Customer Reviews

Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II 16.7MP Digital SLR Camera (Body Only)

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I bought this camera after using the Canon EOS 10D for commercial photography, and I'm really impressed by its performance. If I were to list the top things I like about it, I would say:

- Resolution. The camera (almost) produces A3 @ 300dpi images. That satisfies most advertising needs.

- Wide Dynamic Range. The color tones and wide color gamut help produce amazing images in all color spaces.

- Speed. (1)Startup speed is wonderful, I set the energy saver to shutdown the camera after 1 min of inactivity and it starts up immediately after a lightly touching the shutter release button. (2)The other thing is the 4 fps; I thought it would be too slow for sports, but it's not. (3)Last but not least, AF speed, it's almost instantaneous.

- Built like a tank. The camera's weather seals are also very important to me. I live in a desert environment, so it gets very dusty especially when doing outdoors photography. Of course changing lenses outdoors for me is risky since it's a chance for dust to get into the chamber and then onto the sensor, So be careful.

- Full Frame. The experience of the lenses brings you back to film cameras. The 10D had a x1.6 crop factor (17mm is actually 27.2mm), but with the 1Ds Mark II 17mm is 17mm and that made me utilize the lenses I had better.

I hope I was able to convey some of the joy I'm having with it.. The only bad thing I find in this camera is its price.. But with all things considered, I think it has the value for it.

It seems unfair to compare this camera to a 10D (or 20D or 30D), either favorably or unfavorably. These instruments are good in their own right, but hardly are in the same league as the 1DS Mark II. I have used all three of the xxD's, and an original 1ds body as well. It occurs to me that the folks who are interested in shelling out over 5 grand for a camera already have an idea about what they want, and that some of them are asking if they should trade in their 1ds body for a mark ii. It is to them that I am adressing this review. The remarks, I think will help those who have less experience with the line. Bear with me for the technical jargon and the emphais on Mark I vs II comparison. I want to help the buyer to decide if there really is a reason to spend this kind of money.

First, regarding resolution: you probably won't be able to tell the difference between Mark I and Mark II unless you are doing studio work. An 8x10 image is virtually indistinguishable. Most of us shoot in .jpg mode, and we don't mess with RAW. If you are doing a 17x20 wedding portrait and are working with uncompressed files, the Mark II is superior. I do outdoor work, so 11.6 megapixels is plenty. Finallyl, the quality of the glass makes a big difference (much more than the sensor resolution), so if you are a little strapped for cash, buy a 5D and spend the difference on "L" series lenses, or a used 1DS (Mark I).

Second: Ergonomics. I like the histogram on the Mark II better than the older camera, and appreciate the improved burst performance, and storage times. Small but significant differences. The battery life is way better, and I like that. I can get 700 frames out of a charge in the Mark II and only 200 from the Mark II. Thank you, Canon. Maybe in the next iteration they will do something with the black brick of a charger. I can only hope.

Third: Sensor noise. Most ofthe high-end cameras are CMOS now, and each time we look at a new generation of pictures we are wowed by the decrease in sensor noise at high ISO's. I remember that the we praised the Mark I for the low noise up to ASA 400. For the uninitiated, sensor noise is the random firing of a sensor due to quantum effects, and manifests as sparkle or random changes in pixel color. It is more prominent in low light and high ASA. The Mark I is great up to ASA 400, good up to 800 and needs some digital filtering at 1200. The Mark II is really good up to ASA 1600, and with a Photoshop filter is good to 3200. If you shoot in low light, the Mark II is for you.

Fourth: Color balance. I always loved the warm, saturated pictures that the Mark I gives, so don't get me wrong - better color rendition is not a reason to sell it for a new model. The Mark II, though, improves on it and gives beautiful color saturation with some improvement in the range of highligts. Digital photo buffs will know what I mean: if you take a picture with broad highlights, like a sky, the foreground objecst will be underexposed. and the highlights clear. Set the exposrue to the foreground, and the sky will be a burnt-out white. The Mark II has improved this much, but it still needs some work by Canon. For now, it helps to have taken a large number of pictures to get an idea as to how to set the exposure.

