Stupid question from a noob....

Mr_Beach_Bum

Hi Everyone,

I've got a debate running in my head and I think I need some professional advice. I'm currently shooting with a Canon 40D. I love it, and I'm not planning to get rid of it anytime soon... but as my skills and ambitions grow I am looking at several used 5D and 1D options.

The trouble is this... and I know you will resist the temptation to mock me for even asking... Will my photos from the 1D Mk II be notably superior in large print sizes to the 40D which has higher resolution? :scratch

Ok, I am sure that because of the full frame sensor, the answer is a resounding yes... but can anyone tell me why or demonstrate to me the differences? Your help, expertise, and professional advice is greatly appreciated.

Thanks!
Ken

boulderNardo

The 1D MkII does NOT have a full frame sensor.
It's a bigger sensor than the 40D, yet not FF (1.3x vs. 1.6x crop on the 40D).

The 40D makes for BEAUTIFUL prints, I've printed posters up to 24"x36" and they look GREAT.

However, so does the 1D MkII I've only printed up to 16x24" on that one so far, but it looks absolutely great, too.

... with the added bonus that shots from my 1D MkII are WAY sharper than shots I used to get on my 40D.

I can highly recommend the 1D II!
Obviously, depends on what you shoot.
You can get a 5D or a 1DII for about the same price.
The 5D has vastly superior image quality (and prints would look way better than from a 1DII) but lacks AF and the sturdy body of the 1DII.
Good luck!
_B

ziggy53

Like boulderNardo said, the 1D cameras are a crop 1.3x and the 1Ds and 5D cameras are FF (24 x 36mm for the purpose of this discussion).

One rather unusual property of a larger format versus a smaller format is that less resolution is required of the larger format to produce similar image quality. This is because resolution is measured in terms of unit area and FF imagers have more total area available. Less resolution on a larger area still translates to good resolution for the print at a given size.

Since many lenses have their highest resolution in the center, the effect is somewhat countered by crop cameras using the "sweet spot" of the image circle, especially when using FF lenses on a crop camera.

That said, there is a very special quality when using the "best" lenses properly on a FF imager. There is just a certain "snap" and "pop" to the images that is more difficult to attain with the crop cameras. (This is likely due to a high "micro-contrast" property of the lens combined with the fine detail and lower noise level properties of the FF imager.)

The larger format may also provide a different vantage for subjects which allows for less DOF at the larger apertures but also allows smaller apertures before visible diffraction effects. This greater range of usable apertures gives much finer control of DOF on a FF body.

Random noise also tends to be less on a full frame imager, allowing for more detail versus noise at higher ISOs.

While you won't realize all of these benefits on every image taken, there is the opportunity for improving your image acquisitions, at the expense of larger and often heavier equipment and often more expensive lenses as well.

I still find use for all of my cameras from a Fuji F40fd and F30 P&S, through the Canon 5D MKII FF camera.

I do find that I can produce a more consistent final image with the larger imager cameras. (My most detailed images to date are with a 90mm macro lens at f5.6 mounted on the 5D MKII body and using stitched images to produce a panorama of amazing quality. Just a test image so far but it is addicting.)

Mr_Beach_Bum

Thanks for the great insight on this. I didn't realize the 1D MkII wasn't FF! So, a follow up question - at this point do you think I am better off to invest in better lensing or a better camera body?

I currently use the 40D with the following lenses - 20mm f/2.8, 28-135 f/3.5-5.6 IS, 50mm f/1.8, and 400mm f/5.6 L. I am looking to grow into portraiture and weddings, so I'm thinking 17-40 L or 40-70 L would be my next step then the 70-200 L.

Thanks again for your advice!
Ken

boulderNardo

If your goal is portraiture & wedding, I would highly suggest investing in better glass!

Your 40D still has A LOT of untapped potential with your current glass.

I don't shoot weddings, but have done some studio portraiture and have owned the 24-70/2.8 and would NOT recommend it if you want the highest IQ!

I would invest in primes such as the 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, and/or 100/2 (personally my favorite lens for portraiture, though used on a 40D might be too long) if portraiture is your primary goal.

If wedding is your primary goal you might need/want something more "photojournalistic," in which case the 24-70/2.8 would be absolutely perfect (though a little long at the 24mm end on a 1.6x crop like the 40D). I can highly recommend the 17-40/4L as well, but the f/4 aperture might be limiting for wedding photography.

Just FYI, my line up (I primarly shoot action sports) is the 17-40/4L and 70-200/2.8 for sports, and the 50/1.4 and 100/2 for portraits, and am very happy with it.

Enjoy!
_B

ziggy53

Ken, I currently use both the 1D MKII and 40D for weddings. The 1D MKII is mostly used for the ceremony and formals and the 40D mostly used for candids.

On the 1D MKII I use the following lenses:

EF 17-40mm, f4L USM
EF 28-80mm, f2.8-f4L USM (Very old ancestor to the current 24-70mm, f2.8L)
EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM

On the 40D I tend to use:

Sigma 10-20mm, f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM
Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM

I also have an EF 50mm, f1.4 USM that I may use on either body as needed.

