20D vs 5D - which is better value for money for landscape photography?

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by valko, Jun 28, 2009.

  1. Hi,
    is 20D better value for money for landscape and depth of field related photography?
    Note that I can buy almost new 20D body from ebay for around 250 dollars (I am in UK - 160 pounds).
    The 5D will cost you exactly 10 times more - around 2500 dollars used.
    I think the 20d is much better then 5D ;-) for landscape and depth of field related photography anyway and the value for money is ways better.
    The reasons are here:
  2. 5D for landscapes hands down.
    You won't have to buy EFS or third party lenses that will be useless when you eventually go full frame and at the prices 5d's go for at the moment it's a much better value than a 20D.
    I started on a 20D and it was a breakthrough camera but the 5D should be a no brainer.
  3. Hi Bruce,
    correct me if I am wrong, but the article I have posted clearly shows the FF sensor is having worst focal lenght ratio compared to smaller sensor, so actually the 5D full frame should be worst for landscape? Clearly the 5D FF will be better for portrait, but my question is for landscape...Also comparing 250 to 2500 dollars is no brainer for me either.
  4. stp


    The 5D is around $1200 used (give or take a few hundred); you've stated the new price. The 5D is the better camera for landscapes, as Bruce said. It's one of the best values (IQ vs. cost) in Canon's lineup.
  5. It's complicated when you talk about "value." At $200 or so for a used 20D, it's tough to dismiss. Of course the 5D will
    yield much better IQ, but at a much higher price....
  6. What Bruce said. The 5D hands down.
    I don't know what you mean by a full frame sensor having a worse focal length ratio.
    The smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field for a given aperture. That is true. Close down a stop with the full frame, and the depth of field is the same. The larger the sensor is, the more you can close down before diffraction rears its head. You cannot resolve more with a smaller sensor.
    The smaller the sensor, the greater the enlargement needed for the final print. No matter what you do with the smaller sensor, you cannot change this.
    For landscapes, I'd choose a larger sensor everytime.
  7. The 20D (and the 30D, for that matter) has an 8MP sensor. It is an APS-C sized sensor, which means that all of your lenses are longer, in effect, than they would be on a 35mm sensor like the 5D. This means to get wide, wide-angle vistas, you may want to get an ultra-wide (say 10-22mm or so) lens, which even used will probably cost you in US$, between $300-600.
    In the USA, I bought a like-new 5D (mk1) for less than US$1500, but British prices are always a mystery to us over here. Of course, to get the equivalent of the ultrawide on the 20D, here you'd need a 16mm or so, and those aren't cheap either. (the cheaper 17 to 18mm zooms are all EF-S and will work only on the APS-C cameras).
    Actually, the 24-105mm IS L lens is not a bad deal with a 5D and you might find them together with a used 24-105 going for perhaps $800 (they are much sought after). There was a time when landscape photographers would have died for as wide a lens as 24mm, so it would serve for landscape. Either the 20D (and its kin) or the 5D mk 1 will do landscapes that are technically capable of large print size. I have printed 13x19 inch prints from a 20D and they are fine.
    I have and still use a 20D, and I find it more than adequate, and I also have a bunch EF-S lenses like a Sigma 10-20 and the EF-S 17-85 that I like, and they will not fit on my 5D, of course. I am a big fan of the APS-C format, and would not have bought a 5D if it weren't for some Nikkor legacy lenses that I have that need the full sensor to "do their stuff". It's also a new toy, but I have to confess that even though it's only 12MP, I like the "richness" of the pictures taken with the 5D and the 24-105mm lens.
    A 20D (and consider a used 30D which has some minor upgrades) are a very good buy at current prices. A 40D is a serious upgrade, not a minor one, and if you can stretch to that, you'd have a heck of a camera.
    If it were just a matter of money, with such a broad gap, maybe the 20D is the way to go. It's not so much money that you will consider it wasted if you later decide to go to a 35mm-sensor camera. Any camera in your hand is a lot better than one sitting on a shelf in a shop somewhere.
