I've been trying to figure out the comparison of the two - I've gone out onto the 'field' and taken excellent photos on both cameras. The question is mainly this, given the substantially better viewfinder and AF (Servo especially) performance, lesser crop factor (and the consequent bigger sensor) - is the trade-off worth it to gain the +6 MP?
Now according to some specifications, the pixel size of the 1d is about 350% the size of current mainstream equipment, being 10,8 x 10,8um. It's bigger than anything I have ever found on any other camera.
I agree however that the performance at high ISO's for the 1d is poor, but - as most, I try to restrain myself within the ISO 400 border.
Then there is the RAW bit depth. This has led me to a conundrum which I absolutely HAVE to gain insight from professionals much rather than reading specs and whatnot, perhaps the best answer is then for me to go outside and take more photos and realize the print size I will be requiring of my photos.
This might end up as one of those CMOS vs CCD quality thread, but please - I realize the difference between the two and I'm hoping to find people who have more 'professional' experience on the two cameras that might shed some light on the matter.
How are the two comparable? How can I choose one from the other?