Why a Canon 1 Series DSLR is a cheaper option.

Les McLean

Les McLean

In Memoriam
Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,793
Name
Les
Edit My Images
Yes
I reckon buying a 1 series DSLR can work out much more cost effective than buying non-pro DSLR systems.

I've had a 1DS MKII for three years, and I'll be keeping it and using as a main camera for at least another two years,

5 years is an incredibly long time in respect of modern DSLR's, but at the end of the 5 year period, the 1DS MKII will still be up there among the best cameras on the market.

If I hadn't gone along the 1 series route, my probable upgrade path would have been a 20D (I had a 10D at the time), and then a 5D and then probably in a years time the replacement for the 5D, therefore back to my original statement, in the longer term the 1Ds MKII is a cheaper option than a continual series of non-pro upgrades.

Also, you quite often see stated that the only difference between say a 1DS MKII and a 5D is a few mega-pixels, I think that's missing the point of a professional body.

There are significant differences, with the ones that are important for me being:
  • The cameras weather sealing-I noticed on another thread about a tog's camera dying after a heavy downpour, that isn't a worry for me.
  • Robustness, a 1 series camera is built like a proverbial outhouse, and can take punishment that most non-pro bodies can't. A couple of months ago, I had a large stone from the top of a dry stone wall fall directly on the camera, and apart from a small dent in the top of the camera, it continued working fine. I've had it fall onto pavements as I've knocked a tripod over, and although a couple of filters consequently were wrecked, the camera is fine.
  • Battery life, I know I never have to worry about the batteries running out, I can snap happily all day without a concern.
  • Viewfinder, I know it's only a 4% difference in brightness of the viewfinder, but in low-light landscapes the difference is massive.
  • 45 point AF (against 9), being able to manually select such a range is such a benefit.
  • ISO speed viewable in viewfinder
  • A 2 second self timer mode, because of this, I rarely use a remote release.
This isn't a rant against for or against any particular camera or system, nor do I want to get into a bun-fight over merits of different cameras, most modern DSLR's are more than capable of producing first class images, therefore doesn't really matter if the company logo begins in C or N (or O or P etc)

All I'm inanely chattering about is from my own personal angle.

In retrospect, although it was a considerable investment when I bought the 1DS MKII, it has definitely worked out cheaper than a series of upgrades, not forgetting the odd repair bills that I would have had if I didn't have such a rock solid camera body.

So when you are considering upgrading to the latest model, please don't discount investing in a professional body, you maybe pleasantly surprised how cost effective it can be, although your nearest and dearest may want to challenge that perception :)
 
I have to agree with you Les. I bought the same camera and it is better in so many ways. In my environment the "double touch" required to alter (or inadvertently) change is a god send.

This said modern sensors are better for low-light hand held photography and on that basis I am not getting rid of the 5D.

I have also found my pictures more readily accepted as they have been taken on a "professional" platform - Editors may have a bit of snobbery that they don't talk about .

Good rant Les. ;p
 
Not so sure the math works out that way Les.

The current 1DS is around 6k, spread over 5 years that's £1250 a year.

With the xxD range I can upgrade every year and run two bodies for less.

Year 1 - £800 on a xxD (single body)
Year 2 - £800 on a xxD (two bodies)
Year 3 - £800 on a xxD (two bodies, dump year 1 body)
Year 4 - £800 on a xxD (two bodies, dump year 2 body)
Year 5 - £800 on a xxD (two bodies, dump year 3 body)

Total spend over the 5 years £4k and I was running two bodies since year two. Plus at the end the technology I'm using is 4 years ahead of the 1 series and in this will be a significant difference. Based on those figures I could have started with 2 xxD bodies from the get go and still be better off.

Of course if the plan is to work up to a 1 series with incremental upgrades it's not cheaper because you've spent out on everything on the way.

Picking up on some other points...

On the 1Ds MKIII the 45 af point selection has been reduced to 16 I believe (the rest are hidden now).

