What body should I choose?

[HiFiGuy1]

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.

[Justin Stone]

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.

[HiFiGuy1]

"...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.[]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.

[EdN]

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.

[Justin Stone]

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.

[Ken Schwarz]

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.

[HiFiGuy1]

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?

[Ken Schwarz]

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.

[adam]

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.

[HiFiGuy1]

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. [] 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.