Canon 40D, 5DII, or MF film camera?

[ChrisS]

I have a Canon 40D. I'm happy with the IQ but want the option of printing larger (A2, possibly A1), and for cropping to produce panoramas. I can't afford MF digital. Do I: a) stick with the 40D and get the best quality files I can (could they produce A2/ A1 prints with reasonable quality, after up-ressing?);  [I don't know why this emoticon has appeared here!] get a 5DII; c) get a film MF camera and scan?

Michael wrote in his 1Ds review:
'Since I'm primarily a medium format landscape and nature photographer this presents me with a quandary. When I get a 1Ds (and my order is already placed, with deposit), what do I do with my medium format gear? What do I take with me on a shoot from now on? Should I sell my MF equipment?'

Now that we have 20+MP SLRs, has this question been answered - at least with regard to MF film? (I guess I think that if I have an answer to this question, I also have an answer to my first question.)

Thanks

Chris

[feppe]

I'm in a similar quandary. I upgraded from 30D to 450D last year and am considering 5D MkII but am having serious second thoughts. I posted a thread where you might find some helpful posts about it. There's also a lengthy thread which gives a nice sanity check on just how futile keeping up with the joneses is, especially for amateurs like me, and vast majority of professionals.

FWIW, I'm sticking to 450D for most of my work since I'm perfectly happy with the picture quality, and getting a portrait lens for my 6x6 MF film camera for the work which would require large prints and where stitching doesn't work.

[Ken Bennett]

There was also a thread on printers that might be relevant to your question:

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....c=33449&hl=

The 40d is a fine camera, capable of good prints up to A2 or larger with proper technique and subject. The 5D Mark II has more pixels, of course, and Canon claims it has the highest image quality they have ever produced.

Shooting medium format film and scanning it is a labor-intensive process that, in my opinion, should be reserved for special projects. In any case, I think digital imaging surpassed MF film in resolution and image quality a while ago.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

My 2-cents are:

1) The 40D is probably quite OK for A2-prints my guess is that A1 is quite a stretch
2) Lenses may be more important than pixels for the 5DII you would need really good lenses to utilize it fully

I have done stunning picture from scanned MF slides, but it is in no way easy. You also need a good MF scanner, MF on film is not the way to go IMHO.

How much you can enlarge is essentially dependent on the amount of pixel peeping that you are doing. It's normal that you are looking at large prints at some distance.

I have a similar experience, recently buying an Sony Alpha 900. On some A2 prints I can esily tell apart my A700 (12.5 MP) and my A900 on some not, it seems that 12.5 MP is good enough for A2. I don't print larger than A2, if I need larger prints I go to a lab.

Finally, if you want to do panoramas just try to stitch, it's very easy with today's software. The one I use is Autopano Pro and I recommend "Smartblend" rendering option. If you are shooting a horizontal pano keep the camera vertical. Freehand panos are quite OK with Autopano Pro/Smartblend.

Best regards
Erik

I have a Canon 40D. I'm happy with the IQ but want the option of printing larger (A2, possibly A1), and for cropping to produce panoramas. I can't afford MF digital. Do I: a) stick with the 40D and get the best quality files I can (could they produce A2/ A1 prints with reasonable quality, after up-ressing?);  [I don't know why this emoticon has appeared here!] get a 5DII; c) get a film MF camera and scan?

Michael wrote in his 1Ds review:
'Since I'm primarily a medium format landscape and nature photographer this presents me with a quandary. When I get a 1Ds (and my order is already placed, with deposit), what do I do with my medium format gear? What do I take with me on a shoot from now on? Should I sell my MF equipment?'

Now that we have 20+MP SLRs, has this question been answered - at least with regard to MF film? (I guess I think that if I have an answer to this question, I also have an answer to my first question.)

Thanks

Chris

[marcmccalmont]

What lenses do you own? any full frame? What MF equipment do you own?
Marc

[ChrisS]

Thanks for your replies - they're very helpful.

I've used stitching, but what I really want to print larger are panoramic shots with waves - which don't stitch, of course.

I've not yet printed A2, so really need to experiment with that and the 40D before I do anything else, based on what you say Erik.

