so what do you think? 40d link

[woj68]

The 40D looks to have some nice new features. Such as a higher burst rate (6.5 fps), 10.1mp sensor, and the Digic III processor.

But I'm very happy with my year old 30D and can't justify upgrading to the 40.

However, I would love to upgrade to the EOS 1D Mark III next.

 

[Master Mason]

The 40D might make a nice companion to my 5D. I would use the 40D in situations where I needed more reach than I could get with my current glass on the 5D.

David

sorry, you do not get more reach on a crop sensor, you get a cropped portion of the same reach... That's why they call it a crop...

 

[dqpowell]

sorry, you do not get more reach on a crop sensor, you get a cropped portion of the same reach... That's why they call it a crop...

You're wrong. The magnification of the lens is not increased, but the magnification of the system as a whole, from capture through printing/final output, is increased. The higher pixel density of the 20D/30D and especially 40D over the 5D means that the captured detail is considerably higher as well.

This thread may be instructive... at least the first two pages of it. It shows the greater detail and higher output magnification captured by the 20D over the 5D. The 40D, with its higher pixel density, would give even more reach than the 20D. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/494152/0

David

 

[Master Mason]

You're wrong. The magnification of the lens is not increased, but the magnification of the system as a whole, from capture through printing/final output, is increased. The higher pixel density of the 20D/30D and especially 40D over the 5D means that the captured detail is considerably higher as well.

This thread may be instructive... at least the first two pages of it. It shows the greater detail and higher output magnification captured by the 20D over the 5D. The 40D, with its higher pixel density, would give even more reach than the 20D. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic2/494152/0

David

No I am not see the picture from Oblio

The round is what the lens sees, the yelllow is what is captured on the full frame, the pink is the capture on the crop. There is no maginification advantage on a crop period, the magification is all determined by the lens.

Would a picture taken on a 40d be clearer than a crop of a 5d shot to give you the same area, probably, but your gaining no magification advantage whatso ever.

Also the studies show that shoving more pixels in the same size area will increase the noise level as well, Plus you lose the advantage in Bokah that the Full Frame sensor gives you.

so everything is a trade off, but a crop camera simply doesn't give you more reach, as the magification is determined by the lens and not the body.

 

[dqpowell]

The round is what the lens sees, the yelllow is what is captured on the full frame, the pink is the capture on the crop. There is no maginification advantage on a crop period, the magification is all determined by the lens.

I know all that. That's why I said the magnification of the system as a whole, from capture to final output, is greater with the 40D.

Would a picture taken on a 40d be clearer than a crop of a 5d shot to give you the same area, probably, but your gaining no magification advantage whatso ever.

It's clearer because it's capturing more detail. More captured detail means greater magnification in output is possible. Greater magnification means more reach.

This is a very practical observation. If I only have a lens of a particular focal length, and no longer, then I can get a better photo of a small, distant object with the 40D than I can with the 5D, using the same lens. That's "more reach," period.

Also the studies show that shoving more pixels in the same size area will increase the noise level as well,

All else being equal, that's true. That doesn't mean the advantage of greater reach doesn't more than compensate for the small increase in noise. Plus, the 40D sensor is better than previous generations in terms of noise, so it's probably a wash in this case.

Plus you lose the advantage in Bokah that the Full Frame sensor gives you.

Bokeh is a lens property, and has nothing to do with the sensor. You do get greater depth of field with a smaller sensor, so if you want to throw backgrounds out of focus, obviously you're better off with the larger sensor in the 5D.

so everything is a trade off, but a crop camera simply doesn't give you more reach, as the magification is determined by the lens and not the body.

Camera crop alone gives you more reach in terms of framing (though I admit that framing alone may not equal "reach" for some applications). However, camera crop and greater pixel density gives you more reach, period.

I'm not going to argue about this. Read the thread I linked to, examine the pictures, and you will understand.

David

 

[0bli0]

i'm going to stay out of the crop vs. 'reach' discussion other than to say to not forget the ability of a lens to resolve fine details. the better the lens, the clearer the small detail may become. you also have to remember the anti-alias filter and its affect on the ability to resolve fine detail.

Bokeh is a lens property, and has nothing to do with the sensor. You do get greater depth of field with a smaller sensor, so if you want to throw backgrounds out of focus, obviously you're better off with the larger sensor in the 5D.

actually bokeh has quite a bit to do with the size of the sensor, as well as the aperture, number of blades, and the size of the image viewed due to circle of confusion principals. the bokeh on my 135mm f/2 looks different on my 1dmk3 than it does on my dw's 10d when viewed printed on 4x6.

ok i return you to your normally scheduled discussion...

 

[dqpowell]

i'm going to stay out of the crop vs. 'reach' discussion other than to say to not forget the ability of a lens to resolve fine details.

Sure, if you're using a coke bottle lens that can't outresolve the 5D's sensor in the first place, then throwing that same image at the 20D or 40D's sensor won't have any practical advantage. But when the lens can outresolve the sensor, the higher pixel density sensors capture greater detail than the 5D.

you also have to remember the anti-alias filter and its affect on the ability to resolve fine detail.

Yes, and by all accounts the AA filter in the 5D is less aggressive (less destructive) to fine detail than the 20D's AA filter... which means that the photographic results shown in the thread I linked to are even more impressive for the 20D.

My earlier expressed desire for a 40D relates solely to its obvious advantages when using long glass. As I said before, it's a very practical observation... for photographing small, distant objects (or even very large, but very distant objects, like the moon), there's simply no question that I will get a better photograph with more detail and greater output (print, screen) magnification. Unless, of course, I can afford to just keep buying longer and longer glass to use on the 5D.

actually bokeh has quite a bit to do with the size of the sensor, as well as the aperture, number of blades, and the size of the image viewed due to circle of confusion principals.

