What body should I choose?

I am very new to photography in general, but have been bitten badly by the bug. I want a good all around learning camera for now, and then I intend to do sports photography and wildlife with this firstbody. Ultimately I want to end up with a crop-factor bodyAND a full frame for portraiture and landscapes, likely the 5D or 5D Mk. II for budgetary reasons. Unless I win the lottery, I will likely never have an EOS 1Ds Mk. III. I have only one lens for now, which is the 17-40 f/4.0 L zoom. I will probaby get a 70-200 f/2.8 IS next and rest there until I can afford a 24-70 or 24-105, whichever will be a better companion to the 70-200. Philosophically, I am interested in great glass, and would rather put money there than in bodies if compromises are to be made, which currently they must be.


I like motorsports, so I am concerned that an affordable20D or 30D would betoo slow, frame rate-wise, to cut it.I am currently thinking I should get a 40D, even though the more expensive50D is available now and looks overall like a great camera, since the DLA of the 50 is lower than the 40 and I think the 40D resolution is probably good enough. Is the lowDLA a serious concern for most people? Who shoots at f/11? Is that a non-issue in the real world? I sort of thought that getting the most light possible is paramount, but I also know enough to understand that there is more depth of field available with higher f numbers. Is being practicallylimited tof/8 a problem?


I have found clean 20Ds for $300, the 40D is $800 currently everywhere. Is the difference worth it if I have to wait a few months for the 40D? I thought maybe a 20D or 30D could always be resold for a reasonable amount later, which might helpget in the game now and allow for atrade up later when finances allow. I don't think I want to end up with three bodies anyway. Is the interface on the 20/30different enough that I might not want to relearn to use the 40/50, or am I maybereading too much into that?


Sorry to ramble, but I had a lot I wanted to say.

I think the 40D is an excellent choice for a crop body camera if you intend to use Canon gear. I got my 40D used (barely) for $700 so those deals or better are available as we speak. The interface is nice and snappy and easy to navigate. You won't be disappointed and you will save some green so that you can begin to work toward a new L lens. Glass is second only to photographic skill. I surmise your skill will determine 90% of your success.

"...if you intend to use Canon gear."?


Well, honestly, I guess I could sell my lens and start with Nikon. That is what all my friends have.[:D]I hadn't seriously considered that. I've always liked Canon in the past, and I guess it is just a pre-conceived notion, since I've not really owned any of their cameras before.


Why would you phrase it that way? You seem pleased with your 40D.


I think I have a pretty good eye for composition, but I am a beginner in this game. Iknow I have a long learning curve, and look forward toconstantly improving my craft.I definitely agree that my own developing skillset is ultimately more important than the lenses or bodies that I use. However, I don't want to be limited by my equipment, either.


If I were to buy a 40D, I'd definitely go with new at the current pricing. The used stuff isn't discounted very much that I've seen so far. I am willing to wait/take a brow-beating from my wife if the 50D is that much better. I know that a 50% higher pixel count on the face of it is a big step forward, but if it causes a negative regarding the more limited DLA, maybe I don't want to go there. Maybe it is irrelevant to my situation. Not being knowledgeable and experienced means I can't make an informed decision on that without help from others. I want to know going in that I am making a good choice and not spending my limited funds unwisely.

I have a comment on the lens that you currently have, the 17-40 L zoom. I originally started out with the Digital Rebel and was not happy with the 18-55mm kit lens. After a while, I purchased the 17-40 L and was blown away with the quality. If you are going to get a 40D, your 17-40 L is equivalent to a 27-65mm lens full frame. So for you, if you intend to have a cropped sensor body and a full frame body, you would be able to use the same lens with both. For the cropped, an excellent walkaround lens and for the full frame, a great wide angle zoom.


What has happened with me is that I sold my Digital Rebel and I am now exclusively full frame with a 5D and more recently 5D mk II. I probably won't have got there without appreciating what you could do with great glass and it started with the 17-40 L.


As a recommend for you, the 40D is probably a great start and you could probably get an excellent price on new ones now. When I got the Digital Rebel, my first upgrade choice was the 20D for the rugged body and extra features. Couldn't get a good deal on it and went 5D and never looked back.

DLA isn't a big factor for many types of photography, yet. It's a problem for macro photography, where you often need smaller apertures to get enough depth of field to keep your entire subject in focus, but for the types of things you mention, you'll usually be far enough away from your subject that your depth of field is fine even at wide aperture. DLA is one of those things that you'll understand by the time you need to worry about it :)


The 40D is a lot of camera for the money...it
doesn't have the shallowest learning curve, but if you post here, I'm
sure you'll get the help you need. I switched from a 20D to a 40D about two months ago...the interface
isn't much different. The custom functions on the menus are organized
better, but it's nothing you won't figure out with a quick read through
the instruction manual. I'd recommend you start with a 40D...if you decide you need a faster frame rate later, you can upgrade to a 1D Mark II...it's a lot more camera for a lot more money, but not nearly as much money as a 1Ds Mark III.

