Moving to canon what to get???

S

sk8ter646

Suspended / Banned
Messages
26
Name
Tom
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi there, after getting a quote to get my nikon repaired i have desided to sell up and move over to canon. my only problem is which body and lens to go for.

im into my landscapes and sport photography and have narrowed my choices down to.

Canon 50D / 5D mk1 ( unsure on which to go for)

Sigma 70-200 F2.8 / Canon 70-200 L F4

if i go for the 50D ill get the 17-85 lens for it

If i go for the 5D id get the 28-135 lens.

Im just wondering what people would go for from the above options or if anyone has anything else that they would recommend for a similar cost (dont really wish to go for more than £650 on a body and £400 on the lens)

Thanks in advanced
Tom.
 
Tough one, landscapes say go FF, motorsport says go for crop sensor.
If motorsport is your thing then the 50D out of the two, or try pushing up a bit for a 7D body.

I wouldn't look at buying a body with lens, I would just get a body, then add lenses.

I would also probably go for the canon L F4 as its sharp at F4 where as the sigma F2.8 isnt sharp wide open.
 
I would say go for the crop and my reasoning is that the crop bodies can cope with both, especially if going for a 7D (if this is an option) you get you good AF for sports and for landscapes the 7D is still capable and just maybe required a bit more pp to get the same dynamic range etc the 5DII would offer.
 
As much as the 5D would give a higher IQ, with your budget, the 50D would probably be a better option. The main reason I say this is the 28-135 you mention will be a waste of your 5D's IQ, so a 50 could be had for about £500, followed by the 70-200mm (plenty of threads here to compare the 2), leaving a few quid left over to get a fairly decent wide lens
 
Clearly 5D mk1 for much better IQ, and Canon 70-200mm f/4 is a stunning lens. I'd go for Tamron 28-75mm or Tokina 28-70mm as your other lens though. 50D is OK, but that is about it.
 
Well my thinking is that the 5D won't shoot fast enough for sport but you could mount a 10-22 on a 50D which shoots at just over 6fps and still get the equivalent of 16-35mm with the 10-22. On that basis the 50D may be a better body for you.

My 2c.


Enjoy your photography


a010.gif


H
a035.gif
 
Just a couple of thoughts on lenses...

I had a 17-85mm and thought that although the range, IS and USM were all nice optically it was average at best with CA and distortion.

Personally I think that that lens would be a weak link and if going for a standard zoom on a crop body it'd be better to go for one of the 17-50mm f2.8's from Canon, Sigma or Tamron.

When I bought my 70-300mm my dealer kept pushing me towards a 70-200mm f2.8 and I wouldn't listen and now I wish I had. f4 just isn't f2.8.
 
Why buy a very expensive body then put a relatively cheaplens on it.... Better buying a cheaper body with an L
 
sk8ter646 said:
Canon 50D / 5D mk1 ( unsure on which to go for)
Click to expand...

Ruling out 7D or 5D mk2 on budget

Just to throw a spanner in the works.....

An alternative to the 50D or 5D mk1 - 1D Mark 2 might be worth a look.

The 1.3 crop falls between the two in terms of sensor size yet has fantastic auto focus and build quality.
 
Last edited:
going on what people have said on here i think i shall go for the 50D

as for a 1D mk2 the main reason i have ruled these out is after having a D1x i dont wish to have a lump of a camera anymore as it just hampers my ability to have it on my shoulder all day every day, so going for a smaller body will hopefully help me in that sence.

i am now very confused as to what lens to go for with the 50D as i have heard alot of people put the 17-85 down, i dont wish to spend more than £200 on my basic lens as i will use the 70-200 (which ever one i choose :S) alot more.
Does any one have any recommendations??

Thanks
Tom
 
£200 is a bit short for anything decent.
2nd hand maybe a tamron 17-50 f/2.8 non VC for a little over your budget.
 
33L said:
£200 is a bit short for anything decent.
Click to expand...
:plusone:
Have to agree here. On a crop body the first lens I would look at is the 17-55 f2.8. I know it's a lot more than you were looking to pay but it is an outstanding lens, gives you a fairly wide FOV (similar to 24-70 on FF) it's nice and sharp, and because it's 2.8 you can use it for a number of different genres.

If you want to stay lightweight, the f4 non IS 70-200 is very sharp and very light in weight, otherwise one of the 2.8's, but they're heavy....

If you can afford it, a 7D will make a big difference too.

Steve
 
The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 non VC can be had for about £240 new from Digital Rev(Hong Kong), about £300 from the UK. The VC has worse IQ but image stabilisation so you need to make a call of IQ vs stabilstion and also on price as the VC adds bout £80, check the reviews on photozone.de.

Supposed to be a excellent lens, and is the next item on my purchase list.
 
