Have 40d - interested in 1D Mk II

C

cressers

Messages
247
Edit My Images
No
Hi

I am interested in portrait - indoor people, landscapes and street photog.

I have a 40d, and love it, but I also love to try new things.

Have been looking around and there are 1d MkII used for a price I am prepared to pay.

I have to say the the 1.3 crop would widen my lenses view slightly, but not as much as FF.

So, what could I expect to see that would be worth the money? I have looked at the reviews.

Just interested in what people have to say.

Cheers

andrew
 
Just a quick comment - the 1D is a full frame camera, not 1.3 as you said. I say if you can afford the upgrade and think you'll enjoy it, then go for it (y)
 
I thought only the 1Ds was full frame??
 
I swapped from a 40D to a 1D MKIIN a few months back and one thing I noticed was that there was very little difference in size if you used a grip on the 40D. There is a little bit of drop in the MP but not massive.
There is a big weight in those cameras though, especially if you used the 40D without a grip.

I have now moved to a MKIII and never looked back!
 
OK, I am pretty good at finding my way around and generally use the Av mode most the time.

Idiot question time - the MkII "looks" a lot more complicated....is it?
 
swag72 said:
Just a quick comment - the 1D is a full frame camera, not 1.3 as you said. I say if you can afford the upgrade and think you'll enjoy it, then go for it (y)
Click to expand...

The 1D mk2 is a 1.3 crop, the 1Ds mk2 is full frame.

I had a 1Dmk2 and a 40D and sold the 40D to get a second 1D but for me the reason was wildlife and sport and the 1D was better for those fields.
You will have the wider part of the lens back and for what you are doing that might be a help.


Edit. I must learn to type faster.
 
cressers said:
OK, I am pretty good at finding my way around and generally use the Av mode most the time.

Idiot question time - the MkII "looks" a lot more complicated....is it?
Click to expand...

You have to press 2 buttons at the same time to change some options, scan through photos etc....designed like that so you don't accidentally delete things and so on. Other than that, once you know where everything is, it's a doddle!

I went from the 30D to 1D MKII and love it (still!), kept my 30D for those times when I can't be bothered hauling the 1D around though.
 
purpleclouds said:
You have to press 2 buttons at the same time to change some options, scan through photos etc....designed like that so you don't accidentally delete things and so on. Other than that, once you know where everything is, it's a doddle!
Click to expand...

I used to find this a pain in behind at first and was relieved the MKIII isnt like that. Not difficult to use but just takes time to adjust afte rmoving from a relatively simple 40D
 
Hmm, the weight thing may be an issue - will have to look at a comparison of the 40d-grip to the 1D.

Girlfriend is journo and uses it sometimes and she already gives my stern looks when there is L glass on there ;)

The 2 button press sounds a pain, but as stated I am sure it can be learned.
 
I will give it a try - if I get a good deal - I can always sell it on with a few more k pictures, which shouldnt drop the price :)
 
The battery life is outstanding! As is the AF and the general build quality. Yes they are bricks but worth it :)
 
you wont be disappointed. I know some things said here might seem like they are to put you off but they arent, they are just some things to consider, but if you speak to most people who made the jump then they will tell you they havent looked back
 
Yes 5d seemed an option too. But the 1d is the flagship, and the 5d was introduced towards the end of the 1D MkII lifetime, so the technology is not that much different- FF may be nice...

What is the logic behind your proposal?
 
It sounds like for what you want to do that the 1Dmk2 will not give you much benefit over your 40D. If you were doing action sports in low light with long lenses then yes, go for it. But for studio, street stuff etc the 40D will give you excellent results.

I'd save your money and spend it on lenses. If you really wanted IQ, then a 5Dmk2 (or even an older 5Dmk1) would give you excellent results.
 
A comment for Landscape photography
Crop body + 10-20 lens is great value for lanscape photgraphy. when you move on to FF, you've gotta spend £500 on a Canon 17-40 or £1000 on a Canon 16-35 for ultra wide angle shots. If you have the money, go for it. For me, after I got my 5D2, I have to keep my 400D + 10-20 for lanscape shots before I have the money to to get the EF mount wide angle lens...
 
I would definately say for landscape you should look no further than a 5D. I have used a 1D MKII and for what i used it for it was bit limited ( although if i was shooting sports, no comparison). The 5D would offer much better image quality than the 40D.

The 1D MKII would be a little bit of a step back (or sideways) rather than foreward.
 
Once you've eliminated the need for fast focus and reliable tracking then I don't think the 1D2 is going to help in your field. I'm sure that the 40D (I've got the 30D and 50D) will be superior, and the 5D certainly is, when it comes to portraiture and landscapes.
Reliability, robust build and alike are requirements that you'll be paying for without seeing any real benefit

All IMHO, of course.

Bob
 
Does anyone have a "real life" comparrision of a 40d and a 1dmkII at high ISO, say 1600?
I want to see the noise levels against each other as i have been thinking of grabbing myself a 1dMKii while the prices are fairly decent
 
cressers said:
Yes 5d seemed an option too. But the 1d is the flagship, and the 5d was introduced towards the end of the 1D MkII lifetime, so the technology is not that much different- FF may be nice...
Click to expand...

I find that logic flawed...

Consider a 1dmkIIIs probably the most expensive of the canon range? one of the latest models how much 4k or 5k to buy?.... but an older 700 quid
1DmkII would perform better at sports than a brand new 1dmkIIIs

Choose the camera thats good for your needs and not the latest thing on the shelf :) for what you list I doubt the 1dmkII is of much use... certainly other options would give you more.
 
