pondering a 1D MarkII

[memento]

i currently have a 40d, 17-55 & 70-200. which has been more than awesome for me.

i'm always looking on Craigs List and this morning i found a 1D MarkII (not n) for a pretty good price.
i know i wouldn't be able to use the 17-55 and that's fine. i'd probably sell it and get a 16-35. or just keep it on the 40 and not have to switch bodies and lenses all the time.

so i'm wondering how much of an 'upgrade' this would be to the 40d.
it appears that the MarkII came out in '04 and i got my 40d in '07.. is a three year older FF camera better?

i do shoot sports, mainly motorcycles. but i also do a lot of portrait type stuff too.
iso performance is pretty important to me as well.

any opinion are greatly appreciated!

 

[o hey tyler]

It's not a Full Frame camera, it's an APS-H sized sensor (1.3x crop factor). Just throwing that out there.

That being said, I went from a T1i (2009?) to a 5D1 (2006) and I prefer shooting with a 5D even though it has older tech.

 

[Big Mike]

Just so you know, the 1D (no s) is not full frame. It's an APS-H sized sensor (1.3X crop factor).

I haven't used either camera, I'm thinking that the image quality is probably pretty comparable, but the big difference will be the 'pro-ness' of the 1 series body.

 

[usayit]

You also get a better AF, better meter, better multispot, and weathersealed body. Battery is the older NiMH batteries which have a higher maintenance than Li-ion. Weight difference between the 40d and the 1dmII is significant. IdmII has a smallish lcd. With the exception of high iso performance, I would take the 1d mII over the 5d. (i hav shot with both) I loved mine for many years and still produced many keepers.