Hi,

Over the last few weeks ive been trying to decide between a Canon 40D and Nikon D300. I think i've (almost ) decided on the 40D. My main reasons is that I can invest in a few L series lenses and carry them over to a full frame body if i choose to later on.

Here are some of the lenses i'm considering, and would appreciate any comments.

Canon 17-40 F4 L
Canon 70-200 F4 L or Canon 70-200 F2.8 L
Sigma 50mm F2.8 EX DG Macro

I think this covers the main focal range I need, would this be a good start ?


Thanks

Welcome to the forum.

Hey that's a pretty good kit and a good starter, I still have the 17-40 and started with the 70-200 f/4L, but swapped it for a 70-200 f/2.8L IS after 2 years. What sort of macro are you going to do? I ask because the 50mm macro is really only a good choice for interior type work like coins, stamps, watches etc, but not so good for outdoors macro, due to it's very short working distance. If you want to do critter photography, you'll need more working distance. A good alternative is either a 100mm macro or a close up attachment for your 70-200. If you are just wanting a 50mm lens for general work, a 50 f/1.4 is worth a look.

Interesting, if was starting out from scratch I'd go the Nikon path. They D300 is superb camera, and they will release a FF consumer body probably in 2009 IMO. Admittedly they don't have f/4 lenses, but something like a 17-35 f/2.8 and 70-200 f/2.8 VR are excellent and they have the best macros including the superb 105 f/2.8 VR.

Either way you can't go wrong these days; the 40D is a great camera too.

why not a 5d at the ridicilous prices they are at right now?

TallyHo Films wrote:
Here are some of the lenses i'm considering, and would appreciate any comments.
Canon 17-40 F4 L
Canon 70-200 F4 L or Canon 70-200 F2.8 L
Sigma 50mm F2.8 EX DG Macro
I think this covers the main focal range I need, would this be a good start ?
Thanks

If it is a macro you want, I would rather take a 100 mm. If the focal length is the important point I would choose the Canon EF 50mm 2.5 Compact Macro since this one is Canon's most capable 50 all things taken into consideration.

The wide angle solution, the 17-40, is good, but not so good on "FF."

Considering the telephoto lens, 2.8 always gives you twice the shutter speed at any given ISO value, so I would strongly recommend a 2.8 over a 4.0 version.

Bogatyr

Great outfit though i would also second the 5d if you could afford it without the sigma perhaps.

I was thinking of the 5D also but there is the obvious argument of 2year old technology vs current technology. Id also like to get more into pet photography and I also have a baby on the way so my thoughts were that the 40D is a faster focuser from what i've read.

Of course i'm open to having my mind changed

Let's see what Canon announces next week in regards to the 450D. I hope Canon will be releasing impressive specs with it!

I am also considering 40D. I wanted to get the 5D for the FF - but going through the forums and other readings, the 40D seems to be as good, if not better than the 5D at about $1300 vs. the close to $2000 for the 5D.

The Nikon D300 is very good at the price, and thinking about it, but do not want to switch to Nikon - unless I can sell my simple lenses without too much loss perhaps.

I am sticking with what I have, but need to see good bodies!

I would say the 5d though older technology is still the better camera for the most part. I wouldn't hesitate to get one over the 40d.

Yes, the "better" AF on the 40D is only better according to some people and no better than the 5D according to others. It's a tough call. On paper it should be better but I've yet to gain conclusive proof of how it's better (and I can't afford to buy both bodies to find out myself).

The 40D also has some nice features (liveview, multiple custom functions, 14-bit) that may or may not be useful to people. I'm leaning toward a 5D over a 40D and D300, but the D300 might still snare me.

I might end up renting a 5D for a week just to try it out... the AF is critical for me and if the 5D is lacking in this area (in terms of accuracy first, speed second) then the D300 might win. That Nikon pro AF system is reportedly superb.

I would recommend the Nikon route if you do a lot of flash photography. I have used both systems extensively and in my humble opinion, nikon's flash system is more idoitproof.

The kit you have described is why Canon is so attractive as it is the perfect setup for a serious amateur. The 17-40s can be very inconsistent in quality so try to test a few before buying (especially at the wide-angle end - check the corners for softness).

