I have finally cashed in some equipment I was not using and soon will be able to buy a pro series body. Is there anyone up there who has upgraded from the II to a III and if so, did you find it worth the upgrade?
Assuming the camera functions as it should, would you suggest just going for the III or grabbing one of these II or IIn "gently used" steals that abound on the Buy/Sell Forum here (and other places)? Is the IQ quality much better on the III? I'm not going to print huge (and professionally only on occasion) ... but if there is any cognizable difference in say a 11X17 print, I'd find that a difference that mattered.
I have the 5D for portrait/landscape work and love it. But I'm getting into wildlife shooting (and will take a trip to shoot shore birds this month), and indoor swim meets; and also I do weekly shooting @ animal control for adoptable pets (where lighting is horrid and the subjects are constantly moving - so I'm usually around 1000 ISO). The 5D is good at what it is good at (and it's been my favorite camera to date), but I've missing quite a few money shots because it just is so slow for the swim meets and animals ...
I am not daunted by the learning or the size. I played with a 1DIII at a seminar and it was tough not to walk away with that beast. It was very fun, but that said, I wasn't outside shooting with it every day.
Anyway, I know I'm going with a 1D series, just wondering if you'd suggest plunking the extra $800-900 on a III.
Current used value of the 1dmarkII or IIn is dirt cheap. Is under $1200. Couple of months ago it was somewhere in the $1500. The used value of the markIII is relative low the last time I checked. New one is under $4000. Used one is almost a drop of $800 to $1000. With the markIII you have to take the chance that the body may or may not have AF issue. I think IQ on the markIII would be slightly better but have better IQ under higher ISO setting shot.
Carolyn1250 wrote:
Hello Friends ~
I have finally cashed in some equipment I was not using and soon will be able to buy a pro series body. Is there anyone up there who has upgraded from the II to a III and if so, did you find it worth the upgrade?
Assuming the camera functions as it should, would you suggest just going for the III or grabbing one of these II or IIn "gently used" steals that abound on the Buy/Sell Forum here (and other places)? Is the IQ quality much better on the III? I'm not going to print huge (and professionally only on occasion) ... but if there is any cognizable difference in say a 11X17 print, I'd find that a difference that mattered.
I have the 5D for portrait/landscape work and love it. But I'm getting into wildlife shooting (and will take a trip to shoot shore birds this month), and indoor swim meets; and also I do weekly shooting @ animal control for adoptable pets (where lighting is horrid and the subjects are constantly moving - so I'm usually around 1000 ISO). The 5D is good at what it is good at (and it's been my favorite camera to date), but I've missing quite a few money shots because it just is so slow for the swim meets and animals ...
I am not daunted by the learning or the size. I played with a 1DIII at a seminar and it was tough not to walk away with that beast. It was very fun, but that said, I wasn't outside shooting with it every day.
Anyway, I know I'm going with a 1D series, just wondering if you'd suggest plunking the extra $800-900 on a III.
I was in the same spot as you. I decided to take advantage of the "gently used" steals on this board and try out the 1D Mark II. The way I looked at it was if the camera fails to live up to my needs(which I believe is unlikely), I can always unload it on the board for little to no loss.
On the other hand, if it works out for me, I've saved about $2k that I can use for good lenses.
Yeah, you know, I think I'll get a DII ... not sure the differences between the II and IIn are important enough for the few hundred (Although I wonder, in theory, if having separate writes to JPG/RAW wouldn't be handy? Curious how many use this in the real world; and whether I would ... I tend to shoot RAW unless I know it's all webwork, then JPG - not both too often). That is still an awesome camera for around $2 grand (frankly, the IQ on the 20D I just sold was pretty darn good!). Rarely hear much by way of complaints of it.
Maybe when I'm earning a bit more $$ off of pictures, I can see about upgrading, around the time when the DIV or whatever comes out.
I have both (IIN and III), but have only had the III for a couple of weeks. They are both good cameras. The III is better in many aspects: LCD (better than the IIN, much much better than the II), ergonomics of buttons and menus (e.g. you don't have to hold two buttons pressed while turning a wheel to change the ISO like you do on the II), a few more MP, better IQ and higher ISO performance, much improved low light AF, Micro Adjust, better battery. The price is good on a used II now, the 3 can be had for ~$3725 or less new.
Profit or hobby? I'm going to assume your making enough money selling photos to justify either purchase....
If you are going to be shooting above 1600ISO I would opt for the MKIII, otherwise you could save some $$ and buy a used MKII. Make no mistake about it, the MK III is a real jump over the MKII and MKIIn. The AF on the MKIII is noticeably snappier in low light situations, the screen is better, the battery life is amazing and it's controls are easier. Most importantly at ISO 1600 and above the images from the MKIII are clearly superior over the MK II.
I wouldn't worry about any AF issues reported in the past with new bodies but would be leery about buying a used MKIII. This is also reflected in the market value of used MKIII's right now.
BTW, I have over 250,000 actuation on my MKIII and its still going strong.