  8. If your only criterion is "value" - by which I assume you mean price for a camera that can make landscape photographs - I suppose the cheapest cropped sensor body holds greater "value."
    Actually, if that is your main criterion I recommend - in all seriousness since I used to use one - the Digital Rebel XT. For landscape work it will produce photographic results that are equal to those from the 20D in every way. The sensors are essentially the same and the functional differences between the 20D and the XT are largely irrelevant to landscape photography.
    These cameras can do a fine job if you plan to print up to, say, 12 x 18 inches - though you can go a bit larger if you use excellent lenses and technique. I have sold prints from my old XT at up to 16 x 24" sizes.
    (That said, I switched from cropped sensor DSLR bodies to full frame when the 5D came out and I currently use that body and a 5DII. There are definite advantages to using the larger format for landscape work.)
  9. Hi Eric,
    still not clear for me why you should choose FF sensor, the smaller sensor have much higher pixel density (2nd article) so the images should be more sharp? Combining this with the Depth of Field advantage (1st article above) will make the smaller sensor a winner for landscape where sharp and depth of field are more important.
    About print size the 2nd articles says: "Thus, even though the bigger file size of the ... would be considered to give a potential for larger prints, the lower sharpness outside the image centre conflicts with this. We might end up with the paradoxical situation in which both systems can deliver prints up to the same size in practice."
  10. I would follow G Dan Mitchell's advice and get the Rebel XT. A great camera, I still have it.
    Pair it with a Canon 10-22mm and you're all set.
  11. It would seem to me that the best value would be to buy a used Rebel Xt or Xti with a good lens. One thing that has always confused me, however, is Eric's oft-expressed statement: "The smaller the sensor, the greater the enlargement needed for the final print. No matter what you do with the smaller sensor, you cannot change this." Is this true? It would seem to me that the pixel density would matter more in determining how big an enlargement could get. If a FF sensor had the same 8 MP as the 20D, would the FF sensor still have an advantage in making large prints (assume 100 ISO). What "enlargment" is happening with digital? Isn't the picture just a collection of numerical values collected from the pixels?
  12. I've done landscape photography with both, and they both do a great job. At low ISOs on a tripod it's hard to see the difference even in large prints (I've gone to 20"x30" from both). I see 5D (mk I) bodies going for $1500 to $2000. It's a great camera, and the one I would choose, but a $250 20D leaves a lot of cash for lenses.
  13. For landscapes? The 5D - always. The 5D is THE landscape camera - period. FF gives you more tonal range, less noise and most importantly you can use wide angle lenses the way they were intended to!
  14. I'm willing to assume that FF will always have greater dynamic range and less noise due to the larger pixels (in time, perhaps NR may advance to a point that this noise becomes completely negligible for all cameras in most lighting), but I don't understand the point about the wide angle lenses. After all, you could use a 10-22 on a 20D, and that is what it was intended for. If you use the 10-22 on a 5D, you get black corners.
  15. Valco:
    You don't seem to want to here the answers your asking for. "the smaller sensor have much higher pixel density (2nd article) so the images should be more sharp? Combining this with the Depth of Field advantage (1st article above) will make the smaller sensor a winner for landscape where sharp and depth of field are more important."
    Articles and picture samples can be manipulated to "prove" the writers point, right or wrong. The simple fact is that having more sensor real estate is preferable to cramming in more pixel density into the same space. Noise is of particular concern with overly dense sensors. Heck you can get a point and shoot now with 20mp, but the sensor is the size of half a pinky nail. Try blowing those prints up to 16x24 and see what happens.
    The best data is the data you get from actually taking pictures. It sounds like you want the 20D to win because it's cheaper. That's fine. You can take stunning pictures with it if you know how to use it. But the simple fact is that through actually taking pictures, the 5D demonstrates its superiority in landscape photography.
    As to which is a better value, I'd say it's the 20D from a purely monetary perspective. The 20D at $250 is about 22% of it's original value of $1,100. And the 5D at $1500 is about 55% of it's original value at $2700.
    In your case I see no reason not to just get the 20D and get going. Maybe get a Sigma 10-20 as well. Down the line, when you can appreciate and afford bettter gear you can upgrade. Don't worry about "wasting money" on EF-S lenses. I have several and dont' imagine I'd ever sell them. If I did I'd get nearly what I paid for the Canon ones, and a fair depreciated value for the 3rd party ones. I use both a 5D and a 30D they both have thier place as do thier respective lenses.
  16. The choice of a "Rebel" (xxxD) camera involves a few compromises in construction quality, but I agree that these are not likely to be of great significance. However, many of us simply find the 20D and the general xxD to 5D control system (two wheels, top display, etc) to be easier to use. Others, not so much, so see if the xxxD/Rebel is available locally and see how the smaller body and control system works for you before committing yourself, if you can. I have a Rebel XTi (=400D) that I bought as a backup camera. It's 10 MP and has the very desirable sensor self cleaning function. That being said, I still will choose the 20D for my APS-C camera when I'm going someplace.
  17. I owned both cameras and, in terms of IQ, the 5D beats the 20D senseless. First, 5D files require far less post processing to look good. 20D files need plenty spanking in PS before they get to where 5D files begin. Second, 5D files have much less noise at both low and high ISO, so large prints looked smoother and more photographic. And speaking of large prints, you can print larger with the 5D and maintain better quality.
    In terms of use, I find the larger viewfinder of the 5D much easier to compose with. The 20D VF is tiny and underwhelming in comparison. I know my 5D landscape horizons are a lot straighter! Also, the AF and flash metering of the 5D are a lot more accurate than the 20D. On the 20D I got lots of missed focus and had to ride the FCE. Finally, and this is subjective, I like how my wide lenses to stay wide on the 5D. Of course I shot 35mm film on EOS SLRs for 13 years prior to digital so that's an old preference.
    Actually I liked my 20D too, but I used it for telephoto stuff and snapshots (because of the popup!).
    The current used price of a 5D in the USA is $1000 to 1400.
  18. "The smaller the sensor, the greater the enlargement needed for the final print. No matter what you do with the smaller sensor, you cannot change this." Is this true? It would seem to me that the pixel density would matter more in determining how big an enlargement could get. If a FF sensor had the same 8 MP as the 20D, would the FF sensor still have an advantage in making large prints (assume 100 ISO).
    Yes, the FF sensor will still have several advantages in terms of the final print. (It is a separate question as to whether or not the differences will matter to you or not.) Here are a few things to think about.
    To the extent that resolution is a function of lenses, a given lens will resolve more detail on the larger sensor. Here is one simple way to think about it. The ability of a lens to resolve detail can be expressed as (without going into all the gory details) the number of "line pairs per millimeter" (lp/mm) it can resolve. However, when you put that lens on a camera with a larger sensor there are "more millimeters to hold line pairs" and the final print can therefore end up with more detail. (Another useful way to think of this that recognizes the relationship between lens resolution and sensor size is to compare "line pairs per picture width.")
    Related to this, virtually any "size" of distortion will occupy a smaller portion of the frame when the format is larger. For example, CA of a given "size" will spread over a larger number of the physically smaller photosites on the smaller sensor than on the larger full frame sensor. Likewise, other types of distortion/blur will occupy a smaller percentage of the frame width, including simply missing the focus a bit.
    I'll leave out some other factors that are significant to overall results but may not be exactly related to this specific issue, including DOF issues, ability to shoot at a larger number of apertures, larger and brighter viewfinders, availability of wide angle options, etc.
    So, yes, the enlargement factor does matter even with digital.
    To put things in perspective a bit, modern DSLR systems can resolve more detail and produce sharper images than could be produced with typical 35mm film SLR systems in the past - even the cropped sensor systems can do this. (Of course, this fact has led us to try to produce much larger prints than were generally the target of 35mm film photography, and that might push us back towards desiring even greater IQ.) And, unless you shoot with very careful technique and print very large, the IQ from cropped sensor cameras is likely to be more than adequate for the vast majority of photographers.
