I have a budget up to 1300$ at most but if i cani could get 1400$ (long story) I was looking at used Mark II's for anywhere from 800$ to 1400$ i have been watching them sell from that range. This includes some MArk II N's. Is it worth it for a MArk II or a 40D new ??? then buy a battery grip which one is better??? i already own an XT and is wayyyyy overdue for an uograde. thanks other suggestions either used gear is fine. Thanks
I upgraded from an XT to a 1DIIN and was *very* happy.
(I know that doesn't answer your question, but it's a data point).
haha ok that does help is the noise better and is it good up to 1600 is there much difference between the N and the mark II ??
I found iso performance on the IIN to be significantly better than the XT: ISO 640 on the 1DIIN is about like ISO 400 on the XT, ISO 1250 on the 1DIIN like ISO800 on the XT. I was satisfied with the ISO 1600 performance, though it would look noisy viewed on a big monitor. My guess is that the 50D would have the edge in high iso performance. The 50D also af is rated to work in half the light of the 1DIIN (which in turn is rated to work in half the light of the XT autofocus).
For low light performance (both low noise and low light autofocus), my guess is XT < 1DIIN < 40D or 50D. If that was my primary concern, I would go with 40D or 50D. For action, I would pick the 1DIIN. The 1DIIN is super responsive.
I have the XT, XTi, 1DMKII and the 5DMKII. The 1DMKII is a great sports body and the 1DMKIIN is just a bit faster. If you're interested in shooting sports, I think the N is the way to go, but I haven't seen them in Dallas below $1,600.
I use the XTi a lot for sports shoots and it is quite adequate within its limits. With the EF24-70 F/2.8L, it makes a great sideline camera.
A big question that you have left unanswered is what you will be using the camera for. If it is for action sports then the AF performance of the MkII is hard to beat. If it's landscapes then the AF and 8 fps are not important. The build of the MkII is much more robust than that of the xxD series. So for a tough, fast camera I would go with the MkII (not the n version, unless you want spend hundreds of dollars on a slightly larger buffer and bigger rear LCD).
On the other hand, the 50D will fit in you budget and has the latest and greatest from Canon as far as features. The vertical grip is a convenience and not a necessity. Unlike Nikon, the vertical does not provide any additional features other than battery capacity and the vertical shutter button. Unless you have an aversion to holding your hand sideways to shoot with the standard shutter button, I think the grip is also a waste of money like the n version of the MKII.
Originally Posted by Matthew
That leads me to another point: what you shoot is perhaps a bigger factor when choosing between a 1D and a multi-digit model than it is when choosing between a full-frame and multi-digit model. Ignoring fisheye lenses, multi-digit cameras can get as wide as 16mm effective focal length using the EF-S 10-22mm lens, whereas the 1D series can get to 18.2mm effective using the (very pricey) 14/2.8 prime. The closest you'll get on the wide end in a similar price range as the 10-22 is the 17-40L (at 22.1mm effective focal length), with other options like the 16-35/2.8L.
We're a Canon/Profoto family: five cameras, sixteen lenses, fifteen Profoto lights, too many modifiers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote