30D to Mark II experiences

The XXD class of cameras are very nice. There are plenty of good photographers on this an other pages that can make alot of great photos with those camera bodies.

For me the reason why the 1D class of cameras is leaps and bounds above the XXD class is it's dual computers.

I have never owned a 30D camera. I started with a 1D classic. Then bought a 20D, then sold the classic, then the 20D and bought (2) 1D MK II cameras.

There were two things that really made me not like the 20D. First problem was backfocusing and the fact that the AF points never seemed to catch on to what I wanted when I moved the focus point outside of the center spot.

The second was the fact that when I switched the focusing to the (*) button on the back of the camera, it would slow down FPS when I was shooting.

This is the reason why the 1D cameras don't have that problem is there is one computer specifically devoted to AF and the other is devoted to all the other functions of the camera.

When we went out and rented a MK II N it put us over the top where we knew we would never shoot with a XXD series camera. Now I don't know what changes they have made in the new 40D so I cannot say what it's like. But when making the move to the 1D series camera you will never go back to using the XXD class cameras as a main shooter.

Ross

Thanks for all of the feedback, this has become an easy decision.

Make sure to write back after your purchase, I've been thinking about doing the same for the last few months..

dodorouthier wrote in post #4211851
How about the 5d?

OK I just picked up a 1Dn and yeah the 20D is inferior in most respects especially color and information! The 5D, this is hilarious and I know Mr. Studio will chime in but my co-worker is a Brooks grad and owns a 5D we need a new camera for work and my boss wnated to compare them and the 30D. So today we tested them and the 1Dn WON!!!!!!! In studio on tripod, same setting and lenses. The color was more accurate as well.... We are trying other lenses later this week. Theses are 100% crop at 800 by 800!!!! STRAIGHT out OF CAMERA.

More keepers, overall.

More shallow DOF.

Camera is radically better with AF.

Viewfinders are not in the same class.

Having said that, to me, it was a toss-up between the body upgrade and a 300 f/2.8 IS L. And, in my mind, that's still a legit question to ask.

hortonsl62 wrote in post #4215050
More keepers, overall.

More shallow DOF.

Camera is radically better with AF.

Viewfinders are not in the same class.

Having said that, to me, it was a toss-up between the body upgrade and a 300 f/2.8 IS L. And, in my mind, that's still a legit question to ask.

go with the glass bodies come & go but good glass will last u an age, i wish i could have aforded L glass but it just wasnt to be im afraid

Steve.

another 1Dmark II vote.

I upgraded from the 20D. The 20D & 30D are essentially identical (as are the markII and the markIIN). The 40D seems to have improved AF compared to the 20/30 line but the differences are (my guess) not that great -- as Ross pointed out the 1D has the dual computers.

The AF is far more accurate and faster on the 1D. In difficult lighting and erratically moving subjects, the 20D kept grabbing the wrong subject to focus on, or focussed on background even when I knew I was properly tracking the subject. That NEVER happens with the 1D. The non-keepers are clearly my fault.

I hate the weight and wish I had a built-in flash, but would never go back.

I went from the 30D to the MK1, then from the MK1 to MKII
(then back to a Mk1 but that's beside the point.) I'm very very
happy... two reasons: the improved AF keeper ratio and the
more easily blurred backgrounds.

DavidEB wrote in post #4218189
another 1Dmark II vote.

I upgraded from the 20D. The 20D & 30D are essentially identical (as are the markII and the markIIN). The 40D seems to have improved AF compared to the 20/30 line but the differences are (my guess) not that great -- as Ross pointed out the 1D has the dual computers.

The AF is far more accurate and faster on the 1D. In difficult lighting and erratically moving subjects, the 20D kept grabbing the wrong subject to focus on, or focussed on background even when I knew I was properly tracking the subject. That NEVER happens with the 1D. The non-keepers are clearly my fault.

I hate the weight and wish I had a built-in flash, but would never go back.

why do you want built in flash?

ugh this thread kills me... i have a 30d and i've been drooling over 1dmk2n due to the great second-hand price point.... mk3 is too $$$ for me. i just have to get it now -- if i could find one with low actuation

downhillnews --- interesting.. 30d seems not focused.. it cant be that different .. really?

I have a 20d with a grip and I was looking at the mk II but its just to much, i think the 40d with exception of focusing is just as good, gets 6.5 burst. unless your using the 8 shots the 40d does not seem to bad. And i have a grip and 4 batteries for it. mabye a mk II next time.

I did it! I will never look back. But beware once you taste 1D series you never go back. I tried with the 40D but I find it his junk!

datadump wrote in post #4221412
ugh this thread kills me... i have a 30d and i've been drooling over 1dmk2n due to the great second-hand price point.... mk3 is too $$$ for me. i just have to get it now -- if i could find one with low actuation

Just do it already . I did and haven't looked back.

I upgraded from a 20d. I say get the 1-series body and never look back.