Camera Question

[vhild]

Why only think about zooms? Canon has some very nicely priced and excellent prime lenses which beat the hell out of zooms when mounted on 5D. Plus you will get some unbelievable f-numbers. My collection is: 28/1.8 , 50/1.4 , 100/2. With those f-numbers I can shoot anywhere, anytime without a flash.

[James P]

Why only think about zooms? Canon has some very nicely priced and excellent prime lenses which beat the hell out of zooms when mounted on 5D. Plus you will get some unbelievable f-numbers. My collection is: 28/1.8 , 50/1.4 , 100/2. With those f-numbers I can shoot anywhere, anytime without a flash.

 

You're right - I shouldn't exclude the prime lenses. I already have two - a 100 f/2.8 Macor, and the 50 f/1.4. They're excellent pieces of glass. I was looking at a fisheye prime, too, but haven't decided what's next.

 

James

[Rapt]

I'd go for the 5D... and sell the 28-135 and the 24-85 and buy a better zoom in that range. I hated mine, they just weren't sharp enough for me... The 5D is better than half your lenses.

 

Sure "its "older" technology but as long as it takes the pictures you want then why worry about not being bleeding edge?

 

Funny that you mention selling the lenses . . . I'm giving serious thought to doing just that. I've my eye on a 24-70 f/2.8L which, when coupled with the 70-200 gives me a pretty decent range, not to mention that they're fast and "L" quality at that.

 

I'd love to get something even wider - fisheye, even, but I'll probably have to wait a bit. This is a big financial bite to swallow all at once.

 

James

 

While not "L" quality there are some second party brand zooms out there that are relatively inexpensive and much better than the "regular" Canon zooms.

 

Your 100/2.8 macro is a beautiful lens, I have one and its my favourite. Fixed focal lengths are much better quality for $ but less convenient sometimes. (Mainly for casual shooting.) If you're doing preplanned shooting then choosing a focal length is part of the planning. I tend to prefer the short tele perspective in my shots.

 

The 14/2.8Lmm that Canon makes is a truly amazing ultrawide, but the price isn't cheap. I've borrowed a friend's at times and while its fun I just don't do enough of that style to like it. If I want real width, I stitch panoramas. One is 9' long at 300 pixels per inch.

[James P]

If I want real width, I stitch panoramas. One is 9' long at 300 pixels per inch.

 

I'd LOVE to see that!

[Rapt]

I'll see what I can do about putting some of the panos up someplace where they can be viewed. Even if in condensed form. Its a rather large file made up of about 20 frames from a EOS 20D.

 

 

[susegad]

James,

 

I would add the 24-105 IS f4.0 lens. I love this lens. I have the 17-40, 24-105, 50 (1.8), 70-200 (2.8 non IS), 100, and the 100-400. Weight is the primary issue with the heavy glass. Of course it depends on what you shoot, but I see my self using the 17-40, 24-105 and 50mm quite a bit.

 

 

[cklondon]

James,

 

I would add the 24-105 IS f4.0 lens. I love this lens. I have the 17-40, 24-105, 50 (1.8), 70-200 (2.8 non IS), 100, and the 100-400. Weight is the primary issue with the heavy glass. Of course it depends on what you shoot, but I see my self using the 17-40, 24-105 and 50mm quite a bit.

 

Hi Susegad:

 

The 50 f1.8 is a gem!

 

I bought one strictly because of the price and the f1.8 feature (cost is under $100 US for near L-grade shots) and after playing with it a bit, I found out how much I love the quality too. There are some drawbacks - The focus is noisy, non-USM, and it rotates which is a pain if you use filters, but you can't beat the image quality for about 1/4 the cost of the 50mm f1.4 with USM

 

Chris

[wimg]

Help me choose!

 

I've been a semi-serious photographer for a few years (but still have yet to take a decent "still-life" pen photograph!). Since 2003, my digital weapon of choice has been the Canon 10D. A friend of mine is offering up a Canon 5D at a pretty good price, and I've been shopping around online and have seen some decent prices (under $1K) for the Canon 40D. Both seem like excellent cameras, but I'm undecided about which to get - both have their advantages and disadvantages, as I see it.

 

The biggest advantage of the 5D is a full-frame sensor - I love wide-angle photography and would like to really enjoy those wide lenses again without a multiplication factor of 1.6x. On the other hand, the technology is going on 3-4 years old, and I've got this lingering sensation that Canon's about to replace the 5D with a successor, perhaps the 5D MkII.

 

The 40D features 10 MP, has live view and a new DIGIC III processor as well as a host of other features. It's primary drawback (for me) is the APS-C sensor. Other than that (and the 3 million fewer pixels), I think I'm leaning towards the 40D.