  19. Thank you all guys for the feedback,
    I do photography for perosnal pleasure and cannot invest large amounts of money in it. I was doing this many years ago with cameras like Canon rangefinder and Praktika, Zenit. So far bought Canon 5 (40 pounds) and Canon 3000 (10 pounds) for 35mm and lens Canon EF 28-105mm USM (90 pounds) for total of 140 pounds.
    Will get a Canon 20D (200 pounds) and Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM (100 pounds) lens and my total budget spent will be around 440 pounds (700 dollars).
    Will get some Velvia 50 and will play around, then will let you lnow which one I like more - the digital or 35mm. I think I know the answer already :)
    The question was mostly rethorical, no offence I know the 5D is excellent camera, but not for my budget.
    Although I am pretty sure that you can make better pictures from 20D under certain circuimstances ;-)
  20. Valko,
    With all respect to Puppyface, I've also owned both a 20D and a 5D.
    The 5D can make better images, no question.
    But they are not overwhelmingly better in most situations and can often barely be told apart. The 5D is also heavier and, of course, a lot more expensive.
    Save your money and enjoy photography. If the 20D ever falls short for you, buy a 5D.
    I got rid of both, by the way, and bought a Pentax K20D. Now there's a lovely camera....
  21. Lots of good info here, but a quick question: I assume the 5DII would be even better for landscape photography than the 5D. Is that a valid assumption?
  22. Well, the 5DII will allow you to make even bigger prints, assuming you use a tripod and top quality lenses. I don't really need larger prints than 12x18 so the 5D is fine. However the bigger 'n brighter LCD of the 5DII would be nice.
  23. Just to address one point,
    the smaller sensor have much higher pixel density (2nd article) so the images should be more sharp?​
    Higher pixel density can be depended on to give more pixels, but not necessarily more detail. If the 5D resolution has maxed out the capabilities of the lens, then adding more pixels will only show the lens's failings more accurately.
    There is a sense in which the 5D is the "easiest" camera on lenses - that is, having the lowest pixel density, a lens will show its failings on other cameras before they show on a 5D. Diffraction also has less impact on a 5D than on other current cameras. This whole topic is difficult to discuss accurately because the full picture is complex, especially when the sensor size changes. It's not sufficient to memorize a few bumper stickers, it takes a lot of reading and staring at diagrams to get it right.
    For what it's worth, I've got a 5D and I have no difficulty obtaining sufficient depth of field. Actually, even on a 5D I would often like less depth of field when working with wide angle.
    On a bang-for-buck scale, the 20D is tough to beat. I recently bought a used 30D for a backup camera, and it complements the 5D very well. And 20D+good lens is capable of better photos than a 5D+bad lens. On a budget, I'd go 20D and spend the extra bucks on glass.
  24. Diffraction also has less impact on a 5D than on other current cameras.
    This is an often repeated myth about photosite density and diffraction.
    If you shoot a photograph with a given lens and aperture on the 5D and then shoot the exact same subject with the same lens and aperture on the 5D II and then make two prints of the same size from both you will get...
    ... exactly the same amount of diffraction.
    You are not more "diffraction limited" with higher photosite density as lon gas you stay with the same sensor format. Diffraction is not a property of sensors - it is a property of lenses. There is the exact same amount in either case. (The 5DII will create a slightly more accurate image of the diffraction than the 5D but that is a quite different thing that producing more diffraction.)
    The only difference in regard to diffraction is that if you have a very sharp lens you can probably shoot it at a slightly larger aperture and get slightly better sharpness from the camera with the greater photosite density, but this is a potential advantage rather than a disadvantage... if you notice it at all.
    You might legitimately argue that when you use very small apertures that there is no significant difference in resolution between the two cameras, though there does appear to still be an improvement (perhaps quite small) in smoothness of tonal gradations.
