40d to 1d mark ii (for HS sports)

[doubledragon]

I've been frustrated with my 40d and the AF not really hitting the mark during fast paced sports and now considering a move to a 1d mark 2 or 1d mark 2N, also figuring that the upgrade will not cost too much if I sell the 40d and Tamron 17-50 (which won't fit 1 series I think)

Anyway, what do y'all think of this move? will I be happy with the 1DmarkII or will I be questioning the upgrade after a few outings? Is it a substantial upgrade (for sports) over my 40D? I've heard that the AF will blow me away, but how about lowlight high ISO compared to 40D?

[rdompor]

You won't see much (if any at all) improvement in regards to high ISO performance from the 40D, but the AF alone is reason to upgrade. The 1D2 is a very capable sports shooter, but then again so is the 40D. If your AF technique is proper and you still aren't getting the shots with the 40D, I say the 1D2 will go a long way in getting the shot. However, if it's user error, the upgrade may not help at all.

If it were me (it once was), I'd would (and did) do it.

[equetefue]

Ive had both. Sold the 40D to fund for 1d2 a while ago.

The AF is that much better than the 40D with the right lens and conditions. Noise level is about the same. A well expose camera will yield very good results. The screen from the 40D and the GUI will be missed, along with the smaller and lighter frame.

It will be a very steep learning curve believe me. But after you master the 1d you WON'T look back.

The 1d2 is specialized tool for action/sports/wildlife that will do it's intended job perfectly; the 40D is a jack of all trades and is pretty decent for everything u shoot.

After getting rid of the 40D I came to conclusion. If you can't afford the best of both worlds the XXD series is the best bang for your buck. But if demand a lot and have the money, do what I did and get a full frame and 1.3x body.

Hope it helps,

Ed

[doubledragon]

Thanks for the responses. AF is my biggest concern

equetefue, I am interested in what you said about missing the 40d for it's GUI and LCD screen. Is it a big loss? I ask because my 40d's screen is big and does not display Reds properly, sometimes it seems a bit on the bright side but I do use it to "chimp" - is there a delay with the 1d when reviewing pics or is it just a smaller LCD?

Any other concerns moving from a 40d?

[bobbyz]

What lenses and which sports?

Don't have 40d but moved from 30d to 1dmk2 more than a yr ago. Best move I made. The AF is so much better than 30d. Now I hear 40d and new 50d are better but I can't believe them to be as good as 1 series.

[equetefue]

It's a huge deal. Now keep in mind that you will be missing the 40D for some time, and u will be double guessing yourself on your decision, but when you go shoot you will be extremely happy.

Theres a 1" diference in screen, so basically u can't judge a pic on the M2, but your keeper rate will go so high that u will stop looking at the screen except to see what you got on that 8.5 fps burst

[dinny66]

I recently changed from a 40D to a 1dmk2n for shooting football County League level. The difference is ENORMOUS!!!!!
Oh lordy it's bleeding fantastic. If AF is your concern, as it was mine, then it's a no brainer, honestly. If you set it up properly ( I found, and lost, a link to a Sports Illustrated file you download and install to the camera) you won't go wrong. Single point or ring of fire under your thumb. Easy. 8.5 fps is like a machine gun. The 40d or 50d are just simply not as fast. I'm shooting 1200 shots a game and the difference is obvious after a few seconds.
I really miss my 40D, luckily I have a 50D as a second body but you will see a difference.
Do it! Do it now!
And get a bigger hdd to store all those extra images you'll have. lol.

Good luck and enjoy.

Mike

[40Dude6aedyk]

You didn't say how many of the 1200 shots a game are worth looking at. :)

[rdompor]

You didn't say how many of the 1200 shots a game are worth looking at. :)


Yeah...1200 per game certainly seems excessive to me. Just because your camera can shoot 8.5fps doesn't mean you have to pin the shutter down every single time. I shoot NCAA sports and there aren't enough worthwhile moments to capture in 1200 images.

[primoz]

These two bodies can't really be compared. 1d is work horse and it does its job. 40d is hobby camera, and if people like this or not, it's not meant to be used for shooting sport... at least if you are shooting sport for money, where you can't count on luck and hope one particular photo might or might not turn out good. I haven't been shooting much with 40d, but enough to know, that af is pretty much not usable, especially compared to 1d.
1dmk2 might be a bit worse when it comes to noise with high iso, but I rather have sharp photos with a bit of noise then clean high iso photos which are out of focus. Everything else but this iso thing, is on 1d side. But that's just me ;)

[dinny66]

Yeah...1200 per game certainly seems excessive to me. Just because your camera can shoot 8.5fps doesn't mean you have to pin the shutter down every single time. I shoot NCAA sports and there aren't enough worthwhile moments to capture in 1200 images.

