Canon 1D mark ii

gtaylor · Jul 20, 2013

I have located a "vintage" 1D mark ii for around $400 and am seriously considering purchasing it. Am I crazy for even thinking about getting a 10 year old camera with who knows how many actuations?

Input appreciated.

usayit · Jul 20, 2013

I shot with one for a long time.... I loved it. AF was outstanding. Metering was very good; 8x multispot. Didn't hesitate using it in wet conditions with a sealed lens. I only sold it because I was downsizing. Yes.. its a hefty camera body. Of course, don't expect high ISO performance like modern cameras.... that's the nature of technology. The UI is somewhat different than most Canon's... two button pushes for setting changes. I adjusted quite quickly. Its also not quite a FF camera but not EFS compatible. LCD is going to be significantly less quality than what you see today... but I'm not one to really care.

One thing to note that many people miss.

The 1DmarkII uses NiMH batteries NOT Li-Ion like the more modern cameras do. They do require a bit of maintenance to keep them "healthy". Cycles can take a long time. They also loose charge sitting over time. There have been times that I grabbed the camera on a whim only to realize I had batteries that were at 50% or less. A fully charged battery will last through a lot of frames... Battery charger it comes with can cycle two batteries at the same time. My two relatively newish batteries fully charged would last me a weekend trip... I wouldn't even bring the charger.

IIRC, you should be able to determine the number of actuations on the camera. Search for the instructions.

jaomul · Jul 23, 2013

I couldn't recommend one enough at current prices. I bought one a few months ago. It is great. Even the ISO which isnt its strongest point allows usage up to its expanded 3200 setting with a bit of pp

curtyoungblood · Jul 23, 2013

What do you shoot most frequently? The 1dii is a solid camera, but it is quite out-dated technologically. I wouldn't plan to shoot above iso 800, which, for me, is a real hindrance. The only way I'd recommend getting one is if you shoot a lot of sports outside during the day. Otherwise, the camera's limitations are going to give you problems that could be better solved with a newer camera body. (I'd suspect that even a used 60d would perform better for what 90% of what most people shoot.)

gsgary · Jul 23, 2013

Derrel will be along soon to tell you it is crap, this is one i took with it

pixmedic · Jul 23, 2013

gsgary said:
Derrel will be along soon to tell you it is crap, this is one i took with it

holy bejebus man..that shot is awesome! what lens was used?

Steve5D · Jul 23, 2013

gsgary said:
Derrel will be along soon to tell you it is crap...

:lmao:

gsgary · Jul 23, 2013

pixmedic said:
gsgary said:

Derrel will be along soon to tell you it is crap, this is one i took with it

Click to expand...

holy bejebus man..that shot is awesome! what lens was used?

Cheers 300F2.8L + 1.4x

Steve5D · Jul 23, 2013

But can you take a rockin' picture of a shirtless kid eating out of a bowl.

You know, "pushing the envelope" kinda' stuff...

gsgary · Jul 23, 2013

Steve5D said:
But can you take a rockin' picture of a shirtless kid eating out of a bowl.

You know, "pushing the envelope" kinda' stuff...

i dont know camera and lens are gathering dust since getting my Leica's

Derrel · Jul 23, 2013

This was a great Canon camera. It came before the IIn iteration, and was well before the 1D Mark III [AKA the camera-that-would-not-autofocus right.]

If you wanted a Canon that could actually focus, you bought the 1D Mark II or the newer, 1D Mark IIn, and let the bad Mark III cameras go back to Canon over and over and over...

Rob Galbraith DPI: May 29, 2009 update

The 1D Mark III was the camera that sent so,so many pro sports shooters over to the Nikon D3 and D3s...

The Mark II was a good camera back in the day when 8 megapixels was considered enough.

imagemaker46 · Jul 23, 2013

I used a Mkll for a lot of years, replaced the shutter once, and ran over 250k through the new shutter before it came apart as well. It was a beautiful camera to use. I couldn't be bothered to have another shutter replaced, so now it is a doorstop with my other 2 1D bodies.

The mklll was garbage.

Steve5D · Jul 23, 2013

Derrel said:
The Mark II was a good camera back in the day when 8 megapixels was considered enough.

You've got what? 24 megapixels?

What envelope pushing stuff are you shooting with those?

imagemaker46 · Jul 24, 2013

Some of my best images were shot using a 1D and a 1D mkll, while I like the idea of having 22-24megapixels, when I want to crop, it has a way of making people lazy by saying "I don't have to shoot as tight or as well, I have more to work with". Having only 8megapixelas to work with was just fine for every photojournalist assignment including sports, it just meant making sure the original image was as close to correct coming out of the camera.

This thought that more is better is very misguided. It still comes down to the quality of the original image.

gsgary · Jul 24, 2013

Derrel said:
This was a great Canon camera. It came before the IIn iteration, and was well before the 1D Mark III [AKA the camera-that-would-not-autofocus right.]

If you wanted a Canon that could actually focus, you bought the 1D Mark II or the newer, 1D Mark IIn, and let the bad Mark III cameras go back to Canon over and over and over...

Rob Galbraith DPI: May 29, 2009 update

The 1D Mark III was the camera that sent so,so many pro sports shooters over to the Nikon D3 and D3s...

The Mark II was a good camera back in the day when 8 megapixels was considered enough.