What body should I choose?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[chrispy43]

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.

[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]

Justin,


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

[SupraSonic]

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

[HiFiGuy1]

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.

[HiFiGuy1]

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.[]





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).

[Colin]

Yeah, but think about if a person was running 90 miles per hour, how many more leg/arm positions you could capture!


Cool picture.


I think P chooses the aperture for you based on the distance between what the autofocus points report, but I'd defer to your manual. I could be confused, and I've never actually used that mode. I usually prefer Av (sometimes with a little exposure compensation)or M.