What body should I choose?

[Daniel Browning]

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.

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.)

[HiFiGuy1]

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! []

[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.

[Jorn]

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...

[Kyle Webb]

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

[HiFiGuy1]

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.

[peety3]

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.