Fifth: Accuracy of the exposure. The Mark I had an annoying tendancy to overexpose by about a stop. I got used to turning down the exposure 1-2 stops, exposing on the highlights, and using Photoshop to correct the exposure. The Mark II is more accurate, and the Manual exposure is close to the metered exposure.

Sixth: The FF/1.6 business. I really don't see any reason that a 30D is a better camera because a 50mm lens gives an image analagous an 85mm lens in a full frame camera. Be advised, though, that lens evaluations depend on this distinction. Edge performance and flair may be more obvious on a full frame instrument. Both the 1DS and the 1DS Mark II tend to challenge lenses more because they work the full range of the lens from side to side and through the apertures. My 35-135 IS Canon lens gave great pictures on the 10D, but looks washed out on both of the 1Ds's. Before giving the 1DS Mark II a bum rap for less than perfect pictures, ask what lens was used.

Seventh: Price. Presently, a non-grey-market 1DS Mark II sells for around $6899 from reputable dealers. A used Mark I is around half that. I would take a half star away from Canon for the pounding my pocketbook is taking, but I understand that a Mark I was just about the same price when it was released. The price gradient presently would be tolerable for those shooting in low light, or for RAW studio work. Personally, I would buy a Mark I over a 5D for the improved construction.

Finally, some general remarks. I would have liked to compare this fine camera to the comparable Nikon. Unfortunately, I cannot, because all my glass is Canon, and I have no money left for a mult-thousand buck purchase of a Nikon. Maybe someone else would write a review.

My only beefs with Canon have to do with sensor dust, that seems to appear by spontaneous generation, and the steep learning curve that I had with my first use. (Plan on a night or two reading the manual) I guess I can forgive them for not putting a flash in it. Add a couple of hundred to the price for the purchase of a 580EX. Canon service has been terrific. If you have the bucks, quit complaining about the price and get one if you are a serious photographer. Look at the images in dpreview.com (and the long, thoughtful review there), and at fredmiranda.com - they will leave you breathless. This is a serious instrument for serious photographers and far be it from me to give it less than 5 stars for my petty complaints.

As a photo gear junkie, I seem to go through cameras quickly. I buy - use - sell - upgrade... over and over and over. I have used the original digital rebel, the 20D, the 1DMarkIIN, and now the 1dsMKII.

I was originally hesitant to drop the significant chunk of change required to own this product. Especially in the middle of a period of rumors circulating that the next evolution of the 1ds was coming soon. However - it was well worth the money.

I shoot model based images primarly... so I need something that is portable, rugged, and wont die on me - on location.

The battery lasts 8+ hours per charge - and charges incredibly quickly. I bought a spare... but I have only used it on travel weekends when I am away from a power supply for 2-3 days.

Its rugged. There is nothing like the pro-series bodied by Canon. I have taken this camera out in the cold and snow - and in pretty heavy rain - and because of its weather sealing - it worked like a charm.

Noise... this camera can shoot at H - which is the equivalent of ISO 3200. If you need to get the shot - and are in almost pitch black conditions - this baby can handle it. It will be grainy - but its a lot better than almost all of the other cameras out there. (I hear rumors that the 5D is better with LESS grain than this camera)... but then again - this is 16.7 megapixels.

The amount of megapixels is phenominal... 16.7 - allows you to shoot a person and see all of their nosehair. While that may not sound flattering (and its not) - it means that with good glass this baby can capture even the subtlest of details.

Last cool point... the dynamic range.

You figure more digital cameras have a dynamic range of 5-7 stops. Film - 7-9 stops... This has got to have closer to 9 stops and is the BEST I have seen in a digital camera. I just recently got a medium format digital back - and that has 13 stops of dynamic range... but the 1dsmkii comes a heck of a lot closer to that without having to shell out 30k.