With my xxDs I regularly shoot 2500 frames without changing batteries when covering 10k, 1/2 marathons, etc.

ISO speed in the VF and 2 sec time both appeared in the 40D and I suspect will be standard from now on.

But the robustness and weather sealing can't be argued, the 1 series are tanks and worth every penny in that regard :thumbs:
 
pxl8 said:
Not so sure the math works out that way Les.

The current 1DS is around 6k, spread over 5 years that's £1250 a year.

:thumbs:
Click to expand...

My 1Ds MKII cost me £4200, (bought from overseas ) and I reckon the new MKIII will soon be heavily discounted.

The 5D was over 2K when it first came out, look at the price now.

So I stand by my maths (perhaps a bit shakily :) )
 
Oh, absolutely. But the math depends on who it's for... I used a version that suits my business model. As much as I'd like to have a couple of 1 series it just doesn't make financial sense :(
 
Some good points from both sides of the argument. :D

The advantages of the 1 Series bodies are enormous and so many, some are often overlooked. The ability to load CF and SD cards and back up important shots from one card to the other shouldn't be overlooked, nor should the multi spot metering ability. The 1 series also still autofocuses with lenses of f8 max aperture rather than f5.6, an important consideration for many people.

It isn't that long ago that the original 1DS packed a (then) jaw dropping 11 mega pixels and cost about £6K. It doesn't seem so impressive now though with prosumer cameras exceeding it's pixel count or pushing it very close.

The advantages of the 1 Series are real and tangible if you really need them though - it isn't all about pixels.
 
I have a 20D and needed a second body. The 1d mk111 was out due to problems with focusing, so I could have gone for the 40D with 10 million pixals or 5D with 12 (but frame rate was a bit slow). I found a really good low use 1d mk11n on ebay, and can totally agree that a 1d series will work out better in the long run. My 20D is already inconsistant and certainly doesn't stand up to the abuse that the 1d series can.
 
1D is great in alot of ways, but i dont like the size, and prefer the smaller footprint of the 40D/5D without grip. The only feature is the weather sealing that i would like to see passed down to the other ranges:(, but of course you still need weather sealed lens anyway...
 
A useful argument from Les if you're trying to persuade SWMBO that a 1 series is actually a "bargain" !!
 
And for me to point to as my 1Ds mk 1 is about to come up for sale.....!!!
 
Hmm. makes sense, could almost justify a 1Ds lll. Local dealer has one in stock and at the average asking price of £5995. Spread cost over 3 years !!!!!

To be honest I have been seriously considering one of these cameras on exactly these grounds. Although I think I'll wait a few months just to make sure all the bugs are out, if there are any.
 
I have three 1 series cameras now - i never look at the other cameras that canon produce with anything other then a passing interest, as i know that the 1 series will deliver the results when i want them, and will just keep doing that rain or shine day after day after day.

I dont want to get into the maths above, but if i had enought money to buy a brand new 5D burning a hole in my pocket - i would spend it it on a used 1 series (1ds or 1dmk2)
 
Joe T said:
For those just starting out a pro-body might be a waste as the person may find togging isnt for them.
Click to expand...

That's a fair point, and I hope I haven't encouraged anyone to go and spend the neck end of 6 grand on a camera when they are new into the hobby :(

blinkerz said:
1D is great in alot of ways, but i dont like the size, and prefer the smaller footprint of the 40D/5D without grip.
Click to expand...

Another excellent point, and I agree, humping a 1Ds MKII round the dales for 10 miles or so is a pain in the proverbial rear end, it is a lump and doesn't fit so comfortably in some folks hands.
 
Got to agree with Les on this one, got my 1Dmk2 about 2 1/2 years ago got a good deal on it £2050 brand new when the 20D was about £870 new and theres a lot of life left in it yet
and it has a hard life doing a lot of water sport photography.
 
Good thread Les..:)

I have to say that the advantages of the series 1 cameras with the long tele-primes at airshows and motorsport events I frequent justify their hefty price tag period!!!

