# Canon 1D mark ii



## gtaylor (Jul 20, 2013)

I have located a "vintage" 1D mark ii for around $400 and am seriously considering purchasing it.  Am I crazy for even thinking about getting a 10 year old camera with who knows how many actuations?  

Input appreciated.


----------



## usayit (Jul 20, 2013)

I shot with one for a long time.... I loved it.   AF was outstanding.  Metering was very good; 8x multispot.     Didn't hesitate using it in wet conditions with a sealed lens.   I only sold it because I was downsizing.  Yes.. its a hefty camera body.  Of course, don't expect high ISO performance like modern cameras.... that's the nature of technology.  The UI is somewhat different than most Canon's... two button pushes for setting changes.  I adjusted quite quickly.  Its also not quite a FF camera but not EFS compatible.  LCD is going to be significantly less quality than what you see today... but I'm not one to really care.

One thing to note that many people miss.

The 1DmarkII uses NiMH batteries NOT Li-Ion like the more modern cameras do.   They do require a bit of maintenance to keep them "healthy".  Cycles can take a long time.   They also loose charge sitting over time.   There have been times that I grabbed the camera on a whim only to realize I had batteries that were at 50% or less.   A fully charged battery will last through a lot of frames...   Battery charger it comes with can cycle two batteries at the same time.   My two relatively newish batteries fully charged would last me a weekend trip... I wouldn't even bring the charger.

IIRC, you should be able to determine the number of actuations on the camera.  Search for the instructions.


----------



## jaomul (Jul 23, 2013)

I couldn't recommend one enough at current prices. I bought one a few months ago.  It is great. Even the ISO which isnt its strongest point allows usage up to its expanded 3200 setting with a bit of pp


----------



## curtyoungblood (Jul 23, 2013)

What do you shoot most frequently? The 1dii is a solid camera, but it is quite out-dated technologically. I wouldn't plan to shoot above iso 800, which, for me, is a real hindrance. The only way I'd recommend getting one is if you shoot a lot of sports outside during the day. Otherwise, the camera's limitations are going to give you problems that could be better solved with a newer camera body. (I'd suspect that even a used 60d would perform better for what 90% of what most people shoot.)


----------



## gsgary (Jul 23, 2013)

Derrel will be along soon to tell you it is crap, this is one i took with it


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 23, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Derrel will be along soon to tell you it is crap, this is one i took with it



holy bejebus man..that shot is awesome! what lens was used?


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 23, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Derrel will be along soon to tell you it is crap...



:lmao:


----------



## gsgary (Jul 23, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel will be along soon to tell you it is crap, this is one i took with it
> ...



Cheers 300F2.8L + 1.4x


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 23, 2013)

But can you take a rockin' picture of a shirtless kid eating out of a bowl.

You know, "pushing the envelope" kinda' stuff...


----------



## gsgary (Jul 23, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> But can you take a rockin' picture of a shirtless kid eating out of a bowl.
> 
> You know, "pushing the envelope" kinda' stuff...




i dont know camera and lens are gathering dust since getting my Leica's


----------



## Derrel (Jul 23, 2013)

This was a great Canon camera. It came before the IIn iteration, and was well before the 1D Mark III [AKA  t*he camera-that-would-not-autofocus right*.] 

If you wanted a Canon that could actually focus, you bought the 1D Mark II or the newer, 1D Mark IIn, and let the bad Mark III cameras go back to Canon over and over and over...

Rob Galbraith DPI: May 29, 2009 update

The 1D Mark III was the camera that sent so,so many pro sports shooters over to the Nikon D3 and D3s...

The Mark II was a good camera back in the day when 8 megapixels was considered enough.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 23, 2013)

I used a Mkll for a lot of years, replaced the shutter once, and ran over 250k through the new shutter before it came apart as well.  It was a beautiful camera to use.  I couldn't be bothered to have another shutter replaced, so now it is a doorstop with my other 2 1D bodies.

The mklll was garbage.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 23, 2013)

Derrel said:


> The Mark II was a good camera back in the day when 8 megapixels was considered enough.



You've got what? 24 megapixels?

What envelope pushing stuff are you shooting with those?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 24, 2013)

Some of my best images were shot using a 1D and a 1D mkll,  while I like the idea of having 22-24megapixels, when I want to crop, it has a way of making people lazy by saying "I don't have to shoot as tight or as well, I have more to work with".  Having only 8megapixelas to work with was just fine for  every photojournalist assignment including sports, it just meant making sure the original image was as close to correct coming out of the camera.

