If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading from 300D - to 40D or 5D??
Hey, folks.
I'm an increasingly avid amateur, who's pretty much outgrown his Canon 300D. I'm currently waiting (as are many) for the 40D, as it'd be a nice step up. But then I look at the specs on the 5D, and think that (if I can pony up the ca$h), it might be the way to go. I really don't want to think about waiting for the eventual replacement of the 5D - I'm getting right sick of the waiting game. Anyway. I must admit that I really don't 'get' the FullFrame versus 1.6 crop distinction - pixels are pixels, are they not? What I'm really looking for is a straight-up, practical comparison between FF and 1.6, so that I can appreciate how much of a difference the technology switch would actually make for me, and the kinds of shots I generally go for (portraits, macro, some nature shots). I don't do many wide angle shots, and I hear that point mentioned in the context of the FF sensor. Aside from the incompatibility with my EF-S lenses, and the cost, are there any downsides to the 5D over, say, the 30D/40D? Thanks!! BD |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading from 300D - to 40D or 5D??
Based on your post, I would go for a 20D/30D/40D and spend the money on
decent lenses. "BD" wrote in message ups.com... Hey, folks. I'm an increasingly avid amateur, who's pretty much outgrown his Canon 300D. I'm currently waiting (as are many) for the 40D, as it'd be a nice step up. But then I look at the specs on the 5D, and think that (if I can pony up the ca$h), it might be the way to go. I really don't want to think about waiting for the eventual replacement of the 5D - I'm getting right sick of the waiting game. Anyway. I must admit that I really don't 'get' the FullFrame versus 1.6 crop distinction - pixels are pixels, are they not? What I'm really looking for is a straight-up, practical comparison between FF and 1.6, so that I can appreciate how much of a difference the technology switch would actually make for me, and the kinds of shots I generally go for (portraits, macro, some nature shots). I don't do many wide angle shots, and I hear that point mentioned in the context of the FF sensor. Aside from the incompatibility with my EF-S lenses, and the cost, are there any downsides to the 5D over, say, the 30D/40D? Thanks!! BD |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading from 300D - to 40D or 5D??
"BD" wrote in message ups.com... Hey, folks. I'm an increasingly avid amateur, who's pretty much outgrown his Canon 300D. I'm currently waiting (as are many) for the 40D, as it'd be a nice step up. But then I look at the specs on the 5D, and think that (if I can pony up the ca$h), it might be the way to go. I really don't want to think about waiting for the eventual replacement of the 5D - I'm getting right sick of the waiting game. Anyway. I must admit that I really don't 'get' the FullFrame versus 1.6 crop distinction - pixels are pixels, are they not? What I'm really looking for is a straight-up, practical comparison between FF and 1.6, so that I can appreciate how much of a difference the technology switch would actually make for me, and the kinds of shots I generally go for (portraits, macro, some nature shots). I don't do many wide angle shots, and I hear that point mentioned in the context of the FF sensor. Aside from the incompatibility with my EF-S lenses, and the cost, are there any downsides to the 5D over, say, the 30D/40D? Thanks!! BD The only thing I noticed in your posting that you need to be aware of regarding FF and 1.6 is the kind of portrait shooting you do and if you are one who likes to limit depth of field. If you shoot outdoors, no problem, either will work just fine for you. If you shoot in confined spaces indoors, then the 1.6 presents a double whammy: 1) the crop factor makes it seem like your focal length is being multiplied (it isn't, but for working distance purposes it acts like it is); and 2) if you compensate for that by using a shorter focal length lens, then you find that shorter focal lengths give you greater depth of field at any given aperture...not at all what you want. If you aren't affected by this in your portrait shooting, by all means get the 1.6. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading from 300D - to 40D or 5D??
"Frank" wrote in message
... Based on your post, I would go for a 20D/30D/40D and spend the money on decent lenses. "BD" wrote in message ups.com... Hey, folks. I'm an increasingly avid amateur, who's pretty much outgrown his Canon 300D. I'm currently waiting (as are many) for the 40D, as it'd be a nice step up. But then I look at the specs on the 5D, and think that (if I can pony up the ca$h), it might be the way to go. I really don't want to think about waiting for the eventual replacement of the 5D - I'm getting right sick of the waiting game. Anyway. I must admit that I really don't 'get' the FullFrame versus 1.6 crop distinction - pixels are pixels, are they not? What I'm really looking for is a straight-up, practical comparison between FF and 1.6, so that I can appreciate how much of a difference the technology switch would actually make for me, and the kinds of shots I generally go for (portraits, macro, some nature shots). I don't do many wide angle shots, and I hear that point mentioned in the context of the FF sensor. Aside from the incompatibility with my EF-S lenses, and the cost, are there any downsides to the 5D over, say, the 30D/40D? Thanks!! BD I'll offer the "bulk and weight" consideration. I take photos of birds, aircraft and so the 1.6 factor of the 30D would be of benefit to me. If you use wide angle lenses a lot then go for FF. Regards, Ian |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading from 300D - to 40D or 5D??
