Finally making the leap from film to digital camera - late bloomer here I guess. I've been offered 2 options: one the one hand, a hardly used Canon 1Ds (camera was originaly purchased 3-4 years ago when it came out, but was used only for a total of 6 months as a back up camera); on the other hand, a lightly used Canon 5D (purchased a year ago). I know the owners of both cameras and trust that they take excellent care of their camera equipment.

1Ds is offered at $2000; 5D is offered at $2800 and includes a BG-E4 battery grip.

I have several Canon lenses and a limited budget (which explains my interest in used gear).

I realize that 3 years separate original purchase of the 1Ds from the 5D, and that eventhough the 1Ds is a better deal $, the 5D seems like a better product when doing a side by side comparison based on specifications. I'm therefore tempted to spend a little more and buy the 5D.

Anyone care to comment?

Thanks!

$ 2800 sounds a bit steep for the 5D, as B&H sell them for around that amount, of course not including the grip.

I have a 5D and love it, but I must agree that $2800 sounds steep, while the $2000 for the 1Ds sounds good. I don't have the battery grip on my 5D, and I've never missed it.

I hope some 1Ds owners will chime in here.

I faced a similar situation when the 5D first came out. I was ready to buy a 5D and contacted a local dealer to check on availability. They didn't have one in stock, but did tell me that they had a used 1Ds available. I ended up buying the 1Ds and have not regretted that decision. In my case, I got a camera that had seen very little use and it was favorably priced. Beyond that, the camera has performed remarkably well, producing excellent photos, and served me in every capacity. I'm not taking anything away from the 5D, which seems to be a very good camera. I'm only suggesting that the 1Ds is still a great camera in its own right.

The 1Ds has much better weather sealing, including the integrated vertical grip with excellent battery life. I'd base my decision on that criteria if you plan on toting the gear outside most of the time.

On the electronics side, the 5D has the newer Digic II data processing, so it is faster in handling data. It also has a slight edge in resolution, but not enough, IMO, to carry a decision.

I still use my 1Ds as a second camera (1Ds2 is first camera) on live model shoots and find it delivers the goods for me. I have only toyed with a 5D, though.

I guess I should have added that all prices are in Canadian dollars...

Oops!

if converted to US$ it would be around 2500 (if I did it correctly).

Still sounds a bit expensive, I would think around 2000 is more reasonably.

I think the 1Ds is a better deal.

I have 5D myself and very happy with it.

Yes that is one point, but if you need higher ISO for you shooting than the 5D performce much better. Just 2800 are way to much for a used one.

The 5D is better in every way I can think of (except tank-like feel of the 1Ds)
5D wins when it comes to color, ISO noise, speed of operation, much better and larger LCD, viewfinder, battery power, weight, etc., etc., etc.
I have owned several of each of these cameras, and I would not even consider getting the 1Ds if I were you, unless you think you'll be out in the rain a lot or dropping the camera often -- in which case the 1Ds MIGHT hold up bettter.

All I.M.O.

-ron

Interesting question. I have the 1Ds, the 1DsMKII and the 5D. Recently I had to send the MKII back to Canon to replace the firewire port and pulled out the MKI and the 5d to take up the slack.

Its been awhile since I have had the 1Ds out and I was suprised how dang sharp the images seemed out of camera compared to the MKII. Of course the file has is different...mostly it seems the MKII is cleaner noise wise but the MKI has a very film like quality. You just have to remember NOT to underexpose the MKI !

The 5d makes a great file but it really feels like a toy compared to the I series bodies. Makes great images and is much better at high ISO than the 1DsMKI. I would never take a MKI over ISO 400.

I shoot tethered almost all of the time and the 5d is miserable in that regard. The battery has very little staying power...maybe 3 hours. The MKI will go an entire day and the MKII almost two days.

If I never needed more than 400iso I would buy the MKI in a heartbeat. Howver if you need more than iso 400, get a 5d.

the ability to shoot at high ISO with the low noise of the 5D is enormously useful

i think the long and short of it is that the 5D will make better images but is not as rugged (or bulky and heavy)

and yes, the price for the 5D is too high, might as well buy a new one

I completely agree. The 1Ds is some old technology compared to the 5D. I actually sold my 1DsII b/c the files on the 5D were better than the 1DsII (even uprez'd)...

The LCD screen on the 1Ds doesnt compare to the 5D. The 5D is better in every way except for the build quality and 6000 auto focus points. Unless you're going to shoot in the snow, sand, or rain, get the 5D.....

