1DMK2N

Folks

about to purchase the 1Dmk2 n but have got "chilled feet" as the bucks are
pretty high. I have a 20D and love it but would like to have the AF system
of the 1D. Has anyone here brought a 1D mk 2 and been disappointed with it?

regards

--
Don From Down Under

Don wrote:
Folks

about to purchase the 1Dmk2 n but have got "chilled feet" as the bucks are
pretty high. I have a 20D and love it but would like to have the AF system
of the 1D. Has anyone here brought a 1D mk 2 and been disappointed with it?

regards


NO! Why do you need the faster AF? Sports, wildlife action?
I upgraded from a 10D to 1D2 and it is a wonderful camera.
But it has been out (the original 1D2) for about 18 months,
so one wonders if something new will replace it soon, a
camera with even better specs, like higher frame rate,
faster AF and more megapixels. If you really do not need
faster frame rate and AF, what do you lose if you stick
with the 20D and wait for even better?

Roger Clark
photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com

Don From Down Under writes ...

about to purchase the 1Dmk2 n but have got "chilled feet" as the bucks are
pretty high. I have a 20D and love it but would like to have the AF system
of the 1D. Has anyone here brought a 1D mk 2 and been disappointed with
it?

Hi Don, my wife and I have a 10D, two 1D Mark II's and a 1Ds ... have
only used the 20D briefly in Alaska when George Lepp brought along a
pre-production model September 2004 and I got to shoot with it a bit,
it seemed like a slightly better 10D to me ...

As far as moving from the 20D to the 1D M II, the M II has several
advantages for certain types of photography, especially sports or
wildlife where the 8 fps and 20 deep buffer (RAW) and fast, accurate AF
are very useful. We use ours for bird and bear photography and they
are ideal for this, but do you really need all this firepower?

Other practical advantages of the M II are that it will AF (center
sensor) with f/8 lenses while the 20D only AFs with f/5.6 lenses or
larger. This means that with my 500 f/4 L IS I can AF with a 2x
converter, something I can't do with the 10D or 20D (if I had one).
Actually the AF is so good it will AF about half the time with f/11
lenses with stacked converters (where the camera can't tell it's f/11
because of the stack).

Also, the weatherproofing is very robust, something you'll appreciate
if you shoot a lot in the rain. I was photographing brown bears in
coastal Alaska in Sept for a week and it rained the first 5 days almost
constantly. A guy I was shooting with had two Nikon D2x bodies and one
died on him due to moisture after 3 days so he babied the second one to
keep from ruining his trip, but with the Mark II I was able to get
shots like this in steady rain (note the raindrops falling in the
water) ... http://members.aol.com/bhilton665/bear_D3037.jpg

Also, I know 45 AF sensor points sounds like overkill but with the 500
and 1.4x converter I use this feature all the time to zero in on the
eye of an off-center bird or beast. Now that I'm used to it I wouldn't
want to give it up.

Countering all these advantages are the much lower price and lighter
weight of the 20D. I can carry the M II with heavy lens and tripod (20
lbs) over my shoulder all day but find it's uncomfortable to carry it
with a 3 lb class lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 or 100-400 IS around my
neck for hours at a time since this is about 6 lbs of weight. Also, I
know you do wildlife photography and the extra reach of the 1.6x sensor
of the 20D is nice compared to the 1.3x of the Mark II ... basically
you are getting a 1.3x converter for free.

Unless you REALLY need the extra AF speed and 8 fps and weatherproofing
I'd say you're better off with the 20D, but if you need those features
the Mark II is a great camera. But is it really worth almost 3x the
cost, that's the real question

Bill

"Bill Hilton" wrote in message
oups.com...
Don From Down Under writes ...


Unless you REALLY need the extra AF speed and 8 fps and weatherproofing
I'd say you're better off with the 20D, but if you need those features
the Mark II is a great camera. But is it really worth almost 3x the
cost, that's the real question


I'd really like some detailed info on the differences in the AF performance
between the 20D and 1DmkII. Anyone here have a lot of experience with both
who can comment?

my wife and I have a 10D, two 1D Mark II's and a 1Ds

Do you find yourself using the 1Ds very much?
How does it compare to the 1DMKII? Obviously, the frame rate is
slower, but what about everything else?

Also, I know 45 AF sensor points sounds like overkill but with the 500
and 1.4x converter I use this feature all the time to zero in on the
eye of an off-center bird or beast. Now that I'm used to it I wouldn't
want to give it up.

