Canon 5d

[DarkPenguin]

Just thinking out loud here.

The 5d is down to $2200 at B+H right now.  $400 rebate if one buys it with a canon printer.  (9000 or 9500.)  Considering one should be able to ebay said printer for maybe $100 less than the purchase price that puts the 5D at $1900.

5d
40d
5d
40d
5d
40d
waffle
waffle
waffle
waffle
waffle
waffle
waffle

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I love my 5D, but if I were in the market right now I'd probably go with the 40D.
And I insist on pure maple syrup on my waffles.

[Digiteyesed]

I love my 5D, but if I were in the market right now I'd probably go with the 40D.

Sensor cropping...

PTOOEY!

[DarkPenguin]

I love my 5D, but if I were in the market right now I'd probably go with the 40D.
And I insist on pure maple syrup on my waffles.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

What features push the 40D over the 5D?  The better AF and liveview are two that I'd really like.

[BernardLanguillier]

I love my 5D, but if I were in the market right now I'd probably go with the 40D.
And I insist on pure maple syrup on my waffles.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146806\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Isn't like like the announcement of the D3 has freed us all from a huge amount of pressue?

Not talking specifically about you Eric, but I sometimes had the feeling in the past that many a Canon user felt the urge to use a FF body to justify their presence on the Canon side, like "I like Canon because they have FF" while in fact they liked Canon because they liked Canon.

No problem with that, but it sometimes looked like some of those guys had a difficult time adminting the value of APS just because it would have meant opening the dicussion to brands else than Canon.

Now that the playing field is level, people can finally admit that APS is simply a better option for many applications.

Cheers,
Bernard

[marcmccalmont]

Which body better matches your existing lenses and how you use them?
Marc

[Ray]

Now that the playing field is level, people can finally admit that APS is simply a better option for many applications.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Not quite, Bernard. Nikon still have some catch-up to do. I don't think anyone will opt to forgo the benefits of the 21mp 1Ds3 for a few nice features of the 12mp D3, such as higher resolution LCD screen.

Ever since the first DSLRs were released, which were all cropped 35mm, the debate has raged between the benefits of greater wide-angle coverage with FF 35mm as opposed to the cost and weight benefits of the longer reach of the cropped format with telephoto lenses.

If early postings on this forum had not been lost during the transfer to the upgraded forum format a few years ago, you'd find a few sample images comparing the 6mp 10D with 4.2mp crops of 1Ds shots. I admit, however, there was some reluctance amongst owners of the 1Ds to admit that the much cheaper 10D might be able to produce better or sharper images under certain circumstances, namely when your longest telephoto is not long enough for the shot with full frame.

[marcmccalmont]

traveling light with a 5D would require a 24-105 + 70-300 DO
traveling light with a 40D would require a Sigma 18-200 OS only
Marc

[Ray]

traveling light with a 5D would require a 24-105 + 70-300 DO
traveling light with a 40D would require a Sigma 18-200 OS only
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The difference between 24mm and 28mm is quite significant. Also I wonder how the quality of that Sigma lens at 18mm compares with the Canon 24-105 at 28mm.

When choosing a camera, it's always prudent to check out the quality and options of available lenses for that camera. In order for an image from the 40D to match the quality of an image from the 5D, the 40D needs a slightly better lens because it has significantly greater pixel density and also slightly fewer pixels.

I'm pretty confident the 5D when coupled with that new Canon 14/2.8 will produces images of a quality and width unachievable with the 40D.

[mahleu]

traveling light with a 5D would require a 24-105 + 70-300 DO
traveling light with a 40D would require a Sigma 18-200 OS only
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146865\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You can get superzooms for FF as well. Unfortunately the quality is almost never present. Unless of course you consider the 35-350L or the 28-300L.

The 40D would still require at least 2 lenses to get anything like quality coverage of the range you suggested for the 5D.

I'm pretty confident the 5D when coupled with that new Canon 14/2.8 will produces images of a quality and width unachievable with the 40D.

yes, and with a 40d and a 1200/5.6 you could get an image of quality and narrowness unachievable with a 5D. It's almost like saying my f1.4 lens performs better at f1.4 than my f2.8 lens.

[BernardLanguillier]

Not quite, Bernard. Nikon still have some catch-up to do. I don't think anyone will opt to forgo the benefits of the 21mp 1Ds3 for a few nice features of the 12mp D3, such as higher resolution LCD screen.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146864\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You missed my point Ray. My comment was not about Nikon catching up with Canon, it was about both brand having FF bodies available seen as an enabler for a brand free APS vs FF discussion.

