My DSLR upgrade: opinions please...

[Pelao]

Hi

I have a 20D, which was purchased to replace a 300D.  I love it, and will be keeping it. I still feel it was the camera that showed what semi-pro DSLRs would be capable of delivering.

I shoot landscapes and cityscapes, in all sorts of conditions. I am occasionally called upon to shoot the usual family stuff, but those two are my joy and, um, focus.

My lenses:
17-40L
70-200L
50 1.8
Tamron 28-75 2.8

I am delighted by the Canon lenses, less so by the Tamron.

I like to print to 13 x 19, which is where many 20D limitations occur.

Given my investment in Canon glass, I have first looked there. I was always tempted by a 5D, but decided to put greater effort into my skills and technique and await the next generation.

So now, I have the 5D MKII and the 50D to choose from. The former is expensive, but seems well suited to what I do.

However, I am not closed to moving to Nikon. I use a D300 at work. It's a joy to use, and utterly robust. Image quality is impeccable. So either it or the D700 would be targets. The move would be expensive, but that would be it for 3-5 years. The 20D would be kept for more general shooting.

Right now, I am edging at the 5DMKII, probably with the addition of the 24-105L for my travel cityscapes.

I would appreciate any insights any of you can offer.

[ddk]

Hi

I have a 20D, which was purchased to replace a 300D.  I love it, and will be keeping it. I still feel it was the camera that showed what semi-pro DSLRs would be capable of delivering.

I shoot landscapes and cityscapes, in all sorts of conditions. I am occasionally called upon to shoot the usual family stuff, but those two are my joy and, um, focus.

My lenses:
17-40L
70-200L
50 1.8
Tamron 28-75 2.8

I am delighted by the Canon lenses, less so by the Tamron.

I like to print to 13 x 19, which is where many 20D limitations occur.

Given my investment in Canon glass, I have first looked there. I was always tempted by a 5D, but decided to put greater effort into my skills and technique and await the next generation.

So now, I have the 5D MKII and the 50D to choose from. The former is expensive, but seems well suited to what I do.

However, I am not closed to moving to Nikon. I use a D300 at work. It's a joy to use, and utterly robust. Image quality is impeccable. So either it or the D700 would be targets. The move would be expensive, but that would be it for 3-5 years. The 20D would be kept for more general shooting.

Right now, I am edging at the 5DMKII, probably with the addition of the 24-105L for my travel cityscapes.

I would appreciate any insights any of you can offer.

If you're happy with your 20D and just need to print bigger then why not first try uprezzing printing software like Qimage or Genuine Fractals before looking at a new body.

We all go through the same process every time the manufacturers introduce new products, reality is that both Nikon and Canon make great gear and each have their own strengths and weaknesses. One time Nikon seems better, then a few months later its Canon and now Sony, then maybe Olympus and Fuji, who knows ,when new cameras are announced every few months. I decided to stay with the brand of my heavy glass investment, which is the constant while the bodies keep on changing, otherwise there's no end to it and building systems from scratch can be very costly.

[Pelao]

If you're happy with your 20D and just need to print bigger then why not first try uprezzing printing software like Qimage or Genuine Fractals before looking at a new body.

We all go through the same process every time the manufacturers introduce new products, reality is that both Nikon and Canon make great gear and each have their own strengths and weaknesses. One time Nikon seems better, then a few months later its Canon and now Sony, then maybe Olympus and Fuji, who knows ,when new cameras are announced every few months. I decided to stay with the brand of my heavy glass investment, which is the constant while the bodies keep on changing, otherwise there's no end to it and building systems from scratch can be very costly.

Good points. I have done some upping of the resolution, but often the results are simply not pleasing. I bought the 20D in May 2005, skipping the 30D and 40D - so I don't really fall into the "upgrade with every new generation" camp. Those cameras offered some nice benefits, but image quality, and resolution, was not enough of an improvement to cause me to question my 20D.

I do feel that the latest generation offers a set of solid improvements over my 20D, which is about 5 years old in design. These improvements seem to offer the opportunity to grow photographically.

[Colorado David]

I intentionally skip the incremental upgrades of camera bodies and invest in glass.  If I were you I would make a critical review of the quality of individual lenses in my inventory and if I were satisfied with the copies I owned, I would stay on that manufacturer's upgrade path.  To change systems requires you to repurchase every lens and every accessory that you use in addition to retraining your muscle memory to become familiar with the controls of a new system.  That is not an insignificant step to consider.  If your subjects stand around and wait for you to figure out a needed feature on a camera you are unfamiliar with, then it's no big deal.  But if they run off, or the light changes dramatically, then it is a big deal.  I won't say what system I use because it doesn't matter.  If you searched my posts, it would be easy to figure out.  My point is that it is mostly irrelevent.  There will always be feature leapfrog among the manufacturers.  Look long-term.

[NashvilleMike]

Hi

I have a 20D, which was purchased to replace a 300D.  I love it, and will be keeping it. I still feel it was the camera that showed what semi-pro DSLRs would be capable of delivering.

