# Why is the 1Ds Mark II so cheap?? Looking to go full-frame.



## AmberAtLoveAndInk (Apr 18, 2014)

I'm looking at some full-frame bodies and came across some refurbished 1Ds Mark II's, for CHEAP. Like, $500. I know the 1Ds Mark III is an insanely amazing body so why would it's older version be priced so differently? Is there some big flaw in the 1Ds II's design?


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

the spec sheet alone would be enough reason for me to understand.


----------



## AmberAtLoveAndInk (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> the spec sheet alone would be enough reason for me to understand.



Well, I'm still learning so not all of the spec sheet is clear to me. Obviously I should pass on the body from your reply.


----------



## IronMaskDuval (Apr 18, 2014)

Even at $500, I still think it's overpriced.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 18, 2014)

Because it's 10 years old. I bought my 1D Mark II in 2010 and since then it has depreciated from $800 to $400.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 18, 2014)

It is a great camera for 500. The specs sheet don't tell all. It's iso performance isn't as good as newer models, but it has a great af system and does very nice fullframe images. Both the 5d and 1ds Mark 2 are good value now if you can get a good condition one. Just an opinion


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 18, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> I'm looking at some full-frame bodies and came across some refurbished 1Ds Mark II's, for CHEAP. Like, $500. I know the 1Ds Mark III is an insanely amazing body so why would it's older version be priced so differently? Is there some big flaw in the 1Ds II's design?


 To start: It's technically not "full frame". None of the 1D series is. The crop-factor is 1.3x This is true for the current-generation 1D as well. 

It's 8.3MP. Entry level DSLRs are 12-24MP right now and the top end DSLRs are 22-36MP. That's not to say that one cannot take awesome pictures (up to a certain size) at 8.3MP. You can. But that's one of the stats mentioned that's low. 

The ISO performance (1600/3200) is pretty low by modern standards (I believe the current 1D is 206,000).

Number of AF points (41) isn't bad at all. The processor is older, but I'm not sure that will hurt with the small sensor MP. 

Actually: It looks like a pretty good camera. Can someone tell me why this isn't worth the $400 it costs.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > the spec sheet alone would be enough reason for me to understand.
> ...




Don't do _anything _based on my suggestions.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 18, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> To start: It's technically not "full frame". None of the 1D series is. The crop-factor is 1.3x This is true for the current-generation 1D as well.  It's 8.3MP. Entry level DSLRs are 12-24MP right now and the top end DSLRs are 22-36MP. That's not to say that one cannot take awesome pictures (up to a certain size) at 8.3MP. You can. But that's one of the stats mentioned that's low.  The ISO performance (1600/3200) is pretty low by modern standards (I believe the current 1D is 206,000).  Number of AF points (41) isn't bad at all. The processor is older, but I'm not sure that will hurt with the small sensor MP.  Actually: It looks like a pretty good camera. Can someone tell me why this isn't worth the $400 it costs.



You're thinking of the 1DII. She's talking about the 1DsII, which  is a full frame 16 MP camera


----------



## usayit (Apr 18, 2014)

I never shot with the 1ds II only the 1d II.  Love it.

But when I see this threads considering the camera, one thing people tend to overlook is the batteries.    These cameras rely on NiMH batteries not Li-ion.   There are some disadvantages to shooting with a camera that uses NiMH batteries which is why almost no digital camera today uses them.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking at some full-frame bodies and came across some refurbished 1Ds Mark II's, for CHEAP. Like, $500. I know the 1Ds Mark III is an insanely amazing body so why would it's older version be priced so differently? Is there some big flaw in the 1Ds II's design?
> ...




Are you looking at the same specs as me?  The 1D_*s*_ Mii appears to be 36mm FF sensor.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 18, 2014)

I agree with usayit here. The batteries can be a pain. In fact it can be cheaper to buy a faulty camera with charger and batteries than replacing either the charger or batts


----------



## KmH (Apr 18, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> To start: It's technically not "full frame". None of the 1D series is. The crop-factor is 1.3x


There is the 1D series that use the APS-H 1.3x crop sensor, and the 1D_*s*_ series that use full frame (36 x 24 mm) image sensors.
Canon has a new series of full frame cameras the 1D X/1D C.

