How do you rate various DSLRs

[gregbradley]

I have a Canon 40D. I quite like it. Ihad a few Canon 20D's before it (still have one) and the 40D is a considerable improvement over the 20D. Are later models similar improvements or not? I would like a 5DMk11 but Canon is likely to release a u-beaut 5Dmk111 fairly soon.
I know the 5D Mk11 would be better but more interested in finding out about the 50,60D and 7D.

How would you rate the various Canon and Nikon models compared to the 40D?

Does Nikon hold an edge over Canon presently?

There was talk of a Nikon D800 36mp camera. I suppose its on the way. Its supposed to blow everything away and set a new standard.

Is it worth waiting for or perhaps wait for a 5D Mk111 eventually?

What about the 7D, is that much of an improvement over the 40D?

Greg.

[gbeal]

Hi Greg,
While waiting is appealing, especially with new electronics, I reckon sort out what you desire and grab it. Otherwise you'll get old and still be without a camera.
I loved my 20D, but went across to Sonyba while back, not for astro use though. I am however enjoying the odd shot or two with both the Sonys I have so get the 5D if that is what takes your fancy.
Nikon? Lovely film cameras, but I reckon with all the astro software being designed mainly for Canon, go with them.
Gary

[gregbradley]

Good advice Gary.

I am not looking for the DSLR though for astrowork but general photography or time lapse.

Fullframe is appealling as that is where film left off and digital took a while to catch up to.

But the 50D 60D 7D, how much better are they than a 40D?

Or Nikon D3, D700 etc?

Greg.

[traveller (Bo)]

Have you looked at dpreview.com? IMHO, there is very little difference between nikon and canon when you get to their semipro bodies. In the end it's really up to you re ergonomics and the like.
Cheers,
Bo

[Waxing_Gibbous (Peter)]

A minefield.
If low-light performance (both low-noise and AF) is an issue, I'd opt for the Nikon D700. But they're pricey (around $2500 I think).
But - It will use almost every Nikon lens ever made, so If you shoot a lot of portraits and landscapes, or macros, where AF is not really necessary, you can get bargain-priced top-notch glass.
Though I shoot Canon, I prefer Nikon's ergonomics and BQ but that's very personal.

If you are already invested in Canon, it would come down to a choice of FF vs APS for me.
The 5DII is a great 'general purpose' camera that takes speccy landscapes, portraits and macros, but the low FPS rate and 35mm sensor aren't for me.

As I take mostly long-ish shots and action images I opt for a cropped sensor for the extra length, and higher rate-of-fire, so I'd probably go the 60D.
Though it has more "features" than I really require and I'd rather have a few sensors that offer full cross-hair AF at slower apertures than more focus pionts that only work really well at f2.8.
It is however an improvement in image quality (at higher crops) over the 40D, but not hugely so over the 50. IMHO!

I can't think of anything really to recommend the 7D though I only had it for an hour or so.

Someone else here found the 550D 'noisy' though I haven't noticed that in daylight/flash shots.
I have not however seen any low-light images, so I stand ignorant.

Traveller's suggestiion to check-out dpreview.com is an excellent one, but stay away from the forums and stick to the test results.
I used to be moderator and members there are the most ignorant and opinionated SOBs on the web!

[gregbradley]

Thanks for that.

I think I'll wait for the Nikon D800 or the Canon 5D Mk111 or Nikon D4.

It seems the difference between the 40D and the 60D or 7D may not be big enough to justify the expense.

I personally prefer full frame as I like the Bokeh it creates with many lenses.

Greg.

[DavidTrap (David)]

Lots on Nikonrumors.com about early new year release of new Nikons. 5DMk3 won't be too far behind. Likely similar specs for the D800/5D and the D4/1D-X. First two are studio/landscape cameras and latter two are photojournalist cameras.

DT

[koputai (Jason)]

I have the 7D and it's a fantastic camera. I came up from the 350D so a BIG step there, but had used a friends 40D briefly. The 7D autofocus is superb, and its high speed shooting is excellent. Great for birds, wildlife, and action.

It's no slouch on widescapes too, and contrary to the beliefs of various people who have never used one, its noise performance is very good.

That said, if I already had a 40D, and was after a big step up, I would go the 5DII, unless wildlife or sports is your bag.

Cheers,
Jason.

[traveller (Bo)]

Originally Posted by gregbradley

Thanks for that.

I think I'll wait for the Nikon D800 or the Canon 5D Mk111 or Nikon D4.

It seems the difference between the 40D and the 60D or 7D may not be big enough to justify the expense.

I personally prefer full frame as I like the Bokeh it creates with many lenses.

Greg.

I would have thought a good prime lens will achieve more Bokeh than a good camera
It's a two part equation, lens+camera (good photographer optional )
Bo

[Poita (Peter)]

I personally prefer the D7000 over the 7D, the twin SD cards is an extremely useful feature as well.

Any of the upper end DSLRs are great units, but both Canon and Nikon are overdue for an update at the high end, I definitely wouldn't buy a 5D MKII right now, give it another month.

[Octane (Humayun)]

The 50D will give you the same colour rendition as the 5D Mark II.

