40D with this lens, 5D with that??

JoshBowers wrote in post #3867281
Can't you just take a few steps back with a 1.6 sensor and 10-22 lense?

Hopefully the full frame cameras come down in price soon (The new Nikon keeps looking better... FF for under 2K)

they only have one FF, which is D3, and it costs over twice as much as the 5D...

MaDProFF wrote in post #3867453
Was he the one saying "go back a bit, one more step"??????

yeah, thats the last time I take him along with me

ok The 5D takes far better shots than the 40D..I'll concede this for arguments sake. 40D takes some shots that are worth framing in my opinion some may argue but <shrug>. Buy the 5D now in 6 months canon will release the 5D mkII at 6 FPS and 200 MP with 90 AF points and you get a free 50-1000 mm lens with the camera (murphy's law) I DREAMED of the 5D and have for over a year since I bought my XTi and on this site found out that the XTi apparently can't take good pictures.

So my .02 is buy the 40D it has great features it has the FPS to get the shots of your sons soccer games (seriously reach of a camera is not an issue if you have the right lens for the job it's just a matter of lugging that big bad boy around) It's an action sports camera tracking AF speed lock etc are setup for moving targets. HOWEVER it obviously has some strong points in taking landscape and portrait photography. (I know pro's making a living off a 350D) When the mkII comes out do your research the 40D will still be fresh and worth a decent bit if you want to upgrade. just make sure you get EF lenses not EF-S so that you can swap them. I still want a 5D NO DOUBT. It's SEXY but financially I believe the 40D is a better jack of all than the 5D. Faster FPS which you can't adjust in PS and good IQ which is more effected by lenses than anything else.

Even though I own a crop camera, I think that for someone who loves to take landscapes and even shots of their kids, the 5D would ultimately be a better choice. You would cut down on the number of lenses you would need to lug around. For example, you could use three lenses (16-35, 24-70, 70-200), and a tele-extender if you needed it. on a crop camera, the 10-22 would be a fourth lens. If I could afford it, the 5D and the three lenses mentioned would be my setup. But of course, my budget (and my wife) limits me to the fourth lens and crop sensor.

Mortgage101 wrote in post #3867503
ok The 5D takes far better shots than the 40D..I'll concede this for arguments sake. 40D takes some shots that are worth framing in my opinion some may argue but <shrug>. Buy the 5D now in 6 months canon will release the 5D mkII at 6 FPS and 200 MP with 90 AF points and you get a free 50-1000 mm lens with the camera (murphy's law) I DREAMED of the 5D and have for over a year since I bought my XTi and on this site found out that the XTi apparently can't take good pictures.

So my .02 is buy the 40D it has great features it has the FPS to get the shots of your sons soccer games (seriously reach of a camera is not an issue if you have the right lens for the job it's just a matter of lugging that big bad boy around) It's an action sports camera tracking AF speed lock etc are setup for moving targets. HOWEVER it obviously has some strong points in taking landscape and portrait photography. (I know pro's making a living off a 350D) When the mkII comes out do your research the 40D will still be fresh and worth a decent bit if you want to upgrade. just make sure you get EF lenses not EF-S so that you can swap them. I still want a 5D NO DOUBT. It's SEXY but financially I believe the 40D is a better jack of all than the 5D. Faster FPS which you can't adjust in PS and good IQ which is more effected by lenses than anything else.

I agree, 40D = best value, like a jack of all trades, if your into sports its the better camera.

There is just something I dont like about a cropped body with an UWA lens, its just not got the same appeal as a 5D with WA lens, for landscapes its worth the extra, trust me on this, landscapes is all I do, ive sold images from my 350D but since getting the 5D my landscape shots are in another class.

Also a 10-22mm is about as wide as you can go on a cropped body, unless you want a fisheye, but they are just plain weird for most tasks, where as you do have the option of 12mm on a 5D, not to mention its low light/noise capabilties.

It really boils down to what you shoot, for me im having to make my £££ out of landscape photography, its pretty much all I do, so the 5D was the ultimate camera in my view, especially considering I spend a lot of time looking through a viewfinder, its just now a lot more pleasure to look through if sports was my thing with the occasional shot of a landscape, then the 40D or similar would be a better choice, its just a 10-22mm lens is yet another lens to carry around & from what ive seen the border performance isnt that stunning.

Nick_C wrote in post #3867451
but its just when you have spent £600 on an L you dont tend to want 80% of shots taken on a Sigma although it does look very tempting

Again, a weird mindset. The idea of using a lens because it's expensive instead of getting one that costs 40% less that would open a new creativity to your work is hard for me to fathom.

That's like buying a nice expensive pair of shoes that do well walking on asphalt, concrete, and gravel. You'd like to walk where there aren't paved or graded trails and you could buy a different pair of shoes that cost less than the ones you are wearing. But you don't want to since you paid a lot for your shoes.

Lenses are tools for getting the shots you want.

It seems like Nick_C thinks like almost every general manager in pro sports. LOL

IB/M wrote in post #3867476
=IB///M;3867476]they only have one FF, which is D3, and it costs over twice as much as the 5D...

