Why is the 1Ds Mark II so cheap?? Looking to go full-frame.

[Scatterbrained]

But dat lens situation

What lens situation it will take almost any lens on the market past and present

The lack of Sony e-mount lenses. I wouldn't dare shoot a wedding with a 20 year old manual focus lens even if it does have great image quality.

Also: good luck having time to effectively manual focus in a fast paced situation as accurately as an autofocus lens.

You do realize people used MF lenses at weddings for decades right? I know a few very talented shooters who still work with MF lenses at wedding. If you know how to shoot with MF lenses then it's not an issue. I actually shoot all of my fast primes with manual focus because it's quick and easy; and it beats being forced to compose a scene around my focus points. A good focus screen makes manually focusing fast glass very easy, slow consumer zooms, not so much. However, have you ever worked with focus peaking? It's great, and makes manual focus fast and fool proof.

 

[ecphoto]

I'm looking at some full-frame bodies and came across some refurbished 1Ds Mark II's, for CHEAP. Like, $500. I know the 1Ds Mark III is an insanely amazing body so why would it's older version be priced so differently? Is there some big flaw in the 1Ds II's design?

You have to remember that digital moves quickly. In the old days film bodies would keep their value forever because film doesn't really change. Now with digital a year is like 10 years worth technical advancement in film. In 2 years your camera will easily lose 30-40% of its original value.

 

[Scatterbrained]

I'm looking at some full-frame bodies and came across some refurbished 1Ds Mark II's, for CHEAP. Like, $500. I know the 1Ds Mark III is an insanely amazing body so why would it's older version be priced so differently? Is there some big flaw in the 1Ds II's design?

You have to remember that digital moves quickly. In the old days film bodies would keep their value forever because film doesn't really change. Now with digital a year is like 10 years worth technical advancement in film. In 2 years your camera will easily lose 30-40% of its original value.

We should have "digital camera years" the same way people have "dog years". If one year for a person is like 7 years for a dog, one year for a person should be 10 "digital camera years". So in six and a half years a digital camera should be just about ready to retire.

 

[rexbobcat]

What lens situation it will take almost any lens on the market past and present

The lack of Sony e-mount lenses. I wouldn't dare shoot a wedding with a 20 year old manual focus lens even if it does have great image quality.

Also: good luck having time to effectively manual focus in a fast paced situation as accurately as an autofocus lens.

You do realize people used MF lenses at weddings for decades right? I know a few very talented shooters who still work with MF lenses at wedding. If you know how to shoot with MF lenses then it's not an issue. I actually shoot all of my fast primes with manual focus because it's quick and easy; and it beats being forced to compose a scene around my focus points. A good focus screen makes manually focusing fast glass very easy, slow consumer zooms, not so much. However, have you ever worked with focus peaking? It's great, and makes manual focus fast and fool proof.

Yes I do know this. However, there is a reason why autofocus is seen as important to a lot of photographic community.

I know many photographers who don't use manual focus because almost every AF point is cross type and they just have to click over to a new one when they need a new composition.

My cameras don't have focus peaking. My Fujifilm does but it's a hybrid and is often very distracting.

I would not buy into a system that lacks a native lens system just so I could make concessions using manual focus third party lenses.

That is where I'm coming from. You can always turn of AF on Sonanonikon lenses, but you can't add autofocus to a manual focus lens.

However, if you're skilled at manual focus do your thing. I don't have a place to criticize your personal way method of taking photos.

 

[ecphoto]

I'm looking at some full-frame bodies and came across some refurbished 1Ds Mark II's, for CHEAP. Like, $500. I know the 1Ds Mark III is an insanely amazing body so why would it's older version be priced so differently? Is there some big flaw in the 1Ds II's design?

You have to remember that digital moves quickly. In the old days film bodies would keep their value forever because film doesn't really change. Now with digital a year is like 10 years worth technical advancement in film. In 2 years your camera will easily lose 30-40% of its original value.

We should have "digital camera years" the same way people have "dog years". If one year for a person is like 7 years for a dog, one year for a person should be 10 "digital camera years". So in six and a half years a digital camera should be just about ready to retire.

My analogy was rather silly, but very much true. Its not that the cameras a breaking down or that quality has diminished, rather we want the newer/cooler/better features.

 

[gsgary]

I literally can't ever tell if you're a troll or not.

So with that, My reply to your comment shall be:

"Citations Needed."

I wouldn't class a wedding as fast paced, using focus peaking you can easily focus a moving target and stationary subject I can maginify just the face or eyes

 

[imagemaker46]

I used a 1D mkll for years, had the shutter replaced twice, it has now been retired as I'm not replacing the shutter again. I ran 500k worth of images through it and it was one of my favourite camera bodies, it served me very well. Technology has advanced and the new gear is far better. I have 2 Canon 1D bodies that still work, but are better door stops now, I paid $10k for the first one and it was an amazing camera back in 2001, their value now, I could probably get $50 for them. Time wears on and so do camera bodies, especially when you start to go over that 250,000 frame mark. I'd still use my Mkll if it was alive.

 

[rexbobcat]

I literally can't ever tell if you're a troll or not.

So with that, My reply to your comment shall be:

"Citations Needed."

I wouldn't class a wedding as fast paced, using focus peaking you can easily focus a moving target and stationary subject I can maginify just the face or eyes

Or you could just use a lens with autofocus and turn focus peaking off so it's not distracting.