  25. Dan, I debated whether to leave that sentence in, since I wanted to avoid exactly this argument.
    Yes, a lens at a particular aperture has as much diffraction as it has, independent of the camera.
    I didn't say a 5D "has less diffraction". I said the diffraction "has less impact". And it does. All optical aberrations have less impact in a sensor with larger pixels.
  26. Alan, the diffraction has the same "impact" in two photos made with the same lenses and printed at the same size. There is literally no difference in the amount of diffraction.
    Now this might just be a matter of semantics and I'm misunderstanding you. So let me just put this a different way for anyone else who might be confused by this:
    Some people claim that if you move from a 12MP 5D to a 21MP 5DII that you'll encounter increased effects from diffraction in your prints. This is incorrect. At apertures where diffraction blur is a limiting factor both cameras will record exactly the same amount of diffraction. At apertures where diffraction is not the limiting factor and if you use very good lenses and excellent shooting technique you may be able to achieve slightly greater sharpness with the 21MP body.
    Or, to put it very plainly, if you are avoiding moving to a 5DII because you think you'll have diffraction problems, you don't need to concern yourself about this.

    Diffraction can be an issue sooner as you stop down on a cropped sensor camera.
    Take care,
  27. Dan, I think the difference here is that you're talking 5D vs 5D II - that is, you're comparing two *full frame* cameras. But I'm thinking 5D vs 20D - full frame versus crop frame.
    Consider two hypothetical cameras, one full frame and one 1.6 crop, each producing an image 3900 x 2600 pixels, or about 10 Mp. The full frame camera has a pixel pitch of 9.23 micrometers, the crop frame has a pixel pitch of 5.77 micrometers.
    Now imagine a hypothetical 50-100mm zoom lens. This lens has the wonderful property of always resolving details down to 8 micrometers. It doesn't matter whether the limit is diffraction or some other aberration - I don't care - we're getting 8 micrometers.
    Pick a scene. Mount the lens on a tripod. Take a picture with the full-frame camera at 100mm. Put the crop frame camera on, zoom back to 62.5mm to get the same field of view, take the same picture.
    Are the pictures the same? No. The full frame photo is slightly sharper. Why? Because it has larger pixels, so the resolving limit of the lens doesn't matter as much.
    Which gets back to the only point I'm actually trying to make: the OP said "the smaller sensor have much higher pixel density so the images should be more sharp" -- to which I reply, "Not necessarily -- and in fact, sometimes quite the opposite."
    ....Bear in mind I'm not disagreeing with your excellent points regarding the 5D I / 5D II. I'm just coming at the question from a different angle.
  28. If you're on a tight budget (like you said), 20D & EF-S 10-22 is for sure, a better value, especially if photography is your hobby and you're not printing large.
  29. Alan, I guess I may have been right when I wrote of the possibility that " I'm misunderstanding you." Indeed, I was referring to the comparison between two full frame cameras.
    As to the full frame v. cropped sensor comparison, I think we agree here, too. I was originally replying to the text I quoted in my reply. Bottom line, a full frame camera is capable of higher resolution and not just based on the number of photosites.
    As for our OP, I'm still going to recommend a XT or possibly a XTi for our cash-strapped poster who wants to do landscape work - rather than the 20D or the 5D. The 5D would be a better choice if he intends to work carefully and make large prints, but the 8MP cropped sensor bodies can do OK, too, and at the very low cost I think he is looking for.
    Take care,
  30. There are no circumstances under which the 20D can beat the 5D.
    However, the 20D is still a very capable camera. Your choices of the 28-105 and 100-300 USM are good ones. Also consider adding a 50/1.8 for under $100. If you stick with the camera you will eventually need a wider lens for landscape images. The 18-55 would be a good start or one of the even wider third party lenses.
    Viewing a Velvia 50 slide under 10x magnification will look superior to the 20D image, but you will quickly find out how easy it is to photograph using a DSLR. As long as you have a computer with reasonable memory and photo editting software you can take as many pictures as you like for free. You will know how your pictures are turning out as you take them, and can correct exposure and composition on the fly! A DSLR opens a whole new world of possibilities without worrying about how much film and processing is costing you to experiment.