:lol:
To be fair, I've been cutting down quite a lot. And the 1200 or so is always good practice for us learners!
My first ever game was 1800 (over 90 or so minutes), but I'm getting down to 500 or so most games, though 1200 at my last game as it was a QF and didn't want to miss anything important.

As they say, practice makes perfect, and it's free with digital too. I guess I post up 50-80 images a game. But I'm getting more fussy as I go and spend more time about improving composition, backgrounds, angles etc. And of course I'm not under any pressure to sell anything.
But the best bit is I'm having fun :lol: and that's the bit I like the most.

Mike

[rdompor]

:lol:
To be fair, I've been cutting down quite a lot. And the 1200 or so is always good practice for us learners!
My first ever game was 1800 (over 90 or so minutes), but I'm getting down to 500 or so most games, though 1200 at my last game as it was a QF and didn't want to miss anything important.

Mike

:shock: 1800? Well holy crepes and crackers! haha. 500 sounds much more reasonable though. Just remember that good sports photography is just as much about knowing when not to shoot as it is knowing when to shoot. I'm sure you felt the pain having to sort through everything.:lol:

[SnapLocally.com]

40d is hobby camera, and if people like this or not, it's not meant to be used for shooting sport... at least if you are shooting sport for money

I get a chuckle out of intellectual snobbery like this.

Hey- I'm not arguing that the 1D series isn't a better performer than my lowly 40D- I think there's enough empirical out there to prove this. But, you've effectively given the credit of your success to your camera. Personally, I do things "wrong" all the time such as making money with "amateur" equipment, and shooting sports with less than "professional" equipment. Yet, despite my apparent amateurish equipment, I have a rather high keeper rate, despite often shooting at iso 3200 in environments that barely register an EV above 5, all without relying on fps to capture the action, or servo to catch them clearly.

http://snaplocally.com/22109/3.jpg

http://snaplocally.com/22109/4.jpg

Thanks, but I'll take the credit for shots I take. After all, I told the camera what to do.

[doubledragon]

2nd pic looks a little OOF

[SnapLocally.com]

Better?

http://snaplocally.com/boxing/photography/5.jpg

XTi, iso 1600, used Tamron 28-75

[kelbel3]

Wow! That's 1600 ISO on the Rebel?
Did you run noiseware?

[SnapLocally.com]

All five shots here were indeed taken @ 1600 iso with the Rebel:

http://snaplocally.com/boxing/photography

Yes, some minor tweeks were necessary considering chromatic noise was a bit of an issue. The worst part of shooting wasn't the camera itself, it was the glass: a very soft version of the Tamron 28-75.

[doubledragon]

SNAP.
Thanks for your input, GREAT shots.
I agree that we should not be giving all the credit to our cameras but think that you would agree that you may have more keepers with a better AF system

Basically, I think that I'm using correct shooting procedure but am losing some critical images to focus issues due to my 40D's AF system.

[primoz]

Well believe it or not, this is pretty static sport, at least as far as af is concerned. Fighters move meter left or right with pretty slow speed. Now consider focusing to something what is moving toward you at 150km/h. ;)
Snobbery or not, I do rely on camera and its af system. Sure things could be done old way using manual focus or pre-focus, but why limit yourself, and your money income, to one photo when you can use your tool to get more out of it. But as I wrote... it's just me. And even if I use af and 10fps, I still take credits for my shots ;)

[SnapLocally.com]

Gee, that speed sounds like standing by the side of a highway and shooting cars driving by in the daylight. ;) They're not coming straight at you, so there's a certain amount of distance, it's easy to predict where they'll be considering they're going fairly linear in the grand scheme of things, and it's well lit. Shooting skiing doesn't sound challenging to me. No, it sounds quite a bit easier than trying to time a bat hitting a ball, or a hand and foot- which you don't see coming- connecting to a face. ;)

Hey, with your credientials, it should be fairly easy for you to find a fight event for you to shoot. Go ahead- you've got some impressing equipment with incredible capabilities- go, and show me how it's done, and how easy it is to accumulate worthwhile shots.

http://www.chasthornhill.com/IMAGES/ART/Wink600.jpg

[doubledragon]

Snap-
It's one thing to state your opinion but another to completely hijack a thread. While it's nice to see you've maximized the AF performance of your 40d, this thread is more about the AF differences between 40d & 1 series- I've already decided that 40D is not cutting it for me.

Try the C&C section if all you're after is some praise for your fighting pics.

[Big Hands]

The range of your lenses will be different due to the crop factor.

I have not used a 1D series, but I do know the frustration of using the xxD series for fast action sport shooting due to the AF shortcomings compared to the 1D series. If you can afford to step up, I think you'll be satisfied overall.

[equetefue]

when I went from the 40D to the 1D2 my keeper rate went thru the roof. Acquisition speed is that much faster.

