What body should I choose?

[Ken Schwarz]

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!

[HiFiGuy1]

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.[]


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.

[Ken Schwarz]

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.

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

[airfang]

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

[HiFiGuy1]

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!

[airfang]

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.

[Justin Stone]

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


$625-650 is the new $700+

[HiFiGuy1]

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.

[HiFiGuy1]

Justin,


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

[peety3]

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.