40D or MkIII

I know these have been compared before, but have been musing the upgrade from 20D to 40D thread and that got me looking at 40D specs once more. In my case I have both a 5D and a 20D and have been considering the move to the 1.3 crop factor 1D and selling the other two to help pay. AF issues aside, I'm wondering if I now should dump only the 20D and get a 40D, or go all the way and wind up with a single body, 1D MkIII?

I shoot wildlife and landscapes and people, have upgraded to some L glass (mostly for the 5D's FF), and where I shoot on weekends or trips quite heavily, I don't really work any of my stuff very hard on a continuous basis.

It does seem that the 40D is quite 1D-ish in many ways, and I could keep my 1.6 reach. I'd have to put out about four times more to do the MkIII than to do the 40D, but doing the former might just simplify things considerably with one compromised body (with regard to crop at 1.3) and considerable (?) improvement in build quality and weather sealing.

Any thoughts appreciated.

Stew

Although they might seem similar, having use both, they're not. I have the 40D that I can bring back within a week for full refund. I might bring it back for a 1DIII. The feel, the noise, the colours, the options are really worlds appart. I need a 1.6x crop for some motorsport work so this why I am hesitant. But if money comes around the markII will be upgraded. It is still the same difference fomr a XXD series to a 1D series. The debate could be the same for the 30D VS MarkIIor MarkIIn.

They have the Digic III although 1D has 2, live view, LCD size, buttons setup nad other caracteristics that are the same.

Here are a few carateristic that make me go for 1DIII:

1DIII has a 100% viewfinder, faster processor, bigger buffer, more precis AF and way better AIservo, 45 AF points, better noise management, the AF button on portrait side shooting, 2 memory card slot, bigger sensor, more MP, properly sealed, better metering and more....

In all honesty, if you do not make aliving from your picture, you do not need a 1D but if you have the money to burn go ahead.

sebmour wrote in post #4031584
Although they might seem similar, having use both, they're not. I have the 40D that I can bring back within a week for full refund. I might bring it back for a 1DIII. The feel, the noise, the colours, the options are really worlds appart. I need a 1.6x crop for some motorsport work so this why I am hesitant. But if money comes around the markII will be upgraded. It is still the same difference fomr a XXD series to a 1D series. The debate could be the same for the 30D VS MarkIIor MarkIIn.

They have the Digic III although 1D has 2, live view, LCD size, buttons setup nad other caracteristics that are the same.

Here are a few carateristic that make me go for 1DIII:

1DIII has a 100% viewfinder, faster processor, bigger buffer, more precis AF and way better AIservo, 45 AF points, better noise management, the AF button on portrait side shooting, 2 memory card slot, bigger sensor, more MP, properly sealed, better metering and more....

In all honesty, if you do not make aliving from your picture, you do not need a 1D but if you have the money to burn go ahead.

Thanks. I would rather burn money on glass to be honest than bodies. Also, having two bodies with significant crop differences still makes lots of sense. Any other thoughts?

Stew

OP I understand your concern, I am in the same sort of boat
I have recently bought a 40D, and it is streets better than my 30D. But I have 2 dilemmas, I shoot sports of some sort 95% of the time.

1/ Days in the UK (winter) are generally Darker, The football matches I shoot, local, for fun, no lighting, are late in the afternoon, take today, I experimented with HTP, TV, and Auto ISO, most were shot at 800 ISO and not a fast enough shutter speed, and still I need more light, I use the 100-400L

2/ My second Dilemma is Canon do not make anything upto 400mm as a zoom, and that is faster F5-6, now don't get me wrong it is a great lens with plenty of light, but in the winter, shooting outdoor football it is just not fast enough, and I don't know what to do about it.

