Canon 1D Mark II vs Mark II N questions

PixNW

I was about ready to order a new 50D from B&H this morning and wait to see if the focus issues with the Mark III get resolved, or a new model comes out. I just can't get past wanting a 1D though, primarily for my sports shooting, but to use for everything.

I've found a lot of 1D Mark II's for sale, and quite a few Mark II N's. There is a pretty good difference in price. I've read some comparisons and it seems that the main differences between the two are the larger, brighter LCD on the N, and improved picture style image paramaters. I understand that a better LCD is a pretty big deal. What about the picture sytle image paramaters? Is there anything else that I should know about or consider?

There seem to be nice used Mark II's for around $1,200 or so, and N's are mostly around $2,000. B&H lists quite a few used Mark II's for around $2,200. For that price I'm assuming they may be N's, but the listings don't say so, so I've sent them an email inquiring.

For quite a bit of sports shooting, and for all around general use in addition to that, with quite a bit of landscape shooting, which do you think would serve me the best?

ziggy53

The MKIIN has a larger shot buffer, and also has more choices for how to store images on the 2 memory cards.

It also seems like the MKIIN has been tweaked as far as AI Servo sensitivity. Specifically, it would appear that servo sensitivity has been reduced somewhat in default settings to something similar to the MKII in manually reduced sensitivity. (This has the effect of not distracting the AI Servo AF so quickly when an object passes between the camera and subject, for example.)

I would question a $1200 price for a MKII. Most good condition 1D MKII cameras are selling in the $1600 - $2000USD range.

If the better LCD and larger buffer of the 1D MKIIN are important to you then go with the IIN. The MKIIN was also introduced some 17 months after the MKII and so most bodies will be more recent manufacture.

Many people still regard the Canon 1D MKII/MKIIN as the most accurate digital Canon AF ever produced, with the 1Ds MKIII and 1D MKIII coming next.

PixNW

Thanks Ziggy. I'm still mulling it all over, but you provided some information that I wasn't aware of, like the better buffering of the N's.

I may end up ordering a 50D from B&H, and then see if a new 1D comes out before next football season, or they get a final fix for the AF issues with the Mark III.

kini62

PixNW wrote:

Thanks Ziggy. I'm still mulling it all over, but you provided some information that I wasn't aware of, like the better buffering of the N's.

I may end up ordering a 50D from B&H, and then see if a new 1D comes out before next football season, or they get a final fix for the AF issues with the Mark III.

There's a low usage MkIIN on FM currently for $1895. Appears to be reputable seller.

Gene

PixNW

Thanks Gene, I must have missed that one.

Image wise, for non-sports shots, how are the images from the Mk II N going to compare to something like a 40D/50D for colors, contrast, etc? I am assuming that the IIN probably has a superior sensor to even the newer XXD series of cameras, and the MP's are relatively close, at least for the 40D.

PixNW

Ziggy, you were right about prices. Decent examples of the IIN's seem to be around $2,000, and there are low click III's that are outside of the affected serial numbers for the initial mirror problems (they call some blue dot?), for around $3,000. I'm still thinking about a III, and would feel better about one that was made after the ones with the mirror problems, and wasn't opened up. There are some III's at FM for sale for around $3,200 with some extras, and factory warranty remaining. Galbraith's site says that the III produces better images than anything they've ever tested. I'm still just a bit hung up on the focus issues, but may be willing to take a chance. It sounds like it's primarily if the moving subject is backlit.

I haven't agonized over a decision like this in a long time.