I am considering saving up to buy a 1D-series body (new preferred, of course, but lightly used is an option). Which one would you recommend for me? There are just too many of them and I am confused, from 1D, 1DsII, 1D2, 1D2N, etc. etc.
Currently I shoot with a 40D and love it. I want a 1D-series because of the extra focusing points (main reason) so that focus lock can be faster in low light. If only the 5DmkII had extra focus points, then it would be no brainer.
I am not looking for higher megapixel count, my 40D is more than sufficient there.
Full-frame would be nice, but money is a bigger issue.
I have too much invested in Canon to switch to Nikon.
Go with the 1DIIn, or wait for the upgrade to the MkIII. I just sold a IIn, and now regret it a bit. The build of the 1-series bodies is like no other. You will need to do everything with two hands, like change ISO, even review (chimp).
You will not regret your choice either way.
If you really want full frame, used 5D's are going for about $1500.
Well if you only want "lightly used" that puts the 1D, 1D Mk II, and 1Ds out of the question, the 1Ds Mk II and 1D Mk IIn can be found at around a year old, and would be much better value than the Mk IIIs.
Although, from the way I understand it, and certainly in my experience, the 40D is fantastic at getting a focus lock in low light, it can certainly "see" in less light than I can through the viewfinder! And consensus seems to be that the 40D will focus quicker in less light than the 1D Mk IIn, which I'm afraid means that, if you want quicker low light focus, you're going to have to get one of the current 1D series....and if money is the bigger issue you're in trouble there too.
I would suggest a good condition lightly used 1D2N, it really is a superb body. Yes, you will pay slightly extra over a 1D2 but in my opinion the bigger buffer and LCD screen are well worth it. Low light performance is very good but I suppose it comes down to your definition of how little light consistitutes low light. I have shot rugby at night under floodlights without a problem, though in very low light where the 1D2N starts to hunt a bit, the 1D3 really is in its element and locks on much better. If cost is an issue and your budget won't stretch to a 1D3, then you really can't do better than a 1D2N.
The 1D Mk IIn's focus is vastly superior to the 40D one, more points, more accurate, quicker tracking, in 95% of situations, but if your sole requirement is quicker focussing in low light, I believe this is the one area where the 40D is quicker (but not necessarily more accurate!)
The 1D MK III is the current king of cameras for most things, best high ISO performance, most FPS, best low light focussing, unless you need 21 megapixels, it seems like the default choice to me over the 1Ds MK III
Some basic specs :
1D MK IIn
8.2 MP
8.5 FPS
45 selectable AF points
ISO 100-1600 (L50 H3200)
1.3x crop
1D MK III
10.1 MP
10 FPS
19 selectable AF point
ISO 100-3200 (L50 H6400)
1.3x crop
1Ds MK III
21 MP
5 FPS
19 selectable AF points
ISO 100-1600 (L50 H3200)
Full frame (no crop factor)
jchin wrote:
[...]
So if the 1Dmk2n focuses slower than the 40D ... which of the current 1D-series should I look for (say to buy in a year from now)?
[...]
Who said that? My own experience is that, certainly for sport and motorsport, the AF performance of the 1D2N is much better than the 40D.
Models with a 's' in the designation are full frame. 1D3 is 10MP, 1.25x crop, at 10fps. 1Ds3 is 21MP, full frame, 5fps.
By "faster focus lock in low light", I mean faster than my 20D and as good as my 40D would be fine. I want to have the extra focus points, particularly for moving objects (like kids running) where the 40D cannot lock on fast enough. I was told the extra focus points are a must have for that purpose alone.
Again ... I am looking to save up for this ... so there is time for the 1D3 to come down in price, I guess.
Thanks Chris. I think I want a 1D3. 10mpix is more than enough. I cannot see me shoot (or manage, for that matter) 21mpix files without replacing my computer equipment.
Alistair Watson wrote:
Who said that? My own experience is that, certainly for sport and motorsport, the AF performance of the 1D2N is much better than the 40D.
Alistair, it's a misunderstanding of my quote, for sport and motorsport nothing will touch a 1D, I doubt anyone would argue that. What I said was that, given the OP requirement for "quicker focussing than 40D IN LOW LIGHT" (my emphasis) that the 1D MK IIn probably isn't the right camera.
jchin wrote:
Thanks Chris. I think I want a 1D3. 10mpix is more than enough. I cannot see me shoot (or manage, for that matter) 21mpix files without replacing my computer equipment.
Exact reason I'm one of the "whiners who should go back to DPR" who won't be buying a 5DII
The extra focus points are very useful so that on a static subject you don't need to focus and recompose and for a moving object you can select the exact focus point you want.
The focussing system of a 1D series is better, but it isn't really the number of focus points that make it better, but the increased focus points do give you more options, if that makes sense.
Low light focussing performance is as much about the camera as it is about the lens.
The 1D/1Ds MK III still has 45 points, but you can only select 19 of them, the other 26 are used when you're using AI servo to track something, so if your focus point goes off the subject, it will probably still be on one of the "invisible" points so the camera can continue to track it, whereas on the 40D if it leaves the point you've selected, you've lost it until you get the subject back dead on the focus point.
Make sense ?
n.b. the reason for swapping from 45 selectable to 19 selectable is that now only the cross-type points are selectable.
jchin wrote:
By "faster focus lock in low light", I mean faster than my 20D and as good as my 40D would be fine. I want to have the extra focus points, particularly for moving objects (like kids running) where the 40D cannot lock on fast enough. I was told the extra focus points are a must have for that purpose alone.
Again ... I am looking to save up for this ... so there is time for the 1D3 to come down in price, I guess.
I have a 20D and a 1D Mark II. The 1D Mark II is certainly faster than the 20D in focusing on moving objects. I have not lost any images due to 1D Mark II auto-focus, while I lost a fair number using the 20D in AI Servo mode. I bought the 1D Mark II earlier in the year (demo model with 618 actuations), and used prices have come down from the $1800 I paid.
