Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 40d vs 1Ds Mark 1  (Read 26128 times)
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7725



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 01, 2007, 05:10:02 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Precisely my point. Image Quality is much talked about but rarely defined. If you 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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150071\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You are maybe mixing up with things a little on this one Paul.

I agree with you that the 5D might offer more options, but when you hint that the 40D might only be better for A4 landscape, you imply that its image quality is inferior than that of the 5D even within the overlap of applications that both format have the suitable Canon lenses to handle.

There simply is not data to back up this belief. The only comparison I know off, that made by Michael, says that - based on real world images - there is no visible gap in image quality between the 2.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: November 01, 2007, 08:52:05 PM by BernardLanguillier » Logged

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

Posts: 584


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 01, 2007, 05:52:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, it's about time to put an end to this back-and-forth. There is a simple solution: Someone needs to send me their 5D and their 1Ds, and I'll test them against my 40D.

I'll also need whatever lenses you'll want to compare. And since we don't want to let the lenses be limiting factor, they'd better be your very best L lenses at that.

Of course, it might take me a good long time to fully test every camera/lens combination under a variety of shooting conditions. Better hurry up and send me that gear soon, so we can put a stake through the heart of this debate.
Logged
juicy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #22 on: November 01, 2007, 06:23:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

1Ds and 40D are different cameras but both are able to produce good results. Many differences have already been mentioned but here are some considerations:
-Image quality at ISOs higher than 320; the 40D is much better (less noise). Thus it's better suited to available light shooting indoors when using same lens speed
-Battery life; 1Ds is complete crap compared to 40D, important on journeys for example.
-FF vs 1.6 crop; both are good or bad depending on the application and the lens used. Crop gives advantages when shooting wildlife or when using less than perfect WA lens. FF gives usually better viewfinder and more WA-choices.
-Weight and size; 1-series body gives automatically an excellent vertical grip and in my experiences I can use slower shutter speeds handheld because of the added mass (even though the crop-sensor cameras have smaller mirrors). 40D is infinitely more discreet in size and does not attract attention, also lighter in handling and when hiking for example
-1Ds has better weather sealing
-40D has sensor cleaning function
-1Ds has more AF-points (I have not compared the AF in real life, 40D has been reported to be improved over older crop models)
-40D has much larger LCD, better histogram, easier image viewing
-1Ds likes to be exposed to the right as much as possible.
-40D menus and control buttons are easier to use
-40D has live view

Btw, the sensor size difference between these cameras has nothing to do with noise and overal IQ. Although 1Ds has about double the sensor area, the pixels themselves are small and noisy because of old technology (1Ds was launched late 2002).

If I had to choose between these cameras I would choose 1Ds if using it primarily in well lit situations (studio etc) and on tripod or if photographing often in very wet environments. I would pick 40D for available light work (low light hand held), for wild life (if the AF is good enough) and for travel photography and for street shooting.

Check the shutter count if buying a 2nd hand 1Ds.

In the end, everything depends on your shooting style, lens selection and personal preferences. Try them both.

Cheers,
J
Logged
jerryrock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 558



WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 01, 2007, 10:17:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Btw, the sensor size difference between these cameras has nothing to do with noise and overal IQ. Although 1Ds has about double the sensor area, the pixels themselves are small and noisy because of old technology (1Ds was launched late 2002)

That is an idiotic statement. It has nothing to do with new and old technology. You have the 40D with an APS sensor  and a 1Ds with a full frame CMOS sensor that is 1.6X larger with approximately the same number of pixels. The pixels on the 1Ds sensor are LARGER. This is just common sense.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...sensor-size.htm
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/doe...el.size.matter/
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.html
Logged

Gerald J Skrocki
skrockidesign.com
daethon
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


« Reply #24 on: November 01, 2007, 10:18:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for all the information.  I think I've decided my course of action.  


I'm going to wait for whatever replaces the 5D comes out.  I may buy a 40D in the interim.  

Here is why:

Sensor Cleaning is rather important for me
I loved Live View for the moments that I was using it (especially for macro shots with the 180L Macro lens)

What am I missing from the 1Ds?  The ability to attach audio to photographs.  The weather sealing.


I only shoot with Prime Lenses (with the exception of the 17-40).  

Hopefully the 7?D will come out in February.  If not, we should assuredly see it in September.  If it doesn't come out in February, I'll probably go with the 40D now, as my 20D is almost fully dead (Flash doesn't open, sensor has many issues, it has found its way into ocean water twice).
Logged

BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7725



WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 01, 2007, 11:14:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That is an idiotic statement. It has nothing to do with new and old technology. You have the 40D with an APS sensor  and a 1Ds with a full frame CMOS sensor that is 1.6X larger with approximately the same number of pixels. The pixels on the 1Ds sensor are LARGER. This is just common sense.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150172\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jerry,

Sensors are complex devices whose light efficiency depends on various factors, including the usage of micro-lenses, their type, etc...

As a result, the size of the sensor is really only one of the factors impacting its ability to collect light.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
wollom
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 60


« Reply #26 on: November 01, 2007, 11:19:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That is an idiotic statement. It has nothing to do with new and old technology. You have the 40D with an APS sensor and a 1Ds with a full frame CMOS sensor that is 1.6X larger with approximately the same number of pixels. The pixels on the 1Ds sensor are LARGER. This is just common sense.

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_pixel_sensor]Maybe Juicy was referring the comparative fill factor of the pixels?[/url]

A pixel can take up more area on silicon but have smaller sensing area.  Juicy's post was comprehensive and accurate.  Worth reading again. Carefully.


Wollom
« Last Edit: November 01, 2007, 11:24:39 PM by wollom » Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8845


« Reply #27 on: November 02, 2007, 02:40:40 AM »
ReplyReply

So much speculation and not a single image comparison. But I'll put in my 2 cents worth anyway.

Of course new technology is always going to provide some benefit in some respect, whether it's a matter of better quality images at high ISO, better ergonomics, more bells and whistles or completely new features such as Live View.

Assessing the relative importance of such new features compared with older but standard features of a more professional camera, such as better waterproofing, greater robustness, autofocussing at f8 and greater wide-angle capacity is going to be subjective.

As regards fundamental image quality, at base ISO I imagine it would be lens dependent. At high ISO I think there's little doubt the 40D would be better.

If it came to a shoot-out between the 2 cameras using any lenses that would fit the cameras or could be adapted, I would expect the 1Ds to provide noticeably better image quality with a good non-Canon wide angle lens, simply because there are no high quality wide angle equivalents for cropped formats like the 40D.

I think you'd be kidding yourself if you thought a 40D with Canon 10-22mm zoom could equal the quality of a Zeiss 16mm prime on the 1Ds or even the Canon 16-35mm zoom, if you had a good copy.
Logged
Paul Kay
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 02, 2007, 03:23:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Going back a few years, how would you compare a Hasselblad 6x6 running a 50mm Zeiss Lens and 400ISO transparency film against a Nikon F5 running a 28mm Nikon Lens and Velvia 50ISO? (Or even a Contax 645 which might be a more ergonomic comparison with its 45mm Zeiss designed lens).

Both are good cameras and lenses but can you truly compare them? No. So why try to compare 1.6x and FF formats? Simply because they have the same lens mount? The fact that they use the same lens mount does not make them comparable. Lens design to cover larger formats differs, we have simply seen residul conversion in that lenses originally designed for 35mm film are usable on smaller formats. You can of course shoot 35mm frames on a Hasselblad but why on earth would you?

I also have a 20D camera body (little used and for sale) which I've tried to like the results from but I don't. Its good, but I simply prefer the larger FF format's images. Its not about pixel peeping but about the differing imagery produced by differing formats.
Logged
juicy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 254


« Reply #29 on: November 02, 2007, 04:50:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi!

Thanx Wollom, I meant exactly that (fill factor) and more efficient micro lenses, more efficient signal processing, 14bit A/D conversion and also the fact that 5D has more and thus "smaller" pixels than 1Ds but no-one is gonna say 1Ds has better IQ than 5D (I don't mean overal color impression or whether the colors are pleasing or not, that is probably more of an RAW-converter profile issue). Images from newer cameras seem to stand up to more serious beating in post processing before showing problems.

I don't pretend to be any kind of an authority in this matter, my claims are based mostly on my own experiences (I still use 1Ds and like it, I have used 10D, 20D, 5D and tried several others) and equally importantly on others' findings (like Michael's review of 40D, Managing megabytes -shootout etc).

The "scientific fact" that earth is flat as a pancake does not change the "idiotic claim" that in real world situations you don't fall from the earth's edge when new technology allows you to sail over the edge.

