Tell me I am crazy!
But I am seriously considering dumping my 1 D MKII n and getting a 40D
My reasons are
1.Weight of the 1 D
2.I miss the 1.6 crop factor (coming from an XT)
3. 10 vs 8 megapixels (not a big deal)
4. cost difference is a savings of about $1500- Is there 1500 worth of advantage to lugging around the extra weight and bulk of the 1 D?
5. Some of the work I have seen out of the 40 D is superb as well as the 1 D
For those of you who have used both what are your thots
The one area I am concerned about is the ability of the 40D to focus accurately on moving subjects like BIF
Going from my 30D to a 1D MK II, There is no way i could ever go back to anything other then a 1Series now. They feel sooo much better in your hands, the controls are much better and the AF performance is great. I know the 40D is a great camera but I find the 1D so comfortable. I would keep the 1D
The main reason I would not contemplate that sort of a trade is the AF system.
In addition, the bulk and ruggedness of the 1DMkIIN comes handy when used in conjunction with longer lenses or under adverse environmental conditions.
PaulCal wrote:
Tell me I am crazy!
But I am seriously considering dumping my 1 D MKII n and getting a 40D
My reasons are
1.Weight of the 1 D
2.I miss the 1.6 crop factor (coming from an XT)
3. 10 vs 8 megapixels (not a big deal)
4. cost difference is a savings of about $1500- Is there 1500 worth of advantage to lugging around the extra weight and bulk of the 1 D?
5. Some of the work I have seen out of the 40 D is superb as well as the 1 D
For those of you who have used both what are your thots
The one area I am concerned about is the ability of the 40D to focus accurately on moving subjects like BIF
From what I saw on your website, the 40D may be a good choice...if weight is the major ( only ) reason for getting rid of the 1D Mark IIn. Just keep in mind that adding a battery pack will bring you close to the weight of the pro body.
I didn't see any sports shooting in your samples so the superior AF of the One Series cameras is not an issue.
I would not call it crazy. The 40D is a fine tool for many jobs. In addition to some advantages here is something else to keep in mind:
1. Combined (Mp and crop) "reach" is almost 40% higher.
2. Arguably lower noise.
Add a decent 6.5 fps and very confident AF I can's see how it can be called crazy.
JDSA wrote:
If that is want you want then do it. Why ask us? I would never do it but that's just me. A 40D is a fine camera.
You are obviously tired of responding to such frivolous queries, so then why do you?
The reason I asked is to get input from those who have used the 40D, because I havn't. Have you? If you haven't, then you should not have responded.
As it is you have provided no information at all to me. Only a terse comment.
I have both cameras and I use both for nearly all events.
Admittedly the 1DmkIIn absolutely hammers when it comes to focus speed and shutter speed.
Also the 1.3 crop is and excellent compromise between ff and 1.6
If the weight is an issue for you and you feel that you dont need the robustness of the 1 series, you wont be disappointed in the 40D, it is a fine tool.
Not crazy at all. I owned a 40D for a while and it's AF system is very, very good. I have shot concerts with it side by side with my 1DM3 and 1DsMk3 and the 40D could keep up in all but the very, very darkest moments. So unless you're shooting action in very low light, you'll not notice a hit in AF performance. Also, the files it produces are wonderful. But you could read the many, many positive reviews on the camera to know this also.
I would definitely prefer it over the n for its higher resolution, lighter weight, 3" LCD, 14 bit files, etc., for anything but wedding photography. If the 40D had dual card slots then it would have been the ideal wedding camera too.
i can see you're point but ultimately i'd call it foolish unless you ABSOLUTELY NEEDED live view or the added crop effect. Once you handle the 40D you'll be missing the operation of the 1 and soon looking for a 1DmkIII which is ergonomically almost perfect (whereas the mkII certainly is not).
you might want to at least wait out the 50D at this point.
PaulCal wrote:
Tell me I am crazy!