EdN,


I am glad you like your 17-40. I bought mine based on the info I got here at TDP and from e-mailing Bryan. I have used it on a5D that I had for a couple of weeks, along with a 24-105 L, and loved them both.


adam,


I appreciate your input. I'm sure you're right about the DLA issue being unimportant to me at this stage. I just remember the comments made by Bryan in his 50D review about being less happy with the f/11 shots, and he didn't mention macro, so I didn't know exactly how to take it. I would love a primer on DLA and how it affects images and when/if it is important.


However, that sort of leads me to want the 50D. [:D] My main objection to it (besides cost) was the DLA, at least in my mind. If DLA is a non-issue for me, maybe I should go ahead and make room in the dog house and get the 50D. But then that leads me to think maybe, for the same money, I could get a used 1D Mk. II.


Now my head is starting to hurt.

Ok, here's the story on DLA, as I understand it. In a camera, you are trying to capture a pattern of light using a sensor...the image is represented by the amount and wavelength of light hitting each area of the sensor. Diffraction is a phenomenon where, when any wave (ie light) tries to
pass through a small opening, it becomes scattered to a certain
(measurable) extent. The smaller the opening, the greater the scattering. You can see a similar effect yourself by putting a funnel horizontally in a tub of water and making a wave through the funnel with your hand. This scattering shows up as soft images, as the pixels that should be in one area show up in a slightly different area.


Assuming your camera's sensor had an infinite number of pixels, you could measure exactly the amount of diffraction that is occuring at any aperture at any place in the image. But our sensors don't have an infinite number of pixels, and the fewer pixels they have per square unit of measurement, the less apparent the diffraction is. So diffraction will show up at a much larger aperture on a 50D than it will on a 5D, because the 5D has fewer pixels on a larger sensor. As resolution goes up, the problem is going to get worse, which is the point I believe Bryan was trying to make by putting DLA stats into the 50D review (Bryan, correct me if I'm wrong :) )


I very rarely shoot smaller than f/8, so it's never really been an issue for me. But everyone's style is different, so I could easily see why DLA would be important to some people.


You can get a used 1D Mk II for a little more than a new 50D, last I heard. The 1D Mk II is a much more capable camera, but it's also a lot more work to learn how to use it. Even if you can afford a 50D right now, I'd still get a 40D, learn to use it, and decide whether it's worth your while to upgrade. Or a 5D...that's also an excellent camera for the price, with the added advantage of a full-frame sensor. But the frame rate will probably be too slow for sports.

Wow, adam,


Thanks for the info. I understand what diffraction is technically, and thank you for trying to put it into photographic terms. Idid have a 5D for a short time, and I found myself using f/4-f/8 mostly, I think. In terms of image, what will be the result of DLA using a smaller than desirable f stop? Does the image get fuzzy? I understood that sharpness suffers essentially, at least that's what I took fromreading Bryan's comments.


The only reason I returned the 5Dwas the relatively low fps rate. Other than that Iwas in love with that camera. If it had 5-6 fps, I'd never need anything else. Why do you say the 1D Mk. II is a lot more work to learn how to use? Having never used one, how does it differ substantially from a 40D for example?

I have had the 50D for a few weeks now and i will say this, at 100% crops if you look you will notice less contrast in the image due to diffraction at F11 F16 etc..


I shoot at F8 and I get superb results for landscape shots.





The 50D gets more resolution than a 40D or Xsi or other camera, as a result the diffractions true effect is not as apparent when viewing images at a normal viewing distance.


the 50d captures outstanding detail, and you should not be afraid of going after it.

Glad to hear from a 50D owner. When you look at your crops from the f/11+ shots, are you also seeing loss of sharpness? That is what I would expect. The loss of contrast makes sense too, but I hadn't thought about that before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

Is the lowDLA a serious concern for most people? Is that a non-issue in the real world?

---

Maybe I can set you at ease. DLA is the narrowest aperture possible that is not affected at all by diffraction. DLA is the point at which "diffraction visibly starts affecting image sharpness". Just because diffraction has started to affect the image does not mean diffraction is deleterious. DLA is the beginning of diminishing returns.


The 50D DLA is f/7.6


The 40D DLA is f/9.3.


If you shoot f/8 or wider, you would expect to get the full benefit from the 50% increase in megapixels by upgrading from 40D to 50D.


If you shoot f/9, the increase in resolution from 50% more pixels will star to diminish and might be more similar to the improvement from 45% more pixels.


At f/11 it might be more like a 40% MP increase.


f/16 and it may only seem like 30%.


f/22 and the increase may only be 15%.


f/32 and it will probably feel like just 7%.


So the law of diminishing returns *begin* at the DLA. The exact slope of the effect on resolution can be calculated (which I did not do in my example), but unless you shoot at f/32 most of the time, you will definitely get a good percentage of expected improvement from the 50D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

Who shoots at f/11?

---

I shoot f/11 sometimes on APS-C, but I usually don't dip down to f/16 and f/22 except on FF (and only when my sensor was recently cleaned.)

I get that it isn't a brick-wall type of phenomenon, and I am most appreciative of all the efforts to explain the effect. I am really interested in whether or not, in the real world, it is significant or not.


I saw that one person noticed reduced contrast performance, and I expected the loss of sharpness based on Bryan's comments. I am trying to quantify in my own mind the importance of the issues that will arise from high f numbers.


I have been giving it a lot of thought, and currently I feel that it would be good for me to get a 40D, and then get a full frame body later like a 5DMk. II, or maybe even a 5D, which I had before and reallyloved.


Ultimately, I think my dream camera would be based on a 1D Mk. III, with the following amendments:


1. Full frame sensorfrom original 5D with thelatest Micro Lens Array for even better performance.


2. Dual Digic IV processors so the current 10 fps rate could be maintained even with over 25% more pixels.


3. The 3.0" high resolution screen from a 50D.


Honestly, if that camera existed, I think I could have one body for everythingI want to do, and I would maybe never need another body again unless it broke. I would honestly rather have that than even the current 1Ds Mk. III. It might be able to be the same price as a current 1D Mk. III, too, which would be a bonus. I might consider hocking a body part for it! [:D]

Hi Guy. You have the advantage that you are just starting out so switching to Nikon is still very much an option for you. I use Canon, but there are many of us who either have either switched to Nikon systems, who own both, or who dream about Nikon. I think you can't go wrong with Canon, but for the money, a D300 is an amazing camera. Now, that said you will be happy with Canon for a long time. Their lens options best Nikon in my opinion. Lenses like the 70-200 f4, 10-22, 17-55is, 135f2, 85f1.2II and many of the super teles are reasons why so many still choose Canon tools. The 40D represents an excellent value.

DLA is a factor only when you are printing or viewing at 100% or near to it. Otherwise, it's effectively invisible, and not a good reason to prefer the 40D to the 50D. The only way to escape the limitations of DLA is to move to a larger sensor.

Ken,


Thank you for your concise observations. My mind is eased by the thought that it is only apparent in the situations that you mention.


I do know that a larger sensor can offer an improvement,which is why a camera like the 5D Mk.II is so much better in this regard than the lower resolution 50D, for example.


I have been following others comments here in other threads as well as this one, and now I am thinking of switching gears and getting a clean used ID Mk.II. I just missed one on eBay for only $920.00 that looked in very good shape, albeit without much in the way of accessories. That would have been okay by me.


Especially with the rebate on the 40D seemingly going away, would that be an even better choice?

The 1DMk2 is very well-regarded, especially for sports. It's a little old, so it won't have state-of-the-art noise levels at high ISO, but at moderate settings it should be excellent. I don't have personal experience with either the 1DMk2 or the 40D, so I feel I'd be giving you hearsay rather than first-hand advice if I tried to guide you beyond this. Bryan's reviews of both bodies are still on the site, so you can look at them and the sample shots and see if they help. Be aware that any of the 1D series bodies are much heavier and conspicuous than the 40D or 50D, so it may be a poor choice for travel.

My first digital camera was a Olympus E-20p. But when I found out that I liked to shoot action (bicycle races etc), I had to by something else. At that time the 20D has been a few months on the marked. A friend had one and I tried it and liked it. I bought a 20D with a 17-30 f4 L and a 70-200 f2.8 IS L.


Later I upgraded to the 30D because it has a lager buffer (I always shoot in RAW mode).


Both are good for shooting action, but cannot be compared to the 1D mkIII when it come to action and fast shooting. The auto-focus is far better on the 1D mk III compared to the 30D. When shooting birds in action about 10% of the pictures from the 30D (with a 500 f4 IS) is sharp enough. When using the 1 D mkIII with the 500 mm, almost all pictures are sharp.


But... the price tag on the 1D mkIII is a bit higher than on the used 20D...