Mwaha now I'm the troll.

I would classify it as fast paced enough to make manual focusing in some instances difficult especially if there's only one person. I helped photograph a wedding last Saturday with a friend and the ceremony was 30 minutes. To get shots from every angle we were jogging enough to begin sweating. I'm not really referring to how fast the actual wedding is. I'm talking about getting the most comprehensive record of the wedding possible in the best way possible while also adhering to the natural flow of the event.

Maybe you don't find it that difficult, but I'm not great with time management anyways so it really stresses me out. Having a camera that can do something better than I can alleviates some of that stress, which is why I don't think buying into a system like Sony's e-mount (which has a lack of native lens options comparatively) is a great idea unless you're skilled in manual focusing or prefer using Zeiss and older lenses.

Or if you really just don't care all that much about the variety of lenses and what they have will suffice.

 

[JerryLove]

To respond to several people quoting me at once... no I was looking at the 1DmkII, not the 1DsmkII. My bad.

And yes, about half (4/9) of 1D-series DSLRs are full frame. Again: I learned something new

 

[JerryLove]

Do your homework before posting

well I asked here so I could know the answer!! Now I do

I didn't mean you i meant Jerry because he said it is not full frame

Yea, but you are being a jerk about it.

I actually did do my homework... just looked up the wrong camera. Others pointed that out without the 'tude. I'm tempted to run through your posts to find every error you've ever made and quote you in response to them, but I"m not that bored... yet.

 

[Scatterbrained]

The lack of Sony e-mount lenses. I wouldn't dare shoot a wedding with a 20 year old manual focus lens even if it does have great image quality.

Also: good luck having time to effectively manual focus in a fast paced situation as accurately as an autofocus lens.

You do realize people used MF lenses at weddings for decades right? I know a few very talented shooters who still work with MF lenses at wedding. If you know how to shoot with MF lenses then it's not an issue. I actually shoot all of my fast primes with manual focus because it's quick and easy; and it beats being forced to compose a scene around my focus points. A good focus screen makes manually focusing fast glass very easy, slow consumer zooms, not so much. However, have you ever worked with focus peaking? It's great, and makes manual focus fast and fool proof.

Yes I do know this. However, there is a reason why autofocus is seen as important to a lot of photographic community.

I know many photographers who don't use manual focus because almost every AF point is cross type and they just have to click over to a new one when they need a new composition.

My cameras don't have focus peaking. My Fujifilm does but it's a hybrid and is often very distracting.

I would not buy into a system that lacks a native lens system just so I could make concessions using manual focus third party lenses.

That is where I'm coming from. You can always turn of AF on Sonanonikon lenses, but you can't add autofocus to a manual focus lens.

However, if you're skilled at manual focus do your thing. I don't have a place to criticize your personal way method of taking photos.

You really should try a precision focusing screen in one of your bodies (I think the 6D would be a prime target for one). You'd be amazed at how easy it is to see the crisply defined plane of focus with a fast prime lens. I think the 6D can take the same Eg-S screen as the 5DII. Before you come down so hard on MF you really ought to give it a try.

 

[gsgary]

Or you could just use a lens with autofocus and turn focus peaking off so it's not distracting.

Mwaha now I'm the troll.

I would classify it as fast paced enough to make manual focusing in some instances difficult especially if there's only one person. I helped photograph a wedding last Saturday with a friend and the ceremony was 30 minutes. To get shots from every angle we were jogging enough to begin sweating. I'm not really referring to how fast the actual wedding is. I'm talking about getting the most comprehensive record of the wedding possible in the best way possible while also adhering to the natural flow of the event.

Maybe you don't find it that difficult, but I'm not great with time management anyways so it really stresses me out. Having a camera that can do something better than I can alleviates some of that stress, which is why I don't think buying into a system like Sony's e-mount (which has a lack of native lens options comparatively) is a great idea unless you're skilled in manual focusing or prefer using Zeiss and older lenses.

Or if you really just don't care all that much about the variety of lenses and what they have will suffice.

You can get adapters for canon and nikon that will auto focus, I dont find it as quick to manual focus as my Leica's but I only got it on Tuesday but find it very easy to use

 

[Gavjenks]

Essentially it defeats the purpose of full frame (or whatever it is, APS-H?), because it's older sensor isn't able to keep up to even slightly smaller sensors today in dynamic range or high ISO noise or anything. So it's essentially just a halway decent crop frame body for all practical purposes, except which lenses you use, which makes it even more of a bad idea if you don't own full frame lenses, or neutral if you do.

Thus, it is appropriately priced similar to year or two old crop frames.

 

[TCampbell]

Does anyone have a full-frame body suggestion for me to upgrade to around the $1000 range? Refurbished is fine. I like my 60D's layout and it's so easy to use. Just really could use that ISO bump & a full frame, the cropping on my current cam is starting to irritate me as I get larger lenses.

Even a refurbished 5D II or 6D will cost a bit over $1500. You should be able to find a used (non-refurbished) body for a bit less but I've noticed even on eBay they seem to be a little north of $1000.

If you drop back to a 5D (classic) then you'll be under that price... but as you say you really want this for the ISO bump I'm not sure you'd get the improvement you were hoping for since the 5D is a very old body.

 

[imagemaker46]

Basically what is being said is the Canon 1D mkll was a piece of crap?