Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 40d vs 1Ds Mark 1  (Read 25730 times)
daethon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« on: October 28, 2007, 08:33:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm curious.  Has anyone on here had experience with the two systems?  They are coming near the same price range now.  I'm more interested in general opinion on how they compare, not necessarily just a regurgitation of their specifications (as one can easily go online and read the two spec sheets for that).  


Thanks in advance...
Logged

Kagetsu
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 196


WWW
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2007, 10:15:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm curious.  Has anyone on here had experience with the two systems?  They are coming near the same price range now.  I'm more interested in general opinion on how they compare, not necessarily just a regurgitation of their specifications (as one can easily go online and read the two spec sheets for that). 
Thanks in advance...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I think the comparison will be much like the 200D vs the 5D debate that happened a while back. They both have their pro's and cons.
and it really comes down to personal choice... that said, the 1Ds has the 1 series build quality... though I personally don't put much more faith in it then I do the non 1 series bodies.
Logged
rethmeier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 772


WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2007, 05:58:36 AM »
ReplyReply

I think with digital,unfortunately later is always better.
The 5D had the 1Ds1 for breakfast in picture quality.
I know lot's of shooters that sold their 1Ds2's and got a 5D.
The files were very similar and for 3x the price not worth it.(1Ds2)
However the latter is a "pro" camera and the 5D is not.
Cheers,
Willem.
Logged

Willem Rethmeier
www.willemrethmeier.com
Sydney Australia
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3078



WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2007, 10:27:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think with digital,unfortunately later is always better.
The 5D had the 1Ds1 for breakfast in picture quality.
I know lot's of shooters that sold their 1Ds2's and got a 5D.
The files were very similar and for 3x the price not worth it.(1Ds2)
However the latter is a "pro" camera and the 5D is not.
Cheers,
Willem.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149312\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That'll come as a surprise to al those pros out there using 5Ds.
I don't like the 1Ds/1D simply as they are so big and heavy. They are more like a MF film cameras in regard to size weight.
Nor does everyone wants/needs a camera tough enough to hammer nails in.
The 5D matches my needs fine most of the time and when it doesn't I rent something with more pixels.
I even bought the Canon 35mm f2.0 lens the other day, simply as it was so small and useful on a 5D as a carry around camera. I miss the size of my OM cameras and lens - bigger viewfinders too.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 553



WWW
« Reply #4 on: October 30, 2007, 11:19:11 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't know why the 5D popped up in this discussion, the poster asked about the 40D vs 1Ds.

The largest difference is in sensor size. the 1Ds is a full frame sensor while the 40D has a 1.6 crop factor. Packing about the same number of pixels in a smaller sensor reduces the amount of light each pixel can gather. The resulting image has increased noise. While the newer processor can probably compensate for this, the Pro model 1Ds will have a cleaner overall image.

Another comparison can be made for the Pro body vs the plastic body of the 40D.
A 45 point autofocus system vs 9 point in the 40D.

I have owned the 1Ds since 2003 and I am now considering the 40D as a backup camera that will compliment my Canon lenses by extending the telephoto reach by 1.6 multiplier.
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
Jonathan Marmand
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1



« Reply #5 on: October 30, 2007, 11:36:42 AM »
ReplyReply

Hello.

 The 40D body is made of Magnesium, not plastic like the 350/400D Serie.

 Best Regards,
 Jonathan
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 30, 2007, 06:57:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know why the 5D popped up in this discussion, the poster asked about the 40D vs 1Ds.

The largest difference is in sensor size. the 1Ds is a full frame sensor while the 40D has a 1.6 crop factor. Packing about the same number of pixels in a smaller sensor reduces the amount of light each pixel can gather. The resulting image has increased noise. While the newer processor can probably compensate for this, the Pro model 1Ds will have a cleaner overall image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you'll allow me to ask, why are you making such a claim?

Chances are that the 40D trounces the 1ds in every single department of image quality, including noise at all ISO, detail, lack of moire and DR.

The claimed advantage of FF against APS aren't very clear in many ways when comparing 2 sensors using the same technology, but it becomes totally irrelevant when comparing different sensor technologies like between the 1ds and 40D.

Anyway, only testing will tell, but if a non proven claim has to be made, I'd vote for the 40D hands down.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2737



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 30, 2007, 07:47:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know why the 5D popped up in this discussion, the poster asked about the 40D vs 1Ds.

The largest difference is in sensor size. the 1Ds is a full frame sensor while the 40D has a 1.6 crop factor. Packing about the same number of pixels in a smaller sensor reduces the amount of light each pixel can gather. The resulting image has increased noise. While the newer processor can probably compensate for this, the Pro model 1Ds will have a cleaner overall image.

Another comparison can be made for the Pro body vs the plastic body of the 40D.
A 45 point autofocus system vs 9 point in the 40D.

I have owned the 1Ds since 2003 and I am now considering the 40D as a backup camera that will compliment my Canon lenses by extending the telephoto reach by 1.6 multiplier.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149579\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The 40d sensor is 3 generations and around 5-6 years newer technology than the original 1Ds sensor.  With improved sensor manufacturing, including reducing the overall electronics package for each pixel (which creates most of the noise) as well as an improved micro-lens over each pixel the 40d delivers very high s/n ratios, and will exhibit less noise than the original 1Ds, especially at higher ISO.

Were I choosing to buy one today, there is no way I'd buy a used 1Ds over a new 40d, unless I knew I absolutely needed the ruggedness of the 1D series body.

The only area the 1Ds may be an advantage is if you just can't live without the full frame viewfinder (but the bright 40d viewfinder is very good)

You may find the 1Ds becomes your backup ... I do not believe it will deliver a cleaner image.
Logged

jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 553



WWW
« Reply #8 on: October 30, 2007, 11:32:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you'll allow me to ask, why are you making such a claim?

Chances are that the 40D trounces the 1ds in every single department of image quality, including noise at all ISO, detail, lack of moire and DR.

The claimed advantage of FF against APS aren't very clear in many ways when comparing 2 sensors using the same technology, but it becomes totally irrelevant when comparing different sensor technologies like between the 1ds and 40D.

Anyway, only testing will tell, but if a non proven claim has to be made, I'd vote for the 40D hands down.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149684\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is a matter of physics! Smaller sensors have smaller pixels and less resolving power.  It is like comparing the lens of a point and shoot with the lens of a SLR.  Larger glass gets better, less distorted resolution. The same is true of sensors.

Take a look at the article in the Nov 07 issue of Digital Photo Pro magazine titles "Not all pixels are created equal".

It's like comparing Apples with Oranges.
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 553



WWW
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2007, 11:38:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The 40d sensor is 3 generations and around 5-6 years newer technology than the original 1Ds sensor.  With improved sensor manufacturing, including reducing the overall electronics package for each pixel (which creates most of the noise) as well as an improved micro-lens over each pixel the 40d delivers very high s/n ratios, and will exhibit less noise than the original 1Ds, especially at higher ISO.

Were I choosing to buy one today, there is no way I'd buy a used 1Ds over a new 40d, unless I knew I absolutely needed the ruggedness of the 1D series body.

The only area the 1Ds may be an advantage is if you just can't live without the full frame viewfinder (but the bright 40d viewfinder is very good)

You may find the 1Ds becomes your backup ... I do not believe it will deliver a cleaner image.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149690\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is not about the viewfinder. It is about the full frame sensor compared to a cropped frame sensor. The ability to shoot wide angle utilizing all of the lenses reach. (see my previous post)
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
mahleu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 562


WWW
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2007, 04:20:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is a matter of physics! Smaller sensors have smaller pixels and less resolving power. 

It's a matter of 5 years sensor development which has overcome the problems which smaller sensors had 5 yers ago. If you're comparing the 40D to the (2 year old) 5D then you might have a point but technology moves on.
Logged

______________________________________________________________________
Anyone selling a 1DSIII or 6D cheap?
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 31, 2007, 10:07:07 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It is a matter of physics! Smaller sensors have smaller pixels and less resolving power.  It is like comparing the lens of a point and shoot with the lens of a SLR.  Larger glass gets better, less distorted resolution. The same is true of sensors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149723\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Physics is based on experiments driving the definition of theoretical laws.

