MBP vs. 40D

[JonD25]

Right now, I'm on a 17" Core Duo iMac and I shoot with a Canon Rebel XT. I'm starting to get a lot more serious about this photography thing. Let's say I have a little over $2000 in my budget. The question is, should I get a Macbook Pro or should I upgrade to a Canon 40D and settle with a Macbook? I'm wanting a laptop so that I can be more portable, especially so I can work on photos while on trips and stuff. I use Aperture 2 and Photoshop CS3 for my editing. The problem is, the Macbook is obviously not ideal for photo editing given the inferior GPU and smaller, glossy screen. The MBP certainly isn't ideal either from what I've heard about the screen in it, but it's definitely better than the MB. Other than that, I don't think I really need a laptop for much else other than internet/email on the go. And with the new Canon rebates, a 40D would be mighty useful to me, as I'm beginning to run into the limitations of the aging XT, and a backup at shoots is always a good idea.

So, any thoughts?

[Everythingisnt]

Are you serious? That comparison makes no sense at all.


And for one thing, photo editing on a Macbook should be fine. The CPU (not GPU) can easily handle most aperture-related tasks, unless you're doing heavy editing in PS.

I would get the 40D, as you will not be disappointed and as far as image quality goes it's much better then the MBP's in-built camera :rolleyes:.

[termina3]

Are you a professional photographer?

Which would you use more? Which do you want more? To what degree are you a photographer–daily shoots, once a week, monthly, etc?

This is a call we can't make for you. Hopefully we can pose the right questions though.

[JonD25]

Are you serious? That comparison makes no sense at all.


And for one thing, photo editing on a Macbook should be fine. The CPU (not GPU) can easily handle most aperture-related tasks, unless you're doing heavy editing in PS.

I would get the 40D, as you will not be disappointed and as far as image quality goes it's much better then the MBP's in-built camera :rolleyes:.

Are you serious? I hope not. It's obviously not a comparison of the two, but a "which one should I get with the money I got".

Are you a professional photographer?

Which would you use more? Which do you want more? To what degree are you a photographer–daily shoots, once a week, monthly, etc?

This is a call we can't make for you. Hopefully we can pose the right questions though.

Depends on how you define "professional". I get paid for my photography, yes. So the basic definition would place me as a professional. But if it implies a certain level of expertise and skill, I'd probably say I'm not quite there yet. At the moment, the amount of shoots I get are pretty irregular. I got a ton of them within the span of a week last month, and I've been playing catch up since, so I haven't really tried to get any more.

Those are hard questions for me to answer, which is why I'm asking for advice. On the one hand, I already have an iMac which runs fine (though beginning to show its age a little), and I'm not too sure how much I really need a laptop. However, getting a MBP would make it a much more powerful computer than the one I have now, making it a worthy upgrade for any future use. On the other hand, I already have a Rebel XT, which though it isn't a professional level camera, I've been getting pretty good results from it the past year I've owned it, and the types of shoots that usually almost necessitate a backup camera (i.e. weddings) are the types of shoots I don't see myself doing a lot of (though I do see myself doing some). But like with the iMac/MBP scenario, the 40D is a much better camera than the XT, and a worthy upgrade for any future I might have in photography.

As you can see, long term, both seem about 50/50. The thing is, for immediate purposes, I could really use both. I have a wedding shoot in Portugal in July. A better camera like the 40D and having my XT as a backup would help a lot at the actual wedding. But I'm also planning on staying in Ireland for a week after the wedding, and the B&G asked for about 10 photos to be sent to their mom within a week so she can get them printed out and display them at a separate reception they're having in the States. My budget doesn't allow for me to get both a Macbook Pro AND a 40D, so that's when I thought of getting the Macbook instead. The only thing stopping me is that if getting a Macbook for the purpose of photo editing would even be worth it because of its limitations. So that's why I came here wondering if any Macbook users could possibly chime in on whether it's adequate enough for editing photos that are going to be printed. The purist in me says it's not even worth it since the screen itself is lacking and colors will likely be off (unless someone can tell me if calibrating a glossy screen helps a lot, since I do have a Spyder 3 calibrator). But the poor, compromising part of me says, "Eh, close enough."

[RaceTripper]

If you already have a Mac, and a Canon Rebel, and $2000 budget, why not think seriously about getting some glass. If you serious about the photography and want the biggest bang for the buck, starting a collection of pro quality lenses may be worth considering.

Lat year I spent $2500 on two Nikon lenses (17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR) and it was the most satisfying expense for photography I made.

[Grimace]

Unless you are doing the bulk of your edits on the road, stick with editing on your iMac and do minor work on a MacBook. And if you don't need the Macbook...

I love the 40D but it won't have much of an impact on your image quality -- new glass will. For weddings, have a 50mm f/1.4 ($350) at your disposal -- great glass for a great price.

Back on laptops, the editing (for general touch up work) won't be all that different on the MacBook vs. MBP -- not enough to justify the cost difference alone.

[JonD25]

If you already have a Mac, and a Canon Rebel, and $2000 budget, why not think seriously about getting some glass. If you serious about the photography and want the biggest bang for the buck, starting a collection of pro quality lenses may be worth considering.

Lat year I spent $2500 on two Nikon lenses (17-55/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 VR) and it was the most satisfying expense for photography I made.

Something just feels wrong if I put a $2000 lens on a $500 body. Haha.

I'd love some really nice glass, but I think something I need to consider is having a backup digital body. I've been talking with some others about it, and shooting weddings, especially a wedding that's thousands of miles away that my friends paid good money to get me to, not having a good backup can very easily spell monumental disaster. At this point, I'm thinking of buying a body and renting some good glass, as renting a body is a lot more expensive.

Unless you are doing the bulk of your edits on the road, stick with editing on your iMac and do minor work on a MacBook. And if you don't need the Macbook...

I love the 40D but it won't have much of an impact on your image quality -- new glass will. For weddings, have a 50mm f/1.4 ($350) at your disposal -- great glass for a great price.

Back on laptops, the editing (for general touch up work) won't be all that different on the MacBook vs. MBP -- not enough to justify the cost difference alone.

Yeah, I would definitely stick to the bulk of editing being on my iMac simply because of the bigger, non-glossy screen. But I think being able to do minor work every once in a while on the road would help a lot too. Your comment that the difference between MB and MBP not being enough to justify the cost difference is the kinda thing I was looking to hear. So thanks for that.

I have the 50mm f1.8, which isn't quite the lens the 1.4 is, but it's still served me quite well. At this point, I'm considering either buying a decent, all around lens to replace the crappy stock lens that came with my Rebel and putting that on the 40D, then putting the 50mm on the XT and swap it out with a 75-300mm lens I have as needed. Or if I don't buy another lens, I'm thinking of renting some nice L glass, which is surprisingly inexpensive to rent. This one place I'm looking at has the 24-70mm f2.8L for $185 for 4 weeks with insurance included (and no deposit required).

[Everythingisnt]

Are you serious? I hope not. It's obviously not a comparison of the two, but a "which one should I get with the money I got".


So that's why I came here wondering if any Macbook users could possibly chime in on whether it's adequate enough for editing photos that are going to be printed.


Yes, but even that question is rather irregular and hard to actually answer. You could have been a little easier on me and been more specific, as in "is a macbook good enough for photo editing" or "Is the 40D a significant enough upgrade from the XTI to warrant it, in light of a not-so-unlimited budget"..

In any case, I own a macbook of my own and I can assure you that it is more then enough for photo editing on the go. Currently I have about 5,000 images in my Aperture 1.5 library and it runs like a dream.. (Oddly enough, iPhoto runs much slower).

I can't say the same for Photoshop CS3, but as long as your editing isn't very layer or file intensive, you should be fine.

What I really meant to say is that in terms of pro photography, it's always better to invest in more gear if you can already get by on what you have - as long as it isn't a situation where you won't be able to guarantee results, you'll be better off with better and more accurate gear..


Also it may be a good idea to consider investing in more lenses. Maybe a fast portrait lens and a nice wide-angle (considering you mentioned that you do wedding photography..)..

[JonD25]

Yes, but even that question is rather irregular and hard to actually answer. You could have been a little easier on me and been more specific, as in "is a macbook good enough for photo editing" or "Is the 40D a significant enough upgrade from the XTI to warrant it, in light of a not-so-unlimited budget"..

In any case, I own a macbook of my own and I can assure you that it is more then enough for photo editing on the go. Currently I have about 5,000 images in my Aperture 1.5 library and it runs like a dream.. (Oddly enough, iPhoto runs much slower).

I can't say the same for Photoshop CS3, but as long as your editing isn't very layer or file intensive, you should be fine.

What I really meant to say is that in terms of pro photography, it's always better to invest in more gear if you can already get by on what you have - as long as it isn't a situation where you won't be able to guarantee results, you'll be better off with better and more accurate gear..


Also it may be a good idea to consider investing in more lenses. Maybe a fast portrait lens and a nice wide-angle (considering you mentioned that you do wedding photography..)..

Sorry, I forgot to add the summary, "bottom line" question at the end. I've been asking a lot of people the same general question in a lot of different places, so explaining my situation over and over, I didn't realize I hadn't actually gotten to the bottom line by the end of that post.

Oh, and just to clarify, I have the XT, not the XTi. So, the jump to the 40D is a bit larger.

[Grimace]

Don't get the 75-300mm or even the 70-300mm. An equally priced 70-200mm f/4 will provide far better images.

[JonD25]

Don't get the 75-300mm or even the 70-300mm. An equally priced 70-200mm f/4 will provide far better images.

Too late for that. I already own it ;)

Not my favorite lens, especially the 4-5.6 aperture, but it gets the job done in some situations. I'm not sure ebay-ing it would even be worth it. I wish I knew what know now about lenses when I first got it. Oh well, that's life.

[Abstract]

Get a MacBook instead of a MBP. What's the difference in your case? All laptop screens are only capable of 6-bits of each colour anyway (rather than 8-bit), while the other colours in between "steps" is interpolated. You're not getting the best screen for the job anyway, so get a MacBook, external LCD with S-IPS LCD panel (Dell 20", perhaps?), and buy the Canon 40D. Sell the iMac.

