1. selling it for $200 (before eBay takes 13%) ?
2. The value in 2004 was $8000
3. $8,000 in 2004 is equivalent in purchasing power to approximately $14,103.55 in 2026.
4. Incredible image quality with out of this world cropping power.
5. I feel 22 years younger when I hold the 1Ds II with 300/4 IS L
What is/are your reason/s to to sell this treasure?
Another reason:
The LCD screen is so small, I don't spend much time reviewing the shots, just keep shooting.... almost like film camera
Note:
I ordered two Watson brand battery packs and replaced the latch taken from Canon batteries and new life was given to the 1Ds Mark II and also to my two 1D Mark II.
Hmmm, sounds a bit like my situation with my original 5D... after 21 years, it's pretty much part of the family. Still love the look of the photos out of it, though it is pretty much a benchwarmer now. Why would I sell when I would get so little and it has given me so much?
Enjoy it. There certainly can be a pleasure in using vintage gear, especially to those of us who've been at this a while. Though I would not say that 16.7 MP gives "out of this world" cropping power, it is enough resolution for most professional work even today, I think.
I personally owned this model and blogged about using it in Katmai back in 2005:
Nowadays, if I had to pick a 1-series camera from this era, it would be the 1Ds Mark III though. It was the first model in this line to offer AF micro adjustment, which I find to be pretty important for getting the best out of Canon DSLRs and EF glass.
But of course, if you are fortunate enough to have lenses that are well matched to your body, then this advantage is only theoretical.
Unless you absolutely need that cash, I'd just keep it. Also feels kinda weird to call the 1D "vintage", but I guess I'm just old because I remember it was the talk of the town when it came out!
I decided to keep my 1D2N. I bought a journo beater in 2009 at 10% of its original price brand new around here, and forawhile, it was the cheapest best-autofocusing Canon I could get that left 30D/40D/400D totally behind when focusing lenses like EF 50/1.4 wide open or still at 1.x. I even got used to the unorthodox 2-3 button pressing control and the weird set of Personal Custom Functions that could be enabled only from a PC over a firewire.
But it was bringing me pictures focused with accuracy I just could not get from the xxD cameras. The ring of fire and/or the central high precision point quite delivered.
So I decided to keep it for sentimental reasons when I replaced it with 6D, I also keep the original old 50/1.8 with metal mount so even if I sold all Canon, I would have a legendary lens for it.
A nice perk is that its battery contains industrial NiMH AA cells which can be replaced, thus keeping a working battery forever, while the camera and charger keep working.
TBH I don't understand why on EVFs of the RF cameras we don't get the vintage ring of fire style AF areas. It's just a software.
garyvot wrote:
Nowadays, if I had to pick a 1-series camera from this era, it would be the 1Ds Mark III though. It was the first model in this line to offer AF micro adjustment, which I find to be pretty important for getting the best out of Canon DSLRs and EF glass.
I still have my 1Ds Mk III, which I bought new in 2011. I did calibrate all my lenses, and the only one which gave a nonzero value was the 50mm f/1.2, which is waiting to be sold. I shoot with the 1Ds Mk III too, and it’s my only backup body.
I should buy a second R3 to replace it. I can afford it, and I like the idea of having two bodies the same and not having to read and digest yet another 1200 page instruction manual and not having to make or check another calibration profile. The R3 is the first camera I’ve owned since the Olympus OM-2 SP that I’ve really felt at one with. One thing that does annoy me though, and even sometimes interferes with my photographic process, is the limited dynamic range and gamut of the OLED viewfinder. The viewfinder on the 1Ds Mk III is easily the best I’ve ever used.
The 1Ds Mk III feels very heavy now when I do use it, and there were always gaps in the EF lens line. IMO Canon never made a good 85mm for EF. Now I have the excellent 85mm f/1.4 VCM, which of course won’t mount on the 1Ds Mk III. The R3 batteries work in the 1Ds Mk III, but who knows how long the Compact Flash media remain viable. The R3 has much better high ISO performance, better dynamic range and slightly better resolution than the 1Ds Mk III.
I still have my 1D II, although I haven't used it in over a decade and have no batteries for it anymore. It's on its second shutter and probably just isn't worth trying to sell after sitting unused for so many years.
