Best Body under $1000 (USED)

5Dc is best IQ under 1K$.
Best AF? 1D MKII - no doubt.

umphotography wrote in post #13104909
I would grab a 40D

I miss mine. Great camera. And you could get a 40D and a tammy 17-50 and have a great little set up for under $1000.00

This.

Image quality is generally more about the lens than the body, anyway.

What body represents the best for under $1k depends on what you're starting with. If you're starting with nothing, then the 40D for sure, because you can grab the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) and Canon 55-250 IS and still be under $1k, especially if you buy those used as well.

If you're starting off with a set of really good lenses, then it's all about the body at that point, and it'll depend on what your needs are. The best compromise between image quality and capability under $1k will be either the 50D or the 1D2n, and which one of those is a better choice will depend on how much you need ultra wide angle (the 50D wins there), resolution (the 50D wins there again), portability (another win for the 50D) and autofocus (the 1D2n wins by a considerable margin there).

"will depend on how much you need ultra wide angle (the 50D wins there)"

Please explain...

nrowensby wrote in post #13105623
"will depend on how much you need ultra wide angle (the 50D wins there)"

Please explain...

The 50D has available for it the Sigma 8-16. The 1D2n is going to be limited to the Sigma 12-24 (some have said that the Tokina 11-16 works beyond 12mm on the 1D).

The angle of view of the 50D + Sigma combination will be wider than what the 1D2n can achieve with any lens that is available that I know of. Hence, the 50D wins for ultra wide angle.

Of course, it depends on just how wide you really need to go...

mkville wrote in post #13104423
for IQ my vote is 1DS

You know the 1D2 may be better. The 1Ds1 is getting REAL long in tooth

kcbrown wrote in post #13105691
The 50D has available for it the Sigma 8-16. The 1D2n is going to be limited to the Sigma 12-24 (some have said that the Tokina 11-16 works beyond 12mm on the 1D).

The angle of view of the 50D + Sigma combination will be wider than what the 1D2n can achieve with any lens that is available that I know of. Hence, the 50D wins for ultra wide angle.

Of course, it depends on just how wide you really need to go...

Some of my good lenses would be even better if I used them on a full frame camera - like the TS-E 17mm. If I had a full frame camera I would get much wider views with that lens, but on the T1i (same angle of view as the 50D, same sensor) it's less wide than a TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.

I think you ought to clarify that the 50D can use some cheap wider lenses (and a couple good ones) for crop cameras, while the full frames can use any EF system prime lens as wide as they were designed, without penalties. If all you can afford are DX primes, then that makes some sense - but even so on a crop camera good primes and zoom lenses are still useful, just not as good as the equivalent full frame camera and lens pairing. Of course there is the sweet spot argument, which doesn't help crop format lenses, and of course some lenses have new and interesting uses on the crop cameras - arguably performing better than they would on all but the most expensive or in camera-limited situations (noise, dynamic range, and so on).

Edwin Herdman wrote in post #13105835
Some of my good lenses would be even better if I used them on a full frame camera - like the TS-E 17mm. If I had a full frame camera I would get much wider views with that lens, but on the T1i (same angle of view as the 50D, same sensor) it's less wide than a TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II.

I think you ought to clarify that the 50D can use some cheap wider lenses (and a couple good ones) for crop cameras, while the full frames can use any EF system prime lens as wide as they were designed, without penalties. If all you can afford are DX primes, then that makes some sense - but even so on a crop camera good primes and zoom lenses are still useful, just not as good as the equivalent full frame camera and lens pairing. Of course there is the sweet spot argument, which doesn't help crop format lenses, and of course some lenses have new and interesting uses on the crop cameras - arguably performing better than they would on all but the most expensive or in camera-limited situations (noise, dynamic range, and so on).

But the 1D2n is not a full-frame camera. It is a 1.3x crop. That means it can neither take full advantage of EF-S lenses (or lenses that generate an image circle targeting a crop sensor), nor can it use the entire image circle generated by an EF lens.

That is the only reason the 50D is a little better for ultra-wide-angle. The 17mm TS-E is probably the only real exception to that, in that the 1D2n will yield a wider angle of view than the 50D will, and there really isn't any substitute for that lens. I suppose the 1D2n also has a slight advantage with wide primes, but standard wide angles isn't what I was talking about, only ultra-wide angles (wider than 24mm on full frame).