I shoot landscapes and cityscapes, in all sorts of conditions. I am occasionally called upon to shoot the usual family stuff, but those two are my joy and, um, focus.

My lenses:
17-40L
70-200L
50 1.8
Tamron 28-75 2.8

I am delighted by the Canon lenses, less so by the Tamron.

I like to print to 13 x 19, which is where many 20D limitations occur.

Given my investment in Canon glass, I have first looked there. I was always tempted by a 5D, but decided to put greater effort into my skills and technique and await the next generation.

So now, I have the 5D MKII and the 50D to choose from. The former is expensive, but seems well suited to what I do.

I'm currently a Nikon user myself, but I'm going to suggest that unless there is a really compelling reason to switch (say, you do mostly hi ISO work or are inheriting a rich Nikon using uncles entire lens collection, lol) that you stay on the Canon path given you've started to invest in lenses. I'm a huge believer in building the lens collection first and not worry so much about which body is popular at any given moment.

That being said, a few things to ponder:

a: you would notice the improvement between the 8mp class DSLRs and the 12/15 mp crop body DSLR and definitely the 5d-II FF DSLR, so either option (going to 50D or 5d-II) would take care of that. Obviously going to the 5d-II makes the most sense if you feel resolution constrained with your current system, but it's going to be more expensive. However, with greater resolution comes more demands on your lenses, support system, and shooting discipline.

b: Doing either you also should start to think about some lens realignment. Ditch the Tamron, particularly if you're not happy with it. Going to something like the 5d-II would mean that you could start looking at going down the "best available at each focal length" approach, and that means bypassing something like the 24-105 which frankly isn't of the quality of the best glass out there. Now what I just typed is gonna hack off a lot of 24-105 owners, but hang with me here and think this through - if you're currently unhappy with your 13x19 prints, it could be from a variety of factors including support system deficiencies, lens quality, shooting discipline, post processing discipline to name the common ones. Once you go to a higher rez medium, and that includes the 12/15mp cropped bodies as well as the 21mp 5d-ii, all of those are going to have to be maximized if you really want to get everything out of the body. A 24-105 gets you convenience, but doesn't get you max quality - and mirrors a lot of things already in your range, and part of gaining what you desire at 13x19 is going to be related to lens quality as well as the body upgrade. Now, if convenience is huge with you and allows you to "get the shot", then obviously that's more important than the technical arguments of which lens is better because getting the shot is more important than which lens has xxx lines more resolution than the other, but one also has to be aware of the tradeoffs. So lenses like the 135/2 L or the new 24 L series 2 would be something to strive towards, or, once the Zeiss ZE lineup fleshes out (I don't know which ones are in Canon mount offhand), take a strong look at those if you don't mind manual focus. And if you're doing landscape and not using the very best tripod/ballhead you can get, skip all of the above and invest the money there first before dropping more cash on lenses.

-m

[Pelao]

NashvilleMike,

A thoughtful reply - thanks.

I agree with most of your points. I have spent the last few years working hard at my shot discipline, and experimenting with the settings that get me what I want. I have also invested in an excellent tripod and ballhead. In terms of post-processing, I have reached a point where I am very happy with my equipment, and more importantly, with my technique and skills. In fact, I have not thought at all about a new body until the last 6 months or so, and am in no rush. Instead, for years I have focused on finding what I want to shoot, and building my ability to shoot for the results I desire.

As for lenses, yes, I do need to review what I have. I like the Canon glass, but will consider changing depending on the body I purchase. The 5DMKII will, I think, be pushing my L glass very hard.

As for the 24-105: I want that for my handheld cityscapes and candids, which are taken when I travel. These are rarely printed over 8 x 10, and I have spent a lot of time looking at the results of the 5D MKII with this lens. For my intended purpose, I think it's the best fit. This would not be a landscape lens for me.

[Wayne Fox]

As for lenses, yes, I do need to review what I have. I like the Canon glass, but will consider changing depending on the body I purchase. The 5DMKII will, I think, be pushing my L glass very hard.

Too much internet chat about sensors getting too dense and out resolving lens.  I don't buy it ... I don't think you can "push" glass.  It is what it is.  I don't think a sensor that resolves beyond the limit of the glass is a negative.  Yes, building a newer sensor with more resolution may not gain any improvement in resolving detail, but it doesn't make it worse.  To me an ideal sensor is one that can resolve beyond the limit of any lens I own ... it means the sensor no longer is a limit to my resolution (and also means you may not need an anti-aliasing filter anymore).  So why buy a body that has less resolution than the glass just because you are afraid another body has more resolution than the glass?


Personally, a used 5D would be a great upgrade to your 20D, as would a 40D or 50D. I think you will be able to see a difference in some images even at 13x19.  The 5D Mark2 is a terrific camera, and if it is in the budget, then by all means you should push your glass ... why wouldn't you want your lens to be your resolution limit.

As for switching to Nikon ... why?  It's a great system, and they finally have some really good full frame bodies.  But I see no compelling reason to switch.

[Ken Bennett]

I have both a 20D and a 40D, and use 1D Mark II bodies at work. So I understand something about the robustness of the D300 body you use at work, as well as the limitations of the 20D.