Plumb for the MKIIn ~ it's low light AF is a tad better than the MKII [the MKIII's AF is much, much better ~ but unreliable].
You'll need the extra for the swim meets, I only started getting a bit of consistency with the 1DMKIIn for swimming. Low light / low contrast sensitivity below the 1DMKIII is not much better than the 5D [in fact I'll stick my neck out and say the 5D has better low light sensitivity] ~ if your 5D struggles, the 1DMKIIn will too ~ BUT, but, but you'll have more chances and you stack the odds in your favour ~ the 5D just can't take enough pictures in this sort of setting or re-acquire AF fast enough ~
I'd definitely go for the n version: I've had or have the 1D/MKII/MKIIn/MKIII and the MKIIn is only one that has never been to Canon ....
the 1d3 is a great camera. i have shot with the 1d, 1d2 and currently use the 1d3. If you can swing the extra money go with the 1d3. it really is an awesome camera and would work excellent for the needs you described.
i kindly disagree with gbee that the focus of the 1d3 is unreliable.
I have a 1D2N, a 1Ds3 (so I know the 1D3 interface) and previously owned a 1D2.
I would definitely go for the 1D3. The 1D2 series are good cameras but 8 meg just isn't quite enough if you have to crop at all and the new control layout is wildly better on the 3 series.
For that sort of money I would always try and get a warranty too, these things do go wrong.
Believe it or not, the AF issues on the III isn't factoring into my decision. I've heard plenty about the AF issues (now fixed apparently) on the III and just would do my best to not get a lemon if I bought used. New or used, if I did get a dud, I did. I look at it as the technology output is blazing so fast, not every unit will be perfect. I've had extremely good luck with Canon, so hopefully that'd continue.
Wow, now I have more to think about, the III sounds so incredibly tempting ... when I just traded in my remaining "dust collecting" equipment (20D and 10-22mm EF-S - both awesome just not being used anymore), the guy at the store has a known seller with a seemingly very gently used IIn, so I'll see what that will be going for.
PS ~ I'm not a professional and making a wise/thrifty decision is important, but I'm willing to save and trade for a more suitable fit (i.e., I'm not a "money is no object" person, it's a big object, but just a workable one). Some things I do are I guess professional-ish (low paying or whatever), but by trade I'm a lawyer and photography is an expensive hobby "I sometimes make a little money at" (best way to put it - I certainly don't make enough to cover the cost of either camera). Just hoping to get better at the things I like to shoot.
Thanks again for this further input ... it is very helpful.
Carolyn1250 wrote:
but by trade I'm a lawyer and photography is an expensive hobby "I sometimes make a little money at" (best way to put it - I certainly don't make enough to cover the cost of either camera).
Don't say.....another lawyer on this board ?
Anyway, Carolyn, in my parsimonious view, a mildly used 1DMkIIN is probably the most cost effective action/sports camera at the moment.
The Mark III focus is fine in bad light, and not at all bad in good light if you concentrate hard -- what I`d like to find a way around is the heat shimmer from artificial sports surfaces.
If indoor swimming is a significant consideration for you then the decision is stunningly simple -- get the Mark III. The noise on a Mark III at 6400 is better than on a mark II at 3200. Plus, the focus issues that were reported were in high heat and very bright sunlight. Of course, if you decide you want a Mark II, drop me a pm.... I`ve got one up on the buy and sell right now
Man, this is getting tougher by the minute ... on Buy/Sell ~ lowest going rate right now for a nice used IIn is about 1800; and III = 2850 ... so it's about 1000 bucks difference between the two used models (with minor adjustments for individual cameras, sellers, etc.). Clearly, an easier to use camera is a nice thing, and better AF & IQ is awesome ... but I've been with Canon since the 10D on the lower end models and confusing menus are kind of a way of life.
You know, despite all the hoopla on the III AF thing, they approval review rating here is like 9.5:10 (II and IIn are respectible 9.3 or whatever too).
Yeah, another stinkin' lawyer ... I've noticed though, despite all the ripping we take, overall we are a creative bunch (from my personal experience) with surprisingly diverse undergrad degrees (mine is a BFA from the Art Insitute of Chicago). I know a couple fiction/published authors and part-time actors too.
Swimming unfortunately is a big part of this decision. Although kids can always flake out in life and change directions, my niece (who is dear to me) is showing some real promise in that area (not an athletic child, just is very good at that one sport - and loves it); and I'm kind of the unofficial swim photographer. After lots and lots of practice, chlorine soaked air and severe dry/cold to humid/heat, the 5D and human behind the lens really did perform amazingly well (I think I was at 1600 for most of the heats). I'm shooting with the 100-400L, which I've now had much practice with (not an easy lens out of the box really, or so I felt) ... I don't have any primes with enough reach unless they let me down on the floor, which I think they might eventually. It's just so incredibly crowded and well, serious for the older kids, I try to stay up top ...
Now to see how I fall, the parsimonious view or the stunningly simple decision ... really I'm going to see the best price on can get on both/each; and then force my hand to decide.
I bought a near-mint 1D2N the beginning of last month for $1750 locally, and I couldn't be more pleased. The 1D3 was certainly on my list, but I was leery of buying that particular body used, and with the 1D2N being less than 1/2 the price of a new 1D3, I couldn't pass on the deal I found. I'm sure I'll upgrade to the 1D3 eventually, and I do prefer the ergonomics of the 1D3 (I need 2 hands to change just about any setting on the 1D2N), but the performance of the 1-series is so far above any of the xxD's I've had, I'm still thrilled with what I bought and that may take a year or so to wear off. If money's no issue, then by all means get the 1D3, but if you're trying to be thrifty, or worried at all that a 1D might be too much of a change, you can't beat the value/low risk of the 1D2N (or especially the 1D2) right now.
It really doesn't matter too much which model you get. They all produce excellent results. Don't think that if you get a 1DMK2 you are going to be missing out on some huge difference in anything. If money was absolutely no issue then I think we all would get the newest model but that doesn't mean our photos would be any better.
is there really a difference other than 1.9mp (8.2 vs 10.1)
if you learn to use your mps wisely more cropping in camera 8.2 on a 1.3 crop
should be more than enough.
I have shot with the Mark II, IIN, and now Mark III, and shoot primarily sports, though I also end up doing pretty much everything else, as I work for a newspaper and a private school. If you are shooting indoor swimming, or any other indoor sport with lousy lighting, seriously consider the Mark III. A properly exposed image with the Mark III has little or no noise at 3200, and 6400 is usable. IQ is awesome; I've shot events with the IIN and III, and can tell which is which at a glance. The Mark III images are exceptional.
The difference in handling between the II and III is rather like the difference between driving a Cadillac and a Ferrari. The Ferrari is more touchy and takes more concentration to control, but the result is a completely different driving experience.
Between the II and IIN, I would definitelly advise you to take the IIN, particularly if you are shooting jpeg. Despite the short list of changes Canon listed between the two, I saw noticeable improvement shooting in the same gym from the II to IIN, using same lenses and settings. Don't know if it was a tweak in jpeg processing, or something else, as I did very little RAW shooting back then. Once I got the IIN, I never used the II again. It traveled as a backup, and served as a very expensive paperweight.
BTW, the dual slots are also very useful for holding a backup card. I always have an extra card in the second slot; Murphy's Law states that the first one will always fill up just before the crucial play.
Deborah Kolt wrote:
I have shot with the Mark II, IIN, and now Mark III, and shoot primarily sports, though I also end up doing pretty much everything else, as I work for a newspaper and a private school. If you are shooting indoor swimming, or any other indoor sport with lousy lighting, seriously consider the Mark III. A properly exposed image with the Mark III has little or no noise at 3200, and 6400 is usable. IQ is awesome; I've shot events with the IIN and III, and can tell which is which at a glance. The Mark III images are exceptional.
The difference in handling between the II and III is rather like the difference between driving a Cadillac and a Ferrari. The Ferrari is more touchy and takes more concentration to control, but the result is a completely different driving experience.
Between the II and IIN, I would definitelly advise you to take the IIN, particularly if you are shooting jpeg. Despite the short list of changes Canon listed between the two, I saw noticeable improvement shooting in the same gym from the II to IIN, using same lenses and settings. Don't know if it was a tweak in jpeg processing, or something else, as I did very little RAW shooting back then. Once I got the IIN, I never used the II again. It traveled as a backup, and served as a very expensive paperweight.
BTW, the dual slots are also very useful for holding a backup card. I always have an extra card in the second slot; Murphy's Law states that the first one will always fill up just before the crucial play....Show more →
It is my understanding the the in-camera jpeg was indeed tweaked between the II and IIN.
As for dual slots, it is nice that you can set up the Mark III to switch automatically when one fills. The Mark II stops shooting and you have to manually switch,
I too have both a IIN and the III. I agree with the poster who said "if you're shooting above 1600 iso go for the III." The III is a stop better with regard to noise. I shoot night football, and high iso is very important.
If I were not shooting sports under the lights, justifying the cost difference would be harder. In that case, you might consider buying an excellent 1D IIN with only 9800 clicks. It is in excellent condition, I guarantee it. (shameless plug, can't help myself! :-) The price is a little more than the $1750 mentioned above, but few will be in this good condition... see it here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/719966/0#6516398
I have the 1D2N and a 1D3.
I bought the Mark3 only a couple of weeks after buying the used mint 2N.
2N just wasn't cutting it for low light ambient shooting.
If your going to be shooting ambient in low light the choice is clear, Mark3.
My 2N stays in the bag unless strobing or in day light.
Both are great cameras.
Pools are usually caves and it's difficult to place strobes.
Dave
... I've noticed though, despite all the ripping we take, overall we are a creative bunch (from my personal experience) with surprisingly diverse undergrad degrees (mine is a BFA from the Art Insitute of Chicago). I know a couple fiction/published authors and part-time actors too.