Couldn't resist any longer...

[Mr_Sukebe]

I've been thinking about upgrading my 300D for a while, especially as I already have some fairly good glass, including a nice L series and a good Tamron 17-50.

My thoughts were to find a 20D as I assumed that their prices would be reduced with the launch of the 30D. That simply wasn't the case, though I did find 30Ds being sold for £764 on the right website.
The only problem was reading around and seeing the number of comments about how much better a 1D was.
So, checked around, and found that there's 5 variants, the 1D, 1DS, 1Dmk2, 1Dmk2N and 1Dmk2S. Most of those are far from cheap, but I did find that the 1D s/h is not much more than a new 30D. From what I can see, the serious deficiencies of the 1D being the lower resolution, worse rear screen, lack of inbuilt flash and low battery life.
Everything else appears to be in it's favour, ie. built like a tank, actual picture quality is meant to be VERY good, despite the lower resolution (4Mps), 8FPS, 40 picture buffer, awesome AF and additional functionality from the design.

This lunchtime, just picked one up. It's clearly being used, but comes with a 1 year warranty and really does feel the biz.

Lets just say I'm looking forward to using it. Can't comment on it right now as I've not got a lens with me in the office, and my CF card is at home. Big smiles...

I'll put some pictures up next week.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

what made you buy this over a more modern cam?

Have to say that I certainly hadn't considered a 1D to start with. As you say, 4Mps seems rather low nowadays.

The key thing was actually reading around the subject to get a variety of views. From what I could see the 1D has the same kind of build quality, AF and functionality of it's newer and much more expensive replacements.

The key difference appears to be purely in the lower resolution and it's worse noise at higher ISO ratings.
I can't say I typically use ISO of 1600 or more, so that's really not an issue.
The resolution is then a two bladed sword.
If you want to produce poster sized photos, it's not a good choice. However, it does mean that you get even more photos on your flash card, has an 8fps rate, big buffer and apparently has VERY good pixels, even if it doesn't have that many of them.

Put it another way, do you believe that the ccd in an 8Mp compact camera is as good as say a 6Mp in an DSLR? The answer is most certainly not, as there's more to photographic quality than just numbers of pixels.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

Just got off the blower to the UK distributor for the 17-50, and they've confirmed that it certainly won't fit.

Looks like a 17-40L will be next on the hit list.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

I've just added my 17-50 to the "buy/sell" forum within OCUK, so if you're interested, have a scan. It's a great lens, and I'm not wholy happy about having to sell it, just have to use my 28-75 instead.