Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II (body only)

• Average user rating: 4.0 stars out of 7 reviews
• My rating: 0 stars

• Sort by: Most helpful Highest rating Lowest rating Most recent

• 10 stars

  A great camera, of course.

  by eldoronki on March 5, 2006

  Pros: Resolution, full 35mm frame, ultra low noise.

  Cons: Few lenses match the resolution of the camera.

  Summary: Nothing matches this camera as far as resolution goes, unless you can afford a digital medium format camera, and even then, the "portability" of this camera will stand out. I ...

  Read more

  Summary: Nothing matches this camera as far as resolution goes, unless you can afford a digital medium format camera, and even then, the "portability" of this camera will stand out. I also have a 20D as a backup, although I would rather use the 1DsMkII or not take the shot at all!
  Really, the only negative I find is that few lenses will output what this camera can "see". We need better lenses.

  Show less

  2 out of 2 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 10 stars

  What's with these $8000 prices

  by on February 12, 2005

  Pros: I've bought two of these cameras locally (in Connecticut) for $7500. One was in stock. The other took a week. Why the price gouging online?

  Cons:

  2 out of 3 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 8 stars

  A top end camera with an equally high price

  by on January 12, 2005

  Pros: Full Frame. Full Frame. Full Frame. 16MP. Great noise characteristics. 4 fps. Fantastic Image Quality. CF and SD card usage.

  Cons: Price. Weight.

  2 out of 3 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 10 stars

  A very serious camera . . .

  by elgrego8 on October 4, 2006

  Pros: Incredible image quality, great low-light performance, white balance

  Cons: Weight and Price

  Summary: I wish I could give this a 9.5 with the .5 off because of weight. (I did not figure price into this.)
  
  With a huge leap of faith, after
  
  ...

  Read more

  Summary: I wish I could give this a 9.5 with the .5 off because of weight. (I did not figure price into this.)
  
  With a huge leap of faith, after doing much research, I switched from Nikon to Canon as my Art Photography became more serious. (Figure on spending another 2 to 4 grand for lenses with the quality to exploit this camera's potential.) Image quality truly is fantastic, but if most of your work ends up on the web as a jpg, this is almost certainly the wrong camera; unless you are making truly extreme enlargements or shooting in very difficult situations. Go for a Nikon (or other) system, or step down the Canon line and get something lighter.
  
  Why I spent this money . . . well resolution was in the ball park of a digital back for a medium format camera . . . Ball park enough that as for a resolution, it probably won't show. (I still use Genuine Fractals Print Pro for really large art prints where there really is a print quality fetish, and even when you own the printer, you spend ten or 15 bucks in paper and ink for each print. More if ya have to chuck a few.) It is also ball park for many film scanners, so basically at this point with resolution unless you step up to well over 40K for an entire system (including printer and computer) this is actually the price efficient way to go. (Well I talked myself into it.)
  
  A big issue for me with digital photography is the quality of the darks. They are often a big mess, noisy as hell, and lacking decent details. In my work, I just couldn't get the darks to have enough quality information in them when I brought them up to 100% of higher, and getting a decent print would require ages in photoshop doing fixes, adjustments, and essentially putting back in detail that just was not in the file (but existeted in the viewfinder). Not fun creative Photoshop stuff. Tedious, tedious work (not to mention using all the various filters, channel enhancement strategies, etc. we all have come to know (and hate) so well.)
  
  HUGE difference with this camera, even when running it up to the equivalent of 3200 iso. With noise reductions allows for some amazing handheld shots.
  
  Focus system is good, I'm not sure that Nikon does not have a better system for low light focus, but then I expect under those situations I'm gonna have to do some manual adjustments anyway. The focus and lens system is quite different from Nikon's high end lenses, and when first using it, I had to verify focus lock because I could neither hear nor feel the vibration from the focusing system. Wow! Now I can feel it (most of the time), but if you are struggling trying to shoot where the camera noise is an issue (for example taking studio stills on a movie of TV set, the Canon system is definitely the way to go).
  
  This camera almost alway nails the color balance right on, when you set it on auto. Unlike film, it is easy to correct this (in photoshop, camera raw, aperature, etc.) before you print, but it is time consuming to do this on a shot by shot basis. Great!
  
  Canon software marginally better (in my opinion) than Nikons having used both. But I've abandoned both for Camera Raw/Photoshop/Aperture.
  
