I would like full frame, it is better for doing wideangle shots, but obviously I am not going to get a full frame camera that shoots 6-10 fps for $1000. The Canon 1D is a good all around camera for shooting wide angle and also getting me the fast shutter speeds i want for doing action shots while deployed. and it is also very rugged and a sealed body.
I get where you're coming from, and see why you would think that. But the reality is that it's just not that true. Especially with the kit you are looking at. FF bodies aren't "better for doing wideangle shots", they just yield a wider perspective for a given focal length. So, an FF body will make a given lens look wider, provided that the lens has a large enough image circle to cover and FF sensor.
But what generally happens, is that people with crop bodies just shoot with wider lenses to begin with, so it sort of ends up being a a wash. For example, the 28-300 lens that you want is kind of a classic focal length for FF. But there are plenty of 18-200 aps-c only lenses the effectively render the exact same angles of view as the 28-300 would on FF. The only real difference is that a 1D with a 28-300 will be considerably larger than a d300s with a 18-200. But what's worse, is that the mkII is aps-h, or 1.3 crop, which means you won't even get the same field of view as FF would have, nor can you use the aps-c lenses meant to give equivalent FL's. So now you end up with an FF equivalent of basically 38-400. And 38 on FF is not
that wide. If you got a aps-c camera with an 18-xxx lens, it would actually be "better at wideangle shots" than the 1DmkII with a 28-300 would be.
It's all a matter of equivalents. 20mm on aps-c will look nearly identical to 30mm on FF, which would look nearly identical to 26mm on aps-h. And all other things being equally, I would defy just about anyone to look at a pile of image that are either 20mm aps-c or 30mm FF, and be ableto pick out which ones are which.
I know that FF is generally regarded as "pro", and that it is lusted after as the holy grail of DSLRs, but the reality is that most people and they includes pros, don't have the legitimate of a need for actually having it. 99% of shots that can be made with FF can be made with aps-c, and with the way current technology is progressing, I would say that all of the current crop of semi-pro aps-c DSLRs are better than the 1DmkII is just about every way.
I'm not against FF, nor do I think it's obsolete, but I think too many people just have this notion that aps-c isn't "pro" enough for them. And I too often hear people thinking that an FF body is the magic bean that will make their photography better. I don't care who you are, if you can't make good images with an aps-c body, you won't be able to do it with FF either. And don't think that just because you take a "pro" body out into the field, that you're going to being pro shots home with you. Barring a few extreme situations, what camera got used is one of the most insignificant factors in regards to whether an image came out great or not.
Also, on another note, don't get to hard for FPS. It's not nearly as useful as you think it is. I've made many perfectly timed, peak-action shots, shoot just a single well timed shot; and I've shot many high FPS bursts only to somehow still miss the peak action of the moment. It's a very common misperception that all sports pros get great shots by just letting 'er rip at 10fps. Many action shooting pros still just shoot single well time shots, and in many cases, you don't have a choice. Pro NBA shooters, have big powerful strobes up in the ceiling that take over a second to recycle. So that means that one you take a shot, you don't get to take another one for at least a second, which in the world of sports, is a LONG time. So when Lebron comes down the court for a breakaway dunk, it means you get one chance to capture it at the perfect moment, because by the time those lights recycle for your next shot, he's already running back down the court celebrating. High FPS can be useful in certain situations, but most of the time, a well-timed shot is more useful.
It's sound to me like you're someone who is getting into photography and has aspirations of getting pretty advanced and/or going somewhere with it. But it also sounds like you've been hoodwinked and bought into all the web chatter that if you want to take great shots, you NEED a "pro" body, and that if you want to capture great action, you NEED 10 fps. Neither of those are remotely true. I would again defy anyone to pick up any magazine, through it, and tell which images were FF or aps-c, and which were single shots and which were from a high-speed burst.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/39/39657-59afb9b38e439b33906e81e4952470ac.jpg?1734173973)
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/40/40305-2fbdc00adce4fac5e62dccb3f6f9c633.jpg?1734174713)