1d mk2 v canon 40d

If your looking at wildlife and sports then the MK2`s autofocus will perform considerably better than that of the 40D, I had a MK2N and forund that the pixel count was ample for what I did (wildlife primarily)....your stuck a bit with cropping power but it will make you think more about composition.
 
i have both, the 1dmk2 is the dogs for everything but low light, for outdoors and sports it's in another league for the price you can get them for
 
I'd definately go for the 1D Mk II if it were me!

AF will be significantly better, with 45 AF points IIRC, also the frames per second is greater as well. Build quality will be better than the 40D and will also be better weather sealed, with more LCDS.

LCD resolution is the same, at 230,000 pixels.
 
Mk2 any day. I used my 20D for a few shots yesterday and it felt like a toy compared to the 1D.
 
Luke_Herts said:
Due to moving down to a 300mm i think i will stick with 40d for the moment as i thas more mp.....
Click to expand...

Big, big mistake there Luke :thumbsdown:.....you'll regret this decision when you eventually get a 1D srs body. Your "more mp" statement makes you a marketing man's dream.

Bob
 
Id take the 1D II been looking around at them mostly due to the FPS & AF as i like nice sequence shots etc.. plus built like a brick **** house.
 
Canon Bob said:
Big, big mistake there Luke :thumbsdown:.....you'll regret this decision when you eventually get a 1D srs body. Your "more mp" statement makes you a marketing man's dream.

Bob
Click to expand...
TBH i am only 17 and won't be able to afford a 1d for a while i am happy with hte 40d and get perfectly adequate shots with it.
:D
Thanks,
Luke
 
The reason i am getting rid of the 100-400mm is because of bad performance in low light
Click to expand...

the performance of my 100-400 is bloody good in low light on the 40D after fiddling with the settings a bit ;)

besides.....photoshop was invented because of low light problems
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top