Cheers,
J
Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2808



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 02, 2007, 05:03:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That is an idiotic statement. It has nothing to do with new and old technology. You have the 40D with an APS sensor  and a 1Ds with a full frame CMOS sensor that is 1.6X larger with approximately the same number of pixels. The pixels on the 1Ds sensor are LARGER. This is just common sense.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials...sensor-size.htm
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/doe...el.size.matter/
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~parsog/photo/sensors1.html
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Are you sure the "pixels" on the 1Ds are larger? One would assume so, but the term pixel pitch has nothing to do with the size of the pixels on the chip, but the spacing of the pixels. I have never been able to find any reference by any camera maker on how large the sensor sites themselves are.

 One of the main improvements in chip technology has been to decrease the "empty" space between pixels, making the pixels themselves larger.  While the 40d has a smaller pixel pitch than the 30d, the reduction in size wasn't proportionate to the spacing  because more space was eliminated between sites.  In addition, improvements in micro lens technology means the each pixel of the 40d gathers the same amount of light (signal) as those on the 30d (according to Canon).

Of course the other part of the equation is the noise, and this is where most of the improvements have come in sensor technology.  Each sensor site of the 40d features a much smaller and improved  A/D converter, resulting in far less noise.  As the gain is turned up on the sensor to achieve higher ISO, the noise does not scale as rapidly as that of the 1Ds.

So while each pixel of the 40d  may not be able to gather as much physical light as a pixel on the 1Ds sensor (kind of the "bucket" thing from your links), the ratio of signal to noise is better, especially as you increase ISO.  

I have owned and used extensively a 1Ds, a 1Ds MarkII, and a 5D.  I have had a 40d from Canon since the middle of August, and I believe the 40d is nearly the equal of the 5d when it comes to noise performance - a camera which out performs the 1Ds in noise by a significant amount.  The 1Ds relative to today's standards doesn't perform that well when it comes to noise.

DPreview data shows Luminance noise of the 40d at ISO 3200 is actually slightly better than than the 1Ds at ISO 1250. (graphs located here
(1Ds)   [a href=\"http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/page14.asp]http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos1ds/page14.asp[/url]
(40d)   http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page18.asp

Perhaps the original poster doesn't need ISO above 200, so it doesn't matter.  Don't know.
Logged

Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 758



WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 02, 2007, 06:36:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
So much speculation and not a single image comparison. But I'll put in my 2 cents worth anyway.

Of course new technology is always going to provide some benefit in some respect, whether it's a matter of better quality images at high ISO, better ergonomics, more bells and whistles or completely new features such as Live View.

Assessing the relative importance of such new features compared with older but standard features of a more professional camera, such as better waterproofing, greater robustness, autofocussing at f8 and greater wide-angle capacity is going to be subjective.

As regards fundamental image quality, at base ISO I imagine it would be lens dependent. At high ISO I think there's little doubt the 40D would be better.

If it came to a shoot-out between the 2 cameras using any lenses that would fit the cameras or could be adapted, I would expect the 1Ds to provide noticeably better image quality with a good non-Canon wide angle lens, simply because there are no high quality wide angle equivalents for cropped formats like the 40D.

I think you'd be kidding yourself if you thought a 40D with Canon 10-22mm zoom could equal the quality of a Zeiss 16mm prime on the 1Ds or even the Canon 16-35mm zoom, if you had a good copy.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150196\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I've spent the last few days culling images from my archives and making prints for a presentation next week.  These images include shots from a 1Ds, a 1DsMKII and a 5d (sorry not 40d:).  In good light I find the original 1Ds to make superb images, with a look that can't be matched by the MKII or the 5d...in fact I was amazed at the quality as I peeped.  Don't get me wrong, the MKII is better in many ways and the 5D is superior in low light (but not in good light imo) but that 1Ds is still an amazing camera all these years later.  I'm going to have to dust that puppy off and make some images with it!
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 650


« Reply #32 on: November 02, 2007, 10:42:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
In good light I find the original 1Ds to make superb images, with a look that can't be matched by the MKII or the 5d...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150230\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I also think there is a different quality to the 1Ds image.

I set the camera at ISO 100 when I got it and have never changed it. I'm shooting with Profoto Pro 7 lights in an Octabank, a Mola Euro or a Chimera Octaplus as my key. With this quality of light it gives me a very film-like image and my clients are very happy with the results. I have 2 original batteries that work fine and the AC adapter for long fashion shoots with rapid firing.

