will i regret it?

stumac

stumac

Messages
3,369
Name
stuart
Edit My Images
Yes
hi all,i have a big dilema,i have a canon 40d,100-400,17-40 and plan on getting a 70-200 f4.I would do 70% landscape,20% motorsport and 10% wildlife photography. with my main passion being landscape i am considering selling the 40d along with the 100-400 to fund a 5d mk2.my worry is that if i get the 5d will i see such a difference in my landscape pics to justify loosing what i would consider a great motorsport/wildlife setup?i know my % speak for themselves but it doesnt change the fact i still love motorsport /wildlife photography.
if i get the 5d i will have the 70-200 to use on it for motorsport etc but will it be fast enough(fps etc)

i woud never have the money alone to buy a 5d but i will never have the money to replace the 100-400 if i regret it.

please help
 
I think the 70% far outweighs the other two, but remember that your lens focal lengths will be just that, so 200mm won't really be an effective 300mm for your sport togging... not much reach really...
 
In all honesty Stuart I can't see how the 70-200 F4 fits into things.

As said you have the wildlife/motorsport covered with the 100-400, you have your main landscape lens as well so I wouldn't bother with the 70-200 right now, especially if teaming it with a FF body as you will loose the crop factor hence the lens will have a wider field of view, ie no magnification.

so I would hang on to the 100-400, the 17-40 and forget the 70-200, leaving you free to sell the 40D and add in the money you would have spent on the lens and maybe a bit more.

The 5D would certainly be beneficial to landscape work and you would probably soon adjust to the frame rate for motor sport/wildlife.
 
70-200mm is an excellent lens for 5D but not for motosport. How much are you into moto? Is it a hobby or a business? Landscape IQ will clearly improve with 5DII. However you should keep it in mind, that it is 50% light, 30% set up and skill, 10% the lens and filters, 5% processing and 5% the body. OK, I made up these numbers, but you get the idea, right? In other terms, 40D is very capable body.

40D - nothing wrong with that...
4176935429_a7092986f9_z.jpg


Now this is where FF has the edge in the tonal range (1Ds mkII):
4854491513_e8bd779708_z.jpg


much cleaner and smoother blue tones than 40D would do...
 
5D2 is great for landsacapes and portaiture, but there are probably cameras out there which will perform better for wildlife and motorsport. Me personally love the 5D2 and still believe you will manage to get some good pics with motorsport and wildlife.
 
thanks for the replys,iancandler you are right about the 70-200.sometimes at motorsport events the 100-400 is just too much and i find myself having to step back from the tract to correctly frame things.as you say on the 5d it will be a different story being full frame.i fully understand that it is more the man behind the camera itself and i know i still have alot to learn but surely i should expect better photos and prints with the 5d.
 
What are you finding you can't get from your 40D that a 5D will offer you, apart from the higher pixel count for reproduction?

With FF you're going to need as much length as possible so for motorsport stuff I'd be tempted to sell the 70-200 and the 40D if you are totally set on going FF. The 5D Mk2 can go up to crazy ISOs so getting good handhold shutter speeds at f/5.6 (on your 100-400) won't be a problem, say, at ISO 1600. The quality will still be good for reproduction.

As for the FPS on the 5D then I wouldn't worry too much I expect you'll learn to adapt to the slight drop in overall speed.

17-40mm on FF is excellent and is a pretty universal choice for what is low money. Keep t, it's a real gem of a lens :)

I know you're probably thinking more pixels from FF = more details and all that for landscape work, why no go for something like a 7D with a high MP count but with the speed to use for faster shooting. The main problem I think you'll find with a 5D are the limited focus points for off-centre shooting, although again, it' something you'd quickly adapt to. It's 9 on the 5D isn't it - is the 40D the same?
 
Last edited:
yes thats right 9.with tegards to your 1st question,what will i find the 5d will offer me over the 40d,thats what i dont know,i just assume i will have better images but i dont know how better.Its still far away yet but I would love to see myself selling my landscape images and i just thought this would never happen with the 40d due to me needing large print sizes and over all excellent IQ.
 
The large format printing aspect does put FF cameras at the front of the queue so in that respect, something like a 5D2 does look to be the obvious choice. It seems you're just testing the waters here, so why not see just what you can do with your 40D and 17-40mm.... get one of those large format (A1 or above) prints done to see if you like what you're seeing. If it doesn't meet expectations then you know you have to make a change, although what to change to is the next question. The 5D2 is a fine camera without doubt, so you're looking in the right direction.
 
Last edited:
will i notice much of a difference in the af performance on the 5d compaired to the 40d?
 
I have a 40D and a 5D II and I must admit I don't see much difference between them on AF speeds. I'm sure someone will put me right, but I can't see it. Speaking totally none technically I love the quality of the images from the 5D. The colours are better and there's a scary amount of detail. They just seem to 'pop'. But I'm always impressed when I go back to the 40D at how good it is. That doesn't help at all does it!?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top