Reassure Me or Tell Me I'm Wrong...Which Canon to Keep

dinners

dinners

In Memoriam
Messages
15,745
Name
Phil
Edit My Images
Yes
I've posted snippets elsewhere about how I'm getting on but I'm now at the point where I'd like some other people's opinions regarding which of my cameras would be the best to keep.

Just for the record I shoot landscapes but I'm now getting into birds and wildlife.

Canon 40D Gripped owned since new for a couple of years
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM

plus

Canon 1D Mark II recently picked up
Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II
Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM

For the last few weeks I've made a point of putting the 40D away and I've forced myself to get used to the 1DII. Took me a while as it's not as intuitive but now I'm loving it.

The little rear screen was on the 1DII was shock at first but to be honest I've got used to that.
Focus on the 1DII is simply in a different league. I've even got my head around the whole puzzle of setting 'assist' AF points around the nominated AF points and I'm hitting everything compared to the 40D.
45 AF on the 1DII (centre point) with my teleconverter - seems pretty reliable at 400mm.
1.3 crop looses me a bit of reach compared to 1.6 on the 40D but for landscapes would go nice with a 17-40 for example.
Pixels - few less on the 1DII than 40D but not a million miles apart. Rare I go over A3 though - similar for cropping.
Live view on the 40D - never use it.
Noise - seems fairly similar despite less dense pixels on the bigger 1DII sensor.
40D has sensor cleaning but not on the 1DII
1DII has a faster 8.5 fps
40D has pop up flash - not really used by me apart from house snaps which I use the compact for
Landscapes - Not tested (see lenses above) as I've only got the 50mm or 100-400 that I can use on both cameras. I suspect they will be much of a muchness.
Weather sealed 1DII (with a new lens) would be a massive benefit to me.
Both cameras have done around 40K - neither have any marks.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp

Anyway - I'm swaying toward keeping the 1DII with the 50mm and 100-400mm and selling the 40D/grip/17-85/10-20 to fund the obvious gap in the lenses currently only suited to the 1DII.

If somebody wants to tell me I'm doing the right thing or indeed tell me I've missed something and I'm mad to choose the 1DII over the 40D then please do so as it's nice to get some reassurance.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
Never had either camera. My setup is a 20D and a 5D2. However, reading your post I would probably keep the 1D2. Even if I didn't read your post and was offered either one of those cameras my instinct would be to go for the pro camera rather thar the so-called pro-sumer camera. May be wronmg of course, but that's just me.
 
dinners said:
If somebody wants to tell me I'm doing the right thing or indeed tell me I've missed something and I'm mad to choose the 1DII over the 40D then please do so as it's nice to get some reassurance.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Reading the above +/- points for the 2 cameras, all your plus points are for the 1DII. In fact, you don't have any point where you seem to put the 40D ahead of the 1DII (your 1.3 vs 1.6 crop for reach is dismissed as not really being an advantage). Doesn't that say it all?
 
Thanks guys

It sounds like I'm siding towards the 1D2 because I am I guess.

I just wanted to throw it open in case there's something I've yet to discover that I should be aware of or perhaps I'm overlooking something fundamental.
 
ed_o_brain said:
Keep both?
Click to expand...
That's the obvious answer. The problem is you now have an interest in both landscape (where the 1D2 will be your better bet) and in wildlife where the reach advantage of the 40D will be very significant. The AF system of the 1D2 will be better for wildlife, but you may find that cancelled out by the lack of reach for most of your shots.
 
I also own both of those cameras and I suppose the one I simply couldn't do without is 1D.
As I've now developed an interest in macro I wouldn't sell the 40D because of the live view but if your finances dictate it's one or the other then the 40D must go.
 
CT said:
That's the obvious answer. The problem is you now have an interest in both landscape (where the 1D2 will be your better bet) and in wildlife where the reach advantage of the 40D will be very significant. The AF system of the 1D2 will be better for wildlife, but you may find that cancelled out by the lack of reach for most of your shots.
Click to expand...

When you say the reach advantage do you mean the crop factor? I always thought full frame and crop sensors always had the same level of magnification, even though the crop sensors give you the impression that you have a tighter magnification of the subject.

Am I wrong? :shrug:
 
six6six said:
When you say the reach advantage do you mean the crop factor? I always thought full frame and crop sensors always had the same level of magnification, even though the crop sensors give you the impression that you have a tighter magnification of the subject.

Am I wrong? :shrug:
Click to expand...

Yes that's true - a cropped sensor just records a smaller portion of the same image using the central part of the lens.

On 1.3 or full frame - you get more of the image. You can obviously 'crop' the image to match what you get on 1.6 crop sensor but your then using less of your pixels. It's not an exact science but a cropped shot taken on a high MP 5DMkII would be more forgiving than a 1DmkII
 
dinners said:
Yes that's true - a cropped sensor just records a smaller portion of the same image using the central part of the lens.

On 1.3 or full frame - you get more of the image. You can obviously 'crop' the image to match what you get on 1.6 crop sensor but your then using less of your pixels. It's not an exact science but a cropped shot taken on a high MP 5DMkII would be more forgiving than a 1DmkII
Click to expand...


Sell both and get a 5DII? That is another option.
 
six6six said:
When you say the reach advantage do you mean the crop factor? I always thought full frame and crop sensors always had the same level of magnification, even though the crop sensors give you the impression that you have a tighter magnification of the subject.

Am I wrong? :shrug:
Click to expand...
You're not wrong - the subject is always recorded on the sensor at the same size for a given focal length regardless of the sensor size. However that isn't the relevant factor when we talk about the crop sensor advantage or 'reach'.

What matters is pixel count and the size of the full sized (1:1) output file. If you viewed 1:1 files from both the 7D and the 1D2 side by side, the main subject in the 7D file (say a Robin) would be appreciably bigger than that from the 1D2. Also by the time you've cropped both images of that Robin down to a suitable framing, the 7D image would significanlty larger both in terms of remaining pixels and physical file size.

I sold a 1DMk2n because it was being significantly beaten for reach by a 20D. Things have moved on since then and the 1D2 would be found sadly lacking now compared to a 7D for most wildlife applications where distance or reach is involved.

If on the other hand you can fill the frame with your subject or you need the larger sensor of the 1D2 for it's wider field of view and wide angle advantage, the crop advantage is neither here nor there.

There have been numerous threads quite graphically demonstrating the crop advantage which you should be able to turn up with a search.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top