My points I am thinking, to use a 100-400L even in late afternoon shooting outdoor football, you should be using ISO upwards of 1000-1600, and quite frankly in my books unacceptable.

what choices do I have,

1/ MK3 is it such a lot better in the noise reduction, with a 100-400L, a lot more expensive, Personally the 40D AF and AI side is pretty impressive. but Will I miss that 1.6 crop?
2/ Use a 70-200 F2.8 with a 1.4 TC, I could prob do this, but there will be times I miss the 400mm
3/ I know this is a must learn to try to zoom closer to the action, so not such a big crop is needed, (if needed)
4/ Carry on and accept that I am going to get 1600 ISO pictures with noise, that are may not be not usable. If it was nite time football I would not mind, but that at daytime

Stuck between a rock and hard place.

squiress wrote in post #4031607
Thanks. I would rather burn money on glass to be honest than bodies. Also, having two bodies with significant crop differences still makes lots of sense. Any other thoughts?

Stew

huh? if you got lot's of lenses, why do need multuple crops?

squiress wrote in post #4031607
Thanks. I would rather burn money on glass to be honest than bodies. Also, having two bodies with significant crop differences still makes lots of sense. Any other thoughts?

Stew

I think theyre both amazing cameras but if youre serious about it, Id say get the MkIII. I dont look at that as completely different cameras more than a kind of big brother/little brother relationship.

freaking102 wrote in post #4031775
huh? if you got lot's of lenses, why do need multuple crops?

Well, bigger/longer glass - 500/600. And that is better matched to 1D when teleconverters are added. Certainly acceptable reach with 1.6 crop.

Stew

AdamLewis wrote in post #4031778
I think theyre both amazing cameras but if youre serious about it, Id say get the MkIII. I dont look at that as completely different cameras more than a kind of big brother/little brother relationship.

Except I'm looking at the 1D as an only child.

Stew

squiress wrote in post #4031824
Except I'm looking at the 1D as an only child.

Stew

Itd be the best only child youd ever have.

I had crop cameras forever and always lusted after the FF cameras. I started making some more money from my ventures and the 1 series became a real idea. For me, its FF enough that I dont know how I was ever shooting with the little 1.6 crop, and at the same time cropped enough to squeeze a little bit more out of the lenses put on it. A very happy medium IMO.

That being said, I owned a 20D and then a 30D. The difference between the two wasnt very much and when I heard rumors of a 40D I wasnt too excited. However, after seeing them in person and now owning one, I dont even like to think of it in the same vein as Canon's previous "prosumer" cameras.

I have started looking at cameras in a differant very general way and try to relate to film bodies.

In the days of film the camera itself had no real bearing on the end result. Using the same lens and film with a Rebel or a EOS 1 would produxe the same results. You bought the body based on the features you needed. With digital there use to be substantial deifferance between bodies and the finla result, but we are to a point now where the images from ISO 100 to 400 and maybe even 800 are so close it is only a factor in very specific situations.

So I have a some general guidlines I use(these are personal opinons based on my experiances, and what I use when friends and family ask for a recommnedation0.

Rebel
Entry level. For someone that wants to venture into the world of creative phtography but doesnt have very much knowledge or experiance. Also for those on a tight budget or just a weekend or two a month hobby, or some looking for a light weight walk around camera. This camera can carry someoen along way.

40D
For someone that needs a bit more features than a rebel but doesnt have a large budget or needs to budget for some good lenses. This camera is also good for someone that is always wanting to get closer or wishes they had a longer lens.

5D
This camera is for someone that needs the absolute best High ISO performance or someone that finds themselves always wishing they had a wider lens. But wouldnt say this a is a choice for someone with a limited budget and little or no quality lenses.

1D Mark III
At the moment I consider this the "DO it all" camera.
It has the speed to to the most demanding of Sports/Wildlife shooting.
It can give nice wide angle results with, but not as wide as Full Frame.
It gives a little extra reach to your lenses, just not as much as the 1.6x Crops do.
The Noise perfromance is great and only very slightly lower than the 5D in extreme situations.
It has the build to last through rough enviroments, or daily long term use.
If you have the glass and the budget this is a great choice for and all round workhorse body.

1Ds Mark III
if youve got the Glass, and the budget and you need the maximum resolution you can get in a 35mm SLR style body then this is the one to choose, it doesnt get any better than this from Canon.

Those are just my opinions and how I look at it when I think about upgrading.

BUT A WORD OF WARNING.

