coppertop wrote:
Here's a slight twist on the choice.... if you had to replace the MKIIn would you choose the MKIII or 40D. With the issues surrounding the MKIII's AF, is the 40D a better camera? If I had to replace the MKIIn (and couldn't get another MKIIn) I would be tempted to get the 40D.
Not if you believe RG's site. He trashed the autofocus of the 40D. Of course if you don't believe RG then why not a Mark III?
I have both, if I had to, I would give up the 40D. The AF, weather sealing, FPS rate, build and dual cards is enough of a difference for me. Plus I LIKE the weight, feels great to me and helps with steadying the camera. Who needs IS?
Seriously though, what really matters is what you shoot. If you need speed, focus accuracy, or weather sealing, the 1DMarkII should stay in your bag.
Rob Galbraith, as stated above, considers the 1DIIN to be one of the best autofocusing systems ever (better by far than the 1DIII, which I have and love, despite all of the bashing it gets). He went on to basically trashed the 40 D as well as the latest incarnation of the 1D and 1Ds lines for their worse AF. What this means is that if you shoot outdoor fast-moving subjects, keep the 1DIIN.
If you do a lot of fair weather or low light work, the 40D may be better.
I suspect that you will hang on to the 1DIIN....If you don't, you'll have plenty of interested potential buyers. Best of luck!
Edited by ashwinrao1 on Aug 04, 2008 at 01:29 PM GMT
PaulCal wrote:
Tell me I am crazy!
But I am seriously considering dumping my 1 D MKII n and getting a 40D
My reasons are
1.Weight of the 1 D
2.I miss the 1.6 crop factor (coming from an XT)
3. 10 vs 8 megapixels (not a big deal)
4. cost difference is a savings of about $1500- Is there 1500 worth of advantage to lugging around the extra weight and bulk of the 1 D?
5. Some of the work I have seen out of the 40 D is superb as well as the 1 D
For those of you who have used both what are your thots
The one area I am concerned about is the ability of the 40D to focus accurately on moving subjects like BIF
if you main goal is sports or tricky tracking of animals/birds going all over i would not dump it, if oyu don't care about that stuff at all, then the liveview on the 40D is helpful for static low DOF and landscape work, the small size is nice, I actuall ylike the UI better, etc. IMO the AF system on the 1dmkiin blows away the 40D's, but otherwise there are lots of things that are nice about the 40D.
But, at this point in time may as well at least wait and see what the 5dmkii/7d/3d is/are or perhaps even if the 50d gets better action AF since you already have a cam in hand.
when I shoot basketball or field sports (or sometimes birds) I wish i had a mkiin, otherwise I'm mostly glad i have a 40d.
Well I have both the 1DMkII & a 40D.
I like both for all the benefits stated.
But with BIF, the MkII AF is hands down better.
Yes, the two-button shuffle is at times awkward, but I am getting used to it.
So as long as I can, I will keep both
I know, someones going to say, "sell them both and get a MkIII" or "get a 1DsMkII"
Maybe I will.
I wouldn't say crazy, but I would say "Not thinking clearly."
The single biggest factor in image quality is focus accuracy.
Maybe people will dispute this, but certainly the biggest cause for
throw-aways in my shooting has been misfocused shots. A 30D
with a good, inexpensive prime will produce _very_ sweet image quality.
So, the 1DIIn (same resolution, wonderful AF) should give consistently
wonderful results. I don't think 14-bit files, or live view, or more megapixels
will make up for nailing the focus.
You're not crazy, I sold my mk2 and bought a 20d, and did it mostly for the weight. I was going to get a 40D but really wanted full frame. In the end I decided to wait and see how the 5d2, d700, and sony ff compare.
Sold my two 40D's for one Mark II. Absolutely no regrets. But I would agree with those who say that your decision should be based on your intended use of the camera. For me, there is no going back.
Long-time readers on this forum will know that I'm a magnet for defective gear but my 40D was far more defective than my 1D2, and yet supposedly within specs. My 40D was so bad that I got rid of it. The AF system was nowhere near as good as that of the 1D2 but it ought to have been pretty good. Even if both worked correctly, 9-point is usually inferior to 45-point if any focus tracking is required. Of course that will not apply if you just use a single AF sensor on the 45-point camera but that would be a relatively silly or at least wasteful thing to do
The weight difference is not a big deal when you use a big enough lens. Lenses are the great weight equalisers. Monopods help too. In fact,when you consider all of the kit you take with you the difference between a 1D2 and 40D can be insignificant.
There has yet to be a camera that would convince me to dump my 1-series for it. I've used a lot of bodies - 1DIII, 5D, 40D, 30D, D3, D300, D700 - and love my 1DII. Sure, some things could be better. But that's like the rest of life, isn't it?
And even then, I don't mind the weight. I love 1.3x over 1.6x or even 1.0x. Those 1DII/N 8MP look way better than the 40D's 10MP. The price... well, you already have the 1DIIN! And I've seen some amazing work with a Rebel, too. Or a P&S for that matter.
The choice is up to you. I just don't think going down a model is a good idea. It's like going from a BMW to a Honda. Just not the same thing, you know?
Imagemaster wrote:
1/500 secs. is 1/500 secs. on any camera.
yes, but not on a superior 1 series, that's why it's a 1 series, its fast is faster than your fast.
it's due to a special patent canon has on spacetime, ask pixel perfect for the details.