HiFiGuy,


The folks at Cambridge in Colour have the best explanation of Diffraction as it relates to pixel size and optics as I have ever seen. See link below:


http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm


I own a 50D after having a 40D. The diffraction limited effect of the 50D vs. 40D is totally indistinguishable. Don't make a big deal out of DLA because it isn't an issue to be concerned with. My 50D outperforms my 40D in so many ways and DLA does not even enter the picture figuratively and literally. Use good optics, there is no substitue for good optics.


Kyle

Ken,
Yes, I really wish that Canon had a 5D with the AF from a 1-series and the speed of a 1D Mk. II or 1D Mk. III. Dual Digic IV processors, a modern MLA over the sensor. That way it would have great low noise performance, likely even better than the 5D, all the speed I need, and a manageable size for travel or pictures of my family around the house, etc. That is the camera I would buy tomorrow.


For now, I am still vacillating between a 40D for the smaller frame and reasonable speed coupled with 10+ MP, and the myriad used 1D Mk. IIs with the larger sealed pro body and fast 8.5 fps, but with only 8.2 MP. I really think that the resolution is adequate which is why I am considering it. I almost bought one of the1D's I've seen floating around $500until I re-read some comments about 4.2 MP not really being enough. That and it seems there were/are issues with CCD sensors as opposed to the newer CMOS units for still photography.


I have been reading with great interest the Canon vs Nikon debate, and the "Open Letter to Canon". I find myself in the position to not be able to support one side or the other experientially, which is frustrating. I would like to be able to knowingly agree or disagree that the AF system in the 40D/50D/5D Mk.II is completely adequate in the real world or at least for the applications for which I intend to use it. Bryan certainly seems to clearly prefer the system in the 1 series bodies, and I value his judgement, but others stridently argue that 9 is enough. Looking at the link to an article on another site on this topic, I see some pictures that make me believe that even if Canon only had 9, they might be placed better, and certainly moved for use with a full-frame body as opposed to their placement in the crop-factor bodies.


I only have one lens, so I could certainly jump ship if that were the best course of action long-term, but I get the feeling even from the guys that think Nikon is currently leading that maybe Canon will get its act together and certainly has the best quality and choice of glass overall, which is critical in my opinion. That and I have always just had a fondness for Canon, even if I can't explain it. It doesn't really make sense, since I've never even owned one long term! I guess it is irrational, but I just don't think I want to be a Nikon guy.


Kyle,


Thank you for the link. I plan on reading that soon. I am also glad to hear your feelings about the relevance of the DLA having owned a 40D and now a 50D. I do totally dig the 3" high resolution screen, too. For the money, though,I wonder if maybe a really clean used 1D might not still be a better buy. Forgetting for a moment the size of the bodies, I think 8.2 MP is probably very good, and the 8.5 fps is something I covet. In fact, if I had the nearly $4k it took to jump in, there would really be no decision. I'd get a 1D Mk. III. But I don't. [:)] That is what is torturing me. I want to make a good long-term investment, because I can't afford to change bodies like underwear.

Have a look at the strobist blog...his recent post (actually, his recent guest post on someone else's blog) talked about an old game from "the days of film", First Frame. Two photographers covering the same game would load a fresh roll of film before the game, shoot a frame of the other photog, then watch the game for the 'best' shot. The first frame each one shot (i.e. picture #2 on the roll, the first frame after the proof) was their entry into the game. Frame rate isn't always important in sports...


Bodies lose value over time, but glass tends to hold much, much better. My suggestion is to choose the body that's right for you today, from current or recently 'displaced' models. I tell people that Canon has six (until recently, five) model slots to pick from:


1Ds, the 'pro, quality' camera


1D, the 'pro, speed' camera


5D, a studio camera


xxD, prosumer (the two-digit model)


xxxD, consumer (the three-digit model)


xxxxD, entry-level (the four-digit model)


All are good cameras for what they are, but within a particular vintage, this represents the general quality progression. My girlfriend and i have three bodies, received within two weeks of each other, and all 10.1mp. The XTi is a great camera, but you have to know its limits. The 40D is a MUCH better value. Is my 1D worth 3x the 40D price? I struggle with that sometimes, but know that it'll outlast the other two. That said, my XTi doesn't get much action, and I always grumble about its user interface. I much prefer the 40D, and prefer my 1d3 that much more than the 40d.


So, choose the price point that's right for you, and go from there. Remember that frame rate isn't always important: with flash, you're sometimes limited to 5spf.