I could write a book about my time with that camera. It was my first serious camera for sports, airshows and then, through a series of unlikely events, the end of the space shuttle program. But man, that thing was a bulldog when it came to autofocus.
What I frequently found myself doing was shooting competitive paintball. That's the one with inflatable standardized fields, not the woods. I was often crouched or kneeling, and would track a player as they came full clip to the side or the corner of the course. I would sometimes have to acquire them in an instant, or dive to the ground myself to match their movement in framing. The 1D2 didn't care. Subject coming straight at you with 1/10 of a second to react? No problem.
Then, as I was shooting the end of the shuttle program, it decided to throw its shutter during a rollover event (That's one of many events in the lead-up to a launch). Being in my early 20s at the time, I made mistakes like only bringing one body to an event. And there was still more coming up that day.
Okay time for a detour: CPS had a trailer parked at Kennedy for the entirety of the build-up and launch of this shuttle mission. No, I wasn't a member, not yet, but here's an opportunity to win a customer over for life. Just loan them an xxD for the day or something. The trailer was literally packed floor to ceiling with cameras and lenses. I waited patiently, introduced myself, and explained the situation I was in. "You know where to send it, right?" was all I got.
Anyway back to the 1D2. I eventually replaced it with a 1D3 then a 1D4. Though highly capable, I felt like they were never as aggressive as the 1D2. At least outdoors in full sun, with center point only, etc. I won't claim to have conducted any formal experiments that would probably show the later bodies are more capable in less than ideal conditions.
Your coming to the same conclusion I did , but about 8 years later!
When I was considering selling my 1D Mk2, it was worth maybe $300-$350. I paid $4,500 for it new from B&H and I've taken more images with it than any camera I've ever owned. As Mike said, "I could write a book about it."
I even tried to give it away to friends and family and no takers. (this was of course before mirrorless etc. so it wasn't quite the dinosaur it is now)
So I have it. Coincidentally, I pulled it out and got one of the NIMH batteries to charge and played around with it just a few weeks ago for the first time in a decade. Still shoots fine. Man that old 1D menu system was a pain though!
I'm thinking of sending most/all of my EF-mount gear to the chopping block and replacing it with (fewer) E and Z mount lenses. However, I'm pretty sure I'll keep the 1D Mark IV for sentimental reasons. But then, the two most frequently used lenses I have for it, the 16-35mm f/4L IS and the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, will have to stay onboard as well, as both are also deeply rooted in fond memories of past times and travels. Both are exceedingly useful when adapted, anyway.
I didn't keep my first good camera, the 1D Mark II N, though. Maybe I should have (but I was generally very short on funds back then).
Mike Deep wrote:
It was my first serious camera for sports, airshows and then, through a series of unlikely events, the end of the space shuttle program.
Fun fact: I was there at the beginning of the Shuttle program, covering the first landings at Edwards Air Force Base for my newspaper of the time. All film of course (Canon New F-1) in the early 1980s.
For the most part, "old" digital cameras hold little value, and much less if the owner paid full price and bought it new.
Most of the stuff I have, I bought used, and it isn't really worth the aggravation to sell it for a couple/few hundred bucks. The cameras take up very little room, and sometimes I take one out for fun.
I just sold an EF 500mm f/4.5 that was nearly mint, and I had no issues with it at all, but I hope it gets to the buyer OK and something doesn't come around to bite me in the a$$. I certainly packed it extremely well.
I still own the OG 1Ds that I bought on FM in the early 2000s for *cough* only $4K. Yeah, more $8K equipment that isn't worth selling. This is the camera that destroyed Hasselblad AG and all professional MF film usage. Amazing what 11MP meant in those days. I used the 1Ds heavily for 10 years, all in the studio.
The original price, inflation-adjusted value, and legendary status are all real — but the used market doesn’t care what it was. It only cares what someone will pay today.
That said, if the camera still makes you want to shoot, I wouldn’t sell it for $200 either. That’s worth more as a joy machine than as an eBay listing.
I love your Alaska bear images.
They resemble film photos.
I assume that back than, Canon was considering the film look while developing this amazing camera, and for $8000
you didn't have to invest in film.
