I'm considering upgrading from my 20D to a 1D Mark II N and have a question on the focal length multiplier on the Mk II, which is 1.3. The focal length multiplier on the 20D is 1.6. If I understand correctly, a photo shot at 100mm with the Mk II will actually be the equivalent of 130mm and a photo shot at 100mm with the 20D will actually be the equivalent of 160mm. I was in B&H yesterday looking at the Mk II and the sales guy said the Mk II is more advantageous than the 20D for telephoto shots due to the 1.3x focal length. This makes no sense to me, it seems the opposite would be true since you would get more focal length out of the 20D - images would be tighter than with the Mk II.

I know there are many advantages to the Mk II over the 20D which is why I intend to buy one, but I don't understand this focal length logic. Can anyone shed some light?

The 20D's 1.6x crop factor would indead give you more reach on your telephoto lens like you said. I'm not sure what the salesperson was refering too... The 1.3x of the 1D would be better than the 20D for wide angle shooting.

he may have just thought the 20d was full-frame. but as mjs said, the 1.6 will be better for telephoto.

I think your salesman just made a mistake, to be honest.
The 1DmkIIN is slightly better than the full frame 1DSmkII.
But the 20D has greater multiplier, so better for telephoto.

The 1D series are better than the 20D for lots of other reasons, like better environmental seals for shooting in damp or dusty conditions.

The MKII N will do a lot of things the 20D won't, but the crop factor difference isn't a big deal, although it is much better with wider angle lenses.
The big querstion is: Will you be making enough $$ to justify the cost of the MKII N? They ain't cheap!

sorry I didsn't see this earlier, been busy, shooting a few games and....ummm, X-mas concerts :confused: ....ugh! Got three more of these concerts next week too.....:(

JS