R

I have owned both cameras (now have a 1Ds mk2) and would say that personally I preferred the 1Ds. However, the 5D image quality is definitely superior to the 1Ds.

I think that the 1Ds is capable of some very good images but the 5D is simply stunning.

My reasons for preferring the 1Ds are the build, weather sealing (I shoot landscape in Scotland) and the superior AF. Beware that the 1Ds is also quite an unresponsive camera compared to newer cameras and you will notice this.

The other danger is that you get used to the 1 series camera - take it from me, it's impossible to go back!

All the best with your purchase, whatever you choose to do you will have a great camera.

I have 3 x 1DS cameras which I find to be very good and I have to agree with the above! Although I have a 20D which is a lovely little camera it is lighter and simply does not feel as robust - and this is the impression that I get of the 5D every time I pick one up. Its later technology, probably capable of better results, but I do like the file quality from the 1DS (somewhat 'filmic') and it takes a fair time to lear a camera's quirks and wring every last nuance of 'quality' out of it.

Given your choice I'd be very tempted by the 1DS, accepting that once you own a 1 series, its difficult to let go of the build quality.

Get the 5D, as others have noted, it is newer, better technology and unless you are going into extreme weather conditions or are known to bat your equipment around, it will serve you well. The battery grip is useful for the extra power stored and the vertical release button will save your shoulder and enable you to hold the camera with more stability. You should negotiate a better price however, $2200 should be the max for the camera since prices have come down in the past number of months. I am sure if you look around, you will find one at that number. Good luck.

i've gone back to the "cheap" body and dont have any problems whatsoever (battery grip helps...)

Either way, they're both great. Just have to decide whats more important, how the camera feels in your hands or how good the images look on your monitor.

5D files trump 1Ds and 1Ds II files.... IMO of course =)

Good Luck!

I had a 1DMKII (great camera!) which is similar in shape and weight to the 1Ds. Match with a 24-70 2.8, as I did, and you've got a lot of weight around your neck. I couldn't possibly carry two of these bodies with lenses as some photojournalists do. One was too much for me. I sold for a 5D and the 24-105. Spent three weeks in Africa shooting for a book (no animals, just people) and didn't need another lens. I can recognize that a hard working pro, shooting a lot daily in all weather or in busy studio might need a 1 series, but for the rest of us, hard to beat the 5D.

Peter
ghanavisit.org

I own a 1Ds and I know a number of people using 5D and seen their results. Both are great cameras. This is purely impressionistic - I haven't done side-by-side comparisons, but I think 5D raw files in the range of 100 to 400 ISO are cleaner and a bit "brighter"-looking than 1Ds files beyond 100 ISO. The 5D is also a more user-friendly camera, though lacking a number of the options the 1Ds has (and I never use). It also has much faster image processing. It's newer technology. If you don't need a camera built like the "proverbial brick outhouse" (as Michael put it in his 1D MK111 review) a second-hand 5D properly price and in fine condition would probably give you the optimum combination of quality and value. If you are not registered with EBay, register, and that will allow you to access the prices for completed transactions - so you can see what the model actually sold for and when. If you absolutely need all the weather-proofing and robustness of the 1Ds, than that's your choice.

I think you just couldn't stand the weight of the 1DsII

I would also welcome comments on this topic, but my situation is slightly different. I owned a 1Ds MkI and 1Ds MkII. The MkII was accidentally dunked in salt water and destroyed. I decided to get by with my old back-up body, the MkI, until a replacement was released by Canon for the MkII.

But the weight of the MkI wore me down on a recent trip to Japan as a tourist.

I have another tourist trip planned to Europe at the end of this month. It occurred to me that another option is to buy the 5D for tourist trips when I rarely use a tripod and am not shooting precision and careful landscapes.

When the 1Ds MkIII is finally released, I'll probably buy that as well to replace the MkII that hit salt water. The 5D would become the back-up body, and I'll sell the MkI at that point.

Personally I don't need the rugged construction of weight of the !Ds MkI or MkII as a tourist, walking around all day. Not with the weight penalty.

So my questions are:

Is the 5D clearly superior to the 1Ds MkI in image quality and noise at higher ISOs like ISO 400?

Is the 5D clearly equal to the 1Ds MkII in image quality and noise at higher ISOs like ISO 400?

In his review, Reichmann argued that the 5D is equal to the MkII in image quality, and by implication, superior to the MkI.

Does everyone agree with that conclusion? The above comments appear to do so, because those who recommend the 1Ds are basing on that on build quality, etc. But not on image quality.

