Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by robert_adams|8, Sep 26, 2007.

  1. I'm looking to upgrade to a 40d. I can't completely rule out a 5d. I mostly
    shoot landscape with prime lenses on a 20d. I have to say I am not a fan on
    ultrawide perspectives. I am happy with the 20mm even with the crop factor. I
    also don't like to make prints greater than 11x14. Would the 5d be a wise
    choice given my prefrences?

  2. What's wrong with your 20D?
  3. I believe that an increase in megapixels is a wise move at this time. Not that it would be earth shattering, but in comparing other people's results, I think there is a slight edge.
  4. There is a significant edge at > 8x10. Sensor size is more important than MP count
  5. You just said that you were happy with the perspective you got with the 40D @ 20mm despite the crop factor. While I would say the 5D lends its self better to landscape. If you are happy with the 20mm on a 1.6X camera, why question it?

    The 40D is more than able to produce print of the size you mentioned.

  6. I shoot a 5D. Two advantages - in my view - are that it stands up well to larger prints and it
    is great for wide angle.

    You aren't going to do either of those, apparently, so you might be just as happy with a 40D.

  7. I'd be surprised if you could see any difference in terms of print resolution between the two as the sizes that you're mentioning.
  8. As would I, Colin. I think any new camera would be a waste of money, but hey, it's not my money to worry about...
  9. 1) User reports that the 40D is a least equal to the 5D in regards to IQ. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/canon-40D-handson.shtml

    2) The 'sweat spot' factor... you are only using the best part of the lens.
  10. two typos: 1) should be 'AT least equal'. 2) should be 'sweet spot'

    Perhaps I should wake up before posting ;)
  11. i thought you were talking about the sweaty spot...oh well = that was more enticing.

Share This Page