Rangefinder Magazine
March 2005

Click Here for printable version of this article.

First Exposure: Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II by John Rettie
More Like a Medium-format Camera

Externally, a small letter “s” is all that differentiates the EOS-1Ds Mark II from the EOS-1D Mark II.

When Canon introduced its flagship EOS-1Ds digital camera in 2002, it finally convinced many photographers that digital capture produced quality images comparable to or even better than those produced by film. With an 11.1-megapixel image sensor that was the same size as a full 35mm frame, it also meant regular lenses provided the same field of view as a 35mm film camera.

For those photographers who had already converted to digital, the 1Ds delivered image quality akin to that of a medium format camera. Indeed Canon positioned it as an alternative to medium format cameras as much as a replacement for a 35mm film camera.

One year ago Canon upgraded the EOS-1D with an all-new 8.2-megapixel CMOS sensor in place of a 4.1-megapixel CCD. This vindicated Canon’s decision to switch all its professional digital cameras to CMOS, something most other manufacturers have not done. Canon also improved some operational aspects of the Mark II camera and sped it up with a new Digic II processor that made it faster than any film camera. In all, it was quite a move up for the camera.

To nobody’s surprise, a few months later Canon announced a Mark II version of the 1Ds. Compared to the 1D Mark II, though, the improvements and changes are much more modest. It has gained a 16.7-megapixel CMOS sensor and some speed improvements, as it uses the same processor as in the 1D Mark II.

The placement of a few controls is the only change to the back of the Mark II camera.	Anyone familiar with the 1-series of Canon cameras will immediately feel at home with the camera controls on the Mark II.

In keeping with Canon’s policy to keep things consistent, both the new Mark II models share the same rugged body, 45-point autofocus system, controls, E-TTL II flash system and shutter mechanism.

Essentially the only difference is the size of the sensor, which is full-frame, giving a 1:1 crop factor compared to the smaller 1:1.3 crop factor in the EOS-1D. Because the files are bigger, the camera is naturally not quite as fast in operation. Nonetheless, it still manages to deliver four frames per second firing rate with a maximum burst of 32 JPEG images or 11 RAW images. It has a 0.3-second start-up time and a 40-millisecond shutter delay.

I never had any problems getting ahead of the camera while shooting, which was not the case with the original 1Ds. Its speed should prove fine for all but the fastest-shooting sports photographers and paparazzi. I’m sure it also helped that I was using a new 80X 4GB Lexar CompactFlash card, although I did not do any back-to-back tests.

Ports on the Mark II now include a video out connection as well as Firewire, PC sync, USB and Canon remote.	The Mark II models include two storage slots—one for a CompactFlash and the other for an SD card.

Anyone still using a Canon film camera will continue to be very happy with the controls on the 1D line of cameras, as they are much the same. However, as a regular user of the 10D I found myself getting frustrated with the controls. They are not as intuitive, as many photographers using both cameras will attest. For example, it takes two fingers to check images on the LCD screen and two fingers to change ISO. It’s understandable why this was a necessary impediment in the old days of film, but now one wants to be able to change ISO settings as rapidly as possible, even automatically if the light gets dim enough. It’s something that can be done on other cameras.

I guess, as photographers, we tend to want a new camera to be familiar in use, but there are times when it becomes important to move on and adapt to new ways of doing things. Enough of my soapbox.
Ironically, one traditional feature that caught me out is the easy way to adjust the exposure by quickly rotating the rear dial. I accidentally overexposed a whole series of images by 2⁄3 of a stop after turning the dial while changing the aperture in manual mode. I did not notice as I was shooting in bright sunlight, and when I checked the images they looked washed out, but I blamed that on the bright light. Of course, I should have checked the histograms, and then I’d have noticed straight away. After I realized my error, I read the owner’s manual, and it warns you to turn off the dial to avoid this problem. This is obviously something that should require a two finger operation.

	The rear LCD screen is bigger than before with better resolution and the ability to zoom in on detail in an image.

Those who like big heavy cameras will enjoy the Mark II as it tips the scales at a hefty 4 lbs. with battery and before adding a lens. As with other 1D cameras, the ergonomic shape is good, and the camera feels sturdy even with big lenses. The body is sufficiently weatherproof and dustproof to withstand the elements.

