1DS - still worth having?

M

magirus

Messages
568
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all. I'm thinking of giving full frame a try and I see that the older 1DS can be bought reasonably, and in decent nick too. Will I get worthwhile benefits in terms of IQ with an older body like this, or should I be looking at a 5D? I'm using a 50D right now, and may change this to a 7D at some point by the way. Thanks in advance for any advice.:)
 
Both are still very good cameras and have slightly different strengths.

I have a 5D that is a hard working camera and the IQ is fab. If you have any doubts about the quality or abilities of the old 1Ds, go take a look at this site.

http://www.andydounephotos.co.uk/
 
They both have pro and cons, the 5D has the better image quality (my opinion though) and is smaller but the 1DS has the 1D focusing and metering system and has a built in grip.

The ISO is better on the 5D as well.

But... there is nothing like the feel of a 1D!
 
there is nothing like the feel of a 1D!
Click to expand...

My current canon stable has a 5D and a 1DII. Several others have come and gone and it's totally true. Nothing feels like the 1 series.
 
I had a 1Ds and moved to a 5D (original). Almost no difference in IQ that I could see. But the 5D is much easier to handle (better menus etc) and is faster to use. The write times on a 1Ds are very slow.
 
Remember the 1DS has a smaller screen, only goes to ISO 1250 and as a professional camera *may* have been hammered. Depends what you are after though...if it's a weather sealed full frame body with 1 series focusing, then the original 1DS CAN'T be beaten for its price. If it's something a little smaller with a larger screen, faster operation and better high ISO, then the 5D can't be beaten IMO.

Personally, I went for the 5D because it's that much more modern and fits my shooting style better :)
 
Coming from a 50D you are going to see a difference. The 1Ds is a complete tank - slow, lacking an intuitive menu system, and the likes of picture styles weren't even on the drawing board back then. My 1Ds is very "green" - if I underexpose slightly or the WB comes out not quite right, images have a green tint - on the 450D I owned previously, images seemed to have a more red hue.

The main reasons I bought a 1Ds, despite it being a step back in many ways, are:

a) Full frame. This gives the ability to utilise the full DOF and FOV that any EF lens gives. No crop factor here - 50mm is 50mm - just like on film.

b) Sealing. I do some urbex in some pretty dodgy conditions and it just didn't feel right carrying a plastic fantastic 450D. The 1Ds would probably break whatever it hit rather than the other way around. Coupled with a 17-40L or another cheap weathersealed lens, and it's an excellent walkabout package for less than ideal conditions.

c) AF. One of the main things that bugged me about the 450 was its lousy AF. The conditions had to be right for it to work properly, and there weren't enough AF points for my liking. The 1Ds just focusses, and does it properly, providing the lens on the end isn't a 50mm f/1.4 USM (lol)

The 1Ds is becoming very long in the tooth now, but at the end of the day it's still viable in some ways. The 11MP sensor is still too much for me, and that's from a 7 year old camera. High ISO is simply non existant, with a measly maximum of 1250, so Canon's slower lenses that are easily usable on the likes of a 5D2 become a bit more challenging here.

One thing I do find about the 1Ds is the colour reproduction is decent. Without PP the pictures do look perfectly acceptable - on the 450D I found that in order to avoid the photos looking washed out, I'd have to use the "Standard" picture style, which actually ups the contrast and colour saturation compared to "neutral", which is what the 1Ds is based on. The images need very little PP to look good, in fact I shoot JPEG and only use a dash of sharpening (the antialiasing screen is very weak) and the pics are fine. You'll be surprised at how much sharper your EF lenses look on a 1Ds - a large, very low pixel density sensor will make a big difference.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all of that folks. You've given me plenty of food for thought, time to read up on the 1DS II!:help:
 
I used a 1ds for a couple of years, the nearest film like quality files you will ever get.
It's a slow, but if you are in no rush and a happy using it below iso400 then you won't go far wrong.
 
Byker28i said:
...or MPB

http://www.mpbphotographic.co.uk/us...l-slr-cameras/used-canon-digital-slr-cameras/

trouble is you look at the 1ds, then the mk2, then the mk3...
Click to expand...

Oddly I cant see any real place for the 1Ds III. If you shoot stuff that sits still, like studio or landscape work, even portraits to a large degree then the 5DII is going to do all that you need. Pretty much the same file size and IQ.

If you want rugged construction for the outdoor life, fast AF or need high ISO, then the 1D IV is probably a better bet. Both for less than the 1Ds III.

In fact for the cost of the DsIII, could you not get both of the others?
 
I had a 50D (until my wife nicked it), 'won' a 1D (not s) mk2 off e-bay and then bought a 5D cos I wanted full frame. There's not much difference in IQ between the 1 and the 5 (the 5 edges it), BUT the 1D is a brick and if i had any doubts as to which camera to take and I didnt know what the conditions would be like I'd grab the 1D, I love the beast, as much as I like my 5D the old brick just has a great feel to it.

So if you're choosing between 1Ds and 5D I think I'd go for 1Ds, tbh it doesnt really matter too much which one you go for, if you dont like it then the rsale value will still be there unless you drop it (probably still be there even if you dropped the 1Ds)

Matt
 
It's all been said really about the pros and cons of the 1Ds but I will say that I went from a 5D MkI to a 1Ds MkI. Whilst the noise above ISO 400 was more noticeable it could be minimised by careful exposure and to me even ISO 800+ can look fantastic converted to B&W and printed.

I really like the colour reproduction from the 1Ds as well as the weather sealing, the metering and the accurate 45pt AF. What I was much less keen on was the battery life which was usually around 450 shots per charge which meant needing to take a 2nd battery when going out and it could be frustrating waiting for the images to write to the card but I found it actually made me stop incessantly chimping. The screen wasn't much of an issue for me as I began to rely on the histogram instead.

Having said all that, if you were to look at increasing your budget to the level of a 1Ds MkII I would struggle to recommend one over a 5D MkII which I believe can be found for similar money now (There was ~£500 difference when I bought my 1DsII) unless you felt you needed the 1 series AF system and weathersealing.

Whilst the 1Ds MkII is a clear improvement over the 1Ds MkI with its short comings, the high ISO performance and 14 bit files of the 5D MkII is step up over the 1Ds MkII.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top