5d worth the extra?

[rweakins]

i've been looking at the canon 40D and 5D and wondering if the 5D is worth the extra money over the 40D and what people think

[-hh]

i've been looking at the canon 40D and 5D and wondering if the 5D is worth the extra money over the 40D and what people think

In part, it depends on what you want. Probably the biggest difference between the 40D and the 5D is that the latter is full frame, which can be considered to be a disadvantage if you work a lot with telephotos (since the "crop" of the 40D makes them effectively 60% longer), but is an advantage if you work a lot with wide angle (since a 'crop' makes them less wide).

FWIW, the other thing you should probably be aware of is that the 5D is getting "old" (it was released in 2005) and rumors of the 5D being replaced "soon" have been floating now for 6+ months. The latest rumor is that the announcement (possibly 2?) is expected at (or by) Photokina in September. Thus, another factor to consider is the old "can you hold off buying for a few more months?". In this regards, it is not unlike trying to decide when to buy a Macintosh :-)


-hh

[JNB]

They're really aimed at different market segments. I wouldn't compare on price, but need and intended use. I would venture that if you don't know, then even the 40D may be more body than you need.

[rweakins]

well i shoot a variety of things from portraits to landscapes and everything so obviously it needs to be flexible

[ButtUglyJeff]

Do you own any Canon Lenses? The gear I currently have would greatly change which camera I would go for.

[rweakins]

several canon lenses. 70-200 f4, 18-55 f3.5-4.5, 28-105, 50 f1.8

[OreoCookie]

With this assortment of lenses, forget about it. Unless you want to invest in glass and a new body. The 5D has only a few (to some crucial) advantages over the 40D, most notably better high-ISO behavior (less noise).

The 5D will not give you any advantages in terms of
(i) speed (it's a lot slower than the 40D)
(ii) weather sealing (the 5D has none, the 40D some)
(iii) `megapixels', both cameras have 12 MP (and some change)
(iv) IQ with mediocre lenses (some lens defects are more pronounced on full frame sensors, e. g. vignetting, others less)

If this sounds like gibberish to you, chances are that you won't need a 5D ;)

In any case, the 5D isn't a good buy right now, a replacement is imminent.

[rweakins]

it's not gibberish it's completely understood. is there any talk about a model that will be replacing the 5d? just curious

[OreoCookie]

it's not gibberish it's completely understood. is there any talk about a model that will be replacing the 5d? just curious
Well, rumor has it that the 5D Mark II (or whatever it will be called) will focus on high-ISO performance. Canon has no choice with the Nikon D3 and now with the newly released D700. Seeing as how Nikon hasn't bumped up the resolution, I don't think Canon will either.

[JNB]

On that list of lenses you've got, any of them that are EF-S (as I'm pretty sure that 18-55 is) won't work with the 5d. The 40D accepts all EF and EF-S, while the 5D is EF only.

[rweakins]

With this assortment of lenses, forget about it. Unless you want to invest in glass and a new body. The 5D has only a few (to some crucial) advantages over the 40D, most notably better high-ISO behavior (less noise).

The 5D will not give you any advantages in terms of
(i) speed (it's a lot slower than the 40D)
(ii) weather sealing (the 5D has none, the 40D some)
(iii) `megapixels', both cameras have 12 MP (and some change)
(iv) IQ with mediocre lenses (some lens defects are more pronounced on full frame sensors, e. g. vignetting, others less)

If this sounds like gibberish to you, chances are that you won't need a 5D ;)

In any case, the 5D isn't a good buy right now, a replacement is imminent.



just as a correction to (iii) the 40D is only 10.1 MP

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=15653

[ChrisA]

it's not gibberish it's completely understood. is there any talk about a model that will be replacing the 5d? just curious

I think the Nikon D700 has forced canon to re-think their plans.

I think what a full frame body gets you is (1) an almost total lack of digital noise in the image and (2) effectively smaller depth of field. Technically DOF does not change as a 50mm lens is a 50mm len not matter what but with a full frame camera you would tend to use longer lenses.