 

Is the image quality in one camera considerably better or worse than the other? Any other factors to consider here?

 

James

Hi James,

 

I'd like to add my 2 cents too, if you don't mind.

 

I currently own a 40D and 19 lenses (yes, you read that right, 19, almost as bad as my Etrurias ).

 

Essentially, my opinion, and that of many others, is that the investment is in the glass, not so much in the camera body. The latter has more or less become a consumer item, with new releases every 12 or 18 months these days (except for the 5D of course ).

 

The 40D is a newer camera than the 5D is, and I think that does show. Personally, I am planning to get a 5D II about 6 months after it is available, so that all the bugs are ironed out. For me the main reason not to go with the 5D right now is the fact that it is known to be a bit of a dust attractor, and that it is a relatively old model by now. Whether you need a full frame camera or not you can only determine, of course. The argument with regard to wide angle lenses on APS-C is a bit of a moot point these days, as several good UWAs are available for this format, and the Canon EF-S 10-22 is one of the best currently available in that regard, and by many regarded as an L-quality lens optically. Fisheye wise, there are several options nowadays, such as the Tokina 10-17 zoom fisheye (which can be used both on FF and on APS-C BTW), and two new Sigmas, namely the 4.5 F/2.8 (circular fisheye) and the 10 F/2.8 (diagonal fisheye).

 

All other lenses can be reused with an APS-C, as you know already, be it that you need to keep the crop factor of 1.6X in mind.It'll make the 50 F/1.4 a very nice portrait lens.

 

I did have a 350D to start with, followed by a 400D, and a second one, which I both sold to get the 40D. I only got the 40D because I needed better quality 1600 iso, and 3200 iso in a bind for the type of photography I was doing lately. The 40D is better again than the 400D in this regard.

 

What I do like about the 40D is the viewfinder, the exchangeable focusing screens, LiveView, the large and excellent LCD (much better than the 5D's BTW), and the excellent and very fast AF system (better than 5D I believe), the 3 user setting choices accessible via the mode dial, the incredible amount of shots you can take with a single battery load (I managed 4000 once, on a single load!) and 3200 iso of course.

 

What I like less is the bulk and weight, but then, I do like small cameras, after having had the small model Pentaxes in the past. That is the only negative I have found so far : ).

 

Another useful site for photgraphy info is POTN: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/, which is dedicated to Canon, and overall a lot friendlier than dpreview.

 

Anyway, rambled enough for now.

 

Warm regards, Wim

[I am not a number]

I'd go with the 40D and save the money you would have spent for lenses.

 

IANAN owns a 40D and some seriously nice 'L' Series glass...

[Eastree]

I'd say either go for the 40D immediately, or (since I don't follow rumors of new models) if a new model of the 5D is coming out soon, wait anf get the 5D cheaper. that's what I did recently with a 30D, and I paid less than half its original retail.

 

It arrives Tuesday, and I'm clueless about what all I'll need xD It'll just add another hobby forum to my list!

[Rabbit]

...

The argument with regard to wide angle lenses on APS-C is a bit of a moot point these days, as several good UWAs are available for this format, and the Canon EF-S 10-22 is one of the best currently available in that regard, and by many regarded as an L-quality lens optically.

...

I have the EF-S 10-22 and use it on a 40D and absolutely love it. It's probably the most affordable quality wide-angle lens for the APS-C camera. It's not the lens for pen photos, but it's so wide at 10mm that it can be used in really tight spaces, and when you consider the rest of the zoom range, it's really a great wide-angle lens for most wide-angle needs. I was really surprised too that the distortion isn't as bad as I expected-- it's no where near a fish-eye, and most of the time I can manage to get a composition with distortion that would go unnoticed by most people.

 

The 40D is a great camera for the price. It's the best SLR that my fiancee and I can afford right now, but even if we were able to afford a full-frame SLR, I think I'd be happy with the 40D for quite a long time before I felt the need to upgrade. I have used it to photograph some pens and have had really good results with even the stock lens that came with the camera (28-135mm). I don't have any examples online yet, but I plan to post some soon. I'll say this though: the "Live View" feature is very helpful when doing pen photography.

