Canon 40d Vs. Canon 1d Mark Ii.........please Help

The Wild Eye

Hello all!!

I'm looking for every ones opinion on this one!!

I'm debating on what camera I should buy.........First I should tell you I'm a landscape and WILDLIFE photographer currently shooting a 20D.

I'm getting ready to update and I don't know if I should buy a new canon 40D or buy a used canon 1d mark II off Ebay.

Advice on either camera would really be appreciated!!



Thanks

gluwater

What are your reasons for upgrading?

The Wild Eye

Speed

gluwater wrote:

What are your reasons for upgrading?

Speed for wildlife....

image quality and ease of use.

I want to take better photos and I want the camera that will best help me do that.

gluwater

Unless you really need the faster AF of the 1DMrkII I would go with the 40D. It has much improved AF over the 20D along with the Digic III processor. If you do decide to get the 1DmrkII I would get the 1DmrkIIn. But a point that most people don't think about is the 1.6x crop factor of the APS-C sensor (40D) gives you more reach that can really help for wildlife but can be a hinderence for landscapes.

Tee Why

Having had the 1DMIIN and currently having the 30D and having tried out the 40D, I'd probably go for the 1DII.

It's AF is still better than 40D IMO, and if you are in the wild, the better weather sealing of the 1D is nice. Also, I think the RAW noise level is lower on the 1DMII (it has the same pixel pitch as the 5D).
Only down sides are that it's less ergonomically designed where you have to press two buttons to change setting vs one , the greater weight, heavier button springs which can tire your thumb after a full day of shooting with Custom fn 4-1, and slightly less reach compared to a 1.6x crop.

claudermilk

The Wild Eye wrote:

I want to take better photos and I want the camera that will best help me do that.

What camera do you have now? How is it limiting you? Just buying a fancier body is not going to automatically make you a better photographer, it will just make you a photographer with a fancier camera. Food for thought.

ziggy53

Tee Why wrote:

Having had the 1DMIIN and currently having the 30D and having tried out the 40D, I'd probably go for the 1DII.

It's AF is still better than 40D IMO, and if you are in the wild, the better weather sealing of the 1D is nice. Also, I think the RAW noise level is lower on the 1DMII (it has the same pixel pitch as the 5D).
Only down sides are that it's less ergonomically designed where you have to press two buttons to change setting vs one , the greater weight, heavier button springs which can tire your thumb after a full day of shooting with Custom fn 4-1, and slightly less reach compared to a 1.6x crop.

I have both the Canon 40D and 1D MKII. The 1D MKII is more responsive and faster to autofocus. The difference is not staggering, but it's there.

RAW images are more similar than different, but JPGs are better "out-of-the-camera" on the 40D with high-ISO NR turned on. The 1D MKII needs more software NR to be similar.

The 40D has slightly more dynamic range at ISO 3200, which I find astonishing, but I see more color depth.

The 40D has a bit more crop magnification, which you use like a tele-converter. Unlike a tele-converter, the camera has already been ISO compensated.

All things considered, the 1D MKII is still a step up from the 40D for most wildlife in the ways that matter most, but the 40D really is like a "mini-1D".

You haven't mentioned what lenses you use, which make more difference than the camera.

The Wild Eye

Lenses

ziggy53 wrote:

I have both the Canon 40D and 1D MKII. The 1D MKII is more responsive and faster to autofocus. The difference is not staggering, but it's there.

RAW images are more similar than different, but JPGs are better "out-of-the-camera" on the 40D with high-ISO NR turned on. The 1D MKII needs more software NR to be similar.

The 40D has slightly more dynamic range at ISO 3200, which I find astonishing, but I see more color depth.

The 40D has a bit more crop magnification, which you use like a tele-converter. Unlike a tele-converter, the camera has already been ISO compensated.

All things considered, the 1D MKII is still a step up from the 40D for most wildlife in the ways that matter most, but the 40D really is like a "mini-1D".

You haven't mentioned what lenses you use, which make more difference than the camera.

It's great to hear from some one who has both!! thank you!!! The magnification on the 40d with the much larger buffer is what's pushing me to the 40D. I've just heard the auto focus on the MarkII is amazing!

