Moving from 350D to 1Dinosaur

[tOGGY]

Thanks...sound advice there. Made me do a double-take but I think I'll still make a go at it. Life is about experiences and I guess it doesn't hurt to try this one. I've read about the noise and banding issues with the 1D, but given a lot of the other 'upgrades' I can learn to live with it. Regarding exposure issues, wouldn't the camera expose correctly in MOST instances on evaluative metering? I understand that there are cases where exposure compensation must be taken into account and that I also need to be aware of scenes with predominantly white or dark tones.

The shutter count is a bother to me because after getting a camera, I'll familiarize myself with it and take it with me for a trip to New Zealand...it's a fairly big holiday with a bunch of family members, and getting good photos is pretty much near the top of the list. So I need some assurance that the camera can last through that without failing. Of course a camera may fail at any time regardless of shutter count, but this is one thing out of the picture.

It's definitely true that the 1D is an upgrade in some senses, and a downgrade in some others, but I'm prepared to make the adjustment...not just for the price, or not because some people have it, but because I want the exposure and experience. Now when it seems within my reach I can finally fulfill that wish to try something new.

I understand where you are coming from. It is true that !D has a wonderful exposure, DR and speed. The body simply works in 'all' condition. Unlike the not sealed body, it works when in rough, wet and cold conditions. eg; 350D is likely to fail you in such situations.

The reason I like the cam is that it will get you the shots, dead on. No fuss. No problem. If I do not get the shots, it is because I blinked.

But you have to learn a few PS tricks, shoot and process in raw, and be disciplined in maxing out the whole ccd.

The only thing I hate about it is the batteries I have to carry.

Have you consider the used !D Mark II? It may be quite worth the extra over the 1D. For another 2K, you can be less discplined with the resolution, carry less battery, and enjoy less noise over ISO 800.

I find that your fear about the shutter is overstretched. 250,000 shots is long, long, way to go. Another comment I found not true is that it is noisy at ISO 400.

But mind you, the cam is not for a real full reso 300 dipi pics pics beyond the 5R print. Given the dynamic range, the pics are still beautiful on super 8R. So I rather put my trust on the prints and not the computer screen set on low reso. Uprested, I have printed pics at A1 size. Clients still like it very much. :bsmilie:

Currently, I will still get it if it is aound 2k for a good condition set if I need less than super 8R prints.

 

[tOGGY]

Thanks...sound advice there. Made me do a double-take but I think I'll still make a go at it. Life is about experiences and I guess it doesn't hurt to try this one. I've read about the noise and banding issues with the 1D, but given a lot of the other 'upgrades' I can learn to live with it. Regarding exposure issues, wouldn't the camera expose correctly in MOST instances on evaluative metering? I understand that there are cases where exposure compensation must be taken into account and that I also need to be aware of scenes with predominantly white or dark tones.

The shutter count is a bother to me because after getting a camera, I'll familiarize myself with it and take it with me for a trip to New Zealand...it's a fairly big holiday with a bunch of family members, and getting good photos is pretty much near the top of the list. So I need some assurance that the camera can last through that without failing. Of course a camera may fail at any time regardless of shutter count, but this is one thing out of the picture.

It's definitely true that the 1D is an upgrade in some senses, and a downgrade in some others, but I'm prepared to make the adjustment...not just for the price, or not because some people have it, but because I want the exposure and experience. Now when it seems within my reach I can finally fulfill that wish to try something new.

I understand where you are coming from. It is true that !D has a wonderful exposure, DR and speed. The body simply works in 'all' condition. Unlike the not sealed body, it works when in rough, wet and cold conditions. eg; 350D is likely to fail you in such situations.

The reason I like the cam is that it will get you the shots, dead on. No fuss. No problem. If I do not get the shots, it is because I blinked.

But you have to learn a few PS tricks, shoot and process in raw, and be disciplined in maxing out the whole ccd.

The only thing I hate about it is the batteries I have to carry.

Have you consider the used !D Mark II? It may be quite worth the extra over the 1D. For another 2K, you can be less discplined with the resolution, carry less battery, and enjoy less noise over ISO 800.

I find that your fear about the shutter is overstretched. 250,000 shots is long, long, way to go. Another comment I found not true is that it is noisy at ISO 400.

