File :-(, x, )
beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
Hey /p/ .. I'm looking to upgrade my 400D.

Should I
1 - Buy the 40D for 885 dollars
2 - Buy the 5D with 17-40mm f/4L for 2328 dollars (and sell my 10-22mm)

Oh.. and waiting for the next 5D is not an options since I won't be able to get that in discount until 5 months later.


Thanks a lot!
(pic mine, not related)
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 400D DIGITALCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:03:10 13:50:27Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length100.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width528Image Height870RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
I say go for the 40D.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
Buy the damn 40D, wait for the 5D replacement+5 months.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>157222
The only thing that's keeping me from doing that is the thought that the 40D isn't a great enough upgrade to warrant that price.
ISO performance isn't dramatically better (or.. am i wrong about that?). The 2 things I did like about it is faster frames per second and the slightly larger viewfinder.
>> Anonymous
Fuck you for having $2,328 US DOLLARS to spend on a camera.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>157231
I handed in my resignation at my job last Friday, they paid me out 5 weeks pay and let me leave earlier. I rarely ever have this money to spend.
I'm poor, just like all of you
>> Anonymous
if youre so poor, why would you even consider getting a new camera?
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
I don't think we all are poor.

Of course, I am.
/Barely able to afford $1500 of camera equipment this summer
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>157243
Because I can currently easily afford one and already own everything else I want to own.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157228
Better viewfinder, better AF, dual control wheels for more awesome manual mode shooting, live view. From what I've seen of your work, you don't seem to do all that much low-light shooting, but I might be wrong.

Seems like you'd miss the extra millimeter-equivalent when going from the 10-22 on APS-C to the 17-40 on full frame. You tend to spend most of your time at the far wide end of your range. Also, the 5D's two years old so there are probably a few ways in which it would be a step backwards from the 400D...
>> Anonymous
>>157247
1. Invest money.
2. Wait.
3. PROFIT!
4. Buy used 5D or 5D Mk. II and 16-35/2.8.
5. Canon PROFITS!
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
Sell the 400d and the 10-22 and grab the 5d. That's probably what I would do.
>> Anonymous
Why not just get the 17-40mm and use it on your 400D for the time being?

Upgrade your camera body once you're settled into a new job instead of bludging off centrelink.
>> Anonymous
What type of shooting do you do? I wouldn't buy the 5D with that lens for that much. I wouldn't buy the 40D either unless you're not looking to spend lots.

For that price you could easily get a 1D mkII (used) along with the 17-40L. You won't get the wide you are looking for, but there's other options for that...if you are going full frame I guess the 5D is your best shot.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157298
Because the 17-40 isn't really significantly better than the kit lens on an APS-C camera.
>> Anonymous
>>157305Because the 17-40 isn't really significantly better than the kit lens on an APS-C camera.

Have you used one before?

Long time believer of "a 17-40 sucks on crop cameras" here.

For one, it doesn't need to be stopped down to f/8 to be nice. It also has quite possibly the best color rendition on any lens Canon has. People say it has more contrast or pop but no, it's just a special quality it gives to images.
>> Anonymous
$2328 for a new 5d with the 17-40mm is damn good. I'd definately go with that. That's like the same price you'd get the setup for used here.
>> Liquefied !!CF1+3tSFCce
>>157310
Also, the build quality is light years ahead of anything else in that range. Build quality the my main reason for using L lenses, I can't stand working with shitty stuff.
>> Anonymous
>>157305
I guess my point was more that he should consider lenses first body 2nd. Especially if there is a new body coming out later this year which would be the style he's after.

Also Beethy would stop distorting the crap out of all those models he photographs with a more normal focal length range.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157310
Fair enough. I've never actually used an L. I'm honestly somewhat afraid to. I just know if I use one, I'll never want to use anything else again...
>> Anonymous
>>157312

Well if you're going to mention that.

There's also non rotating front for elite-art-faggot-filters, non extending zoom, extremely fast, silent and precise USM and a usable manual ring.
>> Anonymous
yes because buying more expensive equipment will make your bland, over-shopped pieces of shit better somehow.
>> Anonymous
>>157327
Why are there so many stupid people on /p/?
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
if you can get a 5D and 17-40 for that man, fucking go for it right now!

id be lucky to get a 2nd hand 5d body alone for that price ($aus ~~ $nz at the mo) let alone a nice lens and both are new!

how many are you able to get at that price? hook an anzac up mo'fo!
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
Thanks a lot for your suggestions, I think if I do go for the upgrade (as soon as I get a new job).. I should go for the new 5D with the 17-40
Yea, I don't mind replacing my 10-22mm with that lens since the distortion does really suck when shooting people.

>>157330
can't hook you up since i get em through canon directly. it would be suspicious if i start to order like 10 5Ds.
i only get stuff for myself
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>157356
how do you get em directly through them :D

also, i hear theres a modification to the 10-22 by removing one of the back plates that allows it to be used on FF just with vignetting below 15mm

could be win in the time being?
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
I'm torn as well. The 1Ds spoiled me for full-frame though and you can't argue with the 5D low noise. Gaaahh.
>> Anonymous
>>157324
Like someone said, the thing about high-end glass (L or Leica or Zeiss or...) is just that it gives a special quality to the images. So, from what I've seen of some shots you've posted with it, does the 18-55 IS of all things. And the cheap little EF 50/1.4 is right up there with the L lenses as far as "special quality;" it's just not weathersealed. Looks pretty much the same as the 35/1.4 and 24/1.4. Canon probably just wants people who want a weathersealed 50 to go for the (inferior, IMO) 50/1.2.

>>157372
Full-frame doesn't really give much advantage. Like was said in your thread, if there wasn't any EXIF and you hadn't told us, we'd have thought you just stuck a 50/1.2 on your Rebel.
>> Anonymous
>>157379And the cheap little EF 50/1.4 is right up there with the L lenses as far as "special quality;"

If it could be used consistently at 1.4, I would agree.
>> Anonymous
>>157380
I think it can be. Don't know about how it fares with regards to flare (Whenever I've shot it wide-open, it's generally been indoors in dark rooms), but it still has a great look to it down to f/1.4.

And still, a good lens is a good lens. Let's play pretend and say it's a 50/2 L.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
Personally would go for the 40D - the difference in image quality is not that noticable, in fact some of the reviews I have read say that the 40D actually outshines the 5D.

The reasoning behind this is the 40D has a super fast shutter speed meaning it can be used for sport. It has a good high megapixel count meaning it can be used for huge prints. The ISO can go quite high before noise reduction starts to struggle to remove the graininess.
Also having the EF-S lens mount means the EF lenses get the extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses.

As always though, go into the store and try them out.
The thing you will probably notice about the cameras is they are quite different from the 400D - at least the 40D's menus and controls are different, not sure about the 5D.
>> heman
why not buy the 40d and use the remainder 1443$ to buy a beautiful lens.

40d with good lens>5d with shit lens
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
>>157379
Yeah, this guy is right. If you're not going to buy only L-series glass, full frame will be worse than cropped bodies. Just take a few steps back with the 40D and it'll be just like a 5D*

*not always true
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157394

Like Heman said.
An awesome lens on a good body will outshine a good lens on an awesome body.

All the awesome body will do is take the photo with a tiny bit less grain and with more pixels, however the sharper lens will mean you can enlarge the image just that little bit more before you start to sacrifice the image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>157386

Holy fuck, so many shit wrong. Did you spout off some bullshit from DPReview?

>> image quality is not that noticable

Oh yeah, best noise control and dynamic range in its class. No of course not, there's no difference between a 5D and a 40D.

>> in fact some of the reviews I have read say that the 40D actually outshines the 5D.

Please tell me in what capacity.

>> The reasoning behind this is the 40D has a super fast shutter speed meaning it can be used for sport.

Motherfucking /rolleyes. Because everyone wants fast continuous rate? What's good for you isn't necessarily good for others.

>> It has a good high megapixel count meaning it can be used for huge prints.

Okay, I think we could stop right there since that just completely invalidates anything you say.

>> The ISO can go quite high before noise reduction starts to struggle to remove the graininess.

lulz, noise reduction. RAW motherfucker, do you speak it? And a 5D will have clean images up to 1600 at the least.

>> Also having the EF-S lens mount means the EF lenses get the extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses.

ROFL, or how about we have UWA lenses be UWA lenses instead of being standard zooms?

>> As always though, go into the store and try them out.
The thing you will probably notice about the cameras is they are quite different from the 400D - at least the 40D's menus and controls are different, not sure about the 5D.

Go back to DPRreview.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>157394
Why do you think that the 17-40mm is a shitty lens?

Full frame has alot of merits. The huge viewfinder alone is reason enough to go with the 5d over the 40d.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>157386
>Also having the EF-S lens mount means the EF lenses get the extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses

If you like the crop factor so much, you can just crop a 5d image. Also, zooms in the walkaround ranges are much better for full frame. There aren't any L quality crop lenses that have the same equivalent range and capabilities as the 24-105 f4 L or the 24-70 f2.8 L. the 17-55mm ef-s is effectively a 28-88mm, but you lose out on the wide end. There are just better lens choices in the full frame range that are cheaper. 10-22mm is much more expensive than the 17-40mm and the 17-40mm has superior image quality.
>> Anonymous
>>157409

I use a 24-105 on a 400D.

Fuck your wide end, yeah!
>> Anonymous
>>15740910-22mm is much more expensive than the 17-40mm and the 17-40mm has superior image quality.

You would be wrong.

Both are the same price, give or take $50. BUT the 17-40 comes with a pouch and lens hood.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>157412
http://www.photoprice.ca/product/00031#a.00031
http://www.photoprice.ca/product/00029#a.00029

Ok, not a huge difference, but the 17-40 is still cheaper by around $80 (to have it shipped to where i live) and it's a cheaper L vs non-L.
>> Anonymous
>>157413

Canada doesn't count. GTFO
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157405

1.

>>Holy fuck, so many shit wrong. Did you spout off some bullshit from DPReview?

Please read what I wrote, and at least try to understand where I am coming from before accusing me of copy-pasting something from dPreview. (Which I did not.)

>> image quality is not that noticable

>> Oh yeah, best noise control and dynamic range in its class. No of course not, there's no difference between a 5D and a 40D.

Actually from the images I have seen there is little difference. It may be because I rarely get to see full 100% crops that have not been edited in Photoshop, or it may be just my bias that
Also, fuck off, I never said there is no difference, I said the difference IS NOT THAT NOTICABLE. Learn to debate MY ARGUMENT properly not putting up a strawman and hitting away at that.

>> in fact some of the reviews I have read say that the 40D actually outshines the 5D.

>> Please tell me in what capacity.

Newer camera (means newer technology), faster shutter speed, ability to use EF and EF-S lenses, more lense choice, partial weather sealing, I can't remember much else from the reviews.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157405

2.

>> The reasoning behind this is the 40D has a super fast shutter speed meaning it can be used for sport.

>> Motherfucking /rolleyes. Because everyone wants fast continuous rate? What's good for you isn't necessarily good for others.

I own a 40D and I have messed around with a few other cameras such as the 350D, the Nikon (can't remember which model now, one of the cheaper D-SLR versions), an EOS ELAN IIe, a couple of large point and shoots (fuji's, canons) and a few compact point and shoots.
In fact I started off my photography with a small Canon point and shoot (I can't remember the model now, one of the A series) that had a shooting speed of about 1.2-2 FPS.

I know what it is like to have a slow continuous capture speed, especially when you are trying to capture moving items, or things in an aquarium where the fish or other marine animal just will not stay still for you to photograph.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157405

3.


If you are going to use your camera for varying situations, a good high ISO, fast shutter speed and a good wide f/stop is (usually) desirable, as especially if you are unsure about the current style you are shooting in, you can shoot a lot of photos quickly and be more likely to get the photo you want, and learn from the experience than to go home discouraged as none of your photos are usable.
Yeah, I know that sounds like I am discouraging people from spending a long time actually framing/getting the angle right/messing around in manual/TV/AV modes to get the right settings but in some situations it is just too much to have to sit down and think about what settings to put it on, ESPECIALLY if you are in a new shooting situation.

Also, this was just one reason in a list of reasons why I personally thought the 40D was better in some respects than the 5D.
I never gave the 5D a bad review, nor did I ever misrepresent it.

>> It has a good high megapixel count meaning it can be used for huge prints.

>> Okay, I think we could stop right there since that just completely invalidates anything you say.

Why? What is your reasoning and arguments behind this?

>> The ISO can go quite high before noise reduction starts to struggle to remove the graininess.

>> lulz, noise reduction. RAW motherfucker, do you speak it? And a 5D will have clean images up to 1600 at the least.

I only shoot RAW unless I am taking a funny point and shoot photo for someone (and even then I will use P/AV/TV/M) and don't have time or the tools to edit the photo later on.
I was talking about removing the noise in Photoshop or Lightroom or other tools. Sorry I didn't make that clear :)
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157405

4.

>> Also having the EF-S lens mount means the EF lenses get the extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses.

>> ROFL, or how about we have UWA lenses be UWA lenses instead of being standard zooms?

You make it sound like being able to get a little more zoom out of an expensive lens is a bad thing? Try talking to someone on a very tight budget who really appreciates the extra zoom they can get on an APS-C sensor.

>> As always though, go into the store and try them out.
>> The thing you will probably notice about the cameras is they are quite different from the 400D - at least the 40D's menus and controls are different, not sure about the 5D.

>> Go back to DPRreview.

Go back to your cave, 5Dfagtroll.
>> Anonymous
>>157419
>faster shutter speed

They both go to 1/8000
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>157361
You could ask Canon NZ?

What i hate is there is no Nikon NZ, only and exclusive importer (T.A. Macalister Limited) so Nikon prices here are waaaaaaaaaay over priced.
But saying that, there is a Canon NZ, and their prices are similar to nikon, so why are they so over priced compared to other places?
>> Anonymous
>>157361
I'm pretty sure Beethy's lover works for Canon. Some anon posted some pics once who mentioned their lover working for Canon, and I'm 85% sure I saw the same photographs later in Beethy's DeviantArt gallery.
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
Sounds to me like Beethy should get a 40D. Unless you play to furnish the 5D with only L-series glass, buy the 40D and invest in two good lenses.
>> Anonymous
1) I'm sorry but "not that noticeable" means you think there is no difference.

2) Cameras today are only catching up to the 5D. "More lens choice" Why the _FUCK_ would you use EF-S lenses on a full frame camera when you've got all the great EF lenses available to you. Just _why_ the fuck?

3) People don't buy 5Ds to go and take pictures of fast action. And please, your entire post was pretty damn obvious you think the 40D is better.

And I can't believe I would have to explain the whole more MP = bigger prints is bullshit here. Go do some Googling. _Even_ if it were true, the 5D still has more resolution.

4) One word = crop.

_And_ the entire argument of crop vs. full frame is moot. You lose out on UWA or telephoto, take your pick. It all depends on what you want to shoot.

HOWEVER, you made it sound like you got the best of both worlds with crop with this little golden nugget of intelligence you said:

>> lso having the EF-S lens mount means the EF lenses get the extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses.

I just can't believe someone said something like that.

5) Enjoy your 40D, faggot.
>> Anonymous
5D won't make any worse pictures with cheap glass than a 40D.
>> Anonymous
>>157434
>having the EF-S lens mount means the EF lenses get the extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses.

This is true, though, unless someone springs for that 14mm L lens, the same wide field of view can be gotten in the Canon system with either the 10-22 or 16-35 L. And Beethy already has the 10-22. I think that was his point, though he worded it poorly.
>> Anonymous
>>157437though he worded it poorly

"having the EF-S lens mount means the EF lenses get the extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses."

- It's not the mount that changes things.
- It's not just EF lenses that get extra "zoom".
- It's not "zoom"
- Sigma 12-24 is wider.

I don't call this poorly worded. It's just plain wrong.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157423

Sorry, meant shooting speed :)

>>157434

1.

>> 1) I'm sorry but "not that noticeable" means you think there is no difference.

Please please please, read my post and don't try to misinterperate me.
"the difference in image quality is not **********that********** noticable".

>> 2) Cameras today are only catching up to the 5D. "More lens choice" Why the _FUCK_ would you use EF-S lenses on a full frame camera when you've got all the great EF lenses available to you. Just _why_ the fuck?

Maybe because there is more variety? Maybe because someone cannot afford the EF lenses? Maybe because they can source the EF-S lenses cheaper than the EF lenses? Maybe because they are readily accessible in stores because many other people get the EF-S lenses? Notice that people may just be on a really tight budget and have to go for cheaper inferior equipment until they can afford more expensive equipment?
Also, do you mean an EF-S lens on an APS-C not full frame, EF-S lenses don't fit on a full frame camera.

>> 3) People don't buy 5Ds to go and take pictures of fast action. And please, your entire post was pretty damn obvious you think the 40D is better.

>> I do think for the price difference the 40D is better, yes. However, there are areas where the 5D outshines the 40D, just as there are areas where the 40D outshines the 5D. Just like a supercompact point and shoot outshines any and every D-SLR in that it is much smaller and easier to take around, every single D-SLR outshines the ultracompact in that they take much higher quality photos and don't have the wait between the pressing the shutter button and the shutter going off.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157434

2.

>> And I can't believe I would have to explain the whole more MP = bigger prints is bullshit here. Go do some Googling. _Even_ if it were true, the 5D still has more resolution.

The difference between 10 and 12mp is like what.. a few centimeters in the final print?
Also, have you tried printing off a 10mp in a super large print, then printed off something that is 1024x768 in the same size? Look at the difference. (Yeah, my first cameraphone had that resolution - needless to say I didn't ever bother printing off anything I took with that POS.)
However, I do know where you are coming from in terms of enlargement technology - note though that you can only enlarge pictures to a point before they start to really lose quality, and a high megapixel count does help to increase that size. Why do you think people buy H3D's and the like? For the size of the camera? For the fact that it weighs a ton and costs a LOT of money?
No, they prefer the medium/large format cameras because:
1. They have the budget to get such an expensive camera, and a reason to get it.
2. They have better dynamic range.
3. They have much MUCH more megapixels and can be printed up on billboards or wherever high quality huge images are required.
4. Better colour representation.
5. Awesome optics.
6. Etc etc etc, the list goes on.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157434

3.

>> 4) One word = crop.

>> _And_ the entire argument of crop vs. full frame is moot. You lose out on UWA or telephoto, take your pick. It all depends on what you want to shoot.

Yes, it depends on what you want to shoot.
How do you lose out in telephoto? Do you mean the 5D looses out? Because the 40D just increases the focal length...

>> HOWEVER, you made it sound like you got the best of both worlds with crop with this little golden nugget of intelligence you said:

>> lso having the EF-S lens mount means the EF lenses get the extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses.

>> I just can't believe someone said something like that.

Sorry, meant wide, not wider...
What do you mean you "just can't believe someone said something like that"

>> 5) Enjoy your 40D, faggot.

I do enjoy my 40D. And I am glad that I am able to get the cheaper lenses and fiddle around with them before I can fork out a truckload of money for a 1D range camera and L series lenses (which mind you will be in several years when I graduate from Uni and get a job and save up etc etc etc etc etc etc etc.) and expensive flashes/filters etc.
Open your mind up to the fact that maybe people may not want the 5D due to the high price tag verses quality increase. Read around, you will find people saying they would go for the 5D but they cannot afford it. Also, look at the prices in the OP's post. 40D $885. 5D (+lens) $2328. That is a 268% increase in price! Not everyone can afford that much money. I don't know the price of the lens though, but being an L series lens I could imagine it would cost a lot. (I also don't know what currency so I cannot compare anyway - I would assume US$ though.)
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157440

Yeah, I worded it pretty poorly, can't think properly today :o

Any lens that is designed to be full frame will get the extra zoom (but will loose on the wide angle)
Putting a wide angle EF-S will combat the loss of wide angle abilities in the EF or other full frame lenses mounted on the camera.
Also, I know it isn't zoom but focal length, but again cannot think properly today, reverting back to caveman language (also think of the point-and-shoot kids who don't have a clue what focal length means that lurk here...)
I know it isn't the mount, it is the fact the sensor is smaller that adds the extra focal length.
>> Anonymous
1) Margarine is not that noticeable than butter. "The difference in image quality is not that noticable".

That means in your mind, there is no difference. Otherwise, you would have said something else.

>> Maybe because there is more variety?

Um, wow.

UWA for crop: Sigma 10-20, Canon 10-22, Tokina 12-24
UWA for 35mm: 14mm, 16-35, 17-40, 12-24

Standard for crop: 17-55, 17-85, 17-50
Standard for 35mm: 24-70, 24-105, 28-135

I'm not even going to bother with telephoto, you get the fucking picture.

>> Maybe because someone cannot afford the EF lenses?

Uh, there are plenty of inexpensive EF lenses. Oh HEY, the 50mm 1.8 for one. Wow. Maybe you're thinking of L, idiot.

>> Maybe because they can source the EF-S lenses cheaper than the EF lenses?

As stated earlier, 10-22 vs. 17-40 is about the same price. 17-85. vs 28-135 is about the same price, hell the 28-135 is cheaper. 17-55 vs. 24-70 or 24-105 is about the same price. But the 17-55 does have 2.8 and IS.

If you want to use a 40D with a 18-55 IS and 55-250 IS, that's your problem.

>> Maybe because they are readily accessible in stores because many other people get the EF-S lenses?

Running out of arguments there? Sheesh. Most people buy online and stores will probably have more EF lenses than EF-S, because you know uh, the mount has been here since the 80s.
>> Anonymous
>> Notice that people may just be on a really tight budget and have to go for cheaper inferior equipment until they can afford more expensive equipment?

This is a guy owning a 400D going for a 40D or 5D. He _HAS_ been using cheaper shit until he could afford more.

>> Also, do you mean an EF-S lens on an APS-C not full frame, EF-S lenses don't fit on a full frame camera.


I know a 5D can't mount EF-S lenses. But you said you get "more lenses" because you can mount both EF-S and EF lenses on a 40D.

But why the fuck would you want EF-S focal ranges when you've got fucking EF lenses covering the same and doing a better job of it?

2)

>> MORE MEGAPIXELS = BILLBOARDS

Someone help me out here. Smack some sense into this dipshit.

3)

>> How do you lose out in telephoto? Do you mean the 5D looses out? Because the 40D just increases the focal length...

/me sighs. Do I really have to explain this to you?

A lens that starts at 24mm is no longer wide on a crop camera. You just lost the wide end but gained in the long end. Put it on a 35mm equivalent and you've got your wide but no longer have the increased range.

>> What do you mean you "just can't believe someone said something like that"

Read>>157440

>> And I am glad that I am able to get the cheaper lenses

See earlier point about your "cheaper" lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>157454Any lens that is designed to be full frame will get the extra zoom (but will loose on the wide angle)

No, _ANY_ lens you mount on a crop camera will have crop factor applied.

A 17-85mm will become 27-136mm, sheesh.

It doesn't "add" zoom or focal length... It's called crop factor for a reason. Holy fuck.
>> Anonymous
>> It has a good high megapixel count meaning it can be used for huge prints.

5d has more mp than 40d
>> Anonymous
I will actually tackle the MORE MEGAPIXELS = BILLBOARD PRINTS thing since no one else would like to join in this bullshit.

You said yourself "It has a good high megapixel count meaning it can be used for huge prints."

A _fucking_ 6 MP Nikon D40 will do large prints fine. The LARGER you go, the LOWER the resolution needs to be. Billboards aren't fucking 300 DPI, they are 35-70 DPI at fucking best.

Learn about how things are fucking printed before you open your mouth spouting bullshit.

>> The difference between 10 and 12mp is like what.. a few centimeters in the final print?

It's actually an extra 2 inches at 300 DPI.

And fucking LULZ at you for brigning up Hasselblad. Holy shit.
>> Anonymous
>>157453Open your mind up to the fact that maybe people may not want the 5D due to the high price tag verses quality increase. Read around, you will find people saying they would go for the 5D but they cannot afford it.

Hey dipshit. Look at this thread. This guy _can_ afford it.

Is it justified for him? I wouldn't know because I'm not arguing about that. I'm arguing about the stupid shit you said.
>> Anonymous
>>157217
screw off with you photocrap
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157458

>> 1) Margarine is not that noticeable than butter. "The difference in image quality is not that noticable".

>> That means in your mind, there is no difference. Otherwise, you would have said something else.

The difference is there, it is just not that noticable. Not "not noticable" but "not that noticable."
This means to the untrained eye it is just another eyecandy awesome photo but to someone who actually goes down to 100%, even down to 400% when editing photos you do notice the difference.
(Again, note that I have not seen many 5D unedited straight from the camera, I could go to dPreview, but then I would probably get laughed off this /p/.
Also I would want to see lots of RAW photos that I had taken in the same place as me taking them with my 40D and the same lens.

>> UWA

In all honesty I had heard of them before, but had completely forgotten about them. Also Google doesn't have all that much info on them, so I gave up searching.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>> Maybe because someone cannot afford the EF lenses?

>>Uh, there are plenty of inexpensive EF lenses. Oh HEY, the 50mm 1.8 for one. Wow. Maybe you're thinking of L, idiot.

I am not thinking of L series.
I have seen a fair few EF lenses, but most of them are quite expensive (not that much variety on eBay Australia, and I don't want to order from overseas, it just costs too much) it seems that only the 35-80mm lenses go cheap, the rest are near RRP.
From where I have been looking (eBay, camera stores etc) the EF-S lenses are generally cheaper (I prefer secondhand mind you as my budget rarely permits me to get new equipment - with the exception of my 40D which is on a deferred student loan, only reason I could get it.)

>> How do you lose out in telephoto? Do you mean the 5D looses out? Because the 40D just increases the focal length...

>> /me sighs. Do I really have to explain this to you?

>> A lens that starts at 24mm is no longer wide on a crop camera. You just lost the wide end but gained in the long end. Put it on a 35mm equivalent and you've got your wide but no longer have the increased range.

/me sighes even harder.
You said you loose out on telephoto, which is strange as you actually get MORE magnification with the APS-C sensor. You lose out on WIDE ANGLE not TELEPHOTO.
Unless you were saying the 5D looses out in the Telephoto, in which case your argument is valid, just targeted incorrectly (you said you loose out on UWA or telephoto, suggesting me and my 40D - misunderstanding maybe?)
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157460

>>157454Any lens that is designed to be full frame will get the extra zoom (but will loose on the wide angle)

>> No, _ANY_ lens you mount on a crop camera will have crop factor applied.

Does that mean my 18-55mm EF-S lens has a crop factor? No, because it is already designed for the smaller APS-C sensor.

>> A 17-85mm will become 27-136mm, sheesh.

I know that already, but it only happens on full frame lenses.

>> It doesn't "add" zoom or focal length... It's called crop factor for a reason. Holy fuck.

In a sense it actually does "add" zoom/focal length, simply because it is cropping the amount of the lens it uses (which causes the lenses effective focal length to increase)
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157464

>>157453Open your mind up to the fact that maybe people may not want the 5D due to the high price tag verses quality increase. Read around, you will find people saying they would go for the 5D but they cannot afford it.

>> Hey dipshit. Look at this thread. This guy _can_ afford it.

>> Is it justified for him? I wouldn't know because I'm not arguing about that. I'm arguing about the stupid shit you said.

I am really saddened that you have lowered to the point of namecalling. I know this guy can afford the 5D due to his original post, nowhere did I say that he specifically could not afford it. I was simply responding to your arguments.
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
>>157474
>>157474
>Does that mean my 18-55mm EF-S lens has a crop factor? No, because it is already designed for the smaller APS-C sensor.

Actually, yes it is affected by crop sensor it's essentially a 29-88mm
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>157386
Thanks..
Yea I tried out both the 40D and the 5D at the store.
Even though the 5D is 2 years old, it still felt great using it.. the large viewframe .. and the 24-105 just felt and looked great on the 5D (it felt like a crappy lens almost on my 400D)

>>157398
This is something I've heard before... but I don't think it'll be a problem since outside of the 10-22 (which will be unusable) I will only use my 50mm 1.8 and my 100mm 2.8

>>157429
shhhhh, haha

>>157432
i find myself agreeing with this... since the 40D is dirt cheap, and it's not like I have any L lenses to support a full frame camera.

This thread has been very informative.
Here's what conclusion I've come to.

I will go for the 5D if I can find someone to trade my 10-22mm for their 17-40mm... then I will buy the 5D body only for 1700 dollars (new).
If I can't trade my 10-22mm for something equivalent enough, then it's the 40D.

Major selling point for the 5D for me is the ability to shoot in low light without the use of a tripod. I haven't explored low light photography enough because my 400D is a pile of poop in low light, and my cheap tripod doesn't support the weight of my lenses (except 50mm, hah)
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157476

Ahh ok sorry :)

I was lead to believe that it is just effectively 29-88mm on a full fram sensor, not cropped.

Does that mean if you somehow mounted it onto a full frame sensor it would work (apart from the fact the mirror would hit the back of the lens, and you would have to break the mount to get it on in the first place.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157477

If you are going to shoot in low light the 40D is fairly good up to a point (like all cameras I guess).
Not knowing too much about the 5D and having never shot with one before I cannot speak for it, but the 40D starts to get the quality of a cameraphone around ISO 3200 and 1/4 second exposures.

Good luck with your finding someone to buy your old lens :D It would be hilarious if they offered so much money for it you could get a 1Ds range camera haha!
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>157474
Get out. Don't shit up /p/ if you don't know anything about cameras and lenses.

There is no such thing as extra zoom. All lenses project image circles bigger than the sensor (exaggerated for illustration here). The sensor takes out a middle chunk the circle, giving a rectangular image. Cropped sensors take a smaller rectangular chunk, so it appears AS IF the photo was taken more zoomed in - even though THE PROPERTIES OF THE LENS DID NOT CHANGE. The SAME circle is being projected by the SAME lens.

EF-s and other "digital" lenses project SMALLER circles, but at the SAME focal length as a full frame lens with the same marked focal length. They just appear more zoomed in because of the small sensor, which takes a small chunk.

Notice in the picture how the same scene is being photographed with different combinations of body and lens. It's a matter of how much is being taken from what the lens is projecting (which stays the same), not a change in what the lens is projecting. Notice that the EF17-40 and the EF-s17-85 give the same image at 17mm on the 40D, even though one is "full frame" and one isn't.

tl;dr Dale is an idiot and should choke on his camera and die
>> Anonymous
>>157479
Sigh, I got beaten to it while drawing those stupid stick figures. Yes, it would work if the mirror cleared the rear element (which it doesn't). Other "cropped" lenses from other companies project smaller circles without protruding rear elements, so they work fine on full frame. The picture just has a lot of black space around a circle, with the amount of black space (sometimes none) depending on zoomed length and focus.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
     File :-(, x)
>>157482

I tested my 18-55mm EF-S lens on my EOS ELAN IIe body, and I found the only issue (apart from the lens not fitting in the mount) is the lens has horrible viginetting. On the 18mm focal length the viginetting is so bad that you can see the lens barrel. To illustrate this, see my (horribly drawn) pic to the left.

I came in here to offer advice to the OP, and you, obviously somebody doesn't like the 40D comes in and acts like an asshole the whole time. Seriously, get your head out of your ass and grow up. You act like a photographer who thinks he knows everything and goes around acting like an asshole when others give things a try. Fuck off and learn some manners. I have had it with (trying) to be polite with you, only to have you call me an idiot and telling me to die.
Yes, I do agree it can be (and is) annoying when n00bs come in with their point-and-shoot thinking they know everything, but that does not give you the right to act like an asshole to someone who has more of a hands on knowledge of cameras rather than a textbook knowledge comes in offering advice.

PS I never said that the lenses actually change their properties which seems to be your main argument. For fucks sake, PLEASE READ MY ARGUMENTS!!!
I know the EF-S lenses have a smaller circle, which means they are not designed for the full frame sensors without viginetting (if you can mount them in the first place), and I also know that the EF lenses project a circle that is way bigger than the APS-C sensor, the circle is the same, but the amount of that circle the APS-C picks up is smaller compared to full frame (like opening up in Photoshop and cropping, but without the loss of pixels.)

tl;dr the Anonymous I am debating with is an elitist fuck who cannot read my arguments, thinks I am a n00b who knows nothing about cameras, and tends to misinterpereted what I say.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution28 dpcmVertical Resolution28 dpcmImage Created2008:04:10 22:12:29Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width454Image Height340
>> Anonymous
Don't worry about getting "L lenses for full frame." You just won't be getting the maximum resolution of your sensor, which you probably don't need anyway.

As for your plan... if you want to get into low-light work, f/4 won't be fast enough. Either save up some more for the 16-35/2.8 or add onto all this the Sigma 20/1.8.
>> Anonymous
>>157503
If your knowledge of cameras is entirely hands-on, that limits your ability to offer helpful advice on the technical issues here. "Hey, Beethy, I've got a 40D and it's a great camera" is the limit of helpfulness you could offer. Not because you're a bad photographer, but just because you haven't learned the underlying technical differences involved in comparing the two options.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
     File :-(, x)
I improved my last picture - the old one had weird sensor sizes, this one shows the size of the sensor verses the circle the lens produces relative to each other (not to scale though), and it is easier to see what the sensor would pick up.
Photo used in background is mine - work in progress :p

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution28 dpcmVertical Resolution28 dpcmImage Created2008:04:10 22:47:52Color Space InformationsRGBImage Width454Image Height340
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
Agreed, and conceeded, however I do have some technical knowledge of the cameras, just not as much as those who have done professional photography courses. (I am a media student, not a photography student, and the free courses that I go to are too basic and only tell you about shutter speed, apeture, nothing past the mid level stuff. The rest I have had to teach myself or read about in camera manuals/online forums/out on the field etc.)

Also, knowing the technical side of things is only one side, albeit very important as it helps the photographer to know how far he/she can push their camera then fix the image in photoshop and end up with a usable image that can be printed to the maximum size possible, but when you are out on the field taking photos you don't want to be constantly trying to work out what the heck the camera is doing now, it should feel like just another part of your body - so the hands on knowledge does help :)
>> Anonymous !SDPEsPMnww
     File :-(, x)
Sigma 10-20mm on a 5D.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DPhotographerTom ConteMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2008:04:10 22:00:44Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramNormal ProgramISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias1 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length10.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
     File :-(, x)
DX lens on F5
>> Anonymous
Let me state for the record the Anon making the image circle, uh, images is not the same Anon as last night.

I'm that Anon who tore up your ass, Dale. And here I am to finish the job. I can't believe you're still on this fucking thing.

>> UWA

>> In all honesty I had heard of them before, but had completely forgotten about them. Also Google doesn't have all that much info on them, so I gave up searching.

Holy fuck. Once again, what the fuck have you been doing to never have heard of ultra wide angle? What the fuck did you think I meant?

>> I have seen a fair few EF lenses, but most of them are quite expensive it seems that only the 35-80mm lenses go cheap, the rest are near RRP.

Holy SHIT. Are you a fucking idiot? I just listed the damn prices for you in my previous posts.

READ IT: "As stated earlier, 10-22 vs. 17-40 is about the same price. 17-85. vs 28-135 is about the same price, hell the 28-135 is cheaper. 17-55 vs. 24-70 or 24-105 is about the same price. But the 17-55 does have 2.8 and IS."

The 10-22, 17-85, 17-55 are EF-S, the 17-40, 28-135, 24-70, 24-105 are EF. How the _FUCK_ hard is it to understand?

YES, there are notable exceptions with the 18-55 and 55-250 which are dirt cheap. And YES, there are dirt cheap EF lenses, like the 50mm 1.8. Do you even know about this lens?
>> Anonymous
>> You said you loose out on telephoto, which is strange as you actually get MORE magnification with the APS-C sensor. You lose out on WIDE ANGLE not TELEPHOTO.

Ugh, read my post, please:

>> _And_ the entire argument of crop vs. full frame is moot. You lose out on UWA or telephoto, take your pick. It all depends on what you want to shoot.

Simple reading comprehension, crop loses out on UWA and full frame loses out in telephoto.>>157474

*********************

And the piece de resistance, people.

>> Does that mean my 18-55mm EF-S lens has a crop factor? No, because it is already designed for the smaller APS-C sensor.

>> I know that already, but it only happens on full frame lenses.

This just proves you're a fucking idiot.
>> Anonymous
>>157510
Technical knowledge is the only thing that matters when telling people what to buy, though.
>> Dale is an idiot !g7.mr2dHgw
>> I am really saddened that you have lowered to the point of namecalling. I know this guy can afford the 5D due to his original post, nowhere did I say that he specifically could not afford it. I was simply responding to your arguments.

Uh, I like to call people names when they're obviously morons.

I don't give a fuck if OP buys a 40D or a 5D. I'm only here to call you a fucking idiot.

OP: Guys, 5D or 40D?
Dale: Hey, the 40D is better! For these reasons: (...)
Me: You're an idiot and you are wrong.
Dale: BUT NOT EVERYONE CAN AFFORD A 5D!

What the fuck kind of logic is that?

>>157479I was lead to believe that it is just effectively 29-88mm on a full fram sensor, not cropped.

...

It _is_ equivalent to 29-88mm. Crop factor applies to every single lens you put on a crop camera. That's why they are called crop cameras. You know, because they crop the damn image.

Seriously, in all the time I've been reading /p/, never have I seen someone take themselves so seriously and still think they are right when they're obviously wrong.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>Thread

you wouldnt have that problem wtih a sony.
>> Dale is an idiot !g7.mr2dHgw
>>157503I came in here to offer advice to the OP, and you, obviously somebody doesn't like the 40D comes in and acts like an asshole the whole time.

Hah, what's priceless is I have a 30D _and_ a 5D. And I use my 5D for UWA and 30D for extra reach, just like any sensible person would.

>> You act like a photographer who thinks he knows everything and goes around acting like an asshole when others give things a try. Fuck off and learn some manners. I have had it with (trying) to be polite with you, only to have you call me an idiot and telling me to die.

I don't know everything but I know enough to know _YOU_ are wrong, and not just wrong, you're WAY off. I called you idiot and dipshit and other things like that. Another anon told you to die. But I'm not apologizing for him.

>> Anonymous I am debating with is an elitist fuck who cannot read my arguments, thinks I am a n00b who knows nothing about cameras, and tends to misinterpereted what I say.

Hmm, no. I think we can all agree you don't know what you're saying. Plain and simple.
>> Dale is an idiot !g7.mr2dHgw
>>157607

Probably not.. until Sony releases the A900 and Dale comes in and says the A700 is better because you can "get extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses."
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157606
>Uh, I like to call people names when they're obviously morons.
Thing is, he's not as much of a moron as you think he is. At least as much of this argument was based on your lack of comprehension as on his.

In the original disagreement between the two of you, the only point that was really in contention was whether or not the 5D's image quality advantage was "that noticeable". In addition to your strange inability to realize that "it's not that noticeable" means "It's noticeable, but not overwhelmingly so", it's a valid point if you stay away from
1. Pixel peeping at 100%
2. High ISO
3. Scenes that need really high dynamic range

I.e., for 90% of the shots out there, the image quality the 5D will give you won't be perceptibly better than the 40D. The disagreement is simply over how important that remaining 10% is.

The rest of your arguments were based on misinterpreting what he was saying (helped, granted, by some unclear terminology on his part--he seems to think "crop factor" refers to the size of the image circle the lens projects rather than the size of the image surface that's catching that circle, but that's a lot more minor than you made it out to be) and worthless ad-hominem flaming.

Calling people morons doesn't make us think your penis is any bigger than it is. Maybe try arguing rationally rather than just belligerently flaming someone? You'll look like much less of a tool.
>> Anonymous
The combined size of the e-peens in this thread is OVER NINE THOUSAND
>> Dale is an idiot !g7.mr2dHgw
>>157615

Oh, here's ac to the rescue, playing the saint and knight in shining armor.

>> Thing is, he's not as much of a moron as you think he is. At least as much of this argument was based on your lack of comprehension as on his.

Let's list some gems Dale has said:

>> It has a good high megapixel count meaning it can be used for huge prints.

>> Also having the EF-S lens mount means the EF lenses get the extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses.

^This one right here has about 5 facepalm moments.

>> Maybe because someone cannot afford the EF lenses?

Seriously, he's plain wrong or just a confused idiot. Take your pick.

>> Any lens that is designed to be full frame will get the extra zoom (but will loose on the wide angle)

/me facepalms.

>> I know that already, but it only happens on full frame lenses.

I call people names because it's the only way to reach to those people. And please, there is rational thought behind the name calling.

Go back to commenting on pictures.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157623
>>> It has a good high megapixel count meaning it can be used for huge prints.
I'll agree that this is wrong, but it's a common mistake. I'm sure there was a time when you didn't realize how little straight-on resolution effects image quality, too. An appropriate response would have been to point that out and give an argument as to why, not just respond with:
>Okay, I think we could stop right there since that just completely invalidates anything you say.

>>> Also having the EF-S lens mount means the EF lenses get the extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses.
What he's saying here is that the APS-C sensors aren't really hurting for wideangles (unless you want the super ultrawides like the Canon 14mm or the Sigma 12mm), and you effectively get extra bonus length if you like the telephotos. Which is true.

I.e., his wording wasn't very clear, but he has a point. But since you've already decided to discount and mock everything he's saying rather than thinking rationally about things, you can't see that.

>>> Maybe because someone cannot afford the EF lenses?
>Seriously, he's plain wrong or just a confused idiot. Take your pick.
Or the argument got off track because tempers were high and nobody was actually paying attention to what the other was saying.

His arguments were valid reasons for why someone would want to use an EF-S lens on their full-frame camera. They're all moot since it's physically impossible to do so, but you were the one who brought it up. They're all the reasons why Nikon designed the D3 to be able to use DX lenses--if you've already got a DX (or EF-S) lens or can get one way, way cheaper than an equivalent FX (or EF) lens, then you might want to keep using it even despite the loss in resolution.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157623
(Continued)
>>> Any lens that is designed to be full frame will get the extra zoom (but will loose on the wide angle)
>/me facepalms.
Boo hoo. He said 'zoom' instead of 'telephoto'. *And* he already copped to that error. You're just nitpicking here, not actually forming a coherent argument.

>I call people names because it's the only way to reach to those people.
Have you ever taken a psychology class? Or, you know, interacted with an actual human being?

Have you ever, in the whole of your time on earth here, had an argument go like:
Him: [Not quite correct fact]
You: No, you're a fucking moron.
Him: Oh, well, I guess I'd better go change my position.

No. That doesn't happen. You just make the other person think you're an ass and they fight back harder. You do not reach people by flaming them. Never ever.
>> Dale is an idiot !g7.mr2dHgw
>> I'm sure there was a time when you didn't realize how little straight-on resolution effects image quality, too

I work in prepress. So uh, maybe back in 1980 I didn't know. It's a common mistake that gives me the right to lay the smack down and call him an idiot.

>> Also having the EF-S lens mount means the EF lenses get the extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses.

"- It's not the mount that changes things.
- It's not just EF lenses that get extra "zoom".
- It's not "zoom"
- Sigma 12-24 is wider."

Broken clock is still right twice a day. Just because it somehow makes sense in his stupidity doesn't make him any less of an idiot.

And wording something wrong isn't an excuse. That just doesn't fly.

>> Newer camera (means newer technology), faster shutter speed, ability to use EF and EF-S lenses, more lense choice

He brought up EF-S, I didn't. Try and figure it out if you want in this clusterfuck. But I hardly have any reason to lie to anyone.

>> His arguments were valid reasons for why someone would want to use an EF-S lens on their full-frame camera.

Nope, his argument is that the ability to use EF-S and EF gave you more options.

My reply: But why the fuck would you want EF-S focal ranges when you've got fucking EF lenses covering the same and doing a better job of it?

Every single EF-S range is covered by EF. It doesn't give you any more or any less. It's all the same.

>> Boo hoo. He said 'zoom' instead of 'telephoto'. *And* he already copped to that error. You're just nitpicking here, not actually forming a coherent argument.

Uh wow, way to miss the point?

He still think only EF lenses have crop factor applied to them.

And the final point, this is the Internet. I'll call people idiots whenever I want.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>157658

you're an idiot.
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
>>157662
can i call him an idiot too?

i've tried reading both of the arugments, both are taking each other waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too literary and now its just nitpicking.
>> Dale is an idiot !g7.mr2dHgw
>> both are taking each other waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too literary and now its just nitpicking.

Yeah, it's nitpicking.. when it's pretty damn obvious he's just fucking wrong on every single point.
>> Dale is Sometimes Right & Sometimes Wrong
This thread is fucking retarded.
Sage to allow more interesting topics to float to the surface.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>157676
Seconded.
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>157507
Interesting, thanks. I'll keep that in mind.
>> Anonymous
>>157596
Hi guys! I made the image circles, and the post just after that one. I only came because seeing "gives more zoom" was pretty damn painful.

I've touched a 40D like what, twice? So I have no opinion on it whatsoever.

Also fuck you other anon for giving me a bad name :V
>> Anonymous
lolwut
>> Anonymous
ps. how long have you had your 400d?
>> beethy !HJGkSBB3Ao
>>158074
about a year
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
Sorry things went off topic before, I re-read my posts and it is obvious that my 2 hours of sleep really messed up my thought patterns :| I am still a little tired so proofreading finds most (but not all) errors...
Also, I screwed up the links, so sorry if they lead to the wrong post.... :(

In summary - I mixed my words up and screwed my arguments/logic (or lack thereof) up, which ended up in me being misinterperated.
I apologise.

To clear things up, I know precious little about the 5D, and as thus I cannot (and should not) comment about it.
I made the poor mistake of trying to comment on it - and I failed so hard I will be bruised for months to come :c

>>157596
Yes, I know about these lenses, but being on the crappy budget that I am on, I have to look for the cheapest of the cheapest (my kit includes an M42 lens with an EF converter) and I don't know much about new lenses, nor lens prices outside of Australia.
I have known about the 50mm 1.8 for some time, correct me if it was introduced later than this, but around 1 year?
Unless the guy I know only had it for a few months, in which case, less than 6 months.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>157597
Yeah, I re-read that and realised how much I fucked that argument up :/

>>157615

To show my lack of knowledge, pixel peeping is something I have not heard of. I don't even think I had heard of it under a different name. I just tried googling it 10 mins ago, but I am still a little tired - I will try again later tomorrow.

>>157623

Sorry, my mistake - I meant you could mount the EF-S wide angle lenses and get your nice wide angles, as well as getting longer focal length from the EF lenses.
I read the response about UWA and I am guessing that they still can be mounted on a crop sensor but with the crop factor causing them to be not so... wide?

Also, see:

>>157646

>>> Also having the EF-S lens mount means the EF lenses get the extra zoom AND you can mount the wider angle lenses.
>>What he's saying here is that the APS-C sensors aren't really hurting for wideangles (unless you want the super ultrawides like the Canon 14mm or the Sigma 12mm), and you effectively get extra bonus length if you like the telephotos. Which is true.

>>I.e., his wording wasn't very clear, but he has a point. But since you've already decided to discount and mock everything he's saying rather than thinking rationally about things, you can't see that.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>> I know that already, but it only happens on full frame lenses.

>> I call people names because it's the only way to reach to those people.

May I suggest that you point out what they are doing wrong and whoever you are debating with acts like a prick then you can call them whatever name you want? You will probably get through to people like me who would go and proofread their posts and realise they are not making too much sense or making a small mistake.

>>157658

>> He brought up EF-S, I didn't.

OP brought up EF-S indirectly with his/her 40D vs 5D.

>> He still think only EF lenses have crop factor applied to them.

I know this to be incorrect (all lenses have the crop factor) - BUT what I was getting at was that the EF-S lenses technically don't "suffer" from the crop factor, as the focal length is designed (and advertised) as what you would get on the APS-C cameras.

>>157662

Actually, he is not an idiot, he misread my posts (which were written horribly to start off with) - when I went back and re-read them I cannot blame him at all. I even went o.0 at some of the things I said. Blame tiredness and incoherance on my behalf.

In summary - I screwed up big time and failed to make myself coherant, and as thus (not surprisingly) had my posts misinterpereted.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>158956
>as the focal length is designed (and advertised) as what you would get on the APS-C cameras.
Sounds like you're saying EF-S lenses are advertised with their 35mm-equiv focal lengths, which isn't true. The number on the lens is the actual honest-to-god focal length. The EF-S 18-55 is actually 18-55mm and therefore gives a field of view equivalent to a 28.8-88mm lens would on full frame.
>> Dale !QkRJTXcpFI
>>158959

That's what I meant, again, mismashing my words - hopefully not as bad as yesterday.
But - not having technical knowledge, that is about as far as I can go without speculating as to how the focal lengths change etc, which is not what this thread was about to begin with.

*goes to bed*
>> Anonymous
For the good of /p/. This thread fails.
>> Anonymous
>>158954I have known about the 50mm 1.8 for some time, correct me if it was introduced later than this, but around 1 year?

...

50mm 1.8, circa 1987

get the fuck out
>> Anonymous
>>158970But - not having technical knowledge, that is about as far as I can go without speculating as to how the focal lengths change etc, which is not what this thread was about to begin with.

Has it ever occured to you that you are not qualified in any way to discuss about these things when you have no idea what you're talking about?