40D or 1D mk2 ?

M

midsnick

Suspended / Banned
Messages
580
Name
Nick
Edit My Images
Yes
I currently have a 40d purchased new 10 months ago, would i benefit from buying a secondhand 1d mk2 ? the 40d would have to go towards funding the 1dmk2, can't afford both. I currently shoot motorsports and the occasional wildlife and am looking at people/portraits next to improve all round experiences. I ask you the good people of TP for suggestions/experience.;)
 
the 1D II is a pretty old nag these days and I doubt it's going to give the 40D any real stiff challenge in terms of the image quality it can produce. Especially if you need to turn the ISO up much. And, being an old pro camera, will quite likely have a far chunk of miles on the clock.

That said, it's still an astonishingly quick camera to use and feels a complete joy in the hand.

When I need to use small DLSR kit the 5D fills all my current needs as I don't really shoot much sports stuff any more. I cant see me ever selling my mk II as I just like knowing it's there. If all my other Mamiya, Canon and Panny stuff were to die on the same day, I know I could pull out the Mk II and get the job done.
 
I've owned both and in my opinion the 40D delivered slightly better images (not sure if it was down to the newer 14 bit processing) which for me is the most important feature. That said I far preferred the handling of the mkII, it feels great in the hand, has a better AF system and is faster than the 40D. If possible try one for yourself, you might find that the improved AF and speed is enough to compensate for the slight drop in IQ.
 
I'd have thought the cropped sensor of the 40D to be more suited to your motorsport and wildlife shots.
 
I have been thinking about buying a 1D mk2 too but common sense won over my gadget lust so I have decided to invest in glass :D
 
The autofocus on the Mk2 is light years ahead of the 40... for fast action sports the MK2 is a much better option

I use my 40D for slow non action type stuff or slower sports but autofocus needs to be at its best I use my MK2N

a 7d might be a better comparison - but not having used a 7d

I cannot comment, but supposedly the autofocus is much improved over the 40D

my 2p
 
Depends what you want, I went from a 20D (still got) to the 1D MKIIn, significant difference in performance and personally, for motorsport it beats the 40D hands down, image quality is superb, unless you want to print larger than A2, the extra pixels on the 40D just don't give it any edge at all and personally actually start to introduce problems like noise. OK you only have a 1.3x crop sensor compared with a 1.6x, but you do gain advantages, it you do any wideangle or landscape shots, you can still benefit from using lenses like the 24-105mm. As for ISO performance, OK limited up to 1600 in 1/3-stop increments with a H (3200) and L (50), but still getting great images at 1600 and printing large prints no problems. As a sports camera, although old in the tooth, I think that it more than holds its own against the XXD, 7D camera's.

Having never used it for portrait / people can't really comment on its performance here, but I think it would cope very well.
 
Hi pete
I got my 1d MK2N when it was first introduced in 2005 and it has not missed a beat since the day I got it (unlike all my other Canon bodies) 300D 20D 40D which have all had there problems

much as I like the 40D it just does not cope with sports in the same way that the mk2 does... servo as an example is pretty poor on all the non pro bodies I have owned
whereas the mk2 sticks with it and also has custom functions that let you select how long the autofocus servo locks on which is pretty good if for example the autofocus goes off target for a split second - using the custom function overcomes that somewhat

the mk2 is aging now but its the first one out of the bag for me everytime

The 40d I use for night shooting so I can manual focus using live view which is great.
Chris
 
Thanks for all replies, i was specifically talking about a 1D mk2 without the 'n' as this is more in my price range, the 'n' on the end appears to be slightly more expensive, is there any big difference's between the two?
 
OK, firstly, I might be slightly bias as I am have a MK11N (see selling forum), but at the end of the day, I have used the mk11, mk11n and the 40D, so I feel "qualified" to give my input.

I swapped to Canon just before the 1Dmk111, and had a mk11 whilst I was waiting for the mk111 to arrive. It was good, but not brillaint. The mk111 played up from day one and I had allready sold the mk11, I needed a back up straight away and the only thing available at the time was a mk11n.

It performed faultlessly from the day I got it. Many magaizine photographers who stand at the side of me still use the mk11n for their action work after sending their mk111's back to the shop however, this will change with the mk1v.

