Which Body for Which Lens? 1dmkii or 40d for 300 2.8 and 70-200 2.8?

[glarizza]

Hi All,


I just purchased a 300mm 2.8 lens, and I'm looking to get a second body. I shoot high school sports, and shoot quite a bit of Soccer, Football, and fast-action sports. I have a 1dmkii right now. I'm looking to have one body locked on the 300mm stuck to my monopod, and then a second body with a 70-200 2.8 around my neck.


Here's my question:


What second body would you buy, and which body would you pair with each lens?





I'm looking at a 1dmkiin and a 40d as of right now. I wanna get something in the $1000 region. If I buy the 40d, I'm thinking of pairing the 300mm with the 1dmkii for the focus speed, and then 70-200 with the 40d for closer shots and candid moments. The 40d would have (arguably) better shots in the higher ISO ranges, so maybe I cold pair it with the 300mm when it gets dark so I don't need a flash?





What do you guys think? What would YOU DO?

[clemmb]

I do not think the 40D would have better shots at high ISO. The 40D has smaller pixel and that would produce more digital noise. You can get a 40D for under $1,000 but a good used 1D MK II N would probably cost $1,500 give or take.

[Daniel Browning]

I just purchased a 300mm 2.8 lens,


Excellent!



What second body would you buy, and which body would you pair with each lens?


50D -> 70-200 f/2.8
1D2 -> 300mm f/2.8

To me, the improved microadjustment, LCD, resolution, and other features of the 50D are well worth the price difference, but the 40D is great too.



I do not think the 40D would have better shots at high ISO.


Agreed.



The 40D has smaller pixel and that would produce more digital noise.


I kindly disagree. I think the 1D2 would have less noise because it has a larger sensor and is paired with a longer focal length (300mm f/2.8 vs 200mm f/2.8). Pixel size doesn't enter into it.

The idea that smaller pixels have more noise, independant of sensor size, is a myth propogated by many web sites, magazines, etc. based on flawed image analysis methods. It's all explained in great detail here:


Myth busted: smaller pixels have more noise, less dynamic range, worse diffraction, etc. ("http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/t/1055.aspx)

[Jeff Lucia]

My real-world experience in shooting sports for two years with the 40D and 70-200 2.8L IS has been like this (I'm talking about image quality):


Amazing in great conditions
Great in good conditions
Good in average conditions
Poor in worse-than average conditions


Given even slightly less-than-average conditions, the files it produces don't take post-processing very well, and noise is noticeable in shadows particularly. Autofocus is not especially reliable, even under good conditions, and it falls apart as the light deteriorates or if you throw action challenges at it, with only marginal improvements via the right combination of settings.


In other words, it's an amazing prosumer camera body, but it is not a pro body or almost-pro body. So it depends on your expectations.


From what I hear, the 50D offers substantial improvements in image quality and high ISO performance. Given the "big field" sports you mentioned, you might even find yourself being able to use the reach of the 50D plus 300mm.


For what it's worth, the general feeling seems to be that the extra money for a 1DIIN over a 1DII isn't worth it. I have a 1D3 and I would get a 1DII for the build quality alone.


One final thought: There have been quite a few updates to the control layout between your current 1DII and a 50D. If you like the control layout on your 1DII and you're used to it, you might want to pick up another 1DII and put the savings in your pocket -- that 300 f2.8 couldn't have been a painless purchase!


Best of luck,


Jeff

[Daniel Browning]

From what I hear, the 50D offers substantial improvements in image quality and high ISO performance.





The raw comparisons I've seen show equal noise from the 40D and 50D. (It's the JPEGs that have better high ISO performance in the 50D -- and that can be done in post processing on the 40D.)






Given the "big field" sports you mentioned, you might even find yourself being able to use the reach of the 50D plus 300mm.


Agreed. The high resolution is like a 1.5X TC compared to the 40D.

[clemmb]

I kindly disagree.


Myth busted: smaller pixels have more noise, less dynamic range, worse diffraction, etc. (/forums/t/1055.aspx" target="_blank" title="http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/t/1055.aspx)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





I read this thread and paper presented by G. Agranov. I am still not convinced. Looking at the samples in the paper look to me to have more noise at smaller pixels.






(arguably)





The argument continues.


Its ok to disagree though. These are only tools and the most important part is how we use them.


Mark

[Daniel Browning]

I read this thread and paper presented by G. Agranov. I am still not convinced. Looking at the samples in the paper look to me to have more noise at smaller pixels.


First of all, even in the tiny illustrations in the PDF, the 2.2 micron pixels are clearly superior to the 5.6 micron pixels, so I think you are referring to the 1.7 micron pixels. You stated that 5.7 micron pixels were worse than 8.2 micron pixels -- those are gargantuan compared to 2.2 microns. So the performance of the 1.7 micron pixel doesn't even enter into it.


A 40D with 2.2 micron pixels would be 80 MP. A 40D with 1.7 micron pixels would be 133 MP. If you want to try and make the case that a 133 MP 40D might be worse than an 80 MP version, that's a different conversation. The 2.2 micron image in Agranov's paper shows that at the very least the 80 MP version would be superior than the 10 MP version.


Secondly, it's a scientific paper; the images included in the PDF are not intended to be used for experimental verification. They are just illustrations intended to make it easier to understand the words in the paper. G. Agranov undoubtedly performed the standard computer-based noise analysis (log_2(avrg/std dev), fourier transform, etc.) before drawing a conclusion.


Third, an appeal to authority: Gennadiy Agranov is one of the world's top sensor designers, and I think he would correctly interpret the results of his own experiment. But of course it's possible for anyone to make a mistake.

[Jeff Lucia]

I'd go with the 1D Mark II as your second body. Here are the reasons:


1. There are great deals available on well-cared-for 1DII bodies


2. You're already familiar with the interface/controls, so no learning curve


3. If my experience shooting sports with a 40D and 300 f2.8L IS is any indicator, you'll be disappointed with the AF performance in marginal lighting conditions, especially after using that lens on a 1D Mark II in good lighting


4. The build quality of the 1D series is much, much better than the 40D or 50D.


5. You haven't said anything about cropping, so the 50D's large file size doesn't seem to be any advantage.

[glarizza]

Thanks, everyone, for your responses.


I didn't mean to trigger a debate over superior pixels; I had just (naively) assumed that newer generations of sensors would handle noise in low-light situations better than the previous generation. I overlooked the fact that pro bodes have sensors that are very different from the prosumer cameras - so thanks everyone for straightening that out for me.


In the end, I will probably spring for a used 1d Mark II to hang around my neck with my 70-200. I'm now questioning whether I'll actually SWITCH cameras in the moment - this 300mm 2.8 is just strikingly sharp! I don't want to use any other lens! Will I buy this, shoot the whole game with the 300mm, and then leave the 70-200 hanging? Has anyone else run into this? How many of you take two bodies (simultaneously - not as a backup) to an event and actively use them both?


The main "sticking points" that convinced me to stay with the 1d would be the user interface (which I completely overlooked), AF Performance, and the stability of the camera itself. I found 40d's online for around $749 (with the Battery Grip...some more and some less) and 1d Mark IIs for around $1000 - $1300. The $250 is better spent going with a pro body (in my mind) - especially one with a new sensor or low amount of actuations.


Thanks again for everyone's input. To see some sample shots I've taken, have a look here --&gt;http://www.ccshots.com/gallery/9122921_3JJqE#608065396_hQqzi





Cheers!


-Gary