DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> gear pricing -- what do you think?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 32, (reverse)
AuthorThread
09/20/2005 09:12:36 PM · #1
Canon EOS 1D Mark II 8.2 Excellent condition.
Canon EF 24-85mm F/35. Perfect condition.
Manfrotto 3021Pro Chrome, with Manfrotto 390RC head

What do you think this is worth? high end? low end?
09/21/2005 01:45:20 PM · #2
anyone?
09/21/2005 01:53:53 PM · #3
How old is the equipment and how many shutter actuations are on the body?
09/21/2005 01:54:44 PM · #4
$2000 on the 1d Mark II.
09/21/2005 01:55:04 PM · #5
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:

$2000 on the 1d Mark II.


Ok, I'll take it!
09/21/2005 01:58:22 PM · #6
Sorry, in all seriousness the 1d Mark II's are going for about $3100+ on fredmiranda.com...not sure about the other stuff.

09/21/2005 02:10:31 PM · #7
I just sent mail to find out about the actuations.

He's asking $3400 for everything. I think the lens and tripod are worth between $300-$400 from what I can tell. Maybe a little more. That puts the effective price of the camera around $2900 - $3100.

I think if I could get the package for $3000, that'd be a pretty good deal.
09/21/2005 02:10:37 PM · #8
The Canon EF 24-85mm F/35 seems to me like it would be a bit too slow! ;)
09/21/2005 02:13:52 PM · #9
Originally posted by ttreit:


I think if I could get the package for $3000, that'd be a pretty good deal.


I agree.
09/21/2005 02:14:42 PM · #10
Are you sure you need that serious of a camera? I only switched from the 20d for weather sealing and autofocus...
09/21/2005 02:18:08 PM · #11
Originally posted by MeThoS:

Are you sure you need that serious of a camera? I only switched from the 20d for weather sealing and autofocus...


Good question...what will you be using the camera for, ttreit?

Looking at your portfolio, the 20d would suit your needs...the 1d Mk II is expensive because of it's framerate, body build, auto focus and professional functionality. Great for sports shooting, news, rough environment, etc.
09/21/2005 02:23:28 PM · #12
Originally posted by JayWalk:

The Canon EF 24-85mm F/35 seems to me like it would be a bit too slow! ;)


Ya, but think of the amazing depth of field you'd get with an f/35!!!
09/21/2005 06:33:35 PM · #13
Why get a 1D Mark II instead of D20?

Well it seems to me it's a better investment. It will open up more opportunities than a 20D does. Am I a great photographer? No. Can equipment fix that? No. But becoming proficient in anything is generally easier and faster given the right tools, it seems to me.

My photographic interests are wide. I like to tell stories with my shots. Whether that's capturing an event and putting together a slide show or creating a series of shots around a theme. I've done most of this with video over the past year but want to do the same with stills.

So the question is really, why not the 1D?

I am seriously considering the 20D, but I'm also investigating the pros of the 1D and asking myself "why not" get it. The difference in cost for me really means limiting myself to two lenses to start and adding more over the next year to 18 months. I can probably do a lot with two lenses in the mean time. If it opens up more opportunities, what are the cons? The durability and extra abilities of the 1D have a lot of appeal.

Are there cons of the 1D I'm not thinking about?
09/21/2005 07:19:42 PM · #14
It's a great camera, so is the 20d. I would spend the extra money on lenses since that they would hold more value over time than the body.

It boils down to presonal preference. Some hunters can use a .22 to shoot a rabit, others prefer a m-16...
09/21/2005 07:32:38 PM · #15
Originally posted by MeThoS:

It boils down to presonal preference. Some hunters can use a .22 to shoot a rabit, others prefer a m-16...


Tammy - the 1D is a great camera, but mostly for specific uses and needs. There are plenty of fantastic photographers that use a 20D. If you're paying $3000 for a body and have to limit yourself to $400 for a tripod+glass, there's something wrong with this picture to me.

edit to add: I would be inclined to think that unless you're taking pictures in the desert where sand is a constant issue, or specializing in high-speed (sports?) photography (of course, the 20D will take sports shots too - but with a lower buffer), I'm not sure the 1D will make a huge difference.

Message edited by author 2005-09-21 19:35:30.
09/21/2005 08:20:23 PM · #16
Originally posted by MeThoS:


It boils down to presonal preference. Some hunters can use a .22 to shoot a rabit, others prefer a m-16...


I like a scoped .357 SA revolver with a 10" barrel loaded with some high power 180 gr hollowpoints, but that's me....
09/21/2005 10:05:39 PM · #17
Hmmmm... obviouslt get what you want, but it seems to me that you may be better off with a 350xt or 20d.

Well it seems to me it's a better investment. It will open up more opportunities than a 20D does
Actually it would depreciate more than another camera so not really true. The only opportunities that it will open are 7 fps rather than 4fps. If you plan on shooting professional sports than yes.. this may be true. One opportunity I can think of though is that people may take you a bit more seriously in public when you have that camera.