I think there are some clear advantages to the 40D over the 20D in terms of features and handling, and some improvements in image quality and the enlargeability (if that's a word) of the files. Considering that a 40D is about $850 at Amazon, that's not a bad upgrade path. Yes, it's "only" ten megapixels, and it's over a year old, but it's still a very serviceable camera. When I am ready to buy another body, I'll get another 40D instead of a 50D, even if I have to buy it gently used.

I haven't seen a 5D Mark II, but I have shot with the 21-megapixel 1DsIII body. Nice files, but I have to say that I wouldn't want to deal with 21 megapixel files every day unless I *really* needed that resolution. Still, it's a seductive choice, and your Canon lenses will work well with it.

Good luck making the decision. In the end, what counts is getting out there and shooting pictures.

[fike]

...

My lenses:
17-40L
70-200L
50 1.8
Tamron 28-75 2.8
...

the 17-40 and 70-200 are solid and serviceable lenses.  The 50 1.8 and Tamron are in a different category altogether.

I think the 5dMkII would be a wasteful expense if you stick with this collection of lenses.  If all you want are 13x19 images, the 5DMkII is probably overkill.  

My suggestion: get a 40D or 50D and spend difference on some very good lenses like a 70-200 f/2.8L or 24-70 f/2.8L.

The 24-105 is a good compromise lens.  That is good and bad.  If you never intend to use anything but one lens, it is excellent, but clearly you intend to change lenses to match the photographic need.  In that case, you are compromising with the 24-105.  

As for brand loyalty, I agree with what has been said.  If you have some gear and some expertise, don't just jump to another manufacturer.  You will likely spend $4,000 for a small difference in handling or quality and that difference can certainly be addressed with better lenses in your canon lineup.  These manufacturers trade the "lead" in the quality wars.  But the difference remains small. It is like picking a first place or second place in a thoroughbred horserace.  They are both really fast and beautiful.  The difference between them is just "a nose length," and all the 1st place horse gets you is bragging rights.

[stever]

i'd vote for the used 5D

i have a 20D, 40D, and 5D, and am getting ready to return (after testing) a 50D that i was hoping would give me a noticeable improvement over the 40D

the 40D is definitely a more convenient camer to use than the 20D without significantly different image quality

the article by Merklinger a couple weeks ago argues that the 50D needs good lenses to show improvement over the 40D - i agree, the 50D proved better than the 40D with the 50 1.4, 24-105, and 100M, (only after setting microfocus, it needed +6 to +9 on lenses that showed almost perfect focus on the other cameras) but was no better on my 200 2.8 or 100-400 than the 40D (which is what i really cared about).  with all lenses the 50D was inferior to the 5D.

i think the 5D will give more pleasing images at 13x19 than a 50D even though it doesn't have all the features of the 50D, particularly for your subjects

there's still little wrong with the image quality of the 20D which is a fine companion to the 5D

[Plekto]

Don't forget other systems, though.  If you only have a couple of normal lenses(ie - nothing like a 50mm f/1.0 or anything), you can usually replace them with similar used copies in good condition for the new camera.  without taking much, if any hit between the selling price of your current couple of lenses and the new ones.

17-40L - good but not a big deal to find something similar.
70-200L - same as above.
50 1.8 - average "kit" lens. EVERYONE has a similar 50mm out there.  Not a factor, IMO.
Tamron 28-75 2.8 - junk as you've surmised.  No loss here/not a factor, either.

For two lenses, it's a wash, IMO.  

Now, what I *would* suggest is a full frame sensor.  MP isn't a big deal(IIRC, all of them are well above the D20 in image quality).  Why?  Because this allows you to toss on old 35mm film lenses for specific uses.   Nikon and Sony/Minolta are good choices here if you're interested in this sort of thing.  I actually only own one variable zoom lens - everything is fixed focus/prime.  I guess I'm old-school in how my brain works.   I shoot based upon aspect ratio and width and use my *legs* to get it framed right.    

http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php
A rather large list.  The 24mm is a favorite of mine, btw.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full-frame_digital_SLR
New?  The Sony A900 is by far the best value right now.  Full Frame and priced at a very reasonable level.  If you want a Canon, the 5D/5D Mark II are great values used.

[DarkPenguin]

Tamron 28-75 2.8 - junk as you've surmised.  No loss here/not a factor, either.

Really?  I've seen this one compared favorably to the canon 24-70L.  Other than build quality (I've snapped mine at the mount.  $170 repair.) mine has been extremely sharp.  (After a trip back to Tamron for adjustment mind you.)

[Pelao]

Hi All

Thank you for all the opinions and advice.

A few things: I noted that I was not too happy with the Tamron, not that it is crappy in any way. In fact, I feel it's a pretty sharp lens. It just did not meet my expectations, but that does not make it a poor lens.

I will be making a decision in the next week or so. A lot will depend upon what prices are available when I shop earnestly. if I can grab a 5D at a good price, that will be seriously tempting. Otherwise, it is likely to be a 50D.

Thanks again.