I recieved my 1DsMkII on 21 Nov 04. My previous digital SLR was a Canon 10D and I have a film based Hassleblad, which I don't use much any more.

So far I can find no camera imposed limitations to my photographs (except I can never have enough resolution). I have full use of my wide angle lenses again. I love this camera.

Some notes: unlike my 10D, the speed of compact flash cards make a huge difference with the 1DsMkII, I recommend at least a 40X or faster, don't use a standard CF card with this camera there is a noticeable speed difference (can you say turtle). My Lexar 40x card seems to do a decent job keeping up with the camera given my normal shooting style, but is still not fast enough to truly keep up with the camera in full continuous mode.

This is not a light camera and the controls take some getting used to coming from the D60/10D realm, but they seem better laid out for my use. Although the manual and autofocus on the camera is noticeably better then my older camera, I upgraded the focus screen (to Ec-b) because my eyes tend to adjust to the lens and I can now manually focus. Upgrading the focus screen was not something I could do with my D60 or 10D and I had problems with manual focus because of this.

This camera takes fantastic pictures. It is near-IR sensitive (although not as much as my 10D), so some near-infrared pictures are possible. For a multi-purpose camera this is THE 35mm camera for all but some sports and photojournalist photographers. In the studio, I am of the opinion, it can replace many medium format film systems as well. Although a bit pricey, it is well worth the money. I highly recommend this camera for the serious photographer.

I have been shooting digital for four years now mostly with the Kodak DCS cameras(660 through DCSPro). Being a life long Nikon guy it was a big decision to make the switch to Canon and the 1DS MK2. This camera is light years ahead of any Kodak digital slr. I use this camera for studio product, models, location, low light, you name it. The Canon has never produced anything but astounding images for me. All image parameters including sharpness are far superior to any of the old images I have from my Kodak days. Yes it is pricey but if you are working with this camera you will pay for easily long before it's useful days are over.

This camera has the potential for pictures with amazing clarity and colors but not straight out of the camera.

I too was disappointed after converting the RAW files with C1 Pro and ACR. Was it possible that my D-Rebel would be better than this monster that gives me neck pains and has made my right arm to start looking like Swartzenegger's arm? Even with L glass the results were dissapointing.

The problem is not with the camera but with the workflow. After using it for 2 months I am getting used to a workflow that will give me the results I am looking for. I had to realize that this camera does not perform any processing enhancements in camera because the pros need to do it themselves. Once I got over the fact that I would have to sharpen and saturate colors a lot more than before I was content and have never touched the D-Rebel ever since.

PS Beware of the severe neck pains when attaching any L zoom lens. Buy the hand strap or a better neck strap.

Some photo samples can be found here:

http://www.trekearth.com/members/nbournas/photos/

I am a Pro Photographer who formerly used Medium Format. I wanted to get a digital SLR with better than film quality. The EOS 1Ds MK II is it!

It is weather/dust resistant (to a point) when combined with Canon's "L" series lenses, and if you own this body, those lenses are a must-have. The controls are easier to master than I first thought. It is fast, no shutter lag and fast write to card. The colors and details in shadow/highlights are amazing! Truly a joy to hold!

If you want the best, this is it.

I started out in 2005 with a 20D, at about the same time the 1ds MK II was released.

Because this was a hobby of mine at the time, the 1ds mk II was way out of reach, both in terms of price, and due to the demand for good glass to go with it.

I am used to the 20D's AA filter, for me it is a normal part of the work flow to apply default sharpening at the end of the job in PS.
For the dissapointed Kodak guy, I have to ask and point out two things;

- What glass did you use? The 1ds MK II (and the MK III even more so) demand expensive, excellent glass. The large sensor and the resolution will put even the most expensive lenses to the test.

- Did you apply default sharpening after post processing? Canon state that a unsharp mask / smart sharpen of about 300% 0.3px (tweak when needed) is necessary to combat the AA filter. If you do that, detail will jump out at you and make your jaw drop, seriously.

