-=1D Mk II and Mk IIn Owners Unite! (Round 2)

i did there was nothing. it just all stopped.

My days of posting images from the 1D II N are coming to and end. I sold it two days ago and got myself a 1D III instead. I will of course keep following this thread!
Here's the very last shot taken with it. Taken last Sunday. A very grey, dark, miserable day.

Goodbye 1DIIN. You've been a great pal!

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17307554
My days of posting images from the 1D II N are coming to and end. I sold it two days ago and got myself a 1D III instead. I will of course keep following this thread!
Here's the very last shot taken with it. Taken last Sunday. A very grey, dark, miserable day.

Goodbye 1DIIN. You've been a great pal!

Congrats Levina..... with the III

But why, there is not that much differences between the two, or am i missing a big point?

Mozes wrote in post #17307604
Congrats Levina..... with the III

But why, there is not that much differences between the two, or am i missing a big point?

Thanks, Mozes!

To answer your question... I just saw somebody else say that the Mark III marks the divide between the old and the new digital era, and I agree. The Mark III is not so much a successor to the Mark II(N), but it is a camera that was completely redesigned from the ground up. It has a much more modern interface (no more two fingers to change a setting), a dedicated ISO button, new metering system, well, most everything is new and different! It is a league above the Mark II in terms of signal to noise ratio and does much better in low light. AF does also better in low light, better even than the ID IV, or so the experts say. Files are 14-bit instead of 12-bit depth so there is more information there and colours are richer and transitions between colours are better. All in all, yes, I think it is a really significant upgrade.

However, I would probably not have done it if my 1D II N didn't have a disgustingly bad autofocus. It was often hit or miss. I had to make a shot several times to get away with one good one. Especially shots of small birds, in a tree with a light background were a disaster. The camera would not focus where for instance my old 40D and even the 5D focuses without any problems! Strangely enough the II N focused very well when the bird was in a dark place with a dark background, even through the clutter of a tree. Problem is that Canon doesn't service the mark II or the mark II N any more plus I was just totally fed up with it. The other day I had a Robin sitting right in front of me in a tree. There were twigs, leaves, but I had a clear view of the bird, he was close too, and the camera would not focus. I took 12 shots and the camera focused on all sorts of things, but not once on the bird. I was so disgusted when I came home that I decided to get rid of it.

I bought the Mark III from a renowned camera shop here and they took in my 1D II N as it didn't feel good to sell it off to somebody else with the bad AF.

It's too bad we're having this grey, dark weather. Not really good for testing out a new camera...

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17307673
Thanks, Mozes!

To answer your question... I just saw somebody else say that the Mark III marks the divide between the old and the new digital era, and I agree. The Mark III is not so much a successor to the Mark II(N), but it is a camera that was completely redesigned from the ground up. It has a much more modern interface (no more two fingers to change a setting), a dedicated ISO button, new metering system, well, most everything is new and different! It is a league above the Mark II in terms of signal to noise ratio and does much better in low light. AF does also better in low light, better even than the ID IV, or so the experts say. Files are 14-bit instead of 12-bit depth so there is more information there and colours are richer and transitions between colours are better. All in all, yes, I think it is a really significant upgrade.

However, I would probably not have done it if my 1D II N didn't have a disgustingly bad autofocus. It was often hit or miss. I had to make a shot several times to get away with one good one. Especially shots of small birds, in a tree with a light background were a disaster. The camera would not focus where for instance my old 40D and even the 5D focuses without any problems! Strangely enough the II N focused very well when the bird was in a dark place with a dark background, even through the clutter of a tree. Problem is that Canon doesn't service the mark II or the mark II N any more plus I was just totally fed up with it. The other day I had a Robin sitting right in front of me in a tree. There were twigs, leaves, but I had a clear view of the bird, he was close too, and the camera would not focus. I took 12 shots and the camera focused on all sorts of things, but not once on the bird. I was so disgusted when I came home that I decided to get rid of it.

I bought the Mark III from a renowned camera shop here and they took in my 1D II N as it didn't feel good to sell it off to somebody else with the bad AF.

It's too bad we're having this grey, dark weather. Not really good for testing out a new camera...