If you have the money for a 5D and a new set of lenses and you shoot mainly landscape and portraits then the Mamyia 645 is exactly made for you. I used to shoot Mamyia. It's a huge step up from Canon/Nikon in terms of quality. Expensive, yes but it is perfectly made for your two subjects. If you look for used mamyia gear it can be comparable in price with the top of the line Canons
http://www.mamiya.com/products/default.asp?ID=49

The good thing about this system is that you can change out parts. As sensor technology advances you can buy a new sensor back and you can buy film backs too and shoot film or digital with the same camera. You would never have to replace it.

[OreoCookie]

just as a correction to (iii) the 40D is only 10.1 MP

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=15653
That doesn't make much of a difference in most applications, but you're right. In any case, the resolution seems to have levelled out at around 12 MP.

@ChrisA
You're right about the DOF, forgot that.

[rweakins]

generally what i am hearing is the 40D is the best best. quality is comparable to the 5D and will be compatible with more lenses

[jimothyGator]

On that list of lenses you've got, any of them that are EF-S (as I'm pretty sure that 18-55 is) won't work with the 5d. The 40D accepts all EF and EF-S, while the 5D is EF only.

Of his list, only the 18-55 is, and that's pretty much a throw-away lens. So I wouldn't let that particular lens affect my decision.

For rweakins, this anecdote may or may not help: I recently purchased a Canon 40D, along with a EF-S 10-22mm (along with a 50mm f/1.4 and two Canon lens I already had). I later added a 24-105mm f/4L. That combination (40D, 10-22mm, and 24-105) runs about the same as the 5D + 24-105mm, when it was sold with a $300 "instant rebate." I pondered if I would have instead chosen the 5D had that rebate been available at the time of my purchase, reasoning that the 24-105mm may have provided me enough wide coverage on the 5D.

I'm not sure what I would have decided, but I'm happy with my 40D. It's very fast, both in autofocus and in frame rate; you'd have to step up to the 1D to get faster on a Canon body. And the 10-22mm (16-35mm equivalent) goes wider that the 24-105mm on the 5D, and shows lens distortion than the 24-105mm does at the wide end.

It depends upon your needs. If you find yourself shooting at ISO 800 and above often, the 5D may be the right chose for you. Whenever the 5D Mk II does arrive, I'm sure I'll lust after it, but it'll probably run about $3K, which is a price I'm not willing to pay (I want to have something leftover for glass and food!), and the 40D, being a newer camera, has advantages over the 5D, which is essentially a full-frame 20D/30D (and the 40D is a substantial improvement over those two cameras).

[Lovesong]

One thing you should consider, given the chorus of "get the 40D!!! It's the best of the best!!!" is what Chris alluded to, but came short of saying.

In the digital world, there is something known as a diffraction, which, hopefully without going over anyone's head, is based on the fact that larger sensors can use smaller apertures before the diffraction airy disks become larger than the circle of confusion. What that means in English, is that cameras with smaller sensors will gradually begin to lose critical focus at apertures smaller than that seen in FF (or larger sensors). This is pertinent in your need to shoot landscapes in that a 40D with it's APS-sized sensor will begin to diffract at f/9.3, while a 5D with 35mm sensor will begin to diffract at f/13.2.

That means that the larger sensor will allow you to capture that much more depth (depending on the focal length, of course) over the cropped sensor.

Just a thought....

[ButtUglyJeff]

I'm just a "Hammy Ammy", but I tend to think of these cameras in Hi-Fi terms. In Hi-Fi, you pair an amp/tuner with a set of speakers of similar quality/price. The same goes with a 5D. You'll never get the fullest out of a 5D, with a $90 50mm f/1.8 lens.

I'd imagine you mostly want to pair this body with Canon's "L" series EF lenses, to see what a "clunky" 5D can produce. I've seen some beautiful images from a 5D, but always its been mated with an equally impressive lens.

I guess I'm saying don't just compare a 40D and a 5D by the $900 to $1000 price tag difference, but the expectation of how to equip these two cameras to take advantage of what they can do...........

[Grimace]

Even if they both had the same pixel count, I would take 12MP on a full-frame camera any day of the week over 12MP on a crop body.

