1d mark IIn AF precision points... concert shooters

hi all...

i'm mainly into concert shooting. i'm considering getting 1dmk2n or 40d as a second body.. (i just have a 30d right now). yes they are not even comparable class bodies but lately i've seen the mark2n going for a fairly affordable price so i cant help but consider it over the 40d.

so comparing the 40d vs Mark IIn AF cross precision points, im a little unsettled about the positioning of them on the IIn because on the 40d, with its diamond pattern all being cross points, the left most + point is great for portrait orientation.. however on the IIn, all of the precision points are clustered as such:

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

I've never felt the peripheral AF points were particularly bad. I've never really noticed the difference between regular points and cross type points, so I don't have any hesitation in switching over. I shot a concert the other day with my 1D Mark II using many of the points on the edges, but no problems there.
I don't think noise is significanltly different from the 20D.

My recommendation would be to just get the 1D MkIIN and be done with it.

I think when using F2.8 or faster it goes to cross focus AF points when using center point??

datadump wrote in post #4238006
1. so the question is: do you IIn shooters find this to be a bit annoying? do you end up doing the "focus/recompose" thing so you can use the precision AF points? -- i find doing this method in low light ends up with unsuccessful OOF shots. -- on my 30d, since i only have a center precision point, i end up using the horiz/vert regular points but i sure wish i could use the + precision points all the time without having to focus/recompose. is the pro-body focusing on IIn THAT MUCH BETTER such that even the non-precision points blow away the XXD bodies? i dunno

My experience with the 1D Mark II is that the non cross-type points are significantly less reliable than the cross-type points, especially in low light. The clustering of the cross-type AF points all in the middle is one of my main complaints about the Mark II/N, and the Mark III's cross-type point placement is a very welcome improvement.

Regarding 20D cross-type vs. 1D non cross-type, I would take the center AF point on the 20D (cross-type, and double-sensitive at f/2.8 and larger) over a non cross-type point on the Mark II any day for both speed and accuracy.

Yes, very useful. Stage lighting, especially backlighting, can wreak havoc on auto exposure, and careful use of spot metering can help overcome that.

Maybe because the 1D Mark II/N errs on the "safe" side of blowing out highlights by underexposing by about 2/3 of a stop? If you underexpose by 2/3 of a stop at high ISO and have to correct the exposure in post, you're going to see more noise than you would if you added exposure compensation while shooting and got a proper exposure in the first place. This is just a guess on my part as to why people might say such a thing, since I have a 20D and 1D Mark II and wouldn't characterize the 20D as being any better in terms of noise.

hmm so since theres no improvement in noise, and the AF points in the outer regions are not that great... i guess for concert shooting maybe i should hold off on this upgrade??

Yohan Pamudji wrote in post #4242950
My experience with the 1D Mark II is that the non cross-type points are significantly less reliable than the cross-type points, especially in low light. The clustering of the cross-type AF points all in the middle is one of my main complaints about the Mark II/N, and the Mark III's cross-type point placement is a very welcome improvement.

Regarding 20D cross-type vs. 1D non cross-type, I would take the center AF point on the 20D (cross-type, and double-sensitive at f/2.8 and larger) over a non cross-type point on the Mark II any day for both speed and accuracy.

Yes, very useful. Stage lighting, especially backlighting, can wreak havoc on auto exposure, and careful use of spot metering can help overcome that.

Maybe because the 1D Mark II/N errs on the "safe" side of blowing out highlights by underexposing by about 2/3 of a stop? If you underexpose by 2/3 of a stop at high ISO and have to correct the exposure in post, you're going to see more noise than you would if you added exposure compensation while shooting and got a proper exposure in the first place. This is just a guess on my part as to why people might say such a thing, since I have a 20D and 1D Mark II and wouldn't characterize the 20D as being any better in terms of noise.