The APS-H image sensor size is bigger than the APS-C 1.6x crop factor image sensor, hence the lower 1.3x crop factor.

The Canon 1D cameras that have the APS-H image sensor were designed for sports shooters and the 1.3 crop factor helps to mitigate the need for lens 'reach' or apparent focal length.


----------



## AmberAtLoveAndInk (Apr 18, 2014)

Well I was looking at it for a second body (or a new main body based on quality) for some weddings I'm shooting this summer. I use a 60D and have no problem with it, I honestly think the 60D doesn't get as much credit as it derserves... but would LOVE to have the 5D Mark III except my fiance would kill me if I blew $3000 at the moment. So I was looking at a less expensive body, preferably not any of the 5D's because eventually I WILL have the Mark III, it'll just take a few months to convince the man of the house, I don't want to buy a 5D Mark II or 5D if I'm just going to upgrade.


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

Make sure the 1Ds isn't the body that shoots anything low light or in need of fps...


----------



## AmberAtLoveAndInk (Apr 18, 2014)

Does anyone have a full-frame body suggestion for me to upgrade to around the $1000 range? Refurbished is fine. I like my 60D's layout and it's so easy to use. Just really could use that ISO bump & a full frame, the cropping on my current cam is starting to irritate me as I get larger lenses.


----------



## usayit (Apr 18, 2014)

Do research on what it takes to maintain and replace the Ni-MH batteries.  I'm pretty sure you will eventually find them a PITA either now or later.

Whenever I ran out the door for an unexpected/unplanned shoot, the batteries were either dead or low.   I needed to plan ahead and maintain the batteries.  Refresh cycle is on the order of HOURS and then you still got to get through a recharge.

Furthermore, the UI of the 1 series (I liked it) is pretty far removed from your 60D and 5D series.   So switching between two cameras also requires a mental switch.   Along with different batteries, chargers, etc...    Also, don't underestimate the weight of the camera.  Its significantly heavier than what you currently shoot.

I would rather end up with a couple 5Ds (even different generations) than an old 1ds  and a 5D.   I shot with a 1d Mark IIn and a 5D classic (long since left Canon as my primary system).   I usually rather just pick one rather than carry both.


----------



## ronlane (Apr 18, 2014)

I don't understand your thinking about getting a 5D mkII? If you had that as and upgraded the 60d for the 5D mk III, then you would have two bodies the same.


----------



## AmberAtLoveAndInk (Apr 18, 2014)

ronlane said:


> I don't understand your thinking about getting a 5D mkII? If you had that as and upgraded the 60d for the 5D mk III, then you would have two bodies the same.



I'm not sure what you mean? I said that I did NOT want to get any of the 5D's at the moment because through force or other ways of persuasion, I should be able to get the 5D Mark III by the end of this year. Just looking for a decent full frame to have at these weddings I've lined up.


----------



## AmberAtLoveAndInk (Apr 18, 2014)

usayit said:


> Do research on what it takes to maintain and replace the Ni-MH batteries.  I'm pretty sure you will eventually find them a PITA either now or later.
> 
> Whenever I ran out the door for an unexpected/unplanned shoot, the batteries were either dead or low.   I needed to plan ahead and maintain the batteries.  Refresh cycle is on the order of HOURS and then you still got to get through a recharge.
> 
> ...



This I thought about. The controls are way different so I would need awhile to get comfortable with it. Also, looked in to the battery situation... that alone is enough for me to pass on the 1Ds II, even at the great price point.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 18, 2014)

A lot of 1Dsmk2 users never changed to the mk3 because of problems


----------



## ronlane (Apr 18, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> I don't want to buy a 5D Mark II or 5D if I'm just going to upgrade.



This is what I was referencing. You are wanting a 5d iii, but can't until the end of the year, but you are wanting another body now too. If you know that you are going to get a mk iii, it just makes sense to me to look at a mk ii now if you could get it at a good price. Then when you upgrade later this year, ditch the 60d and then you have two camera that are pretty much the same.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 18, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking at some full-frame bodies and came across some refurbished 1Ds Mark II's, for CHEAP. Like, $500. I know the 1Ds Mark III is an insanely amazing body so why would it's older version be priced so differently? Is there some big flaw in the 1Ds II's design?
> ...