I won't type in all the extra features of the 1 series over the consumer bodies because I think we all know..;)

My opinion is... If you can afford one, Buy one because if like me you buy the consumer bodies and then "try" the pro camera at a later date then you spend the next 3 month wishing you had put your money into the 1 series..:(
 
hmm, all things considered, and with the greatest respect, theres only one body available in the Canon line up beyond a mk11 anyway....its a quick decision....only 2 choices.

This is something that cant be said in the other camp.

Should something revolutionary pop out of the woodwork in the Canon line-up, a huge advance in technology, maybe the mk11 will begin to look its age..
Actually if it doesn't look dated in every respect after 5 years, they must have hit "the wall" with research and developement, I don't think they can afford to allow that to happen.
 
In the latest EOS Magazine Canon R&D say they don't see an upper limit for pixel count and that Live View is being heavily developed as well.
 
joxby said:
This is something that cant be said in the other camp.

Should something revolutionary pop out of the woodwork in the Canon line-up, a huge advance in technology, maybe the mk11 will begin to look its age..
Actually if it doesn't look dated in every respect after 5 years, they must have hit "the wall" with research and developement, I don't think they can afford to allow that to happen.
Click to expand...

Oh, it will look dated after 5 years, there is no doubt about that, but the 1ds MKII will still be up there with the best.

And will still have the resoluion that is comparable to medium format DSLR, it's a pity Nikon can't compete at this level, the competition would be healthy for Canon, and the consumer would benefit.



It's a bit like saying a 5 year old Aston Martin DB7 looks dated, but I'd still rather have a 5 year old DB7 than a brand new ford focus.
 
I had this chat with a guy at the local camera shop. He said two things will be key to development; low-light sensitivity (which I think is already shown on the newer models) and cost benefit of, say, a 50 megapixel camera. Canon can apparently produce one, but at tremendous cost. It would have large power consumption and quality would be no better than current.

He went on to say that the processing "algorithms" are what Nikon have been working on and feel they will gain the edge over Canon with. If this is true Canon will of course respond and if we all see a difference our 1ds mkii's will at that point become difficult to sell. :D
 
I remember seeing a program on OS Maps. They take photos of the ground from a light airplane. I cannot remember just how many megapixels the camera had (it was fixed into the plane, looking down) but it was HUGE! I've tried seaching for it on the interwebby but I can't find the info.
 
I can definately see the advantage of buying a "pro" body initially and saving in the longrun but what if you dont have the £3/4/5/6k to spend initially?

I, for instance, would love a D3 or even a D300 but have no way of affording one which is why i use a D80 Lol!

I know i will own one eventually but ill be working up to it!

:thumbsdown:
 
Les McLean said:
Oh, it will look dated after 5 years, there is no doubt about that, but the 1ds MKII will still be up there with the best.

And will still have the resoluion that is comparable to medium format DSLR, it's a pity Nikon can't compete at this level, the competition would be healthy for Canon, and the consumer would benefit.



It's a bit like saying a 5 year old Aston Martin DB7 looks dated, but I'd still rather have a 5 year old DB7 than a brand new ford focus.
Click to expand...


You should know better than to light those fires with another Yorkshireman, aaand a filmy at that...err and a Nikonite.:lol:
I dont mind if the mk11 is still up there with "the best of" Canons line-up, it will be a perfectly acceptable tool for a long while yet.
I dont believe there is a mp/resolution race to compete in, no real market, and Canon dont make anything within a country mile of medium format.
Overall, its advantage Nikon, so give them their due, a tenious fingernail hold on a 22mp caveat is not very convincing, unless your wearing blinkers.

I'll take the DB9 btw
 
joxby said:
I dont mind if the mk11 is still up there with "the best of" Canons line-up, it will be a perfectly acceptable tool for a long while yet.
I dont believe there is a mp/resolution race to compete in, no real market, and Canon dont make anything within a country mile of medium format.
Overall, its advantage Nikon, so give them their due, a tenious fingernail hold on a 22mp caveat is not very convincing, unless your wearing blinkers.
Click to expand...

