Is it worth buying a 5D Mark I or an EOS 1Ds II today?

Question

I've been taking photographs for a while, and have started to think about moving to full-frame. I'm on a very limited budget, but I currently have a good macro lens and am quite willing to buy something like a EF 50mm f/1.8 to start off with. I could possibly stretch my budget as far as a 70-200 f/4 L or 24-105 f/4 L.

Primarily, I'm interested in taking photos of small wildlife like reptiles, amphibians and insects, but I have a healthy interest in landscapes, birds and street photography.

I currently have an EOS 30D, and I love the way the camera handles, especially with the dual control dials. For this reason, I think shooting with a Rebel would be a significant step down.

However, I have seen 5Ds and occasionally 1Ds Mark IIs on ebay for roughly the same price as an EOS 650D. I'm sure these cameras have better IQ than my 30D, since they are pro-level bodies from around the same time, and full-frame besides. The question is, are these cameras now so old that the image quality from them is a substantial step down from current Rebels?

I realise I'll be giving up continuous shooting speed and some amount of low-light performance, and that I'd also need to get an external flash, but besides these, are there any substantial caveats I need to be aware of before I go ahead and take the plunge?

Answer 1

I have a 1Ds mkII and an original 5D. The fact I still have them is mainly due to the fact that they're worth a lot more to me that I would get from selling them. In other words I think they're probably undervalued on the second hand market.

The main reason I say this is that the look you get from a full frame sensor is in many ways unobtainable with a smaller sensor. I'm not just talking about noise / dynamic range. Dynamic range in good light is pretty much the same as newer bodies, noise is generally better with the older full frames but extreme low noise shooting will be better on the current rebels as the analogue ISO amplification goes up to 12,800 whereas the 5D/1DsII only go up to ISO 1,600.

Instead I'm talking about depth of field, and sharpness. A really sharp image with shallow depth of field really makes the subject pop. You can't get the same effect on a crop as there simply aren't any fast wide lenses available, a 24 f/1.4 lens on full frame is equivalent to a 15mm f/0.9 lens on APS-C, the closest you can get is a 14mm f/2.8, which is over three stops slower (for about the same price). A cheap 50mm f/1.8 is equivalent to a 31 f/1.1!

The advantage in subject separation remains until 135 (well into telephoto) where you can match it with a crop, albeit with a much more expensive lens (85mm f/1.2L as compared to 135mm f/2.0L). Sharpness is better as you're not enlarging the image as much when you view a full frame photograph at a certain size compared to APS-C.

Having said that these advantages go away as soon as you start cropping your full frame images. If you are predominately chasing small lizards you may well find little advantage with a full frame camera.

With the 1Ds you also gain a top of the range 45 point AF system and weather sealing, but this comes with increased weight, confusing menu controls (you have to hold down different buttons while using the control wheels to change settings or navigate photos).

You have to consider what you're giving up, live view is certainty very useful for certain types of shooting. Rear LCD screens have improved a lot especially compared to the 1DsII, which has a tiny screen with very poor contrast. Speed of shooting and writing to memory cards in particular has improved a lot.

My gut feeling is this wont matter as you're used to not having these things with the 30D -- you will feel very at home with the 5D as it shares almost exactly the same control layout. You'll have to learn the 1Ds controls but it will reward you with much better AF.

Answer 2

These were great cameras then and they are still great cameras today. Actually the age factor makes them great values because people flock to newer things too quickly!

A 1Ds Mark II remains superior to the latest APS-C Canon DSLRs when it comes to image quality. It shows less noise, greater dynamic-range and better low-light performance. Plus, you will finally be able to see what you are shooting properly with a 100% coverage viewfinder and the 1Ds handles very well in a very sturdy weather-sealed body. The bright viewfinder will also help focus manually.

The only downgrade compared to yours or a newer Rebel is that the larger sensor will work against you when you try to reach for wildlife. Getting longer lenses solves the problem but is costly.

Both F/4 lenses you suggest are great are highly suitable. The 24-105mm F/4 would be better suited for landscape and the 70-200mm F/4 for street photography. For wildlife, normally something longer is used unless you are talking about the kind of subjects that let you get close which you shoot with a macro lens.

Answer 3

I've had a 5D, and currently have a 1DsII. If you can get a DsII for the price of a 5D, I'd say that is the one to prefer. The autofocus on any 1D is top notch, and far better than the one on the 5D (the 5D was basically a 30D with a full-frame image sensor). 5D is a little bit better on high ISO (1600, 3200) on the pixel level, on the other hand the 1Ds2 has more pixels so I have always felt that this is a bit of a wash all things considered. The 5D is smaller and lighter, a 1-series is an absolute beast to carry around all day. Then again, if you add the battery grip to the 5D, this is again a wash weight- and size-wise versus the 1D and the 1D has a better shape for holding. The viewfinder on both is very good, better on the 1D. Quite a step up from a Rebel in either case.

The only real downside to the 5D/1D is the size and weight versus the entry-level cameras. Plus you don't get a built-in flash but they are not good for much anyway, so no great loss. If you have small hands, they may be too big, if you have large hands they may feel better to hold than a Rebel; your call.

Image quality is quite good, I feel that the soon decade-old 1Ds2 keeps pace with my brand spanking new Fuji X-E1 until it runs out of ISO at 1600 (3200 is simply 1600 pushed one stop, so it doesn't really count - the Fuji has two more stops of "real" ISO than the 1Ds, typical of current cameras). The 1DsII was noticeably better at high ISOs than my year-old Fuji X100.

Answer 4

I will also say that the older full-frame cameras usually gives you sharper images when used with older FF lenses. I have both an old 1Ds and a new T3i (18mp crop), and the problem is that a 18mp crop sensor lens out-resolves most of the FF lenses on the market. However newer cameras give you much better high ISO noise handling and video.