# 5d or 1ds



## bobthebrick (Dec 27, 2011)

Hi all.
I'm hoping that the CR geniuses will be able to help here; original 5d or original 1ds?
I shoot predominantly landscape and macro, though I need good low light performance and if possible reasonableish sports performance, minus the FPS of course. I think the 5d is probably better from what I've read so far, and I would like the weight savings, but it seems fairly inconclusive.

Thanks in advance,
Thomas.


----------



## tron (Dec 27, 2011)

hello,

you mean the versions I?

It is a strange comparison and to tell the truth I haven't used either 

I am an owner of a 5D mkII however and apart from its autofocus performance which is not excellent (but not very bad either)
I am satisfied with it. Back in the film days I had bought 2 used EOS 1n with boosters and I was happy with them!
So I have some experience with series 1. However the 1Ds is so old that I would suggest the 5D merely for its low noise capabilities,
especially because your main interest themes are static.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 27, 2011)

DxOMark ranks the 5D sensor performance higher than the 1Ds (link). The 1Ds will have better AF for sports shooting. On the balance, I'd recommend the 5D over the 1Ds given the requirements you listed.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 27, 2011)

I have a 5D and before it; used to have a 1d mk.ii (not DS though): I miss the frame rates and 7AEB on the 1D body, but apart from that it was a bag of hurt. I needed to resurrect an old XP machine to even load the software to control some of the 1D settings. Mine had USB 1 (not sure what the Ds has): Also image quality on the 5d is as good as any current DSLR out there. Much better than the 1D2 I had. 

Don't think too hard about it... go with the 5d.


----------



## bobthebrick (Dec 27, 2011)

Thanks so much guys for your help, that was really quick  Yeah, I'm talking about the mk 1 versions of each cameras. The consensus seems to be the 5d, but there is a lot of mention of AF issues. How bad are they, will I be able to shoot sports at all? (mainly soccer, skiing, snowboarding, plus the occasional hockey, waterpolo. By occasional I mean once or twice a year, the others pretty much everyweek. And can it autofocus quick enough to take good candid shots of people, especially small children in low light?

Thanks heaps guys,
Thomas.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 27, 2011)

bobthebrick said:


> Thanks so much guys for your help, that was really quick  Yeah, I'm talking about the mk 1 versions of each cameras. The consensus seems to be the 5d, but there is a lot of mention of AF issues. How bad are they, will I be able to shoot sports at all? (mainly soccer, skiing, snowboarding, plus the occasional hockey, waterpolo. By occasional I mean once or twice a year, the others pretty much everyweek. And can it autofocus quick enough to take good candid shots of people, especially small children in low light?
> 
> Thanks heaps guys,
> Thomas.



If you use the center point, the AF is very good. Otherwise it can be hit or miss... I shoot usually with centerpoint and never had issues with the AF.


----------



## bobthebrick (Dec 27, 2011)

Hmm. Sounds like it could work. Would it make sense to try and pick up a 1d mk ii (n or not) as well in the near future? They go for next to nothing, unlike the 1ds which still fetches a grand.

Thomas.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 27, 2011)

bobthebrick said:


> Hmm. Sounds like it could work. Would it make sense to try and pick up a 1d mk ii (n or not) as well in the near future? They go for next to nothing, unlike the 1ds which still fetches a grand.
> 
> Thomas.



I had a 1d2 before the 5d... I didnt care for the image quality a whole lot... it was ok. The IQ with the 5d is better. But you can buy one used and resell after 2-3 months for the same price range thats what I did...


----------



## bobthebrick (Dec 27, 2011)

I had a 1d2 before the 5d... I didnt care for the image quality a whole lot... it was ok. The IQ with the 5d is better. But you can buy one used and resell after 2-3 months for the same price range thats what I did...  [/quote] 

What's your definition of ok? Would I be better off just not bothering if the images out of it won't be great? It holds its value well then, so I could give it a try then offload it if I don't like it.

Thomas.


----------



## K-amps (Dec 27, 2011)

It depends if you shoot primarily RAW or use the jpegs too.. if RAW then it is much better, the jpeg rendering is not very good... even the 350d can render better jpegs and the T2i's can outshine it easily, they are less noisier; brighter/clearer... When you look at the raw renditions the margin closes, but still the level of clean details you can get from a 5d are far superior to the 1d2. I am going off personal experience here and have not done 1 on 1 tests on the two bodies, just a few months of taking shots with both.