This thought that more is better is very misguided. It still comes down to the quality of the original image.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 24, 2013)

Derrel said:


> This was a great Canon camera. It came before the IIn iteration, and was well before the 1D Mark III [AKA  the camera-that-would-not-autofocus right.]
> 
> If you wanted a Canon that could actually focus, you bought the 1D Mark II or the newer, 1D Mark IIn, and let the bad Mark III cameras go back to Canon over and over and over...
> 
> ...



It still is enough


----------



## runnah (Jul 24, 2013)

gsgary said:


> Derrel will be along soon to tell you it is crap, this is one i took with it




You didn't take that. It's not on film from 1776


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 24, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> This thought that more is better is very misguided.



Quoted for truth...


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2013)

A guitar *salesman* talking about "truth"....lol!! You sell overpriced guitars, and dreams, to people who can barely play.

The 1D Mark II was a great camera. Fast, responsive, solid build. It's probably a good camera for taking pictures of old rusting cars in front of ramshackle buildings, and applying heavy-handed HDR treatment, then hoping to sell the occasional print to tasteless young hispters who just ,"_Love the look of HDR landscapes from old Indian reservation homes!_"

For publication, the halftone screen kills most of the acuity of any camera, so even an old Nikon D1 series 2.7, or or D2h's 4.2-megapixel image is plenty for a double-truck in a magazine; 8 MP is plenty when the image is printed on newsprint. At least, as long as it is in focus. Images printed on newsprint don't need to be very big, or very high-rez. Just sharpen them up a lot, make sure the black point is set right so the dot gain doesn't plug up the low tones, and voila! Great images. At least, as long as the camera can focus right. Which is why Canon had to stop making the 1D Mark III--they brought in an all-new focusing system, which basically, could not focus right much of the time.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 24, 2013)

Derrel said:


> A guitar *salesman* talking about "truth"....lol!! You sell overpriced guitars, and dreams, to people who can barely play.



Maybe you haven't been keeping up, Chief.

I'm not in the guitar business anymore. I'm doing photography, full time, and being paid well for it. Seriously, your obsession with me, and what I do, is bordering on something clinical.

But, since you want to talk about "overpriced", let's talk about some internet know-it-all who buys a high-dollar camera to impress people with, and then posts pictures of glasses, street signs, someone taking a picture of someone else on a beach and a pizza. 

WTF, Derrel? Where's all of the "pushing the envelope" stuff you bought that fancy camera for?



> The 1D Mark II was a great camera. Fast, responsive, solid build. It's probably a good camera for taking pictures of old rusting cars in front of ramshackle buildings, and applying heavy-handed HDR treatment, then hoping to sell the occasional print to tasteless young hispters who just ,"_Love the look of HDR landscapes from old Indian reservation homes!_"



I'd rather see HDR stuff than "cryogenic bubblewrap"...



> For publication, the halftone screen kills most of the acuity of any camera, so even an old Nikon D1 series 2.7, or or D2h's 4.2-megapixel image is plenty for a double-truck in a magazine; 8 MP is plenty when the image is printed on newsprint. At least, as long as it is in focus. Images printed on newsprint don't need to be very big, or very high-rez. Just sharpen them up a lot, make sure the black point is set right so the dot gain doesn't plug up the low tones, and voila! Great images. At least, as long as the camera can focus right. Which is why Canon had to stop making the 1D Mark III--they brought in an all-new focusing system, which basically, could not focus right much of the time.



You make me, and others, laugh. You're amusing. For that reason alone I'm enjoying this exchange.

While it's pretty clear that you like to spend an inordinate amount of time learning specs of different cameras, you make it more and more painfully obvious that your real world experience is bordering on nil. You talk about "pushing the envelope", but your own uploads are anything _but _that. Get away from your computer and get out in the real world. Stop taking photos of cats and crushed beer cans. 

Post some photos of your "pushing the envelope" stuff.

I mean, you know, you _do _have that kinda' stuff, right?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 24, 2013)

Geez Derrel, and I thought the images that I shot with my old 4mp 1D that were used as photo wraps for vans looked great, it appears that I was mistaken. Based on your skill and knowledge I must have been doing something really wrong with the 10's of thousands of images that I shot and sold with 4mp cameras.   Again as I stated before, some people believe that more is better, in my case I will take that I have more skill and experience with a camera than you do, and was able some how able to produce great images with fewer megapixels.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 24, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Geez Derrel, and I thought the images that I shot with my old 4mp 1D that were used as photo wraps for vans looked great, it appears that I was mistaken. Based on your skill and knowledge I must have been doing something really wrong with the 10's of thousands of images that I shot and sold with 4mp cameras.   Again as I stated before, some people believe that more is better, in my case I will take that I have more skill and experience with a camera than you do, and was able some how able to produce great images with fewer megapixels.



