Quote Originally Posted by bburns223


Absolutely. The 1.3x is helpful for wildlife (turning my 400 f/5.6 into a 520mm lens) but does not destroy wide-angle capability, either.


For example, a 10-22mm lens becomes a 13-29mm lens. That IMHO is not bad.


I doubt you would notice the difference in angle, unless you HAVE to shoot 10mm landscapes.


I disagree. 1.3x limits wide-angle capability, period. Full-frame can get a 14/2.8 rectilinear prime or a 16-35/2.8 zoom. 1.3x can get a 14/2.8 prime (EFL is 18.2mm) or 16-35/2.8 zoom (EFL is 20.8-45.5mm). 1.6x can get an EF-S 10-22 zoom (EFL is 16-35mm). As a result, a really expensive prime lens on 1.3x is not as wide as the widest primes or zooms on FF or the widest zooms on 1.6x.


Quote Originally Posted by bburns223


The 1D4 is more expensive for a reason: better weather sealing, better-rated shutter, better ISO performance, ridiculously better AF (45 pt. vs. 9 pt.), and a whopping TEN frames per second. The 5D2 doesn't come close. IMHO, despite the 1.3x crop factor, if you can afford the 1D4 (I can't), don't think twice about buying it. The resolution of the 5D2, well, doesn't matter.


As I said before, if you can afford the 1D4 (and widest of angles isn't of concern, and the camera performs as advertised), you'll be a very happy user. The 1-series is simply a very responsive camera in so many ways, and built like a brick. You can feel it the moment you pick it up. You can hear it the moment you press the button (listen to the 1Ds3/1Ds2/5D comparison at http://media.the-digital-picture.com...I-5D-Burst.mp3, and the 1D3 bursting at http://media.the-digital-picture.com...0fps-Burst.mp3). You'll probably be corrupted like the rest of us who have one or more 1-series bodies, and never go back to a >=2-series again.