But mind you, the cam is not for a real full reso 300 dipi pics pics beyond the 5R print. Given the dynamic range, the pics are still beautiful on super 8R. So I rather put my trust on the prints and not the computer screen set on low reso. Uprested, I have printed pics at A1 size. Clients still like it very much. :bsmilie:

Currently, I will still get it if it is aound 2k for a good condition set if I need less than super 8R prints.

 

[fWord]

I think your 350D can take good pics, not to sure what you see in the 1D that makes you feel that it will help you take good pics? Had many friends you took the plunge like you and end up reverting back to 350D and 20D. If I do a blind test on you, you probably will not be able to tell which picture is taken by which camera. 1D is already in the market for many years, and ususally such cameras are used by the "pros" so shutter count is not going to be low. Chances of it failing is also going to be high. 1D is a 4Mpix camera, the first think you are going to get use to is there is not much room to crop and the noise level is very high. at ISO 400, most of my friends already get a shock due to the noise. They have tried many noise reduction software, but still cannot get the result they expected.

I also just upgraded from my 10D, to 5D...went through the whole process of reviews and testing and many factors. Considered the 1DM2N, 1DM2, 1D.....but overall, interms of dynamic range and noise level, I find 5D is the best among all. Well in it is not a pro body, not weather seal and etc....but well I am not a pro so don't need a pro body.What I want is good quality pics.

A used 20D or 30D is a better bet if money is an issue. In my opinion, spend the $2K on a better lens will yield better result then a "pro" looking body.

Thanks. Well, don't get me wrong. I'm aware that almost any camera can produce good results...it's a matter of who's using it. Mostly I am considering the switch on the basis of the build, faster and more accurate AF, and the faster FPS. Things like spot metering are also a plus.

Fortunately I've almost never needed to crop my images because I try to get it right before I get the picture down. If I crop it's only to achieve a pseudo-panoramic effect. After looking at some samples from the 1D on another forum, noise doesn't seem so bad. I would comfortably use ISO 800, and if pinched, maybe 1600. On the odd occasions when I am really in a fix, I might try 3200, but hope not to go that far. Currently with the 350D I'm already disciplining myself to go only to ISO 800 and no higher.

Pity I couldn't go for a 5D, otherwise the image quality is certainly stellar. So far I realized that I missed photos not because the quality wasn't good enough though, but it was because I missed the focus. I don't do action shots all that often, but when I do I hate to think how much better the pics could have been if I just focused a little better in the first place.

 

[canturn]

5D and 1D 2 and 1D produce images that looks very different and require different ways of post-processing to maximise the capabilities of the sensors. Right now, I'm streamlining all my workflow to that of the 5D, not because images straight off the camera is ready to use, in fact, 5D images need a lot more work than those from the 1D.

At the end of the day, it's what suits your needs and your budget. You can get around noise, megapixel count, but your biggest pinch from the 1D would be the battery issue, which you can't avoid.

 

[lightning]

Thanks. Well, don't get me wrong. I'm aware that almost any camera can produce good results...it's a matter of who's using it. Mostly I am considering the switch on the basis of the build, faster and more accurate AF, and the faster FPS. Things like spot metering are also a plus.

Fortunately I've almost never needed to crop my images because I try to get it right before I get the picture down. If I crop it's only to achieve a pseudo-panoramic effect. After looking at some samples from the 1D on another forum, noise doesn't seem so bad. I would comfortably use ISO 800, and if pinched, maybe 1600. On the odd occasions when I am really in a fix, I might try 3200, but hope not to go that far. Currently with the 350D I'm already disciplining myself to go only to ISO 800 and no higher.

Pity I couldn't go for a 5D, otherwise the image quality is certainly stellar. So far I realized that I missed photos not because the quality wasn't good enough though, but it was because I missed the focus. I don't do action shots all that often, but when I do I hate to think how much better the pics could have been if I just focused a little better in the first place.

Why not consider the 20D or 30D? The AF is good especially in low light. The 1D sucks big time when it comes to low light AF. Noise control on the 20D and 30D is miles away. Both have 5fps, which I think it is more then enough for most sports. Unless you already have a very good range of high quality lens, else investing in the lens in more worth while as compared to a body.

 

[fWord]

:thumbsup: well i kindda agree with you. i feel that the TS only wants to buy the 1D more for the feel of things, well different users different needs.

i would say the 1D will feel great but it will take more knowledge to 'process' your files you wanted.

