Canon 1D (the first one)

[moomike]

I apologise if this question has already been tackled on these forums but I wasn't too sure where to look to find it.
I understand also that this question is apparently answered in numerous sites all over the internet but to be totally honest I would rather have opinions from people I trust to give me good advice (& there were some really nasty replies to some people on other forums - makes you really appreciate TPF staff & members! ).

I have a 20D at the moment & shoot mainly sports & wildlife (but also some portrait stuff too) & unfortunately the 1DMk2 is a leeetle out of my price range at the mo but I have been considering the 1D until I can upgrade (may be a while!). Shoot lots of fast paced Water Polo & would really like the extra AF points, etc. but found that a great deal of people on other forums moan about the older technology & 4mp's & say that images taken at this level won't be suitable for printing anything over 10x8 or even be accepted by magazines, newspapers, etc. (others say that its fine due to the larger sensor size & pixel quality) CONFUSED!!

Just a gentle nudge in the correct direction would be very much appreciated (pros/cons). As I said before, have looked briefly at other forums but this question just seems to result in arguments & people spitting their dummies out if others don't agree with them (sigh) Have also looked at 1d reviews but was not sure how old the reviews were.

Thanks in advance to anyone that can offer advice

 

[dod]

I asked a similar question not that long ago, here's a linky.

 

[CT]

I'm not sure what advice to give you to be honest. The original 1D was an awesome price and spec when new, but technology and time has somewhat passed it by when you look at 'lesser' cameras like the 20D with 8+ mega pixels.

However... on the positive side, you're buying a pro build camera with a weather proof body and my understanding, although I can't speak personally, is that it produces very smooth images due to having larger pixels on a large 1.3X sensor. I've no doubt you'll find it useful for sports and action photography providing you don't want to make very large prints, but I think you have to weigh everything in the balance, including the price you'll be paying for it.

Probably not helped much?

 

[Marcel]

No need to apologise at all. Not sure if it's been asked on here before, but nevertheless, we don't mind duplication here...we don't go for the "grrr, use the search" type responses, so you're perfectly welcome to ask the question.

I'm sure there are a couple of people around here that have had a 1d in the past and can point you in a better direction than I can .

And I can promise you there will be no spitting of dummies here We're all a lovely bunch of coconuts

 

[moomike]

Cheers for the replies & advice, every suggestion helps - & thanks for the link Dod (even though it's just made me want a MK2 )

The weatherproofed body sounds great as I felt like a bit of a fool standing at a recent water polo tournament with all of my camera gear & my umbrella being held up via the handle stuck down my life jacket

 

[dazzajl]

Something we chatted about in another thread here as a possible stepping stone into the 1D body range was the original 1ds.

Still a great camera, 11 odd megapixies, full frame and the hefty build quality you'd expect. They look to be fetching about £1200 to £1500 on fleabay which is far from small change but on the other hand shows that they are still getting the job done, even against much newer kit.

 

[dod]

(even though it's just made me want a MK2

The only thing that really put me off the 1D was the estimated battery life. Everybody seems to say you're looking at between 300-400 shots per battery. For me that meant having between 6 and 8 batteries for a days shooting and those things are heavy. Everything else would have been fine.

The 1D Mk II is doing at least 2500 shots on the Canon battery, the compatible I picked up is doing even more.