[skintero]

Of course you're going to be better off shooting sports with a 1D series, but if you're having that much of a problem getting good, crisp shots with the 40D, then it's most likely user error. While I'm sure your keeper rate will go up, you still need to learn how to use your camera. I'm not sure why you would have ever gone with a XXD series camera if you could afford a 1D series though.

[equetefue]

I shoot wildlife... it's not user error. You obviously never handle a 1D and notice the diference. Try shooting small flying birds coming straight towards you with a 40D.

Very hard to keep the rate as high. Tracking in the camera is pretty good, acquisicion time sucks.

[skintero]

I shoot wildlife... it's not user error. You obviously never handle a 1D and notice the diference. Try shooting small flying birds coming straight towards you with a 40D.

Very hard to keep the rate as high. Tracking in the camera is pretty good, acquisicion time sucks.

Sorry if you took my response as an all inclusive comment on anyone ever shooting anything with the 40D. My comment was meant for the OP, not someone shooting bird photographs. Also, if you re-read my post, I specifically said "Of course you're going to be better off shooting sports with a 1D series". I've never shot birds so I'd never question anyone having problems with AF shooting birds. However, I have shot thousands of football (American), soccer, softball and baseball pictures with not only a 40D, but with a Rebel XT and have had great results. My results would be even better with a 1D, but the statement that you can't get great sports shots with a 40D is just plain garbage IMO. That's why in this case I say it's probably user error. I guess it could also be a problem with the camera AF, but that can be repaired.

[equetefue]

I tell you what. I was a Nikonian and used D70, D2H, D2X then 20/30/40 and now 1D.

The 40d was my best body so far. If it wasn't for the fast acquisition speed of the 1D I would have kept the 40D. I agree with you skintero. The 40D is a very good camera and extremely capable in the right hands.

[skintero]

I'd like to upgrade to a 1D before my 4th grader hits high school. That gives me 5 more years to save.

[thekid5]

The Mark II will raise your in focus shots percent by a large margin. I agree you can probably get some great shots with a 40D but the frustration I had was the great actions shots that were not in focus. With the Mark II probably 85% of your shots are useable when shooting indoor action.

I was just working with a friend for a HS basketball poster and his best shot of the year just based on the action captured was out of focus. The picture showed a player jumping over the defender to make a layup. It was such a great shot he was still going to give it to the player. If this is the type of shot you are looking for, it just pains you to capture the moment but is not useable because it is out of focus.

Can someone comment what the percentage of in focus shots they get with a 40D for basketball in a so-so lit gym if you shoot a couple of hundred shots.

[SRF34]

great info in this thread. I have a 30D and was wondering the same question as the OP. It seems the the prices of a 1dmkII are getting quite reasonable for those of us amateurs. If the focus (excuse the pun) is on a "sports/action" body, whats the difference and preference between the "s" and "n" and whatever else on the 1dmkII?

[clarence]

whats the difference and preference between the "s" and "n" and whatever else on the 1dmkII?

Go to http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/
click compare cameras "side by side"...
click "Show All Cameras" (to include discontinued models)

Click:
- 1D
- 1D Mark II
- 1D Mark IIN
- 1Ds

Click "[Add]"

Click "[Compare side-by-side]"

[The Moose]

And this is why I'm still not sure I definitely want a 40D! I considered getting a 1D classic but I wouldn't just be using it for sports so I feel I'd rather go for the all-rounder that is the 40D.

[MDteX]

And this is why I'm still not sure I definitely want a 40D! I considered getting a 1D classic but I wouldn't just be using it for sports so I feel I'd rather go for the all-rounder that is the 40D.


If you can swing a 50D I would recommend that. I have both a 40D and 50D and the 50D handles so much better. That and the better LCD, micro-adjust and higher ISO make it a better all around performer.

The 40D and 50D are good bodies but the 1D does have a quicker focus and better dynamic range IMHO. I have all three.

[The Moose]

I have considered getting a 50D but I'd rather not spend the extra for one, as much as I would like to. The main reason why is because I want to upgrade ASAP and to do that, it's best I go for the 40D. I'm definitely selling my 400D/BG-E3 + kit lens and I'll get a good AU$600-700 from that, then I'll add in up to AU$500, definitely lower but the RRP of a new 40D is AU$1200 so I'm being safe. I tried to convince my parents to pay the extra after I sell my 400D but they're having none of it (I'm only 17 and just about broke right now because of my lens purchases :lol:). If they change their mind, I'll definitely get them to put in on top of what I'm putting in so then I can get a 50D. It's unlikely so I'm preparing myself for a 40D and I'll definitely be happy with it. The 50D is, IIRC, AU$1900 new.

[gh patriot]

Better?

http://snaplocally.com/boxing/photography/5.jpg

XTi, iso 1600, used Tamron 28-75



This shot is awesome!!!