 

James, just the fact that you own and are planing on buying L series lenses lets me know that you're very serious about your photography. If I were in your shoes, I'd probably wait for a new full-frame Canon that has many of the great features of the 40D. After all, if you get the 40D and the 10-22 EF-S, that lens will be worthless when you do decide to upgrade again. (add: worthless in regard to being able to take advantage of the features of the new camera.) I knew this when I bought mine, but I plan on getting a lot of use out of it before I'm financially ready to upgrade the body, so that's how I justified the EF-S purchase. Once you start to get a lot of EF lenses though and get used to them on the 40D, their application will completely change when you get a full-frame camera. Right now I'm in a tough situation. I really want a low aperture lens for low light situations and portraits, and I need it to be in my price range. The lens I want is the 50mm f/1.4 USM, but with the 1.6 crop factor, I might be better off with the 35mm f/2-- at the expense of a smaller aperture and lack of USM. If I had a full-frame, I wouldn't be stuck with this decision, but I think I can make something work out.

 

(by the way, James, how do you like the 50mm f/1.4?)

 

--Stephen

Edited April 30, 2008 by Rabbit

[wimg]

Hi Stephen,

 

I have the EF-S 10-22 and use it on a 40D and absolutely love it. It's probably the most affordable quality wide-angle lens for the APS-C camera. It's not the lens for pen photos, but it's so wide at 10mm that it can be used in really tight spaces, and when you consider the rest of the zoom range, it's really a great wide-angle lens for most wide-angle needs. I was really surprised too that the distortion isn't as bad as I expected-- it's no where near a fish-eye, and most of the time I can manage to get a composition with distortion that would go unnoticed by most people.

 

The 40D is a great camera for the price. It's the best SLR that my fiancee and I can afford right now, but even if we were able to afford a full-frame SLR, I think I'd be happy with the 40D for quite a long time before I felt the need to upgrade. I have used it to photograph some pens and have had really good results with even the stock lens that came with the camera (28-135mm). I don't have any examples online yet, but I plan to post some soon. I'll say this though: the "Live View" feature is very helpful when doing pen photography.

 

James, just the fact that you own and are planing on buying L series lenses lets me know that you're very serious about your photography. If I were in your shoes, I'd probably wait for a new full-frame Canon that has many of the great features of the 40D. After all, if you get the 40D and the 10-22 EF-S, that lens will be worthless when you do decide to upgrade again. (add: worthless in regard to being able to take advantage of the features of the new camera.) I knew this when I bought mine, but I plan on getting a lot of use out of it before I'm financially ready to upgrade the body, so that's how I justified the EF-S purchase. Once you start to get a lot of EF lenses though and get used to them on the 40D, their application will completely change when you get a full-frame camera. Right now I'm in a tough situation. I really want a low aperture lens for low light situations and portraits, and I need it to be in my price range. The lens I want is the 50mm f/1.4 USM, but with the 1.6 crop factor, I might be better off with the 35mm f/2-- at the expense of a smaller aperture and lack of USM. If I had a full-frame, I wouldn't be stuck with this decision, but I think I can make something work out.

 

(by the way, James, how do you like the 50mm f/1.4?)

 

--Stephen

Have you considered the EF 28 F/1.8? I know it is a little bit more expensive than the 50 F/1.4, but it has proper (ring) USM, and is a wonderful lens. I sold mine to get a 24 F/1.4 L , but I still wonder whether I shouldn't have kept it, because it was so good (and obviously less conspicuous then the 24L ).

 

Another alternative might be the Sigma DC EX 30 F/1.4. By many this is regarded as an excellent lens, and I think it sells for about the same price as a 50 F/1.4. It was made for APS-C. Personally I prefer OEM stuff, which is why I went for the Canon 28 F/1.8, but to many it certainly is an option.

 

HTH, warm regards, Wim

 

 

 

 

[Rabbit]

Wim, this is the first time I have learned that there are two types of USM. I looked it up and was sad to learn that all USM lenses aren't the same.

 

How big of difference would you say it is between the micro-USM vs. the ring-USM?

 

Which lens will be good for portraits? I like nice quality bokeh in portrait shots. I also hate using flash, so that's why I'm looking for a large aperture lens, but do I need to go all the way to 1.4? Too bad I don't have any friends who own these lenses for me to try out before I buy one. I am planing on buying one some time in early-to-mid May so I can use it in June and July.

 

I wish I could afford an L lens!

 

--Stephen

Edited April 30, 2008 by Rabbit

[wimg]

Hi Stephen,

 

Sorry for the late reply, I have been AWOL for a while .

Wim, this is the first time I have learned that there are two types of USM. I looked it up and was sad to learn that all USM lenses aren't the same.

 

How big of difference would you say it is between the micro-USM vs. the ring-USM?

The biggest differences are speed, and lack of FTM (Full Time Manual focusing), with the exception of the 50 F/1.4, which has MM (MicroMotor) USM and FTM. However, the latter's mechanism is reported as being prone to early failure, often outside the warranty period. A new motor is about half the cost of a new lens, unfortunately.