So the d300 isn't full frame? Well that makes me incredibly happy then! I thought it was FF... I don't feel so crappy now.

Wonder if the next 5D will be able to shoot 6 frames a second? Wouldn't that be wonderful.

I really want a full frame camera but I need something that can rip off the frames at a min of 5 fps. A few years from now they'll come out with a full frame camera that shoots over 5 fps and costs around 2K, then I'll be a happy camper

Then I'll be regretting buying the two EF-S lenses I got Ah the technology revolution, always kicking you in the ass

Wow, step away from the computer for a while to tend to the kids and come back to some great posts. I appreciate everyones thoughts and have read them very carefully. Of course, I'm still undecided, but a few things people have said have leaned me towards the 5D. While I am taking pictures of my son's soccer, and plan to as he grows up, I don't consider myself a sports photographer. I don't browse through sports pictures on the net, but I do love to look at landscapes.

If I do indeed go for the 5D, will the price drop some more before the next version of the 5D comes out? I'm also assuming 5Ds won't disappear once it's successor comes out but that it will still be around at an even better price?

Thanks so much for your comments,
Karen

FearlessFoto wrote in post #3867924
Wow, step away from the computer for a while to tend to the kids and come back to some great posts. I appreciate everyones thoughts and have read them very carefully. Of course, I'm still undecided, but a few things people have said have leaned me towards the 5D. While I am taking pictures of my son's soccer, and plan to as he grows up, I don't consider myself a sports photographer. I don't browse through sports pictures on the net, but I do love to look at landscapes.

If I do indeed go for the 5D, will the price drop some more before the next version of the 5D comes out? I'm also assuming 5Ds won't disappear once it's successor comes out but that it will still be around at an even better price?

Thanks so much for your comments,
Karen

If you decide to go the 5D route pick up a 1.4x TC. This will help with the soccer shots and since the 5D is great with noise you can simply bump the ISO to account for the loss of 1 stop from the TC.

SuzyView wrote in post #3866695
So, if you buy the 5D and the 24-70, you're talking around $3500. If you get the 40D with 10-22, $2000.

The other $1500 is getting you better IQ at high ISO. Also you won't get stuck with special EFS lens when you upgrade to FF later on. So the 5D setup is the winner.

I know I will get beat up for this, but have you thought about selling your 24-70 L for a 17-55 IS? The 17-55 is a great lens on a crop body, and has kept me from wanting any full frame. The 10-22 is really an ultra-wide, not usually great for general landscapes, while the 17-55 is excellent for landscapes IMO.
Personally, I've embraced the EF-S product in general - if you are used to it you may want to consider this option.

jedwards wrote in post #3868022
I know I will get beat up for this, but have you thought about selling your 24-70 L for a 17-55 IS? .

But I love my 24-70........ I just couldn't..........

Thank you for helping me come up with all my options. I appreciate it.

Karen

FearlessFoto wrote in post #3866831
Since I'm beyone the club days of my life, lets say I'm shooting my kids under the Christmas tree in a small room. If I have a 10-22 on a 40D, they may end up with big noses? But if I had an equivalent lens on a 5D they would look normal?

Thanks,
Karen

Focal length does not determine perspective. Camera to subject distance determines perspective. If in the case above if the cameras are side by side, the subjects would look the same. Consider all those P&S's where the short end of the zoom is only 6 or 7 mm. (28 mm. equivalent). Heard any complaints of distortion?

RedHot wrote in post #3867627
Again, a weird mindset. The idea of using a lens because it's expensive instead of getting one that costs 40% less that would open a new creativity to your work is hard for me to fathom.

That's like buying a nice expensive pair of shoes that do well walking on asphalt, concrete, and gravel. You'd like to walk where there aren't paved or graded trails and you could buy a different pair of shoes that cost less than the ones you are wearing. But you don't want to since you paid a lot for your shoes.

Lenses are tools for getting the shots you want.

Not at all, but my general experience is that Canon lenses have better AF accuracy & its just the whole 24-105L lens gives a far better walkaround lens.

It may have come across in typing as strange, but basically im saying that if I had a 12-24 I would probably use that for landscapes, why then have I spent so much on a 24-105L? well mainly because its build quality is far better & its a much more versatile lens, the IS has come in very handy when I was photographing inside a dim church a few weeks back, sure the 12-24 would have got more in the shot BUT I wouldnt have actually managed to get the shot without IS in the first place.

Its all these things that are stopping me from purchasing a 12-24 lens, also like I said I achieve the same effect by way of stitching multiple images, which is something that is suprisingly quick & easy to do out in the field, with a final image of 40mp+ I tend to feel that buying a 12-24 wouldnt be essential, its nice to get it all in with just the one shot, but the final prints from the larger mp images are exceptional.

So maybe now you can see why I think it would really be doubling up on what I already have? because im able to achieve the same effect with my 24-105L, just not in the one shot, obviously this only works for landscapes & architecture, if I had a 12-24 im sure I would love getting so much in just one shot, but the way I do it I have plenty of mp's to play with & I dont have to cart around yet another lens.