1D Mk II or IIN
I currently have a 40D with a 100-400, 70-200 f/2.8 IS II and a Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8 EX.
I am considering a 1D Mk II or IIN for less than $1,000. I cannot afford a newer 1D model. Would I be crazy to buy the Mk II or IIN? Or should I spend the money on a say a 7D or upgrading say the Sigma lens?
Thanks for your thoughts.
IIn if you can. Went through the same decision early this year.
Chris
0 .· ` ' / ·. 100
I have a high sarcasm rate. Deal with it.
include('sarcasm.php')
Hi Don,
I have a 1DII, a 1DIV and use a 7D occasionally. If you are mainly using the camera for birds, I would choose the 7D. I never had too much issue with the smaller buffer of the II versus the IIN. You would get more pixels on subject with the 7D for subject small in the frame (like birds).
Roger
Last edited by Roger Clark; 11-17-2011 at 11:53 PM.
Thanks Chris and Roger. Your comments seem to echo the conversation I am having with myself, "Get the IIN, no get the 7D".
Roger, like everything on the web, I seem to find many who like the 7D and many who do not. The biggest complaint I find seems to be noise at higher ISO, which is what I am trying to get away from. Is the 7D, when properly exposed noisy?
I tend to buy the older gear to save the extra money. Nothing wrong with the old stuff everyone use to sing the highest praises about and I don't need the latest and greatest.
Chris
0 .· ` ' / ·. 100
I have a high sarcasm rate. Deal with it.
include('sarcasm.php')
Hi Don,Originally Posted by Don Thompson
Thanks Chris and Roger. Your comments seem to echo the conversation I am having with myself, "Get the IIN, no get the 7D".
Roger, like everything on the web, I seem to find many who like the 7D and many who do not. The biggest complaint I find seems to be noise at higher ISO, which is what I am trying to get away from. Is the 7D, when properly exposed noisy?
It gets complex, but actually, if the resolution on the subject were the same (same pixels on subject) and using the same aperture diameter, then the 7D is the top performer of all the canon sensors where I have seen data. The 1DIV is second. The older generation sensors like the 1DII are lower in signal by over a stop so about 50% more noise per pixel.
But this is not how most comparisons are made (same resolution on target). Most people compare with a given lens, e.g. 400 f/5.6, and in that case, the 7D image would have 1.9x more pixels (linear size) on a subject than the 1DIV. If the signal-to-noise ratio (S/N) is high, most people will choose the 7D image. In fact even in low light, high ISO images, I bet people would choose the 7D. But with the more efficient 7D sensor, and higher resolution on the subject with a given lens, the S/N will be only about 40% higher per pixel than the 1DII (the pixel sizes would make the noise 90% higher if the sensors had the same efficiency). Rarely do we see side by side comparisons, and photographers seem extra concerned about noise (strange considering how much film grain, even velvia added noise).
The way to look at this is a given lens, e.g. 400 f/5.6, delivers so much light to the sensor. Smaller pixels give more resolution but less light per pixel: one chops the given amount of light into smaller pieces, like cutting a pie into smaller pieces (one has only so much pie). The 7D pixels are smaller but more efficient, mitigating about half the light loss per pixel (magically making more pie!).
Take a look at figure 2 on this page:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/
where a 1DII image is compared to a 7D image of the moon with the same lens (300 f/2.8). Which is better in your view?
The 1DII AF is about the same as the 7D in my experience, but the 45 point AF selection is much better in my opinion. I like the button layout, operation, and menus of the 1D series much better than other canon cameras, and I will not sell my 1DII. But given the choice, I would buy a 7D. The 7D also has a lower noise floor (better noise in the deepest shadows) compared to the 1DII, and the fixed pattern noise is lower on the 7D. But be aware, the 7D uses two different green filters in the Bayer array and some raw converters do not treat them well resulting in what is called a mazing pattern (looks like a maze). The canon raw conversion software does quite well with the 7D, and my experience with photoshop ACR is good too.
Roger
Thanks Roger. I definitely do not understand all you are telling me, but bottom line, you are saying I should buy the 7D over the 1DII. I assume that you are not however saying buy the 7D over say the Mk III or Mk IV.