I'd get the 60D, new and it's got some bells and whistles to play with

Jericobot wrote in post #13106395
I'd get the 60D, new and it's got some bells and whistles to play with

I wouldn't. Not when you can get the 7D from CLP for only $100 more. The additional capability of the 7D is easily worth an extra $100...

kcbrown wrote in post #13105691
The 50D has available for it the Sigma 8-16. The 1D2n is going to be limited to the Sigma 12-24 (some have said that the Tokina 11-16 works beyond 12mm on the 1D).

The angle of view of the 50D + Sigma combination will be wider than what the 1D2n can achieve with any lens that is available that I know of. Hence, the 50D wins for ultra wide angle.

Of course, it depends on just how wide you really need to go...

Are you forgetting about the 8-15/4L??

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=922575

nrowensby wrote in post #13106906
Are you forgetting about the 8-15/4L??

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=922575

That's a fisheye lens. If you want to talk about fisheye lenses, then crop still has the 1D beat with the Sigma 4.5mm f/2.8 fisheye.

I always felt the 40d was an excellent camera that can probably be purchased used for under 500 but for $1000 you can even get a new 60D. Both are very good IMO.

kcbrown wrote in post #13105563
This.

Image quality is generally more about the lens than the body, anyway.

What body represents the best for under $1k depends on what you're starting with. If you're starting with nothing, then the 40D for sure, because you can grab the Tamron 17-50 (non-VC) and Canon 55-250 IS and still be under $1k, especially if you buy those used as well.

If you're starting off with a set of really good lenses, then it's all about the body at that point, and it'll depend on what your needs are. The best compromise between image quality and capability under $1k will be either the 50D or the 1D2n, and which one of those is a better choice will depend on how much you need ultra wide angle (the 50D wins there), resolution (the 50D wins there again), portability (another win for the 50D) and autofocus (the 1D2n wins by a considerable margin there).

If you are shooting with a 12-24 lens, the 50D will be 19.2mm and the 1D2n can shoot from 15mm on, which will be 19.5mm. You are not going to notice a 'win' between 19.2mm and 19.4mm. I have the 50D, 1D2, and 1Ds2 and the 50D is NOT a 'win' when it comes to UWA lenses, if it was it would still be my primary body.

You are correct on resolution but you neglected the fact that with all those pixels there is more noise, the primary complaint of most 50D users. The 1D2n at 975 ISO is equivalent to the 50D at 696 ISO. See for yourself: http://www.dxomark.com …/435|0/%28brand​2%29/Canon

The 1Dn2 also has superior Color Sensitivity, weather sealing and superior better AF (as you stated).

If you ask me, superior AF, superior color sensitivity, weather sealing, and less noise make for the better camera. That is just my opinion, but the fact that I own a 40D, 50D, 1D2, and 1Ds2, I am coming from personal experience here. Shooting the 50D at 800 ISO produces quite a bit of noise in the shadows. Shooting the 1D2 at 800 ISO does not. I have also field tested both during my son's sports, the 1Ds produced better images.

Finally, if you ever find yourself in a position where you need to use a TC on a tele, the 1D2n is going to be the way to go. The 50D will hunt and hunt to lock focus with a lot of TCs, but the 1D2n will lock focus right away. This is not something I use often but having the AF system of a 1D body makes using TCs so much easier.

As for the resolution, I guess that depends on how you shoot. I would rather let the lens frame the shot than take the shot and crop in later. Due to that way of thinking, I have printed 20 x 30 with no problems off my 40D and my 1D2. Those are 10MP and 8MP cameras. If you lack the lens you need to get close enough, then the 50D will make more sense because you can crop in much more and still have a nice clean image.

Anyway, like I said, that is just my opinion.

kcbrown wrote in post #13105691
The 50D has available for it the Sigma 8-16. The 1D2n is going to be limited to the Sigma 12-24 (some have said that the Tokina 11-16 works beyond 12mm on the 1D).

The angle of view of the 50D + Sigma combination will be wider than what the 1D2n can achieve with any lens that is available that I know of. Hence, the 50D wins for ultra wide angle.

Of course, it depends on just how wide you really need to go...

Okay, I see your point on UWA lenses now.

the 1.3x crop factor is kinda tough for standard zooms, too. You need FF lenses, and those start at 24 or 28mm. With the 1.3x crop, that is 31 and 36mm equivalent. So you can't get a pretty wide standard zoom. There are definitely options and you can cover ultrawide to super tele on 1.3x without too much hassle, but you might not get the standard ranges you are used to coming from FF or APS-C.