[JNB]

Something just feels wrong if I put a $2000 lens on a $500 body. Haha.

And with an $1100 body (the 40d), you'll still end up with several times more than that in glass, if you're really serious about it. The least valuable part of my kit is the body. I'd feel bad if it dropped in a sewer, but I'd go ballistic if I dropped, say, my L glass there. Bodies are fairly disposable, really, but glass can be for life (or near enough).

Your iMac is plenty enough for a good while, and the XT is capable of handling most anything you can imagine until it dies. Get yourself at least one nice piece of glass suited for your preferred type of shoot, or something that will complement what you already have. Look at other accessories you don't have yet, or do, but are low-end.

A 16-35 f/2.8 L is great for a lot of portraiture, landscape, and architectural work (while not necessarily the best at any one, it's still a great short zoom). Say $1350. You still have $650 for goodies, or maybe a 70-200 f/4 L. Right at your budget, and expands your capabilities by a mile. Once again, look at the type of work you want to do, and choose appropriately.

So, to summarize, keep the iMac, keep the XT, get glass (and some extra CF cards).

[AlaskaMoose]

And with an $1100 body (the 40d), you'll still end up with several times more than that in glass, if you're really serious about it. The least valuable part of my kit is the body. I'd feel bad if it dropped in a sewer, but I'd go ballistic if I dropped, say, my L glass there. Bodies are fairly disposable, really, but glass can be for life (or near enough).

Your iMac is plenty enough for a good while, and the XT is capable of handling most anything you can imagine until it dies. Get yourself at least one nice piece of glass suited for your preferred type of shoot, or something that will complement what you already have. Look at other accessories you don't have yet, or do, but are low-end.

A 16-35 f/2.8 L is great for a lot of portraiture, landscape, and architectural work (while not necessarily the best at any one, it's still a great short zoom). Say $1350. You still have $650 for goodies, or maybe a 70-200 f/4 L. Right at your budget, and expands your capabilities by a mile. Once again, look at the type of work you want to do, and choose appropriately.

So, to summarize, keep the iMac, keep the XT, get glass (and some extra CF cards).
The 40D can be had for around $900.00 at B&H, Adorama, Amazon, etc., with the Canon rebate. I am buying one this week, but it's being back-ordered in some places because of the high demand for it.

The rebates place the 5D at slightly under $1,900.00 to those who want FF. I was thinking of upgrading to the 5D, but two of the three lenses I have are for cropped sensors such as the XT-40D, etc.

[66217]

I own a MacBook Core Duo, and it works pretty good with Aperture 2. I find Aperture 2 much faster in my MB than Aperture 1.5. Photoshop CS3 also works quite good.

Obviously the small monitor makes you get tired sometimes, but you could always get a decent external monitor. So, don't spend the extra money in a laptop you don't need.

And as some others had said. First see if you need any new lenses, and then I would suggest saving up for a 40D or maybe even a 5D. If your XT is only a year old, it can surely last you a couple of years more without problem.

[Westside guy]

I have a MacBook Pro, and for most uses the screen is plenty big. But Aperture is a lot more fun on a BIG screen - so I think I'd agree with those folks that have recommended the MacBook and an external monitor. Oh, and be sure to buy a Spyder or some other calibration tool, and calibrate both your laptop screen and the external monitor. :D When you're travelling you'll still be able to use Aperture on the 13" display of the MacBook.

I'd also agree with those people that have suggested you invest in glass before you get a better body, unless you're running into technical limitations with your Rebel (e.g. you really need mirror lockup or some other function the Rebel doesn't provide but the new camera does).

[JonD25]

And with an $1100 body (the 40d), you'll still end up with several times more than that in glass, if you're really serious about it. The least valuable part of my kit is the body. I'd feel bad if it dropped in a sewer, but I'd go ballistic if I dropped, say, my L glass there. Bodies are fairly disposable, really, but glass can be for life (or near enough).

Yeah, I was half joking with that statement. I agree with what you're saying.

Your iMac is plenty enough for a good while, and the XT is capable of handling most anything you can imagine until it dies. Get yourself at least one nice piece of glass suited for your preferred type of shoot, or something that will complement what you already have. Look at other accessories you don't have yet, or do, but are low-end.

A 16-35 f/2.8 L is great for a lot of portraiture, landscape, and architectural work (while not necessarily the best at any one, it's still a great short zoom). Say $1350. You still have $650 for goodies, or maybe a 70-200 f/4 L. Right at your budget, and expands your capabilities by a mile. Once again, look at the type of work you want to do, and choose appropriately.

So, to summarize, keep the iMac, keep the XT, get glass (and some extra CF cards).

What do you think about having a backup body though? Especially for weddings, it seems to be a pretty important thing to have. Seeing as how lenses are a lot cheaper to rent, I was thinking of buying the body and then renting the glass until I could save up more money for the glass.

I'd also agree with those people that have suggested you invest in glass before you get a better body, unless you're running into technical limitations with your Rebel (e.g. you really need mirror lockup or some other function the Rebel doesn't provide but the new camera does).

Well, for low light conditions when I have to crank the ISO on the XT, the results are pretty bad. The 40D, from my understanding, is much better at low light photography. My thinking is probably more dominated by the thought of always having a backup especially in critical moments like at weddings.

[Grimace]

Well, for low light conditions when I have to crank the ISO on the XT, the results are pretty bad. The 40D, from my understanding, is much better at low light photography. My thinking is probably more dominated by the thought of always having a backup especially in critical moments like at weddings.
A slow lens is going to force you to jack the ISO too. Good glass is worth it - especially to your customers.

[MadDoc]

For what it's worth - I would go for more/better glass. It will no doubt outlast both the 40D and a new notebook.

My 2 cents.

MadDoc,

[teleromeo]

Something just feels wrong if I put a $2000 lens on a $500 body. Haha.

There was a time when the quality of the lens and the choice of film was the essence of photography. Nowadays, the quality of the lens is still very important but a lot of things have changed for the rest.

[Abstract]

Well, for low light conditions when I have to crank the ISO on the XT, the results are pretty bad. The 40D, from my understanding, is much better at low light photography.

I don't agree with that at all, but yes, it's good to have a backup body for weddings. In fact, it's probably critical.

The XTi was worse than the XT at noise. I don't remember the XTi in great detail (never handled it for long), but the noise reduction gave it more of a water-colour quality. So the noise was probably low, but the image quality was lower as well. Noise isn't everything, especially not when the photo looks bad due to overzealous noise reduction. The XSi doesn't look any better.

But that's all miniscule stuff. The 40D is a fine camera, as is every DSLR on the market today, really.


I agree that you probably don't NEED to replace your XT, but if you're shooting weddings, it may be a good idea to get another body anyway, so get it.

I don't see the point of getting a new computer, but like I suggested before, there's nothing stopping you from buying the camera and a MacBook.

[JNB]

The 40D can be had for around $900.00 at B&H, Adorama, Amazon, etc., with the Canon rebate.

You just had to tell me that, didn't you. It was easy to say "no" when it was solidly above $1K, but now... ;)

[RaceTripper]

Something just feels wrong if I put a $2000 lens on a $500 body. Haha.

I'd love some really nice glass, but I think something I need to consider is having a backup digital body. I know people who put $6000 lenses on $1400 bodies. So buy another $500 body and use $1500 for a good lens.

INHO, buying a better body and using it with cheaper, slower consumer glass doesn't really improve your situation much, if anything at all.

[JFreak]

Let's just think about this scenario for a minute, okay?

First of all, you have cash and want to spend it. Sure thing, can't go wrong with it. Always possible. But how would you want to prioritize other mutually exclusive items?

Improvement #1: portability. It looks like you have already decided on buying a laptop. Either pro-model or a regular MacBook. Either 100% or 50% of the budget. First question: do you feel satisfied with buying a laptop or do you want to buy something else too?

If laptop is everything that makes you satisfied, then just go buy a MBP, it's a great piece of hardware. But if instead you want to improve your photo-making capabilities, then you need to buy the regular MacBook. It's as simple as that.

Now if you have indeed decided to buy the regular MacBook and have about a thousand dollars to spend, then here's the second question: do you feel satosfied with your current lens lineup or do you want to improve the image quality that is possible to achieve with your gear?

If your lenses feel fine, then just buy more megapixels. You get more than you would have got yesterday, but less than you will get tomorrow. Camera body has finite life span and if it still works it might be best to keep using what you already have. If it's not filled with dust the image quality is not any different than when you bought it in the first place. Keep using it until it breaks, and then it's a no-brainer where to spend the money ;)

Now if you have followed me all the way, you probably can guess what I recommend: spend the money to as good lens as you can afford. Primes are great alternative if you already have a plastic all-around zoom thingy that looks like a lens to most people. If I only could have one lens, it would probably be a 50mm prime. Or the 135mm f/2L in case I'm going to shoot indoor action from a distance. Anyway, lens is the #1 most important piece of gear in terms of image quality and if you want that just get a better lens.

[termina3]

As others have said:

Lens, lens, lens, lens. For a long time I had a 70-200 /2.8 on a D70. At the time that was $2000 glass on a camera valued at ~$500, and I got spectacular results.

Is the laptop really a necessity? You're telling me you won't have access to a computer whatsoever? Even a computer cafe would have sufficient editing to crop the photos and send them off for a temporary display.

And if you have a friend wherever you're staying, then I'd think you're golden. Keep the photos on your cards until you get home.

Or, heck, rent the laptop and buy the glass or body. But that's my opinion.

[66217]

You said that you were not going to be to many weddings right? Then why buy another camera for only this kind of situations? I think it would be probably better just to rent a camera or buy a used XT, just to feel safe that if your came goes bad, you have another one back there.

A Canon 40D isn't going to improve your photography that much. A good lens would definitely help you a lot.

You haven't told us what kind of photography you do the most. Maybe with that information we could help you more and give you more suggestions.:)

As for lenses, do you only have the 50 f/1.8 and the 75-300?

[Zer0]

I would think....

Sell iMac. Buy Macbook + External monitor. Buy a used low end dslr body and then buy lens with what's left, or save whatever is left till you can save up some more for a more expensive lens!

[RaceTripper]

If you're doing weddings I would think you'll need at least one very nice flash. The built-in one probably isn't going to cut it. Figure about $300 for that, give or take.

[ChrisA]

Right now, I'm on a 17" Core Duo iMac and I shoot with a Canon Rebel XT. I'm starting to get a lot more serious about this photography thing. Let's say I have a little over $2000 in my budget. The question is, should I get a Macbook Pro or should I upgrade to a Canon 40D and settle with a Macbook?

What lenses do you have? It these are low-end f/5.6 zooms then I think you'd get more for your money keeping the Rebel XT and spending the money on a lens or two. I doubt a Rebel to 40D upgrade will even show up in the final results. No one looking at a print would know which body you used. However $2,000 spent on optics could open up new areas of photograhy and allow you to take different photos.

As for how to decide about the computer, if it is slowing you down and you want to be able to work faster then put a number on it. How much time is the slow computer costing you? Are you waiting for the machine an hour a day if you add it all up. Or is it 15 minutes a day. Now put a value on your time. Is it $25 and hour or $100? How long will the new computer take to "pay for itself"? I think the answer depends on if you are using Photoshop 6 hours a day or 6 hours a month.

The objective way to think about this is to figure out where to but the money based on how it will effect your portfolio of work that you have to show or sell. I think an SLR body or computer upgrades would have very marginal effect on your end produt while lighting and lens upgrades will have more noticable effect. On top of that lighting and optics tend to hold value for well over a decade while the computer or body will loose value and need to be replaced again in four or five years.

[JonD25]

The guy I work for (at a professional photography studio) made a suggestion that I forget the laptop, borrow lenses from him (a 24-70mm f2.8L and a fisheye), and buy a 5D. His reasoning is that I need to upgrade from the XT anyways, and the 5D will last a while, and I'll be happy with it for a long time. Hmmm... thoughts?

I'll say this again (I think I've already said it a few times), I own a 50mm f1.8 as well as a 75-300mm f4.5.6. The 50mm is what I use the most now for the kinda work I've been doing, so with a new body, I'd probably be using that a lot anyways. And I think it's a fine lens for a while till I can save up (or decide to go into debt) for some L glass.

As for flash, I'm planning on buying a 580EX with whatever extra money I have left over, plus a memory card or two.

[RaceTripper]

The guy I work for (at a professional photography studio) made a suggestion that I forget the laptop, borrow lenses from him (a 24-70mm f2.8L and a fisheye), and buy a 5D. His reasoning is that I need to upgrade from the XT anyways, and the 5D will last a while, and I'll be happy with it for a long time. Hmmm... thoughts?

I'll say this again (I think I've already said it a few times), I own a 50mm f1.8 as well as a 75-300mm f4.5.6. The 50mm is what I use the most now for the kinda work I've been doing, so with a new body, I'd probably be using that a lot anyways. And I think it's a fine lens for a while till I can save up (or decide to go into debt) for some L glass.

As for flash, I'm planning on buying a 580EX with whatever extra money I have left over, plus a memory card or two.I think buying the 5D is bad advice. Getting good glass for yourself is way more important. What if your loan privileges disappear. You'll have a $2K+ camera with $200 lenses? That's will be a serious waste of resources. WHile the 5D will serve you well for a while, so will the 40D. But good lenses can serve you for decades if well cared for.

I think the consensus is pretty much your photography will advance more if you use your funds for good glass.

[66217]

I think buying the 5D is bad advice.

Seconded. You will obviously need to upgrade from your XT sometime in the future, but if it is only one year old, then why the need of a new camera right away? The 5D would give you the same photos you get with the XT with your current lenses. It's nice to have a good body like the one of the 5D, but it is not a necessity.

Not buying a laptop right now may be a good idea, unless you feel you really need it.

Buy a good flash, then buy a good lens. And then in 2-3 years, when your XT is old, buy a new body.

[JonD25]

I think people are forgetting that I'm shooting a wedding in Portugal. I don't feel comfortable taking only my XT, especially when my friends paid a lot of money for me to get there (I didn't have to pay a dime out of my pocket for transportation). I need some solid backup in case something goes wrong. And renting a body I'm completely unfamiliar with seems like a bad idea too.

The 5D may be overkill, but I do plan on doing this for a while. And with the $300 discount on the 5D or the $200 discount on the 40D they have going now, it's just really hard to pass up when it's something I do need. I still get great glass from the guy I work for for free, and I can then start saving up for some of my own better glass, in the meantime renting some (which is much cheaper than renting a body) whenever I really need it. I dunno, that just doesn't seem like a bad idea to me, since having to rent a body every time I need one seems like it might be more expensive in the long run.

I don't mean for it to sound like I've made up my mind and don't care what you guys think. I just need to reason my way through this, and I do appreciate your help. I think if I wasn't in need of a second body, I'd be much more likely to agree full heartedly with you. But since I do need another body, renting it for as long as I need it and taking it to another continent might be difficult and expensive, and buying a cheap used body seems like a waste.

[glennyboiwpg]

I think people are forgetting that I'm shooting a wedding in Portugal. I don't feel comfortable taking only my XT, especially when my friends paid a lot of money for me to get there (I didn't have to pay a dime out of my pocket for transportation). I need some solid backup in case something goes wrong. And renting a body I'm completely unfamiliar with seems like a bad idea too.

The 5D may be overkill, but I do plan on doing this for a while. And with the $300 discount on the 5D or the $200 discount on the 40D they have going now, it's just really hard to pass up when it's something I do need. I still get great glass from the guy I work for for free, and I can then start saving up for some of my own better glass, in the meantime renting some (which is much cheaper than renting a body) whenever I really need it. I dunno, that just doesn't seem like a bad idea to me, since having to rent a body every time I need one seems like it might be more expensive in the long run.


I think you answered your own question... If you feel that you really should have a backup, then that would imply that buying the camera would be the better choice.

One thing to consider... if you feel that your macbook is giving you poor performance, maybe all you need is to up the ram.

So up the ram, and buy a good camera body.

Thats my vote.

[JonD25]

I think you answered your own question... If you feel that you really should have a backup, then that would imply that buying the camera would be the better choice.

One thing to consider... if you feel that your macbook is giving you poor performance, maybe all you need is to up the ram.

So up the ram, buy Good Glass, and buy a used camera body.

Thats my vote.

Well, I have an iMac now, not a Macbook, but yeah, the RAM is maxed out right now. Unfortunately the CD iMac maxed out at 2GB instead of 4GB. Oh well, it doesnt run too bad at all actually. So a new computer is a lot lower on my priority list now. But thanks for the advice.

[Phrasikleia]

If you really want a new camera body for the sheer gizmo fun factor, then go for it, but your argument that the wedding in Portugal somehow demands it just doesn't fly. You'll be doing your friends in Portugal a much greater favor by showing up with lenses that can capture photos that you couldn't capture otherwise. And if you own those lenses, you'll always have them immediately available.

If you really want a back-up body for this wedding, perhaps your buddy with the lenses could loan you one; alternatively you could pick up a used camera body for a few hundred bucks to give you some peace of mind.

The chances that you'll need to use a back-up camera body are pretty slim. The possibility that you'll need a good assortment of lenses is guaranteed. The latter is really the best investment.

[nburwell]

If those are your only two choices, and like you said, you're getting serious about photography, then the 40D would be the choice. A MB would be more than capable of handling your processing needs. With the Canon instant rebates, you're looking at around $920 give or take for the 40D body. I don't know if you would sell your XT or not. You're getting better AF (which is really important) in addition to higher FPS and live-view. If you really want at MBP, get the 40D for say $950, sell the XT for about $300-350. That will live you with roughly $1,300 (give or take). You can always purchase a refurb'd MBP on apple.com for $1,650.

[JonD25]

If you really want a new camera body for the sheer gizmo fun factor, then go for it, but your argument that the wedding in Portugal somehow demands it just doesn't fly. You'll be doing your friends in Portugal a much greater favor by showing up with lenses that can capture photos that you couldn't capture otherwise. And if you own those lenses, you'll always have them immediately available.

If you really want a back-up body for this wedding, perhaps your buddy with the lenses could loan you one; alternatively you could pick up a used camera body for a few hundred bucks to give you some peace of mind.

The chances that you'll need to use a back-up camera body are pretty slim. The possibility that you'll need a good assortment of lenses is guaranteed. The latter is really the best investment.

I already said though that I have lenses I can borrow for free. The guy I work for has some extra lenses I can borrow, but he doesn't have extra bodies I can borrow. Either way, I'm showing up to this wedding with 2 bodies and some great lenses. The only question is which I get to keep afterwards. And I still think renting good lenses when I need them is going to be cheaper in the long run than renting bodies, let alone the fact that renting a body I'm unfamiliar with is a bad idea. An unfamiliar lens works the exact same and there's no learning curve. All things I've already stated. No one's really come up with a good argument against this that I've seen, but I'm open to hearing other arguments.

And buying a cheap used body, as I said before, that I'm just going to get rid of in a year seems like the worst idea out of any.

[RaceTripper]

I already said though that I have lenses I can borrow for free. The guy I work for has some extra lenses I can borrow, but he doesn't have extra bodies I can borrow. Either way, I'm showing up to this wedding with 2 bodies and some great lenses. The only question is which I get to keep afterwards. And I still think renting good lenses when I need them is going to be cheaper in the long run than renting bodies, let alone the fact that renting a body I'm unfamiliar with is a bad idea. An unfamiliar lens works the exact same and there's no learning curve. All things I've already stated. No one's really come up with a good argument against this that I've seen, but I'm open to hearing other arguments.

And buying a cheap used body, as I said before, that I'm just going to get rid of in a year seems like the worst idea out of any.Just buy the 40D, because regardless of all the advice you're getting about lenses, you're rationalizing that it isn't good advice for you. Hell, get the 5D with the great rabtes they have going, and then you have a nice handling full-frame camera that takes soft images with your slow 70-300 consumer lens. And you can get all kinds of crops -- with all the megapixels you have -- that reveal why your consumer quality lens isn't used by pros. :(

Having a good lens and being able to borrow or rent one are very different things. You will miss out on a lot of great ad hoc photo opportunities because you don't have that great lens handy. :(

My $0.02. :)

[Westside guy]

Okay, I'm not a Canon guy, but - if you're set on getting another body, it seems to me the 40D (or perhaps the new Rebel) makes more sense. If you go with the 5D, then you basically have to have two sets of lenses because of planning around the different crop factors (I'm thinking in terms of your current XT being a backup body, per your comments).

