I guess I'd have liked them to be interchangeable. Not that I want to use them in their current iteration, but I would have liked for them to have been designed so that they WOULD be able to be used. Like I understand that Nikon did.
The point wasn't that I want to use current EF-S on EF bodies.
Originally Posted by HiFiGuy1
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.
chrispy43,
Thanks for your input. I am really interested in your comments about the 5D Mk. II. I had a 5D, and found it was too slow for some of the shots I wanted to take. Otherwise, I loved that camera. Maybe the 30% increase in fps is more than I thought.
Actually, through a strange set of circumstances, I ended up "winning" an auction on eBay for a brand-new, in-a-box 40D kit which includes the 28-135 lens. I realized, after I ended up winning this camera kit, that I really think I want the 1D Mk. II.
Therefore, I think I will sell my not-yet-arrived 40D kit. I am going to include a 1GB CF card, too, to sweeten the pot slightly. Anybody interested? [] I'd like to get what I paid for it, which is about $900.
HiFiGuy1,
I am going to buy another 40D, and I went looking yesterday at prices yesterday, thanks to your thread. There's a Canadian company in Toronto selling them BIN for $777. This suits me better since I am in Canada. I'll save on the import duties.
http://cgi.ebay.com/CANON-EOS-40D-10-1-MP-DIGITAL-SLR-CAMERA-BODY-ONLY-NEW_W0QQitemZ260349502721QQcmdZViewItemQQptZDigita l_Cameras?hash=item260349502721&_trksid=p3286. c0.m14&_trkparms=66%3A4%7C65%3A1%7C39%3A1%7C24 0%3A1318
I realize yours has a lens, but that lens doesn't appeal to me in the least.
The 40D is a very nice camera. I wasn't able to find any 1D mk II on eBay for less than $1500. Given your budget, maybe the 40D is something worth hanging onto for a while.
chrispy43,
I kind of agree with you on the lens,it is supposed to be pretty good, but it doesn't really excite me either. I understandwith the 1.6 crop factor, it has a very useful zoom range, but ever since I got my 17-40 f4 L, I am kind of a fan of the L glass. I am thinking if I can't get rid of the 40D, I may part it out and sell the lens for whatever I can.
The 1D Mk. II bodies I've seen on eBay lately have all been between $920 and $1125. All except for one have seemed to be in very good to excellent condition, with anywhere from 9k to about 60k actuations. I am not looking at 1D Mk. IIn bodies, and that may be what you're seeing.
sorry to kick a dead horse, but I wanted to chime in on the DLA. All it means is that there is an 'ideal' aperture at which things are most in focus along the focal plane. To wide, it softens because of all of the glass being used. Too narrow, it softens because of diffraction through the narrow aperture.
When you increase the pixel density, you increase the resolution in terms of detail per sensor area. If you decrease that resolution, you get a a higher possible DLA value because the sensor simply can't detect the decrease in resolution.
If you go with a larger sensor, that limit in resolution, in terms of nanometers, or whatever, that correlates to pixel count per area, is less signficant in terms of the resolution of the image (blur is 'finer', so to speak). But, if you got the same pixel density, the DLA would be the same.
So, the DLA being at a wider aperture value on one camera isn't a bad thing. It's actually a good thing, because the sensor resolution is chalenging the resolution of the lens sooner.
The other thing to remember is that we're talking about sharpness on the focal plane. By increasing the depth of field, even if you're above the DLA, you may make more of your image FAR sharper than our theoretical would suggest. Macro photography is the most extreme example, but it's REALLY obvious.
I'm repeating what somebody else already said, but the EF-S lenses could be as good as they are, as cheap as they are,with small sensor cameras, because they removed the requirements of accommodating the full frame sensors. If you made them interchangeable, they'd have to have more glass, would be larger, heavier, and more expensive. At that point, they're just EF lenses. If you want interchangeable, just shop in the EF range, and maybe take comfort in knowing that the lenses were 'overdesigned' for a crop camera, while you've got one, and designed with a full frame sensor in mind, when that becomes the case.
I would go with 1D series... 1D mk III or wait for the new version 1D MK IV (maybe)
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.
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).
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote