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.

[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.

[adam]

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.

[HiFiGuy1]

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?

[David Selby]

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.

[HiFiGuy1]

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.