Do your homework before posting


----------



## usayit (Apr 18, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> Also, looked in to the battery situation... that alone is enough for me to pass on the 1Ds II, even at the great price point.



To be fair though..

With a fully maintained, healthy, and charged battery, the Ni-MH batteries in those cameras were good for a LOT of shots.   Which is good since the batteries themselves weigh a bit.


----------



## AmberAtLoveAndInk (Apr 18, 2014)

gsgary said:


> JerryLove said:
> 
> 
> > AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
> ...



well I asked here so I could know the answer!! Now I do


----------



## gsgary (Apr 18, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> Well I was looking at it for a second body (or a new main body based on quality) for some weddings I'm shooting this summer. I use a 60D and have no problem with it, I honestly think the 60D doesn't get as much credit as it derserves... but would LOVE to have the 5D Mark III except my fiance would kill me if I blew $3000 at the moment. So I was looking at a less expensive body, preferably not any of the 5D's because eventually I WILL have the Mark III, it'll just take a few months to convince the man of the house, I don't want to buy a 5D Mark II or 5D if I'm just going to upgrade.




Feel the weight of one before you buy, focus speed will make your 60D seem slow


----------



## AmberAtLoveAndInk (Apr 18, 2014)

ronlane said:


> AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
> 
> 
> > I don't want to buy a 5D Mark II or 5D if I'm just going to upgrade.
> ...



Ahhhh I see. Ya, that makes a bit more sense.


----------



## ronlane (Apr 18, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> ronlane said:
> 
> 
> > AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
> ...



it's all good. I just wanted to give you the argument to end up with 2 5d's. Isn't that what a wedding photog needs???? lol


----------



## gsgary (Apr 18, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > JerryLove said:
> ...



I didn't mean you i meant Jerry because he said it is not full frame


----------



## Braineack (Apr 18, 2014)

I thought wedding photographers used Rebels exclusively.


----------



## ronlane (Apr 18, 2014)

Braineack said:


> I thought wedding photographers used Rebels exclusively.



Those are just the show off's that want to make it look easy


----------



## jaomul (Apr 18, 2014)

You asked about the best value fullframe for about 1000. I know you posted in Canon, do you already shoot Canon because the Nikon D700 isn't to far off 1000 and it is a great model


----------



## gsgary (Apr 18, 2014)

I think i have just bought one of the best full frame cameras on the market, the Sony A7 just getting used to mine and the colours are wonderfull


----------



## ronlane (Apr 18, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> Well I was looking at it for a second body (or a new main body based on quality) for some weddings I'm shooting this summer. I use a 60D and have no problem with it, I honestly think the 60D doesn't get as much credit as it derserves... but would LOVE to have the 5D Mark III except my fiance would kill me if I blew $3000 at the moment. So I was looking at a less expensive body, preferably not any of the 5D's because eventually I WILL have the Mark III, it'll just take a few months to convince the man of the house, I don't want to buy a 5D Mark II or 5D if I'm just going to upgrade.





jaomul said:


> You asked about the best value fullframe for about 1000. I know you posted in Canon, do you already shoot Canon because the Nikon D700 isn't to far off 1000 and it is a great model



Yeah, she uses a 60D.


----------



## jaomul (Apr 18, 2014)

Thanks. Missed that one


----------



## AmberAtLoveAndInk (Apr 18, 2014)

gsgary said:


> AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...




OH. Lol. I was like, umm? Aren't I allowed to post questions, no matter how stupid? haha


----------



## AmberAtLoveAndInk (Apr 18, 2014)

jaomul said:


> You asked about the best value fullframe for about 1000. I know you posted in Canon, do you already shoot Canon because the Nikon D700 isn't to far off 1000 and it is a great model



I couldn't do the nikon switch. Already have so much invested in Canon, plus, on a personal note, I really didn't dig the feel & controls on the nikon bodies when I shopping around for my first camera system.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 18, 2014)

gsgary said:


> I think i have just bought one of the best full frame cameras on the market, the Sony A7 just getting used to mine and the colours are wonderfull



But dat lens situation


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 18, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> ..............
> Well, I'm still learning so not all of the spec sheet is clear to me. .................





AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> Well I was looking at it for a second body (or a new main body based on quality) for some weddings I'm shooting this summer..................................



Can  I just say that these two statements, in conjunction, are rather frightening.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 18, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > I think i have just bought one of the best full frame cameras on the market, the Sony A7 just getting used to mine and the colours are wonderfull
> ...



What lens situation it will take almost any lens on the market past and present
Quick grab shot with Voigtlander 40F1.4 ISO 12800


----------



## AmberAtLoveAndInk (Apr 18, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
> 
> 
> > ..............
> ...



Because I'm still learning the big differences in specs?? I KNOW how to use my camera. I'm looking to another one that I will also LEARN about.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 18, 2014)

gsgary said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


  The lack of Sony e-mount lenses. I wouldn't dare shoot a wedding with a 20 year old manual focus lens even if it does have great image quality.

Also: good luck having time to effectively manual focus in a fast paced situation as accurately as an autofocus lens.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 18, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



Well your not upto shooting weddings then


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 18, 2014)

gsgary said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



I literally can't ever tell if you're a troll or not. 

So with that, My reply to your comment shall be:

"Citations Needed."


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 18, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
> ...



The specs are basics.  It's part of knowing your tools.  Do you even own a flash, or know how to use one?   It seems from your port that you've only just gotten a handle on manual settings (a lot of shots there on "action mode" and "auto"), and then in controlled portrait settings with no external lighting and relatively homogeneous tones.    It's just that this is the kind of thing we see a lot of here.  You're new, you're still trying to get a handle on things, and yet you're barreling in head first.   I hate to say it, but it's a cliche we've seen played out here and elsewhere quite a bit.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 18, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...


  You do realize people used MF lenses at weddings for _decades_ right?  I know a few very talented shooters who still work with MF lenses at wedding.   If you know how to shoot with MF lenses then it's not an issue.  I actually shoot all of my fast primes with manual focus because it's quick and easy; and it beats being forced to compose a scene around my focus points.   A good focus screen makes manually focusing fast glass very easy, slow consumer zooms, not so much.   However, have you ever worked with focus peaking?   It's great, and makes manual focus fast and fool proof.


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 18, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> I'm looking at some full-frame bodies and came across some refurbished 1Ds Mark II's, for CHEAP. Like, $500. I know the 1Ds Mark III is an insanely amazing body so why would it's older version be priced so differently? Is there some big flaw in the 1Ds II's design?



You have to remember that digital moves quickly. In the old days film bodies would keep their value forever because film doesn't really change. Now with digital a year is like 10 years worth technical advancement in film. In 2 years your camera will easily lose 30-40% of its original value.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 18, 2014)

ecphoto said:


> AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
> 
> 
> > I'm looking at some full-frame bodies and came across some refurbished 1Ds Mark II's, for CHEAP. Like, $500. I know the 1Ds Mark III is an insanely amazing body so why would it's older version be priced so differently? Is there some big flaw in the 1Ds II's design?
> ...


We should have "digital camera years" the same way people have "dog years".    If one year for a person is like 7 years for a dog, one year for a person should be 10 "digital camera years".   So in six and a half years a digital camera should be just about ready to retire.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 18, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...



Yes I do know this. However, there is a reason why autofocus is seen as important to a lot of photographic community.

I know many photographers who don't use manual focus because almost every AF point is cross type and they just have to click over to a new one when they need a new composition.

My cameras don't have focus peaking. My Fujifilm does but it's a hybrid and is often very distracting.

I would not buy into a system that lacks a native lens system just so I could make concessions using manual focus third party lenses.

That is where I'm coming from. You can always turn of AF on Sonanonikon lenses, but you can't add autofocus to a manual focus lens.

However, if you're skilled at manual focus do your thing. I don't have a place to criticize your personal way method of taking photos.


----------



## ecphoto (Apr 18, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> ecphoto said:
> 
> 
> > AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
> ...



