Interesting Dilemma - $$$$$ To Spend But On What?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by harcosparky, May 2, 2009.

  1. harcosparky macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #1
    OK so we had a little Windfall of about $3,000.00

    Currently I have a Canon 40D Lenses covering from 17mm to 300mm
    Canon 17-40 L
    Canon 70-300 IS USM <----EDIT: Note change - I have the 70-300 IS
    Tamron 180SP ( Macro )
    Speedlite 580

    I was looking at the Canon 50D ( $1200 ) and the 5D ( $2600 )

    After reading up on Pixel Density and the pitfalls of high density sensors I am not so sure that a 15 MP APS sensor or a 21 MP Full Frame sensor is the way to go. The 10MP 40D is rated better than the 15MP 50D.

    That being said I am beginning to look in other directions. Maybe it's time to consider jumping over to Nikon???

    So the question is, in the situation as described about .... what would you recommend doing, and why???

    One Nikon I looked at was the D300 but I am not leaning in any specific directon.

    Work includes .... Portrait/Model and Product Photography ( Macro is needed here )

    Thanks for the ideas !!!!!!!
     
  2. LittleCanonKid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    #2
    Seems like you've got plenty of high-quality gear. Why spend all of the money you have though? No one said you had to upgrade anything. ;) Unless there's something in your gear that's making you constantly miss shots, I would say to just save the money, let alone switch brands. The 40D is still a great body with good IQ. What's so bad about it that makes you want to upgrade? (By the way, a 21 megapixel full-frame sensor has the same density as 8 megapixels on a crop sensor, aka, less dense than your 40D.)

    If you have needs that aren't met right now with your gear, then maybe you need to upgrade. What do you shoot, anyways? If what you shoot requires a fast telephoto or something, then we can start talking about upgrading. I'd sure as heck be happy with your current setup! :p
     
  3. harcosparky thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #3
    My desire is to jump up to a Full Frame camera - so the final decision may well be the 5D.
     
  4. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #4
    Ditto to all of that. harcosparky, it sounds as though you're putting the cart before the horse. What problem do you need to solve with your next purchase?

    Also, don't believe everything you read about the 50D being worse than the 40D. The reviewers who said that were doing subjective tests that were very much colored by their expectations. The hard data looks like this:

    [​IMG]

    Those are the completely objective DxOMark test results from raw sensor data. The 50D is better in everything except color depth, and there it steps back by a nominal margin.
     
  5. likeavaliant macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2006
    #5
    I would 5D. I wouldn't bother trading for Nikon, especially with all the great gear you have already.
     
  6. toxic macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2008
    #6
    the thing on pixel density is blown out of proportion. yes, more pixels on the same area leads to a lower signal to noise ratio for each pixel. however, sensor technology improves. the 50D may have a little more noise at the pixel level, but as a whole image or resized to 10MP, it's the same as a 40D. the 5D has the same pixel density as a 30D, but handles noise better than any camera Canon has ever made. add in more dynamic range (according to DPR) and more resolution than the D700 (the 5DII's resolution rivals the 1DsIII), and you have the better camera in terms of IQ.

    anyways, upgrade your 75-300 to a 70-200 or 70-300 IS and grab a 90mm TS-E. and there's always the original 5D.
     
  7. harcosparky thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #7
    That's how I am leaning ....

    5D and picking up a 24-105mm L Series Lens and possibly the 100-400mm L Series Lens.

    In any case I will keep the 40D as well.

    The idea of looking at Nikon was a fleeting moment of insanity! ;)
     
  8. compuwar macrumors 601

    compuwar

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2006
    Location:
    Northern/Central VA
    #8
    Strobes and a back-up body?
     
  9. vga4life macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2004
    #9
    A 5D2 with 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 or 1.2L primes will change your life.

    Also, forget these f/4 standard zooms. 24-70 f/2.8L is a better lens than the 24-105 f/4L. But seriously, get yourself a fast prime or two. You can't beat the DoF control of a fast prime.

    Edit:
    Also, are you really shooting professionally with a speedlite on the camera? Time to invest in a pocket wizard or radio popper and another slave strobe at least.
     
  10. ChrisBrightwell macrumors 68020

    ChrisBrightwell

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    #10
    I'd dump that 75-300 in the trash and pick up a 70-200, for starters.
     
  11. wheelhot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #11
    Tell ya the truth, Canon did a surprisingly good job w/ balancing high ISO noise and megapixel for the 5D Mark II. And you can say its not the way to go, but the camera manufacturers think otherwise. Nikon D700 replacement will likely have 2x megapixel too. Besides you already own a great range of Canon gear, why want to change to a different manufacturer just cause of body?

    I'll go with the other advice that you could get a 5D Mark II and a few fast primes.
     
  12. ChrisBrightwell macrumors 68020

    ChrisBrightwell

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    #12
    For $3k, he's not going to get much more than a 5D Mark II.

    Honestly, the 40D is a pretty solid body. The glass in front of the sensor is way more important than the sensor itself. The same goes for the eye that's behind the sensor.

    Drop the 75-300 (ugh) and get a 70-200, then get a super fast prime (I really wish Canon made a 30mm f/1.4) and sit on the other $1k until you decide what you need next.
     
  13. LittleCanonKid macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    #13
    Sigma makes a 30mm f/1.4, so that's a viable option.

    We still don't know what needs the OP has to fill, though. We can throw out a ton of suggestions that are totally irrelevant to what the OP plans to shoot. What exactly are you trying to fix with your current gear, harcosparky? :confused:
     
  14. OceanView macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    #14
    If it was me, I would get the 5DII and the 70-200 IS 2.8 and be done with it.
    No real gain by switching brands at this point.
     
  15. Phrasikleia macrumors 601

    Phrasikleia

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2008
    Location:
    Over there------->
    #15
    I'd probably do the same, and I agree with those who say to dump the 75-300. I borrowed one of those once. Useless lens.
     
  16. ChrisBrightwell macrumors 68020

    ChrisBrightwell

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2004
    Location:
    Huntsville, AL
    #16
    I'm not buying a Sigma.

    This is fairly true, but the 75-300 is a complete piece of crap. I'd replace that with a 70-200 (or at least a 70-300/IS) before doing anything else.
     
  17. wheelhot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #17
    Yup or he could, 50D (due to higher ISO), wireless flash trigger, 70-200 f/4 IS, 50 1.4 :D

    I think he should really consider getting a wireless flash trigger either ST-E2 or some 3rd party due to potrait/model or macro. Perhaps a ring flash too and maybe extension tubes.

    Or he still could consider a 5D (not Mark II) which should be cheaper by now? any FF beat the crap out of APS-C in terms of detail and noise level
     
  18. harcosparky thread starter macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2008
    #18
    Actually the idea of switching brands was brought on by a stupid salesperson, and could have been done if I had been stupid and decided to THINK he knew what he was talking about. He told me the D300 was a Full Frame Sensor, which I take Nikon to call FX, my research tells me it's a DX sensor.

    This is why I never buy anything on my first few trips out. I go to look at things, get model numbers and such to research what I have seen.


    I think this will be my end goal ....

    5DII
    17-40 L
    70-200 L
    100-400 L

    I think the 5D and 17-40L will be a nice combo in small areas where the wide angle is needed.

    I'll be keeping the 40D and use it as the camera for casual shooting at sporting events, mostly baseball games.

    As for my lenses I will keep the Tamron 180 Macro lens as that gets a lot of use.

    I made a mistake in the original list - I own the 70-300 IS ( not a 75-300 )
     
  19. wheelhot macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #19
    If you are getting a FF, take a look at Canon 135mm f/2 It will make ur jaw break! :D

    Nikon has 3 models for FF: D3x, D3, D700
    Canon has 2 FF: 1Ds and 5D

    I wonder if Canon will still keep the 1D at 1.3 crop sensor or change it to FF.
     
  20. tiggle macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2006
    Location:
    Hong Kong
    #20
    If you are looking to change systems, I would recomend the D700. It is outstanding in its high iso performance. And it also has a quality of image that I havent seen in any other camera I have owned. A natural, refined image. Of course, this is my subjective opinion. HOWEVER, you have lenses for Canon, and that should figure in your choice. And both companies seem to take pleasure in out doing each other, maybe it is better to stick with the lenses and see what is best from that angle.
     
  21. wheezy macrumors 65816

    wheezy

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Alpine, UT
    #21
    A full frame will show your lens weaknesses. If you jump to a Nikon FF, you'll have to dump all your gear off and get only FX lenses. DX lenses were designed around a crop sensor - you'll have to really watch your edges on an FX body. L lenses were designed for 35mm film - they'll perform awesome on a FF body. Your 17-40 will be stellar - can't say much for the others. Definitely pick up a 70-200L in one of its' 4 variations.

    I'd jump on the 5DII, 21MP is overkill for anything but large group shots where you'll want as many pixels per face as you can manage, shoot in sRAW for everything else (2 sizes - 10.8 & 14.8, so in essence you have 3 RAW file sizes to pick from = awesome). Add in the best rear LCD they've ever had which is nice, awesome low-light (yes, Nikon wins by an inch on this, but that doesn't mean it sucks), Digic 4 (newest Canon processor, the 5D is awesome but clear back on the Digic 2), 1080P for schnitz and giggles... the list goes on. It's a great camera for the price.

    That said, it would drain just about all of your $3k picking it up, so getting a new lens to ride with might not happen for awhile (I don't know your general income, ya know :)). Your 40D is still a new, very solid camera. The fact that there is a 50D vs 40D debate is showing it's a very solid camera. Despite the great IQ of the 5D, jumping back in time to an older body might bug ya sometimes.

    To make an long post even more endless... unless you're really really itching for a FF (like me) spend $1800 on the 70-200 2.8L IS, no more than $900 on a 135 F2L (yeah, the 70-200 covers this, but damn that's a BEAUTIFUL lens), and whatever is left on enhancing your flash situation.

    "I wonder if Canon will still keep the 1D at 1.3 crop sensor or change it to FF."

    They won't change that, that would make the only difference between the 1D and the 1Ds basically just the frame rate - everything else is just about the same. Sports shooters want that 1.3 for a little more grab, but not 1.6 so they can still get wide enough. It's a great middle range.
     

Share This Page