Your reasoning is completely ignoring experiental results (the obvious supriority of the 40D compared to the 1ds) and trying to use a partial fundamental theory to explain the behaviour of a complex system...

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 553



WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 31, 2007, 04:28:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Physics is based on experiments driving the definition of theoretical laws.

Your reasoning is completely ignoring experiental results (the obvious supriority of the 40D compared to the 1ds) and trying to use a partial fundamental theory to explain the behaviour of a complex system...

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149797\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

....and your reasoning is based on what?

exactly my point!

Take some time, do the research and then formulate your opinion.

Jerry
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 553



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 31, 2007, 04:31:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
It's a matter of 5 years sensor development which has overcome the problems which smaller sensors had 5 yers ago. If you're comparing the 40D to the (2 year old) 5D then you might have a point but technology moves on.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149748\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If you had an article, some research to quote or anything besides "technology moves on", your reply would have some merit.

Jerry
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 31, 2007, 04:56:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
....and your reasoning is based on what?

exactly my point!

Take some time, do the research and then formulate your opinion.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149882\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jerry,

Euh... not sure where you are going here.

- There have been numerous reports stating that the 5D was clearly superior to the 1ds over the years (more than a few people claim that it is even superior to the 1ds2),
- Michael Reichman claimed on this very site a few weeks back that the 40D was a bit superior to the 5D in terms of image quality.

Simple logic tells us that the 40D is therefore probably superior to the 1ds by a comfortable margin.

Regardless, my main point is that a direct comparison is needed to draw conclusions.

Enough time spent on this.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 31, 2007, 10:48:35 PM »
ReplyReply

The 1ds is fine at low ISO but at 400 and up I am not impressed. I also do not some of the functionality of it or the LCD on the back. That is the camera that kept me shooting film until the Mark II series.

The 5d is much better and I even think the 30d is much better. So I would certainly consider that the 40d would be a good choice between the two.

With that said, a good 1ds at the right price would be an option depending on your needs. It is built like a tank and considering that it is full frame there are some good points to it.

One other downside is that the 1ds battery life is minimal compared to the newer bodies.
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Paul Kay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 01, 2007, 06:30:55 AM »
ReplyReply

There is an unbelievable amount of format comparison going on on various sites. I'm baffled! You quite simply cannot compare two different formats - for the simple reason that to do a valid comparison of an identical 'real world' (not test) subject. And obviously this isn't possible because you can't use the same lens so..... etc., etc., etc..

So why not point out the strengths and weaknesses of each format/camera. Yes, technology has moved on from the introduction of the 1DS (my own camera) and the 40D, and yes the 5D has some attributes which may mean that it is a far more appropriate camera in many circumstances to a 1DS, BUT....

All will take good images!

I would not personally change from my 1DS to a 40D (or 5D come to that) for innumerable reasons - not least because I like many of its (old) attributes and have learned to deal with many of its weaknesses (and yes it does have a lot). But this vague notion of better Image Quality bugs me. This really depends on what you are trying to achieve. To explain what I mean in an analogy, buying a supercar to drive half a mile to the shops won't make you a better driver and is unlikely to have substantial benefits over using a supermini - in fact it might have drawbacks. Photo equipment choice should be about using the appropriate tool for the job and has many more facets to it than simply newer technology and the vague notion of Image Quality. As another example, I could buy a new Nikon D3 when it is available - its spec would be fine for me and as an ex-Nikon user I would probably like its ergonomics and handling, but unless Nikon bring out a lens similar to my beloved 24/1.4 then there would be no point in me changing because this is my wide-angle of choice and I use it heavily in a variety of shooting situations each for very good reason.

Choosing between a 1DS and 40D should encompass the lens choice, specification and availability as well as a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each camera, and not least, what it is to be used for, but to simply get hung up on one detail is, IMHO, missing the point.

As stated in the last post, batteries are not brilliant on the 1DS - I have a load of them in varying states of power loss!
Logged
awofinden
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 173


« Reply #17 on: November 01, 2007, 07:28:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
There is an unbelievable amount of format comparison going on on various sites. I'm baffled! You quite simply cannot compare two different formats - for the simple reason that to do a valid comparison of an identical 'real world' (not test) subject. And obviously this isn't possible because you can't use the same lens so..... etc., etc., etc..

