Canon 1D Mark II vs 1D Mark II N

I have been using my 4mp 1D for quite a while since 2003. I am ready for upgrade to Mark II.

Now this is my question:

A used 1D mark II now would be around $2500-$2900 depends on condition. A used or new Mark II N

would be around $3000-$3400. Is it worth for spend that $500-$900 for the Mark II N?

I checked dpreview.com and kind of know the different between them which is not much. The best thing

is to have a bigger 2.5" screen. Look like both camera have the same sensor and digi II chip. It sounds

500-900 is a lot of money for a bigger screen. Or there is other good upgrade of Mark II N I missed?

Should I go for Mark II N or just but a used mark II? Thanks everybody.

You can review the differences here:

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-7885-7973

Probably not worth the extra money if you can get a good used 1DMKII. On the other hand, unless you must buy now, it may be wise to wait until Feb or so when Canon tends to announce new stuff and prices will drop.

Bogdan

I don't think you can go wrong with either. I bought a like new Mark II from KEH and haven't regretted it. If they had a new Mark II N for an extra couple hundred I would have went for it. New Mark II Ns go close to $3600-3800 whereas a used like new Mark II can be had for less than $2900.

Please tell us where you can get a new Mark IIN for $3000.

For me, $500-900 is not worth a larger LCD, brighter AF points, and few other ergonomic changes in the menu software.

Thanks everyone, I will look into both cameras and just see which one comes with a good deal first.

I saw some used Mark II N around $3000-$3200. not new ones. New ones at B&H is now only around $3400.

1. The 1D Mk II N also has an advantage of being newer. Therefore, when buying used, there is a good chance - statistically speaking - that you will get a body with a lot less actuations.

2. When you sell it, the 1D Mk II N is likely to achieve a higher price.

Just another points for considerations.

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

E.J. Peiker compared both side by side (see naturescapes.net). It was only single sample to another single sample comparison of course, but if memory serves right using two other samples later held the observation.

1D2N had weaker AA filter and held highlights better than 1D2.

Hello, Eric.

About nine months ago I was comparing these same two models and the camera you have (coming from film, however). I decided on the N model, but only because my friend got me 35% off. If not for the discount, I would have gone for the camera that you have now, just as a holdover until the Mk. II prices went down.

So, having looked at the same things you're looking at, here is my take on it:

1. The N model over the plain Mk. II is worth the extra money, if you can swing the dough without too much trouble. The screeen is a huge benefit for the eyes (and for other people who want to look!), and nothing beats the secure feeling of having a brand new camera out of the box. You know where it's been, what's been done to it, and you know you can get it fixed or replaced if anything seriously goes wrong with it. The buffer's ability to handle 8 more shots is pretty useless, unless you are a sports photographer hired by a magazine that specifically asks for sequences (i.e. skateboarding mags), or experimenting with making short films with the camera or something. I have never taken more than 4 sequential shots in continuous mode in actual shooting conditions, even when shooting sports (have done it plenty of times screwing around!), so the upgraded buffer was not a selling point to me. The big things are the brand-spanking newness and the outstanding large screen...it really makes a big difference, at least in my opinion.

2. Honestly, I think high ISO performance is the only huge reason to want to upgrade from your 1D. Yes, you can also zoom on the LCD and use two cards, as well as make larger prints at the same quality. However, if I were in your position, I would hang on to your 1D until you see what happens to the N's prices when the next pro model is introduced. When I made my decision, the new model was likely over a year away, so I just bought then. The 1D is still a remarkable camera (as long as you aren't using high ISOs...yuck!) I considered a 1D as a backup, but the noise was just too nasty for me, since I like to shoot a lot of very low light stuff. I went with a used 20D instead. Doesn't have that wonderful brick-like feel, but at least it has usable high ISOs, and it is a bit more sneaky of a camera, which is great for lots of situations.

3. A used 1D Mk. II is by no means a bad camera just because it has a smaller screen! If you find a killer deal on one, by all means jump on it.

Keith

>> I think high ISO performance is the only huge reason to want to upgrade from your 1D.

I'd put battery consumption before this one.

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Yakim - VERY true...The Mk. II kicks the 1D in the shorts in that department.

It depends on the photographer what is most important, though. For me, cleanliness at high ISOs is by far the most important quality of any camera, since with the digital I am almost always shooting moving and/or low light stuff. My night shots taken with my friend's 1st gen. 1D look nasty, to say the least. For anything still, I just use good ol' film; 4X5 in. whenever time and convenience allow, with 6X9 cm. my second choice, and then 35 mm.

Keith