| 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 vs Mark II
Kohl Threlkeld, Student/Intern
 |
Monroe | MI | USA | Posted: 4:26 PM on 01.24.08 |
->> I am up in the air between buying a used Mark 2 and a 40d. I am moving up from a 20 d and i need a camera that can be used to shoot daily assignments, stories as well as sports. I would love to have a pro body camera. The frame rate and feel of the body are awesome. However, i have heard awesome stuff about the ISO, color and image quality of the new 40d which is one of my major concerns about the mark 2. THe mark 2 is almost a 4 year old camera with 4 year old technology, and i will need the camera to last a good while.
Can anyone who has shot with both give me some good detailed comparison. Specifically with auto focus, ISO, and Image quality.
Thanks
Kohl |
|
Jason Joseph, Photographer
|
Dublin | OH | USA | Posted: 4:43 PM on 01.24.08 |
| ->> I was in the same predicament a few months ago before deciding to buy a 40D. I have not questioned my decision once since. FWIW, the 40D is a smidgen bigger than the 20D and does feel more robust in my opinion. I am very happy with my 40D and am glad that I went with it. |
|
Michael Sackett, Photographer
|
Sterling Heights | MI | USA | Posted: 4:59 PM on 01.24.08 |
->> I have both cameras. I love the 40D, but the autofocus is slower. When shooting basketball, I find that I'm picking up the 1DII more often...or making sure my 70-200 is on that camera just because I can count on the focus being dead on.
The image quality of the 40D is great, although I have found I've needed to dial down the contrast and saturation a little. ISO is a little better on the 40D, but I wouldn't say that would make or break the deal...the noise on a properly exposed 1DII image at 1600 is more than acceptable in my opinion.
I guess my suggestion is to go with the 40D if you are shooting a variety of subjects, which sports happens to be 30% or less. If you are shooting sports more than 60% of the time, I'd look for a used 1DIIN or II.
Mike |
|
Mike Vander Veer, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Cheney | WA | USA | Posted: 7:28 PM on 01.24.08 |
->> I'm sort of in the same boat, however I currently have a 30D and am looking into making the switch over to the MkIIn.
Is the MkIIn worth the $ over buying a 40D with a grip? |
|
Kohl Threlkeld, Student/Intern
|
Monroe | MI | USA | Posted: 9:58 PM on 01.24.08 |
->> Thanks for the advise so far.
Michael,
I would be shooting sports about 30 percent of the time rather than 60.
I just hate that 1.6 crop, looking through the viewfinder is like looking through a tiny keyhole.
anyone else? |
|
Nathan Papes, Student/Intern
|
Springfield | MO | United States | Posted: 1:04 AM on 01.25.08 |
| ->> I just had to make this decision myself. I went with the mark II N since most of my work is sports. Also the 1.3 crop was a big factor for me. Im not regretting the decision at all but considering I'm coming from Nikon d1x's anything is a step up. |
|
Tyler Kaufman, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
New Orleans | LA | USA | Posted: 1:55 AM on 01.25.08 |
| ->> I agree with Nathan. I got a Mark II which I am very happy with. The AF is very fast and the 1.3 crop gives you some more room, very nice for basketball. 1d 's are built solid. |
|
Anantachai Brown, Photographer
|
Jacksonville | FL | | Posted: 8:12 AM on 01.25.08 |
->> I just sold my N and used the money to get 2 40d's.....the reason is that my wedding season is starting soon so i'd rather have 2 bodies than one. i want to purchase a mk III but i don't really need it until the next football season, and i hoping all the kinks are worked out by then.
just ran them through the mill last night at a college basketball game. i gotta tell you......its a big change as far as using them for sports. the response of the camera is so much slower than the N and the difference in the crop factor/view finder is something to get used to also. note: this is in a very dim lit gym. I will use them for the SR. Bowl game on saturday...so i'm very anxious to see how they perform in daylight....havn't read the instruction manual but there seems to be a huge diff between 8.2 fps vs. 6.5 fps. no sure if shutter speeds determine that????
if you are a chimper, don't trust the lcd......images are better than they appear.
I love the images....and the lighter weight of the bodies,
which will be a VERY big deal once the weddings begin. and
the extra ISO performance is nice also.
i'm satisfied with my decision. |
|
David Ryder, Photographer, Assistant
|
Seattle | WA | USA | Posted: 8:48 AM on 01.25.08 |
| ->> I have a 20D and wanted to get a second body...picked mk II instead of 40D. Crop factor, AF, rain proof, its just solid man, and the fps is like a machine gun its awesome. A bit more money but I am very happy with it. Coming from a 10D and a 20D the 1.3 crop on a wide angle is so nice. |
|
Jay Adeff, Photographer
|
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 12:46 PM on 01.25.08 |
| ->> I went from the 20D to the MarkII (non-N version), and the difference is phenomenal. The AF is so much faster and more accurate on the MarkII, it's not even funny. The MarkII also has lower noise than the 20D at high ISO. I'll take the speed and accuracy of the MarkII over any XXD body any day. I shoot a lot of sports, but I also shoot weddings, portraits, head-shots, senior portraits, etc. |
|
Ed J. Szalajeski, Photographer
|
Portland | ME | USA | Posted: 1:36 PM on 01.25.08 |
->> I shoot with a mark2, and gave the 30D and 40D a test run, at the type of events I do. Basketball, Harness Racing, Hockey as well as a wedding.