My analogy was rather silly, but very much true. Its not that the cameras a breaking down or that quality has diminished, rather we want the newer/cooler/better features.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 18, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> I literally can't ever tell if you're a troll or not.
> 
> So with that, My reply to your comment shall be:
> 
> "Citations Needed."



I wouldn't class a wedding as fast paced, using focus peaking you can easily focus a moving target and stationary subject I can maginify just the face or eyes


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 18, 2014)

I used a 1D mkll for years, had the shutter replaced twice, it has now been retired as I'm not replacing the shutter again. I ran 500k worth of images through it and it was one of my favourite camera bodies, it served me very well.  Technology has advanced and the new gear is far better.  I have 2 Canon 1D bodies that still work, but are better door stops now, I paid $10k for the first one and it was an amazing camera back in 2001, their value now, I could probably get $50 for them.  Time wears on and so do camera bodies, especially when you start to go over that 250,000 frame mark.  I'd still use my Mkll if it was alive.


----------



## rexbobcat (Apr 18, 2014)

gsgary said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I literally can't ever tell if you're a troll or not.
> ...



Or you could just use a lens with autofocus and turn focus peaking off so it's not distracting. 

Mwaha now I'm the troll.

I would classify it as fast paced enough to make manual focusing in some instances difficult especially if there's only one person. I helped photograph a wedding last Saturday with a friend and the ceremony was 30 minutes. To get shots from every angle we were jogging enough to begin sweating. I'm not really referring to how fast the actual wedding is. I'm talking about getting the most comprehensive record of the wedding possible in the best way possible while also adhering to the natural flow of the event.

Maybe you don't find it that difficult, but I'm not great with time management anyways so it really stresses me out. Having a camera that can do something better than I can alleviates some of that stress, which is why I don't think buying into a system like Sony's e-mount (which has a lack of native lens options comparatively) is a great idea unless you're skilled in manual focusing or prefer using Zeiss and older lenses.

Or if you really just don't care all that much about the variety of lenses and what they have will suffice.


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 18, 2014)

To respond to several people quoting me at once... no I was looking at the 1DmkII, not the 1DsmkII. My bad.

And yes, about half (4/9) of 1D-series DSLRs are full frame. Again: I learned something new


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 18, 2014)

gsgary said:


> AmberAtLoveAndInk said:
> 
> 
> > gsgary said:
> ...


Yea, but you are being a jerk about it. 

I actually did do my homework... just looked up the wrong camera. Others pointed that out without the 'tude. I'm tempted to run through your posts to find every error you've ever made and quote you in response to them, but I"m not that bored... yet.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 18, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > rexbobcat said:
> ...



You really should try a precision focusing screen in one of your bodies (I think the 6D would be a prime target for one).  You'd be amazed at how easy it is to see the crisply defined plane of focus with a fast prime lens.  I think the 6D can take the same Eg-S screen as the 5DII.   Before you come down so hard on MF you really ought to give it a try.


----------



## gsgary (Apr 18, 2014)

rexbobcat said:


> Or you could just use a lens with autofocus and turn focus peaking off so it's not distracting.
> 
> Mwaha now I'm the troll.
> 
> ...



You can get adapters for canon and nikon that will auto focus, I dont find it as quick to manual focus as my Leica's but I only got it on Tuesday but find it very easy to use


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 18, 2014)

Essentially it defeats the purpose of full frame (or whatever it is, APS-H?), because it's older sensor isn't able to keep up to even slightly smaller sensors today in dynamic range or high ISO noise or anything. So it's essentially just a halway decent crop frame body for all practical purposes, except which lenses you use, which makes it even more of a bad idea if you don't own full frame lenses, or neutral if you do.

Thus, it is appropriately priced similar to year or two old crop frames.


----------



## TCampbell (Apr 18, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> Does anyone have a full-frame body suggestion for me to upgrade to around the $1000 range? Refurbished is fine. I like my 60D's layout and it's so easy to use. Just really could use that ISO bump & a full frame, the cropping on my current cam is starting to irritate me as I get larger lenses.