My first recommendation for a wedding shooter is for competent flash units. I use Sigma EF 500 DG Super flashes for the candids and studio strobes for the formals. I use flash modifiers all the time except for an outdoor setting where the flash is used as fill light. The Canon 580EX flashes are more durable and more versatile with external power options, but they are more expensive. You need a bare minimum of 2 speedlights and they should have focus assist as well. (All the units I discussed have focus assist lights.)

Next most important are the lenses. Many folks use a crop camera for weddings so a larger format is not absolutely important. The 1D/1Ds bodies do have the ability to shoot to 2 cards (as does the Nikon D3) and I don't view that as a luxury but as insurance.

If you do wish to stay with the crop cameras then a fast standard zoom is vital. The Canon EF-S 17-55mm, f/2.8 IS USM is almost ideal as it is fast and accurate to focus.

If you decide to go to the 1D MKII body then the EF 24-70mm, f2.8 USM is a great choice.

With either body type a 70-200mm lens is rather nice if you cannot get to the action or if the action is occuring in 2 places at about the same time. This lens can also double as a fair portrait lens for many situations. An f2.8 version more desireable but heavier.

swintonphoto

Mr_Beach_Bum wrote:

Will my photos from the 1D Mk II be notably superior in large print sizes to the 40D which has higher resolution?

In a word: No.
In my opinion you can make dynamite images with cameras a lot less capable than the 40D. I know a nationally recognized art photographer that is a frequent speaker and presenter at art shows and universities across the country and she only shoots with the Canon G series P&S cameras. Honestly, the only real reason I ever use to upgrade to a different camera is if I recognize a major limitation that I am experiencing on my current body and the new body improves that limitation.

So, I think the best thing you can do is ask:
How is the 40D limiting you?
Do these other cameras improve on that limitation? If yes, and the improvement is worth the $ to you then maybe consider it. If the $ is not worth the improvement, or if the improvements you will receive are not based on current limitations, then I would stick with the 40D (It is a pretty spectacular camera).

Mr_Beach_Bum

Thanks guys,

After reading the reviews of the EF-S 17-55/2.8 I think I am sold on that as a next step - I didn't consider it as I expected it to be drastically inferior to L glass. I seem to be quite wrong about that.

I do agree that I haven't seen the full potential of the 40D... the first set of shots from my 400mm L blew my mind with their sharpness (I was using a Sigma 70-300 previously, though I still like it as a macro lens). And I started my photo habit with a PowerShot IS and got some incredible photos from it.

I wouldn't even consider doing a wedding without 2 bodies, so I am thinking I will probably get a 5D as the next step with the 40D as a b/u or 2nd cam. I don't so much feel like I am being limited by the 40D at this point, I'm only limited by myself!

For flash I use a 580 with a lightsphere at the events I shoot currently. I am lucky enough to work in the event industry already, so I get to spend a few minutes with a camera at some of them.

Your advice is most appreciated!

rookieshooter

You can always rent a body for a week and see how you like it.

Rick_R

Hi: I'll chime in here as I have 40D and 1D MkII. I will use both bodies in the same event and the only difference that I can see is the focus capture and tracking seems to be a little faster with the MkII and a bigger file size with the 40D. Both are used for action sports (bike races, skateboarding, ...) where quick focus lock and tracking are important.

I have used a 400 5.6 lens with the 40D and found the pictures absolutely fantastic (when the photographer is actually paying attention), the added reach the cropped sensor makes this equalivant to a 640mm lens field of view (about 13X telephoto). High shutter speed and solid support are very important.

The only minus (to me) about the 40D is that the selection wheel on the top of the camera can be turned fairly easily (and unnoticed) which can radically change the exposure results. While the Mk II has a convoluted button method, which never gets changed by accident and takes a little longer.

I would second the idea that save the money on upgrading camera bodies and instead invest in quality lens and accessories. The 40D is a high quality full featured camera and can really show off high quality lenses (and will also show the problems in low quality lenses). The 17-55 f2.8 is a very sharp lens and I have produced some very high quality photos with it. I would recommend putting a skylight filter on it to avoid any dust issues (I have and had no issues while shooting in some dusty areas).

While you need to decide which path you follow, your current camera body is a full feature camera that can produce very high quality photos, additional lenses will add flexibility.

Any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Regards
Rick

Mr_Beach_Bum

Thanks Rick - I've just ordered the EF-S 17-55 2.8 and can't wait to check it out. I'm definitely not unhappy with the 40D, just wondering where my next investment should be as I progress toward weddings & people. It sounds like I could carry two 40Ds and have very satisfactory results with the right lensing.

ziggy53

Mr_Beach_Bum wrote:

Thanks Rick - I've just ordered the EF-S 17-55 2.8 and can't wait to check it out. I'm definitely not unhappy with the 40D, just wondering where my next investment should be as I progress toward weddings & people. It sounds like I could carry two 40Ds and have very satisfactory results with the right lensing.

The very nice thing about identical bodies is that when the shooting gets furious you don't have to "switch gears" and think about multiple control layouts, like you would with different body styles.