Original 1D - Still a good buy? And good for 13x19 prints?

[armindo_dias]

Yesterday i had a change to gran a new 1D MkII and i immediately felt in love by the body and the feel. Much more pleasing, at least to me, than the 20D. And since i'm looking for a dSLR i'm thinking about a second hand bargain. Since i don't have much money, i'm considering the 4MP EOS 1D

The 1D was released 4 years ago and i'm wondering if it's still a good buy or not. I don't need action or sports performance. I will shoot mainly inside and still objects, but i still want a fast camera to shot with. Basically, i want a film like response.

And i need to print big size (at least 13x19) gallery quality prints, and i'm wondering if the 4 MP are enough for that.

What do you think? Is the 1D a good camera, despite being "only" 4 MP, for large 13x19 prints? And still a great camera by today standards? Or should i look elsewhere

[photosbymorgan2]

The 1D is still a nice camera, but I think you will notice a difference between the 1D and the 20D or 1D mark II at that print size. The higher pixel cameras just capture a lot more detail and it shows in large prints.

[Alice Morrison]

For me, it would not be a good buy, and that has nothing to do with the fact that it's four megapixels. I had a 1D and was frustrated with its color. Out of the box, the camera has a well-documented, or at least well-known, color cast, especially to jpeg images saved in camera. I found, however, that the color cast showed up even with RAW photos.

One can find custom color profiles for the camera that lean the unit more toward red than green, but here, too, I never really felt secure with the color. Perhaps it was just me, but I also found the 1D worse than any camera I have used in the studio, also because of color issues. I tried to improve things by using a custom white balance and experimenting with all of the white balance settings. Nothing worked to my satisfaction. I have, however, seen photographers produce beautiful pictures with the 1D, and some of these photos come from the studio. So perhaps your experience will be different from mine. As a general knock-around camera, however, I think this is a poor choice. You would be much better off sticking with a 20D.

I was very pleasantly surprised with the improvements in the 1d Mark II, and if you can justify the cost at all, I would heartily recommend choosing that instead. Having said that, however, you must know that you will experience much more depreciation with the Mark II than you would if you purchased a 1D today.

Finally, a word about the resolution. It's true that four megapixels is not a deal killer. The 30D, at three megapixels, still takes beautiful pictures. But at times four megapixels will be limiting. With my higher-resolution cameras, I frequently find myself shooting at a lower resolution because I simply do not need the maximum resolution, and I take every opportunity I can to reduce the amount of storage required by high-resolution photographs. But then again there are times when I definitely need and appreciate the higher resolution. With the 1D, you won't have the option. You'll shoot in four megapixels, and there will be times when you're happy with that, and there will be times when you're not.

[Peru_Photog]

I don't think a 1D 4mp camera provides the image quality of even a 20D, not to mention the 1DM2. For enlargements you really need the mega pixel count if you want enlargments with no digital artifacts or loss of detail.

Better to bypass the 1D in my opinion.

[Walter Moss]

What are they selling for on the used market? May be too good to pass up. I'd pay about 500 for one. No more.

[Lin Evans]

A lot depends on subject material. For detailed landscapes printed at this size you need more resolution. For smaller frame subjects the 1D is perfectly capable of rendering beautiful prints at this size with no evidence of pixelation or problems of any kind.

If you want testimony from one of the very best fashion photographers in the business, Melvin Sokolsky, you might consider that he uses a 1D for single page as well as double truck prints for some of the world's finest fashion magazines. Melvin tells us that he sees absolutely zero difference in prints at this size from his four megapixel 1D and his eleven megapixel 1DS. I have both these cameras and would tend to agree. Remember that shooting fashion is primarily small frame - by this I mean there is not a tremendous amount of real-estate in the frame as there would be in a wide angle hyperfocal landscape shot where there is way too much detail for even an eight megapixel sensor when printing at 16x24. I find in these cases it takes about eleven megapixels to make a good sharp 16x24. My 1D Mark II doesn't quite cut it, my 1DS does. But for wildlife or sports or fashion or portraits, the 1D makes a dandy camera.

As far as "color cast" - I've not had any problems of any kind nor have most other professionals I'm aquainted with. I suspect a bad camera was responsible because it's certainly not a wide spread issue.

Best regards,

Lin

[Tim Gray]

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2001_...d_samples.html - the centre picture of the back of a school house is my standard print test for cameras I want to check out. Download it, print by 13x19 and decide for yourself. Personally, I was very happy with 13x19 from my 1d, but that was moving up from a d30....

[Gbee]

Originally Posted by armindo_dias

And i need to print big size (at least 13x19) gallery quality prints, and i'm wondering if the 4 MP are enough for that.y today standards? Or should i look elsewhere

The 1D is still a great camera, mine gets out all the time but it is not a good studio camera at all, it is noisy (comparatively) for studio type work and does not really have the resolution for fine art type details.

The 20D you have will out perform it.

I can highly recommend the 1D but not for the applications that you describe.

[Gbee]

Originally Posted by Lin Evans

As far as "color cast" - I've not had any problems of any kind nor have most other professionals I'm aquainted with. I suspect a bad camera was responsible because it's certainly not a wide spread issue.
Lin

I did not like the colours from mine either, but I did make custom colours in a few minutes with the supplied software and loaded it on my camera.

What I liked about it over my Nikon was the responsive colour controls, despite Nikon having a battery of controls I found the colour picker in the Canon software and loading to a custom setting just ideal and quick.

My only gripe was just three settings could be saved. But mine does not have the Red Menace that afflicts the 1DMKII for instance.

[Alice Morrison]

Originally Posted by Gbee

The 1D is still a great camera, mine gets out all the time but it is not a good studio camera at all, it is noisy (comparatively) for studio type work and does not really have the resolution for fine art type details.

The 20D you have will out perform it.

I can highly recommend the 1D but not for the applications that you describe.

I agree re 1D for studio.