2nd hand 1Ds or new 1D2

Becuase the wife would leave me if I spent that much money. The only reason why I'm now looking at 1Ds and 1D2 is because I won a 42 inch plasma tv in a sales promo at work which I'm going to sell and with the money get a new camera.

Before you say why sell the plasma, I have a small lounge and I already have a fantastic 32 inch Loewe planius tv which have a far better pic than any plasma I've seen.

I would probably pick the 1D MKII...........faster and newer.

.........and less noise.

Ro1

No need to defend yourself, i fantazise about winning say...a car, and all the splendid white lenses you can get out of that!

Congrats on winning that, thats pretty cool man.

What camera do you have now btw?

An Eos 33, I also toyed with getting an Eos 1v for a while then I played with a 1D2, makes it very hard to buy a 20D when you've had a play with a 1 series body.

There are two main considerations. The 1D2 is a better camera as far as features go. The 1DS has more pixels.

The only reason I would consider the 1DS would be if I was going to make a lot of prints 16 x20 inches or larger and needed to maximize resolution. The 1D2 will produce good looking prints that size, but not quite as much fine resolution because it has fewer pixels.

If you are happy with your EOS 33 I wouldn not discount the 20D so quickly. It has very close to the same capablilities. I know of one wildlife photographer who has both the 1D2 and a 20D. He often chooses to use the 20D because it is lighter and less bulky if he has to carry it any distance. He does not seem to think there is any significant difference in image quality and considers the auto focus to be almost as good. His main concern is the low number of burst shots that can be made in RAW mode.

The reason why I'm considering the 1 series over the 20D is I'm going to be doing a considerable amout of travel over the next couple of years, if the build on the 20D is anything like as poor as the Eos 33 it's going to crap out pretty quickly.

The build quality of the 20D is way better than the D60.

I've had my D60 for two and a half years and it has been on safari in the dust of Africa, bounced around in backpack in the Rocky Mountains, used in mud and rain at mountain bike races and crusted in snow while photographing ski races. No problems so far.

I would not purposely subject a 1D Mk II to anything I would not subject a 20D to. I don't think the 20D is a particularly delicate piece of equipment, but the Mk II does have better weather sealing if you use the newer L lenses.

For some uses, size and weight are more important.

In any case, for an important trip I would not go with only one camera body. In my opinion, for air travel two digital bodies are way better than one digital and one film body. Who wants to bother with film and airport Xrays?

A combination of a 1D Mk II and a 20D would be ideal.