A 40D vs. 1d2 for sports

How significantly better is the 1d2 vs. the 40d for sports besides it's 8.5fps? I more concerned with AF, speed, IQ. I'm considering both and I know that the 1d2 is obviously superior for sports (football for me) but how much is my question.


and lastly how differently does the 1d2 focus considering it has 45 points compared to 11 points?


I feel like this is one of the dumbest questions I've ever asked on this forum but I'm not very familiar with 1D bodies for sports

thanks
-Max

I dont know much about it.
But ill tell you this, the 1 series is Canons top of the line lineup, and used a lot in sporting events.

I would think the 1dmk2 would AF faster and more accurately with its 45 point system.

GetOnMyLevel wrote in post #5926584
I dont know much about it.
But ill tell you this, the 1 series is Canons top of the line lineup, and used a lot in sporting events.

I would think the 1dmk2 would AF much faster and more accurately with its 45 point system.

How does it AF...is it best to use just one of the 45 points or can you use multiple....how do some you guys AF while "sporting"?

Maxed Out wrote in post #5926589
How does it AF...is it best to use just one of the 45 points or can you use multiple....how do some you guys AF while "sporting"?

For shots before the snap, you can use one AF point on a particular player.
For action shots, probably keep it on automatic point selection and AI SERVO.

At least that's what im planning to do when i shoot football in the fall.

I think we need to hear from someone who actually uses a 1D2 and can let us know from experience.

Maxed Out wrote in post #5926498
I feel like this is one of the dumbest questions I've ever asked on this forum but I'm not very familiar with 1D bodies for sports
-Max

Well ... if you've never shot with any of the 1 series bodies, how would you know how they behave? Cut yourself some slack, man ..... Your question doesn't even make a blip on the "Dumb Question Meter" .....

I went to the Mark II's (and N's) from the 20D - and found a noticeable difference in AF speed. You'll have to forgive me, but I'm not that knowledgeable about the 40D to actually compare it to a 1 series body ....

Most sportsshooters will give you the advice of using the center focus point for shooting sports - and that's good advice. But having said that, I've shot using the center focus point only and had good results - and I've shot using all 45 and had good results, too. But you'll probably need to check out Custom Functions 4, 13, and 17 as well ....

All of the current images on my SS page were taken using center focus point only (also with focusing on the * button per C.Fn-04)

I went from the outstandingly fast 30D AF speed, expecting little difference from the 1D Mk.III... more fool me.

AF is like lightning on the Mk.III.

If there's a similar difference between the two bodies you're referring to, you'll be slack-jawed and stunned with amazement at just how fast the 1 series is.

I've shot both, albeit in limited amounts and it's night and day if you can afford it. There's a reason the pros shoot with MK II & IIIs.

The ID2 has two dedicated processors for AF -- it's far superior to the 40D.

You may want to read this thread as well. Similar discussion:
Mk III focussing speed vs 40D

I can help you. I'm a sports photog who specializes in cycling. I shoot with a 1D (the "classic" or "Mark I") and a 40D.

The AF speed and accuracy between the two are like night and day. The 40D doesn't even come close. My keeper rate with the 40D is like 80% within acceptable focus. My keeper rate with the 1D is like 98%. Yes, out of 100 photos, I have to go looking for shots that are oof, and yes, they are hard to find. I'll be lucky if I find two or three.

As for the 45-point AF tracking, I can't help you with that. I use Single-point only 100% of the time. I use the topmost point (in both vertical and horizontal orientation) and set my dot on the riders face, or, if they are further away, I use center-point only. Using all the points, especially for a subject as large as a human, is for wussies. I can see using all AF points for a smaller subject- suck as a bird in flight.

Since you are asking about a Mark II, the AF system is even better than the one on my Mark I. The only downside to owning a 1 Series body is that you'll never go back to the cheaper pro-sumer (xxD) line again.

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

cecilc wrote in post #5927184
Well ... if you've never shot with any of the 1 series bodies, how would you know how they behave? Cut yourself some slack, man ..... Your question doesn't even make a blip on the "Dumb Question Meter" .....

I just hate posting vs. threads

Gatorboy wrote in post #5927883
The ID2 has two dedicated processors for AF -- it's far superior to the 40D.

You may want to read this thread as well. Similar discussion:
Mk III focussing speed vs 40D

emtp563 wrote in post #5928771
I can help you. I'm a sports photog who specializes in cycling. I shoot with a 1D (the "classic" or "Mark I") and a 40D.

The AF speed and accuracy between the two are like night and day. The 40D doesn't even come close. My keeper rate with the 40D is like 80% within acceptable focus. My keeper rate with the 1D is like 98%. Yes, out of 100 photos, I have to go looking for shots that are oof, and yes, they are hard to find. I'll be lucky if I find two or three.

As for the 45-point AF tracking, I can't help you with that. I use Single-point only 100% of the time. I use the topmost point (in both vertical and horizontal orientation) and set my dot on the riders face, or, if they are further away, I use center-point only. Using all the points, especially for a subject as large as a human, is for wussies. I can see using all AF points for a smaller subject- suck as a bird in flight.

Since you are asking about a Mark II, the AF system is even better than the one on my Mark I. The only downside to owning a 1 Series body is that you'll never go back to the cheaper pro-sumer (xxD) line again.

Thanks guys, this helps a lot, I appreciate it

My next lens is the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 and maybe I'll be able to swing a used 1d2 as well.

thanks again

I happen to have both and use both....... AF is good on both but superior on the Mark 2N. The 40D is no slouch but there is a difference ( you get what you pay for catagory). For most uses, the 40D will deliver great work, has better high ISO performance and has the crop reach advantage. The Mark2N carries the higher price, ALWAYS delivers, and is one great machine. It all comes down to affordability. It also depends on glass.....If you could buy a 300 2.8 and a 40D, can't go wrong!!
If you ask me in one or the other context only....the Mark2N wins!.