    The 20D is an excellent start. Have fun with it.
  31. "Although I am pretty sure that you can make better pictures from 20D under certain circuimstances ;-)" Let us know what those circumstances are when you figure it out.
  32. I don't shoot a lot of landscapes but when I do, the 10-22 is so good that I lust for no other UWA, in any system. FWIW, it is better than the 17-40 I had before it.
    Happy shooting,
  33. 5D, paired with a good 17-40, wins hands down, no doubt.
  34. "The smaller the sensor, the greater the depth of field for a given aperture. That is true. Close down a stop with the full frame, and the depth of field is the same."
    My understanding is that DOF has nothing to do with sensor size, given the exact same lens and the exact same camera to subject distance. A 100mm lens on a 1.6 crop body versus a FF body is still 100mm. The aperture of F4, as an example, is identical in both cases. Subject distance is identical, so DOF must be identical.
    When you start changing the camera to subject distance to achieve idetical FOV then only does DOF change.
    Correct me if I am wrong....
  35. Also, a 5D winds hands down. No contest. I have both, and I talk from a lot of personal experience.
  36. Valco,
    Both are excellent cameras - if you can't take a brilliant shot with a 20D then you should find a new hobby. Unless you intend to make enormous prints the differences will be subtle, despite the different sensor sizes, pixel density, etc (anyone who says it's black v. white, or one blows the other away, is a gearhead/pixel peeper who should be ignored). Far, far more important is the glass you use, so if it was a choice, budget-wise, between a 20D with, say, a 17 - 40L, or a 5D with something less (some of Canon's cheaper film era lenses do not make the transition to digital very well), then the former's the way to go.
  37. I think Bob Atkins had a 20D vs 5D shootout on his webpage. From what I remember, the 5D is slightly better. You have to print pretty big in order to see the difference.
    A lot of people point to FF digital cameras for landscape photography because they lack the crop factor. However, there are some excellent 10 mm lenses out there right now, so the crop factor is no longer a problem.
    FWIW, a larger format does not solve the diffraction problem or give you larger dof. A 10 mm lens stopped down to f/11 on crop-factor will give you roughly the same dof and fov as a 16 mm lens at f/16 on FF gear.
    IMO the real reason to full-frame is high-iso performance and improved shallow dof. FF gear really shines when it comes to wedding photography, photojournalism, portraiture and such. Personally I find a crop-factor viewfinder to be sufficient for composing landscapes, but when it comes to judging focus for shallow dof stuff then FF gear rules. Manual focusing my primes on my crop body can be a pain sometimes, used to be easier back in my film days... but for landscapes my crop-body camera does just great.
  38. While you can cover nearly the same wide angles of view with cropped sensors using lenses like the excellent 10-22 zoom and a few other, a) there are still more options for FF and b) there are other reasons for using FF for landscape work.
    In my view, the main reason for using FF for landscape is the potentially better resolution of details. In is inescapable that a larger format is capable of resolving more detail (other things being equal) than a smaller format. One simple way of thinking about this is that if a lens resolves X lp/mm the larger dimensions of the larger sensor can resolve a greater number of lines per frame width. (In fact, "line pairs per picture width" is a very useful way of thinking about this issue.)
    Regarding DOF and diffraction, for landscape work the larger format will also have advantages. While you point out that you can stop down to f/11 on a cropped sensor body, you could just as well stop down to f/22 on FF with approximately the same negative effect on diffraction blur. While no format can "solve" the "diffraction problem" (indeed, it is an optical characteristic of all lenses) the larger the format the more you can stop down before diffraction becomes an issue at a given print size. Roughly speaking a full-frame camera can stop down almost two stops more than a 1.6x cropped sensor body with similar diffraction results - most think of the difference as roughly two stops.