A 30D will give the same rendition as a 1D Mark IIn, 5D and 400D.

I shoot a 6 year old 5D, and, it still produces the most beautiful images (portraits, in particular; oh, big pixels, how I love thee, let me count the ways), as it did the day it was released. As does the 5D Mark II.

Unless you have the need or requirement to make 36x24"+ prints, why wait for a resolution monster? All it will do is take up disk space and take ages in processing.

H

[acropolite (Phil)]

I have both the 7D and 5DII, both are capable, but the lower noise properties of the 5DII and full frame sensor are it's big advantage for night landscape work. Whether the rumoured 5DIII will be a step forward or backwards is yet to be seen but I'm sure that the 5DII will still have a good resale once the new model appears.
H makes a good point re sensors, I've owned the 20D and 50D and shot comparisons of the same scene, the difference was almost negligible and when I look back at some of the images taken with the 20D I'm not convinced that higher Mp count is better.
I'm not that impressed with Canons ultra-wide zoom lenses, my 16-35 is quite soft at the edges even stopped down (a fairly common complaint with that lens), the Nikon 14-24 F2.8 is reviewed as being far superior (i.e. sharper even than Canon's 14mm prime) and will work on the 5DII with an adapter. IIS Member luigi (Luis Argerich) has done some nice work with the 5DII /Nikon 14-24 combo. I seem to remember Fred (Bassnut) doing some very nice time lapses with a 5DII and 24mm F1.4 prime.

Buy the 5DII, you won't regret it.

[Octane (Humayun)]

The fact that Canon has produced the 1D-X (the flagship product) in an 18 megapixel format, as opposed to leapfrogging the current flagship 1Ds Mark III at 21 megapixels, says something about what they feel is the right step to take in terms of pixel density and noise characteristics.

Still, it remains to be seen what will happen with the 5D Mark III.

I guess that they're trying to target particular market segments; the 1D-X is aimed at sports photographers and photojournalists whereas the current 1Ds Mark III is an all-round system, suitable for studio, sports, photojournalism (particularly the 1D Mark III) as well as landscape work, and, the 5D Mark II geared for studio/portraiture and landscape. I guess they learnt from the 5D Mark II cannibalising 1Ds Mark III sales with the same resolution sensor, but, smaller body. The fact that the 5D Mark II had a much slower frame rate didn't deter people. If the 5D Mark III comes out as a resolution monster, it will reveal a lot about Canon's strategy in terms of cornering market segments.

This is all conjecture on my part. I just make pictures.

H

[gregbradley]

All good data. Certainly in astrophotography big pixels are good for long focal length systems but generally speaking you would want smaller pixels for shorter focal length systems.

Also large pixels would also generally have lower noise than small pixels. But then thats CCD not CMOS although I am sure there are aspects that are the same.

I am not sure how the size of the pixel translates to landscape type image where there is bright light. In portraits I guess you have muted light so noise can show up. Also for time lapse you have low light conditions so noise could show up.

Somehow Canon and Nikon seem to be able to control noise even with more pixels. Perhaps a little bit of firmware work in going on there.

The other aspect is the video capability. The modern DSLR is also a high quality video camera with all the power of those wonderful primes available rather than a single video camera lens which may not be anywhere near as nice as the primes of a DSLR.

2012 should seem some very nice DSLRs and I hope Japan has recovered enough from the Tsunami to be able to put out new models early.

Greg.

[naskies (Dave)]

I upgraded from a 20D to 5DmkII about a year ago, and bought a bunch of L primes too. Family portraits are my priority - the 5DmkII paired with the 85 f/1.2 II or 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is simply amazing. I regularly print up to 36x24 inches (sometimes larger) so the resolution is very useful for me.

The only things that I regularly miss compared to the 7D/550D are 60 fps video mode, video crop mode (for astro), and autofocus performance - it's slow on the 5DmkII, and the centre point covers a huge area.

Originally Posted by gregbradley

I am not sure how the size of the pixel translates to landscape type image where there is bright light. In portraits I guess you have muted light so noise can show up. Also for time lapse you have low light conditions so noise could show up.

I don't know if it's related to pixel size, but the 5DmkII seems to have more dynamic range than the 7D in my experience.

Somehow Canon and Nikon seem to be able to control noise even with more pixels. Perhaps a little bit of firmware work in going on there.

Better RAW conversion algorithms too, perhaps? My 20D's RAWs seem to convert better with the latest software (e.g. Photoshop CS 5) than with the software that shipped with the camera.

The other aspect is the video capability. The modern DSLR is also a high quality video camera with all the power of those wonderful primes available rather than a single video camera lens which may not be anywhere near as nice as the primes of a DSLR.

A side note: on my 20D my main zooms were the 17-40 f/4 and 70-200 f/4 non-IS... both of them are par focal. Very handy features as I could quickly nail the focus by zooming-in/focusing/zooming-out.

Since switching to the 24-105 f/4 IS and 70-200 f/2.8 IS II zooms for walk around use, I've found that neither of them are par focus - very annoying! I don't shoot a lot of video, but I understand that par focal lenses are helpful.