Hi Don, If you decide to go the 1D route make sure you go with IIN version Canon did some upgrades with the sensor and it has better files. I recently upgraded my 40D and I was faced with the same decision in the end I went with the 1DMKIII for the better files over the 7D and I am not talking about noise but the overall look and feel to them. The 1D sensors seem to have more room in the highlights and handle post processing a little better then the 7D. I do not think you will get the same advantage with a 1DII since sensor technology has improved significantly since that camera was made and the 7D despite its reputation is still capable of producing award winning images.
Don Lacy
You don't take a photograph, you make it - Ansel Adams
There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs - Ansel Adams
http://www.witnessnature.net/
https://500px.com/lacy
Don,
Given the choice of 7D versus 1DIIN or 1DII, I would choose the 7D
Given the choice of 7D versus 1DIII, I would choose the 7D
Given the choice of 7D versus 1DIV, I would choose the 1DIV.
Roger
Thank you Roger for clearing that up and Don for your input.
You have given me even more to think about.
Roger, I shot with both cameras before making a decision and my head told me to go with the 7D and my heart said the 1DIII I tend to follow my heart it usually leads me on a more interesting journey.
Don Lacy
You don't take a photograph, you make it - Ansel Adams
There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs - Ansel Adams
http://www.witnessnature.net/
https://500px.com/lacy
My wife and I shoot a 7D. We sold a 1D2 (not N) to buy the 7D. We find that AF is much better in the 7D and the overall IQ is better. In our world we find better color and much better detail. Significanly more cropping ability. As far as noise is concerned if we expose correctly we can shoot wildlife at ISO 1600 regularly and occsionly 3200. We will use Noiseware Pro if needed. Prints up to 13 X 19 with significant cropping look great and have sold. That said I mostly use a 1D4 and find the IQ even better. However you can buy 3 7Ds and still not reach the price of a MK4. The body is BIG and HEAVY - however I agree with Roger that the control layout is better in the iD series. My wife howeve, has small hands and would never buy a MK4 no matter how good it is.
Thanks Ed. I have no doubt that the Mk IV is better than the 7D but as I said in my original post, I cannot afford to buy it. I thought if I could buy a 1D Mk IIN or III at a reasonable price I might do that. But as far as IQ, it seems I would be better off with the 7D.
I was looking at both the IIn and the 7D and decided if I found a low mileage IIn I'd buy that mainly so I could use f8 lenses with AF and the potentially lower noise of the 1D. But in the end I bought a refurbished MkIII that had done 8000 cycles before the mirror box and shutter were replaced about a fortnight before I bought it, a little more than a month ago. So far it has been an awesome camera but some people in Australia say it's a real lottery the MkIII.
Tony,
First, note the pixel sizes: 1DII(n)= 8.2 microns, 1DIII: 6.4 microns, 7D: 4.3 microns.
You chose a 1DIII for its f/8 response, so let's compare a 300 f/4 on the 1DIII and 7D. On the 1DIII put on the 300 f/4 + 2x TC. Let's say you photograph a bird and it is 1000 pixels high. Put the 300 f/4 on a 7D with a 1.4x TC and that same bird would be about 1060 pixels high.
The 7D with newer sensor technology is about 50% more efficient than the 1DIII, so you would get about 40% more signal in each 7D pixel and have more pixels on subject. Further, AF would be faster not only due to the newer AF in the 7D but it would be working at f/5.6 versus f/8 on the 1DIII.
Bottom line is when you configure to get the same number of pixels on a distant subject, the newer sensor will perform much better.
You need less focal length with a small pixel size sensor to get the same pixels on subject, and because you need less focal length with a given lens, the light is spread out less, equalizing the amount of light falling on each pixel. With newer sensor technology (fill factors and micro lenses were major improvements from the 1DIII to the 7D) one would win with the newer sensor with small pixels. Further, the newer sensors have less fixed pattern noise, lower read noise and dark current suppression.
Roger
Roger, I didn't need to know that I bought the wrong camera body :(
However, after reading this thread I'm not so sure I did buy the wrong body.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...l=1#post732383
Last edited by Tony Hansford; 11-25-2011 at 09:28 PM.
