Mark II vs. Mark IIn

For the last weeks I've been trying to sell my 1Dino and 10D and have finally had luck. I've been wanting a Mark II for quite some time now, mostly because of the extra pixels and better ISO-performance, and also the prices are constantly dropping.
I might be able to collect enough money to get the N-version, but is the higher price worth it? What would I gain besides a bigger screen (and a slightly lower noise-level)?

The 5D has also caught my attention, but as my main interest is sports in general (soccer, gymnastics, athletics etc.) I believe the 1-series is what I want?

I'll be looking for a mkII as a second body over the winter to partner the mk III instead of my 30D - main focus is motorsports.

For the price differential that appears to be charged in the UK, I can't justify an 'N' over a plain mkII.

The screen size doesn't bother me - I tend to chimp OOF/poor shots from the mkIII in the gaps between cars coming past, but the 2nd body doesn't tend to pull in anywhere like the volume of shots and so I can pretty-much leave it alone.

The 'N' gives you, according to Canon:

• new 2.5" wide viewing angle LCD monitor
  
• improved buffering characteristics
  
• new 'Picture Style' image parameters
  
• ability to write different formats simultaneously to SD and CF cards
  

Kristian,

I have a Mark II and looked at the N when it was released. There are differences but they are in my opinion very minor. As you pointed out the larger screen is the most noticeable difference. There is no difference in noise. The N also has a few things the MkII does not. Picture Styles (not something that needs to be on a pro-DSLR IMHO), the ability to name the files coming out of the camera, plus the things that foxbat pointed out and that is about it for the big differences. I am perfectly happy with the MkII until I run into something that causes me to really need a MkIII

Michael

Find the differences in specs between the II and IIN here.

Thanks alot, all!
That was very helpful, LotsToLearn!

Well, the biggest choice for me was the fact that a lot of Mark II's had AF issues - which like with the Mark III, Canon never admitted to. Do a search on these forums, FM forums and dpreview and you'll see countless people talking about it. Not all Mark II's had them, but a fair few did by all accounts. The Mark IIn fixed these issues by all accounts.

Other than that, there's not a lot of difference between the 2 units, although a larger LCD screen is always nice. The others forgot to mention that the LCD screen on the Mark IIn has a wider angle of viewing than the Mark II, which also helps.

Dave

edit: Also the automatic folder creation when you hit 9999 images. The Mark II stopped and you had to manually do it, a real P.I.T.A. Sure, Canon could have updated this via firmware, but let's face it, they didn't because they hoped people would sell their Mark II for a shiny new Mark IIn. Capitalism at its best...

Aren't the jpg's supposed to be softer on the 2 compared to the 2n?