Camera choices - like buying a new car?

I ummed and ahhhed about either getting the 24-105 f4 IS or the 24-70 f2.8

really, it's a no brainer...fast glass always comes out on top.

I guess the 24-105 mm f4 is better suited for a crop sensor camera than a full sensor... i know that in the 2 years I have been waiting on which FF sensor camera to go for, I have invested in the very fasted possible glass with an EF fit.

bluefox9er wrote in post #6571210
I ummed and ahhhed about either getting the 24-105 f4 IS or the 24-70 f2.8

really, it's a no brainer...fast glass always comes out on top.

I guess the 24-105 mm f4 is better suited for a crop sensor camera than a full sensor... i know that in the 2 years I have been waiting on which FF sensor camera to go for, I have invested in the very fasted possible glass with an EF fit.

Yeah, I'm sticking hard to the EF only mount for that very reason.

I'm starting to wonder if perhaps any of the vendors such as B&H will offer an alternate package of the 5D with the 24-70 2.8L instead of the 4.0? It might draw some tremendous interest. I'm sure the price wouldn't be exactly the same, but if they were to "bundle" them with a break, they might get many folks to their store. I don't know what Canon would think about that move, though. I have no idea how much influence Canon has over their outlets.

I too have been debating between the 50D and the 5D2. The ~$1400 I'd save on the body would give me some extra cash for spending on glass (like upgrading from the 70-200 f/4L to the f/2.8L IS or buying the 100-400L). Unfortunately, knowing myself, I'll probably end up getting the 5D2 AND buying the glass...

Last year I also debated between the 24-70 and the 24-105. I ended up going with "the brick" because of the faster glass and also because I already had the 70-105mm focal range covered with my telephoto zoom.

Get the 24-105, don;'let people who shoot mostly indoors or at low light events, like wedding photographers, confuse you. You stated that you would shoot mostly landscapes and scenics - that means small apertures and the least aperture you will use in those situations is the f/2.8. The 24-70 has no IS, is heavier and has less reach. The IS is a life saver in the field, esp. if you shoot static objects, like you do. If you are still in doubt, go to a store and ask to handle both lenses!

5Dmaniac wrote in post #6577643
Get the 24-105, don;'let people who shoot mostly indoors or at low light events, like wedding photographers, confuse you. You stated that you would shoot mostly landscapes and scenics - that means small apertures and the least aperture you will use in those situations is the f/2.8. The 24-70 has no IS, is heavier and has less reach. The IS is a life saver in the field, esp. if you shoot static objects, like you do. If you are still in doubt, go to a store and ask to handle both lenses!

Thanks . . . another good input. I can see that everyone has their favorite stuff, and for all their own reasons . . . all good reasons for their particular circumstances.

Still no inputs on the RAW1 and RAW2 questions, and the number of pixels per square mm assumptions. Anyone??

If cost is a factor...

I would much rather carry two 1.6x (I use a 30D and a 40D) cameras than one full frame camera.

I can use two great lenses on my 1.6x cameras (17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS) which give me instant access to the enormous zoom range of 17-200mm (about 28mm to 320mm equivalent) and with IS throughout the range and a constant f/2.8 sperture in the 17-55mm range.

However, the greatest plus is the insurance that you won't be left out on a limb if one camera goes down.

Speaking of landscape cameras. The full frame 5D is probably a better choice for landscaes (although I do very well with my setup) however, carrying a single camera proposes problems.

I fell when climbing a slippery slope on the first day of a 10 day (once in a lifetime for me) trip to Alaska's Kenai Peninsula. I broke my 40D on that fall (although the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens came through unscathed).

If I had been shooting with a single 5D camera, I would have had two choices:

Waste a day and travel back up to Anchorage and buy another camera at Alaska's very high prices OR forego photography on that very interesting and photogenic trip.

My 30D saved the day and I was able to continue shooting. I can guarantee that a second 1.6x camera can beat the results of a single broken 5D any day.