I got a 40d as a back up when they first came out. It was OK for motorsport, but no where near the acuracy of the mk11n. As a general use camera, the 40D is fine, but I sold mine after about 3 months.

The difference in resolution / crop factor is irrelivant if the picture is out of focus. I would rather have 8m in focus pixels on a 1.3 crop than 10m OOF on a 1.6 crop.

If you want consistantly good motorsport shots, the mk11n is the one you want, not the 40d or the mk11. Many will claim that the screen is the only difference between the mk11 and the mk11n , but the firmware is different for the two models, and in real life situations, I found (as do many others) that the mk11n focus is more acturate and the pictures are sharper.

I hope that helps,
Gary
 
I had a 40d and sold it for a 1DmkII (Non-n version) so i feel the imput from me might be helpful.

Firstly, AF. The 1DmkII wins hands down in my opinion, and with the 45 point AF system, its so much better then the 40D. That said, the 40d isnt bad on this note (I upgrade to the 40d from a 350d)

Secondly, Noise. At High ISO's, the 40d imo handles noise alot better then the 1DmkII, but not by much. In brighter conditions where you need to up the ISO to get a better shutter speed, then its closer still as i find noise improves. In the dark, dim night clubs i used to shoot bands in, the noise was better on the 40d.

Next, Build Quality. The 1DmkII is a tank, its a beast of a camera as is all the 1D series. If that suits you, the go for it, if not then stick with the 40d and get the battery grip, so you can use it when you want to but if you want a lighter camera you can just take it off. Personally, the stable feel and the overall build of the 1DmkII is superier here.

Frame rate. The 1DmkII fires at 1.5fps faster then the 40d. Is that of dire importance for you? The other thing to think about is that the 1DmkII has a smaller buffer then the 1DmkIIn, so if you are a "spray and pray" photographer, you might find that your buffer fills up too quickly, but thats down to you.

Not knowing your kit, and what you do with photography (hobby or for a living) it might be an idea to spend the cash on lenses and not on better bodies. The 40d is a good camera, but a better camera with great lenses :)

Mike
 
The MkIIN is the baby to have out of these two and no mistake.

The 40D has some advantages if you look at the written spec, but the devil in motorsport is AF accuracy/speed/fine tuneability AND shutter lag. The MkIIN urinates on the 40D.

Sure it has some noise issues at higher ISO's but talking as someone who shoots a LOT of motorsport, most times somewhere between ISO 100 and 400 covers it no problems at all, so the MkIIN is perfectly good.

Seriously its a great motorsport tool even today and if you look at the pro-togs out trackside you will see there are still plenty using them....
 
swapped my 40d for a 1dmkII and never ever regretted it.

It's just the diff between an pro and non-pro camera - everything just works better IMHO

and if you use Genuine Fractals the image size is fine - I've just blown up a wedding portrait to 36x24 inch and it looks great.

Just going to update to a mkIV in Jan though!
 
I want a mkIV :'(
Sadly, also need a new car, new TV, more savings...... :lol:
 
No-one can possibly need a telly.

Get the camera. :thumbs:
 
Haha, its not just me who wants the TV, its the wife. We just cant live with a 28", we NEED a 40" ;)

And the price difference between a £600 TV and a £4k camera..... i think the Mrs might notice it! :lol:
 
I have gone from the 50D to a 1DIIN rather than a 40D up but with the 40D and 50D being so similar I'm going to put my tuppence in here as well.

The 1DIIN is a fantastic piece of kit. It's solidly built, autofocuses amazingly quick and feels so right in the hands.

The menu's can take a while to get used to, coming from a 50D, however once you're used to them they are fine.

Negatives from the 50D are probably simply the screen resolution on the back - not a great screen but adequate for checking exposure and framing.

I would suggest going for the 'N' version rather than the MkII. They do cost more however the screen is worth it, personally, as well as the slightly larger buffer, however never filled it myself. You should also look at it from an 'investment' point of view where the 1DIIN will always be worth that bit more in the future over the 1DII.

There are a couple of great looking 'N's in the for sale section - check out Euan's in particular.


DB
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top