40D 50D or 5D II

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

...really can't tell them apart unless I get "up close and personal".

---

And let's be quite honest - most non-photographic people don't do that. And they also don't have any comparisons to make between A or B. So how would the know that one was better than the other?

Having said that, I think improvements in quality (of anything) are a series of step-changes in improvement, that on their own may not amount to much, but in total may make an appreciable difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rob marshall

And let's be quite honest - most non-photographic people don't do that. And they also don't have any comparisons to make between A or B. So how would the know that one was better than the other?

---

I agree. Most seem scared of making a wrong camera choice, whereas in reality, there is a HUGE overlap between models.

Quote:

---

Having said that, I think improvements in quality (of anything) are a series of step-changes in improvement, that on their own may not amount to much, but in total may make an appreciable difference.

---

Potentially yes, but assuming that an image isn't excessively cropped, most online images only need, say, 900 x 600 pixels (0.5MP) or a typical 6 x 4 print @ 300 dpi (2.1MP) and a dynamic range of, say, 6 stops - just about anything can do either of these. So yes - there are differences in the amount of detail captured with higher MP count cameras, but in most cases, I don't think the final shots often come close to needing any of that detail (at a pro-sumer level anyway).

What I have difficulty with; is why professional houses that have to make a buck to survive, buy £40,000 cameras, where an old dslr would suffice.

I suspect the customers can tell the difference. but I could be wrong, customers might like paying loads o' money. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

I'd be so bold as to say that - for the average shot - there's really no difference in image quality between anything from a 20D upwards. I have canvas prints on my gallery wall from 20D - 1D3 - 1Ds3 - really can't tell them apart unless I get "up close and personal".

---

I totally agree with Colin's comment. Let me add that there are also some other cameras which produce very good to excellent imagery. Nikon and Pentax are among these, along with Olympus. The Panasonic 4/3 cameras are also quite capable...

In fact, we live in an era when there is a plethora of very capable DSLR cameras available both new and used at every price range. All of them capable of producing very good to excellent imagery. The cameras differ in the bells and whistles they have aboard, their frame rate in burst mode, their vido capability or lack thereof, their ISO capability and in their control systems; more than they vary in their image quality...

And, we "get up close and personal" far more on our computer monitor than we ever did when viewing photographic prints. The average 8x10 inch size print was about the biggest that we viewed at arms length (which is how the circle of confusion is derived). Larger prints were most often viewed on the wall from a distance. I have a 16x20" print on my living room wall that was shot with an Olympus 5500Z five megapixel camera. It is viewed from a distance and I get compliments on it all the time...

One more comment regarding image quality. The non-reflecting glass, often used in picture framing, will make some of the sharpest prints look a bit less sharp...

I have a 36" x 12" print hanging on the wall in my living room. I get compliments of it often. I came from a 6.3 MP Canon D60. Several visitors thought it was from film.

95% or more of good imagery comes from the photographer, not the camera. The camera is just a tool to help capture the photographers vision. You can give a good camera to a poor photographer and they will generally get lower quality images than a good photographer with a marginal camera. Just my opinion.

As far as the pixel war is going, it is being driven by the consumer "sheeple" mindset that has the delusion that more is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DTruex

I have a 36" x 12" print hanging on the wall in my living room. I get compliments of it often. I came from a 6.3 MP Canon D60. Several visitors thought it was from film.

95% or more of good imagery comes from the photographer, not the camera. The camera is just a tool to help capture the photographers vision. You can give a good camera to a poor photographer and they will generally get lower quality images than a good photographer with a marginal camera. Just my opinion.

As far as the pixel war is going, it is being driven by the consumer "sheeple" mindset that has the delusion that more is better.

---

I agree with all of that. There was a time when I might have questioned some of it, but since then I've learned a lot more about how photographers skill & knowledge makes or breaks a shot - not the equipment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DTruex

I have a 36" x 12" print hanging on the wall in my living room. I get compliments of it often. I came from a 6.3 MP Canon D60. Several visitors thought it was from film.