I have both cameras (5Dmk1 & 50D) and 70/200 f4 (IS) and 28/135 (IS)

The Is on the 28/135 doesnt appear to be as good as the 70/200 Is so IQ suffers a bit at slow shutter speeds, other than that the IQ is "sufficient" especially if you're shooting W/a landscapes (on a tripod?). Most of my landscape shots tend to be in the 70mm region as I dont really like w/a landscapes so I use my 70/200.
Regardless of suggested IQ of the 28/135 I find it a good do everything lens on my 5D.
AF on the 5D is supposed to be not as good as the 50D, others who use theirs for motorsport suggest its ok. Frame rate - in the old film days we used to anticipate the shot and do with no auto advance or 1fps at best (on most cameras). I havent used my 5D for sport but I think it would in general be fine. Low light AF seems to be acceptable.
The 5D images are way better than those off a 50D (which my wife is now using) and personally I would prefer to drop the occasional shot rather than drop the IQ of the 5D, you can always buy better glass later but IMHO the IQ of the 5D wins the debate every single time.

The 50D is a fine camera its just not quite as good as the 5D in my opinion. The high Iso on the 50D maxes out at about 800 before it all gets a bit noisy, so perceived benefits dont quite work out.

Given your two choices I would definitely buy the 5D, I bought my 50D (new) before I bought my 5D (2nd hand) and regretted not going FF from day 1.

I also have a 1DMk2 - a beast of a camera but its a big lump and I can understand you wanting a smaller body.

Matt
 
Personally, my choice would be:

Used 40D
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 non VC (going by how so many people say this is a superb lens)
canon 70-200 f/4L
And a 10-22mm if there's money left over.

For sports and landscapes, you won't in any way be inhibited by having a focal length gap between 50 and 70mm.
 
EOS_JD said:
Why buy a very expensive body then put a relatively cheaplens on it.... Better buying a cheaper body with an L
Click to expand...

i use sigma lenses on my 1D.. HOMGZ.

:rolleyes:

have a rummage around for threads on the canon 70-200 F4 vs sigma 70-200 F2.8. we've got 2 of the sigmas and (oddly, according to some) theyre both fast, sharp throughout range and aperture. and its not that heavy, the missus handholds it easily.
 
on of the main reasons i dont wish to go up to the 15-85 canon lens is that it will spend most of its time in my kit bag, most of the landscapes i shoot and pretty much all my sport will be shot with the 70-200 (which after some reading will be the sigma F2.8)

MatBin your opinions are very true, i have shot film for a fair while though my school years doing alot of motorsport in that time and yes i am used to the slow FPS of 1-1.5fps. i have been brought up to antcipate a shot not fire a huge run and hope you catch it.

:( im now back to being all confused on the 5D/50D debate.

are the photos produced by the 5D that much better??
 
I have had the 50D & moved on to the 5D,for IQ i love the 5D.:):thumbs:
 
I have a 40D and 5D2 and I too see a difference in the IQ. Just wish the 5D had the 7D's AF system :)
 
MatBin said:
I have both cameras (5Dmk1 & 50D) and 70/200 f4 (IS) and 28/135 (IS)

The Is on the 28/135 doesnt appear to be as good as the 70/200 Is so IQ suffers a bit at slow shutter speeds, other than that the IQ is "sufficient" especially if you're shooting W/a landscapes (on a tripod?). Most of my landscape shots tend to be in the 70mm region as I dont really like w/a landscapes so I use my 70/200.
Regardless of suggested IQ of the 28/135 I find it a good do everything lens on my 5D.
AF on the 5D is supposed to be not as good as the 50D, others who use theirs for motorsport suggest its ok. Frame rate - in the old film days we used to anticipate the shot and do with no auto advance or 1fps at best (on most cameras). I havent used my 5D for sport but I think it would in general be fine. Low light AF seems to be acceptable.
The 5D images are way better than those off a 50D (which my wife is now using) and personally I would prefer to drop the occasional shot rather than drop the IQ of the 5D, you can always buy better glass later but IMHO the IQ of the 5D wins the debate every single time.

The 50D is a fine camera its just not quite as good as the 5D in my opinion. The high Iso on the 50D maxes out at about 800 before it all gets a bit noisy, so perceived benefits dont quite work out.

Given your two choices I would definitely buy the 5D, I bought my 50D (new) before I bought my 5D (2nd hand) and regretted not going FF from day 1.

I also have a 1DMk2 - a beast of a camera but its a big lump and I can understand you wanting a smaller body.

Matt
Click to expand...

See, this I dont get. I often use up to iso 3200 on my 50d which achieves very good quality images, and at iso 1600 noise is barely noticable? DPP also removes almost all noise at the silly high iso's as well (sometimes I have to use 6400 and even 12800 with good results via DPP), without pushing the NR.

