Advice on New or Used Camera

[Azer]

Hi,


I have been shooting for several years now with an old RebelXT. The primary lens I use is the 70-200 2.8 IS. I mostly shoot indoor and outdoor sports and activities and family pictures. Indoor is frequently in low/lower available light which means I have to shoot at 800 or 1600 to stop the action with my XT. At 1600 the shots are not very good.


I NEED an upgrade!! so now for the question; With prices on good used 1D Mark II N's dropping close to the range of a 50D it seems like I might get much better results with a II N vs something like a 50D or a 40D. I can afford the added cost of a good used II N but the new Mark III is out of my price range. I want a fast burst rate to capture action shots.


What I care about;


Getting good sharp high quality shots, don't mind post processing.


What I don't care about;


Size/weight


Thanks in advance!!

[Ehcalum]

Why the 1Dn?Just go for the plain 1D mk 2. The differences are a larger lcd, some picture modes a la xxD series, a slightly better buffer and dual card writing on an SD and CF cards. The sensor, Digic and everything else are the same on the two.Or grab a 40D and grip, which works just fine for sports indoors and outdoors.





One other question? Do you use a monopod?

[Azer]

I was actually talking about the 1D Mark 2 N, sorry for the confusion. I've heard that the 1D M2 N is outstanding for sports photography. I do use a monopod on my 70-200 lens.

[Keith B]

I know a lot of sports guys using the 40D. I don't know why but haven't seen too many with the 50D yet.


One guy actually has 1D mkII but prefers his 40D over it. Don't know the specifics just passing along my observations.

[Jeff Lucia]

The 40D doesn't autofocus as well as the 1D Mark II N, especially in low light. There's nothing more frustrating in sports photography than missing a shot because your camera couldn't focus quickly or accurately enough. My 40D with 70-200 2.8 IS does OK in daylight, but fast action in less-than-ideal light is harder for it to handle. My 1D Mark III (bought used from a friend) doesn't miss a beat even under lousy light. From everything I've heard, the Mark II N's AF capabilities are similar to those of the Mark III.


That's just the AF. I can't speak to the image quality in low light, except that the 40D reaches its limits and you start to see distracting noise around 800. 1600 is disappointing.


Good luck - let us know what happens.

[Jon Ruyle]

I don't think getting the N will benefit you enough to justify the added cost.

How much is the added cost? The 1DIIN's are pretty cheap.

The 40D doesn't autofocus as well as the 1D Mark II N, especially in low light.

I've never used the 40D, but its specified af working range is half a stop lower light than the 1DIIN. ( -1/2 ev for 50D compared to 0 ev for the 1DIIN)

[Jeff Lucia]

I think that's the 50D, as you said, not the 40D. I've used the 40D with the same lens as Azer (70-200 2.8 IS) extensively, and I've seen a noticeable decline in AF performance (speed and accuracy) in low light, especially fast action. Many sports shooters describe the 1DII/IIN's AF as exceptional.

[Jon Ruyle]

I think that's the 50D, as you said, not the 40D.

According to dpreview, the working range of the autofocus of the 40D is -.5 ev to 18ev.

Many sports shooters describe the 1DII/IIN's AF as exceptional.

Agreed. The 1DIIN tracks very fast and accurately. But IMO it is only so-so in marginal light.

My 1D Mark III (bought used from a friend) doesn't miss a beat even
under lousy light. From everything I've heard, the Mark II N's AF
capabilities are similar to those of the Mark III.

The above is from your previous post, and I somehow missed it. This may be the source of the confusion. The Mark III af is rated at -1 ev, a full stop better than the Mark IIN. So while the 1DIIN and 1DIII af may not be that different in good light, your Mark III should do far better in low light.

[Ehcalum]

Yes the 1D series has more accurate AF points, but I disagree on the 40D not doing well in low light for sports. Ive shot almost 7000 frames in the past 4 months ranging from slightly overcast to pitch black storms, as well as indoor sports and my 40D has only missed about 2% of the shots, mainly due to user error. This is with a 70-200 2.8 (non IS) a 300 f4 (non IS), and a tokina 28-80 2.8 at-x.


My std settings: AI-Servo,Tv mode generally no lower than 1/400 for runners, 1/650 for cyclists, 1/350-1/500for indoor sports. ISO usually around 400-800. Flashes hung in the rafters, standsorabove thebackboard for basketball.

[Mark Elberson]

The Mark III af is rated at -1 ev, a full stop better than the Mark IIN. So while the 1DIIN and 1DIII af may not be that different in good light, your Mark III should do far better in low light.
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

Jon is correct...


Canon EOS-1D Mark IIN


AF Working Range : EV 0-18 (at ISO 100 at 68&deg; F/20&deg; C)


Canon EOS-1D MARK-III


AF Working Range : EV -1 ~18 (ISO 100 at 73&deg;F/23&deg;C)


Canon EOS-40D


AF Working Range : EV -0.5 ~18 (ISO 100 at 73&deg;F/23&deg;C)


Canon EOS 50D


AF Working Range : EV 0.5-18 (at 73&deg;F/23&deg;C, ISO 100)