1d Mk II vs 50D vs (40D+85mm f1.8)

[FidelCastrovich]

Hello all,

I need a second camera, as my 20D is dying. I have excellent Efs lenses (17-55 f2.8 and the 10-22) and a 70-200 f2.8 IS. The 1D can't take Efs, so the 70-200 would pretty much be stuck on it.

For general photojournalism, some portraits, and some sports - what would you go with?

My main concerns are high ISO performance/being able to keep shooting in low light, AF accuracy and speed, and keeping my EFs lenses working.

As far as i can see, the 1D is a 1D - better focus, nice viewfinder, rugged and sealed, etc. How is its high ISO performance compared with, say, a 40d?

The 50D is said to have a usable 3200, which would be very very nice for the basketball and soccer that i shoot. Also, its cropability should come in handy. Other features don't interest me so much.

The 40D with the 85mm f1.8 gives me proven low light ability for sports and a very able body. And the 85mm would be great for the portraits i shoot. Plus, the jury is still out on whether or not the 50D improves on the 40D in the high ISO department.

So what do you say? Which would you go with?

 

[Mike_E]

I don't know how much stock to put in this but it's interesting..
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor

 

[usayit]

My main concerns are high ISO performance/being able to keep shooting in low light, AF accuracy and speed, and keeping my EFs lenses working.

In general, newer is better if your primary concern is ISO performance.

 

[YoungPic]

in general yes but the 50d has worse ISO performance than the 40d, http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/page31.asp, look under cons

 

[usayit]

You say "worse" like that is the definite word. That is just one review site's results (yes I know dpreview is popular) but you should take in several and make your choice. dxomark for example, rates the 50D as slightly better.

 

[frXnz kafka]

You say "worse" like that is the definite word. That is just one review site's results (yes I know dpreview is popular) but you should take in several and make your choice. dxomark for example, rates the 50D as slightly better.

dxomark also rates the 30D lower than the 20D, even though they have the exact same sensor.

 

[usayit]

For the 20D, they specified ISO 100-1600 and for the 30D they specified ISO 100-3200

But that it is besides the point...

"That is just one review site's results (yes I know dpreview is popular) but you should take in several and make your choice. "

 

[laam999]

From the test shots I've seen the noise on the 50D is about the same as the 40D for the same ISO's but for its higher I looks pretty useless to me, the noise is just insane.

I think you might be best off sticking with a crop sensor for now as you will have a cam and no lens to use on it really, you'll probs just use your 20D still. I'd say a 40D/50D you're choice and then get some glass that cam work full frame to work your way up to full in a few yesrs, thats pretty much what I hink I'm gunna do anyway, the 40D and 50D are more than capable cameras

 

[RyanLilly]

It does not seem that a 1D mkII, 40D or 50D, offers significant benefit over a 20D, At least in the situation you describe. Certainly the build quality, fast shooting and slightly bigger sensor of the 1d are benefits, but you would be stuck without the use of most of your lenses, and a decent price for a 1D mkII, is about $1200+, while you can get 20D's for $400.

The 40D is about double that price at $857, and does offer a few extra pixels, a bit better iso performance, faster frame rate and a bigger buffer than the 20D.

If you want something new The 40D offers a lot for the price, but If you dont mind buying used the 20D is a great value IMO.

 

[S2K1]

I have the 1D MKII and it's similar to the 30D in terms of ISO noise performance. The 40D will be better in ISO performance. The benefits of the 1D are ruggedness, weather sealing, and 8fps shooting. Although 6.3fps isn't that much of a difference unless you're shooting skateboard sequences or doing lots of sports photography. If you have the EF-S lenses, I'd say go with the 40D.

 

[FidelCastrovich]

Thanks all, for your input and thoughts.
I decided to go with the newest technology that i can justify spending my money on. Namely, the 50D.
I just played around with it a little, but from what i saw, it outperforms my 30D and 20D by about two stops, as far as ISO is concerned. ISO 3200 is PERFECTLY usable. The AF is also lightning fast, coupled with f2.8 lenses.

Thanks again.

Edit:I think i might have mislead you - I have two cameras, so had i bought the 1D, i wouldn't have lost my EFs lenses, i would just use them on my 30D, and the 70-200 would have been glued to the MKII.

 

[gsgary]

I wouldn't even have to think about it, it would be 1Dmk2 every time in most aspects it will blow the 40D out of the water

 

[Village Idiot]

Sell the 17-55 and get the 1D MKII and a 24-70 f/2.8L.

That's would be my suggestion. You'd have two killer EF lenses and you could use them on your 20D if you wanted that as a backup.

Ed. You could even sell the 10-20 and get a 17-40 f/4. It's not going to be as wide on the 1.3x APS-H sensor, but it's a killer lens and you can find them used for about $400-$500 iirc.

 

[Prophet]

Any chance you would want to talk about your 30D? Compare it to the 50D and the 20D?

-JD-

 

[usayit]

All things considered instead of just focusing on ISO performance, I agree with VI. The only problem is that the sale of the 17-55 is not enough to fully fund the 1dMII + 24-70L.

In general, ISO performance is improving within the technology rat race. If ISO performance is your number one priority, then generally newer technology is better but there is more to a camera than just sheer ISO performance (albeit it is very nice to have).