[JonD25]

Bah, what part of "renting lenses" do people not understand? I hardly use the 75-300mm anyways. The 50mm f1.8 is what I use most of the time, and it's plenty fast for my own personal photography. If I get any bigger, important shoots for clients, I can easily rent a lens for a weekend. I still don't see what is so unreasonable about that, and the only thing people have been saying against it is that I'm "rationalizing" or writing me off like I'm an idiot, and I don't really appreciate that. It sounds like some of you guys are more determined for me to get what you think I should get than me.

[JonD25]

Okay, I'm not a Canon guy, but - if you're set on getting another body, it seems to me the 40D (or perhaps the new Rebel) makes more sense. If you go with the 5D, then you basically have to have two sets of lenses because of planning around the different crop factors (I'm thinking in terms of your current XT being a backup body, per your comments).

That is a good point. Thanks for pointing that out. I hadn't thought of that. I'll definitely factor that in.

[Westside guy]

Bah, what part of "renting lenses" do people not understand?

Okay...

1) Chill :D (not just you; everyone who's getting so worked up over this)

2) While there are some pro photographers on here, most of us are hobbyists - so our situations are different. You're doing this as a job, so thinking about the importance of a second body makes sense - but for someone like me, having a second body falls under "nice to have" but not "critical to my livelihood". People on both sides of this argument need to realize different people have different, yet legitimate, perspectives. A working pro may only need a particular lens once in a blue moon, so renting makes sense.

[JonD25]

Okay...

1) Chill :D (not just you; everyone who's getting so worked up over this)

2) While there are some pro photographers on here, most of us are hobbyists - so our situations are different. You're doing this as a job, so thinking about the importance of a second body makes sense - but for someone like me, having a second body falls under "nice to have" but not "critical to my livelihood". People on both sides of this argument need to realize different people have different, yet legitimate, perspectives. A working pro may only need a particular lens once in a blue moon, so renting makes sense.

Thank you. It's just frustrating when I present an option and people dismiss it without even providing a reasonable argument as to why that applies to me. I would full heartedly agree with everyone here if I only needed one body. I'm a reasonable man who responds to reasonable arguments, for or against me. If someone was in a similar situation as me (on the cusp of being a pro, decided to go for expensive bodies and renting lenses as needed) could come and tell me they wish they had done it the other way around and give me reasons x, y, and z for why they wish they did it differently, I'd be much more likely to see differently.

[Grimace]

I was using a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS on a Rebel XT a few years back -- it seemed kinda funny at the time (pro lens, consumer body). I look back and marvel at some of the photos I took. I also had the 70-300mm (right beforehand) - and I didn't keep many of those shots. Was it because I was slightly less experienced or was it the lens? Yes.

Bottom line is, your want your glass to reflect your skill/interest, if financially possible. If you want to buy a 5D or 1Ds Mark III from me, I will be happy to sell you one. Keep using inferior lenses for really important paying work and you'll be sorry no matter what body you have.

Portability, in your case, does not trump the need for good glass. Get an 85mm f/1.8 or a 135mm f/2L -- those lenses (especially the 135mm) you will keep for years and years. You can save up and get an XYZ portable later on, get better glass now.

[JonD25]

I was using a 70-200mm f/2.8L IS on a Rebel XT a few years back -- it seemed kinda funny at the time (pro lens, consumer body). I look back and marvel at some of the photos I took. I also had the 70-300mm (right beforehand) - and I didn't keep many of those shots. Was it because I was slightly less experienced or was it the lens? Yes.

Bottom line is, your want your glass to reflect your skill/interest, if financially possible. If you want to buy a 5D or 1Ds Mark III from me, I will be happy to sell you one. Keep using inferior lenses for really important paying work and you'll be sorry no matter what body you have.

Portability, in your case, does not trump the need for good glass. Get an 85mm f/1.8 or a 135mm f/2L -- those lenses (especially the 135mm) you will keep for years and years. You can save up and get an XYZ portable later on, get better glass now.

At this point, the MB or MBP is out. I realize how unnecessary it is for me right now.

If I get the 40D instead of the 5D, I'll have the extra money to buy a flash, some memory cards, and maybe a lens depending on how my financial situation goes. So, I may be leaning towards that, but I still have some thinking to do. And either way, for important shoots (like the one I have in Portugal), I'll rent some nice glass. I definitely know the importance of nice glass. I think renting seems like a perfectly viable option. I'd never show up to a shoot with a 5D and a 17-55mm f3.5-5.6 ;)

[66217]

OK, let's try and calm down the situation and start making some new propositions here.:)

First, why is getting a used XT just for having as a back up camera a bad idea? You'll only use it if things go wrong with your current camera. The possibilities of you current camera to go bad are minimal, so the backup body is just for your peace of mind.

Then, I know getting a pro body is a very tentative option. I would love to have with me a D300, but after some thinking, I knew that better glass would make me take better photos. The D40x I have now can take as good photos as the D300, but my 18-55 kit lens would never take photos like the pro lenses from Nikon. I think (again, with my limited knowledge of your situation), that you would have better result from having good lenses than from a good body.

I know that a friend of your can lend you very good lenses, but still, if you are a professional photographer, or intend to become one, having good lenses always with you is a must. Imagine that your friend tells you a couple of days before the wedding that he won't be able to lend you the lens. What would you do?

I'll ask you again a question I asked a couple of post before: what other type of photography you make?

I'm telling all this with my best wishes to help you end taking a good decision.:)

[JNB]

I guess I'll chime back in a bit. Going from an XT to a 5D is like going from a Cessna to a Learjet. Sure, it's a monster body, but what can you get from that that you can't from a 40D (or for that matter, the XT?). Do you really need that much more body (and blowing the budget) when a lesser body will give you just as much bang for a whole lot less buck? Are your needs and skills going to be able to take advantage of the extra meat of the 5D before it becomes obsolete? In point of fact, the only justification for a 5D (or 1Ds) is if you absolutely require full-frame. Also, don't forget that with those two, you can toss the EF-S lenses--they aren't compatible.

The perceived need for a second body goes back to pre-digital days, and had more significance then. Today, there's still a lot of rationalization for it, most of that based in misconceptions (or a need to look more "pro"). Swapping lenses? Takes no more time then grabbing the second body, powering up, and composing/shooting. Assuming the second body already had the right lens. Catastrophic failure protection? Unlikely, really. Besides, it's just more crap to find a spot for in the bag, along with lenses, flashes, & on & on. Multiple bodies are more for a serious, committed, this-is-my-life's-work photographer, not for someone starting out. I'd be willing to bet you haven't gotten close to pushing the limits of the XT yet.

Renting glass is only a good value proposition in two cases: You want to try a lens for a few hundred shots before committing to it permanently, or you only need that lens for a single assignment. Renting the same lens more than a couple of times is beginning to throw money away, honestly. But, as you said, you can borrow glass from your friend for nothing, so the renting issue is moot (except for glass he doesn't already have).

I actually didn't even pay for my XT, but every dime goes into glass (or accessories), since I'll have that regardless of the body I have. Sure, I'm seriously jonesing for a 40D, but simply can't justify the expense when the XT is performing flawlessly and producing wonderful results in all types of imaging.

Bottom line, you have to choose for yourself, based on your needs, shooting style, and budget. We all have different priorities in those, so any advice or observations are based on our own perceptions, but also leavened with a healthy dose of hard-earned experience. The biggest issue here is that we don't want to see a post in a month about how disappointed you are with a bad purchase choice, we want to see you insanely happy with whatever you got (along with some shots, of course!).

"Big-body Syndrome" is very closely related to "White Lens Syndrome." Both are fun, stupidly expensive, and almost always purely emotional in basis. Learn to resist! :D

[JonD25]

OK, let's try and calm down the situation and start making some new propositions here.:)

First, why is getting a used XT just for having as a back up camera a bad idea? You'll only use it if things go wrong with your current camera. The possibilities of you current camera to go bad are minimal, so the backup body is just for your peace of mind.

To me, it just seems like spending a good $300-400 on JUST "peace of mind" isn't worth it. I come from the mindset that it's better to blow your budget on something you can grow into. Buying a 40D gives me peace of mind AND a kick ass upgrade. It just seems like it's more worth the actual money in the long run to buy something that will last longer and has the ability to fit my changing needs in the future as my skills grow rather than buying something cheap on impulse to make myself feel better.

However, I just remember I do have the option of borrowing my sister's Rebel XTi. The problem with that option is that I won't really know for sure until close to around when I have to leave, and if I do have to end up buying another body, I'd like to have a bit of experience with it before having to use it for a wedding. I may have to talk with her and see what my chances are at this point.

quote]Then, I know getting a pro body is a very tentative option. I would love to have with me a D300, but after some thinking, I knew that better glass would make me take better photos. The D40x I have now can take as good photos as the D300, but my 18-55 kit lens would never take photos like the pro lenses from Nikon. I think (again, with my limited knowledge of your situation), that you would have better result from having good lenses than from a good body.[/quote]

I don't disagree. I think however though that my motivations aren't purely on getting better images with a better body (though that does play a role). It's that, combined with the necessity of a backup. I figure, if I'm gonna get something for a backup, I might as well do it right and get something that's worth the money spent.

I know that a friend of your can lend you very good lenses, but still, if you are a professional photographer, or intend to become one, having good lenses always with you is a must. Imagine that your friend tells you a couple of days before the wedding that he won't be able to lend you the lens. What would you do?

That would certainly suck. I'm beginning to lean towards the 40D, and in that case I will likely have left over money for one good-great lens since I'm not getting a laptop anymore.

I'll ask you again a question I asked a couple of post before: what other type of photography you make?

At the moment, it's mostly portraits. Bands, children, couples, families, weddings, etc. I also do some of my own art photography, and I'd like to get more into that in the future. But I think portraits will always be something I do, at least on the side to make some extra money since art photography is REALLY tough to make a living in.

