7D vs. 1D mk2n?

<p>For a while now I've been thinking of upgrading my primary body from a 40D to something a bit more capable. My first plan was to get a clean 1D mkIIn, but with the introduction of the 7D I'm reconsidering that.</p>

<p>I mostly shoot airplanes, with some sailboats, horses, and other "action" subjects (<a href="http://moving-target-photos.com/samples/">some samples</a> ).</p>

<p>Any comments/suggestions?<br /> <br /> My primary concerns are:</p>

<ul >

<li>AF - the 1D 45-point system vs. the new 7D 19-point, esp. servo mode.</li>

<li>Medium ISO noise/IQ (ISOs in the 400-1600 range).</li>

<li>Frame-rate and buffer (all indications are the two cameras are essentially equivalent - ?)</li>

</ul>

<p>I would probably suggest the 7D unless you nedd the 1D durability. The 7D AF is very good and in the real world is so close to the 1DIIN that you are unlikely to see any difference. It appears to me that the 1DIIN has better low light performance but the difference is small. I have had no AF problems for sports with the 7D but this was all with fast (F2.8 or better) lenses. The only slower lens that I have is the EF-S 18-135 Kit that I bought with the 7D (as it was $200). This has slower Af but I am unsure if this is the lens (it is not USM) or the fact that the 7D AF suffers with slower lenses. Since I cannot put this lens on the 1DIIN I am unable to compare. Hopefully someone else will have shot a lens like the 300 F4 or 100-400 on both bodies and can inform you how the 7D performs with slower glass. The noise on the two cameras is similar but the extra resolution of the 7D gives you less of an issue. I will post some crops.</p><div></div>

<p>I chose the Nikon D2X over the 1DIIn two years ago and I would chose the 7D over the 1DIIn now. No question. The fps and buffer of the 1DII is slightly higher but would not be noticeable in sports shooing. Autofocus is still a crapshoot, and I am sure the sport mode shooting that most pros use would equal out the two systems. (That is sports pros tend to limit the number of used focus points to the centre of the image and the 7D could be even better here). 18MP versus 8MP, what is there to say. The high ISO of the 7D is probably similar. High ISO performance has improved a lot since the 1DII but we are talking about 18MP now instead of 8, so that counteracts the improvements. I'd still take the 18MP!</p>

<p>I love the feel of a pro body in my 95 percentile hands but 8fps, 15 RAW buffer, and 18MPs, I'd consider giving up my autoaperture link of my manual focus Nikons (200/2 and 400/2.8) to the D2X to use them with adapters on the 7D! I just can't afford the 7D....yet.</p>

<p>7D crops of hockey shorts</p><div></div>

<p>Both crops represent about the same size when printed. as you can see at ISO 3200 I think the 1DIIN has the 7D beat but the noise characteristics are different between the two cameras. At ISO 1600 or below the 7D delivers very good results. With a UDMA card in the 7D you really do not have major fps or buffer issues and that is without the new 600 series cards.</p>

<p>Phillip, John: many thanks for the examples and observations.</p>

<p>The sub-f/2.8 AF is important, since my primary lens is the 100-400mm IS (often out at 300mm+, so the aperture is near f/5.6). However the "turbo-mode" AF on the IIn is really impressive, esp. coupled with a really fast lens like the 300mm f/2.8... </p>

<p>Unfortunately, all of my personal IIn experience is with CPS loaners and lenses like the 300mm f/2.8 and 500mm f/4, so I don't have any point of reference with lenses that I own (ex. 100-400mm and 70-200mm f/2.8 IS). Maybe the best idea is to borrow a 7D and IIn from CPS sometime in spring and do a comparison at an early-season airshow or regatta...</p>

<p>Coming from someone who currently shoots a 1DMKII on land and a 40D in the water I would hands down buy the 7D over a 1DMKII or MKII N. The 1D's are extremely durable but the MKII is way out of date compared to the 7D. Unless money is the issue I would buy a 7D and forget about the 1D. If money is an issue I know a guy who's got a clean 1D MKII for a grand.</p>

<p>Side note if you do upgrade to a 1D instead don't be afraid of the standard MKII, short of the screen size which doesn't make a hill of beans on canons crappy old ones there's no significant difference. The MKII go for a few hundred less.</p>

<p>Sorry I am unable to help with Af performance with slower lenses. As I said the EF-S 18-135 F3.5 - F5.6 IS is much slower but this may be the lens not the body (since all my other bodies are full frame I am unable to determine this). Withe the 70-200 F2.8 (mine is non-IS) I am unable to detect any AF performance difference between the 7D and 1DIIN (even when I add the 1.4x TC) so if the 1dIIN is faster the difference is very small. As I said earlier the 1DIIN may be slightly faster in low light (below LV7) but even here the difference is small.</p>

<p>Thanks to Philip for posting those two crops comparing ISO 3200 of the 1D2 and 7D. The crop from the 1D2 amazed me for such a relatively old camera. If I had the spare cash I would invest in a used 1D2 for when the weather turns nasty or the action hots up.</p>

<p>Yeah the 1DIIN was a great camera - quite close to the 1DIII in many ways</p>

<p>Yeah so close in fact many pro photog's I know didn't make the switch the MKIV to me actually seems like a real step forward from Canon. The MKIII looks like Miss Congeniality in the grand scheme.</p>