Used Mark2N or 40D?

j-bo

I've only been shooting for about a year and a half... my main thing has been motocross and currently I only have a digirebXT with 70-200 2.8L and kit lens.

Since I'll have a few dollars back from Uncle Sam and my direction of focus has somewhat changed, I'd like some opinions on choosing a used mark 2N vs. a new 40D.

I'm wanting to do more portraiture work but still want to shoot motocross and other sports.

Is the 40D with the new focusing system as good or better than what the 2N would be?

Is the 2N a super portrait body to have?

If the 40D would have superior IQ over the 2N, I could either just keep using the xt for sports work.

I'm totally rambling here.

How bout.. pro's/con's.

ziggy53

I recently got the Canon 40D and, comparing it to my Canon 1D MKII, the autofocus is very nice, quick and accurate.

I don't believe that it is the equal to the 1D MKII, but the best I have seen from the Canon xxD cameras.

The autofocus system used in the 1D series is quite remarkable and matched only by the Nikon D2/D3 series cameras (possibly the D300). Rather than the 1 dimensional autofocus of the consumer and prosumer (semi-pro) cameras, the 1D series use a 2 dimensional (Area SIR) sensor and dedicated autofocus processor. I believe this really does equate to an amazingly consistent autofocus performance, explaining (some of) the greater cost of the camera.

I was impressed with my ability to track some Seagulls using the 40D, so it's pretty good, but I would still give the nod to the 1D MKII/MKIIN/MKIII for best performance in the Canon world.

Either camera can be used for making portraits and I am impressed with tonality from the 40D even with JPGs in reasonably high ISO. The MKIIN would require a bit more post-processing to achieve the same smoothness, but ultimately they would both produce very similar images. Larger imagers will potentially allow somewhat better bokeh and better DOF control as a result. Lens selection becomes more critical than camera selection between these two cameras, IMO.

j-bo

Okay Ziggy... now I'm more confused on which one.

I recently got the Canon 40D and, comparing it to my Canon 1D MKII, the autofocus is very nice, quick and accurate.

I don't believe that it is the equal to the 1D MKII, but the best I have seen from the Canon xxD cameras.

I have come to learn how my XT focus's and get a lot of keepers without shooting 2-3 bursts, one shot is all I've been taking. I probably avg. about 90% keepers.

Bumping up with a new body, I'd expect the 40D to be quite better than the XT with the focusing and "almost" as fast as the 2n... and throw costs into the equation, should move me to the 40D?

It seems the nod should go to the 40D for what I would like to do, as my dreams of shooting professionally for MX is just that, a dream.

Cost is nicer for the 40D, plus, as much as I've read on it, the dust cleaning actually is pretty good too.

ziggy53

It's not just speed, it's speed and accuracy. The 1D MKIIN will yield more keepers overall, regardless of whether you use a burst mode or not.

I do think of the 40D as a "mini-1D", but I won't be getting rid of the 1D MKII anytime soon. Any paying jobs will use the 1D MKII as principal and possibly the 40D as an alternate/backup camera.

You could always try the 40D and see if it meets your needs. I'm sure it will be a major upgrade from the XT/350D. (I still shoot the XT as well for personal stuff.)

j-bo

Thanks a bunch.. now I just have to see if the fast and accurate focusing is worth the $1400+ over a new 40D. I appreciate your help.

claudermilk

That's kind of what it boils down to. Once you've experience a 1D-series AF it's hard to go back. I know this question is already answered for me, just waiting on funds: that being the 1D Mk II(N) without question. I doubt the AF will be as critical to you as it is for me, so the difference in the older APS-H 8MP sensor vs the newer APS-C 10MP sensor takes on more weight (me, I'm on an older 8MP APS-C, so it's pretty much moot).