Canon 1D MK II N or Canon 50D for birding? (4 Viewers)

[websurfer]

Just to add to this, I have both the 1dmkII and a 50D and I just did some AF tests indoors. Only ambient light from the outside. I think this simulates low light/overcast type conditions. I tried using both the outer AF points and the center point. Both were tested using my 1-4 zoom at 400mm. They seem to be on a par as their ability to focus quickly in both one shot and AF on static subjects in all AF points. I made sure to focus on the same object a less then contrasty pen against a dull purple background. I actually think the 50D was a bit faster if only by a bit. Maybe the 1dII has better tracking of moving objects though. Not sure how to test that one.

Interesting and a bit of a surprise to me.
"Maybe the 1dII has better tracking of moving objects though. Not sure how to test that one." - BIF shots, if you can... or just moving cars on the street!

 

[CCRII]

Interesting and a bit surprise to me.
"Maybe the 1dII has better tracking of moving objects though. Not sure how to test that one." - BIF shots, if you can... or just moving cars on the street!

Yeah the moving cars is a great idea. Will give it a try thanks.

 

[CCRII]

Interesting and a bit of a surprise to me.
"Maybe the 1dII has better tracking of moving objects though. Not sure how to test that one." - BIF shots, if you can... or just moving cars on the street!

1dII has an edge here for sure.

 

[Jay23]

1D2n Conntrols vs XXD series controls

Whilst agreeing that 'cropability' is a nice thing to have everything else being equal, I would not choose a camera based on specification. On paper my 40D is better than my 1D2n except for build and autofocus but in the hand there are light years of difference, the ID being hugely superior as a camera to actually use. As for the photographs that I take, at A3 there is nothing visible between them. Try a 1D, heck even an ancient and decrepit 1D2n and once you are used to the controls ( it took me a day and the 40D controls now seem to me to be like a PAS) you will never want an XXD. In fact, a word of warning; once you have tried a 1D series everything else will seem inadequate.

 

[JGobeil]

There are 2 ways to look at a camera: ease of use and specifications.

Today's cameras are so sophisticated that in terms of specs you get what you pay for. There are differences of course between DSLRs in the same price range but IMO they are merely academic. They are quite similar in terms of OUTPUT when handled properly, at least to the eye.

Usability is a different story. There are important differences between each camera and one will most surely please you more than the others. It will fit your needs better, it will handle better. This is the one you should buy. Does it mean it is a better camera ? For you ONLY, definitely yes !

 

[CAU]

I imagine the ISO performance of the 50D is far superior to the older 1d series bodies and from what people are saying about the 50D the advantage of the 1d's AF might not actually be better.

I suppose only somebody with both models could truly confirm/disprove that.

My meager thoughts anyway.

The 50D has a pixel density of 4.5 MP/cm^2, compared to 1.5 MP/cm^2 for the 1D Mk II. I believe that the three times larger pixels of the Mk II should produce less noise than those of the 50D, despite the possible advances in sensor technology.

Here are comparison shots at ISO3200:
1D Mk II N:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E1DN/FULLRES/E1DNhSLI3200.HTM
50D:
http://75.126.132.154/PRODS/E50D/FULLRES/E50DhSLI03200.JPG

The 50D image has less chroma noise, but I believe that it's due to stronger in-camera noise processing, as the image is overall much softer, and doesn't contain much more detail despite the much larger pixel count. In some parts of the image the Mk II actually seems to show more detail, for example at the tip of the brown brush (which the noise processing of 50D has smeared out). The Mk II shot also looks much crispier, although I don't know how much of it's due to in-camera processing.

I don't own either of the cameras, but would definitely select the Mk II over the 50D, especially due to the better autofocus system. Ok, I don't (yet) even know anyone that would own the 50D, but people that own the 40D (which has the same autofocus system as the 50D) can't consistently get correctly focused pictures when shooting flying birds (even getting one might sometimes prove to be difficult when a bird flies by), whereas the success rate with a Mk II is much higher.

 

[Keith Reeder]

Personally I rate the 40D very highly in terms of AF (if there's a "problem" it's that the AF is too fast for some folk, and really demands more user input to keep the AF point where it needs to be - do that though and it's great) but I don't see anything about the 50D which would make me "upgrade" to it.

But I'm seriously considering a 1D Mk II N at the moment...

