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 ?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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
) 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.