Any opinions as to how soon will a replacement for the 5D be released? Michael reviewed an early production model in late 2006, so it has only been on the market for about a year. My best guess is that a replacement would therefore not be released for at least another year, if not longer.

I'll download the manual for the 5D and try to figure out what features are lacking as compared with the 1Ds MkI or MkII. Any views on what features are lacking on the 5D that I might miss?

But, again, image quality is my priority. Not build quality and tank-like construction. If the 5D is superior to the 1Ds MkI in image quality and noise, and roughly equal to the MkII, then it would be a good choice as a tourist camera for walking around all day.

As stated above, yes to the answer of your question. I sold my 1DsMarkII and use the 5D instead. The 1Ds is super slow compared to the 5D, not to mention the smaller LCD screen.

After I got rid of my Mark II I shot a 100 page coffee table book with the 5D....

So my questions are:

Is the 5D clearly superior to the 1Ds MkI in image quality and noise at higher ISOs like ISO 400?

Is the 5D clearly equal to the 1Ds MkII in image quality and noise at higher ISOs like ISO 400?

In his review, Reichmann argued that the 5D is equal to the MkII in image quality, and by implication, superior to the MkI.

====

In my experience, the 5D is clearly better than both of the 1Ds cameras when it comes to noise at high and low ISO.

Also, the 1Ds2 and 5D are so close in resolution, that any difference you see in the final product, there is a 99.5 percent chance that what you are seeing is a difference in lighting, and a .5 percent chance that it's due to differences in "resolution."

A few informal and unscientific tests (1Ds2 on left, 5D on right, 5D upsized so they are equal in dimensions. These are 100% crops)

http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54400645
http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54400647
http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54400649
http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54442821
http://www.pbase.com/r_p/image/54442820

All IMO.
-ron

The 1Ds2 has 4 milliion more pixels than the 5D, giving it about 25% more resolution. That means, setting apart the noise issue which is a separate matter, you can do more cropping of a 1Ds2 image and end up with the same output PPI in a print than you can with the 5D. However, that is not relevant to the original poster's comparison which is with the first 1Ds, where we have 11.1 MP, or about 11% less than the 5D. This small a difference is quite trivial in terms of outcomes, but there seems to be a consensus that 5D images are cleaner.

Keep in mind that I am talking about final product -- meaing prints, not pixel peeping.
I have not seen any 25% difference in resolution in any of my prints from these cameras in prints up to 5' in height. You also have to figure in the other variables like lens resolution, papers, inks, etc, etc, etc.

(Just my experience...)

Of course not, you wouldn't be able to measure a 25% difference of resolution from looking at a print. I was making a technically incontrovertable statement that 25% more pixels gives you 25% more flexibility to crop an image without losing resolution, implictly all else equal. I wasn't talking about the conditions in which this would be visible in a print. Again, all else equal, in principle depending on the size you want to print it, the same crop from a 5D and from a 1Ds MK11 could be visibly different on account of the resolution difference.

Thanks to all of you for insights and advice. One site is claiming that the replacement for the 5D will be released this August. He doesn't say where he obtained his info from, and from my experience the release date of Canon models is a better kept secret than classified info about the war in Iraq! So I am a little skeptical of the report. The 5D was announced August 2005, and the first cameras appeared at the end of that year. So about 1.5 years ago.

Don't know if it is therefore foolish to buy it now or not. But probably will. Still a step up over the weight of the 1Ds and better in quality as well.

Here is the site:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/7d.htm

If You need a camera and wanna make pictures right now - it´s not foolish to buy one.

If You need pictures in April buy it later.

If You need good resolution and full frame in 35mm format all cameras mentioned will produce professional quality. I doubt that the printing technology for magazines and newspapers is going to change so much in next 10-15 years that we need more than 10 megapixels to fill a cover or 2-page spread.

If You are on BUDJET buy the one, that you think will last the longest time. And I mean that it will work and work, in all places, take all beating You may imagine, just work. And dont even think about selling a camera like that - it´s there to work with You while time goes by. That´s the best value ever.

If You need high ISO (IMHO 1Ds is good up to 640) often, buy the one that does lowlight best.

If You only compare the quality at 50-640 ISO you can pick all cameras mentioned since they all qualify for professional work.

Just my 2 cents...

sami

I just wanna thank everyone who's provided valuable advice. I've decided to buy a new 5D.

Oh wait, did someone mentionned 7D???? LOL

Thanks!