A camera doesn't get a 9.5 here by being crap, and this rating includes some pretty recent comments...

 

[websurfer]

Personally I rate the 40D very highly in terms of AF (if there's a "problem" it's that the AF is too fast for some folk, and really demands more user input to keep the AF point where it needs to be - do that though and it's great) but I don't see anything about the 50D which would make me "upgrade" to it.

But I'm seriously considering a 1D Mk II N at the moment...

A camera doesn't get a 9.5 here by being crap, and this rating includes some pretty recent comments...

I am not upgrading from the Canon 40D. If I had one, I don´t think I would upgrade, as I think the 40D is an excellent camera.
Now I am going to upgrade from a 20D - and due to the fact, that I am keeping my cameras for years, not upgrading all the time, my thoughts was the following: I will go for a brand new quality camera with newest technology (50D) or a good 1D IIN in Mint condition with superb AF.
I have been in contact with a local seller of a 1DII N in mint conditon, only 9000 actuations , really looked as new. Though during handling, it felt a bit difficult to use with combination of two buttons for more settings, but what a "professional feeling" indeed. I didn´t like he was contacting me more times, almost pressing me to make a decision. When you buy used equipment, you don´t know if the camera has been dropped on the floor or what else it might hide. Perhaps I am a bit too suspicious in such a case. I told him to let it go to others, as I think £1100 is too much to pay for used equipment, which you don´t know. Without any guarantee. Maybe I was a bit too hasty to let this fine camera go? IF I just could be sure, nothing was wriong with it, but it´s very difficult to judge and examine, when you visit the seller.

 

[websurfer]

.... ... ..

A camera doesn't get a 9.5 here by being crap, and this rating includes some pretty recent comments...

A camera doesn`t get a 9.9 rating here, by being crap, so maybe we should buy this instead..

 

[CAU]

Personally I rate the 40D very highly in terms of AF (if there's a "problem" it's that the AF is too fast for some folk, and really demands more user input to keep the AF point where it needs to be - do that though and it's great) but I don't see anything about the 50D which would make me "upgrade" to it.

I was mainly referring to the ability to focus on moving subjects in the AI servo mode.

You might want to read Rob Galbraith's opinion on the difference between the autofocus on the 1D series and on the 40D (scroll down to the question regarding the 40D):
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537

Some excerpts:
"With an EF 300mm f/2.8L IS or EF 500mm f/4L IS lens attached, the EOS 40D produces an unacceptably low percentage of properly focused or even usably focused frames of track events, soccer, rugby, football and basketball in our testing."

"A midrange digital SLR with a midrange price tag probably can't be expected to offer the same autofocus performance as the company's best. Even taking that into account, though, the 40D doesn't fare well. It's not that it can't do the job at the level of a more expensive camera, it's that it can't do the job really at all."

Rob Galbraith isn't just the average photographer, for example he was one of the first ones to note the AF issues on the Mk III, which then prompted new firmware releases from Canon:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0707/07072101canon1dmkiiifirmware.asp

People who have changed from the XXD series to the 1D series say the same (at least those that I personally know), the autofocus of the midrange cameras isn't comparable to the performance of the 1D cameras. Certainly you can get some good flight shots with the cheaper cameras, too, especially if you photograph easy subjects, but the 40D just isn't an alternative to serious flight photography.

 

[JGobeil]

Bird photography is a specialty, even more if you photograph birds in flight. I don't think you will find the perfect camera for the job. It will always be a trade off.

You get what you pay for. The ID will get you a camera with better build and specs, including AF, if you can afford it. However, you will miss the crop factor, which is a big plus for bird photography. A difficult choice indeed.

The 2 cameras are also very different in terms of weight and shape - the 1d is much bigger and 425 g. heavier. I suggest you go to a store and play with both for a while to find out which one fits you the best in terms of handling.

 

[JGobeil]

See this thread on DPP. I cannot comment about the 40D, but AF on my 50D is much better than on my 20D - faster and more accurate.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=29974952

 

[CAU]

See this thread on DPP. I cannot comment about the 40D, but AF on my 50D is much better than on my 20D - faster and more accurate.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=29974952

Yes, Canon has improved the AF system since the 20D. However, Canon has stated that the autofocus systems on the 40D and 50D are similar, which is why the claims of a significantly improved autofocus seem strange. But who knows, I don't own either camera. At least two of the five gull images on the first page of your link are not focused correctly, but that could be caused by user error, too.