I took a big gulp and bought a Nikon F3 in 1990 and swore that this would be my last camera. Well, it was my last 35mm camera until I went digital two years ago. That was 16 years, which is a good run. My first digital SLR--the 30D--is now a backup body after two years. Technical improvements are so fast today that I think you should expect only a few years of state-of-the-art service from a camera. That doesn't mean that they stop working, but they will be easily surpassed in every dimension. I'm not an industry guru, but my guess is that soon enough we will have sensors with "variable resolution" and "video shutters" that make a lot of today's discussion seem antiquated. The 50D has "gapless" sensors, so in principle it should be able to offer a range of resolution/noise levels without loss. I feel certain that this is coming. The 5D2 has 30FPS video at HDTV resolution. Why not 100FPS at 640x480? or 1000FPS at 320x340? Surely this is coming, too. Anyway, I think it's hopeless to buy a "future-proof" camera today. I would recommend the 50D over the 40D primarily because it offers the lens focus micro-adjustment, which I think is a critical feature to get excellent results. I would not get a 1D body unless I needed its features for a specific reason just because its too heavy, bulky and conspicuous for travel. I would rent a 1D body if I had to have one for an event. I would recommend the 5D2 over the 50D if I wanted to use fast/specialized primes vs. high-quality EF-S zooms because those prime lenses don't deliver their full value on a crop body. I would recommend the 5D2 over the 5D for focus micro-adjustment and live view, which I think are both critical features. I would hate to give those up for an older 1D body. So far, I'm finding that the 9-point AF on the 5D2 works very well, but I'm sure that the 1D focus would be even better. I was worried that the focus points would be too close together, but they are fine. The main thing I find lacking in the 5D2 is manual control of aperture when shooting video. I'm sure that will be addressed in the 5D3 and the 60D!

Ken,


Why would we want 1000 FPS low-res video? [;)]


Actually, technically, the 5D MK. II could do HD video @ 60 fps using the current processor if it were 1280x720p and assuming it couldn't already do higher fps due to processingpower limitations.1920x1080p only requires just over 2 MP (1 red + 1 blue +2 green subpixels in a Bayer sensor = 1 Pixel in a single sensor video camera). With the right anamorphiclens, which would allow the use of the full 3:2 sensor area, the 5D Mk. IIcould be approximately a 5.25 MP video capture device. That would take us well past the upcoming 2560x1440p (3.7 video MP) and almost to the future 2160p (8.3 video MP)video standard, again assuming adequate current processing power which is not a given.Of course without the special lens, thecurrent sensor would run out ofhorizontal resoluton first, since it is too "square" for native HD video But Idigress.[:D]


I see your point with the rapid rate of advances intechnology, but my feeling isthat if a camera excels today with 10-15 MPsensor, it will still be great forever. That is why I said what I did about my dream camera having the pixel density of a 5D or thereabouts, because it's pixel level size gives excellent resolution and light sensitivity, and the absolute standard for DLA is high, even if it is relatively academic based on some of the input I've gotten. Maybe it would be a 1Ds Mk. II, with Digic IV or newer processors and nearly gapless MLA. Whatever it is, I do wantthe capability for8-10 fps, even though the story about the two photographers comparing first shots reinforces my understanding thatmy skills need to improve more than the camera's! Idon't do the kind of sports photography that that story implies, but instead high-speed motorsports, where my reflexes may not be enough to perfectly capture the shot I see in my mind of amotorcycle or car traveling at 100+ MPH at the exact instant on the track I want it. Sometimes the perfect shot is 10-15 feet before or past the shot I got, andhigher frame rates would help the keeper ratio. I also want a crop factor body, since I do want to try my hand at wildlife some as well.


I know I'llwant to adda FF body like the 5D or5D Mk. IIdown the road for stills and landscapes. Based on the reviews I'd like it to be the Mk. II, I think, because it seems currently to be about a match for the 1Ds Mk. III image-wise at a much lower price and more manageable body size.For my first D-SLR, I think I'll end up with a crop factor body like the 40D or1D Mk. II,and now I need to figure out whether one signficantly outperforms the other for my needs as I've stated them. Maybe the 1.6-factor40D is better suited and 6.5 fps is fast enough. Maybe the AF of the 1D Mk. II is better and necessary for the shots I want to take. All things considered, am I losing significant potential image quality using an 8.2 Mp sensor vs a 10.1 Mp? I know it is tough to compare different CF sizes, but I'm hoping someone has owned both and could reply with their impressions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

Why would we want 1000 FPS low-res video? [img]/emoticons/emotion-5.gif[/img]
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

It would be really cool. I'd be keen to photograph pro tennis players and really see what they are doing in detail. Bees wings in slow motion would be the bee's knees! It's something to look forward to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

