1DMKII vs 1DMKII N

Hi all

First, i could buy a original 1D, but now i found a 1dMKII in mint condition for a very nice price.

Question, should i buy this one or wait for a 1dMKII N?
Whats the "real world" difference between those two? Specs are much the same....

But... is the autofocus of the latter a tad better or not?

Please give me some feedback!

Happy Newyear to you all!

The AF is the same in both. There's plenty of threads around on here asking the same question.

Basically speaking, the results from both bodies will be identical, the differences are largely down to the screen size, picture styles, and how the CF/SD cards are managed.

Pete wrote in post #4613188
The AF is the same in both. There's plenty of threads around on here asking the same question.

Basically speaking, the results from both bodies will be identical, the differences are largely down to the screen size, picture styles, and how the CF/SD cards are managed.

Is the AF really the same? I've seen people talking about that the AF is similarly different "1D2 vs 1D2n" as "20D vs 30D".

what pete said, the difference came in the MIII

I don't think there's a difference. Read the press release. Then go on to read the review.

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …Camera-Press-Release.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …igital-Camera-Review.aspx

actually Pete, a lot of pros especially birds shooters and a few sports shooters commented that the AF on the IIn was improved silently by Canon after having some tracking problems with the II. i had both bodies and the difference was very minimal but the camera did do a bit better with objects that are coming toward the camera.

this brings out a very touchy subject because the IIn is the only camera that canon released between models (the 30D was considered a different model according to the model cycle). for example, we never had a 1DmkIn or a 1DsmkIIn and you have to wonder why canon decided to implement a in-between model only on the mkII.

with that said, out in the field, both cameras are truly amazing and i would have no problem buying a mkII or recommending one.

Fair point. But then I've not had any exposure of the Mk II. I went for the N model because of the slightly larger frame buffer and larger lcd (the focus point magnify feature is also handy).

Makes you wonder if there's going to be a 1DMkIIIN, doesn't it?

i have been wondering that for quite a few months now

blonde wrote in post #4613517
i have been wondering that for quite a few months now

I was wondering about that too But what could Canon do to the mk3 to make a N model worth having -lets face it there not going to say the N focus's ok
Rob.

GyRob wrote in post #4614271
I was wondering about that too But what could Canon do to the mk3 to make a N model worth having -lets face it there not going to say the N focus's ok
Rob.

you never know Rob, they might come out with an N model that does Live View AF and various other things that Nikon D3 does like the viewfinder leveling....

So, the AF tracking is less good then... Does it differ much?
Someone had the two versions and spotted a difference?

Greetings!

I have never had the N model but I have the mk2 and the focus is bang on,I was thinking of a mk3 but after trying one it put me right off,maybe we will get a mk3N by next year that will work right out of the box.

According to Canon, the 1D2 had a heavier AA filter. For this reason I would buy the 2N. The 2N also uses picture styles which isn't important to many however it will give more functionality with DPP.

This is straight from Canon.

"• EOS-1Ds Mark II: the need for sharpening and recommendations are very similar (subject, of course, to a photographer’s
individual opinions) to the Mark III series cameras.
• EOS-1D Mark II N: again, the amounts and type of sharpening required are very similar to the newer EOS-1D Mark III.
While critical users may discern very slight differences, and prefer to modify sharpening in one vs. the other, their essential
character is very similar
• EOS-1D Mark II: this one is definitely different. It required a much greater amount of sharpening, either in-camera or
at the computer (some users got their best results applying both). Unsharp Mask settings of 300% or more were often needed
in Photoshop to get real “bite” out of files from the 1D Mark II. Again, to be clear, this is only the EOS-1D Mark II — the
revised and updated EOS-1D Mark II N model tended to need less sharpening, even if none was applied in-camera."

gene