I don't have an MF camera at all at the moment. I'm going to get one anyway, but need to decide whether to get a cheap one to play with, or a more serious one to work with. If I get the latter, I'll have to stick with the 40D rather than 5dii because of money.

I have a 17-85 ERS and a 70-300 IS, so the latter will work with FF.

One last question: I've tried a couple of ways of up-sizing files, and find PS's one step Bicubic up-res to be incredibly good on screen (and have read Michael's advice on this). As I haven't got an A2 printer, I've not printed any of the files I've done, nor have I printed an A3+ crop from and A2 or A1 up-ressed image. How far might I reasonably up-res to print a good quality file that is 19x13 at about 180/200 ppi?

[Jimlizard]

If you can afford the 5D MKII, maybe it would be the better choice.
Like other users already told you, you need good lenses to explore the full potential of this camera. Going with the Canon options may be a little expensive but, if you don't mind to use manual focus, there are a lot of excellent options on the used market, from Leica, Carl Zeiss, Olympus OM, Nikon F and others.

I used to have a Canon 5D and lenses like the Zuiko 24mm f/2.0 ou Leica Summicron-R 35mm f/2.0 (E55) had a better corner performance than both Canon 24mm f/1.4 L (first generation) and 35mm f/1.4 L.
I also saw some MTF graphics on the internet, comparing the Summicron 35mm and the Canon 35mm, and the Leica was a killer. It's the type of lens you can use wide open and the results are tack sharp, with the bonus of a wonderful Leica bokeh. You can get a very nice copy for something around 400-600eur. You still can find some new ones and they cost 2000eur so, it's possible to get some bargains on the used market!

Those are just examples, but you can find a lot of amazing MF alternatives, if you want very high quality, without spending a fortune.
Of course if you really need AF, there is no other way that going Canon.

[David Sutton]

Hi Chris. I'm printing on an Epson 3800 from a 40D, mainly A3+, though I've tried A2. Even my files from my 350D print fine at A3+. If you have good shooting technique (tripod, beanbag on the camera for slow shutter speeds) your 40D should be fine at A2, even cropped say, 20%.
Also, consider what paper you will be printing on. Epson Velvet Fine Art paper is a lovely one to use and the slight dimpling on the surface covers up a lot of imperfections. If you are printing on gloss the image will more likely show up any faults. Though for water I doubt it will be that critical. It depends if you want to reveal every last droplet.
A good article on uprezzing is at
http://www.digitalphotopro.com/technique/s...the-up-res.html
I use this when my file size is less than 180 pixels/inch, and can't see any sign in my prints of the technique. However I print using Qimage and I see in their instructions they say not to uprez at all, just send the file straight to Qimage and let it do the work, so I'll try a few prints for a comparison.
I've been wondering about upgrading to more pixels, and if I do will probably go for a secondhand 1DSMk II. Basically because I think the autofocus will be better, which for what I do is the most important thing. No use having 21Mp but out of focus. However I'm not rushing out any time soon to buy one as the more  I use the 40D the sharper and better exposed the images get. Funny that  
My guess is that if you want the best quality in your photos and your technique is already top notch, then the money would be better spent on lenses. In fact, I'll bet a sharp well exposed shot from my old 350D using a 70-200 zoom will definitely print much larger than something from a 5D MkII with inferior glass.
My 2 cents worth, David

[ChrisS]

I also have a 350D and get decent shots from it. I tend to use it in my Ewa underwater housing and with a second lens when I go to the beach (can't be changing lenses in that environment some days).

If I go for MF, I'll be keeping the 40D for 'in the water' shots (and all sorts of other things), and using the MF for sea/landscape-type shots. So AF won't be an issue. I have an M3 with Elmar 2.8 lens, too, but it needs a service and I'm not sure the money's best spent on 35mm right now. If I'm going to spend money, I think it should be on something that will be significantly different from the 40D - which I guess I think I'll get with either MF or 5Dii.

