1D Mark III vs 1D Mark IIN + glass?

i'm really debating between these two options.

The 1D mark iii is currently going for about 1,100 used on ebay.
The 1D mark iin for about 700.

That obviously equates to a 400$ savings that i would use toward glass, if you recommend me take this route, what should i purchase considering i already have a 24-70 L and an incoming 70-200 ii?

Thanks in advance for your opinions!

It would help if you would make mention of what you like to shoot!

Nice lens selection, BTW. The $400 would go most of the way towards a 17-40L...or could buy you an 85/1.8, or 2x III, or 100mm USM macro, speedlite, etc.

The 1D3 has a considerable amount of features which I personally think justify the price difference. I have had 2x1D2N and I currently have a 1D3.


The 1D3 is lighter (it's pretty noticeable), has newer style batteries with much better performance, Autofocus Micro Adjustment, a lot less high ISO noise, doesnt use the dreadful two button push system to change settings, has a larger screen...


There are even more differences which I'm forgetting.


Get the 1D3 and never look back. $1,100 is too cheap for that much camera

Oh, and if you already have a 24-70 and 70-200 coming in, you should be able to manage without that $400 for a while...

Depends on what you shoot. Unless I was doing high ISO work, 1dmk2 vs 1dmk3 doesn't matter that much. If high ISO then yes, 1dmk3 much better but then again I will sell all and look for something like 5dmk3.

im shooting all kinds of sports; would like to get good results in indoor high school gyms and high school football games at night.
I'm also thinking of starting a portrait "business", do you think the 70-200 would suffice?

Football ideally you want 300mm f2.8. And nice higher ISO body unless you want to use flash. For gyms, 1dmk3 is nicer but again better high ISO body will help unless you can strobe the gym.

Portraits I will take plane old 5dc.

First, I'd get the 1D3. I had 2 1D2Ns and after I got the 1D3, they went bye bye, and I stuck with the 1D3 for a long time. Loved that body.

Next, I had those two lenses and they were ok for the high school sports I shot, but I preferred faster primes for indoors, and longer primes for football. The difference in cost between the bodies won't solve that.

OP, you should get an 85/1.8 for indoor sports!

indoor sports I was extremely displeased with my previous 1dmk3 and 70-200 mk2. Heck even taking photos of my daughters ballet class (available light) I did not like the files. In good ideal light the files are good.

I'd be curious to see if theres a difference in ISO performance using a 1dmk3 compared to your t2i.

Borrow a friends 1dmk3 before buying into the hype of the 1dmk3 universal application. 10mp hinders cropping capabilities and Iso performance isn't anything to brag about either.

I'm not a fan of the 7d or 1dmk3 but if I had to choose I'd go with the 7d for more crop capabilities (more MP).

Print your files and that will be the equalizer. Viewing on screen the 1dmk3 has blotchier noise but a tad easier to clean up than a 7d fine hazy noise.

1DIII all day, every day. The Lithium batteries (do not underestimate how nice it is to get 2,000+ shots on a single charge), better screen, higher ISO capability/performance​, improved ergonomics, AF adjust, etc. These features (to me, anyway) are well worth the extra $400.

I agree, having owned both, the 1D3 is definitely worth the extra. The new layout is much easier to use than the old school two hand controls, the battery life is much better, it is a little lighter, more FPS, ect.

1D3 had some issues with AF in bright sunlight, but is a bit superior to the 1D2 series once you're indoors. ISO performace is also about 1 stop better which is very nice to have.

10 months ago I sold my exc. cond 1D2n for about $900 and bought a 1D3 for about $1800. I figured it was worth the price diff. If you're looking at $400 diff then it is definitely worth it.

I 2nd the motion that you also use an 85 f/1.8 for indoor basketball.

chumlee wrote in post #15297298
The 1D3 has a considerable amount of features which I personally think justify the price difference. I have had 2x1D2N and I currently have a 1D3.


The 1D3 is lighter (it's pretty noticeable), has newer style batteries with much better performance, Autofocus Micro Adjustment, a lot less high ISO noise, doesnt use the dreadful two button push system to change settings, has a larger screen...


There are even more differences which I'm forgetting.


Get the 1D3 and never look back. $1,100 is too cheap for that much camera

My exact reasoning for wanting a 1D3 and selling my pair of 1D2's

I have same problems. Finally I bought 1D2N. And save $500. This is my first time to use 1D series. I just think if I really like, then I will spend more money for later upgrade. But not on first time. Of course if $$ not a problem should go for new model.