Last night was the first time I got to really rest my newly acquired (sound like a proud papa, huh) Canon 1D Mark II. With all the well publicized problems of the 1D Mark III, I chose the Mark II for it's price on the secondary market - around $1,000 - and the simple fact that anyone that isn't using a Nikon D700 or D3 has this camera body attached to a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 USM IS/NON-IS L series lens.
The drawbacks that I initially expected were issues with the lower than today's industry standard resolution (the 1D Mark II is only 8.2 megapixels, most cameras today are 15 megapixels and up), the lack of a really good LCD screen (shouldn't be 'chimping' anyway) and the fact that this camera is not a superb high ISO performer. In it's day, it was the top of the line. Selling for around $8,500 at one point, this technology must have set the standard for the DSLR community.
So, after using it at an NCAA Division I basketball game at the Peterson Event Center (Pittsburgh, PA), I have to come to these real world conclusions. Some may argue with me, but as a relatively new photographer, these are my opinions. And, until I feel like shelling out $6,000 on a 1Ds - this camera is my choice.
RESOLUTION: Absolutely not a problem unless you are trying to take a photo for large format printing. My model has a custom viewfinder that has lines showing a true full-frame 8x10 crop. This helps me fill the frame to minimize cropping in post-production.
I noticed that the lower resolution is sharp. Not sure why, but I think it has to do with the fact that the newer "prosumer" models are cramming so many pixels on a 1.6x sensor that is loses that "tack sharp" result. I looked at some of the keepers at full zoom and was impressed at the clarity. So, this is not an issue for me - not in the least.
LCD SCREEN: I was addicted to the huge LCD on my 50D. But, I noticed that I started relying on that for image correctness, rather than the histogram. I eventually realized that the screen is very bright and makes everything look more saturated and more exposed than it really is. Cool for "chimping", though.
The 1D Mark II has a better screen than the earlier models, but is so small that you really won't find it useful. In fact, I shut the review option to "OFF" and never reviewed any images in the camera. I didn't "chimp"! Funny thing, too... I ended up with just as many keepers as I did when I wasted all that time looking at the screen. Also, a much overlooked point, I didn't miss any plays because of a fascination with looking at the screen.
ISO PERFORMANCE: Honestly, I don't plan on using this camera in many super low-light situations. It holds it's own up to about 1600 ISO before noise became a problem. Considering most of my sports are in "broadcast lighting" or outdoors, this doesn't concern me. My 50D can fill that gap if needed. Or, I will just convert to B&W and the noise won't be an issue. Just don't expect super images in a high school gym. That's what strobes are for.
Conclusion? I think that anyone wanting to make the move to a PRO camera body should jump on any well-taken care of 1D Mark II or 1D Mark II N. They're affordable and although not the piece of technology that the 1D Mark IV is, it is still a great body with an awesome FPS (frames per second) @ 8.5-ish, the 45-point AF system, the weatherproofing and durable build are enough to sell me.
From custom vinyl "Fathead" wall graphics to freelance assignments, HSI provides a wide range of services. Take a look around and contact us. We're professional, experienced and affordable - you might just be surprised.
