I am looking for comparisons/ impressions of two bodies: 40D & 1DII/n
Budget dictates what I can do. I can buy a 1DII, maybe the N. However, I have been noticed a few shooters, who have dumped their 1 series for twin 40D's. I am covering a wide variety of sports, portraits, & taking over shooting weddings. I currently have a 30D. I can sell the 30D, if I need a better upgrade. What I am looking for is input of those that own the 40D or have owned a MK II and bought the 40D.
Does the image quality and focus speed come close to a Mk II? Some say the viewfinder is brighter, how much brighter? For sports, is the focus system of the 40D sufficient compared to the focus on the Mk II's?
Which body/ bodies will perform the best in an overall situation. I know the 1 series has its benefits, however, what are the KEY PRO's & CON's of each against each other?
I will post this in the wedding & sports forums also, so I can get a wide opinion from everyone. All suggestions & input is greatly appreciated.
One general rule I like is that your 2nd body should be the same model as your first. Makes switching back and forth so easy on your brain. 2 40D's would be a great combination. Look at what I have.
If you are serious about sports shooting then the 1D2 or N is the only real way to go. The focussing system, even of the N, is far better than the 40D.
I would never consider selling my 1D3 or 1D2N for a pair of 40Ds.
For wedding photography, sure, a pair of 40Ds would be lighter but as soon as you bring sports into the equation nothing beats a 1D series focus. I am a sport shooter who sometimes does weddings, so a 1D2N and 1D3 while very heavy give me the shots I need. Were I to do weddings full time then a pair of 5Ds I would definitely buy!
I like having one of each...1DmkII and now the 40D. 1.3/1.6 crop makes the 300 f2.8 IS
more versatile. Add a 70-200 f2.8 and you'll have most bases (no pun) covered. Just set
'em up the same ie: * button AF, AV, ctr pt, and let 'er eat. BTW, I shoot what moves.
How do you like having the 1DmkII & 40D as a combination? I am watching a few mk II's, and that is one of reasons I was asking my questions. I have my 30D, which is a big upgrade from my 20D that I had. I have the budget to get a 1DmkII solid, it will be stretching to get a mkIIn, unless a really good deal comes along. I also have the 70-200/2.8 non IS.
Alistair....
I am a serious about sports. I have been shooting a really wide variety already, making due with the gear I have. I am able to upgrade my body at the moment, and hopefully by spring be able to add the 300 2.8 to my gear. I appreciate the feedback on the 1's. I already had my gut feeling, just needed some input from those, that can provide hands on knowledge.
I was asking myself the same question a couple months ago. I too have a 30D and wanted to upgrade. There's the new kid on the block, the 40D, and the old vet, so to speak, the 1DII.
I played around with the 40D at a CPS event, and although the files it produces are very nice and the high ISO performance is impresssive, it's still not a 1-series.
I picked up a 1DII with under 8000 acutations on it for a bit more than a new 40D + grip. I couldn't be happier. The autofocus is miles ahead of the 30D's, the 1.3x crop is the best thing ever (coming from a 1.6x, anyway), the viewfinder is gorgeous, the files seem much sharper and cleaner, the battery life is great and as everyone will point out, construction is second to none.
I have no problems switching between the bodies but then again I don't change my settings all that much when actually shooting. Each body has it's benefits and nuances and you just need to use whichever suits a particular shot better (for example, high-ISOs like 1600 and 3200 are cleaner on the 30D).
I was in your position and chose the 1D. I'm never going to look back - in fact I'm looking at selling the 30D and getting another 1. They're simply amazing.
James, I just recently sold my mkII and bought the 40D. I love the 40D so far. Now of course, I really loved my mkII too. It was hard to sell it, but I needed to invest more into my studio first as I don't do sports. But, you'll never beat the 1D AF. Now I also have the 30D. It's good, but the 40D is allot, and I mean allot better. I'm really impressed with ISO and IQ. I also had a 5D before mkII, but had lots of AF problems with it. BUt I personally think the 40D has the 5D beat hands down on high ISO and the IQ is relavent. The focus of the 40D is pretty impressive and its not far from the 1D series, but its not a 1D. I'll eventually go back to 1D and will go for the mkIII. Just after my business gets going better.
But for light sports, lots of portraits and weddings...go for the 40D. You're getting the latest and greatest in technology.
I have a 40D / 1D MarkII combo right now. I just got the 40D this week, and am very impressed. I haven't had a xxD since th 20D, and it is leaps and bounds above that. I, too, had a 5D at one point, but wasn't crazy about the AF. I must admit that I have been thinking about dumping the MKII for a 40D and a lens. I shoot mostly weddings and event, ect. So, the light weight combo would be nice, but the 1 series is HARD to part with.
I can say the IQ-wise the 40D does have a cool quality to it. So far, I am very happy!