I know I'llwant to adda FF body like the 5D or5D Mk. IIdown the road for stills and landscapes. Based on the reviews I'd like it to be the Mk. II, I think, because it seems currently to be about a match for the 1Ds Mk. III image-wise at a much lower price and more manageable body size.For my first D-SLR, I think I'll end up with a crop factor body like the 40D or1D Mk. II,and now I need to figure out whether one signficantly outperforms the other for my needs as I've stated them. Maybe the 1.6-factor40D is better suited and 6.5 fps is fast enough. Maybe the AF of the 1D Mk. II is better and necessary for the shots I want to take. All things considered, am I losing significant potential image quality using an 8.2 Mp sensor vs a 10.1 Mp? I know it is tough to compare different CF sizes, but I'm hoping someone has owned both and could reply with their impressions.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I don't think that the 8.2 Mp sensor will be significantly worse than the 10.1Mp. But the AF of the 1D is supposed to be really, really good for fast-moving sports photography, so maybe this is what you should concentrate on. It sounds like you are willing to wait a little while longer for the "perfect" compact SLR, and you might be right--what you are waiting for could be right around the corner. In the meanwhile, go crazy with the 1DMK2 and then sell it when you're done. You'd probably find a buyer and pay only a hundred, two hundred dollars a year or so in depreciation.


I think that any of these can produce fantastic results with a little luck. You probably just need a smidgen more luck with the 40D than the 1DMk2 for the sports shots.


- Ken

I thought you probably want to state clearly your budget, it'd be more easier to narrow down the choices.


Regardless of the specs/features, 40D/50D are both great for serious amateurs. Of course if the budget allows, 5D2 or even 5D is good enough for FF.


For me personally, I won't buy a 1Ds III unless I can earn this much a month :)

Ken,


Thanks again for the input. I've been almost resigned to getting a 40D, even used if I have to, but I think you're right about the resale on the 1D Mk. II, which certainly should be a consideration. Frankly, aused 40D seems to run around $700+, and the used 1D Mk. II seems to be $920-1000. Not THAT muchdifference, really. Also, even though some comments have not supported the superiority of the1-series AF, itis at least as good as the 40D. Neither one has the advantage of individual lens micro focus adjustments, so that's a wash. The 1D has a significantspeed edgeandthe weather sealed body, the 40D has longer effective focal lengths and higher resolution. The 40D is less conspicuous, but adding a vertical grip to the 40D makes the price almost equal, and it would be less solid and ergonomic. I have actually installed a BG on a 40D at Best Buy andtried it for myself, and honestly itfelt bulky and notas comfortable as I imagine the 1-series bodies might with the integrated grip.


I am concerned about the vertical shutter release issue. I want to make sure I find one with the "good" shutter release, so I am hoping someone knowledgeable answers my other thread.


All in all, I think I have beenconvinced/talked myself into a 1D Mk. II. I hope I don't regret it!


airfang,


Reading the thread, I think I gave at least a gist of my budget based on the cameras I've been considering and the ones I have to forego forbudgetary reasons. I don't have a firm number in mind,because I am willing to be flexible for the right body. If, and I don't expect it, but if I found a clean used 1D Mk. III for say $1800, I'd be all over it, even though that is more than I want to spend.


You say regardless of the specs/features, but really,since I have specificgoals, it is all about the specs/features in my opinion. I do agree that the 40D and 50D are both great cameras, but they may not fit myneeds. The 5D and 5D Mk. II are awesome studio cameras. I have owned a 5D for a short time. Itdoesn't even come close to filling my needs for some of what I want, and it'sperfect for some of what I want, so I will likelyend up getting one later, but for now I can only afford one body and it needs to be more of a multi-tasker forthe time being. I do intend to have two bodies someday, and a 5D Mk.? will almost certainly fill the bill at that time. I don't honestly ever see wanting a 1Ds Mk.? unless they jump the frame rate up about double its current speed. Then maybeI would sell any other bodies I had (and my guitars, and one of my cars, and...)to get one!

I see, it seems that your main concern is burst shooting speed. The
slowness for 1Ds III and 5D2 is probably due to the doubled pixels. It
really narrows down the list to 40D and 1D Mk II, I'd say just pick one
and go with it. Perhaps you just want to wait til a good deal of 1D Mk
II to show up? Then you yourself have the answer, you do prefer 1D Mk
II and all you can do is wait for a decent one to show up.


Otherwise,
get a new 40D right now and start shooting. I am sure you won't regret
since you want to have both APS and FF bodies in the future.


Hence, you really want to worry about saving for the lens more than the body now.

40Ds can be had for less than that used. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/729405


$625-650 is the new $700+

airfang,


Yes, burst rate is very important to me, although it isn't everything.


With the 5D, 5D Mk. II and the 1Ds bodies,it is obvious that thelarge amount of data due to the high pixel count for the image processors available at the time of design/manufacture is the cause for the relatively low frame rates. Sincethecurrent 1DMk. III can turn 10 fps with 10.1 MP using dual Digic III,I have zerodoubt that if the 5D were re-made today with dual Digic IV processors it would have a higher frame rate than even a 40D, probably 8+ fps.I would own that in a hummingbird's heartbeat. Right nowCanon seems bent on winning the MParms race, and that doesn't jive with having a really high frame rate on their "affordable" bodies.