But I am seriously considering dumping my 1 D MKII n and getting a 40D
My reasons are
1.Weight of the 1 D
2.I miss the 1.6 crop factor (coming from an XT)
3. 10 vs 8 megapixels (not a big deal)
4. cost difference is a savings of about $1500- Is there 1500 worth of advantage to lugging around the extra weight and bulk of the 1 D?
5. Some of the work I have seen out of the 40 D is superb as well as the 1 D
For those of you who have used both what are your thots
The one area I am concerned about is the ability of the 40D to focus accurately on moving subjects like BIF
I sold my 1dII for a 40d and never looked back. IMO the main thing that really sealed the deal for me was the user friendliness of the controls. For me the one thing that really mattered was being able to change the ISO without taking my eye off the viewfinder, as well as not having to hold two buttons down to change setttings. On the 40d you just press one button and do not have to hold it down while changing setttings. I absolutely hated the controls on the 1d2. There's Canon's try at Auto ISO, and although it is non customizable, works fine for most situations.
While the strength of the 1d2 is in the AF speed, the selection of 45 af points is a pain (especially compared to the D300 or D3). The multi controller on the 40d makes it so much easier to select points and half the time I find myself using the center point anyhow. The AF (esp ai servo) is a big leap from the 20d/30d, and though not as fast as the 1dII, it's more than acceptable for most slow moving wildlife and subjects. For fast sports it really depends on the conditions, but I wouldn't expect it to become a crutch for you.
Though it didn't matter much for me, the smaller size (and option of not using the battery grip) is nice. You can go for a more low key approach for candids, or have the freedom of not being held back by a heavy camera during travel. The battery is pretty amazing- I get anywhere from 800-1000 shots on the stock battery, while on my 1d2 I got about 800 or so with the heavy Ni-MH battery (which had a memory effect and made charging a pain). I also hated carrying around the big bulky charger for travel.
Lastly, the LCD screen is impressive compared to any previous Canon DSLR. While not as highly detailed as some of the other offerings on the market, it represents a significant change. If you do a lot of chimping, or even if you don't, it's really nice to have a screen that is sharper and more detailed, with a bit more color accuracy. The color histogram is nice too. The live view is nice if you ever do street photography or low angle photography. Good for hail mary shots too.
In general the 40d features some of the latest technology and even exceeds the 1d3 in some ways (such as autofocus in live view), and definitely exceeds the 1d2 in user friendliness and image quality. The autofocus will not hold you back unless you are shooting professional sports.
As with others, I went from the 30D to the 1DMKIIn and would be hard pressed to go back. While the 40D is an improvement over the 30D, I don't think it's at the level of a 1D Series camera.
While there is a weight difference, it wasn't enough to be a concern to me. I actually like the heavier MKIIn. AF is faster and I've never seen the selection of the 45 AF points to be a pain. Then again, most of the time mine is parked on the center point.
Here's a slight twist on the choice.... if you had to replace the MKIIn would you choose the MKIII or 40D. With the issues surrounding the MKIII's AF, is the 40D a better camera? If I had to replace the MKIIn (and couldn't get another MKIIn) I would be tempted to get the 40D.
I was shooting with both a 40d and a 1d3 but then the 1d3 let me down so much(two different bodies)... ended up using my 40d most of the time anyhow. I've yet to try out a blue dot mk III, just placed an order on one actually...
If I were replacing the 1d2, I honestly would get both the 40 and the 1d3, because in the situations that the 1d3 f'ed up (bright outdoors, where the 40d's AF had no problems), the 40d would clean up its mess. I was also very disappointed that the 1d3's live view did not have AF, unlike the 40d. Though it's not the contrast detect type AF, it's still very useful for street photography, so you can just hold the camera at waist level, and sort of AF and shoot.
coppertop wrote:
Here's a slight twist on the choice.... if you had to replace the MKIIn would you choose the MKIII or 40D. With the issues surrounding the MKIII's AF, is the 40D a better camera? If I had to replace the MKIIn (and couldn't get another MKIIn) I would be tempted to get the 40D.
mkIII without question
The OP can really answer this himself... if COST was not an issue would he purchase a mkIII or a 40D. If he says mkIII then the 40D is always going to be a significant compromise from where he is now
