Going Digital - Need Advice

[alex saltzman]

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Hey Everyone, new to this site and have gotten a lot of good info out of it&hellip;thanks!<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Now I need a little advice. I know that my question has probably been covered a number of times in this forum, so I am sorry for the duplication...any suggestions would be much appreciated.<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]20 years ago I did a lot of wildlife and landscape photography, shooting almost exclusively slides, with the occasional sports stuff.<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I used an EOS 1 and an A2. With less time to travel and take pics over the years, I eventually sold the eos1(mistake) and just kept the A2 with a couple of lower end lenses. Haven't shot much in 10+ years.<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I am now in a position to start traveling and taking pics again, headed toThailand and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] Cambodia and then to Peru where I am going to hike the Inca trail to Machu Picchu. All of that being said, I&rsquo;ve been using the A2 for a long time, and though I thought about getting another EOS 1, it might be time for a DSLR.<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I have been looking at the 7D and 5D Mark II along with new lenses, either the 24-105 f/4 or the 17 -40 f/4<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]My thought is that with the 7D I would go with the 17-40 f/4 because of the 1.6X and if I went with the 5D, I would go with the 24-105. <o></o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I will probably be taking mostly travel/landscape photos, including temples, ruins, architecture, etc&hellip;.
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]What&rsquo;s been peoples experience with either of these lenses matched to a 7D?<o><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Honestly, I don&rsquo;t really care about video, just want a good digital camera that will last me 10 or so years. I know the 5D is abetter camera with the full frame but I don&rsquo;t know if I what I am using it for is worth the extra money? Am I<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"] really losing out on picture quality by going with the 7D? (I would like to be able to print big if I want to.) Is the build quality of the 5D much better?
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Also, do the lenses I mention make sense as every day lenses for their respective cameras. When I travel overseas now, I want one body and one great lense, that&rsquo;s it. (If I shoot wildlife I would bring something bigger but for regular travel, just one lense.)<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]So, 10 years from now, which camera am I going to be happier with, the 7D or the 5D. Is the 5D worth the extra $600 or so? <o></o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<o><span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]</o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Thanks,<o></o>
<p style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Alex<o></o>

[HDNitehawk]

The 7D is built for speed, sports and moving objects. Wildlife with a long telephoto would be good as well.


The 5D Mark II is built for landscapes, potraits and has high Image Quality. For landscapes if you print big...go with the 5D


Will you be happier in 10 years? If your happy with 10 year old technology yes. They are electronic devices and just like computers they change quick. BUT...in 10 years what will it cost you to print film? Canon took their high end 35mm out of production, film is even going to be more obsolete.


As for your lens choices both seem reasonable with what you are wanting to do. Niether would be my first choice. You may want to add a flash to the 5D Mark II though since it does not have one.

[neuroanatomist]

Hi Alex, and welcome to the TDP Forums!


The 5DII and 7D are both excellent cameras, but intended for different purposes. If you'll be taking mostly landscape/travel photos, I think you'll be best served by the 5DII. The 7D is a sports/action/wildlife camera. For family photos and travel, I use my 5DII whereas when I'm going out to shoot birds/wildlife I grab my 7D. The build quality of both is very good (the 7D has better weather-sealing than the 5DII).


If you get the 5DII, the 24-105mm f/4L IS is a great general purpose lens, and I use it often. The 17-40mm is reportedly very good, but best use when you can stop it down a bit (as you would for landscapes on a tripod). I use the 16-35mm f/2.8L II instead, since the extra stop is a benefit for low light.


If you get the 7D, I think the best general purpose zoom for that body is theEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. It offers better IQ than the 17-40mm on a crop body (better than the 24-70mm, too), has a fast aperture, and has image stabilization. All it lacks is weather-sealing.


One thing to be aware of in the 1.6x crop vs. FF comparison - as you know, it applies to the focal length (and you probably also know that EF-S lenses with their smaller image circle nevertheless have 'true' focal lengths meaning you multiply them by 1.6x to get their FF equivalents. What you may not as a film shooter know is that the crop factor also applies to depth of field for the same subject framing (i.e. an f/2.8 lens behaves like an f/4.5 lens on a crop body, since you have to move further from the subject to get the same angle of view, and that reduces DoF). Also, due to the greater light-gathering capabilities of a FF sensor, the ISO noise of a FF sensor is 1.6x better (1.3 stops) than a crop sensor, all else being equal. For me (I have a low tolerance for image noise), that means ISO 1600 is fine on my 5DII, and just barely tolerable on the 7D (where I really prefer to keep the ISO under 800).


Hope that helps, and good luck with your decisions!


--John

[alex saltzman]

Thanks for the response!!


What lenses would you suggest?


WIth regard to the 10 years out question, I am hoping that if I spend between $1600 and $2500 on a camera body that 10 years from now it will still function well and give me good pictures. There is no doubt that a DSLR that I buy today will be somewhat antiquated when compared to modern technology 10 years from now, but as long as it takes good pictures, I am okay with the old stuff.

[neuroanatomist]

What

[HDNitehawk]

<p class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri"]I will probably be taking mostly travel/landscape photos, including temples, ruins, architecture, etc&hellip;.

This sounded like an "I need a 5d Mark II" statement, more than it sounded like a 7D statement. If you could narrow the choice down to one body, the lens recomendations will be less as each will get diffrent recomendations.

[alex saltzman]

I was hoping to spend less than $3,000 for the lens and body which would have put me in 7d range.


The only lense I have left are


28-105 f/3.5-4.5 usm


300 f/4 L usm


1.4x


I also have an old 80-200 2.8 L which I seem to have misplaced...think is

[HDNitehawk]

Would that be like putting 15 inch rims on a new Ferrari?

That might be, it depends on the rims though.


The 5D Mark II with the 24-105 F4 kit lens is $3299. I still think you would need a flash to go with it, if you want to do much inside shooting. F4 is a little slow.


If you can't make the $ stretch to the 5D with a flash, I like John's recommendation of the 7D withEF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS. The 7D has an inboard flash, that set up would cost about $2600.


My first choice would be the 5D Mark II, but both of these cameras will serve you well.





Good Luck

[HDNitehawk]

What you may not as a film shooter know is that the crop factor also applies to depth of field for the same subject framing (i.e. an f/2.8 lens behaves like an f/4.5 lens on a crop body, since you have to move further from the subject to get the same angle of view, and that reduces DoF)

John


Maybe my interpreting skills are weak, but it doesn't seem like this is worded right. The crop camera will give you the same DOF as the FF camera, with the Crop Camera set at 4.5 and the FF set at 2.8 at the same distance. However at 2.8 the crop camera will give you a much narrower DOF than the FF camera at 2.8 at equal distances.


If you move 10 feet from the subject with FF and 16 feet from the subject with the 1.6 crop you do not get the same result at F2.8 on both cameras at different distances. For some reason it seems to apply to the DOF at equal distances but, for some reason the 1.6 factor does not relate the same way to the distance from the subject.


Suffice to say for Alex's purposes, he needs to beware of the factor.

[neuroanatomist]

I'll second Rick's suggestions. If you're in the USA, with the current rebates (and double lens rebate on the 17-55mm if bought with a 7D), the cost is pretty good through 1/8 ($2520). That leaves extra for a good tripod, good CPL filter (e.g. B+W), etc.