I agree that realistically I am choosing between the 40Dand 1D Mk. II right now. I am leaning towards the 1D Mk. II because of the sensor size being a nice compromise between FF and 1.6, the frame rate,and the weather sealing, even though the body is larger than I'd ideally want and the absolute resolution is almost 20%lower than the 40D. The 1D probably will have better resale, too, which will lower the overall cost of ownership should I decide to upgrade to the 1D Mk. IV with 12-15 MP @ 10 fps!


As I have said several times, if I had the coin, I'd be getting a 1D Mk. III right now, since it has the resolution of a 40D on a 1.3x sensor and therefore even better noise performance plusan insane fps rate that is as fast as I can imagine ever needing.


Since you mentioned the lenses, I will say that one disappointment I have is that Canon's EF-S lenses are not able to be used on FF bodies, and I guess 1.3 bodies either. I have friends who do the Nikon thing, and their EF-S equivalent lenses apparently do work on their FF bodies. That is kind ofa bummer.

Justin,


Thank you, except that makes the decision tougher again, since the price gap just effectively widened!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

Since you mentioned the lenses, I will say that one disappointment I have is that Canon's EF-S lenses are not able to be used on FF bodies, and I guess 1.3 bodies either. I have friends who do the Nikon thing, and their EF-S equivalent lenses apparently do work on their FF bodies. That is kind ofa bummer.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

EF-S lenses don't have enough glass (diameter) to project light on the outer areas of a FF or 1.3x sensor. Why would you even want them to work? You can connect them if you use an extension tube (but you'll lose infinity focus); I think Bryan added a sample to his 1Ds3 review.

I guess I'd have liked them to be interchangeable. Not that I want to use them in their current iteration, but I would have liked for them to have been designed so that they WOULD be able to be used. Like I understand that Nikon did.


The point wasn't that I want to use current EF-S on EF bodies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1

I agree that realistically I am choosing between the 40Dand 1D Mk. II right now. I am leaning towards the 1D Mk. II because of the sensor size being a nice compromise between FF and 1.6, the frame rate,and the weather sealing, even though the body is larger than I'd ideally want and the absolute resolution is almost 20%lower than the 40D. The 1D probably will have better resale, too, which will lower the overall cost of ownership should I decide to upgrade to the 1D Mk. IV with 12-15 MP @ 10 fps!


As I have said several times, if I had the coin, I'd be getting a 1D Mk. III right now, since it has the resolution of a 40D on a 1.3x sensor and therefore even better noise performance plusan insane fps rate that is as fast as I can imagine ever needing.


Since you mentioned the lenses, I will say that one disappointment I have is that Canon's EF-S lenses are not able to be used on FF bodies, and I guess 1.3 bodies either. I have friends who do the Nikon thing, and their EF-S equivalent lenses apparently do work on their FF bodies. That is kind ofa bummer.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

I don't think you could go wrong with either the 40D (I have one and I love it) or the 1D mk II. Both seem to suit your needs.


Most EF-S lenses wouldn't do a FF body justice, with the exception of the 17-55 f/2.8 IS. If you had an EF 24-70 f/2.8 L and an EF-S 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS, my guess is that the 17-85 would never come out of your bag, even on non-full-frame bodies. That is exactly the case for me. The 400D and 17-85 are now the wife's. It doesn't bother me one bit that they are not interchangeable. Head this warning: once you go "L", you'll never go back (unless you need a fish eye lens ;) ).


Also, not sure where everyone is getting the opinion that the 5D mk II is a studio camera. I have a mk II and have used it for a variety of things, including sports. The AF is very fast, even compared to the 40D, and the additional megapixels allow a more forgiving crop. My hit rate has been higher than my 40D. The 4 fps is a little slower than I'd like, but it is still very reasonable.


Your points about the 1D mk II are convincing me that I should buy yet another body.

chrispy43,


Thanks for your input. I am really interested in your comments about the 5D Mk. II. I had a 5D, and found it was too slow for some of the shots I wanted to take. Otherwise, I loved that camera. Maybe the 30% increase in fps is more than I thought.


Actually, through a strange set of circumstances, I ended up "winning" an auction on eBay for a brand-new, in-a-box 40D kit which includes the 28-135 lens. I realized, after I ended up winning this camera kit, that I really think I want the 1D Mk. II.


Therefore, I think I will sell my not-yet-arrived 40D kit. I am going to include a 1GB CF card, too, to sweeten the pot slightly. Anybody interested? [:D] I'd like to get what I paid for it, which is about $900.

