40d vs 1dmk2?

is there any comparison? I need to upgrade from my 10D sometime. I usually shoot a lot of sports but I do lots of portraits as well and prolly going into getting some studio strobes as well someday.

the price is still a big difference there and the mp and the sensor are things to definitely look at. would I still benefit a lot by going with the mark2 or will the 40d suffice and just save myself a lot of money that way? I'm guessing it also uses the same batteries as my 10D so I can just share between the 2 if I keep my 10D.

So I'm asking my fellow potners what ya'll think. I mean, glass is always a must but I basically have one more lens that I really want/need and that's the 70-200 2.8. after that I need a new body to help compensate what I'm lacking with the 10D. thoughts? concerns? something to help this college student? thanks for looking.

im in teh same dilemma, sinc ei shoot night clubs, people, and motorsports. im in a tight spot.

I'm very happy with my 1D II.

I think the 40d would be a good upgrade from the 10d, and you would get the 1.6x crop benefit too for motosports and other events.

Save your money on the body and invest in a couple of L series lens, which will last much longer then the body will.

twofruitz wrote in post #4144342
Save your money on the body and invest in a couple of L series lens, which will last much longer then the body will.

If I hear this crap again I think I'll implode. This way of thinking has to end somewhere!

cdifoto wrote in post #4144370
If I hear this crap again I think I'll implode. This way of thinking has to end somewhere!

LOL

cdifoto wrote in post #4144370
If I hear this crap again I think I'll implode. This way of thinking has to end somewhere!

Take out a loan and use your house as collateral. This will get you your 1ds mkII and mkIII + L glass

For most of us its one or the other.

twofruitz wrote in post #4144435
Take out a loan and use your house as collateral. This will get you your 1ds mkII and mkIII + L glass

For most of us its one or the other.

You missed my point. It doesn't have to be one or the other and you don't have to take out a mortgage loan. If you just have a kit lens, then yeah upgrade the dang thing. But once you already have quality glass in the ranges and speeds you need, then it's OK to upgrade the body! You don't have to have every L Canon makes and every EX Sigma makes before it's reasonable to step out of the 300D, XT, 10D, etc!

i have used some L's, but right now my lens collections is good for what i need it for. I dont think an L will benefit me any right now. I personally want the brighter viewfinder and better af. clubs are dark


edit- i do want a 10-17 though.

cdifoto wrote in post #4144370
If I hear this crap again I think I'll implode. This way of thinking has to end somewhere!

Well, if he wants the 70-200/2.8 he must need the reach already on his 1.6 cropper. I am facing the same issue and I have the 70-200 already, so for me I don't really need the glass. The question for me is being able to afford the extra $700 for the m2; and then of course the question of not being able to put my tammy 17-50 on it. I will probably not worry about putting wide/mid glass on it for a while, but it does mean I will have to get more glass eventually.

twofruitz wrote in post #4144342
I think the 40d would be a good upgrade from the 10d, and you would get the 1.6x crop benefit too for motosports and other events.

Save your money on the body and invest in a couple of L series lens, which will last much longer then the body will.

haha, yeah the 1.6 will help. and I'm only aiming for one more L lens which I think I stated, the 70-200 2.8. I can work with my sigma 24-70. but so far my 10D has really lasted quite awhile now. but I just shot at a car show and the website I shot for wants all the shots in raw which doesn't process that quick on a 10D, and the buffer sucks as well. wouldn't be great if I shot a wedding like that.

cdifoto wrote in post #4144370
If I hear this crap again I think I'll implode. This way of thinking has to end somewhere!

hehe, yeah. I've heard this so many times as well. which is why I made a mention about lenses in my original post.

turbodude wrote in post #4144079
im in teh same dilemma, sinc ei shoot night clubs, people, and motorsports. im in a tight spot.

well I hope one of us at least gets it right

disneydork06 wrote in post #4144502
...the website I shot for wants all the shots in raw which doesn't process that quick on a 10D, and the buffer sucks as well. wouldn't be great if I shot a wedding like that.

Yeah I agree there. I shoot RAW as well and for anything really it's not much fun. The 10D will usually get about 150 shots put on in any given wedding. The 1D II gets everything else.

timbop wrote in post #4144501
Well, if he wants the 70-200/2.8 he must need the reach already on his 1.6 cropper. I am facing the same issue and I have the 70-200 already, so for me I don't really need the glass. The question for me is being able to afford the extra $700 for the m2; and then of course the question of not being able to put my tammy 17-50 on it. I will probably not worry about putting wide/mid glass on it for a while, but it does mean I will have to get more glass eventually.

I shoot sports so the 70-200 is great in gyms and at the dome at my school where football and basketball is played. btw, why won't your tammy 17-50 fit on the mk2? my friend has one and it fit on my 10D so it should fit on a mk2. is it the 2.8 version?

cdifoto wrote in post #4144455
You missed my point. It doesn't have to be one or the other and you don't have to take out a mortgage loan. If you just have a kit lens, then yeah upgrade the dang thing. But once you already have quality glass in the ranges and speeds you need, then it's OK to upgrade the body! You don't have to have every L Canon makes and every EX Sigma makes before it's reasonable to step out of the 300D, XT, 10D, etc!

yay, backing up my point. my lenses are fine. just need a new body. soon I will get a new L...when I sell my nikon crap. then body will come soon after, I hope.

disneydork06 wrote in post #4144544
...why won't your tammy 17-50 fit on the mk2? my friend has one and it fit on my 10D so it should fit on a mk2. is it the 2.8 version?

It physically mounts, but it has the 1.6x image circle like EF-S glass.

disneydork06 wrote in post #4144544
yay, backing up my point. my lenses are fine. just need a new body. soon I will get a new L...when I sell my nikon crap. then body will come soon after, I hope.

The 17-50 is designed to only project an image circle large enough to cover an aps-c sized (1.6 crop) sensor. On the larger aps-h (1.25 crop) sensor it will vignette badly.

Yes, I use my 70-200/2.8 for indoor basketball as well, but honestly an 85/1.8 will do even better (1 stop faster) for a lot less money. Sometimes f/2.8 isn't enough even at ISO 3200. You don't have as much flexibility with the 85, but shooting from the sideline or end line it will be fine. I have both by the way.