I am a Canon user and keen to be buying and flying with the best I can reasonably afford (make is unimportant). My return has been made in the drop I have taken in jumping in to an 1Ds MkII at this late stage of it's life but i am still to be convinced that Nikon have anything other than a marginal jump on Canon at any given time. Thus with a few L glass I have stuck with Canon.

I have a medium format Mamiya which is still brill for portraits but I don't see it as my upgrade path given the digital backs are at 5 figures and I cannot change film backs easily in my current sporting arrangement - although I have given it lengthy consideration!

Please clarify what you mean when you say it is advantage Nikon. Do you mean the very recent launch of the D3? Where were they up until this? Good but no reason to jump brand is my feeling. If I was a Nikon user I would be very happy with their lenses and a little miffed with their bodies up until the D3. :shrug:

Please also provide your reference base. You claim film in your post but this is digital cameras we have been talking of thus far.

Gary.
 
I'm finding it difficult not to derail this thread when answering your post in full, so if this doesn't make any sense, its because I chopedited it with a rusty meat cleaver..:)

You cant use medium format in any reference to mainstream dslr's, unless we invent a new medium format just so we can say Canon make one.
I didn't invent it, nor have I heard of it, so I assume the words medium format refer to film.
It's a ridiculous task to compare M/F film with a digital sensor, but if you must, you force scanning technology to be part of the equation, and by hard number crunching, 22mp isn't even close.

I dont quite see the relevance of a film upgrade path, I dunno how many togs actually require 22mp for sports, though I can see bigger is better, to a point.

There is no reason to jump ship, but it would be foolish to be dismissive or ignore the advances above and beyond the Canon offerings, made in the other camp.
 
The best camera really depends on what your style of photography is, 1ds III is still not great compared to something like H3DII for studio work.

1DSIII has less dynamic range, less resolution, less definition, poorer color, more distortion, and requires image sharpening ... compared to the H3DII.

The 1DSIII is, however, a better point-and-shoot camera.

So perhaps we should all just go for what suits our type of photography
 
joxby said:
I'm finding it difficult not to derail this thread when answering your post in full, so if this doesn't make any sense, its because I chopedited it with a rusty meat cleaver..:)

You cant use medium format in any reference to mainstream dslr's, unless we invent a new medium format just so we can say Canon make one.
I didn't invent it, nor have I heard of it, so I assume the words medium format refer to film.
It's a ridiculous task to compare M/F film with a digital sensor, but if you must, you force scanning technology to be part of the equation, and by hard number crunching,
22mp isn't even close.

I dont quite see the relevance of a film upgrade path, I dunno how many togs actually require 22mp for sports, though I can see bigger is better, to a point.

There is no reason to jump ship, but it would be foolish to be dismissive or ignore the advances above and beyond the Canon offerings, made in the other camp.
Click to expand...

I think we are talking at cross purposes here, I said that the 1DS MKII output is comparable to a medium format film camera.

Coincidentally, in this issue of EOS magazine, the well known landscape photographer David Noton was saying the same thing quote ' I'm absolutely amazed by the images shot on the 1Ds MKII when they are printed to a2 size....I actually believe they are superior to what medium format film delivers'

And it was the 1Ds MKII that prompted him to turn his back on Nikon, ditch film and embrace the digital age.

I'm not dismissive of Nikon, in fact I still have a Nikon film camera (35 years old and still going strong), and their current crop of DSLR's are excellent, the D2x and the D3x look sweet, but are not really a landscape photographers camera, but look great for most other forms of photography.

And it's not the pixel count that bothers me so much, generally the lowest ISO that Nikon DSLRs go to is ISO200, which is extremely limiting in landscape photography.