Cheers,
Bernard

[sojournerphoto]

Isn't like like the announcement of the D3 has freed us all from a huge amount of pressue?

Not talking specifically about you Eric, but I sometimes had the feeling in the past that many a Canon user felt the urge to use a FF body to justify their presence on the Canon side, like "I like Canon because they have FF" while in fact they liked Canon because they liked Canon.

No problem with that, but it sometimes looked like some of those guys had a difficult time adminting the value of APS just because it would have meant opening the dicussion to brands else than Canon.

Now that the playing field is level, people can finally admit that APS is simply a better option for many applications.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You may have a point Bernard. I've been shooting canon for a long time (Ae-1 through to 2006!). I like my 5D, but am considering adding a 40D as a second body because there are times I think it would be more useful. However, I also would like more resolution than the 5D and better autofocus... I don't like the 400D to use though and haven't the patience to learn the interface.

Interestingly, I played with my brothers little Nikon the other week and thought it felt really nice in the hand, so there must be something in it - the focus ring went the wrong way though:)

Mike

[Ray]

yes, and with a 40d and a 1200/5.6 you could get an image of quality and narrowness unachievable with a 5D. It's almost like saying my f1.4 lens performs better at f1.4 than my f2.8 lens.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146878\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, of course. As long as the cropped format has greater pixel density it will have an advantage in certain circumstances. But the example you've chosen is a bit 'over the top'. Anyone who can afford a Canon 1200/5.6 can probably afford a 1Ds3. Any resolution advantage of the 40D would then be like comparing 10mp with 8mp. The wide angle advantages of the 1Ds3 in this instance would far outweigh the narrow angle advantages of the 40D.

[Ray]

You missed my point Ray. My comment was not about Nikon catching up with Canon, it was about both brand having FF bodies available seen as an enabler for a brand free APS vs FF discussion.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146887\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
I've never thought about such comparisons as being brand related. Concepts and attributes such as sensor size and pixel density and the effect they have on 'field of view' and resolution with any particular lens have absolutely nothing to do with brand. It's all about the numbers.

In fact Bernard, if there's any truth to your point, it's probably the opposite of what you imply. Now that Nikon have a full frame sensor, the debate about the merits of the cropped formats versus full frame will probably become very brand-centric.

I can already hear in my head smug comments from D3 owners to the effect that their cameras do not suffer from vignetting and resolution fall-off in the corners to the extent that Canon full frame cameras do because Nikkor lenses are better.  

[BernardLanguillier]

I can already hear in my head smug comments from D3 owners to the effect that their cameras do not suffer from vignetting and resolution fall-off in the corners to the extent that Canon full frame cameras do because Nikkor lenses are better. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146899\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

There is nothing to argue about, that's a fact... Does anyone disagree with the proposition that a F1 is faster than a Toyota starlet?

Just kidding, that was a poor attempt at Dpreview style, but I am not mean enough.

Cheers,
Bernard

[DarkPenguin]

Which body better matches your existing lenses and how you use them?
Marc
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146858\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

It is a six of one kind of thing.  I've a wider range of crop glass.  But where I shoot would be very well handled with my existing glass on a FF camera.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Not talking specifically about you Eric, but I sometimes had the feeling in the past that many a Canon user felt the urge to use a FF body to justify their presence on the Canon side, like "I like Canon because they have FF" while in fact they liked Canon because they liked Canon.

I think what you say is right for many Canon users. But for me the main reason I went for the 5D was the big viewfinder. I was tired of looking down a long tunnel at a tiny image in my 10D finder.

Of course now I have lots of Canon lenses, so making the switch to Nikon would be hard. But I am still delighted that the D3 has leveled the playing field, and if I owned a lot less Canon gear I'd be tempted to switch.
 

Now that the playing field is level, people can finally admit that APS is simply a better option for many applications.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=146817\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

True enough. For me, since most of my work is landscape and/or wide angle, the 24x36mm format suits my working style better than a cropped format. But many other photographers do a lot more with teles, and then a cropped format has many advantages (weight, throw, using the sweet spot of lenses that can cover a larger field, etc.)

[telyt]

... a cropped format has many advantages (weight, throw, using the sweet spot of lenses that can cover a larger field, etc.)

There are a lot of variables involved in the FF-vs.-APS discussion.  As a long-lens user I'd rather have a full-frame sensor so that I can decide when and where to crop instead of having the decision made for me (and then there's the viewfinder issue).

As far as I'm concerned Canon still has a clear advantage over Nikon because I can put a Leica lens on a Canon, not on a Nikon