cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

What's a good older Canon dslr?

Dragoncamera7
Enthusiast

I'm interested in birding, landscape photography and nature shots animals. What is a good older Canon dslr to get? I have used a T1i and 450D and like both. How does the 40D and 20D compare to the 450D? And is it possible to find cheap 1D mark II or 5D mark I? Can these older high models stack up against the newer mid series models?

 

Thanks,

 

Ben

119 REPLIES 119

In the quote you said that the 5D Mk IV was the best camera in the Canon brand.

Let me s'plain Lucy.  The context was with the 5 series.  Not across the line.  So sorry if you failed to grasp that. I hope I cleared it up for you. I want to keep the dossier you are compiling on me accurate. Smiley Happy I have nothing against the 5 series except they aren't 1 series. Smiley Happy  If I couldn't have my 1 series bodies I would certainly buy the 5D Mk IV.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

"But the 1D mark 2 and the 1Ds definately have enough megapixels. So basically how do these 1 series compare against the 40D/450D?"

 

Ben, There isn't any Canon DSLR that will not take very nice pictures.  They all will.  You can be happy with any of them. Of course there will be some better than others.  One thing you really need to do is, don't make your decision based solely on MP.  There will be some give and take because you are considering cameras that are pretty old.

 

If you truly want a 1 series and I totally understand are you willing to put up with no computer recognition?  They require you to use a card reader.  That is until you get to the 1D Mk III.  Some menu items will not be alterable in the 1D, 1Ds, and the Mk II.

 

For myself I have a job coming up shooting the Corporate Challenge Women's Volleyball Tournament. Yeah, I know, somebodies gotta do it ! Smiley Very Happy

 I am going to take three bodies and one is going to be my 1D Mk IIn with the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Lens on it. So you see using one is still possible and viable.  You will likely not meet your goal of $200 bucks, though, if you buy one.

 

IMHO, given the choice of a 40D or a 450D, go with the 40D every time.  No question.

 

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!

" But the 1D mark 2 and the 1Ds definately have enough megapixels."

 

Ben here is what you can expect with a 1D Mk II.  I just run outside and did some quick snaps handheld 120-300mm f2.8.   Applied lens correction in LR. Cropped pretty heavily.  It's fairly dark here so the ISO is high at 800. Another place where these cameras will fall short is higher ISO's.

 

 

MK2N6815.jpg

MK2N6828.jpg

MK2N6835.jpg

MK2N6841.jpg

MK2N6848.jpg

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@ebiggs1 wrote:

" But the 1D mark 2 and the 1Ds definately have enough megapixels."

 

Ben here is what you can expect with a 1D Mk II.  I just run outside and did some quick snaps handheld 120-300mm f2.8.   Applied lens correction in LR. Cropped pretty heavily.  It's fairly dark here so the ISO is high at 800. Another place where these cameras will fall short is higher ISO's.

 

 

 


Except, of course, for the 1D Mark IV, which has great low light performance and 16MP.  Combine that with a high frame rate, and 45 AF points with great focus tracking, and you have one excellent camera..  It has excellent noise reduction from the dual CPUs, too.  I love it.

 

[EDIT]  Nice shots!

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

" I love it."  Smiley Very Happy

 

I agree 101% and, yes, I love my 1d4, too.  But we are way, way out of the OPs price range for a 1d4.  So is a 1d3 or even a 1d2n but at least there is a dim light at the end of the tunnel for a 1d2 if not the 1d2n.

 

I'll tell you what, I had a 1Dx in my hands ready to pull the trigger and didn't do it because of the 1D Mk IV.  The 1Dx just isn't enough of an upgrade for what I do to warrant the cost.  Plus I love the APS-H sensor size.  It seems Canon decided to push the video side instead of stills. I don't do and have zero interest in video.  I am a stills guy.  Plain and simple.

 

The 1D Mk IIn has the same 8.2 MP sensor, the same DIGIC II image processor and 8.5 fps shooting speed as the 1D Mk II. The primary changes are a new 2.5" wide viewing angle LCD monitor, improved buffer.  Canon also let you do different file formats to either card something the 1d2 can't.  The LCD on a 1d2 is more of a friend than a helper! These old dinosaurs can still get it done but you do give up a lot.

 

Folks that don't use a 1 series can say what they want but there is just something about a 1 series. Just the way it feels.  It feels of quality.  Most of the people that pooh-pooh them have never used one.

EB
EOS 1DX and 1D Mk IV and less lenses then before!


@Dragoncamera7 wrote:

Now of course I am thinking again about the potential line up. The newest I would go with is the 450D. I feel like the 40D is the middle ground. But now I am interested in the 1 series still. The original 1D only has 4 megapixels which I don't think is enough. But the 1D mark 2 and the 1Ds definately have enough megapixels. So basically how do these 1 series compare against the 40D/450D?

 

Ben


If you already own two older camera bodies, my advice is to save your money.  Don't buy a used $200 camera.  You will most likely not get a better camera body than the ones you already own.  In fact, for $200, you're more likely to wind up with something in worse shape than your current gear.

I think spending a relatively modest amount on a used DSLR is a "half step."  Save your money.  Save up for a "full step" forward.

--------------------------------------------------------
"The right mouse button is your friend."

Because of the connectivity issues, I think I am going to go look into for the 40D for now. The 1 series is still out of my price range. Plus I would like to have built in flash. Thanks again for the advice, I'm getting closer to making a decision.

 

Ben


@Dragoncamera7 wrote:

Because of the connectivity issues, I think I am going to go look into for the 40D for now. The 1 series is still out of my price range. Plus I would like to have built in flash. Thanks again for the advice, I'm getting closer to making a decision.

 

Ben


Another advantage of the 40D is the ability to use low cost, but, high image quality EF-S STM lenses.

 

If you are going to save money for anything, save up for the EF-S 10-18 IS STM lens.

 

 


@Dragoncamera7 wrote:

Because of the connectivity issues, I think I am going to go look into for the 40D for now. The 1 series is still out of my price range. Plus I would like to have built in flash. Thanks again for the advice, I'm getting closer to making a decision.

 

Ben


I'm not lobbying for you to buy a 1D-series camera. (In fact, I think it's a crazy idea.) But if you're really concerned about image quality, built-in flash doesn't do much for you. It's not very powerful, and its position close to the lens increases the probability of redeye. And modern lenses, especially the better ones,  have gotten so large that they're increasingly likely to cast a shadow in the built-in flash's coverage area. There are plenty of reasons not to buy a 1D, but I don't think their lack of built-in flash is one of them.

Bob
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania USA
Announcements