From what I understand it's basically the same camera. Differences are a bigger display, a bigger buffer for slightly longer bursts and a couple of firmware features (image styles, RAW and JPEG in parallell to separate cards). Maybe I'm missing something but I think nothing significant. Those differences are really nothing to worry about if you have a 1D Mark II, and just some minor improvement that makes an already great camera slightly better for a new buyer. Autofocus, speed and all other basic characteristics are identical so the handling of the camera as well as the image quality should be exactly the same.
Honestly, if you own a 1D2 save your money. Sure the 1D2N is a bit better, but other than the LCD and ability to automatically change cards there's not much else worth worrying about. For me I'll get a 5D to compliment the 1D2. One will be for sports/action and wildlife and the other for landscape, architecture, macros.
I wish someone would post unprocessed jpegs from both cameras to prove that the outputs are the same. of course, we would have to know the in-camera parameters.
uroman wrote:
I wish someone would post unprocessed jpegs from both cameras to prove that the outputs are the same. of course, we would have to know the in-camera parameters.
Why do that......just listen to all the old mk2 owners that say theres no difference....
Funny thing is none of then have owned both ......as I have......and I guess the canon website is wrong too.....Pfft
Well guess I have to go dig this stuff up again .......not to prove I'm right, but to get you guys the real info. This "he said, she said crap gets old
SeanH, no need for all the rolleyes and other histrionics. I don't mind if there is a difference in JPEGs, please show us the proof. Some believe it's only a matter of different default parameter settings, some believe Canon has changed the image handling in bigger ways. I'd be interested in some hard evidence too, until then your post is also just opinion or speculation and you're just adding to the "he said, she said".
uroman, the reason Canon is "touting it" could simply be the marketing people need to make the "n" model look like a significant upgrade...
Dubyas_Dad wrote:
Sorry to be lagging behind in technical specs guys, but I can't seem to figure this out.
I take very few jpgs, so I'm mostly interested in the comparison between raw images. Are the RAW images in both cameras the same?
I'm quite confident that the RAW images should be identical between the 1DII and the 1DII N. I'm also reasonably confident that the jpegs, if you set the parameters the same, will also be the same.
If you've been around internet boards for a while, you know that, when a new body comes out, reading the internet boards is dangerous in terms of getting any kind of accurate information about the new bodies. With every new body that Canon has come out with since I've been reading the forums, there is a level of euphoria that causes early adopters to see what they want to see and to come up with claims that just don't turn out to be true. When the 20D came out a year ago, people were claiming that its AF was as good as a 1DII. While the 20D has a very capable AF system and one that is a significant improvement over the 10D, it isn't close to that of a 1-series. People were claiming that the 20D was 2 stops better in terms of dynamic range and high ISO performance, and that the dynamic range and high ISO performance were better than that of the 1DII. In fact, the 20D is a shade behind the 1DII in both dynamic range and high ISO performance (I do have both).
When the 1DII came out, people were were making similar claims about its dynamic range. While it was better than previous cameras, it was no where near at the level that early adopters claimed.
As both the 5D and 1DII N have gotten into people's hands, you can see similar euphoric claims. Also, when people do post their evaluations (accompanied by pictures of their cats and cereal boxes ), what happens is that those posts become "love fests" of the early adopters and people who try to bring reason to the discussion hesitate to do so because they know that they will be crucified for their attempts to do so. (With regard to pictures that have been posted from both the 1DII N and the 5D, some have been outstanding. Others have been, quite frankly, not very good, but no one would dare point that out.)
I'm sure that both the 5D and the 1DII N will be fine cameras and both will have some very nice strengths, I think that reason calls for being careful about believing everything that is said. As a side note, I'm sure that Canon loves the early posts about new bodies on the internet boards. Not only do they do a better job of marketing than Canon could ever do, but they can include false claims that, if made by Canon, would incur legal liability.
Les
Steve,
Thanks for the links, I had read all but one of them.
Les,
You type faster than I do, as I was composing my thoughts below when your post came in.
I suppose everything is a compromise as it appears the 2n is sharper, but it also appears to blow out those silver threads to me. I am wondering if the raw images are basically the same, and the converter is doing something different to them. I suppose there is no real way to know this without Canon saying specifically. But I do not see a claim on the Canon sight that says "New and improved jpgs and raw images". Please point that out to me if you find it.
Okay, if you're (read that as me) a 20D owner, but you would like to upgrade to the faster AF of a 1 series, do you buy a nice used Mark 2, or spend an extra $1K on the 2n?
Les has a very well taken point. I take all the info from the post and then take my dslr out into the field and see for myself if the post/conclusions are valid. I may not get the exact results that a member did but I can then evaluate the camera, and myself, to see if I agree/disagree with the impressions. That way I can make my own informative decision. Information is free and can be very valuable.
dan
Dubyas_Dad wrote:
Steve,
Thanks for the links, I had read all but one of them.
Les,
You type faster than I do, as I was composing my thoughts below when your post came in.
I suppose everything is a compromise as it appears the 2n is sharper, but it also appears to blow out those silver threads to me. I am wondering if the raw images are basically the same, and the converter is doing something different to them. I suppose there is no real way to know this without Canon saying specifically. But I do not see a claim on the Canon sight that says "New and improved jpgs and raw images". Please point that out to me if you find it.
Okay, if you're (read that as me) a 20D owner, but you would like to upgrade to the faster AF of a 1 series, do you buy a nice used Mark 2, or spend an extra $1K on the 2n?
I gotta figure this out before Christmas........Show more →
Mark,
I'm sure that Canon's marketing tries to stay on a very fine line. Obviously, they want to sell cameras, and they want to give the impression that the new
model is a vast improvement over previous models. So, I doubt whether they are going to say, "even though we've included the picture styles, you can still get the exact same jpegs out of your 1DII if you just set the parameters to match those of the picture styles".
With regard to what to buy, if I were starting out looking for a 1DII or 1DII N, if the price of the N was, say within $200 or $300 of what I would pay for a 1DII, I think I'd be inclined to go with the N. However, if I could find some retailer who was trying to clear out the remaining inventories of 1DII's and selling them for anywhere close the $3000, I'd definitely go with the 1DII. A year from now, the resale values of both of these bodies will be with a couple hundred dollars of each other. And, a year from now, when Canon is getting ready for a 1DIII or a unified 1-series, new 1DII N's will be selling for a little over $3000. That said, I'm guessing that you won't find too many bargain basement priced 1DII's because Canon does a pretty good job of keeping its inventories of a body that will be replaced to a minimum as it brings out the replacement body.
Les
that comparison at NSN does make a strong case for a difference in JPEGs. It may be a case of a good IIN and a bad II. We'd need people with both to test thiers and see how they compare.
Cicindela wrote:
Agree, that's why I found the early tests by E.J. Peiker on Naturescapes so interesting. These were linked in the the beginning of this thread.
I don't quite understand what is shown by these tests, why not compare properly exposed images instead of underexposed/recovered ones? It's good practice to involve as few variables as possible in a test.
FretNoMore wrote:
I don't quite understand what is shown by these tests, why not compare properly exposed images instead of underexposed/recovered ones? It's good practice to involve as few variables as possible in a test.
At this point we have n=1. We certainly need more tests like this and just plain photos taken to compare side by side.
I am the one that conducted the tests and they were very tightly controlled. All shots were taken in RAW and converted with DPP with all software processing (sharpening, saturation, contrast, curves, styles, etc) turned off. All were taken with a Canon EF180mm Macro lens at 1.3M and at f/5.6. There is a marked difference between the out of camera sharpness and detail rendering between the two samples in use (note that there is most likely quite a bit of camera sample variation and if you get two different cameras, the results might be different). The white swatches were properly exposed. If you read the commentary as to why the dark swatches were underexposed you would know that it was simply a way to test how much detail can be dug out of shadows - something that is important to me in my photography. Also, I did the comparison using another RAW converter that is not on the market yet that had similar results from a sharpness perspective.
Finally, the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark IIn are not the same caera from a picture file standpoint. The RAW format is quite different as is the internal processing of those files. In this case, its not a simple changing of the camera identifier in the software code. The RAW conversion algorithms actually ahve to be rewritten between the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark IIn.
......as I have......and I guess the canon website is wrong too.....Pfft
.......not to prove I'm right, but to get you guys the real info. This "he said, she said crap gets old 
), what happens is that those posts become "love fests" of the early adopters and people who try to bring reason to the discussion hesitate to do so because they know that they will be crucified for their attempts to do so. (With regard to pictures that have been posted from both the 1DII N and the 5D, some have been outstanding. Others have been, quite frankly, not very good, but no one would dare point that out.)