Good discussion :)
 
:lol:, I thought I understood the first time, errm, thats just not true, 16mp is comparable to 35mm film not medium format.
A rough guide without going all tech, its a physics thing, imagine the film frame as a sensor, imagine that sensor being 60mm x 60mm instead of 36mm x 24mm.
A lot of crap about mp is banded about, but for the sake of argument, 60-80mp for 6x6 film is a nearer measurement, which incidently splatters hassy's "medium format" sensor.
David wostsis name was talking rubbish.
How you extract that resolution from film is the expense/difficulty.
A D70 has -5 stops of exposure bias to achieve iso levels lower than iso 200, or you can use a filter, if your prepared to use a graduated nd for landscapes, then you could also be carrying a non-graduated...:shrug:....neeexxxxt.

I'll let you have the N v C resolution thing, cant argue with numbers, but it is directly related to the size you want to print, you can print bigger with 16 or 22mp than 12, but the difference to most is not that important.
 
joxby said:
:lol:, I thought I understood the first time, errm, thats just not true, 16mp is comparable to 35mm film not medium format.
A rough guide without going all tech, its a physics thing, imagine the film frame as a sensor, imagine that sensor being 60mm x 60mm instead of 36mm x 24mm.
A lot of crap about mp is banded about, but for the sake of argument, 60-80mp for 6x6 film is a nearer measurement, which incidently splatters hassy's "medium format" sensor.
David wostsis name was talking rubbish.
How you extract that resolution from film is the expense/difficulty.
A D70 has -5 stops of exposure bias to achieve iso levels lower than iso 200, or you can use a filter, if your prepared to use a graduated nd for landscapes, then you could also be carrying a non-graduated...:shrug:....neeexxxxt.

I'll let you have the N v C resolution thing, cant argue with numbers, but it is directly related to the size you want to print, you can print bigger with 16 or 22mp than 12, but the difference to most is not that important.
Click to expand...


I think we will have to amicably agree to disagree on the resolution -v-MF argument, or we'll be rattling on till the cows come home (or until a Yorkshireman buys a round), which would get a tad tedious :)

I agree that for 95 % of shots 12mp against 17 mp , it doesn't really make much difference, the only time I find I need the extra mp is when I need to extract detail from the image.

An example, a year or so ago, I was with another photographer and was explaining how to shoot running water shots (at West Burton Falls), mainly composition and particularly exposing for the highlights.

We took identical shots at similar exposures (for the highlights), his was an 8mp DSLR.

Normally with running water shots, I retrieve the midtone/shadow detail in PS, leaving the highlights intact.

The other tog sent me one of his raw files, and I realised that compared to my 17mp camera, retrieving the shadows/midtones was, while not impossible, a damn site more difficult, and keeping noise down was a constant challenge. That's when the extra resolution comes in handy-i.e. you can post process quite aggressively (if needed) without image deterioration.
 
More mp's is always better than less, a good big'un is better than a good little'un...
Arguing with physics and a Yorkshire filmy idiot is futile, film captures light at atomic level, ie billions of photosits, sensors only have millions, comparing the two on a surface exposed to light basis is only half the story.
If you care enough to do research into this, you will find loads of conversations saying one thing and others saying another, the bottom line is, we shouldn't try to compare them, because the tools we use are digitally based and film is a chemical reaction, they couldn't be further apart.
Scan a 6x6 @ 4000dpi which is pro res for a scan, and try and match it print for print with a 22mp mk3.
You cant do it, the mk3 only outputs 300dpi (I think), so you have to interplorate - thus loosing detail fairly quickly, the resolution just isn't in the digital file in the first place
Incidently, a 6x6 scan in 16bit colour @ 4000dpi, is...450mb, your gonna hit grain even in very slow film eventually.
Its not entirely fair to compare because films sensor is actually the sensor that scans the film, not the film itself, it gets a long time under ideal conditions to "read" the image, whereas a dslr is a shutter speed time.
But the detail is in the film to "read".
I dont believe in my lifetime (which might not be that long after this post) we will see anything capable of matching medium format film for resolution, we simply cannot accomadate neither the photosits or the circuitry for those photosits in the density silver crystals are found on film.

If your still not convinced, thats ok, I'm going to the bar, what are you having...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top