I currently have a 5D Mark II, with a 40D for back-up. It's pretty rare that I'm shooting in a paid situation where it's critical to have a second DSLR, and I find the 40D never sees the light of day now that I have the 5D Mark II.
I'm seriously tempted to get a G10 for casual travel, skiing, and hiking photos, and I'm thinking of selling the 40D to pay for it. I believe the G10 has E-TTL flash compatibility, so I think it may just be possible to use it as a backup to my DSLR. Am I crazy, or has anyone else considered doing the same thing?
the only benefit I see is that of size. Otherwise, the high ISO noise, compatibility with EOS lenses, and overall speed of the 40D would convince me to keep the 40D
Now if you are just having fun, but are worried about size and weight, then why take the 5D II in the first place... I don't get it. You either do or don't want a full slr setup.
Just my opinion.
Oh and one last thought: Have you considered something like the XSi. It's smaller than the 40D, maintains most of the features, except ISO going to 1600 only.
I have a G9 that I rarely use ... it's fine for daylight and other well lighted places ... 100 iso ... and indoors with the flash its fine for snapshots at 200 iso. But the noise at 400 iso is IMHO poor and does not clean up well.
I've actually decided to go the other way and pick up a 40 or 50D for a travel cam. With a less expensive tamron 17-50 ish f2.8, it's a pretty light weight set up that won't attract attention. I'd rather carry that around and have the ability to use 1600, 3200, even 6400 in a pinch in natural light than have a G series and not be able to use natural light hand held on the street, in a museum, etc. And I can always slap on another lens.
I used to carry my 5D everywhere all day long with a 24-70 f2.8 lens ... no problem. I traded up to a 1DmkIII, sold the 5D, and have found that there are times and places I don't want have that hanging off my shoulder.
I think it was on LL they couldn't see a difference on a 13" x 19" print taken with the G-10 and the $40K Hassy. Seems like it would be a good camera for just bumming around.
patriot wrote:
I've actually decided to go the other way and pick up a 40 or 50D for a travel cam. With a less expensive tamron 17-50 ish f2.8, it's a pretty light weight set up that won't attract attention. I'd rather carry that around and have the ability to use 1600, 3200, even 6400 in a pinch in natural light than have a G series and not be able to use natural light hand held on the street, in a museum, etc. And I can always slap on another lens.
I'm not sure what the point of that would be? I already have a 5D Mark II, which is about the same size and weight as a 40D or 50D.
PShizzy wrote:
Now if you are just having fun, but are worried about size and weight, then why take the 5D II in the first place... I don't get it. You either do or don't want a full slr setup.
I guess I didn't explain myself well enough, judging by all the posts so far... I already have a full SLR setup... I'm questioning whether I really need TWO full SLR setups, or if I can replace the 40D setup (with its incompatible batteries, chargers and EF-S lenses) with a smaller, pocketable, high-quality camera, and still cover myself should my primary SLR fail.
There's absolutely no reason I can think of for carrying my 40D now that I have the 5D Mark II, so it's only purpose in life is to sit in a camera bag until the 5D Mark II fails. On the other hand, a G10 can be tucked in a pocket if you're out for a stroll, fits in a briefcase for an overnight business trip, can be carried in the glovebox of my car, or can be carried in a bum-bag for cross-country skiing, rollerblading, or mountain biking. By all accounts, it provides excellent image quality when the light is good; I'm just curious how it would perform if pressed into service with a 580EX, shooting in low light.
My choice here would be to keep both the 5D Mk II and 40 D and buy a new G9 or G10 as the compact camera. I use my G9 quite often and almost never leave the house without it. I have my 40D I use for wildlife and event photography as well as low light situations. You mention casual travel, skiing and hiking as your reason for wanting the compact. I see this G9 or G10 working well for you in most instances during those activities. But if you need to sell one of your DSLRs because you are set on wanting this compact, then I see why you would keep the 5D Mk II.
You were so anxious to be snarky that you didn't even read the advice correctly.
The suggestion was to read the "review" not the user comments.
molson wrote:
Sorry, but most of the posters on that site are idiots who, judging by their comments, have probably never even seen a camera, let alone use one.
molson wrote:
Sorry, but most of the posters on that site are idiots who, judging by their comments, have probably never even seen a camera, let alone use one.
The reviews are done by the DPReview staff, not the posters.
And that sweeping statement was entirely uncalled for.
camera break and fail. Eventually. Will it be while sitting in your bag in teh car? No, it will be in the middle of shooting something.
Now if you shoot as a hobby it's usually not a big deal, unless of course it's in the middle of your once in a lifetime trip to hawaii or something.
Now if you get paid and it fails in the middle of a shoot and you have no backup able to give the same quality of images, then it's bad - financially and reputation wise.
Sounds like the G10 might be just the ticket. That series really does take some excellent photos and you can take it with you places you'd never take a DSLR anyway.
You say it's "rare" that you'd need a backup SLR for a paid gig, but if you do that G10 won't cut it. Really, it depends on how comfortable you feel that you'll never need a backup SLR.
