Which Camera for Me? Not really a Troll

[Troll]

I've about decided it's time for a new digital camera. Features seem to have sort of

settled out, at least for the ttime being, and i can live with 10 MP. I have lots of film Canon

EOS stuff sitting unused for a couple of years. EOS Elan body, f:1/4/50mm. 28-135 IS,

Nikkor 35mm PC lens with EOS adapter, Tamron 90mm Macro, and Tamron 500mm

Mirror with EOS adapters.<P>I'd like your opinions, and why?<P>1) Canon 40D with 24-

105 L f:4.0 lens.<P>2) Canon 5D with the old film camera lenses. I'm a little concerned

that it doesn't have a dust shaker built in.<P>3) Olympus E3 with 14-54 Zoom, and f:1.4/

25mm Pan-Leica Summilux. (Adapters also available for the Tamron and Nikkor lens). <

P>Looks like no matter which way I go, it's gonna cost me about $2500.<P>Thanks for

taking the time and trouble to answer.

[leopoldstotch]

I'd go with either #1 or #2. Option 1 will get you a bit more for your money, and option 2 will ease your transition from film to digital. Toss a coin or decide which one suits you best. The anti-dust system really shouldn't be a deciding factor, since even with Canon's auto cleaning system, you'll still have to do it manually eventually(It is in no way "dust proof").

[keith_lubow]

How about an XTi with 17-40 and Sigma 24-70 ($429), all for under $2,000? Or an XTi with the 17-55 for under $2,000. A 24 will have the approx. field of view of a 40mm on an APS sensor. A 17 looks like a 28 or so. The 17-55 has IS and looks like a 28-90, but is only usable on 1.6 bodies.

 

By getting an XTi instead of the $30D, you gain an extra $600 for your lens budget, which is what really counts.

 

Keith

[tapani]

I'd get 40D but instead of (or in addition to) the 24-105 either the 17-55/2.8 or the 17-85, or the 17-40/4 if you want to use it on film body as well or plan on getting a full-frame digital soon. On a 1.6x body 24mm just isn't wide enough.

[colin carron]

Bill, I'm with Leopold on the anti-dust thing, it should not be too much of a factor. While the Canon 5D sensor seems to attrect a fair bit of dust it is also in my experience easy to clean. A few puffs with a blower bulb without the brush bit seems to do the trick.

 

I would go with the Canon 5D.

[steve torelli]

The 5D unless you don't want to spend the money. Of course you'll have the same perspective as your film camera and all your current lenses will work on it. The dust removal system is little more than a gimmick IMHO, and the dust "problem" is easily avoided for the most part with a little care, and easily resolved if you do get dust on your sensor, which you will. Good luck.

[eric merrill]

Bill:

 

I'd cross #3 off the list if it were me. Just because. But I've seen

some pretty amazing images coming out of those Olympus 4/3 cameras.

(I'm assuming that's what the E3 is. I don't recognize that model.)

 

It's not like you have a huge investment in existing lenses, so if you

want to switch systems, it wouldn't be that big of a loss. A loss,

yes. But not insurmountable.

 

I wouldn't cross #2 off just because the 5D doesn't have the dust

shaker. I have a 5D, and I'm really happy with it. I shoot mostly

wide open or close to it, so I won't really notice a dust problem

until there's a 1/2 inch accumulation of sediment on my sensor. :)

 

I *would* cross #2 off my list because the 5D is getting long in the

tooth. It's 2 years old, which is ancient in terms of digital. I

bought mine a couple months after it came out. It was the camera I

was waiting for to push me into digital.

 

What does "about time" mean? If you want full frame and you can wait,

I'd wait another 6 months. If you want full frame and can't wait, I'd

go with the 40D for now. And then get the 5D II whenever it comes

out. With digital, you really, really should have a backup. And

hauling around a film camera with the requisite rolls of film isn't

the fun that it sounds like. :)

 

The 24-105/4 is amazing. I switched over to Canon a few years ago.