    So, you do not gain anything in terms of achieving greater DOF with full frame, though you do get a greater range of usable apertures in regards to what you might regard as those at which diffraction blur is acceptable. Using the "roughly two stops" difference as a guide, if you would be willing to shoot at f/11 on crop (which I would generally avoid, but might occasionally consider) than f/22 would be roughly equivalent on FF in terms of diffraction effect in the final print. So, while you gain narrower DOF when you need it (and nature and even landscape photographers do sometimes need it) you don't lose anything since you can still stop down to get the same DOF on FF at the expense of using a higher ISO and/or longer exposure time. (For most landscape you probably choose the latter.)
    I agree with Arie that the viewfinder differences are overblown. I've shot with both and for landscape work I was able to compose just fine with a cropped sensor body. Neither is great for manual focus in the viewfinder - in either case I'd much prefer to use the live view feature of the newer bodies; it is tremendously powerful for landscape work.
    Finally, don't construe anything I wrote here to suggest that one cannot produce really fine landscape work using a cropped sensor body, good lenses, and careful technique. I know that it is possible. I've sold prints made from a 8MP cropped sensor body and I've seen tons of great work done with cropped sensor equipment. I'm absolutely convinced that crop sensor cameras can produce extremely high quality 12 x 18 inch prints and I have made 16 x 24 inch prints from them that I think stand up very well.
  39. 20D with the 10-22mm or 5D with 16-35mm?
    Does it matter with photoshop? I doubt anyone will know in the end... nor will they care if the pic is done well....
    How about the 5D with a 10-22mm now that would be something! Maybe we should send this one to canon :)
  40. One further thought. I think the new 17 mm and 24 mm tilt-shift lenses are going to redefine the landscape game for Canon. While I haven't seen these lenses (let alone play around with them) I fully expect them to be insanely sharp and contrasty. The tilt feature will allow large dof at small fstops, solving the dof-diffraction problem.
    Shooting with these lenses on full-frame gear will be much more like shooting medium format (or LF for that matter). I suppose you could mount a 17 TS on a crop camera and get a slighly wide view, but that'll take much of the fun out of it - what you really want for landscape is the awesome perspective that 17 mm FF (or 10 mm crop) provides.
    Of course a 5D2 and 17 TS is in a different price league compared to a 20D plus a 10-22. But - I fully expect that this setup will yield very significant improvement that is easily seen on large prints.
  41. 20D with the 10-22mm or 5D with 16-35mm?
    Does it matter with photoshop? I doubt anyone will know in the end... nor will they care if the pic is done well....​
    If you know what you are doing, work carefully, and print large it will make a difference. There are things that Photoshop cannot fix, and if Photoshop can make the cropped sensor 10-22 shot better the same PS techniques would also work on the full frame 16-35 shot.
  42. I do have 20D with Segma 10-22 lens, and I have 5d with 17-40L.
    My exerpeince that the 20D with Segma 10-22 gave me much better results specialy if I want to emphasize destortion effect.
    However, if you are not concerned with Money, Go with 5d MarkII and 17-40 lens. You will not regret it.
  43. I think 5D is best fit for landscapes than 20D. 5D was created for landscapes and portraits.
    Now wether it is a better value for the money than 20D it is for you to decide.
    BTY 12mp looks like the sweet spot of DSLR at least for now.
    Attachment was shot with 5D 100mm macro
  44. the new 50d is for sports aka action but the new 5d mrk II is mostly for landscapes and portraits from all the news and articles i've read. I'm sure all the way around the 5d II would be the best way to go as for price ths 50d
  45. Always buy what you can afford. It won't revolutionise your photography. The sooner you forget about the camera and the lens the sooner you can start capturing light and emotion.
  46. The sooner you forget about the camera and the lens the sooner you can start capturing light and emotion.​
  47. The sooner you forget about the camera and the lens the sooner you can start capturing light and emotion.​
    I see no reason why the two are contradicting. In photography, technical and artistic merits are inseparately interwoven. Or maybe you meant that your control over your gear is so good until you stop thinking about the technical stuff as it becomes intuitive? If so, I wholeheartedly agree.
    Happy shooting,

Share This Page