Couldn't you just use the center spot and then recompose?

my wife and I have a 10D, two 1D Mark II's and a 1Ds

Annika1980 wrote ...

Do you find yourself using the 1Ds very much?

I usually use it just as a back-up when shooting wildlife because of
the slower frame rate (8 fps gets addictive) and because of the extra
reach of the 1.3x sensor size in the M II, but when shooting other
things like landscape or macro or portraits etc I prefer the 1Ds since
the image quality for large prints is higher at low ISO due to the
higher pixel count. But just checking the actual number of shots taken
I see I'm using the 1D M II about 6x as much, probably because we're
shooting more wildlife this year.

How does it compare to the 1DMKII? Obviously, the frame rate
is slower, but what about everything else?

Images are a bit noisier at the same ISO (to me the 1Ds looks clean
enough to skip Neat Image up to 320, the M II a bit higher), the sensor
seems to attract dust more readily, vertical images don't get
auto-rotated automatically in the RAW software, the battery life for
shooting RAW is rated at 250 shots with the 1Ds and I only average 215
while the M II is rated 1,200 frames and I get 1,137 (even with long
lenses and IS) so you don't have to swap and recharge batteries nearly
as often (nice in a place like Alaska where it's a hassle to find
power)... otherwise they're pretty similar, using the same batteries,
same AF, same weight etc.

I know 45 AF sensor points sounds like overkill but with the 500
and 1.4x converter I use this feature all the time to zero in on the
eye of an off-center bird or beast.

Couldn't you just use the center spot and then recompose?

Yes but there are two problems with doing that ... first, it only works
in One-shot AF mode and since my subjects are often moving a bit (I'm
thinking of birds swiveling their heads for example) I usually use AI
Servo mode. In the mode the AF focusses continuously so you can't lock
and recompose.

The other reason is that Canon recommends not using the FLR method
(Focus - Lock - Recompose) when the subject is close since, according
to them, it's not as accurate. Here's a quote from the PDF Canon
published on the Pro bodies ... I can give you the link to this
interesting publication if you want it, it's on their site somewhere
.... pg 11 from the PDF ... "FLR is sufficiently accurate for
photographing distant objects, but it can cause focusing errors,
especially backfocus, when photographing subjects within about 15 ft of
the camera. This is often the case during portraiture. For optimum
focusing performance with close subjects, we recommend avoiding the FLR
technique. Instead, use an off-center focusing point or focus
manually." A lot of the time I'm 15-20 ft from birds and they're
moving, like the hummingbird-in-flight shots posted earlier, so AI
Servo is a better AF mode for me.

Bill

The other reason is that Canon recommends not using the FLR method
(Focus - Lock - Recompose) when the subject is close since, according
to them, it's not as accurate.

I wonder if that is true for the 20D as well? It might explain some of
the backfocusing complaints that we heard early on. I'll have to
remember that the next time I shoot some portraits (Sunday).

Thanks.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
The other reason is that Canon recommends not using the FLR method
(Focus - Lock - Recompose) when the subject is close since, according
to them, it's not as accurate.

I wonder if that is true for the 20D as well? It might explain some of
the backfocusing complaints that we heard early on. I'll have to
remember that the next time I shoot some portraits (Sunday).

Thanks.

That was mentioned at one point as a cause of many of the missed focus
complaints from the 20D...

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

If I get the 1D2N, then I'm unlikely to want to spend
the money on the 1D3 and will probably
end up waiting until the 1D4 at least, which is probably going to be
the greater functionality hit.

You don't want the 1D4. It only has a minor feature upgrade to the
1D3.
Now the 1D5, that's a different story. Not only is it 100 megapixels,
but
it also has satellite radio and free long distance. Not to mention the
14-700mm f/1.8L kit lens.

As always, thanks for the feedback. Think I will give myself a chrissie
present.

regards

Don from Down Under
"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
If I get the 1D2N, then I'm unlikely to want to spend
the money on the 1D3 and will probably
end up waiting until the 1D4 at least, which is probably going to be
the greater functionality hit.

You don't want the 1D4. It only has a minor feature upgrade to the
1D3.
Now the 1D5, that's a different story. Not only is it 100 megapixels,
but
it also has satellite radio and free long distance. Not to mention the
14-700mm f/1.8L kit lens.