Canon 30D vs. 1d Mark II vs. 1d Mark III

collegephotoguy

I'm trying to decide which one of these cameras to purchase. I want to take pictures of everything, including fast-paced sports, and I want excellent quality in case I decide to sell some of the pictures. Price really isn't a huge factor, but I don't want to spend money on extra features I would never use. Please help me out! Thanks.

Moogle Pepper

Well if you are going to focus on high speed sports the 1D mk II or the mk III is up your alley. The MK II, is slightly more affordable compared to the mk III so you would be able to get better glass along with the mk II.

The 30D is a great camera and can do sports as well, fyi.

jrmyrnsm

Well I had a 30D and as much as I loved it, if I were going to be thinking about doing serious sports coverage the 1D would have far superior autofocus(9 points vs. 45 points), frame rate(5fps vs. 8/10fps), build quality, weather sealing, buffer, etc. that would all be really clutch for doing sports. Others will have to chime in for real world difference between the two 1D bodies but I would definitely be looking at them over the xxD cameras for serious sports. Good luck and I'm already jealous of your 1D!

tjstrider

I get great stuff with my 30D but that is because I have good Glass! but I would get more great stuff with a 1D body

If money isn't an issue then I think you know the answer as all three of these are aimed at sports people... the more expensive of these the better it is

30D<1D2<1D3

Tee Why

If money isn't a factor, I'd recommend the Nikon D3.
I think it's image quality may be better than all those Canon's you are looking at.

collegephotoguy

Thanks for you replies! So I'm thinking of going with the 1D Mark II at this point with a 70-200 f/2.8L lens, which many people I've spoken with recommended and even called crucial. I've been told the IS really isn't worth it. Any opinions on that? Also, is there a wide angle lens I should look into like the 17-40 f/4L or the 16-35 f/2.8L? Or, could I buy a cheaper wide angle lens and still get a great picture for a lesser price? I've obviously shot before but never with this kind of equipment. I just really need to upgrade my equipment to get the pictures I want. Thanks again for all your help.

collegephotoguy

Tee Why wrote:

If money isn't a factor, I'd recommend the Nikon D3.
I think it's image quality may be better than all those Canon's you are looking at.

well yes money really isn't a factor, but I don't want to spend unnecessary money on features I won't even use. what makes the nikon better than the canon mark ii or iii out of curiosity in your opinion because I never even thought of going with Nikon before?

Robinivich

collegephotoguy wrote:

Thanks for you replies! So I'm thinking of going with the 1D Mark II at this point with a 70-200 f/2.8L lens, which many people I've spoken with recommended and even called crucial. I've been told the IS really isn't worth it. Any opinions on that? Also, is there a wide angle lens I should look into like the 17-40 f/4L or the 16-35 f/2.8L? Or, could I buy a cheaper wide angle lens and still get a great picture for a lesser price? I've obviously shot before but never with this kind of equipment. I just really need to upgrade my equipment to get the pictures I want. Thanks again for all your help.

What kind of gear did you use before? It sounds like you've been getting good advice, 1D (of whatever mark) and a 70-200 2.8 are THE basic pro sports kit. Add a 16-35L II, probably a 24-70L, and a 580EX II flash and you've got THE photojournalist kit as well.

As for the Canon v Nikon question, there are other threads all across the internet, here's the 5 minute summary, full of sweeping generalizations :

The Nikon D3 came out with some powerful capabilities as nikon's way of one-upping canon, and will be one-upped in turn, etc and so forth. I wouldn't look as hard at camera bodies (for deciding between brands) for this reason. Look at the systems as a whole. Canon for a long time had superior autofocus, and between this and the brand loyalty that $10000+ of gear gets you, means that a majority, even a vast majority of pro sports shooters shoot Canon. Nikon recently revamped all of their 'big guns" (ie long fast expensive telephotos suited for sports and wildlife) with better autofocus and stabilization.

Between these and the D3 I'd say that the technology is pretty much evenly matched maybe a hint towards nikon at the moment, and based on specs you could go either way. There are some other considerations, depending on how pro you're going, like pro support programs, and the size of the used equipment pool, where canon still leads, but I don't have a lot of first hand experience with this sort of thing, so I can only report what I've heard.

Bottom line? I can go to any sub-forum on dgrin, and see fantastic pictures, almost always without being able to guess which company's gear it was taken with. The usual guidance I give people is go to a store, try it out in hand, and see which one clicks for you. Canon feels like driving on the right hand side of the road for me, and Nikon like driving on the left (that means Nikon feels goofy)