Jimlevitt wrote in post #7896918
I was hoping the 5D replacement would be something akin to the Nikon D700. I need the higher iso capability, but I also need a well-functioning AF system. Video is irrelevant
to me in a digital slr. 21 mp is overkill for my needs, too. A full-frame 50D probably would have done the job.
I've considered a 1D3, now that the AF issues seem closer to resolution, but I'm reluctant to shell out $2500+ for a used camera that lacks the higher resolution lcd screen of the current cameras, and that throws my lens collection into disarray. The 16-35 isn't wide enough, the 24-70 isn't wide enough on the long end, etc on a 1.3x crop. No problem on the telephoto end, of course, but the wide end is definitely a problem. The 17-55IS is my favorite lens on the 40D. There's no equivalent in the full-frame or 1.3x world. At least the 24-70 is wide enough on the full-frame bodies.
I would say that the two focusing systems are quite on par for what *I'VE* used them for. I've used both extensively for people shooting in low light conditions that move around a lot and are not 'posing' for you. I haven't done birds in flight or sports so take that into consideration. Overall, I have to say I prefer the canon 45 point system in the mark III bodies, but really, both do an exceptional job.
What I prefer in the canon system is that there are cross points on the outer perimetre, rather than all clustered in the centre like Nikon's system. For tracking, I have found the Nikon does better for single point tracking (provided you use a point in the centre) but when you turn on canon's ring of fire, it's very very hard to beat. The keeper rate for me is excellent.
The lens quandry can be frustrating on 1.3. I like WIDE so the 24-70 on the 1D3 wasn't wide enough. But I got around this by putting a wide on the 40D to fill in the gap. I also knew the 16-35 would NOT be really wide on a 1D3, and I LOVE shooting ultrawide. So I got a Tokina 11-16. It works beautifully at 12.5mm on a 1D3, which is very wide. The bonus is that it is F/2.8 and cheap. I know it's made for 1.6 crop, but I use it on FF and 1.3 ALL THE TIME. And it's performance is excellent.
Now, comparing the D700 to the 5D2 is a different story. If you don't need the movies or megapixels, then the D700 kills it. I was waiting so eagerly for a 5D2 that had the 45-point system. Well, canon didn't do it so I invested in Nikon instead, and am very pleased. AF performance is stunning. I actually DO use outer points with the D700 and is does quite a good job of it.
And I'll comment on the high-res LCD screens...
My opinion is that they are really really OVERRATED and it's more like a marketing gimmick (like megapixels) than a NEEDED practical item. The low res screens provide excellent sharpness and clarity. The limitation was the embedded jpeg preview thumbnail that the camera generates. For example, zooming in on a shot on a Rebel XS with the low res 2.5" screen (same as 30D/5D) yields a much sharper image than when zoomed on the Nikon D700 3.0" high res screen. That's because of the embedded thumbnail preview.
If you don't believe me about the screens, grab a 40D, then turn on Live View, zoom into some newsprint at 10X and you'll see a ridiculous amount of detail, even though it's a "crappy low res" screen. I use Live View on my 40D/1D3/1Ds3 all the time for critical focusing. When I zoom in on someone's eye, I focus until I can count individual eyelashes. These screens are capable of razor sharp detail for "low res" screens. The screens are not the limitation.
Oh, and one thing to note... Nikon's implementation of Live view is quite lousy compared to Canon's in my opinion. (I ranted about it in this thread a page or so ago) So consider that if you are thinking of switching.
