persuade me why I should get a 1D MKII instead of 40D/50D

Could someone persuade me why I should get a 1D MKII instead of 40D/50D?
So far I know that 1D is 8.5fps better than xxDs' 6fps. But iso1600 noise are comparable.
Any thing else that would draw my interest for a 1D MKII?

Thanks!

Obscenely better AF, much better build quality, you can get it wet, more customizations, etc.

Because it's better in every way except size?

toxic wrote in post #8106415
Because it's better in every way except size?

+1

Can't believe you're even needing persuasion. Just the name alone... Wish i was in your situation!

I can't think of a reason.

Maybe because it must be 5 times better than 40D / 50D since it is 5 times more expensive?

The 1D will only ever be purchased by professional photographers and very serious (and cashed up) amateurs. Not sure comparing a crop body with a full frame flagship of Canon's lineup is worthwhile. They serve completely different consumer groups and have completely different technology and therefore pricing. It would be like comparing a BWM 5 series with a Honda Accord, both very nice cars in their own right but in a completely different league.

Hand_of_Cod wrote in post #8106554
Not sure comparing a crop body with a full frame flagship of Canon's lineup is worthwhile.

psssst.... isn't 1D Mk II a 1.3x cropper?....

You need to think about this ?1d series always unless the weight is a probelm

joeseph wrote in post #8106579
psssst.... isn't 1D Mk II a 1.3x cropper?....

Ha! I figured a $7000 camera would be FF... You know what they say about presumption?!

Hand_of_Cod wrote in post #8106554
The 1D will only ever be purchased by professional photographers and very serious (and cashed up) amateurs. Not sure comparing a crop body with a full frame flagship of Canon's lineup is worthwhile. They serve completely different consumer groups and have completely different technology and therefore pricing. It would be like comparing a BWM 5 series with a Honda Accord, both very nice cars in their own right but in a completely different league.

how do you figure you can buy a used MKII for the same price as a new 50D, so its not like its much difference now

that being said I have a 40D & a MKII and really the only thing better on the 40D is the screen & the fact its 1.6 vs 1.3

but the difference in AF is why I rarely ever use the 40D anymore the 1D smokes it very very easily

it depends what your shooting, if your not shooting moving things the 40D will suit you fine

because 1d mark II doesnt have build in flash which makes you looks more professional with it

seriously either camera can take great pics when you have a moment, but seeing that you have 5d mark II in your signature, 1d mark II sounds more logical for your backup camera. Good luck with your purchase

You want a decent autofocusing system that can keep up with fast action, follow focus, and fast low-light one-shot focus acquisition? You must leave the 40D and 50D bodies behind and go to a camera with a professional-level AF system.

If I ever had the cash to even consider the 1D MK III... I'd do it

You haven't indicated where your interests lie, which does effect what's best for you. They are all worthy cameras, but each has it's strong points & their weaknesses, plus a different $ value. If you shoot (primarily) static subjects then all of them work, but if you shoot very fast paced action you will ultimately need a 1 series body. FPS is nice & can be important at times but AF rules. Out of focus shots aren't as nice as in focus shots unless viewed really small, and that's the most important difference between what a pro body delivers vs a consumer body. Do you have lenses that will allow you to fill the frame of an 8.2 mp body? That's the next most important part of your decision. a 15 mp file will allow a big crop & still leave a usable file, but an 8.2 mp file can't get the same crop & survive.