The 5D replacement will be $3000-3300. The current 5D is always going to take great photos, and is now under $2000.

If you need fps, get a 40D. If you want your wide angles to be actually wide - get a 5D.

If you don't want to wait until August for the 5D replacement, grab a current model now!

[AlaskaMoose]

Even if they both had the same pixel count, I would take 12MP on a full-frame camera any day of the week over 12MP on a crop body.

The 5D replacement will be $3000-3300. The current 5D is always going to take great photos, and is now under $2000.

If you need fps, get a 40D. If you want your wide angles to be actually wide - get a 5D.

If you don't want to wait until August for the 5D replacement, grab a current model now!
Agree with you on this. Also, right now (until mid July) the $300.00 Canon instant rebate brings the price of a 5D's body down to $1,800. Although a 40D is faster and only costs $939.00 (using Canon's $200.00 instant rebate), what you get from the 5D is a solid IQ, and less high ISO noise from the FF sensor. The 5D may be an old camera, but is image IQ, and focus speed and sharpness are legendary.

If you do mostly landscapes, cityscapes, and portraits that 5D is the way to go. If you already have lenses for cropped sensors, then the 40D. The new 5D (6D?) will probably cost around $3,000. I decided to go with the 40D because I already had lenses for a Canon XT. Going with the 5D would have required new L lenses for it instead of the ones I now have.

If you want to get answers for photographers who use both the 5D and 40D, here is the place to ask, but don't take too long because the rebates will end soon:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9

[harcosparky]

My experience ......

Owned a 10D since the day they came out ..... bought a 30D little more than a year ago ... 3 months after I came into some disposable cash and picked up a 5D.

Fast forward to today ...... last month I bought a 40D.

I think had the 40D been an option when I bought the 5D, I may not have bought the 5D.

I was actually searching for the ever elusive 20Da, when I instead bought the 40D. 40D doesn't have the modified blocking filter, but that didn't matter. I was after the "live view" function of the 20Da for telescope use.

The 40D has filled that requirement out nicely.

I shoot a variety of subjects as well. If I had the money for a 5D and was in the market today ... I'd go with the 40D and some nice new glass to go with it.

I think the Canon hit it right with the 40D, it's the first time I was motivated enough to make a 'next version' upgrade.

[Abstract]

Well, rumor has it that the 5D Mark II (or whatever it will be called) will focus on high-ISO performance. Canon has no choice with the Nikon D3 and now with the newly released D700. Seeing as how Nikon hasn't bumped up the resolution, I don't think Canon will either.

It has probably been in development for ages. I'm sure they have already decided on which sensor they're going to use even before the D300 was released, let alone the D700.

But like ChrisA said, maybe Canon had to go back and look at the 5D MkII's specs again. Everyone says "a 5D upgrade is imminent", but we said this 12 months ago, because it really should have been released in January 2008, not a few months from now. I don't think Canon ever intended to leave the 5D without an update for so long.

[seenew]

The main thing I miss with my 5D over the 40D is the frame rate. 3fps can be really limiting at times. However, I rarely shoot sports.

Weather sealing and sensor cleaning are also nice pros for the 40D that the 5D doesn't have.
If you get the 40D, your next lens should be the EF-S 10-22 for wide shots. Then you'll never miss the 5D.

[OreoCookie]

If you get the 40D, your next lens should be the EF-S 10-22 for wide shots. Then you'll never miss the 5D.
Or Tokina's new 2.8/11-16 (http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/Canon%20EOS%20Lens%20Tests/45-canon-eos-aps-c/379-tokina_1116_28_canon), for example. I don't think you're missing out on anything with a crop sensor these days (in terms of viewing angle, at least), you have lots of (good) choices when it comes to wide angle lenses.

I remember, my cousin had to buy a fisheye to get a `wide-angle' lens for his crop sensor Canon (a D30, the first `affordable' dslr).

[timnosenzo]

It sounds like given your current lens setup, you might be best served buying a 40D and using any extra money to replace your 18-55. If I was you, I would sell the 18-55 and the 28-105 and try to buy a 17-55 f/2.8 IS with the 40D. Nice combo right there.

This is coming from someone who loves their 5D and had a 40D but sold it due to lack of use. Personally, with the lenses I have I prefer a full frame body. But if you don't have too much invested yet, or you don't want to have too much invested, a crop body and EF-S lenses can be excellent. Canon offers an ultra wide zoom (10-22) and standard zoom (17-55) that offer excellent IQ.

You particularly run into limitations with a crop body when trying to buy fast, wide primes. If primes aren't appealing to you, then you should be happy with the 40D.

Good luck!

Tim

[nutmac]

James Duncan Davidson (http://duncandavidson.com/2008/07/armchair-quarterbacking-the-d7.html), a computer-geek-turned-tech-event-photographer, summarized the situation pretty well. Although 5D is a fine camera, particularly given heavily discounted price, it feels EXTREMELY outdated compared to Nikon's offering (D700). As Davidson points out, low noise at high ISO (6400) and better auto focus are musts, as well as few tricks of its own.

[seenew]

James Duncan Davidson (http://duncandavidson.com/2008/07/armchair-quarterbacking-the-d7.html), a computer-geek-turned-tech-event-photographer, summarized the situation pretty well. Although 5D is a fine camera, particularly given heavily discounted price, it feels EXTREMELY outdated compared to Nikon's offering (D700). As Davidson points out, low noise at high ISO (6400) and better auto focus are musts, as well as few tricks of its own.

he didn't ask about the d700. He's got a small collection of Canon lenses already. If anything, he'd be looking at the 5D MarkII if he was willing to shell out that much cash.

[-hh]

It has probably been in development for ages. I'm sure they have already decided on which sensor they're going to use even before the D300 was released, let alone the D700.

But like ChrisA said, maybe Canon had to go back and look at the 5D MkII's specs again. Everyone says "a 5D upgrade is imminent", but we said this 12 months ago, because it really should have been released in January 2008, not a few months from now. I don't think Canon ever intended to leave the 5D without an update for so long.


It has been interesting watching the rumors on this one. I've been watching them since Nov 2007, when my Underwater camera (35mm film) flooded, which is prompting me to finally move to digital (BTW, that Tokina 11-16mm looks very tempting; too bad its not for full frame).

Insofar as "Concrete Rumors" on the 5D's replacement, this URL (http://www.canonrumors.com/index.php?entry=entry080613-150853) at canonrumors.com has some claimed specifications, and also claims that the 5D isn't necessarily be 'upgraded' (aka "5D Mk2), but instead, potentially replaced with 2 cameras....although it should be noted that names are still TBD, so one of them very well could use the "5D Mk2" name.

In brief summary, it says $2K for a 14MP body ("3D") and $3K for 20MP body ("6D"), both Full Frame.

.....however...!


His latest rumor news (2 July ... yesterday) says:

"...about the new CMOS in the EOS-3 D. My source is claiming that Canon's new CMOS will once again bring Canon to the forefront in high ISO performance. I was told again sensor will be in the 18mp - 21mp range (I still think 16mp)."

Picking through the tidbits a bit further, these two statements also suggest interesting happenings:

(30 June):

When I put up the initial rumour about the 3D and 6D, some people commented that there's no way the megapixel count would reach what the 1DS is currently at.

This week we'll be seeing the Nikon D3 sold as a Nikon D700. So if Nikon can release just about the same camera for less money, why couldn't Canon?

And

(2 July):

The last words in the email were "the new Canon's will make every Canon user very happy."


Overall, I think that there's a lot of credence to what Abstract and ChrisA were alluding to above: Canon may very well be in the process of upping the "5D replacement" in order to compete better against Nikon, and it appears to me that part of their strategy has been to "hold off" on this upgrade cycle to see what Nikon puts out.

And since Nikon has really upped the ante, the prospects appear good for a very healthy kick upwards for Canon gear now too...I won't claim that it has been like our looooong wait back in 2001-02-2003 for the G5 CPU, but I won't say that it is unlike it, either.



-hh

[Grimace]

Canon's schedule has been very consistent. The 5D is on cycle to be released at Photokina this fall. I don't think they were holding out and waiting for Nikon. That is a difficult game when you have to change whole manufacturing plants.

Photokina. September. Announcement a few days before. Demo models for people to paw at. That's how Canon rolls, on the half year cycle.


1D – 25 September 2001
1DMkII – 29 January 2004 (~2.5yrs since previous model)
1DMkIIn - 22 August 2005 (~18months)
1DMkIII - 22 February 2007 (~18months)

1Ds – 24 September 2002
1DsMkII – 21 September 2004 (~2yrs since previous model)
1DsMkIII - 20 August 2007 (~3yrs)

5D - 22 August 2005
5DMk II - August/September 2008 (~3yrs since previous model)

[jimothyGator]

My BS meeting is going off the charts on this rumor. First, under Canon's naming convention, the 3D would be the higher end camera. This is now fixed at that link, but you'd think his source, so worthy of "complete confidence", would have gotten this right in the first place.

Second, Canon would sell the 14MP FF camera closer to $3,000, as it competes with the Nikon D700. They'd still sell a ton of it, and they wouldn't be stuck leaving $1,000 on the table.

Second, as the author himself admits, a 20MP $3,000 camera would steal sales from the 1Ds Mk III. Leaving $1,000 on the table is one thing. Leaving $5,000 is quite another.

Aside from medium format backs, there's currently no competition for the 1Ds, so Canon can set their price. Rumor has it Sony will add some competition, and as they now supply sensors for Nikon, I suspect Nikon will, too (the rumored D3X). But for now, Canon's got the high resolution, 35mm market to themselves, so I don't expect to see a Canon with these specs at a $3,000 price anytime soon.

I do, though, expect to see a 5D replacement soon, but expect a more modest resolution, no DIGIC 4, and a $3,000 price tag. Though I've expected that for a year, and been wrong, so this is mere speculation. But that's better than wishful thinking, which is all this 3D/6D rumors is.

[cube]

If you do landscape, you need to look at the Sigma 12-24. Then the 5D is the obvious answer.

[-hh]

Canon's schedule has been very consistent....


1D – 25 September 2001
1DMkII – 29 January 2004 (~2.5yrs since previous model)
1DMkIIn - 22 August 2005 (~18months)
1DMkIII - 22 February 2007 (~18months)

1Ds – 24 September 2002
1DsMkII – 21 September 2004 (~2yrs since previous model)
1DsMkIII - 20 August 2007 (~3yrs)

5D - 22 August 2005
5DMk II - August/September 2008 (~3yrs since previous model)


The average for the first model is 1.83 years (22 months)
The average for the second model is 2.5 years


The 5D is now matching the longest update that Canon has ever had before (with the 1DsMkIII). YMMV, but I'd hardly consider that to be normal or even typical, especially when we consider the other Non-Pro cameras:


For the D30/D60/10D/20D/30D/40D, their releases were (per Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_EOS_20D)): 2Q00, 4Q01, 1Q03, 3Q04, 2Q06, 4Q07 - which are intervals of 6, 5, 6, 7, 6, (5 and counting) fiscal quarters, which averages out to 6 quarters = 18 months per revision, and that's not even accounting for the 20Da variant.

For the Rebel line, 3Q03, 1Q05, 4Q06, 2Q08 - - which comes out very roughly to the same ~18 month update cycle (without the 1000D, released 3Q08)


With the 5D on schedule to match the longest time ever (of 3 years) between updates that Canon has done this decade, it might suggest that the 5D is in some way 'special', not unlike how the 1DsMkIII was 'special' ... which was a very bad & embarrassing product release for Canon.


-hh

[-hh]

My BS meeting is going off the charts on this rumor. First, under Canon's naming convention, the 3D would be the higher end camera. This is now fixed at that link, but you'd think his source, so worthy of "complete confidence", would have gotten this right in the first place.

The other thing that I'm sniffing at is the naming suggestion of 6D, because single digit even numbers (2, 4, 6, 8) are considered bad luck (or at least, not good luck like odd numbers are). As such, I'd suspect a 5DMk2 name or a 7D before a "6D".

Not that the name matters much...other than a method to try to track down where your information leaks are :D



-hh

[law guy]

In any case, the 5D isn't a good buy right now, a replacement is imminent.

