Let me s'plain Lucy. The context was with the 5 series. Not across the line. So sorry if you failed to grasp that. I hope I cleared it up for you. I want to keep the dossier you are compiling on me accurate. 
I have nothing against the 5 series except they aren't 1 series. If I couldn't have my 1 series bodies I would certainly buy the 5D Mk IV.
"But the 1D mark 2 and the 1Ds definately have enough megapixels. So basically how do these 1 series compare against the 40D/450D?"
Ben, There isn't any Canon DSLR that will not take very nice pictures. They all will. You can be happy with any of them. Of course there will be some better than others. One thing you really need to do is, don't make your decision based solely on MP. There will be some give and take because you are considering cameras that are pretty old.
If you truly want a 1 series and I totally understand are you willing to put up with no computer recognition? They require you to use a card reader. That is until you get to the 1D Mk III. Some menu items will not be alterable in the 1D, 1Ds, and the Mk II.
For myself I have a job coming up shooting the Corporate Challenge Women's Volleyball Tournament. Yeah, I know, somebodies gotta do it ! 
I am going to take three bodies and one is going to be my 1D Mk IIn with the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8 DG OS HSM Lens on it. So you see using one is still possible and viable. You will likely not meet your goal of $200 bucks, though, if you buy one.
IMHO, given the choice of a 40D or a 450D, go with the 40D every time. No question.
" But the 1D mark 2 and the 1Ds definately have enough megapixels."
Ben here is what you can expect with a 1D Mk II. I just run outside and did some quick snaps handheld 120-300mm f2.8. Applied lens correction in LR. Cropped pretty heavily. It's fairly dark here so the ISO is high at 800. Another place where these cameras will fall short is higher ISO's.
" I love it."
I agree 101% and, yes, I love my 1d4, too. But we are way, way out of the OPs price range for a 1d4. So is a 1d3 or even a 1d2n but at least there is a dim light at the end of the tunnel for a 1d2 if not the 1d2n.
I'll tell you what, I had a 1Dx in my hands ready to pull the trigger and didn't do it because of the 1D Mk IV. The 1Dx just isn't enough of an upgrade for what I do to warrant the cost. Plus I love the APS-H sensor size. It seems Canon decided to push the video side instead of stills. I don't do and have zero interest in video. I am a stills guy. Plain and simple.
The 1D Mk IIn has the same 8.2 MP sensor, the same DIGIC II image processor and 8.5 fps shooting speed as the 1D Mk II. The primary changes are a new 2.5" wide viewing angle LCD monitor, improved buffer. Canon also let you do different file formats to either card something the 1d2 can't. The LCD on a 1d2 is more of a friend than a helper! These old dinosaurs can still get it done but you do give up a lot.
Folks that don't use a 1 series can say what they want but there is just something about a 1 series. Just the way it feels. It feels of quality. Most of the people that pooh-pooh them have never used one.