If you decide to buy a 1D camera you need to budget for them in the future. Once you have used a 1D for any length of time and get use to its features, handling and feel it will be hard to go back to anything else,

I see you have a 40D and a MKIII, any reason as to why?, and if you are looking for reach, would you use the 40D or MK3, I.E. at a football match? or large sports field events?

wilvoeka wrote in post #4032148
I have started looking at cameras in a differant very general way and try to relate to film bodies.

In the days of film the camera itself had no real bearing on the end result. Using the same lens and film with a Rebel or a EOS 1 would produxe the same results. You bought the body based on the features you needed. With digital there use to be substantial deifferance between bodies and the finla result, but we are to a point now where the images from ISO 100 to 400 and maybe even 800 are so close it is only a factor in very specific situations.

So I have a some general guidlines I use(these are personal opinons based on my experiances, and what I use when friends and family ask for a recommnedation0.

Rebel
Entry level. For someone that wants to venture into the world of creative phtography but doesnt have very much knowledge or experiance. Also for those on a tight budget or just a weekend or two a month hobby, or some looking for a light weight walk around camera. This camera can carry someoen along way.

40D
For someone that needs a bit more features than a rebel but doesnt have a large budget or needs to budget for some good lenses. This camera is also good for someone that is always wanting to get closer or wishes they had a longer lens.

5D
This camera is for someone that needs the absolute best High ISO performance or someone that finds themselves always wishing they had a wider lens. But wouldnt say this a is a choice for someone with a limited budget and little or no quality lenses.

1D Mark III
At the moment I consider this the "DO it all" camera.
It has the speed to to the most demanding of Sports/Wildlife shooting.
It can give nice wide angle results with, but not as wide as Full Frame.
It gives a little extra reach to your lenses, just not as much as the 1.6x Crops do.
The Noise perfromance is great and only very slightly lower than the 5D in extreme situations.
It has the build to last through rough enviroments, or daily long term use.
If you have the glass and the budget this is a great choice for and all round workhorse body.

1Ds Mark III
if youve got the Glass, and the budget and you need the maximum resolution you can get in a 35mm SLR style body then this is the one to choose, it doesnt get any better than this from Canon.

Those are just my opinions and how I look at it when I think about upgrading.

BUT A WORD OF WARNING.

If you decide to buy a 1D camera you need to budget for them in the future. Once you have used a 1D for any length of time and get use to its features, handling and feel it will be hard to go back to anything else,

MaDProFF wrote in post #4032203
I see you have a 40D and a MKIII, any reason as to why?, and if you are looking for reach, would you use the 40D or MK3, I.E. at a football match? or large sports field events?

Looks like an inexpensive backup to me. But I'm also interested as a couple of those responding have both.

Stew

I dont do alot of sports shooting, I do some occasioanly.

With what I have, in the situation you mentioned I would probably start of with my 300mm on the 40D, and my 70-200 on the 1D and make adjustements as needed.

If I need both reach and a high ISO then I would put the 300 on the 1D.

Until I am there its hard to say how my gear would get used.

I dont really have "Back Up" cameras, if I have 2 cameras in my bag they both will have a lens on them and will both be used. I plan to purchase another 1D3 later, and at that time the 40D will probably get used less. But I will probably have time when all three will have a lens on them so I can get shorter or longer without switching lenses.

Why do I have a 1D and 40D?

Becasue my wife loves to garden, and she likes to take pictures of her plants and birds.

She had a rebel(300D) and I decided it was time for her to get a new camera( mainly becasue I want a second camera in my bag, and didnt have the money for another 1D).

It gives her something she can handle and use simply (ie The creative zone) and it gives me something cheap but comprable to my 1D to use as a second camera.

wilvoeka wrote in post #4032270
Why do I have a 1D and 40D?

Becasue my wife loves to garden, and she likes to take pictures of her plants and birds.

She had a rebel(300D) and I decided it was time for her to get a new camera( mainly becasue I want a second camera in my bag, and didnt have the money for another 1D).

It gives her something she can handle and use simply (ie The creative zone) and it gives me something cheap but comprable to my 1D to use as a second camera.

Thats the exact reason I have both. I got myself the MkIII and got my fiance the 40D. She uses it and has fun with it, and when shes not, its a decent enough camera that I would use it in conjunction with the MkIII