450D v 1D MK11

L

ltully91

Messages
46
Edit My Images
Yes
About to buy a new camera, looking for a cannon. But stuck between a brand new 450d or going for a mk11 second hand.

just wondering peoples opinions on it ? as at the moment although few years old the mk2 is winning for me.

Liam
 
depends if you want a new flashy camera that looks really smart or and old lump of heavy metal...

the old lump of metal will do the job correctly again and again and again

the 450 will work great but there will be a danger of outgrowing the camera too quickly (you wont outgrow the 1d)

if you want to take photos of sports or action the the 1d will be far better then the 450

the 1d will hold its value better as well
 
For the autofocus and the speed of it (as well as being built like a brick) it has to be the 1d.

I bought a 1Ds MkII last year and that autofocus is unbelievable!
 
If I was at the beginning of my photographic journey, I would really consider the 450d as a possibility compared to the 1d.

Now, 8 months in, for me it would be a no brainer - 1d all the way. I have learnt that any of the good bits of the 450d would be totally overshadowed by the build quality and ability of the 1d.

Having said that though, I think being new to DSLR at that time I would have been very daunted by the 1d.

Hope that makes a bit of sense! and doesn't make out that I am any good at any of it!!!
 
dod said:
Define "better"?
Click to expand...

In the broadest sense of the term.

What I meant was, due to the updated processor, and the greater megapixel count, it is likely that body v body, the 450d would take pictures with greater detail, more tonal range and less noise than the 1D (theoretically).

Obviously it's entirely dependant on the glass and the user.
 
foodpoison said:
450d will probably take better pictures
Click to expand...

Except for when the 1Ds gets the shot and the 450D is still trying to focus:D

The processors in the newer Canons are quicker and the noise handling just keeps getting better but the sheer quality of those 1D's is awesome.
 
foodpoison said:
450d will probably take better pictures
Click to expand...

Higher MP as we all know...is not much of a factor after 6mp, unless one intends to be cropping a lot or printing larger sizes...although I am sure there isn't much difference in the 2 options. Perhaps 10% increase in resolution? Nothing really..

The 1D wins hands down in every department...except age, MP and sensor version! :p It will outlive a 450D by miles.
 
I bought a 450D as my first DSLR. For me it was an excellent introduction, easy to handle, lightweight and feature packed. The IQ is pretty good, though I do find it a tad noisy even at lower ISOs.

I've very recently moved on to a second hand 1D MkII. It's a superb camera with many improvements on the 450D, less noise, higher ISOs increasing in smaller increments, higher shutter speeds and fps, the list goes on.

I never used the live view on the 450D and the larger LCD is not missed. They're both good cameras and from my limited experience I can recommend the two, but for me the 1D MKII is the one I will be using as my main camera.
 
I dont know very much about the mk11 so may be wrong but if I was looking for a new camera I would go for the newer up to date body as I would have thought that image quality would be better with a later processor
Worth considering a secondhand 40D really good camera for the money
Pete
 
foodpoison said:
What I meant was, due to the updated processor, and the greater megapixel count, it is likely that body v body, the 450d would take pictures with greater detail, more tonal range and less noise than the 1D (theoretically).
Click to expand...

Thought It'd be something like that :)

Personally I'd go for the MKII every time. I was just having a look through some of the shots I took with my 10D though and to be honest don't really see "that" much of a difference between it and my MkII and even the MkIII. I can't help thinking a lot of the percieved image quality improvements are more to do with marketing than real world performance. :exit:
 
If you were just starting out (or relatively new) to DSLR photography, then the 450D would be the one, it holds your hand better than a pro body, in that you have things like those little icons on one of the dials, so if you wanted to say take a sport shot, you just dial in the sport icon, and the camera takes over and sets the shooting parameters, without you having to worry about shutter speed,aperture, ISO etc. The 450 (and like) can provide more in camera processing than the pro bodies, so that contrast sharpening colours, b&W etc can all be done in camera, resulting in less need for post processing.

Difficult choice ?
 
ltully91 said:
About to buy a new camera, looking for a cannon. But stuck between a brand new 450d or going for a mk11 second hand.

just wondering peoples opinions on it ? as at the moment although few years old the mk2 is winning for me.

Liam
Click to expand...

It depends, will this be you first canon SLR. The 1D MkII(n) does take some getting use to, the setup of the camera isn't straight forward, lost of fingers and thumbs to start with, and I was using the 20D prior to buy mine last year, not knocking the camera, now I've got use to its querks, the 20D stays in the bag and yes the speed of the autofocus is still light years ahead of the 450D, but your comparing a £400 camera with a £1000 / 1400 camera depending on which version.

The 450D is very much intended for the beginner market, a very good introduction to a digital camera, the 50D is an intermediate camera designed for someone who whats to get a little more from the camera, the 5D is the full frame intermediate camera and the 1D series of camera's are designed for the non P&S brigade, no auto modes (no landscape, portrait icons on the control dial), you setup the camera yourself.

I ask the question again, will this be your first digital SLR, as I would not recommend any of the 1D series camera's to someone new to SLR's

Peter
 
thanks for all the replies.

It would be to do sport and Event photographs. The event photographs would be used in magazines and websites. It wont be my first Digital Slr have a samsung currently (GX-1s) and have had over 30 photos published in newspapers and magazines with it.
 
ltully91 said:
thanks for all the replies.

It would be to do sport and Event photographs. The event photographs would be used in magazines and websites. It wont be my first Digital Slr have a samsung currently (GX-1s) and have had over 30 photos published in newspapers and magazines with it.
Click to expand...

Then get the 1D Mkii or 1D Mkii(n), autofocus alone on this camera would be worth the ££ compared with the 450D.

Peter
 
The N isn't much of an upgrade to the Mk II considering how much more it costs, if it's not going to be your only body i'd go for the Mk II, were it the only body you owned i'd be concerned about the weight as you may think about leaving it at home for your other photography.
 
LCPete said:
I dont know very much about the mk11 so may be wrong but if I was looking for a new camera I would go for the newer up to date body as I would have thought that image quality would be better with a later processor
Worth considering a secondhand 40D really good camera for the money
Pete
Click to expand...

Processor is only part of it. The sensor from the 1DII is still very impressive and I believe it outperforms the 40D at high ISO.

I posted a "real world" comparison of 40D vs 1DII taken this time last year in Norway on this thread.

If you want to put the effort into learning the 1DII, it will nail more event shots than a 450.
 
I'd go for the 1D MkII. Whilst it might be a bit daunting at first, once you'd got used to it, it would outperform the 450D by miles. As has been said, better high ISO peformance, much better AF and build quality like a Sherman tank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top