Umm you got me thinking, Couple of weeks ago I sold my EF300mm F4L IS USM to help me fund a EF500mm yes Levina I remember you mentioned that I should keep it, Well I did for about 2 years since you advised me , The guy (very nice guy) who bought it offered me one of his 1DMKIII (he has 2 seating in his office he now shoots with 5D3) and also mentioned that the MKIII is quite a step up from MkII, He is giving me quite a deal about it. I might give him a call.

I did the same thing. I didn't sell my 1Dmk2N tho.. anyway now I'm happy owner of 1D mk3.

1Dmk2 is still very good camera, but 1Dmk3 is better in every way.
Faster and more reliable AF, more FPS, larger buffer, lighter, more battery capacity, much much better user interface and much better IQ. Espacially at high iso's, 14-bit RAW vs. 12-bit on 1Dmk2 = more room in PP.

However, I still like 1Dmk2N

Peter2516 wrote in post #17308150
Umm you got me thinking, Couple of weeks ago I sold my EF300mm F4L IS USM to help me fund a EF500mm yes Levina I remember you mentioned that I should keep it, Well I did for about 2 years since you advised me , The guy (very nice guy) who bought it offered me one of his 1DMKIII (he has 2 seating in his office he now shoots with 5D3) and also mentioned that the MKIII is quite a step up from MkII, He is giving me quite a deal about it. I might give him a call.

I don't know what would be best, Peter, or if it would fit in your plans, but I find that a Mk III is quite a step up.

I'm surprised to read that you are saving for a 500mm!! I thought you loved the Tamron?

Owl_79 wrote in post #17308357
I did the same thing. I didn't sell my 1Dmk2N tho.. anyway now I'm happy owner of 1D mk3.

1Dmk2 is still very good camera, but 1Dmk3 is better in every way.
Faster and more reliable AF, more FPS, larger buffer, lighter, more battery capacity, much much better user interface and much better IQ. Espacially at high iso's, 14-bit RAW vs. 12-bit on 1Dmk2 = more room in PP.

However, I still like 1Dmk2N

My 1D2n was a great camera in almost every way. I liked it very much. But its AF drove me nuts! I took the new camera out yesterday in very bad weather conditions (very dark, just literally no light) but the AF didn't fail me once! Where it did fail it was user error. I'm still in shock over that!
Also, I shot at ISO 3200, wide open at f/4, with shutter speeds of 1/100 to 1/250 and the images were bad: noisy and the birds a bit soft obviously, but I can look through that and I know I can make this camera rock. Also what you say about more room in PP? I took one of the shots to Photoshop and that was pretty sweet!

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17308544
I don't know what would be best, Peter, or if it would fit in your plans, but I find that a Mk III is quite a step up.

I'm surprised to read that you are saving for a 500mm!! I thought you loved the Tamron?

I still do love my Tamron, And I think I will still keep it even after acquiring the EF500mm but that would be the end of me buying other lens. The other lens I have are mainly for my kids and for my sideline job (photo booth event, I have a friend who does wedding photography and he let me piggyback to his gig and let me set up in the corner) Yeah that's me in the corner while he is busy walking around .

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #17307554
My days of posting images from the 1D II N are coming to and end. I sold it two days ago and got myself a 1D III instead. I will of course keep following this thread!
Here's the very last shot taken with it. Taken last Sunday. A very grey, dark, miserable day.

Goodbye 1DIIN. You've been a great pal!

Very nice!

Peter2516 wrote in post #17308609
I still do love my Tamron, And I think I will still keep it even after acquiring the EF500mm but that would be the end of me buying other lens. The other lens I have are mainly for my kids and for my sideline job (photo booth event, I have a friend who does wedding photography and he let me piggyback to his gig and let me set up in the corner) Yeah that's me in the corner while he is busy walking around .

The 500mm would be a great lens to have, that's for sure. And once you have that, what else is there to wish for?
The Photo booth event sounds nice for picking up some extra cash for the 500 fund!

Iconic Pier...

1DmarkII + EF 17-40 F4L <----

Finally received my 1diin, did a quick test with it at the zoo with my tamron 150-600mm. Shot at 1600 iso, highly usable with reduction in post!

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …799357659/in/ph​otostream/

snow leopard

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …798085610/in/ph​otostream/

tigar

Nice !
I think it's a good combo and a good lens. May be I consider selling my 300 2.8 v1 to this lens