For lenses I have:
Canon 100-400mm IS
Canon 28-135mm IS
And I'm wanting to get the Canon 10-22mm soon....but not if I get the Mark II....since it wont work with it:D

If you had to get rid of one of the two which would you keep if money had zero to do with it.

dmmattix

The Wild Eye wrote:

And I'm wanting to get the Canon 10-22mm soon....but not if I get the Mark II....since it wont work with it:D

Yes but with a 1.6 crop the 10-22 works out to be just about a 16-35. However for approximately the same price as the 10-22 you can get the 17-40 F4L to cover just about the same range.

boulderNardo

dmmattix wrote:

Yes but with a 1.6 crop the 10-22 works out to be just about a 16-35. However for approximately the same price as the 10-22 you can get the 17-40 F4L to cover just about the same range.

Don't forget to consider the 1.3x crop factor of a 1D body (only 1Ds is full frame!). Therefore the 17-40 is actually more like a 24mm - 55mm.

ziggy53

The Wild Eye wrote:

...
For lenses I have:
Canon 100-400mm IS
Canon 28-135mm IS
And I'm wanting to get the Canon 10-22mm soon....but not if I get the Mark II....since it wont work with it:D

If you had to get rid of one of the two which would you keep if money had zero to do with it.

The EF 28-135mm, f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is the weaker of the two you have, and the least likely to be useful for most wildlife or many landscapes, so that is probably the one you would miss the least. Then again, many folks use that lens as a general purpose lens, especially on the 1D MKII.

You really meed to look at your own photography to see which you use more.

dmmattix

boulderNardo wrote:

Don't forget to consider the 1.3x crop factor of a 1D body (only 1Ds is full frame!). Therefore the 17-40 is actually more like a 24mm - 55mm.

I forgot they still hold onto the 1.3 crop for the 1D bodies. My bad.

Rick_R

ziggy53 wrote:

I have both the Canon 40D and 1D MKII. The 1D MKII is more responsive and faster to autofocus. The difference is not staggering, but it's there.

RAW images are more similar than different, but JPGs are better "out-of-the-camera" on the 40D with high-ISO NR turned on. The 1D MKII needs more software NR to be similar.

The 40D has slightly more dynamic range at ISO 3200, which I find astonishing, but I see more color depth.

The 40D has a bit more crop magnification, which you use like a tele-converter. Unlike a tele-converter, the camera has already been ISO compensated.

All things considered, the 1D MKII is still a step up from the 40D for most wildlife in the ways that matter most, but the 40D really is like a "mini-1D".

You haven't mentioned what lenses you use, which make more difference than the camera.

I also have the 40D and MKII (non N) and both cameras are fantasitc (40D has wonderful files that really do not need much editing, MKII has incredable focusing speed and accuracy). If you need focal lenght go with the 40D (1.6 crop vs 1.3) and if you need focus speed / accuracy go with the MkII (Way more focus points)

While either camera will give you fantastic pictures, I can understand the mental ping-pong you are going throgh. BTW I had the MKII first and got the 40D as backup.

Regards
Rick

tsk1979

I don't own either so can't comment on AF etc., but I do own a 350D and a lousy 300mm lens.
the 300mm lens becomes 480mm with the crop factor but even that seems less sometimes.
with wildlife you need atleast 600mm, and with the crop factor body, you have close to that range with your 100-400L

ziggy53

If you are looking for stuff to do with crop cameras etc., I created a new thread for it. This thread had been hijacked enough.

thoff

Wondering the same thing....
I am in the same boat, thinking about upgrading but not sure what to go for. I do not do landscape that much. More sports and wildlife. I was trying to figure out which one would be the best all around best fit and am still on the fense on which one to get. So please keep the opinions coming betweent the 40D and the 1d mark II.
Thanks Tom

swintonphoto

Just get this camera, it will solve all your problems:
http://www.antonline.com/p_VQ-1005P-NX_258259.htm

thoff

swintonphoto wrote:

Just get this camera, it will solve all your problems:
http://www.antonline.com/p_VQ-1005P-NX_258259.htm

THanks for the help, I ordered one for you to do some more studio work. It is on the way.

claudermilk

swintonphoto wrote:

Just get this camera, it will solve all your problems:
http://www.antonline.com/p_VQ-1005P-NX_258259.htm

Don't forget the Gitzo 3-series tripod & RRS BH-55 to mount it on for that studio work!

swintonphoto

thoff wrote:

THanks for the help, I ordered one for you to do some more studio work. It is on the way.

Sweet! Do you think it has any good zoom lenses?

Ozone

Also, at least 8GB of storage for those awesome pix you'll be taking. Who needs a Hassie?