I am looking to upgrade from a Canon Digital Rebel XT. I had upgraded to the XTi and found it had soft focus and ended up downgrading back to the XT. I am looking at a used Canon 1D Mk II versus a new 40D or 50D. I do mostly bird and animal shots and like the 1D Mk II reviews for those subjects, but I know the 40D and 50D have upgraded sensors over the 1D and more megapixels (although I think the 8mp on my XT is plenty for what I do). Either one with batteries etc, should run me about $1100. Any suggestions?
FWIW, I shoot witha 1D MK2 and my wife uses a 40D. While I like the features of the "pro" body the files out of the 40D are better before processing than the 1DMK2. So, for less than $900 you can get a 40D new with zero shutter actuations therefore less likely to have an "incident" shortly after you buy it.
Many will say the 50D has better faster AF. May be so, but the higher ISO noise (400 and above) is worse in the 50D. However the cropping ability of the 15 MP over the 10 MP is an advantage. In either case the larger LCD screen of the 40/50D is a huge plus.
If you consider the 50D please remember that the resolution is somewhat limited by diffraction. So, if you shoot landscapes you may want to keep the f stop at 11 or below.
Bottom line is that the 40/50D is a better choice than a used 1DMK2; IMHO.
Posted by David Bostedo on March 30, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Just a couple of thoughts, not being a Canon shooter myself :
-- How old is the 1DmkII with how many shots taken? I'd listen to what Ed said, and make sure they 1D isn't likely to fail soon.
-- While the 50D is worse for noise at a pixel level than the 40D, it's close, and the resolution advantage of the 50D makes up for it. If you produce a JPG from the 50D at the same pixel dimensions of the 40D, or a print of the same size from both, the 50D should be as good or better. (See this article from DxOMark)
-- Also, while diffraction will possibly be noticeable at a smaller f-number with the 50D, this is also mitigated by the higher resolution. Diffraction creates a problem with getting the maximum possible use of the sensor you have. It doesn't really change things across different models. For instance, if diffraction effects are visible on a 50D at f/16 and not on a 40D, the detail in the 50D image should still be at least as good as the 40D, assuming all else equal. And if you're using an f-stop where diffraction effects aren't visible on either camera, you can get more detail out of the 50D.
-- Finally, there's no real reason the XTi should have been worse than the XT, unless it was out-of-spec. Files may have appeared a little softer at 100% due to the resolution increase (and maybe the sensor filters), but should have sharpened up to be just as good. Comparing at 100% can be a tricky thing, if that's what you were doing. Perhaps the XTi was out of spec? Or maybe you just had a particularly good XT. Those kinds of things can happen if you're being very critical of the output.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on March 30, 2009 at 8:11 PM
Files may have appeared a little softer at 100% due to the resolution increase (and maybe the sensor filters), but should have sharpened up to be just as good.
David, I think you just answered a concern I've had with my 5D2. The shots are sharp out of the camera, but not mindblowing. Yet with proper sharpening in PS CS4, they sharpen up incredibly. I thought something was wrong, because I know my 70-200/2.8 is a razor. Now I know what's going on!
Sorry, I know I didn't add to Allan's question (you guys covered it very well), but it's neat when these NPN forums solve two people's dilemmas!
Other than IQ (which has already been discussed) the 1DII is a very robust camera.
I've had 2 of them and still have one, the other having been "traded up" to a Mark III. If you're happy with the size and weight of the One series they offer a camera that has a ton of features, excellent high speed operation and great weather proofing. Over the years of use I've given mine they've been covered in dust, splashed (or soaked) with both fresh and salt water, banged into things, knocked onto the ground and have kept working without any problems. The robustness combined with the autofocus up to f8 (with a 2X TC) and a larger sensor are strong arguments in their favor IMO. It all depends on what your needs and wants are and which feel best in your hands.
Discussion
5 repliesMany will say the 50D has better faster AF. May be so, but the higher ISO noise (400 and above) is worse in the 50D. However the cropping ability of the 15 MP over the 10 MP is an advantage. In either case the larger LCD screen of the 40/50D is a huge plus.
If you consider the 50D please remember that the resolution is somewhat limited by diffraction. So, if you shoot landscapes you may want to keep the f stop at 11 or below.
Bottom line is that the 40/50D is a better choice than a used 1DMK2; IMHO.
-- How old is the 1DmkII with how many shots taken? I'd listen to what Ed said, and make sure they 1D isn't likely to fail soon.
-- While the 50D is worse for noise at a pixel level than the 40D, it's close, and the resolution advantage of the 50D makes up for it. If you produce a JPG from the 50D at the same pixel dimensions of the 40D, or a print of the same size from both, the 50D should be as good or better. (See this article from DxOMark)
-- Also, while diffraction will possibly be noticeable at a smaller f-number with the 50D, this is also mitigated by the higher resolution. Diffraction creates a problem with getting the maximum possible use of the sensor you have. It doesn't really change things across different models. For instance, if diffraction effects are visible on a 50D at f/16 and not on a 40D, the detail in the 50D image should still be at least as good as the 40D, assuming all else equal. And if you're using an f-stop where diffraction effects aren't visible on either camera, you can get more detail out of the 50D.
-- Finally, there's no real reason the XTi should have been worse than the XT, unless it was out-of-spec. Files may have appeared a little softer at 100% due to the resolution increase (and maybe the sensor filters), but should have sharpened up to be just as good. Comparing at 100% can be a tricky thing, if that's what you were doing. Perhaps the XTi was out of spec? Or maybe you just had a particularly good XT. Those kinds of things can happen if you're being very critical of the output.
David, I think you just answered a concern I've had with my 5D2. The shots are sharp out of the camera, but not mindblowing. Yet with proper sharpening in PS CS4, they sharpen up incredibly. I thought something was wrong, because I know my 70-200/2.8 is a razor. Now I know what's going on!
Sorry, I know I didn't add to Allan's question (you guys covered it very well), but it's neat when these NPN forums solve two people's dilemmas!
I've had 2 of them and still have one, the other having been "traded up" to a Mark III. If you're happy with the size and weight of the One series they offer a camera that has a ton of features, excellent high speed operation and great weather proofing. Over the years of use I've given mine they've been covered in dust, splashed (or soaked) with both fresh and salt water, banged into things, knocked onto the ground and have kept working without any problems. The robustness combined with the autofocus up to f8 (with a 2X TC) and a larger sensor are strong arguments in their favor IMO. It all depends on what your needs and wants are and which feel best in your hands.