Regarding RAW1 and RAW2: at the price of memory these days, I would not want to limit myself by shooting the smaller raw format. If I need smaller images (like for illustrating eBay products) I simply go to JPEG.

RPCrowe wrote in post #6577910
I would much rather carry two 1.6x (I use a 30D and a 40D) cameras than one full frame camera.

I can use two great lenses on my 1.6x cameras (17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS) which give me instant access to the enormous zoom range of 17-200mm (about 28mm to 320mm equivalent) and with IS throughout the range and a constant f/2.8 sperture in the 17-55mm range.

However, the greatest plus is the insurance that you won't be left out on a limb if one camera goes down.

Speaking of landscape cameras. The full frame 5D is probably a better choice for landscaes (although I do very well with my setup) however, carrying a single camera proposes problems.

I fell when climbing a slippery slope on the first day of a 10 day (once in a lifetime for me) trip to Alaska's Kenai Peninsula. I broke my 40D on that fall (although the 70-200mm f/4L IS lens came through unscathed).

If I had been shooting with a single 5D camera, I would have had two choices:

Waste a day and travel back up to Anchorage and buy another camera at Alaska's very high prices OR forego photography on that very interesting and photogenic trip.

My 30D saved the day and I was able to continue shooting. I can guarantee that a second 1.6x camera can beat the results of a single broken 5D any day.

Regarding RAW1 and RAW2: at the price of memory these days, I would not want to limit myself by shooting the smaller raw format. If I need smaller images (like for illustrating eBay products) I simply go to JPEG.

Thanks Master Chief! [Soon to be] retired AF Oh-Six here, hoping to get well equiped as I approach my second career. Since I already have the 350D, that is the small sensor "back up", and may very well carry the extra lens on it.

I still really like the 5D though, mostl for the full frame, but because of its sensor pixel density. As you say, memory is quite inexpensive now-a-days, so I don't worry too much about the higher MP level, although there are plenty of folks who claim that 21.1 MP is overkill. I do like the comment from another thread that Canon should put its efforts into greater dynamic range, and not worry too much about winning the megapixel race . . .

Good hearing from you. My son is at Corpus just starting primary flight. Proud papa here

I can tell you from personal experience with the 5D that bumping the ISO to 1600 yields outstanding results and mitigates the slow aperture of an f/4.0 lens. Even at 4.0, depth of field (particularly close up) is pretty shallow so f2.8 would aggravate that problem if that is what you end up using. If I had to have only one lens, based on how/what I shoot primarily (outdoor daylight scenics, indoor without flash but good window light) the 24-105 is the lens I would have and I'd probably be (mostly) happy with it. Having said that, and not being limited to 1 lens, I have the 35L as the supplement to my other collection for low light needs. Also the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 (which I almost never use).

I have wondered how the pixels are handled in the sRAW1 and sRAW2 settings. I don't have a 5D2 but have tried the sRAW settings on the 50D a little. I was mostly interested in the noise in high ISO images. I have not done a scientific evaluation (I'd rather shoot pictures) because that would require a lot more time than I want to put into it AND I really just wanted to look at the images and see what I thought. I would use the sRaw setting when I wasn't planning on printing large prints (over 8X12) so a very large number of recorded pixels isn't required. In the comparison pictures I shot I actually think that the noise level is lower (or at least less objectionable) in sRAW. It should be if the pixels are processed by the camera in a proper manner, and lower resolution images usually don't show as much noise. I processed in ACR and DPP and down resolutioned the large RAW image for comparison. With either software I liked the sRAW images better with respect to lower noise - that was just my eyes - not pixel peeping. I haven't decided if I will really use it that much, because I have a 1D3 which I use for low light shoots, but in a pinch I think I would give it a try. Hope this helps and good luck. By the way the high pixel density sensor in the 50D really requires good glass to get best high rez images.