Even a refurbished 5D II or 6D will cost a bit over $1500.  You should be able to find a used (non-refurbished) body for a bit less but I've noticed even on eBay they seem to be a little north of $1000.

If you drop back to a 5D (classic) then you'll be under that price... but as you say you really want this for the ISO bump I'm not sure you'd get the improvement you were hoping for since the 5D is a very old body.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 18, 2014)

Basically what is being said is the Canon 1D mkll was a piece of crap?


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 18, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> Essentially it defeats the purpose of full frame (or whatever it is, APS-H?), because it's older sensor isn't able to keep up to even slightly smaller sensors today in dynamic range or high ISO noise or anything. So it's essentially just a halway decent crop frame body for all practical purposes, except which lenses you use, which makes it even more of a bad idea if you don't own full frame lenses, or neutral if you do.


 Well. A 2-year-old crop sensor with no cropping, 45 AF points, 1/250 flash sync, dual card slots, and a pentaprism (rather than a pentamirror) with (I suspect) 100% coverage and off a mirror with twice the surface area (so expect the OVF to be larger and brighter than any of the crop-cameras available) , and a not stupendous, but better than many crop-camera 4.5fps. 

But other than all those things, and the weather sealing, and the included portrait handle... it's worse than a more modern crop.


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 18, 2014)

No it was fine in its day, but there are two variables here
1) "Class" of camera
2) Generation of camera

After a long enough amount of time passes, generation outweighs class, in almost everything that matters, except maybe things like weathersealing.


----------



## Gavjenks (Apr 18, 2014)

> Well. A 2-year-old crop sensor with no cropping, 45 AF points, 1/250 flash sync, dual card slots, and a pentaprism (rather than a pentamirror) with (I suspect) 100% coverage and off a mirror with twice the surface area (so expect the OVF to be larger and brighter than any of the crop-cameras available) , and a not stupendous, but better than many crop-camera 4.5fps.



No camera is going to be IDENTICAL, obviously.

But the 7D for instance probably has a better AF system despite fewer points, same flash sync, also a pentaprism, a perfectly usable LCD screen like any camera that makes viewfinder brightness not that huge of a deal if you're really in pitch blackness, twice the FPS, etc.  Plus it's not even 2 years old, it's 5.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 18, 2014)

If you're really in a very dark situation the LCD is useless for composing shots, that's when a good viewfinder really comes into it's own.


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 18, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> If you're really in a very dark situation the LCD is useless for composing shots, that's when a good viewfinder really comes into it's own.


 That's been the opposite of my experience. I can composite with the LCD in low light better than the OVF... though I fully realize that the quality of OVFs vary (and what I'm thinking of was an T2i).


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 18, 2014)

Gavjenks said:


> > Well. A 2-year-old crop sensor with no cropping, 45 AF points, 1/250 flash sync, dual card slots, and a pentaprism (rather than a pentamirror) with (I suspect) 100% coverage and off a mirror with twice the surface area (so expect the OVF to be larger and brighter than any of the crop-cameras available) , and a not stupendous, but better than many crop-camera 4.5fps.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 True. The 7D should definitely be considered by anyone looking at a 1Ds mkII. 

And anyone considering a 7D should consider a 70D. 

Now where's the 7D mkII ?!?


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 18, 2014)

JerryLove said:


> Scatterbrained said:
> 
> 
> > If you're really in a very dark situation the LCD is useless for composing shots, that's when a good viewfinder really comes into it's own.
> ...


What do you consider low light?  If I'm somewhere where the neutral exposure calls for slower shutter speeds, fast apertures and high iso (3200+) the LCD tends to render noisy, muddy images.  Basically, shooting on the street at night.  If I'm somewhere where the exposure is measured in seconds, not fractions of a second, then the LCD is absolutely usesless, but I can sill see through the OVF just as I can with my own eyes.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 18, 2014)

"Why is the 1Ds Mark II so cheap?? Looking to go full-frame"  relates to 70D & 7D?  Things that make me go hmmmm.....


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 18, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> "Why is the 1Ds Mark II so cheap?? Looking to go full-frame"  relates to 70D & 7D?  Things that make me go hmmmm.....


----------



## gsgary (Apr 18, 2014)

imagemaker46 said:


> Basically what is being said is the Canon 1D mkll was a piece of crap?



Yes it is crap, Paul Carrack @iso1600


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 18, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> JerryLove said:
> 
> 
> > Scatterbrained said:
> ...


 I was in the "nocturnal" section of Bush Gardens, where making out details with the naked eye was a bit problematic.

The LCD was messy, but I couldn't make out the subjects at all with the OVF. (exposure couldn't be in seconds because the targets were moving).

The pics did not turn out "well" regardless, though as a "remember the bats?" for a vacation album, they work.


----------



## JerryLove (Apr 18, 2014)

JacaRanda said:


> "Why is the 1Ds Mark II so cheap?? Looking to go full-frame"  relates to 70D & 7D?  Things that make me go hmmmm.....


 One need consider *why* they are going full-frame and if that's really the path to their goals. 

Yes. If FF is the requirement, in the <$1k Canon market you are basically 5D and older 1D models.


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 18, 2014)

Yeah, bear in mind you're dealing with a pentamirror not a pentaprism.  A pentaprism transmits more light than a pentamirror.


----------



## JacaRanda (Apr 18, 2014)

Scatterbrained said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > "Why is the 1Ds Mark II so cheap?? Looking to go full-frame" relates to 70D & 7D? Things that make me go hmmmm.....



You know if the lead guy put the hat you have on in your avatar, there is quite a resemblance.  Hmmm, is that you?


----------



## Scatterbrained (Apr 18, 2014)

sssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh................


----------



## Derrel (Apr 18, 2014)

For use under controlled lighting, like studio flash shoots, older sensors can perform pretty well. The build quality and the viewfinder clarity are really high. The 1Ds Mark II is a full-frame camera with a decent 16.7 megapixel sensor. Handling is FAST. It's older, yes...but it's like an older top-of-the-line Mercedes...it's not a 'Yota...


----------



## imagemaker46 (Apr 18, 2014)

I have produced some really great images using a 3.8mp 1D and the same using a 1D mkll, both were great cameras for me, and at the time there was nothing that I considered could compete with them.  People get all wrapped up in megapixels and fps, but it still always comes down to the person holding the camera.

Buy what you can afford, buy what feels comfortable in your hands, and buy what will meet your photographic needs There will always be the photo geeks that couldn't shoot a decent frame if there was a gun pointed at their heads, but they are the first to spew all the facts and figures as to why a certain camera is good, bad, or ugly, most of which is just regurgitated from a magazine article written by some other geek.

I just take pictures.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 18, 2014)

For that price of $500 AND 16MP ... if it were a Nikon I'd buy one, or two even and sell my crop camera.


----------



## astroNikon (Apr 18, 2014)

I did a quick check of ebay and nothing was under $710 (and that had alot of actuations) except for a couple that possible did not work or parts.

mostly $800+ for body only.


----------



## trojancast (Apr 20, 2014)

AmberAtLoveAndInk said:


> I'm looking at some full-frame bodies and came across some refurbished 1Ds Mark II's, for CHEAP. Like, $500. I know the 1Ds Mark III is an insanely amazing body so why would it's older version be priced so differently? Is there some big flaw in the 1Ds II's design?



I don't know if you are still even here, I tried to read all the posts, but they seem to have run off topic ;~).  So here, for what it is worth, is my 2 cents.  I am a working pro and continue to use a 1Ds Mark II.  I have newer gear, 5D2, 5D3, and 1Dx, but continue to use my 1Ds Mark II for portrait work, as it is really good at this.  The camera is MUCH heavier than your 60D, and the controls are VERY different.  There will be a learning curve.

My honest feeling is that, for your wedding work, you should give serious consideration to the 6D.  The controls are exactly the same as the 60D but it gives you the full frame you are looking for.  I suggest you try renting one for a try out before you buy, but I really believe it will give you everything you need, and you can keep the 60D as a back-up without having to learn a new set of controls.  There's my 2 cents anyway.  Anyway, great shooting!

Oh, and I assume your lenses are full frame!  LOL :~).


----------