Do you mean 1dsMKiii?
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Does anyone have a "real life" comparrision of a 40d and a 1dmkII at high ISO, say 1600?
I want to see the noise levels against each other as i have been thinking of grabbing myself a 1dMKii while the prices are fairly decent
Click to expand...

Funny you should ask, but yes.

These two sets of pictures were taken from a hide in Norway last February. I was using a 1DII and Sue (whooshdemon) was using her 40D. The 1DII was linked to a 500/4 and the 40D to a 300/4. This means they had similar field of view (the 1D was slightly tighter but not a lot)

Both at ISO1600, both wide open at f/4. Mine was at 1/100s and Sue's was at 1/125s (there does seem to be a metering difference between them and the 40D consistently underexposes by about 1/3 to 1/2 a stop. Both were on tripods and we were sat next to each other.

So, probably as good a "real world" rather than "test" comparison as you are going to get.

I just did an "Auto levels" on both to try and get a like for like comparison. No sharpening added, this is just a conversion straight from the RAW using Photoshop.

Please note, these pictures are not chosen for artistic merit but for being very close in time and therefore very similar conditions.

1. 40D Full Image
40Dfull.jpg



2. 1DII Full Image
1dIIfull.jpg



3. 40D 100% Crop
40Dcrop2.jpg



4. 1DII 100% Crop
1dIIcrop.jpg


I've deliberately tried to include bird head (for detail), grass (light) and the far cliff (dark) in the 100% crop for comparison purposes.

With a careful use of Noise Ninja, I've had successful 12x8 prints from the 1D images.

Thanks to Sue for allowing the use of her image.

Paul
 
The 1dmkII shots look alot cleaner then the 40d shots, which im rather impressed about. I might have to invest in one of these next year (bloody wedding!) and keep the 40d, but sell the 30d.

Id love a 1dMKIII but i doubt funds will allow me to pick up one of these, even second hand! That way, id have 2x10.1mp sensor cameras... damn! :(
 
Yup, the 1D does deliver but it is fussy on exposure. If you get it right then the images are pretty good. But, try and pull around the exposure in RAW conversion and it gets noisy. We both reckoned that not only was the noise less on the 1DII, it was also cleaner.

I really think the 1DII is a great bargain at the moment. You can get them for less than £700 and they still are a great camera. Yes, there are better but I don't think anything offers more for the money.
 
I know, they range from between £700 for a "scruffy" one to £1300 for a mkIIn

Its alot of camera for that sort of money and its really giving me a headache.
Id love to see a real world comparrision of a 1dmkII and a 1dmkIII to see how much better the III is over the II.

Most of the prints i will be doing will be 8x6 or 10/12x8 @ 300dpi so 8.2mp would be enough, but i just worry if i want to print something more "substantial" that the 10.1mp of a mkIII would be alot better for it.

Badger, where are you from in Cambs?
 
Remember that 10.1 to 8.2 is only a 10% difference in each dimension.

I've certainly happily printed larger than 12x8 but you can't really crop much.

I've also decided a MkIII isn't enough of a change to justify the cost to change. I also decided a IIn didn't offer anything extra over the MkII to be worth any extra money.

I live in Fenstanton, near St Ives.

Paul
 
Ive printed 15x10's and 18x12's happily from my 40d and the results are quite nice indeed :) So while its only an extra 10%, id rather have it then not, but then also is it worth an extra £1k in the second hand market... Thats the main question really.

I can see that if you have a mkII then a mkIII might not be the upgrade that would make you drop the II and rush to the shops :LOL:

Ahhhh, certainly not a million miles from me in Peterborough then :)

Mike
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Id love to see a real world comparrision of a 1dmkII and a 1dmkIII to see how much better the III is over the II.
Click to expand...


mkII > mkIIn isnt worth the money IMHO

mkII > mkIII is worth every penny..considering.

I have had more problems including one ongoing with the mkIII than any other camera.. it has problems with skin tones and it will vastly OOF every now and then for no apparent reason.. however the iso capabilities far outways the problems.. I do night and indoor sport and the mkIII at high iso is a godsend..
 
Can I join the Cambs Clan? I'm in Stilton, Peterborough :)

Have to agree with the concensus here and if the OP is still reading, an EF-S 10-22mm wide zoom will do far more for landscape and street than a new body.

But if you need what the amazing 1D2 can do, especially in the AF department, then it's a very tempting used buy, as an alternative to a new crop body around the £1k mark. Kind of wish I'd gone that way myself when I got the 40D and a few EF-S lenses...
 
Is there any chance that you can show me a low light shot with Hi ISOs Kipax?
Is yours a pre-blue-dot model or whatever it is? :LOL:

And Paul, your such a tease! Haha!
 
Hoppy, im 10 mins down the road in Fletton :)
 
MJ Stebbings said:
Hoppy, im 10 mins down the road in Fletton :)
Click to expand...

In which case, I would strongly advise you to really go for it and get a 1D3... so that I can borrow it :D

FB, can I ask you honestly, if you only print to say A4, can you really tell the difference between pictures taken on the 1D and 1Ds? I'm not talking pixel peeping, I'm just saying that if you pick up two best quality A4 prints from either camera (both will be stunning, I think we'll agree on that :) ) and look at them normally, can you immediately say which was taken which camera?

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