I've not used a 5d or 1d (which of course will have better IQ otherwise who would pay their silly prices?!), but I have used many others and the 50D is by far the best high iso performer I've used. (or has someone added an extra '0' to the badge on my camera??!), pretty much on par with the 7d I compared it directly to, and better than the 40d after iso 200 - in fact I commented on this on a previous thread...
 
Last edited:
Noise reduction though softens images and removes detail. Sure we can all use NR but I prefer not to.
 
EOS_JD said:
Noise reduction though softens images and removes detail. Sure we can all use NR but I prefer not to.
Click to expand...

Lol yes I know, but I'm not talking about using NR. DPP takes care of remedial noise without you having to touch the NR until you go silly with the ISO.

I replied in this thread (at the bottom) and posted some shots for noise demonstration a while ago;

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=276684

No NR applied apart from the iso 2500 shot, and that was only slight NR reduction.
 
Last edited:
I have used the 50D in anger at high ISO and really cant complain, when i say high i mean 2000 ISO+, however ISO 2000 + on the 5DII is something different :p
 
odd jim said:
See, this I dont get. I often use up to iso 3200 on my 50d which achieves very good quality images, and at iso 1600 noise is barely noticable? DPP also removes almost all noise at the silly high iso's as well (sometimes I have to use 6400 and even 12800 with good results via DPP), without pushing the NR.

I've not used a 5d or 1d (which of course will have better IQ otherwise who would pay their silly prices?!), but I have used many others and the 50D is by far the best high iso performer I've used. (or has someone added an extra '0' to the badge on my camera??!), pretty much on par with the 7d I compared it directly to, and better than the 40d after iso 200 - in fact I commented on this on a previous thread...
Click to expand...

It's probably just a matter of preferences, coming from a film background I view detail, sharpness and IQ (colour gradation etc) as very important so for me a crop body high MP digital camera at high Iso (e.g. Canon) just doesnt float my boat, unless I'm after an "impessionist" type photo. I honestly believe the 5D is the closest thing (yet) I have used that compares to a 35mm film image (mainly slides).
My wife uses the 50D and tbh its a very capable camera, she loves it, I just prefer the 5D :) even with its shortcomings.

Matt
 
I wasn't a fan of the 50D and noise at ISO 800 and above either. I had both the 40D and 50D at the same time, and preferred the 50D mainly for the micro adjustment, larger screen and extra MP for cropping. I would've been happy using either though.

One thing to mention to the OP, that 70-200 is going to be pretty short for sports on the 5D. Although if you are used to that focal length on a lens using a film camera you'll be fine I guess. I nearly traded my 7D for a 5DmkII recently, but the speed of the camera and the extra reach of the 1.6x crop made me stay with the 7D.
 
I admit to hating DPP. I think it's clunky and generally hateful so that may colour my views slightly...

I'm amazed that people are saying that it easily removes noise as I don't find that at all. I've tried the version I got with my 20D and a 5DII version too and I find that it makes a complete mess of images and they just end up a smeary mess.

I've tried other packages recommended by people and generally I just can't get good results. NR just doesn't seem to give the results that I'm happy with and generally I'm happier with an image that hasn't suffered NR than with one that has.
 
woof woof said:
I admit to hating DPP. I think it's clunky and generally hateful so that may colour my views slightly...

I'm amazed that people are saying that it easily removes noise as I don't find that at all. I've tried the version I got with my 20D and a 5DII version too and I find that it makes a complete mess of images and they just end up a smeary mess.

I've tried other packages recommended by people and generally I just can't get good results. NR just doesn't seem to give the results that I'm happy with and generally I'm happier with an image that hasn't suffered NR than with one that has.
Click to expand...

...but this is the thing with DPP - it removes remedial noise without you having to actually apply any noise reduction! It seems to map any noticeable noise simply on conversion from raw to jpeg at normal and moderately high iso's. Its definitely better than photoshop at processing high iso images, by a long way. I hardly ever apply NR from DPP but after conversion to jpeg the images are far cleaner than from CS3 with NR applied. I dont know why.

I wonder if this is one of the reasons people arnt getting the best out of high mp canon crops, as people automatically default to Lightroom or cs3/cs4?

Dont get me wrong, I always use cs3 for 'normal' processing, its far more versatile, but I always use DPP or anything above 1600 iso as the results look so much better even without applying DPP's noise reduction.

Interestingly, it made no difference with my 400d when I used it at high iso's (though I was using an earlier version of DPP), its almost if there is something embedded into the 50d file structure geared to resolving it in DPP.

For the record I've never shot jpeg direct from the camera so I cant comment on that!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top