One new feature that was first adopted by Canon on the EOS-1D Mark II is the inclusion of dual memory storage slots. While the primary slot is for regular CompactFlash (or Microdrives), the second slot is for smaller Secure Digital cards. The camera can be set to store images in duplicate for instant back up or one card can be filled and then the second one used as a reserve. It does not switch automatically from the first to the second when full, nor can one store RAW files on one card and JPEGs on the other—which would be really useful. On that subject: The camera can create a JPEG file and a RAW file at the same time, which is useful for speeding up workflow issues for many photographers who like to use RAW files.

By the time you read this brief review of the camera, Canon should have introduced a wireless system that enables EOS-1D models, as well as the EOS-20D, to transmit image files to a nearby computer. The transmitter (WFT-E1A) attaches to the bottom of the camera and connects via the Firewire cable. It transmits files using the same IEEE 802.11b/g protocol used in Wi-Fi networks.

The big difference between a 6.3-megapixel EOS 10D (front) and a 16.7-megapxel EOS-1Ds Mark II (rear) is the overall coverage between the two sensors.	Canon provides an upgraded version of its Digital Photo Professional to convert the new CR2

The Mark II package includes several programs that are also included with other Canon cameras, such as EOS Utility viewer and PhotoStitch. In addition, a second CD-ROM includes Digital Photo Professional, which offers conversion of RAW images. At the time of writing this review, Adobe only had a beta version of its RAW converter to support the new CR2 format.

What of image quality? The EOS-1Ds Mark II produces a 4992x3328 pixel image (a 47.5MB file when open), which is big enough to produce an 11x16 print at 300dpi. If you’re using a good inkjet printer, it’s possible to use 200dpi, in which case a print of 16x24 print could be produced without any up-sampling. I used the camera for landscape photography during the time I had the camera for review. It was certainly nice to have a camera with the large full-frame viewfinder, and it was also great to be able to capture real wide-angle images. However, when using telephoto lenses, the camera did not seem as good. I did a comparison of images obtained on my now-obsolete 10D and those on the Mark II.

Amazingly, when I compared the images side by side on the computer, there was no perceptible difference in quality. By coincidence, the size of each pixel on the 6.3-megapixel 10D (135 pixels per mm) is almost identical to those on the Mark II (139 pixels per mm), so it’s an accurate comparison of images at the pixel level.

These images were taken with the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II, the new and improved version of the EOS-1Ds, released in 2002. The EOS-1Ds Mark II features a 16.7 megapixel CMOS sensor and produces a 4992x3328 pixel image, which is big enough to produce an 11x16 print at 300dpi or a 16x24 print at 200dpi.

What the experiment showed me is how much larger the coverage is with the 1Ds Mark II. The 1.6 crop factor on the 10D means it fills only about 40 percent of the area covered by the 1Ds Mark II. It’s really akin to comparing the coverage of a 35mm camera with that of a 120-size medium format camera. If both use the same lens and film, the center portion of both images will be identical in quality. In reality it’s just that the medium format camera covers a much greater area. Furthermore, I’ve read one review that compares the EOS-1Ds Mark II output with that of a large digital sensor on a medium format camera, and they found little difference in quality.

To me it’s obvious that the physical size of the chip and the ability to get a larger image from a wide-angle lens is the major benefit of the 1Ds Mark II.

For photographers used to shooting medium format or with clients who insist on big images, whether they need them or not, the EOS-1Ds Mark II makes sense, even if it does cost $7999. For photographers who rarely need to produce big prints or do not need ultra-wide-angle images, the EOS-1Ds is overkill, in my opinion. It’s like comparing a 120 roll film camera with a 35mm camera—fine for some, but not needed by every photographer.

Modern digital cameras with smaller sensors produce images that are perfectly good for the majority of uses. My gut feeling is that the EOS-1Ds Mark II is a classic in the making—the last of the film-based cameras that produces images with resolution as good as anyone needs. From now on, I hope we can look forward to future-generation cameras that will be more convenient and offer features that could never have appeared on a film camera, such as auto-adjusting of ISO and a rotating LCD monitor. I’m sure readers who have gotten familiar with digital cameras will agree there are plenty of features that could be included in pro cameras to make them even more useful tools while producing ever-improving quality images.

John Rettie is a photojournalist who resides in Santa Barbara, CA. Readers can contact him by email at john@johnrettie.com or by snail-mail c/o Rangefinder.