My photographic interests are wide. I like to tell stories with my shots. Whether that's capturing an event and putting together a slide show or creating a series of shots around a theme.
Again this statement doesn't really seem to fit with that camera. You will not need a fast camera for this, but rather a nice selection of wide and zoom lenses would be a much better fit in my opinion.

So the question is really, why not the 1D?
Because you are going to be saccraficing on buying some essential items that would help you more than that body would.

The difference in cost for me really means limiting myself to two lenses to start and adding more over the next year to 18 months.
Just out of curiousity what lenses are you planning on buying. You should also keep in mind that you will need a bunch of accessories such as memory cards, filters (UV, Polarizer, ND), flash and lots of other odds and ends that may add up quickly.

This is all just my opinion and what I would do if I was planning on upgrading. I think you can get much more bang for your buck with something a little less.

Message edited by author 2005-09-21 22:14:02.
09/21/2005 10:12:16 PM · #18
I don't think there would be a rabit left after getting hit with that.. poor lil rabit..

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by MeThoS:


It boils down to presonal preference. Some hunters can use a .22 to shoot a rabit, others prefer a m-16...


I like a scoped .357 SA revolver with a 10" barrel loaded with some high power 180 gr hollowpoints, but that's me....

09/22/2005 12:25:59 AM · #19
The two lenses I'll start with are the 50mm 1.4 and the 70-200mm 2.8L IS. Aside from that a couple memory cards, batteries, a camera bag and a good tripod....not worried about the incidentals.

I do want to shoot sports for my youth group kids but I REALLY wanted a smaller multiplier effect for better wide angle shots. I thought that the 1D is significantly better than the 20D for that, but maybe what I heard was exagerrated.

I don't really care about anyone taking me seriously, lol. No one who knows me takes me seriously anyhow. :)

Anyhow this is now my second thread saying the same thing. Mostly I just started looking at the 1D out of curiosity and found what looked like a pretty good deal locally. I'm looking at three possibilities. A used 10D for about $600. A new 20D, whatever price I can find. Or a 1D mark II, used.

Message edited by author 2005-09-22 00:26:54.
09/22/2005 12:41:17 AM · #20
You can get a 1.6x crop camera with the Canon 10-22 for cheaper than you can get that 1D and a 17-40 or whatever equivalent you were looking at.
09/22/2005 01:08:09 AM · #21
You can get a 10-22 for the 1D as well which would still give you better wide angle shots than the 20D.

What I'm hearing is that, other than cost, there really isn't much downside to the 1D.

I'm still leaning toward the 20D because the bodies will get better and cheaper as time goes on. But it's good to explore all the options.
09/22/2005 02:46:52 AM · #22
Usually, there's not much to clean up...

Originally posted by Sandman:

I don't think there would be a rabbit left after getting hit with that.. poor lil rabbit..

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by MeThoS:


It boils down to presonal preference. Some hunters can use a .22 to shoot a rabit, others prefer a m-16...


I like a scoped .357 SA revolver with a 10" barrel loaded with some high power 180 gr hollowpoints, but that's me....
09/22/2005 02:53:06 AM · #23
Originally posted by ttreit:

You can get a 10-22 for the 1D as well which would still give you better wide angle shots than the 20D.



The 10-22 is an EF-S lens, the 20D, 300D and 350D are the only EF-S cameras. The lens will NOT go on a 1D unless you grind off the tab and even then, the mirror may strike the rear element of the lens damaging both lens and camera. You might be able to use the Sigma 10-20 on the 1D though, I'm not sure if it will vignette on a 1.3x camera or not.
09/22/2005 02:55:23 AM · #24
Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by MeThoS:


It boils down to presonal preference. Some hunters can use a .22 to shoot a rabit, others prefer a m-16...


I like a scoped .357 SA revolver with a 10" barrel loaded with some high power 180 gr hollowpoints, but that's me....


Me... I like my 7mm Weatherby Magnum with 180gr hollow points at about 200 yds. Never knew what hit'em.
As far as the camera goes, I can't afford and have no opinion on it. I will say this though, if you want it and can afford it, buy it.

Message edited by author 2005-09-22 02:58:25.
09/22/2005 03:52:50 AM · #25

I wasn't talking about the EF-S lens, actually.

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

Originally posted by ttreit:

You can get a 10-22 for the 1D as well which would still give you better wide angle shots than the 20D.



The 10-22 is an EF-S lens, the 20D, 300D and 350D are the only EF-S cameras. The lens will NOT go on a 1D unless you grind off the tab and even then, the mirror may strike the rear element of the lens damaging both lens and camera. You might be able to use the Sigma 10-20 on the 1D though, I'm not sure if it will vignette on a 1.3x camera or not.


Pages:  
Current Server Time: 05/25/2020 05:24:35 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 05/25/2020 05:24:35 AM EDT.