I just did some test prints from the 40D with PS upsized files, done as carefully as I could (mirror lock-up etc.). I printed to A3+ (as that's the biggest my HP9180 will do), at 240dpi and 41cm (longest side); and A3+ crops of files upsized to 60cm and 100cm (longest side). The 60cm print (A2) was just fine - crisp and clear; the foliage at 100cm (over A1) struggled. Maybe it's at this size that I'm going to need MF or the 5dii? Or will other software  upsize to A1 better than PS?

Thanks for your replies,

Chris

[stever]

with a good lens i (50mm 1.4 for example) you can print A2 from your 40D files if you're careful with technique (and the camera-lens combination is autofocussing correctly - you may have to send camera and lens(es) to Canon for calibration).  your 17-85 and 70-300 are not going to do the job.

from my experience you will have better luck with a 5D but will still need good lenses - the L- zooms will be okay for many subjects, but primes are noticeably better.  i think you will have better luck making large prints from a 5D than a 50D.

i've just got my 5DII and am still in the pixel peeping stage - it should be capable of A1s, but i'm not sure it can do it with any of the zooms.  the micro focus adjust is certainly necessary to acheive the camera's potential resolution

i'm assuming you want to make prints that will withstand close inspection

[David Sutton]

That's a good test to do. At some point you will hit the limit of what the camera will do in terms of how big you can print, and only you can decide whether that resolution limit will work for you. I prefer not to uprez more than 200%, though I hear that you can go to 400% with a really good capture. For landscape I stitch with Autopano Pro if I want detail, in fact I was just working on one last night and the file size quickly went to over a gigabyte, which when I think about it is crazy if I'm not going to print over 24 inches wide.  I agree with Stever that your current lenses are not giving you the results that this camera is capable of. If you decide not to go to MF then you could look at upgrading your lenses first and that money won't be wasted if you buy a 5D later.
Here's something else to consider. On screen I can see a clear difference between my 350D files and those from my 40D. but it simply doesn't show up on A3+ prints. I like to do bird photography, and I find with the 40D I have to turn all sharpening off in LR and only apply a little to the eyes, or the feather details don't look realistic on the print. In fact, one image I had to slightly blur. The 350D files have a little sharpening left on in the raw conversion, which may be the reason they look similar in print. My guess is there is a lot more to image quality than megapixels.
David

[Geoff Wittig]

I have a Canon 40D. I'm happy with the IQ but want the option of printing larger (A2, possibly A1), and for cropping to produce panoramas. I can't afford MF digital. Do I: a) stick with the 40D and get the best quality files I can (could they produce A2/ A1 prints with reasonable quality, after up-ressing?);  [I don't know why this emoticon has appeared here!] get a 5DII; c) get a film MF camera and scan?

Michael wrote in his 1Ds review:
'Since I'm primarily a medium format landscape and nature photographer this presents me with a quandary. When I get a 1Ds (and my order is already placed, with deposit), what do I do with my medium format gear? What do I take with me on a shoot from now on? Should I sell my MF equipment?'

Now that we have 20+MP SLRs, has this question been answered - at least with regard to MF film? (I guess I think that if I have an answer to this question, I also have an answer to my first question.)

Thanks

Chris

I've been using an Eos-1Ds III for about a year, doing a lot of image stitching for panos and printing as big as I can on an HP Z3100. Probably the most important thing to recognize is that all the little things degrading image quality, from camera shake to mirror slap to inaccurate focus to diffraction, become far more problematic as resolution increases. You'll get a more immediate improvement from perfect technique than from a small increase in sensor resolution. Having said that, you will be able to print larger when you're capturing a higher resolution file; it just doesn't scale up as fast as you'd like. Ctein's rule of thumb is that you need a 50% increase in number of pixels to get an obvious, easily percieved increase in resolution, and that matches my experience. I've owned all 3 generations of the Eos-1Ds; each jump in pixels from 11 to 16 to 21 mp has yielded a gain in percieved resolution that is just barely visible in a print if you use optimal technique. The difference between the 10 mp Eos-40D and the 5D II at 21 mp will be very obvious, and quite worthwhile if your aim is to print larger. But this level of resolution requires the best available glass, like the 24-70 and 70-200 L lenses at a minimum unless you go for prime lenses, and Canon doesn't have any wide lenses that are really up to the task. It takes something like the 135 f:2 to really show what the sensor is capable of.

I wouldn't bother with medium format film and scanning. You won't get any visible improvement in quality beyond what you can get at 21 mp capture, but it will add another layer of tedious work, requires an expensive scanner, and adds the recurring cost and nuisance value of film.

I found it instructive to read the Joseph Holmes articles about his struggle to get optimal performance out of medium format digital. It's relevant because it spells out how difficult it is to get the best out of a camera as resolution increases; all those cumulative degredations to image quality, from the optical flaws of lenses to alignment issues to focus accuracy, start piling up. You can't take anything for granted, not even how steady your tripod and head are.

[Gandalf]

Going with medium format film and scanning (either doing it yourself with a high quality scanner like Nikon 9000 or Imacon or outsourcing drum scans) is a preference because you like shooting with the gear and you enjoy the process. Images shot on MF film and scanned well have a different feel and character than files from a DSLR. Compare prints of the same image and decide which you prefer.

The last time I did a direct film/digital comparison with 35mm film against a 10D. The film had far more detail than the digital capture, but the 10D files looked better large. There was no detail in them, but no noise or grain either.

In all likelihood, with digital you will shoot a lot more, spend a reasonable amount of time working up all your images, then printing a couple of them. With film you are likely to shoot a lot less, scan only your best shots, spend a lot of time working on each one and then print them. In the end, you have spent about the same amount of time and printed the same number of images, but the process to get there was quite different.

Two advantages to the film camera are no batteries to worry about and a nice big viewfinder to look at. If your goal is to shoot nice landscapes, I would be more inclined to keep your 40D and buy a 4x5 and a couple lenses.

[Andrew Teakle]

I'm in a similar situation to ChrisS. I have a 40D and RZ67 with 4 lenses and teleconverter. I love the image quality of the RZ but find the workflow, weight and restricted focal lengths to be enough of a disincentive that I haven't put a roll through it for quite a while. OTOH, with three lenses (10-22, 24-105, 100-400) I have a 35mm equiv of 16-640mm (+ 1.4x extender) in a relatively lightweight, compact system with the 40D. However, I printed an image 16x24" recently and was slightly disappointed with the digital artifacts in this rainforest scene. Sharpness and other measures of IQ were fine, and I uprezzed using Bicubic smoother, output sharpened with Photokit. The shot was taken on a tripod, MLU, f/11, ISO 200 with the 10-22, so don't feel technique suffered, but the print was slightly disappointing with nose-pressed-to-glass viewing. To be completely honest with myself, my work is almost always printed in books, calendars, diaries etc. In other words, quite small, yet I'm lusting after better quality. Like ChrisS, I too have been considering my options: 5DII, 50D, haul out the RZ. I'm leaning towards the 5DII but would need to also buy the 17-40 f/4L (and 17mm T/S lens if reviews are favourable and I can convince the exchequer of the household that it's a worthwhile investment  ) and would also use the 70-200 f/2.8 that I also own. While undoubtedly better image quality, it will end up costing $5000 (Australian, incl lens), be a little heavier, and be quite a bit shorter at the telephoto end. 21 full-frame megapixels just has me drooling and I am very keen to try to sell larger prints. Lots to ponder...

Andrew

[ChrisS]

The difference between the 10 mp Eos-40D and the 5D II at 21 mp will be very obvious, and quite worthwhile if your aim is to print larger. But this level of resolution requires the best available glass, like the 24-70 and 70-200 L lenses at a minimum unless you go for prime lenses, and Canon doesn't have any wide lenses that are really up to the task. It takes something like the 135 f:2 to really show what the sensor is capable of.

I found it instructive to read the Joseph Holmes articles about his struggle to get optimal performance out of medium format digital. It's relevant because it spells out how difficult it is to get the best out of a camera as resolution increases; all those cumulative degredations to image quality, from the optical flaws of lenses to alignment issues to focus accuracy, start piling up. You can't take anything for granted, not even how steady your tripod and head are.

All other things being equal, is it true that the 40D and 70-300IS will produce images of a significantly lesser quality at A2 than the 5Dii with the same lens? Or does the 5Dii do funny things with cheaper lenses? (In which case, buying the 5Dii means buying new, expensive lenses straight away...)