As for handling and stuff the 1D is great, i know cos i owned the 350 and the 1D before, but to process your high ISO images takes alot of knowledge esp the shadow details, you be shock to see the noise on your dark subjects, some like it, most do not.

frankly i see the 350D and 1D so different that i would keep the 350D if i would purchase the 1D and if your budget is thin i would advise you to be just happy with what you use.

The dinosuar drinks batteries and out on a trip, would you shoot less than 300 images a day? its a freaking fast camera with a low and high setting. i needed 4-5 batteries when i use it for assignments, thats $90 each ( the cheapest you can find in local market for 3rd party brands).

would you like the orginal view finder or a would like a more funky one, split screens, grids, that will set you back another $70

have flash? need one?

the 350D is perfect for trips, i hate to lug the dinosuar if i was you, minding the fact the charger is a size of a brick and if you want to buy the travel charger its another $200.

wow, so much more just for the batteries already.....

doesn't the 1Dmk2 sound a little more affordable now? 1500 shots ++ per charge.

well different ppl different thoughts.

the 1D image is sure classic, the feel is differernt.:thumbsup:

Well, yes, to get the feel of things is a partial excuse for switching. Partly is because I want to experiment and get some experience with these things also. On a trip I'm pretty sure I'd do less than 300 images at a stretch. Even during a sports day event in camp while firing away for soccer, basketball and some ironman thing, I managed perhaps only 200 images or so.

I'll make do with the current focusing screen, and hardly ever use flash since I prefer available light stuff. That yields a bit of savings for me, but you're right...I might miss the built-in flash of the 350D. It's only there for emergency purposes, but really good to have.

If only I could afford a 1DMkII, which is probably what I might want in the first place. But when the time comes, I might start weighing it up with the 5D as well which has its own strong points. At that moment, it'll be down to what I really need it for I guess. Best part also is that I hardly print my images, at least not at this point. Usually do 4Rs for a personal booklet, and occasional A4 or S8R if the picture is really nice, or if it's needed for say, a competition.

 

[fWord]

Frankly, I still miss the CCD colour of the 1D, it's really rich and punchy. Don't be surprised, one of the very popular bridal photographer have been using a 1D since 2002 and still using it after a shutter overhaul. These folks paid like $10k for the 1D, and they don't see a reason to sell, really. Guess you think differently when you're a professional photographer.

Megapixel count is something that's over-rated, frankly. So many sport photographers been printing full spread with images from the 1D.

But Gilbert is right about the batteries of the 1D, it's a pain having to lug around 3 batts (and mind you, they're heavy), and sometimes I even bring along the charger to charge, just in case... Power management is not as great as the new generation 1 series and the camera does get heated up, esp when you burst continously.

For really clean images at high ISO, go for 5D, esp when your noise signature looks smaller on print since sensor size is much bigger.

Yes, the megapixel thing may be overrated. It's possible to do decent prints with just a few good quality megapixels, but the trouble also is when it comes to things like competition. For example, the Eye The City competition at the end of the year needs minimally 3MP images, reaching what the 1D is really capable of putting out.

I wish there would be less emphasis on the MPs too, because aside from the noise and the MP drop from the 350D, I would happily make the switch and feel no guilt. Things like extra batts, I could probably live with it.

 

[fWord]

I understand where you are coming from. It is true that !D has a wonderful exposure, DR and speed. The body simply works in 'all' condition. Unlike the not sealed body, it works when in rough, wet and cold conditions. eg; 350D is likely to fail you in such situations.

The reason I like the cam is that it will get you the shots, dead on. No fuss. No problem. If I do not get the shots, it is because I blinked.

But you have to learn a few PS tricks, shoot and process in raw, and be disciplined in maxing out the whole ccd.

The only thing I hate about it is the batteries I have to carry.

Have you consider the used !D Mark II? It may be quite worth the extra over the 1D. For another 2K, you can be less discplined with the resolution, carry less battery, and enjoy less noise over ISO 800.

I find that your fear about the shutter is overstretched. 250,000 shots is long, long, way to go. Another comment I found not true is that it is noisy at ISO 400.

But mind you, the cam is not for a real full reso 300 dipi pics pics beyond the 5R print. Given the dynamic range, the pics are still beautiful on super 8R. So I rather put my trust on the prints and not the computer screen set on low reso. Uprested, I have printed pics at A1 size. Clients still like it very much. :bsmilie:

Currently, I will still get it if it is aound 2k for a good condition set if I need less than super 8R prints.

