Nikon guy here, I read the Canon forums and other places on the net, and have come to a seeming conclusion in regards to the 1Ds MK II. And that conclusion is: It works. I cannot recall the last time I saw anything negative posted about that camera. I see lots of scorn, dislike, dismay, derision, and outright hatred for other Canon models, especially the 1D MK III in early days, or the 5D/5D II or 60D, etc.
But nobody speaks ill of the 1Ds MK II camera. Up front here: I don't use Canon because the ergonomics do not fit me at all, Nikon does. But if I had to have a Canon, I would chose the 1Ds MK II, just because it seemed to get it all right in one package. Yeah, you cannot shoot 102,000 ISO with it, nor 10 fps, but that was not what it was designed for.
With firmware updates, the sensor in that camera coupled with good optics produces fine, fine files that look great. Once you understand the camera, it works. A good friend has a 1D MKII N, 1Ds MK II, and 1D MK III, and he and I both agree that the 1Ds MK II is one of his workhorse cameras. I am one of the few Nikon shooters in my little photo group, most are Canon shooters, so I get to see their gear a lot. One told me that even though he had a "fixed" 1D MK III, he has never really trusted the camera, and it has missed shots for him that should have been "gimmes". Another wants a 1Ds MK II and is eagerly awaiting the MK IV version to see if it is another winner.
The 1Ds MK II, like my Nkon D2X is a great camera. You MUST learn the camera to get the best out of it in both cases. Yeah the D3s goes to ISO insanity, but I have a D700 for that, and the files at base ISO from my D2X are superb.
So, that all being said, I am genuinely interested in your opinions on the 1Ds MK II and what makes it just such a great camera.
Could it be like the Star Trek movies, that Canon only produces superb work on even numbers?