For me the 1ds MK II experience has been a real treat. I bought mine summer 2007, well aware that the MK III was due to be announced.

For me, the small percentages in resolution didn't matter (though the MKIII, as a total package, is a step up from the MK II). The MK II creates wonderful photos. I have used mine for landscape, macro, studio, product and animals so far and I love every pixel i get. Prints looks great, my 70-200 f 2.8 finally saw use as a portrait lens again and my 17-40 really goes super wide for landscape.

The menu system's "idiot proofing" can be somewhat confusing at first and I miss my 20D control stick for the focus point selection, how ever; When you have used it for a while, the handling become second nature.

I don't need a "live view 42" flat screen TV" on the back of my camera as the new DSLR's have these days, draining the battery, so I am perfectly happy with the smallish one on the MK II. I use my screen for quick reviews/controls and to check the RGB histogram for exposure, the rest is done on the computer.

I don't complain about size or weight and I don't see why one should when one is buying a camera one may use in a desert war -or to club down a potential mugger and take his photo afterwards. :)

Seriously though; If you don't want a heavy full frame camera, go for the 5D (or the coming 5D mk II). I use my 1ds mk II with the 70-200 F2.8L, the 135 f2 L, 24-105 F4 L and the 400 5.6L and even though I get tired some times, I know that these various combos will produce pictures that will "aw" my clients.
- Besides, a little work out is good for everyone in a time when people are getting more obese by the minute.

I give it 4 out of 5 stars (would give 4.5 if possible), deducting some of the points for the over complicated menu-control system as well as the missing control stick for the focus points. (The 20D had it, and was released at the same time, so IMO the 1ds MK II should have had it).

At the time I am writing this review, a used 1ds MK II can be had for about 50% of it's introduction price.
If you are planning to step up from the 1D, 5D or the xxD/xxxD series, I would recommend this camera with no hesitation.
- Prepare to spend the money, saved on buying a used camera, on glass :)

I had read every review of this camera and was sure it was the one for me. I had been using a Kodak DCS Pro 14n and thought the higher res of the Canon would be an improvement. Immediately after shooting some studio shots, I only shoot products, I was disappointed with the softness of the images. I compared them with the crisp sharp photos of my Kodak and became very dissatisfied. I thought the Canon must be defective, or maybe some kind of setting was wrong tried every sharpening technique, using Canon's software and Photoshop. These helped but still the images had an overall soft looked which were unusable to me. I returned the camera. I went back and reread the reviews. To my own surprise each reviewer had mentioned this soft look and I had not realized what they meant. This seems to be a choice Canon made, something to do with the IR filter and moire effects. I went back to my Kodak and am much happier. At low ISO settings the Kodak outperforms the Canon for studio product work. I think the softness of the Canon's images would better suit a portrait artist then my type of work. I did not test the Canon at high ISO settings but I do know that the Kodak adds to much noise so the Canon may be a better choice for those needing faster ISO numbers.
Digital Photographer Magazine ("Kodak vs. Kodak Which 13.5MP DSLR Takes The Sharpest Prints?") did a good review of the new Kodak DCS SLR's and called them the "sharpest" of all digital SLR's, sharper then this new Canon, and these new models have less noise as well. I am sure if you do not have the images side by side you would not realize the difference but I had the luxury of comparing. It was painfully obvious that the Kodak was sharper.

I traded up from a nikon d100 and its been great. a little trouble at first. a very expensive long lens i bought was out of adjustment and vinnetting. it took me a little while to figure out and i sent it back. they broke it down and re-installed the elements and its been fine ever since. news photography - aerial photography - artwork. no problems with extreme cold (15F soaked) , moisture, heat or heavy use. with a 1.4 lens its almost like night vision. stuff that i can barely see well enough to focus comes out well lit and not blurred while handheld. BTW i don't recommend a nikon.