| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
40D or 1d markII ???
Jure Poberaj, Student/Intern, Assistant
 |
Cabin John | MD | USA | Posted: 7:31 PM on 10.06.07 |
->> I am looking to get a new camera. I was either thinking about a new 40d or a used markII. what do people think??
40D+
big screen, self cleaning sensor, live view....
markII+
8fps, weather proof....
i would love to get some advice. |
|
Jason Brown, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | USA | Posted: 8:36 PM on 10.06.07 |
->> What types of things are you shooting? Typically I would say if you're shooting sports the Mark II would probably be better due to the autofocus and the higher framerate. However, that being said, the 40D looks pretty amazing for the price. Good framerate (6.5fps), 10.1MP, 14bit... This looks like it could be a great all around camera. Probably not quite as durable as the Mark II, but if you're getting a used Mark II that may not matter as much.
Jason |
|
Jure Poberaj, Student/Intern, Assistant
|
Cabin John | MD | USA | Posted: 8:42 PM on 10.06.07 |
->> I will use it mostly for sports.
Also does it make any sense to go for the 16-35 over the 24-70 due to the 1.6x sensor on the 40d? I am upgrading from a 20d which was 1.3x
thanks for the help |
|
Mark Peters, Photographer
|
Highland | IL | USA | Posted: 8:54 PM on 10.06.07 |
| ->> The 20D is a 1.6 sensor. |
|
Jure Poberaj, Student/Intern, Assistant
|
Cabin John | MD | USA | Posted: 9:32 AM on 10.07.07 |
| ->> yea i missed that one completely, my bad. i take back my second comment. |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 2:44 PM on 10.07.07 |
->> I would rather get the 17-40 instead of the 16-35, IMHO this lens, even the MKII version is not worth the money, I testted it and it didn't impress me, not even on a 1.3X Crop body.
On your 40D vs. MKII question, I have a MKIIn and I haven't tested the 40D yet, I would tend to recommend the 40D for the price and the technology, everyone that has tested it or own one recommends it highly!! Like isaid, you will spend less and get a new camera with better technology, it's a win-win situation. |
|
Luke Trottier, Photographer
|
Bath | ME | US | Posted: 8:08 PM on 10.07.07 |
->> Ask yourself how long is it going to take before my new camera earns its value. Week, Month, 2 Years? Also ask yourself how much actuations am I going to put on this camera.
For twice the money the 1D2n with low actuations is going to long outlast the 40D with its stronger shutter and better build. You will greatly enjoy the larger viewfinder and the AI focus is in a different league. After holding both camera's you will know which is the better of the models.
However for half the money the 40D will give you great results and allow you to enjoy more reach on less expensive lenses. You will also enjoy slightly larger files sizes.
Buy what fits your budget and performance needs. |
|
Michael Sackett, Photographer
|
Sterling Heights | MI | USA | Posted: 8:11 PM on 10.07.07 |
->> I think it truly depends on what you are shooting the majority of the time. I have both bodies and I find that for sports I always grab the 1DII for my primary body. The 40D is an excellent second body and I have found that for certain situations its better (mainly low light shooting). With the 70-200 2.8 on the 40D, you have a nice length for field sports. The focus is a little jumpy on the 40D as compared to the 1DII and I think the metering is a little better on the 1DII.
The main reason I bought the 40D was because I needed a second body to shoot weddings with and I knew the technology would be better for a price that was about $800 less than a good used 1DII or 1DIIN.
I wouldn't discourage you from buying either, but if you are mainly shooting sports the focus accuracy, speed and FPS win out.
Mike |
|
Andrea Ranalli, Photographer
|
Rome | RM | Italy | Posted: 3:04 AM on 10.08.07 |
->> If you think to shoot mainly sport events I thinks The 1D MkII would be a better choiche.
Faster AF, faster frame rate and a better camera body. I'd go for the 40D only if you'll need a smaller and lighter body.
Ciao
Andrea
--
www.andrearanalli.com |
|
Jay Adeff, Photographer
|
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 5:12 PM on 10.09.07 |
| ->> I just upgraded from the 20D to a used MarkII a few months ago. I am very glad I did. I shoot mostly sports, but also weddings and portraits and some occasional celebrity events. The MarkII is amazing compared to the 20D. The auto-focus is much better, the noise is lower, and even my 420EX gives better results. I wouldn't be happy with the 40D now. Spend a few extra bucks and find a good used MarkII. |
|
Jure Poberaj, Student/Intern, Assistant
|
Cabin John | MD | USA | Posted: 11:52 PM on 10.11.07 |
->> Hey, thanks for all the help. I actually ended up just getting the 40D and love it. I could not risk something going wrong with a used one. Thanks again
Jure |
|
Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 12:03 AM on 10.12.07 |
->> Great Choice, not go learn and create great images!!
Y |
|
JohnPaul Greco, Photographer, Assistant
|
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 12:11 AM on 10.12.07 |
->> I'm selling a pair of MkII bodies for a really good price too.. :-)
JP |
|
JohnPaul Greco, Photographer, Assistant
|
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 12:13 AM on 10.12.07 |
->> Sorry,.. I didn't see you bought a 40D..
BTW, where did you buy it from..? Who has it in stock..? :-)
JP |
|
Jure Poberaj, Student/Intern, Assistant
|
Cabin John | MD | USA | Posted: 11:36 AM on 10.12.07 |
| ->> I bought it from BH on Tuesday. It was out of stock for a while but as soon as it came in i put my order in and got it right away. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|