Ive had my 40D for almost two years and although I started off using my camera fo more general purpose, Ive come to really only break it out for nature/landscape photography - I dont do much wildlife at all.
Ive been satisfied with the images out of the 40D, realizing that most of the shortcomings in my images are my own. However, we all get that "gear lust" from time to time and I get it every time I hear that FF and landscape were made for each other.
Ive seen some fantastic images coming out of the 5D and 40D here on POTN, but I can say I seem to notice there are more from the 5D.
My questions are:
- Are these differences real or imagined?
- What benefit would a landscape photographer get from going FF given we can get just as wide with crop UWA's as FF UWA's these days and I dont care about thin DOF?
- Will a person who does landscape images 95% of the time notice that much of a difference by going FF?
- Given what I shoot, would I be just as well suited to going with the newer tech of the 7D? (5dII is out of the picture now due to price and lens lineup changes required, I have the 15-85 and sigma 100-300 f4)