[stever]

i'm just about finished pixel peeping the 5D2.  it 5D2 will give significantly sharper results (and on an absolute basis quite respectable results) up to about 150mm with my 70-300 DO (particularly in the center of the image).  from 200 to 300 the images are significantly sharper in the center than the 40D, but not at the edges (where the resolution is very poor in both cases).  the microfocus adjustment of the 5D2 is certainly a good thing with lesser lenses, particularly zooms which seem to come from Canon with significant focus variablility (and of course focus of the zooms may vary with focal length as well).

with the 70-300 i believe you will see a noticeable improvement with the 5D2 (at least at shorter focal lengths stopped down to f8) -- but way less than the camera's capabilities.  unless you really need wide angle, you don't have to spend a fortune on lenses to realize the 5D2's capabilities - 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 100 f2, 100M f2.8, even the great 135 f2L are significantly less than the least expensive L zoom -- with reslolutions 30 to 80% better than the 40D and 70-300.  Of course, these lenses will be a noticeable improvement with the 40D with the 5D falling in between the 40D and 5D2 with comparable lenses.

[David Sutton]

Chris, I take it you have the non-DO version of this lens? I've read the optical qualities are similar, but who can say when it comes down to individual lenses.
My suggestion would be to go into your nearest friendly photo store, tell them you are trying to decide whether to upgrade the lens or the camera, and take a few shots in the store with your current set up, then with a top lens on your camera, then put your card into a 5D II and repeat the exercise. Then go home and pixel peep. They may even let you take the camera or lens away for a few hours if they know you. Otherwise you may end up relying on opinion and not facts.
David

[Frodo]

The shot was taken on a tripod, MLU, f/11, ISO 200 with the 10-22, so don't feel technique suffered, but the print was slightly disappointing with nose-pressed-to-glass viewing.
Andrew

Andrew, I have this lens and it is definitely sharper stopped down no more than a couple of stops.  At f11, you would definitely be seeing diffraction effects (especially at 10mm).  I notice this even on a 20D (FWIW I'm also pondering an upgrade to 50D or 5D - hard to justify the 5DII unless it earns me money!).

Cheers

[ChrisS]

Just an update. I recently bought an RZ 67, and am really pleased with the results I'm getting with B&W. I'm going to stick with the 40D for the moment, and go for the 5Dii when I can. I'm sure this is the right route for me - thanks for all your replies.

Chris

[EdinburghGary]

Just an update. I recently bought an RZ 67, and am really pleased with the results I'm getting with B&W. I'm going to stick with the 40D for the moment, and go for the 5Dii when I can. I'm sure this is the right route for me - thanks for all your replies.

Chris

Hi Chris,

Cool thread.  I started shooting digital about 18 months ago, with my first ever camera, a Nikon D200.  I then added the Nikon D3 to my kit about a year ago.  My compulsiveness got the better of me again 6 months ago when for some silly reason I purchased a G9 and a Fuji S5 Pro.  I have most of the typical Nikon fast glass (14 to 24 2.8, 24 to 70 2.8, 70 to 200 2.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.4), and I love shooting with the D3, to the point where I get uo at 4am each day, go out and shoot in the nice light, and then repeat as the day ends around 8pm to 10pm.  It has resulted in almost 100,000 shutter clicks across the camera collection...BUT...it all feels too clinical now, too "easy" to go, bracket 5 shots, come home, try and PP them into an inch of there life....or, go out, shoot everything and anything, and come home and hope you can salvage something.  It's just wrong.

So, last week, I purchased an RB67 with the 50mm c, 90mm c, and 180mm c.  I got 3 backs, and a few other bits and bobs.  I am absolutely loving it!!!  It has forced me to pace myself, to think about my shots, to really try and visualize exactly what I want to see once I finish shooting.  It just feels right, to the point that I have not even looked at the D3 since getting the kit.

I think you made the right choice.  For me personally, I am happy with my digital collection, and will continue to shoot with it.  The medium format gear however, just feels so much more special.  I am not sure if Digital for me, will be able to instill that raw emotion, pun intended

Gary.