1dmk2 or 1ds

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']"Picture quality" is a bit of a subjective issue, but have you considered the disadvantage of a small sensor otherwise?  Can you get by with very limited wide angle capability?  This is the main reason I went for 1ds and why some Nikon folks I know have not bought an expensive DSLR at all yet.  The wide angle limitation of small sensor DSLR's is a total show stopper for a lot of people and it's a main part of why a lot of people are spending the huge bucks for large sensor cameras.[/font]

[didger]

[font color=\'#000000\']Is the MK2 any better implemented for safe and effective sensor cleaning than the 1ds?  I think that's the first issue I'd investigate.[/font]

[Akiss]

[font color=\'#000000\']this is  a decision which you are gonna have to take by yourself according to the photos you take and the prints you do? quality is very good with both of them........[/font]

[francois]

[font color=\'#000000\']

With the 1Ds if you have to swab, there is no place to sweep the dirt completely off the sensor as it is full-frame.  With the MKII there is a bit of a border you can sweep the dust off to. Furthermore this border seems to be coated with a tacky substance which may help trap dust.

But niether in any way is as easy to clean as my 645C back  

Yes, the 1D Mk II is indeed easier to clean than the 1Ds but it's certainly not in the same league as your 645C digital back  :cool:

Francois[/font]

[Jack Flesher]

[font color=\'#000000\']

Getting back to the question of 1Ds vs 1D Mk II, I would like to propose the question, " Is there anyone out there who has used a 1D Mk II to take a landscape who afterwards cursed his luck that he didn't have a 1Ds in his backpack?"

They are close in raw imaging capability, but the 1Ds reigns supreme, especially in capturing fine detail.  However it is difficult to quantify the difference.  

If you never compared the same shot from a 1Ds directly to a MKII, then you'd likely be more than satisfied with what the MKII delivered.  However if you make that comparison, you can see the extra detail in the 1Ds image.

If you know you will only settle for the best image detail, the 1Ds is the camera to choose.  If you are satisfied with excellent image quality, don't need full-frame (for ultra-wideangle) and shoot a significant amount of fast action, then the MKII is the better choice -- just know you are going to be giving up a bit of raw imaging capability to the 1Ds.  

So for those of us that owned the 1Ds first and decided to "try out" a MKII, we ended up cursed; most of us currently have both as it is tough to go backwards in imaging quality, even if it is only a mini-step    

Jack[/font]

[Jonathan Wienke]

[font color=\'#000000\']So for those of us that owned the 1Ds first and decided to "try out" a MKII, we ended up cursed; most of us currently have both as it is tough to go backwards in imaging quality, even if it is only a mini-step  [/font]

[font color=\'#000000\']Count me in that camp; having one of each means you have a camera that is ideal for just about anything. 1D-II for sports/action/event stuff, 1Ds for portraits, landscapes, and studio work. I like to think of it as the Digital Dynamic Duo.[/font]

[issels]

[font color=\'#000000\']I read the review on luminous landscape of the 1dmk2 and am wondering if the picture quality of the mk2 is really as good as 1ds as mentioned in the review. Anybody who has worked with both cameras please comment. I can buy a 1ds for the same price as the mk2 and I am now trying to decide. Any comments highly appreciated.
Thanks.[/font]

[dimitris]

[font color=\'#000000\']If you visit Rob Galbraith's site, there are many threads discussing this particular choice. The trade off seems to be the reduced sensor size & pixel count for faster handling/operation and lower noise/higher ISO. You need to evaluate your needs to answer this question - if you shoot landscape, architecture etc. get the 1Ds, if you do sports, weddings & events get the mkII. Then again, you can wait for the "1Ds mkII" or whatever Canon calls it, which might be announced at Photokina in September...[/font]

[francois]

[font color=\'#000000\']

Is the MK2 any better implemented for safe and effective sensor cleaning than the 1ds?  I think that's the first issue I'd investigate.

Unfortunately not!

        


francois[/font]

[Jack Flesher]

[font color=\'#000000\']

Is the MK2 any better implemented for safe and effective sensor cleaning than the 1ds?  I think that's the first issue I'd investigate.

Unfortunately not!

        


francois

Actually, I'd say it is...

With the 1Ds if you have to swab, there is no place to sweep the dirt completely off the sensor as it is full-frame.  With the MKII there is a bit of a border you can sweep the dust off to. Furthermore this border seems to be coated with a tacky substance which may help trap dust.

But niether in any way is as easy to clean as my 645C back  [/font]

[130231]

[font color=\'#000000\']Getting back to the question of 1Ds vs 1D Mk II, I would like to propose the question, " Is there anyone out there who has used a 1D Mk II to take a landscape who afterwards cursed his luck that he didn't have a 1Ds in his backpack?"[/font]

[robertprice]

[font color=\'#000000\']I use both cameras about equally, and would suggest that image size may be a better determining factor than image quality.  They both provide excellent quality.

Do you need the larger file, and do you have the computer, flash cards, printer, etc., to take advantage of the larger files?

On another side, do you need the higher fps offered by the Mark II?

Make it easy on yourself.  Purchase both (grin).[/font]

[130231]

[font color=\'#000000\']Thanks Jack. I've been operating for a little over four years with my Canon D-30 and finally decided that I had lost too many good images that I couldn't display on A3 paper when I did the smallest bit of cropping. I'll retire my D-30 dinosaur, rather sadly, break open the kid's piggy banks and see how much I can raise for an 1Ds.[/font]