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.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
MBP vs. 40D
- Thread starter JonD25
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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
macrumors G3
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
Grimace
macrumors 68040
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$$ lens. Sharp, great colors - and also f/2.8 all the way through. If you plan to get a 70-200 or 70-300 (and you should,) then getting the 24-70mm makes a perfect bridge.
________________________________
On 1.6x crop bodies, I suggest the following for zooms:
EF-S 10-22mm, EF 24-70mm, EF 70-200mm
________________________________
On full frame, I suggest:
EF 16-35mm, EF 24-70mm, EF 70-200mm
See the lenses that you can use on both sensor sizes? If you ever went full frame (and Canon will push everyone there within 5 years) - you'll still have great glass that you can use forever.
_
The 17-55mm IS is a great lens -- I used to own it when I had my XT and 30D. I had to sell it (along with my 60mm Macro and kit lens) when I moved to the 5D. That sucked, but it was my choice. It is an L lens in terms of build. Same glass elements and quality -- but, Canon won't put weather sealing or a red ring with an L an *any* EF-S lens. It is a marketing thing. They want to keep professionals thinking that they have to be on "professional" bodies with "professional" lenses. We all know that many pros use lenses and bodies across the spectrum. As far as IS -- don't sweat it too much. The times when you would actually use IS on a wide angle lens are very rare. Yes, it might help in some cases, but in practice, you won't be using this lens any place where IS is necessary.
That said, the 24-70mm is a kick-a$$ 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
macrumors 68040
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!
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:
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:
Digital Skunk
macrumors G3
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.
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
macrumors 68040
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! 😛