40D vs Mark II N

Tareq wrote in post #3912178
There are now 3 new cameras from canon, which one is the best of the 3, say in noise performance, and AF focus, 1D MKIII, 40D or 1Ds MKIII?

I am happy with my 30d, 5D, 1D MKIIN and 1Ds MKII and not sure what another new camera to add [for sure 100% not 40D)

Is this a trick question? Or are you deliberately trying to lift the 40D into a category that it clearly cannot compete in?

ashdavid wrote in post #4047541
Is this a trick question? Or are you deliberately trying to lift the 40D into a category that it clearly cannot compete in?

Just my favorite categories or type of photography i do making my choices between full frame or 1.3x

Tareq wrote in post #4047560
Just my favorite categories or type of photography i do making my choices between full frame or 1.3x

Thats what I thought! Btw stunning photos in your gallery.8)

ashdavid wrote in post #4047875
Thats what I thought! Btw stunning photos in your gallery.8)

Thank you very much, i know myself i have to travel alot to get stunning photos, where are you from? maybe oneday i will visit your country or area.

Tareq wrote in post #4048321
Thank you very much, i know myself i have to travel alot to get stunning photos, where are you from? maybe oneday i will visit your country or area.

No worries. I am living in Japan right now.

ashdavid wrote in post #4048977
No worries. I am living in Japan right now.

Ah ok, Japan is a nice country as well, so many historic and cultural photographic topics.

5 pages, and still mostly chit-chat. Anybody else actually compare the m2 and 40D? I will be getting one of these 2 by the spring and I am very much on the fence based on what I've seen, and useful experience would be nice.

Specifically I shoot sports/wildlife for fun and weddings to fund my equipment. To me the 1Dm2 has the advantage in AF and high ISO, but I am keeping my 20D and like the 20D's interface. I also understand jpg's are soft on the 1dm2, and my agency requires jpg instead of raw.

timbop wrote in post #4049959
5 pages, and still mostly chit-chat. Anybody else actually compare the m2 and 40D? I will be getting one of these 2 by the spring and I am very much on the fence based on what I've seen, and useful experience would be nice.

Specifically I shoot sports/wildlife for fun and weddings to fund my equipment. To me the 1Dm2 has the advantage in AF and high ISO, but I am keeping my 20D and like the 20D's interface. I also understand jpg's are soft on the 1dm2, and my agency requires jpg instead of raw.

If i will recommend or advise you then i will tell you go for 1D2 no doubt, my 1D is sharp clean and clear RAW and JPEG, i believe you aware of cameras settings to get better results, otherwise even 40D will give you soft jpeg if you do same or wrong settings, and isn't that photoshop help? or you want sharp clean clarity jpg out of camera?

Tareq wrote in post #4050121
If i will recommend or advise you then i will tell you go for 1D2 no doubt, my 1D is sharp clean and clear RAW and JPEG, i believe you aware of cameras settings to get better results, otherwise even 40D will give you soft jpeg if you do same or wrong settings, and isn't that photoshop help? or you want sharp clean clarity jpg out of camera?

Ordinarily I shoot with minimal sharpening setting on my 20D because I shoot at ISO 800 during receptions and don't want to sharpen before noise reduction. I work for an agency as a shooter only; they have other people that do the post processing and they are picky about how much has to be done. I accidentally left my 20D in raw once and it was not a good scene. I have also done a lot of reading re: the 1dm2 and 1dm2n differences, and apparently the amount of processing done to jpgs on the non-N is less in camera. Originally the theory was that the AA filter was different, but since raws look identical that is not the case. Yes I can up the sharpness setting in camera, but will that adversely affect the results at 800?

ok, i try to stay out of these discussions but since it looks like you really want to know, i will tell you what i think based on using both cameras. the 40D is a killer camera. it feels great, the IQ is great, it is planty fast for most conditions and the 14 bit images are really good. the 3" screen is very nice, the live view is also very nice and overall, the body is just a great upgrade from the 30D.

with that said, after a week i sold my 40D and went back to my mkIIn. why you ask? well, the simple answer is because i think that the 1DmkII is still the better camera. the IQ is fantastic (about the same as the 20D or maybe a tiny bit less), the AF is still the best in the league, the build quality is of course the best money can buy, the speed is more than enough for anything that you can think of and the camera can be tailored any way you like it. now, the 40D does have the advantage of better user interface while the mkII has that weird 2 hand thing going on but you get used to it real quick and than it becomes natural.

at the end of the day, you have to ask yourself what features are really important to you and you should be able to know right away which one you should go with. for me and my bird/wildlife shooting, the build, AF, customization and the ability to AF even with F8 are way more important than 3" lcd (i try to only use the LCD for the histogram), 14 bit images, 10mp and live view. these features might be important to you which is why i said that only you can make the decision.

blonde wrote in post #4053078
the IQ is fantastic (about the same as the 20D or maybe a tiny bit less),

what? 1Dmk2n IQ is about the same as 30d or LESS?


wouldnt u assume 1.3x crop is in theory gonna be better than 1.6x crop body?

OK, thank you; that is very helpful. Anybody else that does weddings have any thought they'd like to share?

jkoc wrote in post #4053890
what? 1Dmk2n IQ is about the same as 30d or LESS?


wouldnt u assume 1.3x crop is in theory gonna be better than 1.6x crop body?

sorry that was a typo, i meant 40D.

Hi,

I can comment here. Personally, I think that the 40D images in 800+ ISO trump the Mark II N. I shot with two N's for a year, covering all sorts of sport and whilst the noise was moot in print it used to annoy me when covering events. However, at 100-800 ISO is sound enough.

Build wise the N knocks the 40D into a cocked hat but I had to sell mine as I have had three operations this year and was starting to find them heavy. The fact that the 40D + battery pack weighs less than the N is a real bonus and one I will put up with given the high ISO performance of the 40D. Wet weather wise I will certainly use my rain sleeve on the 40D where as the N's used to take a real hammering.

I often ramped the JPEG quality sharpening to 10 on the N, perhaps too sharp and looking back I can see some of my work was oversharpened so the more liberal 40D will help with that. I do intend on working mostly in RAW now, aside from when covering sport as I need the jpeg buffer. Again, sharpeing is moot as what looks good on the internet looks different on newspaper print so I often use a 300 unsharp mask process - depends on how it looks.

Speed wise I used to slow the N down as I found 8 too fast and ended up with generic images milli seconds apart so I preferred to shoot less frames but time the action. The 40D will get a similar style from me, albeit in 6.5 fps.

You can cross reference my 40D faulty post. I picked up another one today so will be testing it over the coming days.

In conclusion, its evolution not revolution. The 40D image quality is as good at the Mark II N - in my opinion. Simple as that.

Hope this helps, search my previous posts to see some N examples.

Pete.