HiFiGuy1,


I am going to buy another 40D, and I went looking yesterday at prices yesterday, thanks to your thread. There's a Canadian company in Toronto selling them BIN for $777. This suits me better since I am in Canada. I'll save on the import duties.


http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-EOS-40D-10-1-MP-DIGITAL-SLR-CAMERA-BODY-ONLY-NEW_W0QQitemZ260349502721QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDigita l_Cameras?hash=item260349502721&amp;_trksid=p3286. c0.m14&amp;_trkparms=66%3A4%7C65%3A1%7C39%3A1%7C24 0%3A1318


I realize yours has a lens, but that lens doesn't appeal to me in the least.


The 40D is a very nice camera. I wasn't able to find any 1D mk II on eBay for less than $1500. Given your budget, maybe the 40D is something worth hanging onto for a while.

chrispy43,


I kind of agree with you on the lens,it is supposed to be pretty good, but it doesn't really excite me either. I understandwith the 1.6 crop factor, it has a very useful zoom range, but ever since I got my 17-40 f4 L, I am kind of a fan of the L glass. I am thinking if I can't get rid of the 40D, I may part it out and sell the lens for whatever I can.


The 1D Mk. II bodies I've seen on eBay lately have all been between $920 and $1125. All except for one have seemed to be in very good to excellent condition, with anywhere from 9k to about 60k actuations. I am not looking at 1D Mk. IIn bodies, and that may be what you're seeing.

sorry to kick a dead horse, but I wanted to chime in on the DLA. All it means is that there is an 'ideal' aperture at which things are most in focus along the focal plane. To wide, it softens because of all of the glass being used. Too narrow, it softens because of diffraction through the narrow aperture.


When you increase the pixel density, you increase the resolution in terms of detail per sensor area. If you decrease that resolution, you get a a higher possible DLA value because the sensor simply can't detect the decrease in resolution.


If you go with a larger sensor, that limit in resolution, in terms of nanometers, or whatever, that correlates to pixel count per area, is less signficant in terms of the resolution of the image (blur is 'finer', so to speak). But, if you got the same pixel density, the DLA would be the same.


So, the DLA being at a wider aperture value on one camera isn't a bad thing. It's actually a good thing, because the sensor resolution is chalenging the resolution of the lens sooner.


The other thing to remember is that we're talking about sharpness on the focal plane. By increasing the depth of field, even if you're above the DLA, you may make more of your image FAR sharper than our theoretical would suggest. Macro photography is the most extreme example, but it's REALLY obvious.

I'm repeating what somebody else already said, but the EF-S lenses could be as good as they are, as cheap as they are,with small sensor cameras, because they removed the requirements of accommodating the full frame sensors. If you made them interchangeable, they'd have to have more glass, would be larger, heavier, and more expensive. At that point, they're just EF lenses. If you want interchangeable, just shop in the EF range, and maybe take comfort in knowing that the lenses were 'overdesigned' for a crop camera, while you've got one, and designed with a full frame sensor in mind, when that becomes the case.

I would go with 1D series... 1D mk III or wait for the new version 1D MK IV (maybe)

I agree with the 1D Mk. III if my budget were unlimited, but currently I would like to pursue a 1D Mk. II at approximately 1/3 the price. Since the 1D Mk. IV is not even announced, or hinted at for that matter, I don't think I want to wait that long. I'm thinking along those lines for a future body if it is all I expect it to be though. Maybe by then I'll have the disposable income to get one.

Alright. Since I've already got the 40D + the 28-135 kit zoom, brand new in a box, I decided to just keep them and learn how to be a darn photographer. I was fretting partially over the fps, and then did a quick calculation in the shower this morning, and realized that they weren't that different for my needs.


I figured that, at nearly 90 mph, a motorcycle/car in a corner would be traveling approximately 20 ft between shots with the 40D @ 6.5 fps, and 15.3 ft at that same speed with the 1D Mark II @ 8.5 fps. That is less than a five ft differential. I think that is not going to make much difference to me, and I realized that the 1.6x crop factor would allow me to buy slightly shorter (more affordable) L glass, and give the lenses more reach. This provides the opportunity to get some really good glass, and again, learn how to use it.


Thank you all so much for your valuable input. It has really been helpful in my decision process.


Here is my first subject, taken on the road whileworking today. I just wanted to share with everyone. Please feel free to dissect it.[:)]


http://i285.photobucket.com/albums/l...1/IMG_0004.jpg


Canon EOS 40D, 28-135 @135mm, ISO 400, 1/250, f9.0(Camera was set to P, haven't read what that means just yet).