I'm telling all this with my best wishes to help you end taking a good decision.:)

Thank you. I really do appreciate it :)

I guess I'll chime back in a bit. Going from an XT to a 5D is like going from a Cessna to a Learjet. Sure, it's a monster body, but what can you get from that that you can't from a 40D (or for that matter, the XT?). Do you really need that much more body (and blowing the budget) when a lesser body will give you just as much bang for a whole lot less buck? Are your needs and skills going to be able to take advantage of the extra meat of the 5D before it becomes obsolete? In point of fact, the only justification for a 5D (or 1Ds) is if you absolutely require full-frame. Also, don't forget that with those two, you can toss the EF-S lenses--they aren't compatible.

All very good points. I actually knew very little of the 5D other than it being full frame and it being a kick ass body when my friend suggested it. I did just a little research on it a little while ago and realized that it's actually pretty old and missing a lot of the newer features that Canon has been introducing in all their newer models. This coupled with the fact that they just announced that $300 rebate, to me it seems they may be gearing up for a new model. Not that the 5D is no good without those spiffy tech options, but I'd just hate to buy a 5D for $1900 and then 3 months later Canon announces a newer model and the 5D drops in price. Add that to the stuff you said and the fact that I may now be able to get a good lens to go with the 40D, I'm beginning to think the 5D is less of an option.


The perceived need for a second body goes back to pre-digital days, and had more significance then. Today, there's still a lot of rationalization for it, most of that based in misconceptions (or a need to look more "pro"). Swapping lenses? Takes no more time then grabbing the second body, powering up, and composing/shooting. Assuming the second body already had the right lens. Catastrophic failure protection? Unlikely, really. Besides, it's just more crap to find a spot for in the bag, along with lenses, flashes, & on & on. Multiple bodies are more for a serious, committed, this-is-my-life's-work photographer, not for someone starting out. I'd be willing to bet you haven't gotten close to pushing the limits of the XT yet.

I'd be inclined to agree... if I didn't know the following story. I knew a woman who was shooting a wedding with her DSLR, when all the sudden in the middle of it, it just craps out on her, and she had no backup. She ended up having to grab someone's P&S. Can you imagine traveling 1000's of miles to another country on someone else's money, show up to the wedding, and end up having to use a P&S? Unlikely, maybe. But isn't that something that separates pros from consumers? Being prepared no matter what unlikely situation occurs?

Renting glass is only a good value proposition in two cases: You want to try a lens for a few hundred shots before committing to it permanently, or you only need that lens for a single assignment. Renting the same lens more than a couple of times is beginning to throw money away, honestly. But, as you said, you can borrow glass from your friend for nothing, so the renting issue is moot (except for glass he doesn't already have).

That's a good point, and I'll try and take that into consideration. My friend can actually only let me borrow these lenses for this one wedding. So it's not quite moot.

I actually didn't even pay for my XT, but every dime goes into glass (or accessories), since I'll have that regardless of the body I have. Sure, I'm seriously jonesing for a 40D, but simply can't justify the expense when the XT is performing flawlessly and producing wonderful results in all types of imaging.

Bottom line, you have to choose for yourself, based on your needs, shooting style, and budget. We all have different priorities in those, so any advice or observations are based on our own perceptions, but also leavened with a healthy dose of hard-earned experience. The biggest issue here is that we don't want to see a post in a month about how disappointed you are with a bad purchase choice, we want to see you insanely happy with whatever you got (along with some shots, of course!).

Thanks. I'll say it to you as well, I really do appreciate all the help. You've made some good points I'll have to keep in mind when making my final decision.

"Big-body Syndrome" is very closely related to "White Lens Syndrome." Both are fun, stupidly expensive, and almost always purely emotional in basis. Learn to resist! :D

What's the syndrome called when you want to completely blow off Canon and any existing Canon gear you have and make the completely unreasonable but incredibly tempting leap to a Nikon D300? :D

Must..... resist..... D300.....

[JNB]

What's the syndrome called when you want to completely blow off Canon and any existing Canon gear you have and make the completely unreasonable but incredibly tempting leap to a Nikon D300? :D

Must..... resist..... D300.....

I'm not sure, but in Vegas they call it "going all in with a pair of deuces." :p

[Westside guy]

TI'd be inclined to agree... if I didn't know the following story. I knew a woman who was shooting a wedding with her DSLR, when all the sudden in the middle of it, it just craps out on her, and she had no backup.

This isn't all that uncommon - the few pro photographers I'm acquainted with all have some sort of similar first-hand story. Digital cameras are more complex than film cameras, so there's more to go wrong.

I will note if you're shooting the wedding with an assistant (as a lot of pros do), the assistant's camera can be the backup if yours craps out. But you HAVE to have a second body available, one way or the other. There's just no second chance when it comes to a wedding.

[Digital Skunk]

After reading all of the posts, it's obvious that the OP wants a new (40D) body and NOT the glass, and he/she wants us to tell him/her that. So....

Just get the 40D

You will need glass later on, and the reasons for needing a second body are weak. You can drop your lens just as fast and as hard as you drop your body. ***** happens, and having a second body or lens, or computer won't always help you.

And as was said, you should really look into getting your own glass, but we know that's not going to happen. Renting is nice but you never know when someone will rent the lens you want, but if it works for you then all is well. Nothing is wrong with a glossy screen when it comes to toning images and correcting them. Only amatuers complain about glossy screens interfereing with their color. So you can get the MacBook as well as the 40D if you want.

Just a piece of advice. There is NO point in having a second body with crap glass to put on each. If you are going to get teh 40D, then rent only the best glass you can find. Since you aren't a pro yet, don't worry about breaking your XT, it won't hurt your career.

[JonD25]

This isn't all that uncommon - the few pro photographers I'm acquainted with all have some sort of similar first-hand story. Digital cameras are more complex than film cameras, so there's more to go wrong.

I will note if you're shooting the wedding with an assistant (as a lot of pros do), the assistant's camera can be the backup if yours craps out. But you HAVE to have a second body available, one way or the other. There's just no second chance when it comes to a wedding.

I wish I had an assistant, and I could probably get one if it were in the States, but that pesky flight across the Atlantic is too expensive, and most of what I was paid for the wedding went to my own ticket. If I had an assistant, this would probably be a different conversation.

[CallsignBaron]

I am going to jump on the "get the glass" bandwagon here. The Rebel is not the most feature laden, professional hardware but it is more than capable and will certainly let you hone your skills. Besides, if you are aspiring to go pro the 40D (although a very nice body) is probably not going to be your first choice. The 1D or the 5D should be more your goal, professionally speaking. Your computer is also not the fastest and most desirable among photoshop experts but it is capable albeit maybe a little slow. My opinion for what it's worth is to get the glass, Canon L series. As a photographer you want the best tools to shoot the best photos you can, photos that need little or no photoshop. That goal makes you a better photographer and cuts down on your post-processing time. :) If I have misread your intentions and are wanting to concentrate more on graphic design, then obviously I have misspoke, buy the MBP. :rolleyes:

My two cents, FWIW.

[JonD25]

After reading all of the posts, it's obvious that the OP wants a new (40D) body and NOT the glass, and he/she wants us to tell him/her that. So....

Just get the 40D

You will need glass later on, and the reasons for needing a second body are weak. You can drop your lens just as fast and as hard as you drop your body. ***** happens, and having a second body or lens, or computer won't always help you.

And as was said, you should really look into getting your own glass, but we know that's not going to happen. Renting is nice but you never know when someone will rent the lens you want, but if it works for you then all is well. Nothing is wrong with a glossy screen when it comes to toning images and correcting them. Only amatuers complain about glossy screens interfereing with their color. So you can get the MacBook as well as the 40D if you want.

Just a piece of advice. There is NO point in having a second body with crap glass to put on each. If you are going to get teh 40D, then rent only the best glass you can find. Since you aren't a pro yet, don't worry about breaking your XT, it won't hurt your career.

*sigh*

Must.... resist..... angry.... reply.....

[Digital Skunk]

*sigh*

Must.... resist..... angry.... reply.....

Hey man, that's what the posts imply. You even got a little angry when everyone was telling to get certain models of Canon glass. You kind of blew them off say, "Doesn't anyone understand that I can rent glass?"

The few posters that I would put money on for being a working pro have said to get your own glass. It's okay to want the 40D over the glass especially since it's new and pretty looking.

BUT..... if you ask us what to do in your situation most of us, many of which have shot weddings professionally, will tell you glass is where your head should be.

I don't mean anything by it, just speaking from what I have read.

p.s. After seeing your site, your body is doing just fine.

[JNB]

Just got a chance to look at your site myself. If you're open to a critique, I think you definitely have the "eye." Technical composition skills, other "mechanical" aspects will improve, but the raw talent is already there. I can say without hesitation that as much as I love to just shoot anything & everything, I don't have the basic visual sense you have (just check my website, it's painfully obvious).

I have to say that I think the weakest area for you is actually the wedding shots; they don't seem to have the dynamism or energy that the other stuff does. I would venture to say that you seem strongest when you're in control of the setting and the shot; when you're reacting to what is presented to you with no opportunity to control or influence it, there is a loss of "you" in the final product.

I wouldn't deign to tell you how to shoot, other than to say trust your natural instincts for the shoot (even if it pi**es off the bride).

Make sure you post us some pix from "over there" when you get a chance.

[JonD25]

Hey man, that's what the posts imply. You even got a little angry when everyone was telling to get certain models of Canon glass. You kind of blew them off say, "Doesn't anyone understand that I can rent glass?"

The few posters that I would put money on for being a working pro have said to get your own glass. It's okay to want the 40D over the glass especially since it's new and pretty looking.

BUT..... if you ask us what to do in your situation most of us, many of which have shot weddings professionally, will tell you glass is where your head should be.

I don't mean anything by it, just speaking from what I have read.

p.s. After seeing your site, your body is doing just fine.

Thanks for that PS.