Heheh...1DMkII. Would get that if I had the money. Very nice camera. But I think I rather put the money into investing first and then consider getting something so expensive at a later date. Now I am waiting for the right time to jump back into the stock market again with my money. :bsmilie:

It's true about the shutter. It's supposed to go to 150K clicks, but again, it's also a matter of luck. May fail at 400K, or it can go at 24K. Just a figure for reassurance I guess.

So if I read correctly, the 1D can give A1 sized images that are still pleasing to the public eye? Personally I cannot imagine printing anything bigger than say, A3 size for my pictures. They're not that good anyway. And when they do get that good, they'll be getting exhibited for the public to see, who I believe are less likely complain about noise, jaggies, CA etc. They'll just look at it and say, 'hey, nice picture'. Or worse. They'll say, 'The guy must have a good camera'. :bsmilie:

 

[fWord]

5D and 1D 2 and 1D produce images that looks very different and require different ways of post-processing to maximise the capabilities of the sensors. Right now, I'm streamlining all my workflow to that of the 5D, not because images straight off the camera is ready to use, in fact, 5D images need a lot more work than those from the 1D.

At the end of the day, it's what suits your needs and your budget. You can get around noise, megapixel count, but your biggest pinch from the 1D would be the battery issue, which you can't avoid.

Well, with more savings I could have gotten that 1D2 from you. Instead I have to settle for this. Still get the blazing AF, the build and the FPS, but the battery problem seems to be the issue. So many people complain about it. Yet there are one or two who wonder why all the complaints because they can easily managed many hundred images on a single batt, even with chimping (that is, reviewing images on screen after they are taken).

 

[fWord]

Why not consider the 20D or 30D? The AF is good especially in low light. The 1D sucks big time when it comes to low light AF. Noise control on the 20D and 30D is miles away. Both have 5fps, which I think it is more then enough for most sports. Unless you already have a very good range of high quality lens, else investing in the lens in more worth while as compared to a body.

Gee...that's a first. Is the AF that poor? I thought that something of this level of technology will pull off low light AF properly as well.

The 20D and 30D I feel, is not enough reason to upgrade. The FPS is faster, but it's not all about burst power. It's also about the AF points on the screen. With the 1D I could blanket the subject, shoot and get it in focus. One problem I had with the 350D was that if I allow the camera to use all AF points, it will sometimes focus on the grass instead of the soccer player. And if I use the central one, yes, focus is more or less there, but the subject will wind up dead center...poor composition I feel.

Maybe I'm just missing out on something here and you can clue me in?

 

[lightning]

Gee...that's a first. Is the AF that poor? I thought that something of this level of technology will pull off low light AF properly as well.

The 20D and 30D I feel, is not enough reason to upgrade. The FPS is faster, but it's not all about burst power. It's also about the AF points on the screen. With the 1D I could blanket the subject, shoot and get it in focus. One problem I had with the 350D was that if I allow the camera to use all AF points, it will sometimes focus on the grass instead of the soccer player. And if I use the central one, yes, focus is more or less there, but the subject will wind up dead center...poor composition I feel.

Maybe I'm just missing out on something here and you can clue me in?

You should do some research interms of the AF in low light, else you might be disappointed. 20D and 30D focus up to -0.5EV whereas 1D only up to 0EV.

 

[lightning]

Oh, for me I only use the center or one of the focusing point most of the time, so give me a 45 focusing point camera is not much of an upgrade. having 45 point, it may lock on to the wrong subject too. At least it happen when I use the 1D. The other option will be to use the EOS 3..eye control....:bsmilie:

 

[tOGGY]

So if I read correctly, the 1D can give A1 sized images that are still pleasing to the public eye? Personally I cannot imagine printing anything bigger than say, A3 size for my pictures.'. :bsmilie:

There is a thing call viewing distance. It was hung on a high wall and viewed from a 10 metres distance.

The A1 picture did not have the sharpness when peered. But looks sharp and vibrant from a distance. Anyway the image need to be uprested in a special way in PS and not just the ususal oversampling to a larger size for such size.