If he gets the 5D 24-105mm f4L IS kit, for $2599, it's like getting the 5D body for $1500 (the 24-105 being a bit over a thousand). For landscape and portraits - it's a great choice. Put an 85mm f1.8 on there and shoot some open aperture portraits that will knock your socks off. A lens like the 24-70 f2.8L is breathtakingly wide if you've been living with a cropped sensor for awhile.

Here's a link to a 5D admiration society thread that's been going for awhile on the Canon forum site - POTN: http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=462416&page=119

[law guy]

not unlike how the 1DsMkIII was 'special' ... which was a very bad & embarrassing product release for Canon.


-hh

hh - do you mean to refer to the 1D [non S] Mk III there?

[Kebabselector]

Think he did, the 1DS MKIII was fairly trouble free, though it had a few bodies that had wonky horizons due to a manufacturing fault.

As for a 5D now, difficult one. It's a superb camera, any replacement is likely to be 50% more than the current price the 5D sells for. The 5D will still be able to produce great images for a number of years to come. So if you can live without 14bit colour, sensor cleaning and weather sealing* then the 5D would be a worthwhile investment.

*many people quote weather sealing as a deal clincher, well both of my 5D's have been used in fairly wet weather and both are still working fine. I've not shot in a desert storm so maybe that's where the weather sealing is worth while. But you really have to ask/wonder how many people with weather sealed cameras use them in an environment that requires such protection (excluding pro's of course, who normally have to stand in a vast shower of ***** to get a decent image.).

[-hh]

Think he did, the 1DS MKIII was fairly trouble free, though it had a few bodies that had wonky horizons due to a manufacturing fault.

Yes, although if you read Rob Galbraith (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9420), both the D and Ds models are affected to a degree.

I'm not in the market for a ($$$) Pro body, so I've not really paid that much attention to the pains that the Pros went through with the autofocus problems and the like ... and it also isn't particularly clear if the problems have been definitively and 100% resolved. My recollections were of a recall, product being pulled from shelves, and firmware updates ... and an odd amount of silence from the Pros in making any clear statements that they are now satisfied. The latest that I've found is from March 2008, which alludes to some vague promises made in Feb 2008 to definitively fix things - - but there's also been some scattered reports of some Pro's dumping their Canon gear and changing brands (to Nikon).

As for a 5D now, difficult one. It's a superb camera, any replacement is likely to be 50% more than the current price the 5D sells for. The 5D will still be able to produce great images for a number of years to come. So if you can live without 14bit colour, sensor cleaning and weather sealing* then the 5D would be a worthwhile investment.

The reason I'm interested in a 5D is purely for wide angle (for use underwater). The dilemma is that I've also seen some reports that report that the 40D with the 10-22 EF-S results in sharper images than the 5D with the 17- 40L. Not really sure if the problem is the 17-40 being not that great of a combination with a full frame digital, or if the 10-22 is simply a great lens.

*many people quote weather sealing as a deal clincher...

My application for underwater requires pretty severe 'weather sealing' :D The companies that make aftermarket UW housings will of course update their products for the 5D-next, but that will take them a few months. That's what's pushed out my personal schedule into 2009, as even if the 5DMk2 were released and shipped today, there's only ~60 days of turn-around time before my next planned dive trip, which is barely time for a first prototype.



-hh

[Kebabselector]

Not really sure if the problem is the 17-40 being not that great of a combination with a full frame digital, or if the 10-22 is simply a great lens.

I have the 17-40 and it's a superb lens. I've heard a lot about the 10-22, some calling it a hidden L series lens. Though that could be fanboyism.

[Grimace]

I have the 17-40 and it's a superb lens. I've heard a lot about the 10-22, some calling it a hidden L series lens. Though that could be fanboyism.

The 10-22mm and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS are both of L quality. Canon won't label them as such because of a perception difference between EF-S lenses/bodies and "Pro" lenses/bodies. We all know that pros use a wide variety of lenses/bodies but it is the marketing engine that drives this unmentioned distinction.

I owned the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and it was on par with every top lens that I have used.