95% or more of good imagery comes from the photographer, not the camera. The camera is just a tool to help capture the photographers vision. You can give a good camera to a poor photographer and they will generally get lower quality images than a good photographer with a marginal camera. Just my opinion.

As far as the pixel war is going, it is being driven by the consumer "sheeple" mindset that has the delusion that more is better.

---

I've got a 32" x 24" print done with my old 50D and nifty fifty on my wall :D and it is as big as it can get without losing quality. It must be around 128 dpi but I used a program to interpolate points up to 250 dpi.

I don't believe David Bailey when he say's he does fashion shoots with a point 'n' shoot, I think he is pulling my leg. The reason is simply if I do a dot drawing and look at it from a long way away it looks like the dots are joined up. But that works in reverse and the closer you get the more apparent the dots.

So a client wants a fashion shoot, he wants to hang an eight foot high photo across the entrance to his shop showing the top designer clothes costing thousands and a model costing thousands an hour, and David Bailey turns up with his £80 half price point 'n' shoot he got out of a High st store on the way, and does you a very nice picture of dots.:eek:
I don't believe it. I suppose with a name and following like his, some people would think they are very nice dots.

But I could say; it doesn't really matter what camera you have to display on the web, even a point and shoot exceeds the ppi.

Interesting point when choosing between a cropped camera and bigger frame is if your into landscape; a 17mm on a crop and all its distortion, is equivalent to 25....28mm say without any distortion on a full frame. But you will need an awefully big lens to do portraits, say 100mm f2.:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arith

I've got a 32" x 24" print done with my old 50D and nifty fifty on my wall :D and it is as big as it can get without losing quality. It must be around 128 dpi but I used a program to interpolate points up to 250 dpi.

---

128DPI is still 25 potential tone changes per square millimeter -- if you eyes can resolve that at normal viewing distance for a print that size then they're better than mine :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arith

What I have difficulty with; is why professional houses that have to make a buck to survive, buy £40,000 cameras, where an old dslr would suffice.

I suspect the customers can tell the difference. but I could be wrong, customers might like paying loads o' money. :)

---

Well, there was some talk about differences in reliability and weather/dust resistance...

Also, i guess some detaiils like double storage media and such might play more of a role for professionals than for amateurs.

Last point: bodies might not make much of a difference, the glass you use them with is another story. And better glass tends to be heavier (larger max aperture...) and a heavier body would be needed to get the proper balance. And once you hit several thousand $/£/€ per lens, a few hundred extra for the higher-end body isn't that much anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by revi

Well, there was some talk about differences in reliability and weather/dust resistance...

Also, i guess some details like double storage media and such might play more of a role for professionals than for amateurs.

Last point: bodies might not make much of a difference, the glass you use them with is another story. And better glass tends to be heavier (larger max aperture...) and a heavier body would be needed to get the proper balance. And once you hit several thousand $/£/€ per lens, a few hundred extra for the higher-end body isn't that much anymore.

---

Actually the body does matter, because it has got a resolution. The theoretical maximum is called Nyquist and on mine is 2250 LW/PH, which is about the same as a 5D MK1.
It is no benefit getting an L lens for a Canon 10D with 1350 LW/PH, and not really for a 50D since 17-55 HFS IS is exceeding the capability of the camera.
Actually dslr's also guess colours, except maybe Sony, while Medium format record the actual colour.
I may be biased but I think I can tell a difference. :)

A Canon 1D MK IV I guess costs around £4000, a Hasselblad and a local photographer whose granddad established the company has got a Hasselblad, at the top end costs more than £40000 and isn't any more dust proof or waterproof than the Canon.

It may be that some professionals are just plain stupid, and there is quite a lot of them buying Hasselblads because I'm always getting emails about sold out studio days, or it is more likely I'm having my leg pulled.

At the risk of "beating a dead horse", regarding the full frame vs. crop camera debate; I'd like to provide my feelings on this matter "one last time". IMO, if you are shooting a 1.6x camera with top-line glass and you are getting very good to excellent results; you may improve those results by using a full frame camera.

However, if you are not getting very-good to excellent results with a crop camera and top-line lens, then IMO, you will probably not experience a photographic epiphany by switching to full frame because it is probably the Indian not the arrow that is at fault.

Expressing it in another way without the allegory, if a photographer cannot get consistently very-good to excellent results using a 60D with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses either that specific copy of the 60D has problems and/or the photographer's technique is at fault. A photographer SHOULD be able to get extremely good results with that combination of camera and those two excellent lenses. very likely sharpening might be the problem. I learned a bit about sharpening from Colin and my images are better for that.

BTW: Thanks Colin...

It is a bit of an overkill to use an L type with a 60D, suppose it might be better in other ways but what an expense where a cheaper lens will do exactly the same.

I keep hearing about good photography, from good photographers with thousands of pounds worth of equipment. But here you go; I had a point 'n' shoot for a week before I chucked it.

The photo's are for sale at only £100 each.

This is one of them at a bargain price :cool:

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...4/storm-vi.jpg

Quote:

---

At the risk of "beating a dead horse", regarding the full frame vs. crop camera debate; I'd like to provide my feelings on this matter "one last time". IMO, if you are shooting a 1.6x camera with top-line glass and you are getting very good to excellent results; you may improve those results by using a full frame camera.

However, if you are not getting very-good to excellent results with a crop camera and top-line lens, then IMO, you will probably not experience a photographic epiphany by switching to full frame because it is probably the Indian not the arrow that is at fault.

Expressing it in another way without the allegory, if a photographer cannot get consistently very-good to excellent results using a 60D with 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and 70-200mm f/4L IS lenses either that specific copy of the 60D has problems and/or the photographer's technique is at fault. A photographer SHOULD be able to get extremely good results with that combination of camera and those two excellent lenses. very likely sharpening might be the problem. I learned a bit about sharpening from Colin and my images are better for that.

---

^^^^This is the truth of the matter. If it is a gift I would go for the 50D. If I were standing the bill I would go for the faithful 40D and use the cash toward glass. The 5D II I would have to try before buying. I simply do not believe my photography is up to the standard where I would notice any difference...in fact I suspect I would have a worse time with the 5D II initially

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wirefox

The 5D II I would have to try before buying. I simply do not believe my photography is up to the standard where I would notice any difference...in fact I suspect I would have a worse time with the 5D II initially

---

No, I don't think so. It's easy to operate. It's not much different to the 50/60D (apart from the sensor and FOV). It's just as fat and ugly as all the other Canon/Nikon beasts of burden. In fact, I hate the look of it. I much prefer the pink Panasonic thingee - that has style, seductiveness, allure, elan, panache.

I'm getting carried away again in a photo-orgasmic frenzy, aren't I? Katy will be telling me off again...:eek:

Stick a full-frame sensor in it and use a Leica lens (they take them) and it would be perfect.
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...1771402177.jpg

[QUOTE=arith;115437]It is a bit of an overkill to use an L type with a 60D, suppose it might be better in other ways but what an expense where a cheaper lens will do exactly the same.[IMG]

I tend to disagree... IMO, the glass is what determines the quality of the image. One of the reasons why I stayed with the 1.6x format is that I absolutely LOVE my 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens. While not designated as an "L" lens, it is as pricey as "L" lenses traditionally are. However, it is worth it to me. Could I do as well with the 17-50mm f/2.8 Tamron or the 17-70mm f/2.8-f/4 Sigma... quite possibly I could! However, I chose the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS Canon lens. I also love my 70-200mm f/4L IS and I don't think that there is any lens made to match the image quality and relatively light weight of the 70-200mm f/4L IS.

If these lenses can be considered "overkill" by some folks, they can be considered meat and potatoes by others. Whether they are worth the price or not is probably determined by the relative affluence of the person using them.

My son in law wears a Rollex watch and swears by it. He also drives a Cadillac SUV and also swears by that! However, I tell time equally as well on my Seiko watch and my Honda SUV gets me to the places I want to go (albiet not in as much luxury). Is the Rollex and Cadillac worth the cost to my son in law? He certainly thinks so! Would they be worth it to me? No! However, my son in law is looking for a camera and will select a Rebel because the price of the 60D or 7D is higher than he considers a camera to be worth.

Though I'm new to this forum, I'm not new to photography, both film and digital.

I currently own a 5D MK1, and a 60D. A vey close friend has owned 40D, and currently has the 50D. I have considerable experience shooting with both of his cameras as well.

There's been a ton of terrific information in this thread, and a bit of what I'd consider not so good.

Were I in your shoes, and someone offered me a gift of any of those models, I'd take the 5D MK2 without even debating. Now, before I go on, that's me, and I also haves a reasonably nicew lens collection, with both L and Ef lenses.

One of the best posts above said that the Indian matters more than the arrow. Absolutely true. Doesn't matter what you shoot, if you don't work to build the skill sets required to be a craftsman.

Another post stated that the user thinks the glass matters more than the camera. I agree with some reservations. Given the three cameras you're considering, I don't think you'd be going wrong with any of them. Just be sure you have money set aside for lenses, and buy the best ones you can afford. Resale is almost always decent on lenses, whereas resale on camera bodies changes rapidly as new models come out. If you can afford the L glass, get it. But also get the training and kowledge you'll need to take advantage.

BTW, I LOVE my old 5D. That's why ill buy the Mk2 soon. The full frame sensor (with the right glass) gives me absolutely stunning bokeh, the color is rich and deep, and detail is amazing.

As for the 60D, it too is a wonderful piece of kit. The extra "reach" I get with my long telephotos caused by the crop sensor has really come in handy at times.

Whatever you choice, take the time to really learn the camera. Stay out of the Automatic zones whenever possible and you'll learn fast!

Reid Mason
Mason Photographics
Http:masonphotographics.com
Flickr: Mason Photographics
Email: Masonphotographics@gmail.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rpcrowe

My son in law wears a Rollex watch and swears by it.

---

He might like to check the certificate of authenticity - Mine says "Rolex" :)

Quote:

---

One of the best posts above said that the Indian matters more than the arrow.

---

Some Indians have automatic bows, never loaded a film, never processed one, don't know DIN, never knew that different films have different characteristics, never mixed the chemicals and think everything to do with photography is pointing and shooting.

To mention Indians at all where it is obvious to anybody but an idiot that the operator is important in the final product, is unnecessary.

To think you can filter out everything but the lens to explain resolution where film/sensor camera body and technology all have an important influence is over an simplification. In fact the operator is left with very little to do since AF does the focusing and no regard is even taken of dof, or the effects of diffraction.

What is being asked here is about pixel sizes, and sensor sizes, which is easily answered by pointing out that the 40D is good up to A3 size, 50D up to A2 size and 5D MKII up to A1 size quite easily, whilst medium format is intended to be used for life sized prints.

BTW Acutance sharpening is adding edges; I can't remember doing that in film photography and I had to process and enlarge my own. I'm looking at deconvolution to avoid all that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

He might like to check the certificate of authenticity - Mine says "Rolex" :)

---

I had a chance to buy a Rolex in Beijing, China for five dollars (USD) the the street vendor (a "hello guy") had a whole box of them and swore that they were genuine. At least that is what I think he swore because I don't speak Chinese and he only spoke two words of English, "Fi Dolla!" A guy on my tour bought one the first day of the tour and it was still working two weeks later when we arrived back in the USA. Apparently that is some sort of record for the "genuine Rolex watches" purchased on the streets of Beijing...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colin Southern

He might like to check the certificate of authenticity - Mine says "Rolex" :)

---

So does mine. ;) And I do have a CoA from the manufacture.