Sold all my old stuff, and just bought primes. No zooms for me. I

finally decided to try the 24-105 because I wanted something easy for

family snaps and vacation grab shots. What surprised me is how much

of the time it stays on my camera for more serious pursuits, as well.

I really like it. Previously, the 35/1.4 was my most used lens. And

I like the 24-105 both on the 5D and on a cropped sensor (XTi).

 

Hope this has been useful.

 

 

Eric

[Troll]

Thanks for the good advice -- you make good sense (so far). Keep it coming

Guys (and Gals).<P>When I've posted on some of the other forums

(particularly Olympus), one would sometimes think that the answers came

from fairyland! Just in questioning the quality of the 4/3 system lenses, I've

been accused of being a Troll.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>I'm 100% unfamiliar with the Olympus lineup and the four-thirds lenses so I can't say how they compare to the lenses you'd use with either of those Canon systems.</p>

 

<p>The 24-105 is an honest-to-goodness professional-quality lens. No question about that. You already have a bunch of lenses and you are probably familiar with their attributes already.</p>

 

<p>Be forewarned that there are sometimes compatibility problems using older third-party lenses (or converters which let you use non-EF lenses on EOS bodies) on newer EOS bodies. Before you make a decision which is based at least in part on being able to continue using your old lenses on a new body, test them on that specific model of body. The two EF lenses (50 and 28-135) will work perfectly well on any EOS body, new or old, so no worries there (and, incidentally, those two lenses happened to be among my kit when I went from film to digital).</p>

 

<p>As others have pointed out, the anti-dust shaking doodad does not constitute freedom from dust. It may help keep the sensor cleaner than in an equivalent camera without it, and there are other anti-dust measures taken in those bodies. But sooner or later, you'll end up with crud on the sensor whether you get a body with the shaker or a body without. I wouldn't make this a big consideration in a purchasing decision.</p>

 

<p>If you go for the 40D, all your existing lenses become longer and less wide. You essentially lose wide-angle coverage; your widest lens will be the 24-105, which at its wide end works out to the equivalent of about 38. That's really not very wide. Can you live without that? If not, you'll need to add another wider lens to gain back your wide coverage. Or do what I did when I went digital with 28-135 as my widest film lens: add the 17-40/4L USM. It's an excellent lens, is effectively about the same speed as your current wide zoom (f/4 really isn't much slower than f/3.5, and the 28-135 gets slower pretty quickly as you zoom out), and retains the same wide angle field of view you currently have. (I do plan on replacing my 28-135 with the 24-105 later this year, but that will come almost three years after going digital, so the cost has been spread out.) Speaking of cost, the 40D is brand new and therefore carries the new-and-shiny price premium. If you decide on a 40D and don't need it immediately, hold off for a while and the price will drop.</p>

 

<p>If you end up deciding on the 5D and have time to wait, hang on for a few months. As someone else pointed out, the 5D is rather long in the tooth. Not that it isn't a fine camera - it is, for sure. But at its age, by far the oldest model in the lineup that hasn't had a next-generation model released or at least announced, it's clearly due for replacement. Canon traditionally announces new EOS products twice a year: once around August (which, as you likely know, was the occasion for the 40D's appearance this year), and once just before the PMA trade show, which is early next year (end of January to start of February). There's at least a fair chance that by February the 5D will have been replaced, which gives you some potentially attractive options, in descending price order:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>Buy the 5D II (or whatever it's called). You'll pay to be an early adopter unless you hold off until later next year but you'll get more pixels (I'm figuring about 16 megapixels) and the same sorts of new features that distinguish the 40D from the 30D (e.g. dust reduction, live view).

