I've been pretty busy the last few days and unfortunately haven't been able to post much.
I'm hoping someone can help me decide whether or not trading in (plus some money) my 40D for a 1D Mark II is a good idea. Basically, all I want from the 1D is the ability to autofocus my 500mm 4.5 with a 1.4x extender. The 40D does a pretty poor job of it as it is. I'd love to have a consistent 700mm....
Advice on this one, particularly from those of you who have used the 1D Mark II, would be so greatly appreciated. I landed a sweet job for the summer where I'll get to be out with birds and my camera all summer long so I want all the reach I can muster
Josh
--------
1. Cape Francolin
2. African Black Oyster Catcher (Captive and in fluorescent lights... At the Two Oceans Aquarium in Cape Town)
3. Stonechat (I'll need to look up the species again...)
4. Stonechat again
You might consider making the jump to the MarkIII. Used copies are down to a decent price now, and give you a lot of bang for the buck.
As far as the pics, I really like the oysercatcher. What beautiful yellow coloration.
Good luck in your decision. It would be really nice if we all had unlimited budgets for our gear.
Cheers,
Ed
I would like to go up to the Mark III rather than putting around with 4 year old used cameras... However, the photography funds aren't too high at the moment. If I were going to splurge for the MK III I might as well just sell my 500mm f/4.5 and get the 500mm f/4 IS which will AF on my 40D... oh compromises compromises...
Hey Josh, I do like 1, the light is a bit harsh but the bird is pretty cool. 2 is well done, looking great.
Your gear. Well hmm. Buy, buy, buy. You do pose an interesting question. It does seem now that you have been bit by the 500 bug you want to stay with it. I do like your second idea the best, sell the 4.5 and get the f4 IS. My reason? The lens will last forever, bodies don't or better put become obsolete. For a smaller initial outlay get the better lens and when funds present themselves later upgrade the body. Not to fuel any fires but when the MK lV comes out the mklll will be even cheaper
Tim Kuhn wrote:
Hey Josh, I do like 1, the light is a bit harsh but the bird is pretty cool. 2 is well done, looking great.
Your gear. Well hmm. Buy, buy, buy. You do pose an interesting question. It does seem now that you have been bit by the 500 bug you want to stay with it. I do like your second idea the best, sell the 4.5 and get the f4 IS. My reason? The lens will last forever, bodies don't or better put become obsolete. For a smaller initial outlay get the better lens and when funds present themselves later upgrade the body. Not to fuel any fires but when the MK lV comes out the mklll will be even cheaper
Buy buy buy...! Thanks Tim, actually, that's a good point about the ability of lenses vs. bodies to carry their value.
Even my 40D has dropped pretty badly in value recently.
Perhaps I will just save up for the IS... I know it is a wicked lens and one that I'd love to have in my bag.
I might even start using the XTi over the 40D to get 700mm as the AF on that body is much better than the 40D.
I suppose that another question about moving to a 1D in order to get more reach is that I loose the 1.6x crop factor and sweet pixel density of the 40D....
Hi Josh - love the female stonechat. The oystercatcher portrait is cool but the fluorescent light has affected the colour - the bill. eye ring and legs are all bright red. Hope you get the camera answers.
Peter
Oosty wrote:
Hi Josh - love the female stonechat. The oystercatcher portrait is cool but the fluorescent light has affected the colour - the bill. eye ring and legs are all bright red. Hope you get the camera answers.
Peter
The fluorescent light actually isn't responsible for the yellow appearance here - I don't think.
I was fortunate enough to see and photograph some wild individuals and they were definitely nice deep red - the eye rings, bill and legs.
These ones might have a strange diet - or perhaps the deepness of the red has something to do with breeding seasonality. I'm not sure...
These ones looked very strange to me because of the colouring.
Alex Paul wrote:
Josh: I have both, and though I like what the 40D does when it does it well, I find myself usually going to the 1DMkII or IIN. I have been pissed more than a couple of times when I decided to take the 40D, instead of the 1D, and missed a great opportunity due to it's inability to quickly aquire focus.. I think my main issue with the 40D is it requires higher contrast to hit focus, where the MkII's and even the 20D does it with ease, The other issue is inflight focus performance... The 1D is consitent where the 40D can be hit or miss... My other issue with my 40D is that the light metering isn't nearly as accurate as my 20D or 1D bodies, (requires a minimum of 2/3 stop EC changes over or under where the 1D's and 20D does it with no change to EC, shooting in AV mode, in fairly even light situations) and so the keeper rate suffers for it.. At least that is true with mine... The MkII's will always be a good performer no matter what the new flavor of the year happens to be. I shoot a 500 f4 with 1.4xTC hand held, and the 1D wins for more consistent results, at least for me. That is my take.. Like I say I love the 40D images when it hits, but the older 1d's aren't shabby by any measure, and they certainly will take a good beating in the field
Take care.. ...Show more →
Thanks for your insight onto this topic. I'm not sure if it is what I wanted to hear or not. . .
It gives me something to think about at least.
Does the IIn give me much more that the II doesn't have? At least in practical nature photography sense?
Nice shots, my favourite would be the stonechat on the wires. Great colours.
Now while the 1D body will focus with your 500 + 1.4tc much better than the 40D you will actually loose quite a bit of reach:
40D + 500 + 1.4 Tele = equivalent of 1120mm lens of FF
1DII + 500 + 1.4 Tele = 910 mm on FF
Add to that that the 1DII has lower resolution than 40D and I'm pretty sure you'll miss the reach.
jahoo wrote:
Nice shots, my favourite would be the stonechat on the wires. Great colours.
Now while the 1D body will focus with your 500 + 1.4tc much better than the 40D you will actually loose quite a bit of reach:
40D + 500 + 1.4 Tele = equivalent of 1120mm lens of FF
1DII + 500 + 1.4 Tele = 910 mm on FF
Add to that that the 1DII has lower resolution than 40D and I'm pretty sure you'll miss the reach.
(I think you need to start saving for 500f4is
Thanks!
Yeah I've thought about the loss of reach due to the crop factors - especially since the 40D has more pixels (density I suppose is what matters).
However, I can't use the 1.4x TC with the 40D.
So, it is more like...
40D + 500 = 800mm
MK II + 1.4x + 500 = 910mm
So, by that calculation the MK II wins. Of course, AF speed is important, and maybe IQ degradation by using the TC...
You do pose an interesting question. It does seem now that you have been bit by the 500 bug you want to stay with it. I do like your second idea the best, sell the 4.5 and get the f4 IS. My reason? The lens will last forever, bodies don't or better put become obsolete. For a smaller initial outlay get the better lens and when funds present themselves later upgrade the body. Not to fuel any fires but when the MK lV comes out the mklll will be even cheaper 