If I were thinking of buying a 5DmkII now, I'd consider waiting to see what's coming up. On the other hand, it's a fantastic camera so if the financial "hit" (resale value, etc) wasn't a problem then it's worth getting one and using it ASAP.

[hotspur (Chris)]

Originally Posted by koputai

I have the 7D and it's a fantastic camera. I came up from the 350D so a BIG step there, but had used a friends 40D briefly. The 7D autofocus is superb, and its high speed shooting is excellent. Great for birds, wildlife, and action.

It's no slouch on widescapes too, and contrary to the beliefs of various people who have never used one, its noise performance is very good.

That said, if I already had a 40D, and was after a big step up, I would go the 5DII, unless wildlife or sports is your bag.

Cheers,
Jason.

Great-wondered how you were going Jason,with the 7D.

Still pondering this different D/SLR body question.

Is a 7D really going to be much of a difference for my wildlife/birding photography over my 50D?I am quite happy with the results from it,and really not sure if there would be in any meaningful improvement,with the 7D.

I did ponder a 5DII,but really do very little landscaping and astro these days.Mainly interested in bird photography,and using the 400L all the time.

[DavidTrap (David)]

Originally Posted by Octane

The fact that Canon has produced the 1D-X (the flagship product) in an 18 megapixel format, as opposed to leapfrogging the current flagship 1Ds Mark III at 21 megapixels, says something about what they feel is the right step to take in terms of pixel density and noise characteristics.

Still, it remains to be seen what will happen with the 5D Mark III.

I guess that they're trying to target particular market segments; the 1D-X is aimed at sports photographers and photojournalists whereas the current 1Ds Mark III is an all-round system, suitable for studio, sports, photojournalism (particularly the 1D Mark III) as well as landscape work, and, the 5D Mark II geared for studio/portraiture and landscape. I guess they learnt from the 5D Mark II cannibalising 1Ds Mark III sales with the same resolution sensor, but, smaller body. The fact that the 5D Mark II had a much slower frame rate didn't deter people. If the 5D Mark III comes out as a resolution monster, it will reveal a lot about Canon's strategy in terms of cornering market segments.

This is all conjecture on my part. I just make pictures.

H

I think the 5DMkIII will be similar specs to the fabled D800, just as the 1D-X & D4 will have similar specs. It comes down to the requirements of the different types of shots. Photojournalism is all about speed and hand-held low light performance - so less resolution, better high ISO performance (from those larger pixels) and smaller file sizes that can be processed in camera faster for a higher frame rate. Landscape & studio photography demand finer resolution with more megapixels, but the inevietable smaller pixels will limit the high ISO performance.

As for new vs old sensors. I don't discount you are getting great shots with a 6yo 5D, but suspect that if you push the envelope and up the ISO, the newer sensors will win hands down. I have been seeing this with some low-light work I've been doing recently of my kids on stage. The quality I'm achieving with the newer sensor in a D7000 at 1600-3200ISO is astounding. It's the reason why I haven't bought a D700 and am waiting desperately for the D800 - I want full frame, but am not willing to buy a 3yo sensor.

DT

[gregbradley]

Here's some direct comparison shots to help you decide:

http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electro...67387802_ypMiz
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/...d.php?t=760469

http://teamspeed.smugmug.com/Electro...03550341_2wv8N

My impression is that the 7D seems to handle shadows/highlights a bit better and a bit better in low light high ISO but it seems pretty minor.

In fact even the 40D versus 7D was a bit surprising to me. Its a pretty minor improvement over the 40D.

Perhaps its like APO telescopes. The differences between scopes at a certain high level becomes quite minor and not major.

Looking at those I would not update to either from a 40D. I'd want a major improvement not just slightly better or better in the other bits and pieces of the camera like AF and screen size etc.

Its kind of what I suspected. I suspect a 5DMK11 is a major improvement over the lower models. It seems the lower models have sophistications in true Japanese marketing style which is the little fussy details which no doubt are good but not much of a reason to upgrade.

Do you really need 19 pont AF? My 40D has never shot an image out of focus.

Greg.

Originally Posted by hotspur

Great-wondered how you were going Jason,with the 7D.

Still pondering this different D/SLR body question.

Is a 7D really going to be much of a difference for my wildlife/birding photography over my 50D?I am quite happy with the results from it,and really not sure if there would be in any meaningful improvement,with the 7D.

I did ponder a 5DII,but really do very little landscaping and astro these days.Mainly interested in bird photography,and using the 400L all the time.

[hotspur (Chris)]

Thanks Greg-I thought the same way.

I think the funds might be better going towards a Gitzo tripod and Wembly gimbal head-that would improve my wildlife/bird photography better than up grading to a 7D.

If I was not into wildlife,the 5D2 I would get.Those Nikon bodies I feel are better than Canon ones,I used one a few times recently,and they are better,If Nikon made a version of the 400L F 5.6,I'd be a Nikon user.(sorry this may upset some canon viewers here).But Canon needs to pull their socks up.

Sorry to hijack your thread Greg.

[Octane (Humayun)]

Would using a Nikon body make you a better photographer?

H