I was just frustrated by the fact that I had presented an option of buying a body and renting glass, and the only responses I got were against it and provided no real reason. They just blew me off and basically said, "Well ok, if you wanna be an idiot and put $20 lenses on $3000 bodies, it'll be your crappy photos." Their responses had nothing to do with renting and were made as if they had completely ignored the fact that I would be renting good glass with whatever body I bought. Whereas JohnNotBeatle actually provided a reasonable argument against relying on rental lenses (in a very amicable, helpful way might I add, rather than the condescending tone I got from a lot of people). I think a lot of people here have made very good points about a lot of different things, and I've listened and changed my opinions about what I originally had in mind. If you actually knew where my whole quest began, compared to where it is now, there's no way you would think that I'm just looking for people to agree with what I already wanted from the start (I was initially looking at going with film instead of digital). All I'm really asking for are reasonable arguments and a little bit of empathy and understanding that I'm in a difficult position that can't be simplified to "just get glass".

[JonD25]

Just got a chance to look at your site myself. If you're open to a critique, I think you definitely have the "eye." Technical composition skills, other "mechanical" aspects will improve, but the raw talent is already there. I can say without hesitation that as much as I love to just shoot anything & everything, I don't have the basic visual sense you have (just check my website, it's painfully obvious).

I have to say that I think the weakest area for you is actually the wedding shots; they don't seem to have the dynamism or energy that the other stuff does. I would venture to say that you seem strongest when you're in control of the setting and the shot; when you're reacting to what is presented to you with no opportunity to control or influence it, there is a loss of "you" in the final product.

I wouldn't deign to tell you how to shoot, other than to say trust your natural instincts for the shoot (even if it pi**es off the bride).

Make sure you post us some pix from "over there" when you get a chance.

Thanks for the critique. I think I can see what you're saying about those wedding photos. A lot of those will probably come down once I have some better ones to replace them. It was actually my first wedding, so a lot of it was me being unsure about the whole thing, and there were a LOT of things that were definitely "uncontrollable" that I wish I had control of, like the look of the actual church, the lighting, the weather, etc. That was in December, and since then I've been getting a bit more experience with uncontrollable situations. I've been taking a lot of photos of children, and if anyone else has done that, they'll understand how uncontrollable those types of shoots can be. So I have high hopes for this wedding and I think a bit more confidence going in. And also, I've seen photos of where the wedding will be, and it's absolutely beautiful, so no worries about that this time :)

[JonD25]

Sorry for the multiple posts. But I just very roughly went over what my budget might be like, and it looks like I may have around $1000 left over for a lens or two (are you happy now you lens pushers!!!! ;) )

A nice L lens like the 24-70mm 2.8L would be ideal, but I'm open to other suggestions. I think I'd like something with a zoom that's flexible and more of an "every day" kinda lens, since it would be replacing my 17-55 piece o' crap stock XT lens. If I got that 24-70mm, that's my whole budget. So I'm open to maybe cheaper suggestions that would let me get another lens as well. A nice wide angle or fisheye would be nice. I hardly ever use telephotos, so I think past 70mm is a lower priority for me, and I'll just get by with the 75-300mm I own now.

[Digital Skunk]

Yes on the 24-70. It's a mainstay in the world of photography. Sorry if I did seem a bit 'negative' in my posts, I just don't want to tell you something you don't want to hear.

As for the body/lens/accessories issue, I was there a few months ago. When the D300 and D3 came out I had the choice of grabbing those bodies or something else for the same price. My D200 worked just fine, as did the D80 and other gear that I had, so I spent the cash on a 17" MBP, harddrives, RAM, various memory cards, flashes, other lenses, a used D2xs body, lights, stands and backgrounds.

It would be nice to have gotten the D3 and the 24-70, but I didn't need them as badly as I needed the other stuff. And since my shooting changes from day to day and week to week I wouldn't have been able to see the benefits of the D3 or D300, which is low light photography, as soon as possible.

The D2xs, stroboframe, and SB-80s shined in the shoot I did a few weeks ago however. In other words, like we all agree on, if you want the body or the glass or the machine grab it up... you don't need us to confirm your purchase since non of use will be right there shooting with you.

[JNB]

I'll reiterate my vote for the 16-35 f/2.8 L, if you can find a way to squeak it in. You know you wanna! Well, OK, the 17-40 f/4 L for half the price, then.

[taylorwilsdon]

Click on my sig link. Thats the best way to get a 40d and the mbp if you really wanted. Its a sweet camera but nothing replaces fast lenses.

[JonD25]

Yes on the 24-70. It's a mainstay in the world of photography. Sorry if I did seem a bit 'negative' in my posts, I just don't want to tell you something you don't want to hear.

As for the body/lens/accessories issue, I was there a few months ago. When the D300 and D3 came out I had the choice of grabbing those bodies or something else for the same price. My D200 worked just fine, as did the D80 and other gear that I had, so I spent the cash on a 17" MBP, harddrives, RAM, various memory cards, flashes, other lenses, a used D2xs body, lights, stands and backgrounds.

It would be nice to have gotten the D3 and the 24-70, but I didn't need them as badly as I needed the other stuff. And since my shooting changes from day to day and week to week I wouldn't have been able to see the benefits of the D3 or D300, which is low light photography, as soon as possible.

The D2xs, stroboframe, and SB-80s shined in the shoot I did a few weeks ago however. In other words, like we all agree on, if you want the body or the glass or the machine grab it up... you don't need us to confirm your purchase since non of use will be right there shooting with you.

I guess the problem I had with your post was that the idea of just telling me what I want to hear seems very condescending. Maybe you didn't mean it like that, in which case internet communication easily muddies stuff like this up. But I'm completely capable of processing opinions counter to my own, think for myself, and decide whether I agree with them or not. And if I were just looking for people to tell me what I want to hear, this whole thread would be pointless. I'm not so much looking for confirmation as I'm looking for guidance and first hand accounts from those who might have been in a similar situation as my own, and it just seemed like a lot (not all) of the responses either aren't or haven't been in the same situation as I'm in now and weren't trying very hard to put themselves in my shoes and were giving advice from their own situation which is quite different from my own.

I'll reiterate my vote for the 16-35 f/2.8 L, if you can find a way to squeak it in. You know you wanna! Well, OK, the 17-40 f/4 L for half the price, then.

I like the idea of "half price", but ideally I'd like something a bit faster than f4. I may be able to squeak that one in, and it would be a good compliment to the rest of my lenses with no overlapping (16-35 for wide to normal, 50 prime for the middle, 75-300 for tele).

Click on my sig link. Thats the best way to get a 40d and the mbp if you really wanted. Its a sweet camera but nothing replaces fast lenses.

That's mighty tempting, but it looks like that'll require a bit more time than I have available since it's all about mail in rebates and eBay. If I have the initial funds to invest before getting it all back, I might try it. Thanks.

[AlaskaMoose]

Just buy a 40D body with the Canon instant rebate, and a lens such as EF-24-70 f/2.8L ($1,124.00). However, there are other lenses you can choose from, since you may need a wider one for group shots indoors. You can ask wedding photographers to see what they use, right here at the forum which shows lenses to choose from, and their prices:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=141406

I just upgraded from my trusty XT to a 40D last night. It costs around $900.00 with the instant rebate. With this rebate, you don't have to mail a coupon to Canon. The rebate is part of the online transaction. I bought mine from B&H, since I have purchased stuff from them for a very long time, but you may be able to buy it for less that $936.00 from Amazon, Beach Camera, or Adorama. And don't forget to buy one or two 2GB cards for it, which are different from the ones used with the XT, but not expensive at $36.00 for a 2GB.

I don't shoot weddings, just landscapes and large-size wildlife such as moose, etc. I will use the same lenses I now use with the XT, which are:
-Tokina 12-24mm for landscapes
-Tamron 17-50mm for pictures of my wife, friends, her dog, etc., as well as landscapes
-EF 200mm f/2.8L for the wildlife I mentioned, plus a Kenko 1.4x extender DG Pro when needed

[Digital Skunk]

I guess the problem I had with your post was that the idea of just telling me what I want to hear seems very condescending.

Yeah, I re-read it and it did. I apologize for that again.

Sometimes we all just need to hears our choices reaffirmed. Kind of like asking, "Is if okay to get this instead of that?" Not that you where, but if you work retail you get those kinds of questions a lot.

p.s. Thank God I don't work in retail anymore.

[termina3]

What's the syndrome called when you want to completely blow off Canon and any existing Canon gear you have and make the completely unreasonable but incredibly tempting leap to a Nikon D300? :D

Must..... resist..... D300.....

The right choice.

Hehe before I get flamed, jk, L'ers, jk.

[Everythingisnt]

Only amatuers complain about glossy screens interfereing with their color.

Professionals complain too, it's just that they don't then go and post all over the internet about it:p:rolleyes:

[JNB]

The right choice.

Hehe before I get flamed, jk, L'ers, jk.

Flamed? Not here, this is the only official "neutral ground" for Canonites and Nikonians. Though, you gotta admit, dumping one's entire kit to switch labels, in either direction, is pretty extreme. :eek:

But for JonD25, if you do decide to switch, you can just dump all that nasty old Canon gear on me, and I won't even charge you shipping. I'm willing to take one for the team. :p

[termina3]

Flamed? Not here, this is the only official "neutral ground" for Canonites and Nikonians. Though, you gotta admit, dumping one's entire kit to switch labels, in either direction, is pretty extreme. :eek:

Perhaps it's neutral, but it's violently neutral. Someone who goes too strong either way gets an earful.

[JonD25]

And don't forget to buy one or two 2GB cards for it, which are different from the ones used with the XT, but not expensive at $36.00 for a 2GB.

Are you sure about that? Specs say it takes CF, same as XT. The XSi takes SD though, IIRC.

Yeah, I re-read it and it did. I apologize for that again.

It's ok, don't worry about it. I'm just glad I resisted what I was originally going to respond. But I figured things had just cooled down a little and I didn't want to get it all heated up again. I do appreciate your help though.

Sometimes we all just need to hears our choices reaffirmed. Kind of like asking, "Is if okay to get this instead of that?" Not that you where, but if you work retail you get those kinds of questions a lot.

That's true. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. But I'd like to think that even then, if what I have my heart set on is the stupidest choice ever, I'd hope someone would tell me, and then tell me why.

p.s. Thank God I don't work in retail anymore.

Oh no, I'm hoping to get into retail! (once I move, I'm going to try again at applying at an Apple store)

[AlaskaMoose]

I am not certain about the memory card. When I bought the 40D online, I bought the card for it advertised under "accessories" or something like that. Hopefully I didn't order the wrong one:)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/518207-REG/Canon_1901B004_EOS_40D_SLR_Digital.html

[JonD25]

I am not certain about the memory card. When I bought the 40D online, I bought the card for it advertised under "accessories" or something like that. Hopefully I didn't order the wrong one:)
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/518207-REG/Canon_1901B004_EOS_40D_SLR_Digital.html

Yup, same as the XT :)

I'm planning on getting two 4GB cards. I already have 3 2GB cards, which might be fine if I were shooting JPEG, but I really prefer RAW. And taking a wedding's worth of 10 megapixel RAW images is gonna be quite a bit of memory card.

[AlaskaMoose]

Yup, same as the XT :)

I'm planning on getting two 4GB cards. I already have 3 2GB cards, which might be fine if I were shooting JPEG, but I really prefer RAW. And taking a wedding's worth of 10 megapixel RAW images is gonna be quite a bit of memory card.


Good. I am glad that it's the right card. I should be able to get around 100 RAW photos on a 2GB card. With a XT and a 2GB card I should be able to save around 160 RAW images. I shoot RAW, too, and have one 3GB card, and another 2GB one, but haven't had the need to use the first one. I didn't even realized these were the same cards :)

I paid $20.00 for the 2GB one, new in the package, from a guy at the photo forum I posted above. I bough 2ea. 2GB cards from him.

[iBookG4user]

I don't think this has been said, but have you considered a used 20D body? They are going for pretty cheap right now ($400 if you look in the right places), that would more than cut the camera costs in half and give you more money to play around with. The 20D is still a good camera body and will give you quality results, it may not have all the features of the 40D but you don't really need all of them. I personally own the 40D, so this is coming from someone who owns the camera, I myself have been considering the 20D as a backup for when I do event shoots and for when I get starting with weddings in the summer. That would give you $1600 to play around with for other things to buy such as renting or buying lenses, getting flashes, etc. Anyway, that's my 2¢.

[JonD25]

Good. I am glad that it's the right card. I should be able to get around 100 RAW photos on a 2GB card. With a XT and a 2GB card I should be able to save around 160 RAW images. I shoot RAW, too, and have one 3GB card, and another 2GB one, but haven't had the need to use the first one. I didn't even realized these were the same cards :)

I paid $20.00 for the 2GB one, new in the package, from a guy at the photo forum I posted above. I bough 2ea. 2GB cards from him.

Wait till you shoot a wedding. The last one I did was a small one and it was over 700 photos. Thanks for the estimation for RAW images on the 40D though. If you're right about those numbers, I should be able to get just about 700 images out of 14GB. I might need to get another card or two just to be safe.

[AlaskaMoose]

Wait till you shoot a wedding. The last one I did was a small one and it was over 700 photos. Thanks for the estimation for RAW images on the 40D though. If you're right about those numbers, I should be able to get just about 700 images out of 14GB. I might need to get another card or two just to be safe.

Right under the specifications for either the 40D, or the SandDisk card, you will notice a table showing the number of JPEG and RAW images you can save to a card, although the data is for an 8GB camera. I just used the data to come up with a figure that, on the safe side, would approximate a 10GB sensor. I am probably way off, since a RAW 40D image should be around 12.4MB in size. Maybe you can do the math? (I am too sleepy to think about it). 1,024MB = 1GB. A 2GB card should hold around 2,048MB of data. I don't know about my calculations, but 2,048 divided 12.4MB = 165 photos?

By the way, somebody provided this link at another forum: Enter your camera, and the saving speed per card are listed for you:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/camera_multi_page.asp?cid=6007-9257

[kieko]

i'd go with buying a good lens and a big monitor for editing.

the rebel XT is one of the best image qualities canon have produced (shame it went down with the XTi the one i have) and having played around with the 40d most days i don't actually see it as that good of upgrade for any of the entry level canon's. it would be a lot better to save the pennies and go for a 5d if you were wanting to upgrade that or a 1d or 1ds.

put your money into lens', i just ordered a 17-40mm L lens the other day and i know its sitting in my shop 3 miles away but am too sick to leave the house.

[AlaskaMoose]

i'd go with buying a good lens and a big monitor for editing.

the rebel XT is one of the best image qualities canon have produced (shame it went down with the XTi the one i have) and having played around with the 40d most days i don't actually see it as that good of upgrade for any of the entry level canon's. it would be a lot better to save the pennies and go for a 5d if you were wanting to upgrade that or a 1d or 1ds.

put your money into lens', i just ordered a 17-40mm L lens the other day and i know its sitting in my shop 3 miles away but am too sick to leave the house.

The 40D would be better for fast photo-shooting of birds and other wildlife, and sports, but I would think that the 5D would be outstanding for portraits and landscapes. According to some who use both, the 40D comes close, but the 5D surpasses it at high ISO's noise control. The 5D is supposed to be very sharp focusing, and with narrower DOF. However, that's expected, since it costs twice as the 40D.

The 40D is a hot seller at the moment, perhaps Canon's number one seller. Some have gone on back order already.

[RaceTripper]

Wait till you shoot a wedding. The last one I did was a small one and it was over 700 photos. Thanks for the estimation for RAW images on the 40D though. If you're right about those numbers, I should be able to get just about 700 images out of 14GB. I might need to get another card or two just to be safe.When I shoot auto races, I don't use cards bigger than 4GB (I have 4 x 4GB). I don't want all my eggs in one basket. When I was shooting the 12 Hours of Sebring this year, one of my cards went bad when I tried to copy the pictures to my MBP (and it was a "name brand" Lexar Professional CF). If I had been using a 12-16 GB card, I could have lost the entire race. As it was I lost several hours of shooting in the afternoon, but at least I had most of the day's work.

[JonD25]

When I shoot auto races, I don't use cards bigger than 4GB (I have 4 x 4GB). I don't want all my eggs in one basket. When I was shooting the 12 Hours of Sebring this year, one of my cards went bad when I tried to copy the pictures to my MBP (and it was a "name brand" Lexar Professional CF). If I had been using a 12-16 GB card, I could have lost the entire race. As it was I lost several hours of shooting in the afternoon, but at least I had most of the day's work.

Oh yeah, I'm paranoid about that too. Right now I only have 3 x 2GB cards. But with the bigger file sizes of the 40D, I'm thinking I should up it to 4GB cards. At a wedding, I'd probably go through 2GB cards way too fast shooting RAW.

[RaceTripper]

Oh yeah, I'm paranoid about that too. Right now I only have 3 x 2GB cards. But with the bigger file sizes of the 40D, I'm thinking I should up it to 4GB cards. At a wedding, I'd probably go through 2GB cards way too fast shooting RAW.On my Nikon D200, I shoot RAW compressed and get about 500 pictures on a 4 GB card.

[JonD25]

On my Nikon D200, I shoot RAW compressed and get about 500 pictures on a 4 GB card.

I'm not sure Canon has that option. From what I understand, all the RAW files are losslessly compressed, but it's not enough to fit that much. Also, there's an sRAW option, but I read that these are only good for prints up to 4x6.

[termina3]

Also, there's an sRAW option, but I read that these are only good for prints up to 4x6.

…then what's the point of RAW? Wouldn't even JPEG L be better? Heck, you could do almost anything to a JPEG and then shrink it down to 4x6…

(waits for correction)

[RaceTripper]

…then what's the point of RAW? Wouldn't even JPEG L be better? Heck, you could do almost anything to a JPEG and then shrink it down to 4x6…

(waits for correction)Was thinking the same thing. RAW should give you everything that comes off the sensor, unprocessed.

[JonD25]

…then what's the point of RAW? Wouldn't even JPEG L be better? Heck, you could do almost anything to a JPEG and then shrink it down to 4x6…

(waits for correction)

Was thinking the same thing. RAW should give you everything that comes off the sensor, unprocessed.

Yeah, I wasn't sure about that either. I guess it still gives the flexibility of RAW for exposure, white balance, etc., but just in a smaller size. Like shooting RAW with a 5 megapixel camera instead of 10 maybe?

I dunno, I probably wouldn't ever use sRAW anyways. Like everyone says, storage is cheap these days.

[Digital Skunk]

…then what's the point of RAW? Wouldn't even JPEG L be better? Heck, you could do almost anything to a JPEG and then shrink it down to 4x6…

(waits for correction)

No, you are pretty much correct. JPEG is a sucky format when you take the original, make changes, then save it again as a JPEG. Then do it again and again and again each time compressing it.

If you shoot JPEG and don't save it over and over again, or create a TIFF/DNG/EPS/PSD/other lossless format to edit from you will be fine. For the most part, you can shoot JPEG and be fine if you don't plan on doing too much post... i.e. if you shoot the photo correctly.

For me and other journalists that I know, JPEG is the way to go in many situations. For the D2xs, D200, and D2hs JPEGs yeild better images at high ISO values and save space. And since the photo tech (me) has to tone the images for CMYK and newsprint (glorified toilet paper) the IQ gains from RAW aren't necessary. (http://bythom.com/qadraw.htm)

As of now, I only shoot RAW when in the studio/field portrature when I can control some aspects, or when shooting B&W with the D200 at a wedding. When on assignment/at a wedding (non B&W) it's pretty much JPEG all the way.

[JonD25]

Anyone have experience with the Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS? With the current rebate offered for it, it's about $230 cheaper than the 24-70mm f2.8L. I've read good reviews of the 17-55, read that it has "L-Series grade UD (Ultra-Low Dispersion glass) lens elements" (despite it not having the L label), and one review even said that it exceeded some L lenses in similar focal ranges. The way I'm looking at it now, here's the good:

1) It has IS. Maybe not a deal breaker, but certainly useful in some circumstances.
2) With the bodies I own being 1.6x, the resultant focal length is in a good range for the kind of work I tend to do, and is flexible for any other type of work I might get into in the future.
3) $230 cheaper... which, yes, when it's already in the range of $1000-1200, that's not much. But in general, to me $230 is enough to not just blow away. I could get the extended protection plan from B&H and a hood with the left over money.

Now the bad:

1) It's not L. Although it having L-series grade UD must mean something. Maybe someone with more knowledge could explain what that means better, and what makes an L lens an L lens and this not. I'm assuming L lenses also have better build quality and aren't EF-S... which is essentially what my next two points are.
2) It's EF-S. Not a deal breaker, but if in the future I do get a full frame DSLR or even a film SLR, it's unusable. The 24-70mm being EF and usable for my known life is a good selling point for that one. However, on the flip side, I can see myself owning the 40D for quite a while, for a while as a primary, and then eventually as a backup if I upgrade to a full frame. So it may still see a bit of use in the future.
3) Build quality isn't quite as good as L. Plus I don't look as bad ass without that red ring ;)

I guess the question is whether the goods outweigh the bads, and if the L is worth $230 when I can get just as good or possibly even better image quality for less.

So, anyone have experience with this lens and can chime in?

[termina3]

Is it that these two different lens series won't mount, or do they just not work? If you can mount an "EF" on a FF body, then perhaps sometime in the future Canon will get the FF bodies to work with the EFs.

I'm a Nikonian, and find it very interesting that the FF sensors aren't able to reduce their size (like the D3) to work with the "EF" (I know them as DX) lenses.

[JonD25]

Is it that these two different lens series won't mount, or do they just not work? If you can mount an "EF" on a FF body, then perhaps sometime in the future Canon will get the FF bodies to work with the EFs.

I'm a Nikonian, and find it very interesting that the FF sensors aren't able to reduce their size (like the D3) to work with the "EF" (I know them as DX) lenses.

Well, there are converter mounts out there, but in the review I read, they tried that with that particular lens, and it was nothing but bad results all around. Very incompatible, really bad vignetting, couldn't focus, etc.

[termina3]

So it's a physical impossibility?

[JonD25]

So it's a physical impossibility?

I believe that's the case.

[Grimace]

EF-S lenses will not ever mount on a full frame or 1.3x body. The lens is built differently and it just won't work.

The 17-55mm IS is a great lens -- I used to own it when I had my XT and 30D. I had to sell it (along with my 60mm Macro and kit lens) when I moved to the 5D. That sucked, but it was my choice. It is an L lens in terms of build. Same glass elements and quality -- but, Canon won't put weather sealing or a red ring with an L an *any* EF-S lens. It is a marketing thing. They want to keep professionals thinking that they have to be on "professional" bodies with "professional" lenses. We all know that many pros use lenses and bodies across the spectrum. As far as IS -- don't sweat it too much. The times when you would actually use IS on a wide angle lens are very rare. Yes, it might help in some cases, but in practice, you won't be using this lens any place where IS is necessary.

That said, the 24-70mm is a kick-a$$ lens. Sharp, great colors - and also f/2.8 all the way through. If you plan to get a 70-200 or 70-300 (and you should,) then getting the 24-70mm makes a perfect bridge.
________________________________
On 1.6x crop bodies, I suggest the following for zooms:
EF-S 10-22mm, EF 24-70mm, EF 70-200mm
________________________________
On full frame, I suggest:
EF 16-35mm, EF 24-70mm, EF 70-200mm

See the lenses that you can use on both sensor sizes? If you ever went full frame (and Canon will push everyone there within 5 years) - you'll still have great glass that you can use forever.

_

[JonD25]

EF-S lenses will not ever mount on a full frame or 1.3x body. The lens is built differently and it just won't work.

The 17-55mm IS is a great lens -- I used to own it when I had my XT and 30D. I had to sell it (along with my 60mm Macro and kit lens) when I moved to the 5D. That sucked, but it was my choice. It is an L lens in terms of build. Same glass elements and quality -- but, Canon won't put weather sealing or a red ring with an L an *any* EF-S lens. It is a marketing thing. They want to keep professionals thinking that they have to be on "professional" bodies with "professional" lenses. We all know that many pros use lenses and bodies across the spectrum. As far as IS -- don't sweat it too much. The times when you would actually use IS on a wide angle lens are very rare. Yes, it might help in some cases, but in practice, you won't be using this lens any place where IS is necessary.

That said, the 24-70mm is a kick-a$$ lens. Sharp, great colors - and also f/2.8 all the way through. If you plan to get a 70-200 or 70-300 (and you should,) then getting the 24-70mm makes a perfect bridge.
________________________________
On 1.6x crop bodies, I suggest the following for zooms:
EF-S 10-22mm, EF 24-70mm, EF 70-200mm
________________________________
On full frame, I suggest:
EF 16-35mm, EF 24-70mm, EF 70-200mm

See the lenses that you can use on both sensor sizes? If you ever went full frame (and Canon will push everyone there within 5 years) - you'll still have great glass that you can use forever.

_

You think all bodies will be full frame in 5 years? Hmm. Now that I think about it, that $230 might be worth it. I mean, in the likely event I do go full frame, I'd either have to sell it like you did or leave it exclusively to what would be my backup at that point, the 40D. Then if I ever wanted to use the same type of lens on the full frame, I'd have to buy another lens that's essentially the same. In the long run, I'd be spending even more than that $230.

BTW, I'm considering getting the 70-200mm f4L. Though probably not really soon. But like you said, with the 24-70mm, that works well.

[Grimace]

You think all bodies will be full frame in 5 years? Hmm. Now that I think about it, that $230 might be worth it. I mean, in the likely event I do go full frame, I'd either have to sell it like you did or leave it exclusively to what would be my backup at that point, the 40D. Then if I ever wanted to use the same type of lens on the full frame, I'd have to buy another lens that's essentially the same. In the long run, I'd be spending even more than that $230.

BTW, I'm considering getting the 70-200mm f4L. Though probably not really soon. But like you said, with the 24-70mm, that works well.

I have no inside info, but as prices get cheaper for FF chips, and companies run out of ways to pack more MP on 1.6x chips, it makes sense. Don't quote me on 5 years, but it is quickly moving that way. Look at where we were 5 years ago -- digital cameras were in their infancy.

I personally think that the 1.3x sensor (currently in the 1D series) will be in the 50D, whenever that comes out. The Rebel XSi II (or whatever comes next) will continues on with the 1.6x sensor for at least another generation. If Canon goes with price/performance, the 50D will have the 1.3x sensor - it is cheaper to make than full frame. If Canon goes with price/consumer clarity, it will have full frame -- it's easier to have 2 different lines of sensors, not three. But, Canon needs to make money, and so the 1.3x sensor is cheaper and helps differentiate between the 5D/1Ds cameras. Three different sensor sizes has one upside of marking the lines: consumer/prosumer/professional

The 1.3x 1D Mark III camera is going to full frame in the 1D Mark IIIn revision by the end of this year. So...every camera in the lineup is moving up in sensor size...slowly! 'Just reading the writing on the walls!

[AlaskaMoose]

Some comparisons have been made about the Canon lens you are referring to, and the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8. It does not have IS, it's supposed to be very sharp and fast enough (perhaps not as fast as the Canon), and costs around $500.00-$600.00 range. I have one, and use it with a Rebel XT, the motor is not as quiet as the one on a Canon lens, but it's quite fast and sharp.

What I am thinking is that if you ever go FF, maybe you want to save some cash by buying Tamron instead of an EF-S lens. The Tamron lens is made for cropped sensors, but it does not protrude into the camera as Canon's EF-S lenses. I am waiting for my 40D to arrive via the "brown truck" this week, and will be using the same lenses I use with my XT, which are: EF 200mm f/2.8L USM, Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8, and Tokina 12-24mm f/4. I use a Kenko DG Pro 1.4x extender with the 200mm lens, and also a set of Kenko tubes every now and then for real close close-ups.

Check the reviews, and see if the savings are worth it. I took this one with the Tamrom. As you can see, it's pretty sharp:
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/Abbie05122007a.jpg

[Digital Skunk]

The 1.3x 1D Mark III camera is going to full frame in the 1D Mark IIIn revision by the end of this year. So...every camera in the lineup is moving up in sensor size...slowly! 'Just reading the writing on the walls!

Very well said Grimace. I was actually quite surprised that Canon didn't put the 1.3x sensor in the 40D and Rebel this time around. It would have made a great camera even better IMHO.

I can see the 1D Mark III going full frame, but what makes you say by the end of the year, just curious?

As for FF bodies in five years, I can attest to that time frame, maybe a little longer. The only reason against it from what I see on the "walls" is that sensor tech will improve and they will be able to cram the same amount of pixels that we see now into a sensor that has less noise. I would love to see a professional P&S with a 1.5x sensor in it, but I have a feeling the sensor engineers will just be trying to improve the 1.8x and 1.9x sensors they have now.

FF across the board professionally in two years or so is what I am hoping for. And I started saving my pennies for the Nikon D10 (FX D300) if it proves to be a speed demon like the D300 or D3.

[JonD25]

I have no inside info, but as prices get cheaper for FF chips, and companies run out of ways to pack more MP on 1.6x chips, it makes sense. Don't quote me on 5 years, but it is quickly moving that way. Look at where we were 5 years ago -- digital cameras were in their infancy.

I personally think that the 1.3x sensor (currently in the 1D series) will be in the 50D, whenever that comes out. The Rebel XSi II (or whatever comes next) will continues on with the 1.6x sensor for at least another generation. If Canon goes with price/performance, the 50D will have the 1.3x sensor - it is cheaper to make than full frame. If Canon goes with price/consumer clarity, it will have full frame -- it's easier to have 2 different lines of sensors, not three. But, Canon needs to make money, and so the 1.3x sensor is cheaper and helps differentiate between the 5D/1Ds cameras. Three different sensor sizes has one upside of marking the lines: consumer/prosumer/professional

The 1.3x 1D Mark III camera is going to full frame in the 1D Mark IIIn revision by the end of this year. So...every camera in the lineup is moving up in sensor size...slowly! 'Just reading the writing on the walls!

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense to me. It just makes a lot of sense right now for me to ditch the idea of EF-S all together since I do plan on continuing to upgrade bodies in the future and want my lenses to be compatible for as long as possible.

[Grimace]

I can see the 1D Mark III going full frame, but what makes you say by the end of the year, just curious?

Maybe March at the latest -- it follows the accelerated update cycle of the last 1D Mark II/n and is a "necessary" market response to the D3/300. ISO performance, screen quality, and FF are slated for improvements. I'll start my own CanonRumors site in a week or so! :p