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

Oh, for me I only use the center or one of the focusing point most of the time, so give me a 45 focusing point camera is not much of an upgrade. having 45 point, it may lock on to the wrong subject too. At least it happen when I use the 1D. The other option will be to use the EOS 3..eye control....:bsmilie:

the 20D centre point is quite good as well, given TS way of shooting, you do not need the 1D focusing, 20D or 30D will be as good, i still cannot find a good reason to 'change' cameras other than wanting to experience the 1 series feeling for TS.

anyways its your $$$, i have been though it and for my purposes the 20/30d outweighs my needs more than the 1D.

i just have to accept that 1D is not as a all-rounded camera as the 20/30D. You guys keep saying that 20D/30D build is not weatherproof, have your lesser cameras fail you yet in bad weather or most of you chicken out in the rain or sandstorm.

 

[fWord]

Oh, for me I only use the center or one of the focusing point most of the time, so give me a 45 focusing point camera is not much of an upgrade. having 45 point, it may lock on to the wrong subject too. At least it happen when I use the 1D. The other option will be to use the EOS 3..eye control....:bsmilie:

That's true. In such an instance then the 45 point really comes to moot. Never tried eye control before. The one on the EOS 5 I have is probably more primitive than the EOS 3 also.

 

[fWord]

There is a thing call viewing distance. It was hung on a high wall and viewed from a 10 metres distance.

The A1 picture did not have the sharpness when peered. But looks sharp and vibrant from a distance. Anyway the image need to be uprested in a special way in PS and not just the ususal oversampling to a larger size for such size.

Hmm...Genuine Fractals? Heard this is the thing people use to upsize their pictures while keeping the quality to a good enough level for viewing at some distance.

 

[fWord]

the 20D centre point is quite good as well, given TS way of shooting, you do not need the 1D focusing, 20D or 30D will be as good, i still cannot find a good reason to 'change' cameras other than wanting to experience the 1 series feeling for TS.

anyways its your $$$, i have been though it and for my purposes the 20/30d outweighs my needs more than the 1D.

i just have to accept that 1D is not as a all-rounded camera as the 20/30D. You guys keep saying that 20D/30D build is not weatherproof, have your lesser cameras fail you yet in bad weather or most of you chicken out in the rain or sandstorm.

Yes, the 20D or 30D runs on newer technology and sensors and the performance in both daylight and indoors would be good, compared to the 1D which may not perform as well in low light. Outdoors, it would be a cracker of a camera though.

Agreed about the weather-proofing. Yes, it's nice to have it, but I admit that I'll chicken out before my camera will come close to failing. After all, being a non-pro I can't risk having my only camera go kaput just because I insisted on shooting in the rain. Then the rest of my family members will tell me, 'see, told you. Don't shoot in the rain or in a sandstorm or your camera will fail.' :bsmilie: But the feel will definitely be different. I don't like things to be heavy, but I enjoy it when it feels weighty. That's why I liked the feel of the old FD cameras of Canon's past...solid, and feels like they were made for business, and worth what we paid for them.

 

[Belle&Sebastain]

Yes, the 20D or 30D runs on newer technology and sensors and the performance in both daylight and indoors would be good, compared to the 1D which may not perform as well in low light. Outdoors, it would be a cracker of a camera though.

Agreed about the weather-proofing. Yes, it's nice to have it, but I admit that I'll chicken out before my camera will come close to failing. After all, being a non-pro I can't risk having my only camera go kaput just because I insisted on shooting in the rain. Then the rest of my family members will tell me, 'see, told you. Don't shoot in the rain or in a sandstorm or your camera will fail.' :bsmilie: But the feel will definitely be different. I don't like things to be heavy, but I enjoy it when it feels weighty. That's why I liked the feel of the old FD cameras of Canon's past...solid, and feels like they were made for business, and worth what we paid for them.

hi!

buy the 1D, its a great camera, for i never stop my lust of the 1 series after the 1D, i i want to get 1v, i gotten the mk2n after the shortcomings of the 1D but.......

dun give up your 350D, its a great camera in its own right.:thumbsup:

 

[NorthernLights]

You guys keep saying that 20D/30D build is not weatherproof, have your lesser cameras fail you yet in bad weather or most of you chicken out in the rain or sandstorm.

Mmh...I wonder in the first place, what's there to shoot in the rain?

 

[lightning]

Mmh...I wonder in the first place, what's there to shoot in the rain?

water??:bsmilie: Well many reviews says that people will give up before the camera....in harsh condition.