11-16-2010, 06:36 PM
[quote name='popo' timestamp='1289930271' post='4205']
I did previously change a 50D for a 5D1, and to me it was not worth it. To me, the main reason for going full frame is the potential shallower DoF it can provide over smaller sensors in a given condition. I later found out I didn't need it, and I missed having live view too.
I would say only change if you're really sure the 5D offers you something you need to do but can't currently. If you feel technologically limited at the moment, identify what that limitation is and what ways there may be to resolve it.
[/quote]
Well, mostly it's that I feel like I don't have good enough image quality or fast enough shutter speed when shooting at low light conditions. Also, the ISO 3200 in 40D is somewhat noisy. Full frame viewfinder would be nice, but not essential. Otherwise the 40D is just fine.
Also, I currently have these lenses:
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L
If I would change, I would also have to change the Tamron to 28-70mm model and sell Sigma 30mm. Maybe change 50mm f/1.8 into f/1.4. Being able to use 50mm lenses as standard lenses would be very nice, as the Sigma isn't very good quality for a prime lens. On the down side, my 70-200mm f/4 wouldn't have as good reach.
[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1289925269' post='4204']You'll probably get more satisfaction when you see what a 40D delivers with a very good lens - or better still, a 5D with a very good lens. My advice would be to invest in better (full frame) glass and stick to the 40D until you decide to move to a newer full frame camera if that's the way you want to go.
[/quote]
That's probably true, but very good lenses are also very expensive. The Tamron is already a good lens, and you would have to get something like Canon 24-70mm L lens to get any improvement. Changing to a 5D would probably cost me only a couple hundred euros when factoring in the money from selling the 40D.
I did previously change a 50D for a 5D1, and to me it was not worth it. To me, the main reason for going full frame is the potential shallower DoF it can provide over smaller sensors in a given condition. I later found out I didn't need it, and I missed having live view too.
I would say only change if you're really sure the 5D offers you something you need to do but can't currently. If you feel technologically limited at the moment, identify what that limitation is and what ways there may be to resolve it.
[/quote]
Well, mostly it's that I feel like I don't have good enough image quality or fast enough shutter speed when shooting at low light conditions. Also, the ISO 3200 in 40D is somewhat noisy. Full frame viewfinder would be nice, but not essential. Otherwise the 40D is just fine.
Also, I currently have these lenses:
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Sigma 30mm f/1.4
Canon 50mm f/1.8
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L
If I would change, I would also have to change the Tamron to 28-70mm model and sell Sigma 30mm. Maybe change 50mm f/1.8 into f/1.4. Being able to use 50mm lenses as standard lenses would be very nice, as the Sigma isn't very good quality for a prime lens. On the down side, my 70-200mm f/4 wouldn't have as good reach.
[quote name='Pinhole' timestamp='1289925269' post='4204']You'll probably get more satisfaction when you see what a 40D delivers with a very good lens - or better still, a 5D with a very good lens. My advice would be to invest in better (full frame) glass and stick to the 40D until you decide to move to a newer full frame camera if that's the way you want to go.
[/quote]
That's probably true, but very good lenses are also very expensive. The Tamron is already a good lens, and you would have to get something like Canon 24-70mm L lens to get any improvement. Changing to a 5D would probably cost me only a couple hundred euros when factoring in the money from selling the 40D.