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

JCH77Yanks wrote in post #3867670
It seems like Nick_C thinks like almost every general manager in pro sports. LOL

Hey whats with this "lets get Nick" all of a sudden? keep your thoughts to yourself as its hardly creative input now is it?

If you don't plan on shooting at high fps then I think the 5D would a better choice... I have a 20d (and plan on getting a 40d) because I shoot a lot of fast moving objects (like small RC cars going 40-60 mph), plus I'm trying to get a job at the local paper doing sports reporting and it helps to have a camera that can shoot high fps.

If you plan on doing mostly landscapes/portraits, with some occasional sports, then the 5D is what you want (in my opinion).

If you plan on doing mostly sports/photo journalism, with occasional landscapes, then the 40D is probably what you want.

Just figure out which type of photography you will be spending the most time doing and go from there. The 5D shoots 3 fps which should be enough for your kids soccer games.

JoshBowers wrote in post #3868350
If you don't plan on shooting at high fps then I think the 5D would a better choice... I have a 20d (and plan on getting a 40d) because I shoot a lot of fast moving objects (like small RC cars going 40-60 mph), plus I'm trying to get a job at the local paper doing sports reporting and it helps to have a camera that can shoot high fps.

If you plan on doing mostly landscapes/portraits, with some occasional sports, then the 5D is what you want (in my opinion).

If you plan on doing mostly sports/photo journalism, with occasional landscapes, then the 40D is probably what you want.

Just figure out which type of photography you will be spending the most time doing and go from there. The 5D shoots 3 fps which should be enough for your kids soccer games.

Couldnt agree more!

Nick_C wrote in post #3868341
Hey whats with this "lets get Nick" all of a sudden? keep your thoughts to yourself as its hardly creative input now is it?

Just being light-hearted, no malice intended.

JCH77Yanks wrote in post #3868523
Just being light-hearted, no malice intended.

Fair enough, I can take a joke but this came across a little off to me.

Huh? The 10-22 on APS-C is for all intents and purposes the same as the 17-40 on 35mm. You can create pretty easily similar all zoom setups for both:

APS-C format
EF-S 10-22, EF-S 17-55 and EF 70-X00 (you choose)
35mm format
EF 17-40, EF 24-70 and EF 70-X00 (you choose)

If you like a fast normal prime you get the 50 f/1.4 on the 35mm format or the 28 f/1.8 on the APS-C. If you want a portrait lens you get the 50 f/1.4 on the APS-C or the 85 f/1.8 on the 35mm format.

The difference is, the 35mm format kit is going to be more expensive, be a little bigger and heavier (mainly due to the 24-70 "brick" and the 5D, and the 35mm kit will deliver better high ISO peformance, shallower DOF and less reach with the telephoto zoom.

I think for all but the most dedicated amatures (or well to do ones) the APS-C systems tend to make more sense in the cost / performance arena. But if cost is no object then get the 5D and if you really need reach get a 400 prime or the 100-400 zoom.

Simple.

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

Best time is around now'ish to buy the 5D, before the mk2 comes out which will no doubt be back up at full price, its hard to tell if they will keep both cameras running, they have with the 350D/400D bodies, but in this pro sector they may scrap the 5D altogether to avoid people simply buying that instead, nobody knows yet.

We can all argue the pro's & cons of both systems but I really suggest you actually TRY out a 5D if you can in the store, I know now that ive gone over to FF I wont be going back, you will also love the low noise of the 5D which its famous for, looking at the new 40D I dont see much (if any) real improvements over the 30D, its basically just Canon having to keep up with the Jones's, 10mp was obviously needed to keep an ageing 30D up to date, its an update all the same & so you would be mad to go for a 30D unless its a really good price

For the record I have owned both cameras, ive used a 30D & always thought its viewfinder was dark & small & noise figures didnt seem that much different to my 350D, IQ was identical, the 40D may have some refinements & new bells & whistles but its not enough of an upgrade (for me) although it is for some, there is nothing wrong with 30/40D, but as I said, see if you can try a 5D, my first impression was that it made the 30D I was using at the time seem like a toy <-- ok that might be too much but hey! thats what I thought to myself at the time, its just in another league entirely.

I had a 20D when I bought my 5D, kept both cameras.
I sold my 10-22 and bought a 17-40L instead to use the 5D for WA shots.

Actually I was dissapointed with the result, the 10-22 on the 20D gave me very low distorsion while the 17-40 on the 5D gave a lot of barrel distorsion and more vignetting, both of them a bit soft towards the edges. I tried the new 16-35L 2,8 II but that too gave vignetting and distorsion.

My best landscape and architecutral WA pics was with the 10-22 and I consider getting one again now that I switch the 20D for a 40D.

RedHot wrote in post #3867371
I have the Sigma 12-24 and a tamron 28-75 for my 5D and I use the Tamron much more than the Sigma. The Sigma can't take a circular polarizer and many times it is too wide.