 

[JGobeil]

Yes, Canon has improved the AF system since the 20D. However, Canon has stated that the autofocus systems on the 40D and 50D are similar, which is why the claims of a significantly improved autofocus seem strange. But who knows, I don't own either camera. At least two of the five gull images on the first page of your link are not focused correctly, but that could be caused by user error, too.

The 40D and 50D have different processors, which may explain the difference since the processor is the engine that drives everything and it also contains the logic.

 

[avan]

In the french magazine "Chasseur d'images" they also see a better AF from the 50D compared to the 40D (they do the same test with all camera), the explanation for them are the faster processor: a faster buffer, a more accurate AF.

 

[CAU]

Thanks for the info! I know that the 50D has the Digic 4, but as AFAIK the processor is not directly involved in the focusing system (there's a dedicated processor for that, which hasn't been changed from the 40D), I wasn't expecting any significant performance increase. The excerpt below speculates only on a slight speed boost, but I hope to see a thorough test. The results from "Chasseur d'images" sound very promising, is there any further info on that (e.g. details on the quantification of the improvement, and how the 50D compares to the 1D series)?

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-9314-9568
"The 50D's autofocus system carries over mostly unaltered from the 40D: it remains comprised of nine AF points, all of which act as cross-type with f/5.6 or faster lenses (the centre AF point operates with higher precision than the other points with f/2.8 or faster lenses).

While Canon is emphasizing this time around the AF system's ability to detect scene colour temperature and light flicker, and include that as part of the 50D's autotofocus calculation, that capability was also present in the 40D, says Canon USA's Westfall. Canon's briefing notes on the camera make no mention, says Westfall, of autofocus sensor or algorithm changes in the 50D, relative to the 40D.

Where those calculations are performed is also the same: in a dedicated microprocessor. This should mean the speed of autofocus will feel about the same as before, with one caveat: because the 50D's main CPU, DIGIC 4, is faster than DIGIC III in the 40D, certain functions of the new model may end up enjoying a slight speed boost, even if they don't directly depend on the DIGIC processor to perform their specific function. Autofocus speed could well be one such function that is improved in this way, though whether any speed jump is noticeable or leads to a higher percentage of in-focus pictures is impossible to say without actually using the camera."

 

[nigelblake]

However, you will miss the crop factor, which is a big plus for bird photography

Really!!, I disagree entirely, full frame gives far superior creative control of Depth of field for starters; more fieldcraft is far superior to more reach and crop factors for getting results that stand out.

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/201562/ppuser/120

 

[Robert_Scanlon]

I agree with Nigel. The main advantage of the crop factor is that you are not using up memory / disk space with lots of spare space around the bird (in most everyday small bird-shooting situations). Other than that, the image captured of the bird will still be better with the 1D series, comparing it with a xxD camera of the same generation.

I am tempted to get a 50D to use alongside my 1DII, as I am sure it will outresolve it, but I suspect I will get fewer actual useable photos with it.

 

[JGobeil]

Really!!, I disagree entirely, full frame gives far superior creative control of Depth of field for starters; more fieldcraft is far superior to more reach and crop factors for getting results that stand out.

http://www.birdforum.net/gallery/showphoto.php/photo/201562/ppuser/120

Nigel, this has been discussed in depth on many forums, DPP for one. Experts seem to agree that a C sensor is an advantage for birding. Of course, you must take into consideration the number of megapixels but there is a limit to cropping. Also, taking a picture with the intent do crop afterwards doesn't help for composition.

IMO, in birding we always need more reach. I like C sensors because of the 50-60% crop factor. I also like more megapixels because it allows for cropping if needed.

The drawback of the C sensor is an increased pixel density but of course "there's no free lunch". I am willing to pay that price for more reach - when a bird is too far, it is too far, no matter how good your camera is.

If course, this is just my opinion, for what it is worth

 

[nigelblake]

It is of course only my opinion after 40 years of using full frame (35mm slides and digital), that if you constantly feel you need more reach then you are obviously doing it wrong!
I use full frame, I frame my shots in the viewfinder, and having spent a small fortune on high pixel count bodies I am loathe to waste those pixels by cropping them a way!