I was able to use a 1DMkII, and was so taken with the AF and the file quality that I have decided to do something with my 30D - though I'm not sure what, exactly. Should I keep it and wait to see what Canon might have to offer with its newer technology? (The 40D is not a significant upgrade in AF or file quality, IMO.) Jump to Nikon for the (by all accounts) outstanding D300? Opt for the proven, older technology in the 5D? Or buy a used IDmkII (though it is a bit large and heavy for "recreational" use)? For the next year or so, I really need high ISO/high AF performance because I will be shooting my kids' high school hockey and volleyball. Once they graduate, my demands on the camera will decrease significantly - then it will be just vacations, family events, graduations, etc. Was leaning first toward the 5D as the best compromise, then the Nikon, and now I'm just confused. Your thoughts? Thanks in advance.
the 5d will not give you the af you need to shoot your kid's sports. get the d1mk2, use it for a couple of years, then sell it for a 50D. you have a very specific need right now so go for it. otherwise keep what you have and add longer f2.8 lenses to your collection e.g. 300 2.8, or 70-200 f2.8, or finally go strobist and wireless radio off camera flash - this may actually be the cheapest route. let us know what you decide.
I use the 1dmkII and a 135/2L to shoot my daughter's club volleyball in some pretty dismal locals. 3200 is usable. My old 20D in these same locals was not up to snuff.
The 1DmkII was a relevation for sports (I used it with the 135 f2 and the 85 1.8 at 3200), but does anyone actually carry it around for vacation pictures?
brad_s wrote:
the 5d will not give you the af you need to shoot your kid's sports.
I disagree. I have the 3 Canon's in question, and the 5D AF is in some ways better than the 1D2. If you use the joystick to select AF points, that's way faster and better IMO too.
I voted for the 5D, it's the camera I go to most of the 3. If not the 5D then you could take the $ hit to go to Nikon, but I'm sure that at some point in the future you will regret that...
Sayeret18 wrote:
The 1DmkII was a relevation for sports (I used it with the 135 f2 and the 85 1.8 at 3200), but does anyone actually carry it around for vacation pictures?
Not me... well, once when I had a brain fart and thought I was taking the 5D and ran out of battery for the 1D2! ...at least I had the D60IR that I meant to take too.
And if I remember correctly, someone tested the 5D vs the 1D2 with the 135L and the 5D performed better. I think the test subjects were rodeo horses.
Sayeret18 wrote:
Grant - this is very interesting. Any exprience with the 5D for hockey or volleyball?
Not hockey but a little v-ball. I'd rather have the 5D and work on the timing of shots than to use a 1D2 with 'spray and pray' technique. Perhaps that's just me.
I had both the 30D and 40D, and I think the 40D IS a significant upgrade in high-ISO (especially 3200 with in-camera noise reduction), as well as low-light AF (but not close to a 1-Series). I think I've read posts here saying the 40D high-ISO is better than the MkII as well, but I've never compared myself.
Where will you shoot the hockey games from? You'll probably want to budget for a 70-200 f/2.8. In fact, the flexibility of the zoom on a 40D might get you more keepers than one of your low-light primes (85mm or 135mm) on a MkII.
I have the same dilema. 30D now where? I got the 40D and was unimpressed, it was not a significant enough improvement and indeed in many ways I prefer the images from the 30D though the 40D did have nicer colours straight out the camera. I took a hit and sold the 40D so unimpressed was I by the fine detail in the images. The 40Ds ability to record fine detail despite the increase in resolution is not as good as the 30D. I put it down to noise reduction. With regards to sport the 40D focus is only a little better, I noticed no great leap in my keeper rate however.
I have jist aquired a 300 2.8 and 500 f4. I am putting my money into good glass just now because there is nothing in the Canon line up appeals to me. Mk111 has had it problems, Mk11 is an old user interface which I dislike, 5D almost went for it but doesn't quite suit my needs and cost rule out the other. I am going to wait for the next round of releases. In the meantime I will get by with the 30D. Thought Id share, hoping a fellow users frustration eases your own.
It sounds to me like you want the 1DMKII. I cannot see the 5D having AF much different from 40D. In 2 yrs time when strong need for lightning AF has diminished, there will be other bodies on the market that may better suit your needs at that time.
For me, I needed another body to go with my 30D for a years end trip to Patagonia and Antarctica. I wanted a 1D3, however the AF issues and its current inconsistency have meant I looked elsewhere. Too expensive to change to Nikon, 40D too similar to 30D for my uses so I went with a 5D.
I own the 1dM2 and 40d, having owned the 30d before that.
I don't think the AF on the 40d is that much superior to that of the 30d.
Shooting indoor basketball this year was just as much of a chore with the 40d as it was with the 30d. The 1dM2, however, performed significantly better and yielded much higher keeper rates.
I think you should keep your 30d and add the 1dM2. The 30d is a great camera and - at times- may be a better choice than the 1dM2 (vacations, school events, etc). Don't underestimate the value of that little pop-up flash!
MarkEnglish wrote:
The 40Ds ability to record fine detail despite the increase in resolution is not as good as the 30D. I put it down to noise reduction.
Then why didn't you turn the in-camera noise reduction off?
I have both the 5D and the MK2n and as far as autofocus goes, they are very close. Don't confuse the low fps of the 5D with it's autofocus abilities. In fact, I would say the 5D has better autofocus in bad light than the MK2n. Now if you need the 8.5 fps of the MK2n, then by all means that is the camera for you, but if you are concerned about autofocus, the 5D can hold it's own agains the 1 series and does better in low light both with getting focus and the quality of images with higher ISO. I suggest you try out a 5D...you'll be surprised.
...at least I had the D60IR that I meant to take too.