<li>Buy a new 5D at a clearance-sale price, as retailers try to get rid of old stock

<li>Buy a used 5D as current 5D owners trade up to the 5D II

</ul>

 

<p>Another possible reason to wait: in at least some countries, Canon runs rebate programs a couple of times a year. Nobody outside Canon (or their rebate program partners, who would be sworn to secrecy) knows the details about the next one (when, what products, how much money back), but it's a pretty good bet that there will be some sort of rebate on the 5D.</p>

[jimstrutz]

If you like the lenses you have, you should get the the 5D or its replacement next year. It will save you money in the long run. If you want to upgrade lenses anyway, and want to save $1200 now, get the 40D - but perhaps not with the 24-105.

 

The 24-105 is best paired with the 5D. As Steve Dunn points out, when mounted on the 40D, the resultant 38mm is not very wide. If you are like a lot of us you are likely to breakdown and buy a good 17mm lens later. That's why buying the 5D would probably save you money in the long run.

 

The 28-135 is a reasonably good lens, but if you are not completely satisfied with it you will probably buy the 24-105, or something like it, after you spend $2500 on a new 5D II. That certainly won't save you anything.

[mars c]

If you get the 40D and 24-105, Just add the efs 10-22.

 

If you dont mind using your old lenses, get the 5D. You can always add the 24-105 later.

[jim_larson1]

There is no need to buy the 24-105/IS at this time if you have (and are happy with) the 28-135/IS.

 

Just buy a 40D body, with a 18-55 lens for wide angle. If you want a premium lens to go with it, get the 17-40/4L. (one bit slower and lacks IS compared to the 17-55/2.8; but is much cheaper, built better, and will work on all EOS cameras (which is not true for the 17-55/2.8)

 

40D with 18-55 should run you no more than $1499. Maybe less.

 

Don't rule out the XTi. XTi with 18-55 will set you back an earth shattering $750 or so.

[Troll]

I didn't realize that Canon introduced new models twice a year. Had hoped to

see the 6D (or 5D II) in last month's toys, so figured that I'd have to wait

another year. Maybe not! Even at $5000, Nikon's D3 should give them

something to think about and shoot at.<P>So far, most of your answers have

mirrored or extended my own thoughts.<P>Incidentally, cost is not such an

overiding concern here -- but I'm too old and infirm to carry/use something like

a IDsIII. I want/need something more like a conventional 35mm size outfit, to

which I have learn to adapt over the last 60 years.

[pc1]

hi Bill, my suggestion : get the new 40D with an EFS 17-85mm IS then you can just add an EF 70-300mm IS and your switch to Digital wouldn't be too abrupt IMO . You can still use your existing EF lenses with the 40D if you wanted to. Cheers ! PC

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>cost is not such an overiding concern here</cite>

 

<p>OK, I didn't actually say what I think you should get in my previous post :-) So I'll work from your statement above, and my own philosophy on this stuff: buy the best widget you can afford, not necessarily the best value.</p>

 

<p>Given a budget that doesn't have a problem with the 5D, I'd get a 5D now if I needed it now, or hold off for a while for a rebate program, or hold off a while longer to see what the 5D II has in store. The 40D has some advantages over the 5D, being two years newer in a field where technology advances at a rapid pace, but I still think the 5D is the better widget, and the 5D II will certainly be a much better widget than either the 40D or the 5D.</p>

 

<p>I'd also be prepared for a possible upgrade from the 28-135 to the 24-105. Not that the 28-135 isn't a good lens - it is - but there are quite a few people who have reported that lenses they were happy with on film just don't quite cut it on the 5D, and the 28-135 is one of the lenses that's sometimes mentioned along those lines. So unless there's a too-good-to-miss package deal including the body and the 24-105, I'd suggest perhaps getting the body only and using it with your existing lenses. If the 28-135 proves itself good enough, keep it; if it isn't adequate, upgrade it.</p>

[Troll]

Thanks again, Guys. It looks like good sense to hold my horses until PMA, or

at least after Xmas when the rumors start flying about the next models, and

tests are available of the current crop of goodies.<P>Thanks again,<P>Bill