  As far as high-end TTL on camera flash--uh, well it is not my thing. But I spent about $800 on Nikon's 600 and 800 unit, and decided I wouldn't get much from Canon's equivalnet.. Ok the Nikon digital flasshes are pretty amazing. From the spec's, I don't think Canon's digital flash system is quite so clever. So since you can still use any TTL unit, I don't have a reason to invest in such for my simple (flash) needs. Of course if you are doing in studio commercial work, you will have your own lighting system already for your studio and this will be irrelevant.
  
  Battery system, although heavy, is pretty darn amazing as well. I think the focusing system may also use less energy than the motors in most other brands lens/camera systems, but whether focus system, battery, or both; I;ve yet to need the spare I take along with me on a shoot.
  
  Very very very rugged.
  
  Dual Card system is nice, with cards being different types. One is smaller (almost too small) the other a more commone format. Both work well and you can record the image to both for on camera instant backup. Lots of ways to handle this.
  
  Camera supports Pict Bridge direct printer printing but seriously, who spends ten grand for a camera and glass and then prints the prints on a 200 dollar printer. Just silly, but it works.
  
  Light and Super Portable is not this camer! This is a heavy big thing for a 35mm equivalent. This is not just a super rugged optical light box (as in a film camera), but all that and asuper rugged, specialized computer as well. Ya won't be hiding it. It almost scares people when they see it outfitted with a big heavy lens. (The high end 50 or 70mm Canon lenses are not any larger than the NIkon's, but when you get to the very high end of the wide angle zooms (or paraparazzi-size zooms---well ya won't be chasing Paris Hilton down some street trying to get the money shot secretly. Ya won't be running at all unless you are in shape. I think there are probably better sports photo systems (especially if the end product is newspaper, web, or standard quality color magazine). The camera's focus system will track a moving figure under sppropriate conditions (just like a Nikon or less expensive Canon digital system); but this camera has been optimized for image quality, not frames per second and portability. For going on close to 20 megapixel images, this baby will get ya about 4 frames max per second. I'm sure you can make tradeoffs to speed this up somewhat (image size) but, again if this is your end goal, you can do better for less price. You can get double that with some other Canon and Nikon systems at half the price. You will not get the image quality though. It isn't light, but is is nothing compaired to a medium format with a digital back.
  
  Super customizeable if you don't like something. You have to dig in to figure it all out, but you can switch just about everything.
  
  I've found it workable with eyeglasses on, and with diopter correction. Focus screen selection not quite as wide as Nikon's if you decide you want a different kind of screen.
  (It goes without saying you won't be using the LCD on the back for composing your pic. LCD could be slightly larger and brighter, but hard to fit (on this already large camera. Two years after release, they might have got another quarter inch in size. The only point of this is for on camera review of your vertical orientation shots where part of the screen is unused as a result of the rotation.
  
  
  I believe that they could easily shave a pound off of this camera's weight by using fancy pancy aerosopace materials (for example). For this price, how about Canon giving Boeing a jingle on the phone. There are several options, too much below that, and the weight of the high end lenses on the front of the camera would unbalance the system. Still for six or seven grand . . . .
  
  I wish that . . . Wireless remote would be nice and at this point it is just silly for this much technology not to have that built in from day one. There is a wireless option for transfer of files (more bucks), can't comment on it, but I suspect it would not quite keep up if you were shooting at full speed.
  
  Orientation sensor was not always intuitive which is the whole point of that.

  Show less

• 1 stars

  this stinks

  by backstorker4736 on August 31, 2007

  Pros: there are none

  Cons: bulky expensive terrible quality

  Summary: this camera broke after about 100 photos

  Summary: this camera broke after about 100 photos

  0 out of 1 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 9 stars

  Are you kidding me $7999

  by ty328 on September 10, 2005

  Pros: I own this camera over one month now, the quality of the photo is unbelievable, 16M & full frame

  Cons: The price, weight of the camera with Lens

  Summary: The price was little deep after I spend some time with this camera, it worth the price (I am not even a professional).

  Summary: The price was little deep after I spend some time with this camera, it worth the price (I am not even a professional).

  0 out of 1 users found this user opinion helpful.

• 8 stars

  The Picture Quality is Fantastic

  by vix4341928 on March 6, 2005

  Pros: 16.7 Megapixels !!!

  Cons: holding the camera kinda uncomfortable

  Summary: Buy it later when the price goes down but it certainly has its value.

  Summary: Buy it later when the price goes down but it certainly has its value.

  0 out of 1 users found this user opinion helpful.

See pricing