Is a used Canon 5D or 1Ds Mark II still worth buying for full-frame photography?
Asked 3/3/2013
4 views
2 answers
0
I currently shoot with a Canon EOS 30D and want to move to full frame on a limited budget. I mainly photograph reptiles, amphibians, insects, plus some landscapes, birds, and street photography. I like the 30D’s handling and dual control dials, so I’m not very interested in moving to a Rebel body.
Used Canon 5D (original) and 1Ds Mark II bodies sometimes sell for around the same price as an entry-level newer DSLR. I already have a macro lens and could add something like an EF 50mm f/1.8, and maybe later a 70-200mm f/4L or 24-105mm f/4L.
Compared with my 30D or a newer APS-C Canon, are the original 5D and 1Ds Mark II still good choices today? Are there any important drawbacks beyond older low-light limits, slower burst shooting, and needing an external flash?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
8
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 light 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.
Originally by user1375. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1375
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Yes—if your budget is tight, both the original 5D and especially the 1Ds Mark II can still be worthwhile full-frame cameras.
From the community feedback, both still deliver strong image quality, very good viewfinders, and pro-level handling. The 1Ds Mark II is generally the better body if priced similarly: better autofocus, sturdier weather-sealed build, 100% viewfinder, and more “pro” handling. The 5D is smaller and lighter, and its high-ISO performance is a little better at the pixel level.
Main caveats: they are old bodies with lower maximum ISO than modern cameras, and full frame reduces your effective “reach” for birds and small wildlife compared with APS-C. That can matter a lot unless you have longer lenses. For macro, landscapes, and street work, full frame can be a big advantage.
So: if you want full-frame rendering and strong handling at low cost, they’re still valid buys. If wildlife reach and modern high-ISO convenience matter more, a newer APS-C body may suit you better. Between the two, choose the 1Ds Mark II if size/weight are acceptable; choose the 5D if you want a lighter body.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
What are the main drawbacks of the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, and when would another Canon full-frame body be a better choice?
Can Lightroom show full lens names from older Canon bodies instead of only focal length?
Is a used Canon 5D Mark II a good budget full-frame upgrade from a Rebel?
For low-light dance photography, is the Canon 1Ds Mark II or 1D Mark III the better choice?
Is a Canon 5D Mark II with EF 17-40mm f/4L a good setup for interior real estate photography?