Which lens will be good for portraits? I like nice quality bokeh in portrait shots. I also hate using flash, so that's why I'm looking for a large aperture lens, but do I need to go all the way to 1.4? Too bad I don't have any friends who own these lenses for me to try out before I buy one. I am planing on buying one some time in early-to-mid May so I can use it in June and July.

You don't need to go all the way to F/1.4. The 85 F/1.8 is a lens with nice bokeh, and about the same price as the 50 F/1.4. It certainly is a step up from the 50, with proper USM, very fast AF, and FTM of course. A little soft, altough very usable, especially for portraits , at F/1.8, but very sharp from F/2.2. It suffers a bit from PF (purple fringing, i.e., purple edges around very high contrast transitions at very large apertures), but nothing much to worry about, normally. Occasionally there may be a slightly worse copy, but that is immediately noticeable. Of course it is a little long on a crop camera, having efffectively the FoV of a 135 mm lens on FF, but that is manageable in most cases.

 

If you think it is too long, you could consider the EF-S 60 F/2.8 macro. It has nice bokeh as well, especially at the larger apertures. Not only great for macro photography, but also great for portraits, architectural details, and slightly compressed landscapes. It also has proper USM, and hence quite fast AF (not as fast as the 85, but that is because it is a macro lens; still very fast however) and FTM. I have used this in reasonably well lit rooms (tungsten light) for candid photography, both with the 350D and 400D at 800 and 1600 iso.

 

Regarding its maximum aperture, F/2.8, which isn't as fast as the F/1.8: this doesn't matter all that much, because at F/2.8 you still won't have a portrait sharp from the tip of the nose up to and including the ears - you'll need at least F/4 for that.

 

It is at least as sharp as the 85, and very sharp already wide open. It even is slightly sharper than the 100 macro is.

I wish I could afford an L lens!

Well, we all do I guess. I do have quite a few, but I have been very lucky last year, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to afford them either.

 

However, two of the best are not priced that badly, namely the 17-40L and the 70-200 F/4L. Both excellent lenses, and only a little more expensive than a good consumer grade prime with USM.

--Stephen

HTH, warm regards, Wim

 

 

[Rapt]

Its been awhile since I said I'd do this, but here's a scaled down version of the panorama I was talking about, with a couple of full res insets showing what it would be like to view it that way.

 

The full res image would print about 9' long at 300 ppi.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a230/rapt_up/Web_version_pano.jpg

 

(Potty Mouth). Photobucket resized it. I'll have to see what I can do to get the full res visible.

 

Grumble... Maybe better on flickr... or PM me if you want the bigger size and I'll send it direct.

Edited May 7, 2008 by Rapt

[BurkStar]

My recommendation would be the 40D. I went from the 20D to the 30D to the 40D. If I hadn't got such a good deal on the 30D I'd say that the 30D was a complete waste as there were very few improvements. But the 40D was enough of an improvement to definitely justify the cost. Now I've just got to save up the money for some "L" lenses...

[GirchyGirchy]

From talking to some professional and amateur photographers who actually make some dough off their prints, 5D for wide, 40D for tele.

 

If Nikon had a relatively inexpensive full-frame DSLR I'd go with it in a second.

Edited May 9, 2008 by GirchyGirchy

[Stylo]

As many have already said, it all depends on what you want to do with your current lenses. There is no doubt that the 40D is a much newer and more feature loaded camera. Don't underestimate the usefulness of liveview as many "photo snobs" used to do not long ago. If you are going to get a lot of new glass anyway, I would just stick with the 40D. The sensor size disadvantage is over-hyped and it doesn't apply in all shooting situations anyway. Higher end lenses are cheaper and newer for the 1.6x format.

 

I went through a dSLR purchase decision last year. Having a Canon film camera (Elan II), I thought about staying with Canon for digital. But I only had one semi-decent lens, the 28-105 (f3.5-4.5 USM). But that wasn't an all around zoom for the 1.6x format. FF was out of the question because of price. And for the 1.6x format, while there were a few really nice high-end lenses (L or near L quality), I couldn't find the type of decent mid-grade lenses I wanted. It was the really good lenses or the sub $100 kit grade lenses. So I ditched Canon and went for a cheapie, an Olympus E500 with the two lens kit. It has drawbacks and weaknesses, but at less than $600 for the whole thing, I won't be worried about using it "in the field." The body feels much better in the hand than the very cramped new Rebel and the kit lenses are much better than Canon's low end kits. It was a compromise I was willing to do and that I didn't agonize over much given the very competitive price.