Canon 10D vs 1D Mk1
Sheppard Clan
I am about to jump into the dslr pool and need some advice.
I am looking at either a new 10D or a SH 1D which with any luck will be in the
same $$ ballpark.
I want to keep the wide angle end if possible but not keen on the 1.5kg or 2x
the 10D as I do a lot of backpacking..
I have read the dpreview of the original release of the 1D and wonder if there
were any changes made during the production lifetime that I should take note of
in terms of selecting a camera.
Are there any alternative battery packs for the 1D.
Any comments from those in the same dilemma would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Allan
YoYo
"Sheppard Clan" <xtra.co.nz@owlet> wrote in message
news:gkf6g0t1nc2ovsgr4...@4ax.com...
Sabineellen
>the 10D as I do a lot of backpacking..
The real question is do you really need a dSLR. The Olympus 5060 or 8080 are
such nice cameras with superb image and build quality and a wide angle lens at
0.5kg.
"these are highly versatile cameras, and can meet the needs of a great many
photographers including pros, under conditions where a small light-weight
camera capable of producing large high-quality images is needed."
Paul Cassel
>
> Any comments from those in the same dilemma would be appreciated.
>
here as backpacking is a personal thing. I suggest you visit
www.dpreview.com and ask the questions there for a better troll free
response to your specific query on production time.
As to usage, I have no idea why you are packing in a camera, so cannot say
if the equipment is suitable.
-paul
Sabineellen
>I want to keep the wide angle end if possible but not keen on the 1.5kg or 2x
>the 10D as I do a lot of backpacking..
You really ought to look at luminous landscape's review of the sony F818 that
includes a comparison with the 10D. While i'm not necessarily suggesting this
camera, you may want to rethink if a dSLR is the best choice for you... here
are some quotes...
"After 10 days of literally bouncing around inside a Land Rover over incredibly
dusty washboard dirt roads the F828 emerged without any ill effects other than
a few scratches. The camera, as was the case with all of our gear, was coated
in a fine red dust by the end of every day. But all that was needed was for it
to be wiped down with a damp cloth. This compares with my Canon 1Ds and 10D
which both needed to have their sensors cleaned every evening, a time consuming
and finicky task. Of course there was no dust on the Sony's sensor because the
camera’s lens in not removable, and the sensor is thus sealed against dust. "
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images-14/size.jpg
One of the reasons that I am only showing a few comparison frames, in addition
to trying to keep the size of this report within reason, is that there really
isn't a significant difference to be seen at almost any focal length that lies
within the range of the F828 and the two selected Canon lenses. In some cases
the Canon lens has a slight edge in resolution and contrast, and in others it's
the Sony's Zeiss lens.
Frankly, I'm astonished at the Sony's performance. When you consider that the
non-IS version of the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L sells for about $1,150, and the
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L retails for some $1,300, the Sony offers astonishing
value, especially since these two L series Canon lenses are considered among
the finest in their respective focal lengths.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/sony828-II.shtml
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/choosing-8.shtml
John McWilliams
to pushing a non-dslr, to good advice from Paul.
I'd suggest the Digital Rebel, aka 300D, with the lens kit available for
that camera alone. It's 18-55mm, which is 28.8- 88 with the 1.6
conversion factor. Both the lens kit and body are polymer, so there's a
considerable weight savings. There's also a significant savings over the
10D, and for your first digital SLR it's hard to go wrong with this choice.
Happy trails!
--
John McWilliams
Hils
>I want to keep the wide angle end if possible but not keen on the 1.5kg or 2x
>the 10D as I do a lot of backpacking..
There's a big difference between the 1.3 crop of the 1D and the 1.6 of
the 10D, though the extra weight of the 1D may be less significant than
its size with a lens attached, which will limit your choice of suitable
bags, especially backpacks.
>I have read the dpreview of the original release of the 1D and wonder if there
>were any changes made during the production lifetime that I should take note of
>in terms of selecting a camera.
There was a series of firmware updates. If you have a body with earlier
firmware you can upgrade it with a free download from Canon's website.
>Are there any alternative battery packs for the 1D.
No.
>Any comments from those in the same dilemma would be appreciated.
The 1D has exceptional picture quality (under most circumstances--see
detailed reviews for more), robustness, reliability and handling, but
the 10D is certainly a contender for backpacking. It is indeed a
dilemma! As has been suggested elsewhere, try both models as far as
possible first.
--
Hil
Sheppard Clan
Thanks for the comments folks.
I had looked at the 8 megapixel cameras but I do a lot of low light level
photography and they run out of steam (grainy) @ 400 ASA. My usual film is
400ASA.
I canned the 300D because of poor flash control.
I already have a collection of canon glass including an L lens and would prefer
to build what I have rather than restart. I also do a lot of wide angle and
having some experience of wide/tele attachments on a dig video would like to
stay away from this option.
Allan
leo
[ I canned the 300D because of poor flash control. ]
Who would use the built-in flash except for emergency anyway? 550EX fixes it
and is more versatile.
Nevertheless, good luck with your choice. 1DMKII looks great but costs a
fortune.
Carl Miller
> Nevertheless, good luck with your choice. 1DMKII looks great but costs
> a fortune.
No shit. I'm thinking of doing some weddings, so I figure I better get a
backup body. I figure, hey, I'll get a new 1D MKii and use my 10D as my
backup! OUCH!!! Maybe after I bank the profits from a couple weddings or
three.
--
Carl Miller
carl_m...@hotmail.com
http://www.quickinfo247.com/8557444
Carl Miller
> Why not take your old film-camera as backup? costs are zero then
> (apart from a few films to take along) and the biggest chance is you
> won't need the backup body anyway.
>
> Lourens
I've been thinking about that actually. I just hate the thought of
buying all that film. Not so much because of the cost, but because it'll
probably never get used.