What body should I choose?

[HiFiGuy1]

"...if you intend to use Canon gear."?


Well, honestly, I guess I could sell my lens and start with Nikon. That is what all my friends have.[]I hadn't seriously considered that. I've always liked Canon in the past, and I guess it is just a pre-conceived notion, since I've not really owned any of their cameras before.


Why would you phrase it that way? You seem pleased with your 40D.


I think I have a pretty good eye for composition, but I am a beginner in this game. Iknow I have a long learning curve, and look forward toconstantly improving my craft.I definitely agree that my own developing skillset is ultimately more important than the lenses or bodies that I use. However, I don't want to be limited by my equipment, either.


If I were to buy a 40D, I'd definitely go with new at the current pricing. The used stuff isn't discounted very much that I've seen so far. I am willing to wait/take a brow-beating from my wife if the 50D is that much better. I know that a 50% higher pixel count on the face of it is a big step forward, but if it causes a negative regarding the more limited DLA, maybe I don't want to go there. Maybe it is irrelevant to my situation. Not being knowledgeable and experienced means I can't make an informed decision on that without help from others. I want to know going in that I am making a good choice and not spending my limited funds unwisely.

[EdN]

I have a comment on the lens that you currently have, the 17-40 L zoom. I originally started out with the Digital Rebel and was not happy with the 18-55mm kit lens. After a while, I purchased the 17-40 L and was blown away with the quality. If you are going to get a 40D, your 17-40 L is equivalent to a 27-65mm lens full frame. So for you, if you intend to have a cropped sensor body and a full frame body, you would be able to use the same lens with both. For the cropped, an excellent walkaround lens and for the full frame, a great wide angle zoom.


What has happened with me is that I sold my Digital Rebel and I am now exclusively full frame with a 5D and more recently 5D mk II. I probably won't have got there without appreciating what you could do with great glass and it started with the 17-40 L.


As a recommend for you, the 40D is probably a great start and you could probably get an excellent price on new ones now. When I got the Digital Rebel, my first upgrade choice was the 20D for the rugged body and extra features. Couldn't get a good deal on it and went 5D and never looked back.

[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.

[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.

[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.