----------



## bobthebrick (Dec 27, 2011)

Thankyou heaps  I think I'll just continue to bid on used 5ds and see if that does what I want and go from there. Thanks everyone!! 

Thomas.


----------



## bobthebrick (Dec 28, 2011)

Thanks  Great to know it will be useful for pretty much anything.


----------



## niccyboy (Dec 28, 2011)

+1 for the 5D... I loved mine.


----------



## wickidwombat (Dec 29, 2011)

with the new 7DII announcement on the horrizon, I would guess new 7D prices heading straight into your price bracket, just something to consider, with the 10-22 its very respectable for landscape, you get more benefit with macro on a crop body and the 7D will handle those sports shots you want that the 5D wont. and it'll be a new camera in warranty.


----------



## bobthebrick (Dec 29, 2011)

wickidwombat said:


> with the new 7DII announcement on the horrizon, I would guess new 7D prices heading straight into your price bracket, just something to consider, with the 10-22 its very respectable for landscape, you get more benefit with macro on a crop body and the 7D will handle those sports shots you want that the 5D wont. and it'll be a new camera in warranty.



Hmmm, interesting. Pity I don't like the photos out of the 7d, otherwise it would be a great choice. To me though, having FF or APS-H at the very least is important for low light use and lens choice. I actually DON'T like the extra reach you get with crop bodies. I suppose it's what I deserve for shooting film 

Thanks for your suggestion,
Thomas.


----------



## briansquibb (Dec 29, 2011)

bobthebrick said:


> Hmmm, interesting. Pity I don't like the photos out of the 7d, otherwise it would be a great choice. To me though, having FF or APS-H at the very least is important for low light use and lens choice. I actually DON'T like the extra reach you get with crop bodies. I suppose it's what I deserve for shooting film
> 
> Thanks for your suggestion,
> Thomas.



+1 ... and I thought I was alone with this opinion


----------



## pwp (Jan 4, 2012)

I shot with a 1Ds (original) and actually replaced it with a 5D classic which I still own and use for it's unique "look" for some portrait jobs.

The 1Ds has some of the obvious 1-series advantages such as 45 AF points, weather sealing, buffer etc but the 5D files left the 1Ds for dead in my opinion. 

Paul Wright


----------



## KitFireburn (Jan 4, 2012)

Given your circumstances, i say go for the 5D, i used one that my friend owned at one point and i couldn't put it down.

I think you'll develop a strong bond with it the second you see the photos it produces. Good luck.

~Randy


----------



## bvukich (Jan 4, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> bobthebrick said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm, interesting. Pity I don't like the photos out of the 7d, otherwise it would be a great choice. To me though, having FF or APS-H at the very least is important for low light use and lens choice. I actually DON'T like the extra reach you get with crop bodies. I suppose it's what I deserve for shooting film
> ...



+2 ... you're not even close to the only one.

As long as a FF has sufficient resolution to crop to the FOV you desire in the event you run out of focal length, there is precisely ZERO benefit to a crop body. The "extra reach" is an illusion. It is a net detriment, not a benefit. There is no sane argument to the contrary.

There used to be technological reasons why a crop had some desirable performance characteristics, i.e. sensor readout speed; hence the the development of APS-H. But the actual sensor size wasn't one of the desirable characteristics, merely a compromise that had to be made.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2012)

bobthebrick said:


> To me though, having FF or APS-H at the very least is important for low light use and lens choice.



How does APS-H give you better lens choice? For that matter, how does FF give you better lens choice? Granted, they both give you shallower DoF than APS-C for a given aperture, but would you not want to shoot wider than 18mm (FF equivalent) on APS-H with a rectilinear lens (having good IQ, and I'm not counting the Sigma 12-24 in that category)?



bvukich said:


> As long as a FF has sufficient resolution to crop to the FOV you desire in the event you run out of focal length, there is precisely ZERO benefit to a crop body. The "extra reach" is an illusion. It is a net detriment, not a benefit. There is no sane argument to the contrary.



Ahhh...but compared to the final cropped size of some of my 7D images, cropping the 1D X to the same FoV would leave me with ~3.5 MP. Having more pixels on target is a benefit when you don't have sufficient focal length. But as you state, otherwise, there's no benefit to a crop factor (other than decreased cost - but I would think that lower cost is defenitely a sane argument for the benefit of APS-C, if one doesn't have >$2K to spend on a FF body...).


----------



## motorhead (Jan 4, 2012)

Unlike at least one post that claims the 5D2 files are better than the 1Ds3. In my research before buying my 5D2 recently I came across a review that claimed that the 1Ds3 used both a better sensor AND a better processor and the result was a far better image.

I have no way to judge that comment, but I would assume that Canons top pro body would (and should) out perform the "pro-am" 5D2.

The only reason I went with the 5D2 was that it was available now, came with a full warranty and the used 1D3 I was interested in had been well used and showed it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2012)

motorhead said:


> Unlike at least one post that claims the 5D2 files are better than the 1Ds3. In my research before buying my 5D2 recently I came across a review that claimed that the 1Ds3 used both a better sensor AND a better processor and the result was a far better image.



DxOMark ranks the 1DsIII slightly higher than the 5DII - the 1DsIII is a little better on DR and color depth, while the 5DII is a little better for ISO noise. Frankly, none of those differences are meaningful. 

Canon's 5DII white paper claims the sensor is better than the 1DsIII: "_The advanced single-plate CMOS sensor in the *EOS 5D Mark II achieves the highest performance of any sensor in the Canon DSLR lineup*. It shares many traits with the CMOS sensor found in the flagship EOS-1Ds Mark III, including its 36mm x 24mm (35mm format) size, approximately 21.1 effective megapixels with 6.4μm pixel pitch, a 4-channel data readout, and low-pass filter design. However, this *second-generation sensor offers increased sensitivity and improved noise reduction circuitry* that enables standard ISO’s ranging from 100 to 6400 and expanded ISO ranges from 50 to 25,600._"

So, I wouldn't believe the review that stated the images from the 1DsIII are 'far better' than those from the 5DII - there's probably no significant IQ difference in real-world shots. As for the better processor, the 1DsIII uses dual-Digic3, while the 5DII uses a single Digic4. 



motorhead said:


> I would assume that Canons top pro body would (and should) out perform the "pro-am" 5D2.



The 1DsIII certainly does outperform the 5DII. There's more to making an image than the sensor - even though the two cameras use essentially the same sensor, the 1DsIII's better AF and better metering will often mean better pictures, the more robust build means being able to take those pictures in harsher conditions and with double the shutter activations, there's better VF mag and coverage, higher flash sync speed, more customization, etc., in other words, the 1DsIII is a far better camera...as it should be. 

But...the fact that the IQ is essentially the same means that many were willing to dispense with the pro features/build of the 1DsIII and get the 5DII instead...or even get two of them and still save money. I don't think Canon will repeat that scenario for the 1D X and 5DIII, but we'll see...


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> But as you state, otherwise, there's no benefit to a crop factor (other than decreased cost - but I would think that lower cost is defenitely a sane argument for the benefit of APS-C, if one doesn't have >$2K to spend on a FF body...).



The debate is pretty much a parallel one to the 1Ds3 vs 5DII. 

It is a question of choice of the features that the buyer wants most. If cheap is key then a crop is fine, if shallow DOF is needed then FF is needed, if reach is needed more than extreme width then a 1.3 crop is fine and so on. It is all about knowing the customers and their requirements


----------



## TexPhoto (Jan 4, 2012)

After carful consideration of both, I think you need a 60D. But if you must go with one of the 2, I'd go 5D.


----------



## bobthebrick (Jan 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> bobthebrick said:
> 
> 
> > To me though, having FF or APS-H at the very least is important for low light use and lens choice.
> ...



It gives me better lens choices because my wide lens are actually wide, I don't have to worry about cropfactor, because while you can zoom in and crop an image, sadly as of yet you can't zoom out and crop  That's the issue with the 60d as well, but if it had a larger sensor, I agree, the specs would be perfect for my needs.

Anyway, I bought a 5d a few days ago, waiting anxiously for it to arrive in the next week or so. Thankyou everyone for your advice, it made my mind a bit clearer and convinced me I wasn't going crazy with trying to get a 5d when I should be going for the 1ds.

Thankyou again,
Thomas


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 4, 2012)

bobthebrick said:


> It gives me better lens choices because my wide lens are actually wide, I don't have to worry about cropfactor, because while you can zoom in and crop an image, sadly as of yet you can't zoom out and crop  That's the issue with the 60d as well, but if it had a larger sensor...