I agree with your post, but also disagree. Shooting FF portraits at 1.2,
the DOF is just too narrow for most. "george" wrote in message ... The only thing I noticed in your posting that you need to be aware of regarding FF and 1.6 is the kind of portrait shooting you do and if you are one who likes to limit depth of field. If you shoot outdoors, no problem, either will work just fine for you. If you shoot in confined spaces indoors, then the 1.6 presents a double whammy: 1) the crop factor makes it seem like your focal length is being multiplied (it isn't, but for working distance purposes it acts like it is); and 2) if you compensate for that by using a shorter focal length lens, then you find that shorter focal lengths give you greater depth of field at any given aperture...not at all what you want. If you aren't affected by this in your portrait shooting, by all means get the 1.6. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading from 300D - to 40D or 5D??
What I'm really looking for is a straight-up, practical comparison between FF and 1.6, so that I can appreciate how much of a difference the technology switch would actually make for me, and the kinds of shots I generally go for (portraits, macro, some nature shots). I don't do many wide angle shots, and I hear that point mentioned in the context of the FF sensor. The larger sensor will have larger photon sites and thus less noise and better dynamic range. Might be an issue for your work and might not. How often do you crank up the ISO? Do you shoot RAW? Aside from the incompatibility with my EF-S lenses, and the cost, are there any downsides to the 5D over, say, the 30D/40D? Size, weight and cost are the biggest issues for most. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading from 300D - to 40D or 5D??
BD wrote in news:1182788366.411427.58160
@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com: Aside from the incompatibility with my EF-S lenses, and the cost, are there any downsides to the 5D over, say, the 30D/40D? Can't speak of the 40D, as we don't know if a camera by that number will ever exist, and even if it does, what its specs will be, but the 5D is basically a 30D with more pixels, bigger pixels, and of course, a bigger total sensor area. The 5D will have less spatial subject resolution with the same lens, shot from the same distance. That's because the pixels are spaced further apart. If you crop a 5D image to the same size as it would be with a 30D and the same lens, distance, and subject, the 5D image will be more pixelated and more noisy. It also will rely on the sometimes dodgy focal plane edge areas of some lenses, where the optical quality drops of rapidly in the edges and corners. On the positive side, the 5D has a bigger sensor, so when you do use the entire frame, and use a quality lens to fill the bigger frame with your subject, you will have more detail from the extra pixels, and less total image noise, as the pixel noise characteristics are almost identical to the 30D, but there are more of them, yielding a finer grain for the entire image. -- John P Sheehy |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading from 300D - to 40D or 5D??
"Fred Anonymous" wrote in
: I take photos of birds, aircraft and so the 1.6 factor of the 30D would be of benefit to me. I sort of agree (all my DSLRs are 1.6-crop cameras, even though I could easily afford a 5D), but I think the only reason the 30D is better for small or distant subjects is because the limit is often the optics, and the 5D has bigger pixels, capturing less subject detail (but a bigger FOV) with the same lens. If a FF camera had a pixel pitch finer than the 30D's, then it would have more so-called "reach", because it would gather more subject detail, and it would allow you to see a larger FOV at the same time, making it easier to track moving subjects and crop as necessary. -- John P Sheehy |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading from 300D - to 40D or 5D??
"Charles" wrote in
: The larger sensor will have larger photon sites and thus less noise and better dynamic range. The 5D's pixels are very similar to the 30D's in every way except that they *can* capture more photons, and are spaced farther apart. They actually capture the same number of photons at the same ISO, despite the bigger pixels. Read noise is about the same as the 30D at the pixel level as well, for the standard ISOs (100/200/400/800/1600). The 5D can give better images simply because it has more pixels, and also because since they are spaced further apart, they are less demanding on the lens for pixel-to- pixel sharpess. -- John P Sheehy |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Upgrading from 300D - to 40D or 5D??
"Frank" wrote in message ... I agree with your post, but also disagree. Shooting FF portraits at 1.2, the DOF is just too narrow for most. I didn't say anything about shooting at any specific f-stop. Also, you've got to remember that as the focal length gets shorter, any given f-stop gives more depth of field. For instance, I have an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye with no focusing ring...virtually everything is in focus. Take that same f/3.5 aperture over to a 300mm telephoto and you'll have to focus carefully to keep an entire object in focus. Remember Alpa used to have a 1.9mm spherical fisheye lens...I'd suppose that if it were f/1.2, it wouldn't need to be focused either. But, for practical situations, I would have to agree with your assessment. "george" wrote in message ... The only thing I noticed in your posting that you need to be aware of regarding FF and 1.6 is the kind of portrait shooting you do and if you are one who likes to limit depth of field. If you shoot outdoors, no problem, either will work just fine for you. If you shoot in confined spaces indoors, then the 1.6 presents a double whammy: 1) the crop factor makes it seem like your focal length is being multiplied (it isn't, but for working distance purposes it acts like it is); and 2) if you compensate for that by using a shorter focal length lens, then you find that shorter focal lengths give you greater depth of field at any given aperture...not at all what you want. If you aren't affected by this in your portrait shooting, by all means get the 1.6. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
upgrading from Nikon D-1 | Dave Phillips | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | December 23rd 06 05:18 PM |
Upgrading from F707 - to what? | Lars Forslin | Digital Photography | 6 | December 21st 06 11:38 PM |
Upgrading my printer..... | Pete D | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | July 11th 06 10:19 PM |
Upgrading to digital | Trevor | Digital Photography | 4 | February 13th 06 09:37 PM |
Upgrading...From Canon G2 to...? | me me | Digital Photography | 4 | September 12th 04 11:18 PM |