Thinking about selling the 1DS Mark II

I just got back some 20x30 prints from mpix taken with the 1D Mark II, and they're breathtakingly sharp and detailed. Given that I can produce prints of this size with the 8 mpix camera, I'm thinking of lightening my load and selling my 1DS Mark II. Has anyone gone this route and not regretted it?

not me, but...

You'd get even more detail - as in real detail rather than resampled detail - from the 1Ds2, but you should know that already.

Still, the 1D2 is very capable and you could do a lot worse than to have it as your only camera.

You might, however, want to consider selling both and getting the 1D3. There's a good chance that the different interface is such that you would not want a 1D3 plus one of the older 1-series bodies. If you intend selling the 1D2 for an upgrade to a 1D3 then do it sooner rather than later because its value will fall with the actual release of the 1D2 and probably again with the release of the 40D later on.

Jane,

I would not sell it so fast because of the fine focus even at small apertures and the ability to grab things where the 5D and others struggle. Furthermore, the thing is full size so wide lenses are wide, which allows for better landscape and architecture.

The camera will go down in value as soon as the Canon 1D II Mark III hits the market in weeks when it shouldn't because I think that for much use the 1DIII may be a yawn, (not for me as I like shooting in dim light with wide open lenses.

We discard a camera after 8-16 months like lovers who we have gotten used to or who leave the toilet seat up or steal the toothpaste or don't do something else quite right. Still you have your 1DII and that is a stalwart friend who will go with you through wind and rain and even at a pinch stop bullets for you.

It's a fine camera, the 1DsMark II and it will stand so for the next 5-10 years. Stillm, if you like tradinng, there's money for a superb lens, great dinners, Bordeaux wine approved by Nicolas and a vacation to boot!

Asher

Alan T. Price said:

You might, however, want to consider selling both and getting the 1D3.

Click to expand...

I considered this, but I'm loathe to settle on a new camera before it's released. What's more, I looked at what's new with the 1D Mark III, and I'm not sure I'm sold. The live view? Useless for me. The larger LCD? They can have it. I like the smaller ones. The bugs? Well, we'll just see what they are, won't we? Every new model has bugs. I'll wait that out a year and take whatever hit is coming to me should I decide to upgrade one day.

no

first because the camera is the best at the moment in the DSLR class.

second because even if another camera can get a shot it doesn't mean that it can perform like the 1DsII.

example: I recently bought a rebel XT to second the 1Ds and 1D. Sure it gives nices files but guess what I pick up when the shots are important. The difference is (as I see it) that a 1 series class camera has the tendency to get the shot no matter what and pretty much all the time where other bodies may take "some" shots but not all the shots I need to take

that's my experience (and two cents as well)

MArk Le said:

no

first because the camera is the best at the moment in the DSLR class.

second because even if another camera can get a shot it doesn't mean that it can perform like the 1DsII.

example: I recently bought a rebel XT to second the 1Ds and 1D. Sure it gives nices files but guess what I pick up when the shots are important. The difference is (as I see it) that a 1 series class camera has the tendency to get the shot no matter what and pretty much all the time where other bodies may take "some" shots but not all the shots I need to take

that's my experience (and two cents as well)

Click to expand...

You need to clarify what you mean by "getting the shot." Certainly the 1D (not S) cameras, with high frame rates, will "get" more shots than a 3fps 1DS.

Aside from sports shooting or fast action, though, high frame rates mean little to nothing when photography is about composing and consideration. So many photographers today seem really to want to be camera operators, not photographers.

I don't "need" to clarify anything, sorry, and that's by definition. I will however ask you to read more carefully my post because it's all in there. As for the bad photographers you're mentioning (assuming that you are part of the good photographers category) I do shoot "news" with a 1Ds if that helps you to locate my photography (but I doubt it). Still the 8 fps of the 1D are important to get a good facial expression instead of many eyes closed or similar, in particular when I shoot politicians or actors.
In order to evaluate a tool there are several aspects to consider: from the metering to the auto-focus, speed and reliability, and many more. But since you belong to the "good photographers" category I'm sure that you already know that and don't really need me (a "bad photographer" most likely, to your eyes) to explain it to you.

LOL

Let's keep our tone friendly and civil please, ladies and gentlemen.

Jane, my take on what Mark's saying about getting the shot really has nothing to do with frame rate, but rather reflects on the sheer responsiveness of the 1-series at every level. The cameras are simply "ready when you are" in a way that lesser cameras are not. I was struck by this fact very markedly once when experimenting with a 20D shooting soccer. The camera just couldn't keep up with me or the action like a 1-series could — even in shooting single frames. In the little write-up I did on the comparison between the two in that setting, I described the 20D as "a knife at a gunfight."

This responsiveness probably doesn't matter if you're shooting tabletop or landscapes. It's critical in a lot of other areas besides sports though, including PJ, wildlife, stage, wedding & event work and, I suspect, even portrait and fashion work.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

please people there is nothig a 1Ds mk II can do that a 1DmkII can't do better apart from full frame and sheer resolution. "getting the shot" will be easier with the 1D2. If you don't need the resolution then you don't need the S, but if I had one I would struggle letting it go, unless I was buying a 400mm f/2.8 with the money

Well on re-reading the thread, in context, I guess my contribution is out of place if we're talking about 1DsMkII vs. 1DMkII, as opposed to either MkII vs. rest of the world. Either of them will certainly "get the shot."

So I withdraw from whatever the point of contention is between Jane and Mark, because I don't grasp it (unless y'all are talking past each other).

I remain interested in the question though, not so much exactly like Jane in wondering 1DMkII vs. 1DsMkII, but because I'm wondering what my new second body will be. First will be a new 1DMkIII, but will the second be another MkIII, or a nice used 1DsMkII?

Regardless, I'm confident that we can all carry on this discussion without impugning each other's intelligence, integrity, or photographic bona fides.

Daniel Harrison said:

please people there is nothig a 1Ds mk II can do that a 1DmkII can't do better apart from full frame and sheer resolution. ...

Click to expand...

Well yes but that's a bit like saying there's nothing a bus will do that a Mini won't apart from carrying forty more people to destination. It's a pretty significant tradeoff, one for the other.

Nill
~~
www.toulme.net

I would not think of letting go of my 1Ds2 for a 1D2(N). I have 24x36" prints from both, and there's no contest. Heck, I would not even trade it for the 1D3 which I had the opportunity to use for a day. For what I need, 60% more pixels is more important than better AF and slightly better noise of the 1D3.

Hi Jane. The main selling points of the 1D3 for me are (1) the superior AF system to help me get the picture, and (2) the better sensor technology (14-bit, more dynamic range, less noise at any ISO). These are what make it a useful upgrade to a 1Ds2 or 1D2. The rest of the changes are nice but as you suggest are not deal makers or breakers for most of us.

[QUOTE please people there is nothig a 1Ds mk II can do that a 1DmkII can't do better apart from full frame and sheer resolution. "getting the shot" will be easier with the 1D2.

I beg to differ. When you have owned a 1DSMKII & used it extensively feel free to comment from experience rather than what you have heard or surmised from charts.

Cheers,

PB

Click to expand...