[Kebabselector]

Nice to hear positive words about EF-s from someone with knowledge of kit. I was tempted to get the 10-22 with a 20/30D a while back, but then I tried the 5D!

[OreoCookie]

Nice to hear positive words about EF-s from someone with knowledge of kit. I was tempted to get the 10-22 with a 20/30D a while back, but then I tried the 5D!
Well, there are other lens of this class, according to photozone, Tokina's new 11-16 zoom is even better. So what's the wide-angle advantage of full frame? Don't we have plenty of (good) wide-angle crop lenses to choose from?

[rweakins]

most certainly it seems that the 40D as well as the addition of a wide angle zoom lens will do the trick for the time being.

[Kebabselector]

Don't we have plenty of (good) wide-angle crop lenses to choose from?

About 3 isn't it? Canon, Sigma and Tokina (Maybe Tamron as well, but I haven't looked).

Whereas on FF you've got the 14mm, 15mm FE, 16-35, 17-40 and many others by 3rd party (inc the sigma 12-24mm)

Pretty evenly balanced I suppose.

[OreoCookie]

About 3 isn't it? Canon, Sigma and Tokina (Maybe Tamron as well, but I haven't looked).

Whereas on FF you've got the 14mm, 15mm FE, 16-35, 17-40 and many others by 3rd party (inc the sigma 12-24mm)

Pretty evenly balanced I suppose.
There are 3 Tokinas (11-16, 12-24 and a unique 10-17 fisheye zoom), 2 Sigmas (10-20, 12-24), a Tamron (11-18 mm) in addition to Canon's 10-22 mm zoom. There are no crop-specific wide-angle fixed-focal length lenses besides fisheyes. All of the Tokinas and Canon's zoom have a very good reputation.

In any case, I don't see a shortage of wide-angle lenses for crop sensors unless you really, really want a fixed focal length lens.

[harcosparky]

The 10-22mm and the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS are both of L quality. Canon won't label them as such because of a perception difference between EF-S lenses/bodies and "Pro" lenses/bodies. We all know that pros use a wide variety of lenses/bodies but it is the marketing engine that drives this unmentioned distinction.

I owned the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and it was on par with every top lens that I have used.


Does that 17-55 have Full Time Manual Focus? (FTM)

You know so that even in Autofocus mode you could manually tweak the focus.

Also was the front element Non-rotating ?

I think there are some other common characteristics of the " L " series lenses that the EF-S lenses do not have. It's a little more than just the use of Low Distortion elements.

I am going to check out the newest EF-S lenses - I have heard from others that the image quality is on par with the " L " series even if the operation characteristics are not.

One big advantage for me with "L" lens are that they are sealed. I shoot a lot around beaches and other not so clean outdoor venues. I've had some non-L lenses get a rough feel to them over time, whereas the old "L" seem to keep smooth.

[timnosenzo]

Does that 17-55 have Full Time Manual Focus? (FTM)

You know so that even in Autofocus mode you could manually tweak the focus.

Also was the front element Non-rotating ?

Yes to all of these, for both the 10-22 and the 17-55. They're definitely nice lenses, and offer great IQ, but the build quality isn't quite up to L standards.

The materials aren't quite the same as L's, they have smaller focus rings, they're not weather sealed, etc.

[eddx]

It is worth waiting till Photokina in September where rumor has it that the Canon 5D will be upgraded. It was originally released in 2001 so the 5D is likely for a replacement. I would expect the 40D to be upgraded in early 2009.

As for which to get, it depends on what you photographing and what lenses you own.

[Kebabselector]

Slightly wrong date. The 5D was released in October 2005.

To add rumours for the 5D MkII (or whatever) have been around for nearly 2 years. That said this September is most likely to be to time it's updated (unless they do it sooner!)

[tonie]

At this price, go for it.

[timnosenzo]

Slightly wrong date. The 5D was released in October 2005.

Actually it was August 2005. ;)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.asp

Still a helluva good camera though.

[Kebabselector]

Actually it was August 2005. ;)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0508/05082209canoneos5d.asp

Still a helluva good camera though.

Probably announced in August and available in October! :p