I dont do flash photography (at least not in any capacity that would make it a deciding factor in a purchase).

I see many people call the 5D slow in the forums, what exactly is slow on the 5D? Is it the focus ? Is it being full frame the only reason its preferred over the 40D ?

Depends what you want to shoot, but I prefer the 40D over the 5D for optimum flexibility / quality. I understand the love of 5D owners for their camera, but realistically the 40D beats it dollar per pixel and dollar per feature. For general photography the 40D is hard to beat. I don't necessarily think the 5D is over-rated, but on this forum the 40d often appears to be under-rated

Re the lenses - the ones you've chosen are excellent. I chose the f4 version of the 70-200 because I don't need it for low light and prefer the lighter weight of the f4. YMMV.

Re the macro - I picked up the Tamron 90 f2.8 and recommend it as value for money, excellent quality, colour, bokeh etc. Slightly slower focus, but great if you don't want to pay as much yet want excellent IQ.

The review section of this forum is a good resource for lenses.

thanks for the feedback, im primarily interested in getting more experience in portraits(people and pets) and maybe architecture although I do love landscapes

Im hoping the cameras high iso range will make up for a lens thats only a f4 especially if shooting inside.

I know i'll have to compromise as far as landscapes go with a 1.6 crop unless i get a ultra wide prime.

If you add the 50 f1.8 you'll cover indoor lower light people shots at very little cost. For landscapes I really like the 17-40 f4 very much, and also love the 70-200 f4 for landscapes. I haven't got an ultrawide for the 40D (yet), but would probably only use it for special effects in any case. The 17-40 does very nice wide scenic shots and I don't consider it a compromise in any way.

I would also suggest a 5D given the very low prices they are right now, it is almost a steal!

Sure, the 5D replacement is going to be better but it will be more expensive, the waiting list will be long and even after announcement it is going to take time to filter through to dealers. Since you shoot portraits and stuff like that for me grab a bargain and get the 5D, you won't be disappointed.

TallyHo Films wrote:
thanks for the feedback, im primarily interested in getting more experience in portraits(people and pets) and maybe architecture although I do love landscapes

Im hoping the cameras high iso range will make up for a lens thats only a f4 especially if shooting inside.

I know i'll have to compromise as far as landscapes go with a 1.6 crop unless i get a ultra wide prime.

If you are into portraits and landscapes, 5D + fast primes is the way to go IMO:
- FPS of 5D is more than suitable
- center AF point of 5D is very accurate and reliable
- FF with wide apertures makes you isolate your subject from a blurry background more easily
- FF gives you true wide angle for landscapes
- 5D files look great at high ISO's (for shooting without flash in low light)

Im really tempted with the 5D (especially with the $700 rebate we get in Canada), I think my main problem is I keep reading about the 5Ds poor off center focusing as well as the word "Slow" which always seems to crop up in all the boards im reading.

I guess I was hoping that for a camera costing a few thousand dollars I wouldn't have to use the centre focus, and then recompose like i used to have to do on one of my old cheap point and shoot cameras.

I really have tried to love the 5D ... have bought one three times and sold them all. Where is the 5D slow? ... shutter lag, fps, buffer. The 40D kills it for speed and focus accuracy, not only off center focus points but also the center focus point and AI Servo (almost as good as a 1 series). Those who think the 5D focus is better have probably not owned both, I have. 40D has 14 bit, anti-dust shaker (dust was a real problem with all three of my 5Ds, not only the sensor but in the viewfinder which drives me crazy, zero issues there with my 40D), 6.5 fps, built in flash is convenient at times, bigger buffer, ISO constantly visable in the viewfinder, better sealing, 1.6 crop is wonderful for tele shots, My Menu is superb for most used settings, no FF lens compares to the versatility of the 17-55 F 2.8 EF-S ... for about half the price of a 5D, the 40D is a no brainer. I love shooting with my MKIII, but my 40D is next in line, way ahead of previous 5D bodies.

The 5DII hopefully will include all the 2+ years of technological improvements but no one knows when or for how much.

TallyHo Films wrote:
Im really tempted with the 5D (especially with the $700 rebate we get in Canada), I think my main problem is I keep reading about the 5Ds poor off center focusing as well as the word "Slow" which always seems to crop up in all the boards im reading.

I guess I was hoping that for a camera costing a few thousand dollars I wouldn't have to use the centre focus, and then recompose like i used to have to do on one of my old cheap point and shoot cameras.

True, the outer AF points of the 5D are unreliable IMO because they aren't cross types. When using the most outer AF point in portrait orientation, you have a horizontal AF sensor that needs vertical contrast... but eyes are positioned horizontally in the head... Result: an average of 30% in focus shots.
I tried the focus / recompose technique for a while... but it never really worked for me because of the shifting focal plane.
Now I am back to the basics: I installed the EE-S focus screen and start manual focusing again. Works most of the time... unless you want to track some fast moving object. But then you could use the center AF point (which is very reliable).
Also there are a lot of reports that the 40D's AF is not much better - ask Alan321 (and there are people who think it is way better). I think, if you really want to use accurate and reliable single AF points, you are going to end up with a 1D series body (well, maybe not the 1DIII).
As for slow, the 40D has 6,5 FPS vs the 5D's 3 FPS... So technically speaking the 40D is faster. But when shooting portraits and landscapes, this will hardly be an issue. For shooting sports or wildlife, that's a different matter.

TallyHo Films wrote:
thanks for the feedback, im primarily interested in getting more experience in portraits(people and pets) and maybe architecture although I do love landscapes
.

The 5D Absolutely RULES in all those areas (even and specially when using high iso) , It might be a year or 2 old but it still excels

I will chime in for the 5D as well. The IQ will be better, and you will be able to use your lenses as intended. I have the Sigma 50mm macro, and it is terrific, but you have 2 inches away in order to use it at 1:1. It is a great portrait lens too, but i think you would be better off with a 50 1.4 for general purpose-or even the 1.8, and save a couple hundred right there-it is an excellent lens. Also, try to keep your glass at 2.8 if possible-the autofocus will be better, the viewfinder brighter, and will stop action better. Here is a revision that i think you will love:

5D

16-35 2.8L Mk1 (can be had for about $850 used if you shop around)

50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4

70-200 2.8 (IS if you can afford-some say it is too heavy, but i don't even notice it is there carrying it a whole football game-you can get the IS for 1399 on the B&S right now)

Extension tubes for 70-200 macro


If you do get a 40D, then get a 35mm f/2 as a fast prime-the 50 will be too long for most inside stuff.

Thanks for all the feedback, I really appreciate it.

I've checked out the prices at my local shop and heres the low down (in CDN $ )

40D is $1300
5D is $2500 but there is a $700 canon rebate so its really $1800

That makes it a $500 difference. Now would people who suggest the 40D think if the difference is only 500, its worth going for the 5D ? Is the 5D even with its focus "issues" worth it ?

Obviously, above all else I need a camera with fast and accurate focus (fast enough to catch the kids in action as they run around).


Thanks.

If you get the 40D, I'd highly recommend the 17-55 IS. Just sell it when you go FF. You won't lose much on the sale. And if you buy it now with ther rebates then that's even less of a loss when you sell it down the road.

If you are shooting kids running around, the best method is to use focus and recompose with centerpoint focus, moving the af trigger to the * button on the back of the camera (a custom function-the same way pro sports are shot). In this respect, the 5D will be terrific-fast and accurate. The only supposed problems that occur are when using the other non-cross hair type af points. And yes, it would be worth the difference in price, especially when you see what 16/17mm looks like on FF.

You do realize that to get the $700 rebate you have to purchase two of the listed items or it is a $350 rebate. You may be planning on buying one of the other items, but just in case ...

Click Here

Canon rebates have not always been easy to collect, try a search.

Also suggest going to your local dealer and pressing the shutter release on both cameras in the store to determine if the shutter lag / focus speed difference is something you can tolerate when trying to capture fast moving kids. Take a few pics with each body then take them home and examine them at 100% to see which focuses more accurately.

The excellent 10-22 EF-S lens is just as good, if not better, than 16mm on FF.