Upgrading from 300D - to 40D or 5D??

Hey, folks.

I'm an increasingly avid amateur, who's pretty much outgrown his Canon
300D.

I'm currently waiting (as are many) for the 40D, as it'd be a nice
step up.

But then I look at the specs on the 5D, and think that (if I can pony
up the ca$h), it might be the way to go.

I really don't want to think about waiting for the eventual
replacement of the 5D - I'm getting right sick of the waiting game.

Anyway. I must admit that I really don't 'get' the FullFrame versus
1.6 crop distinction - pixels are pixels, are they not?

What I'm really looking for is a straight-up, practical comparison
between FF and 1.6, so that I can appreciate how much of a difference
the technology switch would actually make for me, and the kinds of
shots I generally go for (portraits, macro, some nature shots). I
don't do many wide angle shots, and I hear that point mentioned in the
context of the FF sensor.

Aside from the incompatibility with my EF-S lenses, and the cost, are
there any downsides to the 5D over, say, the 30D/40D?

Thanks!!

BD

Based on your post, I would go for a 20D/30D/40D and spend the money on
decent lenses.



"BD" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hey, folks.

I'm an increasingly avid amateur, who's pretty much outgrown his Canon
300D.

I'm currently waiting (as are many) for the 40D, as it'd be a nice
step up.

But then I look at the specs on the 5D, and think that (if I can pony
up the ca$h), it might be the way to go.

I really don't want to think about waiting for the eventual
replacement of the 5D - I'm getting right sick of the waiting game.

Anyway. I must admit that I really don't 'get' the FullFrame versus
1.6 crop distinction - pixels are pixels, are they not?

What I'm really looking for is a straight-up, practical comparison
between FF and 1.6, so that I can appreciate how much of a difference
the technology switch would actually make for me, and the kinds of
shots I generally go for (portraits, macro, some nature shots). I
don't do many wide angle shots, and I hear that point mentioned in the
context of the FF sensor.

Aside from the incompatibility with my EF-S lenses, and the cost, are
there any downsides to the 5D over, say, the 30D/40D?

Thanks!!

BD

"BD" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hey, folks.

I'm an increasingly avid amateur, who's pretty much outgrown his Canon
300D.

I'm currently waiting (as are many) for the 40D, as it'd be a nice
step up.

But then I look at the specs on the 5D, and think that (if I can pony
up the ca$h), it might be the way to go.

I really don't want to think about waiting for the eventual
replacement of the 5D - I'm getting right sick of the waiting game.

Anyway. I must admit that I really don't 'get' the FullFrame versus
1.6 crop distinction - pixels are pixels, are they not?

What I'm really looking for is a straight-up, practical comparison
between FF and 1.6, so that I can appreciate how much of a difference
the technology switch would actually make for me, and the kinds of
shots I generally go for (portraits, macro, some nature shots). I
don't do many wide angle shots, and I hear that point mentioned in the
context of the FF sensor.

Aside from the incompatibility with my EF-S lenses, and the cost, are
there any downsides to the 5D over, say, the 30D/40D?

Thanks!!

BD


The only thing I noticed in your posting that you need to be aware of
regarding FF and 1.6 is the kind of portrait shooting you do and if you are
one who likes to limit depth of field. If you shoot outdoors, no problem,
either will work just fine for you. If you shoot in confined spaces
indoors, then the 1.6 presents a double whammy: 1) the crop factor makes it
seem like your focal length is being multiplied (it isn't, but for working
distance purposes it acts like it is); and 2) if you compensate for that by
using a shorter focal length lens, then you find that shorter focal lengths
give you greater depth of field at any given aperture...not at all what you
want. If you aren't affected by this in your portrait shooting, by all
means get the 1.6.

"Frank" wrote in message
...
Based on your post, I would go for a 20D/30D/40D and spend the money on
decent lenses.



"BD" wrote in message
ups.com...
Hey, folks.

I'm an increasingly avid amateur, who's pretty much outgrown his Canon
300D.

I'm currently waiting (as are many) for the 40D, as it'd be a nice
step up.

But then I look at the specs on the 5D, and think that (if I can pony
up the ca$h), it might be the way to go.

I really don't want to think about waiting for the eventual
replacement of the 5D - I'm getting right sick of the waiting game.

Anyway. I must admit that I really don't 'get' the FullFrame versus
1.6 crop distinction - pixels are pixels, are they not?

What I'm really looking for is a straight-up, practical comparison
between FF and 1.6, so that I can appreciate how much of a difference
the technology switch would actually make for me, and the kinds of
shots I generally go for (portraits, macro, some nature shots). I
don't do many wide angle shots, and I hear that point mentioned in the
context of the FF sensor.

Aside from the incompatibility with my EF-S lenses, and the cost, are
there any downsides to the 5D over, say, the 30D/40D?

Thanks!!

BD



I'll offer the "bulk and weight" consideration.

I take photos of birds, aircraft and so the 1.6 factor of the 30D would be
of benefit to me.
If you use wide angle lenses a lot then go for FF.

Regards, Ian

I agree with your post, but also disagree. Shooting FF portraits at 1.2,
the DOF is just too narrow for most.


"george" wrote in message
...


The only thing I noticed in your posting that you need to be aware of
regarding FF and 1.6 is the kind of portrait shooting you do and if you
are one who likes to limit depth of field. If you shoot outdoors, no
problem, either will work just fine for you. If you shoot in confined
spaces indoors, then the 1.6 presents a double whammy: 1) the crop factor
makes it seem like your focal length is being multiplied (it isn't, but
for working distance purposes it acts like it is); and 2) if you
compensate for that by using a shorter focal length lens, then you find
that shorter focal lengths give you greater depth of field at any given
aperture...not at all what you want. If you aren't affected by this in
your portrait shooting, by all means get the 1.6.

What I'm really looking for is a straight-up, practical comparison
between FF and 1.6, so that I can appreciate how much of a difference
the technology switch would actually make for me, and the kinds of
shots I generally go for (portraits, macro, some nature shots). I
don't do many wide angle shots, and I hear that point mentioned in the
context of the FF sensor.

The larger sensor will have larger photon sites and thus less noise and
better dynamic range.
Might be an issue for your work and might not. How often do you crank up
the ISO? Do you shoot RAW?

Aside from the incompatibility with my EF-S lenses, and the cost, are
there any downsides to the 5D over, say, the 30D/40D?

Size, weight and cost are the biggest issues for most.

BD wrote in news:1182788366.411427.58160
@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

Aside from the incompatibility with my EF-S lenses, and the cost, are
there any downsides to the 5D over, say, the 30D/40D?

Can't speak of the 40D, as we don't know if a camera by that number will
ever exist, and even if it does, what its specs will be, but the 5D is
basically a 30D with more pixels, bigger pixels, and of course, a bigger
total sensor area.

The 5D will have less spatial subject resolution with the same lens, shot
from the same distance. That's because the pixels are spaced further
apart. If you crop a 5D image to the same size as it would be with a 30D
and the same lens, distance, and subject, the 5D image will be more
pixelated and more noisy. It also will rely on the sometimes dodgy focal
plane edge areas of some lenses, where the optical quality drops of
rapidly in the edges and corners.

On the positive side, the 5D has a bigger sensor, so when you do use the
entire frame, and use a quality lens to fill the bigger frame with your
subject, you will have more detail from the extra pixels, and less total
image noise, as the pixel noise characteristics are almost identical to
the 30D, but there are more of them, yielding a finer grain for the
entire image.


--


John P Sheehy

"Fred Anonymous" wrote in
:

I take photos of birds, aircraft and so the 1.6 factor of the 30D
would be of benefit to me.

I sort of agree (all my DSLRs are 1.6-crop cameras, even though I could
easily afford a 5D), but I think the only reason the 30D is better for
small or distant subjects is because the limit is often the optics, and the
5D has bigger pixels, capturing less subject detail (but a bigger FOV) with
the same lens. If a FF camera had a pixel pitch finer than the 30D's, then
it would have more so-called "reach", because it would gather more subject
detail, and it would allow you to see a larger FOV at the same time, making
it easier to track moving subjects and crop as necessary.


--


John P Sheehy

"Charles" wrote in
:

The larger sensor will have larger photon sites and thus less noise
and better dynamic range.

The 5D's pixels are very similar to the 30D's in every way except that they
*can* capture more photons, and are spaced farther apart. They actually
capture the same number of photons at the same ISO, despite the bigger
pixels. Read noise is about the same as the 30D at the pixel level as
well, for the standard ISOs (100/200/400/800/1600). The 5D can give better
images simply because it has more pixels, and also because since they are
spaced further apart, they are less demanding on the lens for pixel-to-
pixel sharpess.

--


John P Sheehy

"Frank" wrote in message
...
I agree with your post, but also disagree. Shooting FF portraits at 1.2,
the DOF is just too narrow for most.


I didn't say anything about shooting at any specific f-stop. Also, you've
got to remember that as the focal length gets shorter, any given f-stop
gives more depth of field. For instance, I have an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye with
no focusing ring...virtually everything is in focus. Take that same f/3.5
aperture over to a 300mm telephoto and you'll have to focus carefully to
keep an entire object in focus. Remember Alpa used to have a 1.9mm
spherical fisheye lens...I'd suppose that if it were f/1.2, it wouldn't need
to be focused either. But, for practical situations, I would have to agree
with your assessment.


"george" wrote in message
...


The only thing I noticed in your posting that you need to be aware of
regarding FF and 1.6 is the kind of portrait shooting you do and if you
are one who likes to limit depth of field. If you shoot outdoors, no
problem, either will work just fine for you. If you shoot in confined
spaces indoors, then the 1.6 presents a double whammy: 1) the crop
factor makes it seem like your focal length is being multiplied (it
isn't, but for working distance purposes it acts like it is); and 2) if
you compensate for that by using a shorter focal length lens, then you
find that shorter focal lengths give you greater depth of field at any
given aperture...not at all what you want. If you aren't affected by
this in your portrait shooting, by all means get the 1.6.