I'm replacing my snap shot camera, a 20D, with a 40D. I'll see if I can't provide some side by side comparisons in the next couple of weeks.
Logged
eronald
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3855



WWW
« Reply #33 on: November 04, 2007, 08:15:43 PM »
ReplyReply

The 1Ds has a filmlike look, sharp images, superb focus and is built like a tank.
I believe it is clearly outclassed by the 5D nowadays, except for AF speed and "look".
Forum users on LL do not care much about look, except in the MF section


BTW, I have an Octabank as well

Edmund



Quote
I also think there is a different quality to the 1Ds image.

I set the camera at ISO 100 when I got it and have never changed it. I'm shooting with Profoto Pro 7 lights in an Octabank, a Mola Euro or a Chimera Octaplus as my key. With this quality of light it gives me a very film-like image and my clients are very happy with the results. I have 2 original batteries that work fine and the AC adapter for long fashion shoots with rapid firing.

I'm replacing my snap shot camera, a 20D, with a 40D. I'll see if I can't provide some side by side comparisons in the next couple of weeks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=150345\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
« Last Edit: November 04, 2007, 08:16:53 PM by eronald » Logged

Edmund Ronald, Ph.D. 
Lin Evans
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 269


WWW
« Reply #34 on: November 16, 2007, 05:55:45 PM »
ReplyReply

LOL - I'm having a hard time believing all the debate over this. If you want a comparison just let me know which type image and at which focal length and I'll shoot a comparison for you.

Bottom line - the IQ at low ISO from the 1DS is better than the IQ from the 40D with the exception of color accuracy which is very good on the 40D. The 1Ds has a very weak AA filter and exceptional image quality plus a million more pixels. Like any full 35mm frame versus 1.6x FOV comparison, the 1.6 will make a better camera for most wildlife use and the 40D is heads and shoulders better for high ISO. The 1DS is limited to ISO 1250 but can do ISO 50 with "expand". Anyone using it over ISO 400 is nuts because it gets noisy in a hurry.

If your use is studio, in my opinion the 1DS is the better camera. Otherwise the 40D may be right for you. If you don't like cleaning sensors, forget the 1DS.

Best regards,

Lin

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]
Logged

Lin
sjprg
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 41



« Reply #35 on: November 17, 2007, 11:13:34 PM »
ReplyReply

This page answers a lot of questions about different sensors.
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/dig...mary/index.html
Logged

Paul
Galleries: www.sjprg.us
              www.pbase.com/sjprg
keith_cooper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 438



WWW
« Reply #36 on: November 19, 2007, 04:54:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Anyone using it over ISO 400 is nuts because it gets noisy in a hurry.
Ah yes I must be nuts, that or be fortunate to have particularly myopic clients ;-)
Yes, the noise -does- get more noticeable, but like all things it depends on the type of pictures you take, and why you are taking them.... :-)

My main personal reason for resisting the temptation of getting a 40D is simply that 1.6x FL multiplication, which would be a serious hindrance to a lot of work I do.  Taking my TS-E 24 to ~38mm would be one example of making things needlessly difficult.

That for me is the deal breaker - IQ (whatever that -actually- means) could be worse, but if I can't take the pictures I need...

bye for now
Keith Cooper

PS I'm looking forward to checking the low ISO difference between the 1Ds and 1Ds Mk3 when it comes, to see just how much that hefty dent to the company bank account next month shows up in real life images ;-)  ... I believe the 40D sensor equates to about 25MP at FF?
Logged

CatOne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 374


WWW
« Reply #37 on: November 20, 2007, 04:28:01 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]

Uhhh...

The 40d has smaller pixels than the 1Ds, true.  HOWEVER, it also has better performance w.r.t. noise when you get to ISO 400 or above.  Technology goes a long way ;-)

The 1D mark III has much smaller pixels than the original 1D.  But it KILLS it in every single way :-)
« Last Edit: November 20, 2007, 04:29:17 PM by CatOne » Logged

macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #38 on: November 21, 2007, 11:59:08 AM »
ReplyReply

http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_onlin...blog_index.html

Lets all go read Ctein's "Photo Fetish Leage" post and calm down some.
Logged
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 650


« Reply #39 on: November 21, 2007, 02:00:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://theonlinephotographer.com/the_onlin...blog_index.html

Lets all go read Ctein's "Photo Fetish Leage" post and calm down some.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=154719\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'm calmly shooting with my original 1Ds and patiently waiting for my 40D to arrive. Both have their place and I'm sure I'll enjoy them for years to come.

I'm not going to read the blog, don't really care who the guy is or what his opinion is. I'd rather spend the time shooting and looking at the images.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad