Umm you overstate the case dramatically IMO. I only said I want better AF. Why is it if you ask for some improvement in the xxD it's immediately said you want 1 series performance for peanuts.

Also curious where you get the D300 AF being a large gap from the D700. Same system, essentially identical performance, with some saying it's better on the crop because it covers more of the VF. The D3x has improved version, but it's still the same basic AF. Even at $1800 the D300 is still a good buy.

I'm not sure Canon would follow a business model where you think people should buy 5 yo cameras as options. Got a 1D II already, ain't gonna buy another. And you know come 2010, it might be time for an update and not to a 1Ds II!

Okay,

I don't think I underestimate it at all, AF is the single biggest gap in the XXD series to the 1 series, and it's the single biggest advantage to going to a 1 series. Sure you gain weather sealing, better viewfinder, little better IQ/ISO, little more frame rate in the 1dmk3, more custom functions, but the one killer is the AF. Its the one thing that keeps you from getting images of fast action and there's no work around for it.

The D300 has an AF gap to the D700 not as much as the XXD to the 1 series, it has more of a IQ/ISO gap to the D700. The D700 has less ISO/IQ gap to the D3/D3x and again a small AF gap, along with a frame rate gap.

But I'll play, what do YOU want in the XXD AF performance?

What % of the 1 series AF do you think the current 50D is at?

What % of the 1 series AF do you want the 60D to be at, and at what price point?

As for canon's business plan, if you really think that SLR sales have anything to do with their business plan I have some ocean front property in AZ for you cheap. I'd be willing to bet SLR sales are less that 10% of canon's total camera sales and probably less in their profit margin, not to mention digital cameras are far from canon's staple income.

Having shot the MK II for a number of years, I added a MK III to my collection. Never had any problems with the camera ever. The MK II's still do take nice shots but given the choice I'd never go back.

Todd308 wrote:
But getting 90+% of a 1 series camera for $1500-2000 intro retail price.....good luck, keep living the pipe dream. The nikon D300 AF/iso is still a good gap from the D700 or D3/D3x AF and it's $1800 street price, the D700 is closer again but it's $2500 street price, and only 5fps and they all have different ISO performance. Canon may do a similar setup in the lineup but then everyone will just complain that they are too expensive and continue to whine that they can't get a new pro level body for $1500.

From what I understand, the AF capabilities of the D300/D700/D3/D3X are the same.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

Even Rockwell who should be wearing a Nikon cheerleading outfit when he writes his reviews doesn't make that claim.

My knowledge in Nikon is fairly limited. I'd be glad to see comparative results in the AF performance of these models.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

I had a 1D mk2 and currently use a 1Ds mk3 and a 5D. The 5D has much much better image quality than the 1Dmk2 at iso 800 and above. I have seen 50d images and they are superb. I would take a 50d over a 1Dmk2. Of course the 1Dsmk3 is just insanely good even up to iso 3200 and at 5fps it isnt slow like the 5Dmk2. The 1Dmk is kinda like the original 5D, maybe a tad better at high iso. Its a great body. For pro sports outdoors the 1Dmk3 would be my choice (or the 1Dsmk3 if 5fps is enough), next a 50d and next maybe a 1Dmk2.

Well, to finish this out, I bought a used 1Dmk3 in terrific shape from an FMer here and I'm glad I did. I had high expectations for this camera, but this thing blows me away. The AF accuracy is superb and the image quality is amazing. I have a 5D that I thought I'd never part with for landscape and non-sports, but I'm not so sure it isn't going to go on B&S here pretty quick. If anything, I'm going to keep my peepers open for a 1Dsmk3 in about 6 months instead.

This thing is going to be perfect for what I need to do. I'm glad I went the route I did - thanks to all for the advic and help on this. Really helped me make the right decision.

J.

Just shot my "old" Mk II (my brother owns it now) today to use as a second body to shoot a synchronized swimming meet. There are some key differences that jumped out at me after having moved on to the Mk III over a year ago and using the Mk II again.

To be clear these may not be issues to you depending on your shooting style but for me it was significant under my shooting conditions today. Team synchro had between 4 - 12 girls in the pool at once and had to cover each team member during their routine. I had the 135mm F2 on the Mk III and an 85mm 1.8 on the MkII both were set to Large Jpeg at max quality.

1) Buffer capacity - The buffer on the Mk II was a lot smaller than I remembered it and I kept bumping up against a full buffer on several occasions. Very frustrating and had to switch to the MkII while it cleared. The cards were the same brand and capacity so I don't think that contributed to it.

2) Battery life - todays shoot was a full day meet with 40 teams competing. The MkII battery needed to be changed twice averaging around 900 shots per pack. Had to change out once. The MkIII was still going strong with probably 30% more shots than the MkII. This may be more significant in colder weather.

3) Ergonomics - Although the MkII menu selection process is not that bad once you get used to it, the Mark III really does have better menu setup and more intuitive.
As Coppertop pointed out, burying the SD/CF card swap controls deep in the menu was not one of Canon's brightest ideas.

Image quality for me are about the same in both for the print sizes I need. The MkIII had more punch but I had more sharpening dialed in default.

Focus lock maybe a hair slower with some missed shots on the MkII but it could have been the lens and custom menu settings (didn't get a chance to check them out prior) of focus speed, etc. It wasn't really a huge problem.

The LCD screen size increase is nice but not critical to me - i review on a laptop or lcd for the most part and only "chimp" when I'm trying to get a particular shot.

Under the conditions I shot today, Overall, I think I'd still be happy with the 1D MkII with the exception of the buffer size.

If you don't have a heavy shutter fingerand carry extra batteries you will have no problems with the Mk ii/iiN. Synchro for me is a new sport and the Mark III just let me fool around more to experiment with timing shots without clogging the buffer. In the end I would have the same "keeper" rate with either camera.

Regarding ISO performance, I normally shoot martial arts in very dim lighting and noticed a huge difference between the mk II and mkIII. The mark III lets me consistently shoot at 1600 with very clean images and 3200 with useful images. On the mk II I was less happy with performance at 1600 - the images were still useful but not very clean. I don't worry about venue lighting any more with the mk III.

Regards,
Rick

Sneakyracer wrote:
I had a 1D mk2 and currently use a 1Ds mk3 and a 5D. The 5D has much much better image quality than the 1Dmk2 at iso 800 and above. I have seen 50d images and they are superb. I would take a 50d over a 1Dmk2. Of course the 1Dsmk3 is just insanely good even up to iso 3200 and at 5fps it isnt slow like the 5Dmk2. The 1Dmk is kinda like the original 5D, maybe a tad better at high iso. Its a great body. For pro sports outdoors the 1Dmk3 would be my choice (or the 1Dsmk3 if 5fps is enough), next a 50d and next maybe a 1Dmk2.

50D over a 1DMkII/IIN For sports

Crazy. The 50D suffers from the same AF problems that all the xxD bodies have. 6fps to 8.5fps is a 40% increase in frame rate, bigger brighter, near 100% VF. There is no VG for the 50D, at least one that isn't crap. Dual memory card slots, better metering, weather resistance, 200K shutter, etc....

The 50D would be the last choice for sports.

Gene