Then why are you shooting with a brand new Canon 5D Mark III, imagemaker??

Oh, I forgot...you're *one of the best sports shooters in the world*, according to your own admission. And you use....a brand-new 23-megapixel camera....and yet we've never heard of you in the USA...

You seem to be yet another guy who says one thing, but does another thing entirely. Why are you shooting with a new, $3,500, high-MP Canon 5D Mark III.

Why are you not using an old, 4-megapixel Canon 1D from 2001? I mean...your sheer,amazing,refined talent behind the lens oughtta', well, you know...allow you to out-shoot anybody in the world, on a consistent basis, no matter the venue...or so I have read from you multiple times on this board...

Amusing how your actions do not match up with your words. Why don't you go to another thread and attack your old buddy f/2.8??? lol

*As I said, the 1D mark II was a good camera*. Nobody's disputing that. You just seem to need "somebody" to attack as a way to vent your frustrations of being out-competed by younger shooters...maybe work on your _reading comprehension_, and try and figure out why you are shooting Canon's newest, latest camera...while you're alternately raging about new pros, and also waxing rhapsodic about the "old days"...


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 24, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Why are you shooting with a new, $3,500, high-MP Canon 5D Mark III.



Why are you shooting with a DX3? To take pictures of the inside of drink cups at McDonald's?

Yeah, way to push the envelope, bro.

  

Seriously, dude, you need to stop. Your criticisms of others, when viewed in the light of the novice-quality photos of your own that you've posted, is making you look sad.

Well, sad_der_...


----------



## pixmedic (Jul 24, 2013)

I think we are starting to stray a little off track. Please try to keep personal attacks to yourselves.


----------



## gsgary (Jul 24, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> Geez Derrel, and I thought the images that I shot with my old 4mp 1D that were used as photo wraps for vans looked great, it appears that I was mistaken. Based on your skill and knowledge I must have been doing something really wrong with the 10's of thousands of images that I shot and sold with 4mp cameras.   Again as I stated before, some people believe that more is better, in my case I will take that I have more skill and experience with a camera than you do, and was able some how able to produce great images with fewer megapixels.




+1 some of my best shots are with the original 1D, and it still focus with all the **** flying


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 24, 2013)

Derrel said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > Geez Derrel, and I thought the images that I shot with my old 4mp 1D that were used as photo wraps for vans looked great, it appears that I was mistaken. Based on your skill and knowledge I must have been doing something really wrong with the 10's of thousands of images that I shot and sold with 4mp cameras. Again as I stated before, some people believe that more is better, in my case I will take that I have more skill and experience with a camera than you do, and was able some how able to produce great images with fewer megapixels.
> ...




Who keeps pissing in your corn flakes?  Who really cares if people in the states have never heard of me, what is your point?  I will always stand by my abilities with a camera, what difference does it make to you anyway? I know how skilled I am, why shouldn't I have the confidence to admit it.

Do you tell people you have no abilities or skills with a camera?  You back up your statements with meaningless words.


----------



## usayit (Jul 24, 2013)

Guys... the OP asked a freakin simple question... leave it up to us to turn it into something else.

Other than the UI (two button push actions) and the NiHM battery that I brought up are there any other gotchas the OP should know about?   



I agree BTW.. its technology outdated but its more than sufficient for some really good results.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jul 24, 2013)

ITT: Three older men arguing about old cameras.


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 24, 2013)

I've never heard of "Imagemaker".

Is he a better than average photographer?

Hell yeah...


----------



## Steve5D (Jul 24, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> I think we are starting to stray a little off track. Please try to keep personal attacks to yourselves.



Okay.

After all, it's pretty clear who's full of hot air here.

I'm thru...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 25, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > I think we are starting to stray a little off track. Please try to keep personal attacks to yourselves.
> ...




Agreed I'm done with this thread as well.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jul 25, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> I've never heard of "Imagemaker".
> 
> Is he a better than average photographer?
> 
> Hell yeah...



Thanks Steve


----------