One thing, I hated was having 2 different systems. The meters are in slightly different position, but the focus snap on the 30 and 40D's (to me) is not as responsive in low light as the 1 series body.
The 40D, I had some issues with not having the focus on the star button in the rear, and I am now considering getting a 1DM2N or waiting for a new version of the Mark3.
For Weddings, the 30D and 40D did not have that same feel that they were in focus in very low light settings.
The FEL worked well on the 1 series, but I did not test it on the 40D.
My two cents worth. |
|
Andrew Knapik, Photographer, Assistant
|
Lincoln Park | MI | USA | Posted: 1:52 PM on 01.25.08 |
->> In my opinion, the 40D is a prosumer camera. When I made the move to a 1-Series body, it was the best move I could have made, just wish I could get another one.
I own a 20D and a MkIIn, and have shot a lot with a buddies 40D. The Canon 1-Series bodies are, in my opinion, second to none. They are built like tanks, I cant say the same about the 40D, 30D, or the 20D, even with a grip.
I would think that for weddings, you would want as close to full frame as possible? With the 1D's being a 1.3 vs the 40D of a 1.6 crop factor, another vote for the 1-Series.
Just my thoughts. |
|
Mike Vander Veer, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Cheney | WA | USA | Posted: 2:20 PM on 01.25.08 |
->> What are the major differences between the Mark II and the N version other than better AF? Is it worth the $ to get the N version over the original Mark II?
Thanks in advance! |
|
Ken Hupila, Photographer
|
Babbitt | MN | USA | Posted: 2:32 PM on 01.25.08 |
| ->> I have both and love both cameras. However, when I'm shooting fast moving action, I grab the Mark II. Has seemed to be more consistent for me with focus (it is faster). The 40D gets used more often for journalistic or wildlife shoots. |
|
Eric Francis, Photographer
|
Omaha | NE | United States | Posted: 2:37 PM on 01.25.08 |
->> mike,
I sold my 30D and 5D and went back to nothing but MkII's (3).
The focusing, having all one system, same chargers and batteries and the bigger pixels are nice.
There is no real difference between the MKII and the N, except the LCD size and the price tag. I found 3 with low actuations and/or new shutters.
I use them for sports, news, weddings, etc.
No doubt I will swtich to the MKIII eventually, once I feel confident in what I'm getting and the price becomes a bit more realistic.
e |
|
Joe Nicola, Photographer
|
Fort Worth | TX | USA | Posted: 2:59 PM on 01.27.08 |
->> I'm not sure what the difference is between the MKII and the MKIIn, but there is one that is significant enough to lead one major sports clearing house to say, "unless your image is tack sharp, do NOT submit images shot with a MkII, unless it is a MkIIn."
Again, I don't know what it is, but must be something significant. |
|
Kohl Threlkeld, Student/Intern
|
Monroe | MI | USA | Posted: 3:28 PM on 01.27.08 |
->> Thanks for all the suggestions. I went with the 40d because i got a great deal on a used one (300 actuations) with a BNIB grip for 1100.00 from a sportsshooter member. In the end i felt that my money was better spent on something with a bit newer technology (4 years) and i was able to save about 400 dollars over buying a used MkII. This money will allow my to get a 50 1.4 which i have been needing. The majority of what i am shooting at school the next 4 months will be stories which often end up in extremely low light situations and the ISO quality of the 40d will really help.
thanks again everyone and hopefully ill be able to get a used MKIIn by the end of summer.
Kohl |
|
Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 3:44 PM on 01.27.08 |
->> Joe,
I could understand (kinda) that comment if they were referring to a Mark I vs a Mark II/IIN shot. Most agencies want images that are the equivalent of 6MP or greater. the Mark I's 4.1MP frames need to be upsized - and if you're upsizing from a non-tack sharp image, you're asking for trouble. How did we ever survive with 2.7MP D30s?
-----------
I shoot with a Mark IIN, a 20D, and occasionally my 10D. I also use a couple Mark II bodies owned by my business partners. The jump from 20D to 1DM2 is huge. The 20D is good for what it is, but I wouldn't want to shoot action sports with it anymore (I used to). Oddly, unlike Jay, I find the 20D is ever so slightly better at high ISO, with regards to noise, than the Mark II. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|