Ahhh...I didn't realize you meant (presumably) _your_ lenses, i.e. lenses you currently own - 'lens selection', to me, implied selecting from the lenses that were available in general. The EF-S 10-22mm is certainly wide on APS-C, equivalent to 16-35mm on FF, and the Sigma 8-16mm has IQ as good as the Canon 10-22mm, with a FF equivalent of 13-26mm. You don't think that's wide? Plus, the 10-22mm on APS-C has a lot less barrel distortion than the 16-35 or 17-40 on FF. That's the problem with APS-H cameras - crop sensor but cannot use EF-S lenses.

Point is, there are certainly good ultra wide angle options for APS-C cameras, even if you don't have any of those lenses, so saying a 1.6x crop does not offer good wide angle lens choices makes no sense to me.

Regardless, congrats on your purchase and enjoy your new camera!


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Point is, there are certainly good ultra wide angle options for APS-C cameras, even if you don't have any of those lenses, so saying a 1.6x crop does not offer good wide angle lens choices makes no sense to me.



+1 The 1.6 have not only the EF lens but also the EF-S lens to choose from so they must have a better choice.


----------



## dtaylor (Jan 5, 2012)

bvukich said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > bobthebrick said:
> ...



For those who haven't used these cameras, go check out the DP Review and Imaging Resource studio scenes and samples. 7D shots look as good as 5D shots out of camera across the board, except of course for having more fine detail.

If sports is a requirement it's just foolish to overlook the 7D. And if sports is not a requirement, it's foolish to overlook the 60D which will produce larger landscape prints with more fine detail than a 5D, and do so with cheaper glass on the UWA end. Both just edge out the 5D at high ISO (less color blotching). The 5D is close, but those who worship 36x24mm have the wrong sensor as the winner.

BTW, the 1Ds isn't even an option if low light is a requirement. It is worse at ISO 1250, its max ISO, then the 60D / 7D or 5D at ISO 3200! The technology is just too old there for it to be competitive.



> As long as a FF has sufficient resolution to crop to the FOV you desire in the event you run out of focal length, there is precisely ZERO benefit to a crop body.



But 12 MP FF doesn't have sufficient resolution unless you're only making small prints. Right out of the gate the 5D is down to 4.8 MP at APS-C crop. There's no contest in the detail or sharpness between a 5D 4.8 MP crop and a 7D 18 MP file. One will just stretch to 11x14, the other will make a fine 20x30. If you have to crop any more you're done with the 5D. And that's assuming the 5D held focus.



> The "extra reach" is an illusion. It is a net detriment, not a benefit. There is no sane argument to the contrary.



I've got 9 MP crop, tack sharp, detailed and noise free 20" surfing prints off the 7D that would be 4x6 prints at best had I been using a 5D and cropping to match magnification. Evening the odds would _only_ require a $10,000 500L lens.

Even at the wide end there can be benefits to crop. When I tested them I couldn't see the difference in print between a 5D2 + 16-35L II and a 7D + Tokina 11-16 at 24" print size, but the Tokina lens was $900 cheaper. And against the price competitive 17-40L (which I own) it's no contest: the crop combo yields higher IQ.

All things being equal a FF sensor has the performance advantage in non focal length limited scenarios. But all things are rarely equal.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 5, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> All things being equal a FF sensor has the performance advantage in non focal length limited scenarios. But all things are rarely equal.



Well, when you go comparing the 7D with 18 MP to the much older 5D with 12 MP, they're sure as heck not equal. But, if you compare a 7D to a 5DII cropped to the APS-C FoV, you'll find that the IQ is pretty much a wash (unaltered, the 7D wins for sharpness, the 5DII cropped wins for noise, and since those are inversely related in processing, they can be equalized either way). It's just that if you have to crop even more, the 5DII resolution falls below the threshold of usability much sooner.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 5, 2012)

bvukich said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > bobthebrick said:
> ...




I hate to say this but my opinion is founded on hands on experience. I made the mistake of basing my purchases of two 7D's on such reviews, however to me the quality of the image from the 7D's is not as good as the image I am getting from the 5DII so I bought a 1D4 as my walkabout camera - the perfect foil to the 5DII - in my opinion.


----------



## Gcon (Jan 5, 2012)

I've had two 5D2's for a couple of years now. Shoot every weekend, and process through the week. I bought a 7D in December on a whim. I'm selling it on eBay soon. I'd describe the image quality as "sub par" or "horrible" depending on what kind of mood I'm in. A shame - the features and handling are top notch.

Image Quality, Features, Low Price (in comparison to 1D/Ds) - pick two of the three!! OK breaking it down

IQ + low price = 5D2
features + low price = 7D
IQ + features = 1Ds

Now off to sell my 7D.


----------

