So, I've been agonizing on this one for some time.
I've got a known budget on which to spend some money on some new gear. The problem is, I am undecided on whether to get the 40D (approx $1100), or a very good condition MarkIIN (approx $2100ish). Is the MarkII worth $1000 dollars more than a new 40D? How does the 40D stand up to a MarkII in picture quality?
I am primarily into landscapes, but I do enjoy gunning ospreys and Baldies when the occasion arises. If I 'settle' for the 40D, it means I can afford another "L" lens to add to the mix. I am not worried about weight as an issue, I would be putting a battery grip on the 40D if I go that route anyways.
Comparing the stats on the 2 cameras, they seem to be fairly 'close' in a number of aspects. I just need some insight into if and why the MarkII is $1000 better......thanks for your time!
40D = good ISO performance, more MP and 6.5 fps. Could easily be used for both landscapes and wildlife. Many people use the 40D plus 400mm f5.6 combo for birds.
MarkIIN = more robust build (you may want to try handling both cameras if possible), faster focus and roughly 8 fps. Also could be used for both types of photography.
I shot the MarkII and 40D side by side and the only dramatic difference I noticed (in terms of image IQ) was better high ISO performance on the 40D. I also didn’t notice much difference between my 20D and D200 – again 8 vs. 10 mp. The jump from 8 to 10 mp is not that significant IMO. However, the newer chip and processor on the 40D yields what I thought, as mentioned, was better ISO performance and perhaps greater dynamic range. Its been awhile since I looked at my comparison shots so I would be interested to hear what others think as well. I ended up buying a used Mark II. I really enjoy post processing so my rationale was that I could make up for any Mark II sensor shortcomings on the computer.
Another option would be a MarkII which sells anywhere from 1400 to 1800 used. If you shoot raw you won't see a difference between the MarkIIN and the MarkII.
If I were you I’d wait and see how much the new 50D will cost and if that’s too high I’d pick up a good used 40D (as people scramble to upgrade to the 50D). If you by chance aren’t aware of the new 50D read some of the e recent threads here which detail the leaked specs.
stanj wrote:
For static photography (landscape, still life, studio), tripod stuff, or for high ISO - 40D
For anything that moves - 1D2N, without any doubt.
I had exactly the same dilemma a few months ago. After trying out both cameras several times in camera shops, I ended up with the 40D. True, the 1D II(n) has advantages in certain type of photography, but I don't do so much of it to justify it.
Also, the 40D actually has several advantages over the 1D II(n):
- lighter weight even with the grip,
- can be used without the grip to get even a smaller and lighter setup,
- custom modes C1-C3,
- My Menu for the most common operations,
- highlight priority mode,
- live view (very important to me),
- auto ISO (though somewhat crippled),
- quicker user interface (don't need two hands or stretching the fingers - important to me as I very often change the settings on the fly),
- telephoto factor (due to smaller pixels),
- can use EF-S lenses (a very important point to me as I really like my 17-55).
Even though the 1D II (n) is a quicker camera when shooting, the 40D is quicker to set up and change the settings on the fly. Thus, under varying conditions, I get the image (if it requires setup) while the small difference in AF speed and fps is not really significant to me.
I did not find significant differences in image quality, and in practice, the 40D AF has been very satisfying in my use - especially when compared with the 30D that I previously had. I don't really need more than 6.5 fps, and even that very seldom as I mostly shoot in single shot mode, pressing the shutter button multiple times as necessary, at the exact moment that I want. I use the center AF point 99% of time.
I would go with a 1D2N, with a 17-40 it will do landscape very very well and then you have excellent AF, frame rate and buffer size for when you want to shoot birds. The N would be my vote any day.
astrolucida wrote:
I had exactly the same dilemma a few months ago. After trying out both cameras several times in camera shops, I ended up with the 40D. True, the 1D II(n) has advantages in certain type of photography, but I don't do so much of it to justify it.
Also, the 40D actually has several advantages over the 1D II(n):
- lighter weight even with the grip,
- can be used without the grip to get even a smaller and lighter setup,
- custom modes C1-C3,
- My Menu for the most common operations,
- highlight priority mode,
- live view (very important to me),
- auto ISO (though somewhat crippled),
- quicker user interface (don't need two hands or stretching the fingers - important to me as I very often change the settings on the fly),
- telephoto factor (due to smaller pixels),
- can use EF-S lenses (a very important point to me as I really like my 17-55).
Even though the 1D II (n) is a quicker camera when shooting, the 40D is quicker to set up and change the settings on the fly. Thus, under varying conditions, I get the image (if it requires setup) while the small difference in AF speed and fps is not really significant to me.
I did not find significant differences in image quality, and in practice, the 40D AF has been very satisfying in my use - especially when compared with the 30D that I previously had. I don't really need more than 6.5 fps, and even that very seldom as I mostly shoot in single shot mode, pressing the shutter button multiple times as necessary, at the exact moment that I want. I use the center AF point 99% of time. ...Show more →
Not So sure about the speed of the settings issue, once you get used to the way the 1D series work things can be changed very quickly. I am sold on the feel, focus and for me ease of use on the 1DMKIIn's that I have but again if you want a good package in a smaller lighter frame the 40D is a nice machine...Just me throwin copper...
CampX wrote:
So, I've been agonizing on this one for some time.
I've got a known budget on which to spend some money on some new gear. The problem is, I am undecided on whether to get the 40D (approx $1100), or a very good condition MarkIIN (approx $2100ish). Is the MarkII worth $1000 dollars more than a new 40D? How does the 40D stand up to a MarkII in picture quality?
I am primarily into landscapes, but I do enjoy gunning ospreys and Baldies when the occasion arises. If I 'settle' for the 40D, it means I can afford another "L" lens to add to the mix. I am not worried about weight as an issue, I would be putting a battery grip on the 40D if I go that route anyways.
Comparing the stats on the 2 cameras, they seem to be fairly 'close' in a number of aspects. I just need some insight into if and why the MarkII is $1000 better......thanks for your time!...Show more →
If you shoot primarily landscapes, get a good used 5D for $1,500. Hands down best camera for landscapes.
Go for the N. I had a 40D, and sold it to buy a Mark II N. The N is in a league of its' own. I also use my N for studio work, and just about everything else I shoot. It does just fine.
Thanks for all the replies. Of course there's a new "50D" coming out in September....d'oh....then the new "60D" in August 2009 or something .
I currently have a 70-200 F2.8L IS and a 24-60 F2.8 Sigma; looking at buying a 90mm F2.8 TS-E, 300mm F4L, a 1.4X TC, and a 12-24mm F4 Tokina. If I go with the MkIIN I'll have to drop the 300mm most likely.
I have had a chance to use a 5D, a 30D, and a quick 10 minutes on a 40D, but have never touched a MkII.
Worth $1000? I think so. I'm so in love with my 1dm2n! Best used purchase I ever made! Stepping up from a 10d to the 1dm2n isn't like comparing to a 40d - but the two things it solved that the 10d and 40d have in common:
1. It ain't a &$%&%^* 1.6 sensor.
2. It ain't a *(&^*&^(_) 95% viewfinder.
1.3 is still crop - but a 17-40 now almost acts like a real wide angle lens.
All the other GREAT things the 1dm2n does is just gravy, in my mind.
I have them both, but if I could only have one it would be the mkIIn. Wonderful
camera for wildlife, especially on the move.
For a bit extra distance and LV I'll use the 40D. It also does well with moving subjects.
maybe something in the middle if you don't mind the small screen. i just bought a 1d2 with 11k clicks for 1500 and i'm very happy. my backup camera is now my 40D. i would say get the 1d2or 2n if you shoot high iso, for low light AF, and for weather proofing although i have never had any issues with my 40D and it has about 18k clicks.
Arghhhhh.....choices.
What would be an AVERAGE price for a good condition, fairly low shutter-count mkIIn? Because they seem to go for $2000-$2400 any time I look on Ebay. Where besides Ebay do you find them for sale?
.