Which choice - simple question?

W

woollyback

Messages
1,417
Edit My Images
No
Folks,
From a previous post and further reading it would seem that 1D Mk3 issues (AF) are as sorted as they are likely to get so that leaves me with a decision to make.....

To help me make it I would really like your views on a simple question.. which is the best canon body wrt autofocus perfrormance ( with IQ a close second, although the IQ's are all probably more similar?)?????????>

I shoot mainly wildlife and birds (in flight) sports and am having a go at aircraft.

I see a couple of options for about the same price

1. Buy Mk3 to replace 20D and use current 100-400 & 300f4.:)

2. Buy 40D to replace 20D, sell 300f4 and buy a 300 f2.8:love:

Any views and comments are much appreciated.

Thanks

Rob
 
Any chance you could rob a bank and get both the Mk3 and the 300 f/2.8 :LOL:

From the post by kipax the Mk3 is not that easy to set up if you are coming from the 40D or 20D level camera, so why not try a secondhand Mk2N and try to get the 300 f/2.8 as well, that way you would get a high spec camera at a sensible price and the lens you like. If later you need a MK3 then you can save for it and can build on the experience of the MK2. Plus you put the :love: after the lens rather than the body which is a bit of a give away as to what you really want :LOL:

Personally having had a quick play with a MK3 (already set up by its owner I hasten to add) I would go with the new body as it feels so good :LOL:
 
lol Susie

No doubting the 300 2.8 is a super super lens :love:

Susie's suggestion is IMHO a good one, and by the time you've saved up for the better body, its successor would have been announced, probably at PML next February..
 
markta said:
its successor would have been announced, probably at PML next February..
Click to expand...


Are you talking mk3 successor here?, It would be just my look save for a new body only for it to be outdated by time I saved up:):)

Thanks for the reply

Rob
 
What is wrong with the 300 f4? The 300 f2.8 is more than twice the weight - and what f stop do you tend to shoot at? Would you actually benefit greatly by getting that one stop GIVEN THE EXTRA WEIGHT AND BULK of the lens. Pros have fast lenses because they have to come back with the shot regardless of the conditions - if it were dark, wet and windy would you still be out shooting?

The 300 f4 is actually a very good lens and used at f5.6 equal in results to the f2.8 used at f5.6 - you will be using exactly the same lens, only one is a lot heavier etc. If you do a lot of airshows etc - swinging that great lump willnot be so easy, especially if you are shooting at 1/250 or less to get the propellers to blur (no aircraft shot worth its salt shows defined prop blades) - so you will be stopping the f2.8 down to f4 or f5.6 anyway - expensive way to get a hernia!

I would upgrade your body and spend the difference saved on going to overseas events!
 
Remember that the 1DMkII produces exactly the same images as the 1DMkII N. I was amazed that no-one on here wanted my spare 1DII for £800. There are plenty around and I still love mine. I'd always favour glass I have to say. The 40D is pretty good at tracking and should be pretty good with birds in flight against the sky but the 1D will be better when they are in front of choppy water or the ground.

One of the big advantages of the 2.8 lens is that the AF on xxD cameras works better with 2.8 or better lenses, so the 40D may be a good bet. I didn't get on with a 300/4 but I love my 300/2.8. It is heavy but it is quicker focusing than anything else I own...
 
Lensflare said:
What is wrong with the 300 f4? The 300 f2.8 is more than twice the weight - and what f stop do you tend to shoot at? Would you actually benefit greatly by getting that one stop GIVEN THE EXTRA WEIGHT AND BULK of the lens. Pros have fast lenses because they have to come back with the shot regardless of the conditions - if it were dark, wet and windy would you still be out shooting?

The 300 f4 is actually a very good lens and used at f5.6 equal in results to the f2.8 used at f5.6 - you will be using exactly the same lens, only one is a lot heavier etc. If you do a lot of airshows etc - swinging that great lump willnot be so easy, especially if you are shooting at 1/250 or less to get the propellers to blur (no aircraft shot worth its salt shows defined prop blades) - so you will be stopping the f2.8 down to f4 or f5.6 anyway - expensive way to get a hernia!

I would upgrade your body and spend the difference saved on going to overseas events!
Click to expand...

Lensflare,

Nothing wrong with 300 f4 in fact it is great even with 1.4TC attached but autofocus is lacking at times. Interesting you say that at f5.6 both lenses are equal.
My real problem is with 20D err 99, but 300 swap only came to consideration when exploring options. Plus I've always wanted a 300 f2.8.

Thanks for comments though and it's given me more to chew over.

Cheers

Rob
 
grumpybadger said:
Remember that the 1DMkII produces exactly the same images as the 1DMkII N. I was amazed that no-one on here wanted my spare 1DII for £800. There are plenty around and I still love mine. I'd always favour glass I have to say. The 40D is pretty good at tracking and should be pretty good with birds in flight against the sky but the 1D will be better when they are in front of choppy water or the ground.

One of the big advantages of the 2.8 lens is that the AF on xxD cameras works better with 2.8 or better lenses, so the 40D may be a good bet. I didn't get on with a 300/4 but I love my 300/2.8. It is heavy but it is quicker focusing than anything else I own...
Click to expand...

GB,

When you say you didn't get on with 300 f4, in what way?.

So I would see no real world difference from say a £800 mk2 and a £1400 N?.

Thanks for taking the time to comment

Cheers

Rob
 
1D MkIII and 100-400 ;)

8W0A1540.jpg
 
Dod,

Nice one - nowt wrong with that Mk3 or the 100-400.

Have you tried mk3 and a 1.4TC ?

Thanks for posting

Rob
 
woollyback said:
Are you talking mk3 successor here?, It would be just my look save for a new body only for it to be outdated by time I saved up:):)

Thanks for the reply

Rob
Click to expand...


Yep, at the time the 1D III will have been on the market for 18 months, so would be due for upgrade if Canons' usual upgrade cycle times apply...
 
woollyback said:
GB,

When you say you didn't get on with 300 f4, in what way?.

So I would see no real world difference from say a £800 mk2 and a £1400 N?.

Thanks for taking the time to comment

Cheers

Rob
Click to expand...

I really can see no difference between a mk2 and an N except for bigger screen (the small one shows the histogram fine) and picture styles, which I don't use. I made an active choice to buy a 2nd MkII and have no regrets. I've since got rid of it and replaced it with a 1DsII but that is basically a slow MkII with a bigger sensor!

As for the 300/4, I found it to be hit and miss on focus with birds in flight and other fast moving stuff. AF with a 2.8 is much better in low light in my opinion.

On the comment on replacement cycles, its not true with the 1-series where they are usually much longer than 18 months. Having said that, I wouldn't be surprised if they do a MkIII N quite quickly to break the stigma.

If you read the Rob Galbraith article properly, he states that there is, in his opinion, no better camera for use in good light (the D3 is better in low light but he rates the 1D better at lower ISO - the 1DsIII is noisier at all ISO - as physics would suggest)

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