So why not point out the strengths and weaknesses of each format/camera. Yes, technology has moved on from the introduction of the 1DS (my own camera) and the 40D, and yes the 5D has some attributes which may mean that it is a far more appropriate camera in many circumstances to a 1DS, BUT....

All will take good images!

I would not personally change from my 1DS to a 40D (or 5D come to that) for innumerable reasons - not least because I like many of its (old) attributes and have learned to deal with many of its weaknesses (and yes it does have a lot). But this vague notion of better Image Quality bugs me. This really depends on what you are trying to achieve. To explain what I mean in an analogy, buying a supercar to drive half a mile to the shops won't make you a better driver and is unlikely to have substantial benefits over using a supermini - in fact it might have drawbacks. Photo equipment choice should be about using the appropriate tool for the job and has many more facets to it than simply newer technology and the vague notion of Image Quality. As another example, I could buy a new Nikon D3 when it is available - its spec would be fine for me and as an ex-Nikon user I would probably like its ergonomics and handling, but unless Nikon bring out a lens similar to my beloved 24/1.4 then there would be no point in me changing because this is my wide-angle of choice and I use it heavily in a variety of shooting situations each for very good reason.

Choosing between a 1DS and 40D should encompass the lens choice, specification and availability as well as a comparison of the strengths and weaknesses of each camera, and not least, what it is to be used for, but to simply get hung up on one detail is, IMHO, missing the point.

As stated in the last post, batteries are not brilliant on the 1DS - I have a load of them in varying states of power loss!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150006\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


You dont understand why people are so concerned about comparing image quality on a technical forumn? If they will all take good images why do you even bother to look at a forumn which deals in the tech aspect of photography. It's a fairly simple question with a simple answer. It requires no engineering degree to understand. 1ds was good (image quality wise), 5D was much better, 40D is as good as 5D therefore yes 5D is better than 1ds. (image quality wise). It isn't rocket science.
Logged
mahleu
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 562


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 01, 2007, 07:38:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
If you had an article, some research to quote or anything besides "technology moves on", your reply would have some merit.

Jerry
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=149883\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Let me put this into a simple analogy for you. A 30 year old 1.6l engine produces less power than a current 1.3l. Technology has moved on. Physics says that a larger capacity should yield more power.
Logged

______________________________________________________________________
Anyone selling a 1DSIII or 6D cheap?
Paul Kay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 01, 2007, 11:51:23 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You dont understand why people are so concerned about comparing image quality on a technical forumn? If they will all take good images why do you even bother to look at a forumn which deals in the tech aspect of photography. It's a fairly simple question with a simple answer. It requires no engineering degree to understand. 1ds was good (image quality wise), 5D was much better, 40D is as good as 5D therefore yes 5D is better than 1ds. (image quality wise). It isn't rocket science.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150011\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Precisely my point. Image Quality is much talked about but rarely defined. If you want to compare like with like then I would agree that you can assess two similar systems with a degree of ease, but start comparing two dis-similar systems and you run into trouble. If you compare a 5D and a 1DS, then yes there are differences which would suggest that the 5D is better for many applications (but there are still specialist applications when a waterproofed pro body might well be a better bet). Its when two differing formats are compared without the acceptance that they have differing characteristics - not necessarily that one is 'better' or 'superior' - that they are difficult to compare. So simply saying that a 40D is 'better' than a 1DS   because its newer isn't a viable option in my opinion. Whilst they may be somewhat comparable for many none-critical purposes (A4 landscapes?), there are times when they simply are not and one (or the other) may be a better option depending on the type of photography to be undertaken. As for a technical forum, well fine, but there is a lot more to photography than simply comparing the characteristics of two differently sized sensors! How can a 40D be as good as a 5D when the 5D has many more faster lens options that have a wider field of view than those available for a 40D - not comparable, unless of course this is an irrelevance 'cos you don't want to use such lenses. As I previously stated I use my 24/1.4 heavily, often wide open, so for me a 40D isn't a camera I'd consider, whether or not it has a 'better' newer sensor, because I could not shoot similar images on it.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad