File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Hiya /p/,

I've got $3200 to blow on a DLSR and I've got my eye on the Canon 40D and the 5D. This is my first DSLR but I've owned a few 35mm EOS bodies in the past and liked them a lot, so I really want a Canon.

My knowledge of photography is pretty good. I actually have a degree in it but I'm by no means a professional. And I know very little about digital, so I'm unsure of which to start out with. If I get the 5D, that won't leave much extra cash for lenses, but the idea of shooting full frame digital sounds great. Choosing the 40D however leaves me with plenty extra to buy lenses and other gear, but no full-frame obviously. Suggestions?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1D Mark IICamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2005:10:07 20:15:05Exposure Time0.8 secF-Numberf/22.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/22.0Exposure Bias-0.3 EVMetering ModePartialFlashNo FlashFocal Length75.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedImage Width425Image Height333
>> Depressed Cheesecake !wFh1Fw9wBU
How can you possible have a degree in photography and not know about digital cameras?

Overall: 1/10
>> Butter Rockwell !xlgRMYva6s
D40 + 18-200 is the only digital gear you'll ever need. Dont worry about expensive raw software either, shooting in JPEG will give you the best results.
>> Anonymous
Because I got my degree 8 years ago when there were no digital courses at my school. Only Photoshop.
>> Anonymous
GO WITH THE FUCKING CANON EOS 300D
>> Anonymous
Get the 5D & 24-105mm f/4L kit and a 50mm f/1.4.
>> Anonymous
Penguins!
>> Ken Rockwell
Real photographers don't have the time to piddle around with raw files. Also, a real photographer would never use a sony camera, so make sure to steer clear.
>> Anonymous
A D40X AND A 18-200 LENS AND LET'S TAKE THIS PHOTOGRAPHY SHIT TO THE MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON!
>> Anonymous
Your lens is going to determine the outcome and look of the photo a lot more than the body.
>> Anonymous
>>154311
In a sense, this is entirely true, because photography should not be a matter of the gear you have, the overpriced lenses you buy, etc. but rather your skills and eye for composition.

The D40 is a great camera, despite all the amateurs and soccer moms that buy them without the first clue on how to use a camera. They do have more than a few features you'll never really need, considering you could rely solely on the various priority modes and auto mode in "photojournalism" cases where you need to get the shot and don't care how you go about doing it. But in the need, more is better than less.

>>154345
By that accord, a "real photographer" is someone who goes out and buys a Nikon D200 or a Canon EOS D1 "because the ads and other people told me so", takes pictures in high quality jpegs, then sits at home and fiddles around with Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom until it "looks good." RAW format gives you more options with your pictures, and has absolutely no affect on the amount of "time" you spend either taking pictures or organizing them.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>154351
Only place it looks like it'd affect me is with either continuous burst shooting, or with sustained quick shots - I'd run out of buffer much more quickly with RAW. Other than that, you're right.
>> Anonymous
OP here,

Thanks for the replies. Yeah, I know good lenses are important too. I guess what I'm asking is if it's really worth spending $1k extra on a full-frame body. Will it be a lot easier to work with, or am I not going to see much of a difference if using something smaller like the 40D?
>> Anonymous
>>154442
You're not going to see a big difference in image quality but it will be a lot easier to work with especially if lean toward wide/normal angle lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>154444
No, not really. When APS-C sensors first came out, yeah, but not anymore. There are lots of wides for APS-C cameras now, and for normal you just use a 28-30mm lens instead of 50mm.

Unless there is some specific lens that you know you want to use and it won't be suitable on an APS-C body, there is no compelling reason to get "full frame" over APS-C.
>> Anonymous
>>154447
Yeah, really. There are much better wide angle lenses available for full frame and the viewfinder on full frame makes the APS-C one look like a joke. So it's definitely easier to work with.
>> Anonymous
>>154450
If you want better wides and better viewfinders, get a rangefinder or a medium format SLR.

I'll grant that viewfinders on APS-C cameras suck. Better wides, on the other hand, not so much.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>154452
The widest you can get on a 40D is 16mm-equiv (with the EF-S 10-22), whereas there's a 14mm for full frame.

Granted, that's only the one lens, and only 2mm, but still. Your wideness options are a little wider (so to speak) with full frame.

Though personally, I want a full-frame DSLR mostly for the high-ISO noise advantage and the viewfinder. 28mm-equiv is wide enough for me.
>> Anonymous
>>154452
Why not just get a 8x10 view camera? Oh right, because the OP wants a fucking DSLR.

The best wide angle zoom available for Canon SLRs is the 16-35mm f/2.8 II and that's a FF lens. End of story.
>> Anonymous
>>154460
It is not a fucking FF lens. It wouldn't be as wide, but it's still perfectly usable on a cropped sensor. In fact, it would perform better on a cropped sensor. You're hinging the argument on one lens, and there's nothing particularly special about that lens either.

If you want a FF camera, fine. Just don't think it's really worlds better than a cropped sensor. You'll get a better viewfinder and everything else is splitting hairs.
>> Anonymous
>>154463
It's designed for FF - therefore it's an FF lens. I didn't say it wouldn't work on a cropped sensor and it might have better corner sharpness on a cropped sensor but it also has a gimped FL range on a crop.

Viewfinder is better, lenses are better (you can use L lenses from ultra-wide and up), noise is better, and you get shallower DoF at a given field of view over a cropped sensor. If these things are important to you at all then the 5D is significantly better than a 40D.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>154459The widest you can get on a 40D is 16mm-equiv (with the EF-S 10-22), whereas there's a 14mm for full frame.

bitches better recognize
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>154489
Even better
>> hura
>>154489
makes me fucking wet
>> Anonymous
sigma is so hit and miss with aesthetics

some of their shit is so fucking hot, 10-22, 12-24, 30mm

and the rest looks like a pile of shit
>> Anonymous
>>154500
The EX lenses are all pretty nice. The rest of them - not so much.
>> Anonymous
I'd buy 30, 50, 85, 135 prime & (used) 5D for starters.

70-200 f4 or 70-300 is usm would be also nice.
>> Anonymous
My recomendation to OP would be: Go to the library first and get some books on digital photography. Learn about pixels, RGB, bits, diferent tipes of sensors, color noise, jpg and especially Raw. Since you have some background on photography it wont be so hard.
>> Anonymous
>>154345

Raw format just gets you all the information from the shot without all the processing that a camera normaly does. Processing a jpg implies loosing depth of color, so its better doing it from a raw format.
Is like having a negative film to develop in a darkroom. If you are a real photographer, you would like to do it yourself dont you?

thats the point with raw, its like a digital negative.
>> Anonymous
>>154308

Your degree means nothing. Natural photographers don't have tutors.
>> Anonymous
>>155784
bullshit statement of the year.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>155954
Come now. I'll grant you it's bullshit, but it's an election year. There's been some much bigger bullshit slung around, even this early in.
>> Anonymous
>>155956
true
>> Anonymous
Don't buy the 5D. Why? You don't need it. The 40D is a very good camera. The 5D is more of a specialty camera; it has great features, but unless you know why you'd need them, it's kinda silly to pay for them. Save your money from the body (which will wear out before too long) and invest it in some good glass.
>> Anonymous
OP here,

Didn't say my degree did mean anything. Just letting everyone know my level of photo knowledge so they could make a recommendation.

Think I'm going to go with the 40D. I'd love to get the 5D, but $2100 is way too much to spend for my first DSLR body. Especially when I still need to upgrade all my shitty EOS lenses and flash.