I'll let you know on that front by the end of the week... The sigma CAN use Xokin X-pro filters, but it's holding them to the lens that's the issue. I've ordered the universal adapter which will be here today and I'll see how that works. I also have the cokin CP coming today and will write it up once I've tested it. The one issue regardless is with a 12mm effective FL a CP is going to do very strange things to the sky anyway, but I'll at least prove it either way if it will work with filters (I desperately want GNDs to work!).

JCH77Yanks wrote in post #3867539
You would cut down on the number of lenses you would need to lug around.

That's not really true.
With a cropped body, the 10~22mm, 24~70mm and 70~200mm covers effectively 16~300mm. That's a pretty good range. With a 5D you can get a 12~24mm, 24~70mm and 70~200mm and it covers 12~200mm effective... You lose the long end but gain in the wide end. I also have a TC with my setup, but that same TC works on the cropped body too, so it's not worth factoring in... IMHO it comes down to what you shoot and how bad you need the wickedly wide end (but if you're not using a 15mm fish 14mm canon or the 12~24mmmm sigma on the 5D you can get the same effect on the cropped bodies). If you're happy with a 16~35mm or 17~40mm on the 5D, the 10~22mm gets you the same view for less money and your long lenses are longer...

So then it comes down to MP and IQ. I think everyone will agree there is something special about the 5D. I'd say it's better than the 30D and even the 1DmII IMHO... But the new 14bit sensors seem to be giving it a run for it's money, so the 1DmIII and 40D are candidates if you don't need FF or 13mp... If I was starting from scratch right now it would be a very tough call between the 40D and more money for glass and the 5D with a smaller glass budget. I love where I'm at though, and I love the 12mm on FF with my sigma.

JoshBowers wrote in post #3867888
Wonder if the next 5D will be able to shoot 6 frames a second? Wouldn't that be wonderful.

I'm betting it will be 4fps in the mII... The 1DsmII was 4fps to the 5D's 3fps. The 1DsmIII is now 5fps, so the 5DmII will most likely be 4fps. The D3 does introduce some competition in that field IMHO so they may try to bump it up, but I doubt they'll go faster than the 1DsmIII otherwise they will be taking customers from their top of the line camera. The odds are the 5DmII will be 16mp, 4fps, 14bit and all the other goodies that are going into the new versions.

FearlessFoto wrote in post #3867924
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?

Odds are the 5D will stay pretty close to this price retail. There could be a rebate that comes along right around the 5DmII. The used price will probably go down as we get closer to the 5DmII due to more people selling in anticipation to the new body. I'd bet the 5DmII retails for $3299 (the MSRP for the original) when it comes out.

Ben

JoshBowers wrote in post #3867281
Hopefully the full frame cameras come down in price soon (The new Nikon keeps looking better... FF for under 2K)

WHAT? WHERE?

BugEyes wrote in post #3871560
I had a 20D when I bought my 5D, kept both cameras.
I sold my 10-22 and bought a 17-40L instead to use the 5D for WA shots.

Actually I was dissapointed with the result, the 10-22 on the 20D gave me very low distorsion while the 17-40 on the 5D gave a lot of barrel distorsion and more vignetting, both of them a bit soft towards the edges. I tried the new 16-35L 2,8 II but that too gave vignetting and distorsion.

My best landscape and architecutral WA pics was with the 10-22 and I consider getting one again now that I switch the 20D for a 40D.

Barrel distortion is less on the 10-22, but im suprised you had higher vignetting, considering the 17-40 is around 0.55ev wideopen & the 10-22 is at a whopping 1.29ev wideopen.

Although vignetting is one problem that is so easily corrected, where as corner softness is something the 17-40 should have beat the 10-22 on, its borders are at 1872 f/8.0 where the 10-22 is only 1576 f/8.0 which is pretty soft.

SuzyView wrote in post #3866695
So, if you buy the 5D and the 24-70, you're talking around $3500.

Not if you buy them a couple weeks apart, like I did <grin>
(I didn't need to read that ... LOL)

johneo wrote in post #3874145
Not if you buy them a couple weeks apart, like I did <grin>
(I didn't need to read that ... LOL)

Well, yes, it is possible to pay more . . .

JeffreyG wrote in post #3869025
Huh? The 10-22 on APS-C is for all intents and purposes the same as the 17-40 on 35mm. You can create pretty easily similar all zoom setups for both:
Simple.

Sorry but the 10-22 gives a FOV of 16-35, not 17-40. So the 10-22 mimmicks the 16-35 lens. The 17-40 is just a cheaper alternative to buy than the 16-35 II

I guess to me the f/3.5-4.5 is a lot closer to a constant f/4 lens than to a constant f/2.8

The 10-22 is a good landscape lens on APS-C, and the 17-40 is a good landscape lens on 35mm format.

In my mind the one stop advantage of the 16-35 means that it is designed to be able to do other things, like UWA low light indoor work.

If all you plan to do is shoot UWA outdoor scenes stopped down to f/8 or f/11, the 10-22 or 17-40 is the lens for you. The 16-35 costs you another $1000 for a stop you don't need.

So, tiny difference in focal length notwithstanding, the 10-22 equivalent is the 17-40. There is no APS-C UWA option at f/2.8 or better, except perhaps the 14L, which is not nearly as wide and crazy expensive.