Hi Tony,
There is nothing "wrong" about either body. I was just trying to clear up misconceptions. The other thread also has misconceptions which I tried to clear up.
Roger
Roger, my 1D Mk3 may be inefficient or have lower pixels count or not less noisier than a 7D or what ever, but it can AF with a 2x on an f/4 lens while a 7D cannot and that's a big plus in my book.
http://www.birdphotographers.net/for...Teleconverters
Tony,
First let me say the 1DIII is still a great camera. I have a 1DII and will not sell it even though I have a 1DIV.
Please go back and read pane 15 (my post from yesterday). The smaller pixels of the 7D is like having a built in 1.4x TC compared to the 1DIII. So the 7D with only a 1.4x TC is slightly better than the 1Diii with a 2x in terms of resolution on a subject and noise. So there is no need for f/8 AF on the 7D (when comparing to a 1DIII). A 1DIII has many other advantages, including 45 point AF, weather sealing, and faster frame rate.
Roger
ok you can have the last word if that's how you like it
Tony,ok you can have the last word if that's how you like it
I'm sorry you feel that way. That was not my intent at all. I was simply trying to correct a misconception. Sorry.
Roger
Pixel pitch dont tell everything. This is a very theorical point of view if you look only at the size of the sensor and the pitch of the pixel. I have try 3 samples of the 7D and never be happy with the result. So I better like less pitche per pixel on the subject but of better quality on it. The 1D2n are a very capable camera. Not long time ago it was "THE" camera to have. Some of the great picture you watch was made with it. I have a 1D4 but if look for a cheap 2nd body, ill go with the 1D2n anytime, if a little more money is disponible, Ill go for a 1D3. For all around a classic 5D are top notch. Those "older" beat a lot in image quality any of the new APS-C camera.
That said, I dont want to pay overprice for a 1D MK2n. Somebody here offer me one at $550 with the charger and 2 battery, - 35,000clic. This is very good price, maybe in the $750-800 for the n version are usualy OK and $500 for the 1D2 first version.
Alian,
I agree that "pixel pitch doesn't tell everything." If you go back and read what I wrote, I always talked about the lens and focal length along with the pixels, as all are important. It is not theoretical at all. It is basic physics and engineering.
Please look at figure 2 at: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/telephoto_reach/
which shows the same subject photographed with the same 300 mm f/2.8 lens and 4 camera bodies: 1D Mark II, 5D Mark II, 1D Mark IV, and 7D. Which image do you believe is best for the subject, the one taken with the largest pixel pitch, the smallest pixel pitch, or somewhere in between?
Roger
Am late in on this thread but I had the opportunity to play with a 1DII recently and the main thing that struck me was the very awkward ergonomics re. making menu choices, replaying images etc. I guess you would get used to this but the new Canon bodies are so simple in this regard that it would be hard for me to jump between the two "eras".
Hi John,
I agree that the newer 1D series ergonomics are better, especially with the combination wheel and joystick on the back coupled with the menu layout. The 1DII series did not have the joystick. But the menus are close to newer 1D bodies than the 1D series are to the non-1D series. You do get used to the small differences, but I hope that the present system doesn't keep changing. It seems like manufacturers make changes just to show they made changes. This is particularly true with software. If car interface's changed like cameras and software, we would see models with the steering wheel in the middle and in the back seat and the break and gas peddle switched!
Roger
I just sold of my 1D Mark II. Great camera. There is no difference in sensor between the 1D Mark II and 1D Mark II N.
Since I was using the EOS 1V HS from the film days, using the 1D Mark II was easy. The feel, buttons etc are always similar in 1 series bodies. Ofcourse, later on the joy stick made appearance. However, I agree that non-1 Series owners may fumble for sometime to learn the menu of 1D II/1D IIN.
I haven't used a 7D with a grip. However, with a 1 series body, I can handhold and get sharp images at lower shutter speeds than a non-1 series body.
Aesthetically, I feel the 1D Mark II was more manly and my 1D Mark IV is more feminine.
Cheers,
Sabyasachi
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote