1d compared to 1d mark ii and both compared to t2i or 60d

I'm looking to upgrade my camera body which is a 1d classic and I love a lot of things about it but it is just so bad in low light for me. I have a 50mm 1.8 ii and tamron 28-75 2.8 lens and they both are fast lenses but I find in just dim light I have no way of taking pictures without an annoying amount of noise or sometimes banding. I have to always use a flash or bump up the iso past 800 to get it exposed and I sometimes would like even more exposure past 1000 iso. I plan on shooting more urban/street, nature and skateboarding so this is not always or usually a problem but its just discouraging when I bring my camera inside for simple photos and I have to work with my camera extra to just get more light from an subject that already seems to have plenty. I don't want to keep my manuel flash on at all times either. I am a beginner but I have done a lot of research on exposing an image manually and how to use a dslr (I took a college course in photography also) It just doesn't seem like this camera works at all in low light for me.

I can't even post pictures because since it uses a cf card every card reader I get eventually breaks because of the metal prongs bending. I rather have an sd card.

The mk2 is my first choice and it has all the features I wish the 1d had and it seems perfect but I'm worried noise will not improve enough. This is what makes me think maybe just go for a 60d because i'm more confident it can handle more since it is newer.

I am also not throwing away the fact that it could be a user error but I have tried to the best of my ability to expose in low light without a unfortunate outcome. Besides aperture, shutter, and iso could I be doing something wrong?

I am overwhelmed with a of things lately so I don't have as much time to go out shooting and thats why it would be awesome if the mk2 or 60d or even t2i could make it much less of a hassle or learning curve with dealing with noise and low light in general.

I am not confident in my shooting because I havnt been able to shoot that long but I feel like I know enough but what do you guys think? I am open to any criticism or help.

I have a 60D, T2i, and a 1D mk II. The 1D isn't as good in real low light.. it's ok to about ISO 800..and 1000, but 1600 is getting noisy.. the T2i and 60D work better at 1600 and even 3200. If you don't need the burst speed and superior a/f of the D series, the 18MP APS-C's are great low light cameras.. well, great cameras period. To help minimize noise at high ISO's, try ETTR(exposing to the right...referring to the histogram). You're basically overexposing a bit, then bringing it back down in post processing. GL

I've not shot with any of the 1D series, but what I would do is download sample RAW files from those other cameras at various ISO ratings and compare them going through your normal workflow. I think I used DxO last time, but I don't know if they have comparable shots with the 1Dc.

The 60D and t2i are no low-light monsters by today's standards but may compare well with 1D or 1DII and personally I think are very useable at ISO 800 and 1600 with decent noise reduction software, but that depends on what you expect and the size of print you are going to make. For noise-free-looking landscapes printed at 20inches and taken at ISO1600, I would not be happy with a t2i or 60D, especially in the shadows.

Which brings me to the last point - the amount of noise is definitely a function of the lighting and exposure. If you have an evenly lit scene and can expose to the right the higher ISOs are a lot more useable than if you either have a large dynamic range (and thus lots of shadows) or under expose the image.

If you are used to a 1D, the t2i might not have the handling you would like (i.e it will feel like a small plastic toy) nor some of the features of the 60D (although did I dead somewhere it does not have MF adjust? which for me is important for fast primes.)