warmth.' As convenient as digital is, if I could afford to shoot film exclusively, I would gladly do so. Images from film still have a dimensionality, and a sense of reality that comes from recording our analog world on an analog medium. Even when digitized, I find a well-exposed slide of size 6x4.5cm-and-larger superior to 35mm digital equally well (35mm digital being represented by the current standard-bearer 1DsMkII - files from which I deal with on a daily basis) exposed by a significant margin.

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kabeluna/
 
I owned both cameras but the 5D IQ won out. The ISo 1600, 3200 and more dynamic range made the 5D my main camera. I do love the 1DS body but I am willing to use the 5D body. Once I get the 1Ds mark 2 I will still keep my 5D, it is a great camera, not perfect but a great tool.
Fred Silver said:
For those who have worked with both the 5D or a 20D and the 1Ds
Mark II, for a serious amateur, is their a real difference in the
end product and is the result truly worht the $4000 to $6000
difference in price?
Click to expand...
 
My experience with 5D and 14n is that they produce files close to scanned 645 detail from slow speed slide film.

One could certainly argue whether the overall quality of the digital or scanned image is better, it tends to depend on subject and personal preferences but they are closely matched.
Kabe Luna said:
caribou said:
I was speaking to a colleague today and her says files from his 1DS
mk11 blow away the 5D files and also his mamiya medium format files.
Click to expand...
Which, may I ask, is it that your colleage feels is blown away by
files from the 1DsMkII? Because I just had a 645 slide scanned on a
Nikon SuperCoolscan 9000 at 4000dpi and, in my opinion, no
35mm-based DSLR yet offers that kind of tonal range, gentle
highlight roll-off, accurate fine detail, and in general 'warmth.'
As convenient as digital is, if I could afford to shoot film
exclusively, I would gladly do so. Images from film still have a
dimensionality, and a sense of reality that comes from recording
our analog world on an analog medium. Even when digitized, I find a
well-exposed slide of size 6x4.5cm-and-larger superior to 35mm
digital equally well (35mm digital being represented by the current
standard-bearer 1DsMkII - files from which I deal with on a daily
basis) exposed by a significant margin.

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kabeluna/
Click to expand...
--
Galleries and website: http://www.whisperingcat.co.uk/mainindex.htm
 
neographikal said:
Sorry, film has it's advantages, but the detail isn't one of it.
Read Luminous Landscape for it, but not even Velvia 50 at MF is
detailed enough to beat the 1DsII :)
Click to expand...
...is in the quality of the print it produces, and assuming equivalent sharpness of both, to my eye prints - be they inkjets or traditional photographic prints - from a well-scanned, ISO 100 645 image renders more convincing fine detail than does an image from a 1DsMkII at ISO 100.

Granted, bump the speed requirement to ISO 400 and the DSLR wins by a wide margin. But for ultimate quality without the expenditure of 30K on a medium format digital SLR system, scanned low-ISO film is still the zenith.

--
- -
Kabe Luna

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kabeluna/
 
:or those who have worked with both the 5D or a 20D and the 1Ds Mark II, for a serious amateur, is their a real difference in the end product and is the result truly worht the $4000 to $6000 difference in price?"

I own and shoot both professionally. YES there are some serious differences. And TO ME they are worth the price difference. No idea if they'd be worth it to you. The 1d series build quality, AF, metering, weather sealing, and more.. are things I use quite often, but not all the time.

Image quality is subjective.. but overall.. after processing a combined 100k images from both.. there is no doubt the 1dsII produces superiour IQ when all aspects of IQ are factored in. The 5d can produce files with less noise if used correctly..

Overall.. I almost always select the 1dsII.. for reasons that might not be important to you. On the other hand.. when I need a lighter weight smaller body with great IQ and low noise.. I'm very glad I have the 5d to put in my bag..

BKKSW
 
I don't understand how anyone could be considering a 1Ds2 at this time. The 5D is the only choice right now if you can't wait until March when both cameras will probably be replaced. The 1Ds Mk2, as good as it is, is behind in so many other features. A few friends have sold their 1Ds Mk2's and have been using the 5D until the new camera shows up in March.

I know it sounds crazy but technology is merciless and fast paced.

--
Steve Sanacore
 
I had the chance to shoot some photo's with a 1DII, but no, actually it isn't right now. My main objection is the interface paradigm: the 1D prevents you from changing a setting by accident by constantly demanding two buttons being pushed.

I have a 30D with almost al the controls under my right hand what allows me to change settings more easilly (or make mistakes for that matter, but I have to make my first one yet). With the 30D I can keep looking trough the viewfinder while changing my settings and while I'm operating the lens with the left hand.

So although the 1DII is technical superior and I'd really like to have some features , the price difference and the difference in the interface paradigm are holding me back from buying it.
--
Lens reviews from users with full size examples: http://www.yourlensreview.net
 
Kabe Luna said:
neographikal said:
Sorry, film has it's advantages, but the detail isn't one of it.
Read Luminous Landscape for it, but not even Velvia 50 at MF is
detailed enough to beat the 1DsII :)
Click to expand...
...is in the quality of the print it produces, and assuming
equivalent sharpness of both, to my eye prints - be they inkjets or
traditional photographic prints - from a well-scanned, ISO 100 645
image renders more convincing fine detail than does an image from a
1DsMkII at ISO 100.

Granted, bump the speed requirement to ISO 400 and the DSLR wins by
a wide margin. But for ultimate quality without the expenditure of
30K on a medium format digital SLR system, scanned low-ISO film is
still the zenith.
Click to expand...
And to my eye a 645 film scan isn't anywhere close to the detail, tonality and overall image quality of a 1Ds Mark II or 5D file.

--
Whoever said 'a picture is worth a thousand words' was a cheapskate.

http://www.pbase.com/dot_borg
 
Professional camera is more about responsivelness, robustness and durability and flexibility, not necessary better picture. Picture is more on the photographer. One can say 1Ds MK1 is superior built, but being 2 years older, it may not produce better image than 5D, and of course, 5D may not be as good as 1Ds MK2. If one needs to be in the environment such as rain forest for months, or go to artic area, may be you will not want to risk not to use professional body. Every camera body eventually break down, the pro body gives you better chance of staying longer. The pro body also has better shield for electrical shock if you constantly use the camera in studio using high power lighting.
Fred Silver said:
For those who have worked with both the 5D or a 20D and the 1Ds
Mark II, for a serious amateur, is their a real difference in the
end product and is the result truly worht the $4000 to $6000
difference in price?
Click to expand...
--
Khun_K
 
Khun_K said:
Professional camera is more about responsivelness, robustness and
durability and flexibility, not necessary better picture. Picture
is more on the photographer. One can say 1Ds MK1 is superior built,
but being 2 years older, it may not produce better image than 5D,
and of course, 5D may not be as good as 1Ds MK2. If one needs to be
in the environment such as rain forest for months, or go to artic
area, may be you will not want to risk not to use professional
body. Every camera body eventually break down, the pro body gives
you better chance of staying longer. The pro body also has better
shield for electrical shock if you constantly use the camera in
studio using high power lighting.
Click to expand...
No, professional camera is more about who uses it

--
Vance Zachary
http://www.pbase.com/photoworkszach
http://www.photoworksbyzachary.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top