Bokeh is a function of aperture, the number of blades, and the optical formula of the lens. Out of focus highlights are cast with harder or softer edges dependent on the optical formula of the lens, and the shape of those highlights is influenced by the number and shape of the aperture blades.

The circle of confusion varies depending on output magnification, and has nothing at all to do with the lens or the appearance of bokeh. The only effect the sensor size has on bokeh is that individual OOF highlights are smaller or larger depending on the final output magnification.

the bokeh on my 135mm f/2 looks different on my 1dmk3 than it does on my dw's 10d when viewed printed on 4x6.

It might look different due to differing amounts of enlargement necessary to make a 4x6 print from the two cameras, but the visual qualities of bokeh do not vary according to the sensor. My 135/2L's bokeh looks the same on my film cameras as it does on my 5D, because bokeh is a property of the lens.

David

 

[0bli0]

if they release a 5dmk2 with an identical pixel density to that of the 40d, would agree there is no difference in what you are calling 'reach'?

would you also agree good glass wins over resolution?

there are quite a few canon (90-300, for example) and of course third party lenses that are very very poor at resolving fine detail. i'd say you'd definitely struggle to capture fine detail using lenses such as these.

the 5d sensor is the same size as a piece of 35mm film. the AA filter's influence aside, the rendering of the edges of both the out of focus specular and direct highlights will look roughly the same for both of those medium using the same lens. output magnification has a great deal to do with the appearance of bokeh as more of these areas will become visible the larger you print. it is also more noticeable with specular highlights that are particularly large. (doh! - don't you hate it when you see a previous post you've made that has a spelling mistake (principles...)) as an example, take a medium format camera. take a photo of a well lit car, filling the frame. now scan the image. taking the same camera load it with 35mm film and take a picture of the same car from the same angle filling the film's frame. if you then scan the image on the same scanner using the same settings. you will definitely notice the difference in the rendering of the oof areas and the highlights.

at the end of the day, i just want to take pictures and use the most appropriate tool for the situation. i think the 40d has quite a few features that will make many consumers happy. so does the new d300 and mamiya zd.

 

[Master Mason]

I think we will just agree to disagree and leave it at that. As for the bokah, I'll go with Oblio, I have a high degree of confidence in what he says.

 

[dqpowell]

if they release a 5dmk2 with an identical pixel density to that of the 40d, would agree there is no difference in what you are calling 'reach'?

For the most part, yes. I never said the smaller sensor was why the 40D has more reach than my 5D. Again, my desire for a 40D is a practical one... for taking pictures of birds or other small and/or distant objects, the 40D is superior with the glass I currently own. Frankly, I have neither the desire nor the money to buy a 500/4L to attach to my 5D when I can get professional results with a 300/4L and a 40D.

would you also agree good glass wins over resolution?

Not sure exactly what you mean here. If you mean, "Does having longer glass on a 5D provide better images than having shorter glass on a 40D," then yes -- I agree. That's evident in the sample photos on page 2 of the thread I linked to. But what is equally evident in those photos is that the 20D provides more reach than the 5D when used with the same lens and focal length.

If you mean something else, then you'll have to clarify before I can say whether I agree or not.

there are quite a few canon (90-300, for example) and of course third party lenses that are very very poor at resolving fine detail. i'd say you'd definitely struggle to capture fine detail using lenses such as these.

The only way to know is to try it and see. Of course, it's quite unlikely that somebody trying to pick between a 5D and longer glass vs. a 40D and shorter glass would ever consider a lens like the 90-300. Almost all Canon prime lenses and many L-class zoom lenses easily outresolve all of Canon's DSLR sensors.

output magnification has a great deal to do with the appearance of bokeh as more of these areas will become visible the larger you print.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. But "bigger" due to greater output enlargement does not mean the qualitative aspects of the bokeh are any different. The lens renders the bokeh to be smooth- or hard-edged, diffuse or distinct, etc. Your example (not quoted here) about taking a picture of a car with a medium format camera and then with a 35mm camera doesn't negate the point -- you're using a different lens on both cameras in 99% of those cases, and different lenses will render bokeh differently.

A bigger sensor means less enlargement to achieve the same output size, so of course OOF backgrounds look different depending on sensor size. But bokeh, as I understand the term, does not generically mean "out of focus area." It's a particular attribute of the OOF areas - the way OOF specular and non-specular highlights are rendered.

The more I think about this, the more convinced I am that we're just using the term 'bokeh' differently. There's no question that you get less DOF with larger sensors than smaller sensors. If that's what you're getting at, then I agree completely.

David

 

[Groucho]

I will say, good grief, of course a larger sensor doesn't give you more true reach. The crop thing is absolutely true, and look at fisheyes (especially a circular fisheye) if you want to claim otherwise. (That's a very easy way to demonstrate that it's merely a crop.

Going to a full-frame doesn't technically increase reach any more than going from a 5mp to a 7mp sensor.

 

[dqpowell]

I think we will just agree to disagree and leave it at that.

You deny the obvious advantage in reach the 20D demonstrated over the 5D at the same focal length on the linked thread? Okay... then yes, we'll have to agree to disagree.

As for the bokah, I'll go with Oblio, I have a high degree of confidence in what he says.

You can trust whomever you want to trust, but I'll note here that I'm pretty sure he and I are just using the term 'bokeh' differently. If it matters to you, I've been doing photography for 28 years now both as a hobby and occasionally as a paid freelancer. Of course, I know lots of old-timer pro photographers who are misinformed about some of the more arcane aspects, so age and/or experience alone don't necessarily make me right.

David

 

[Master Mason]

You deny the obvious advantage in reach the 20D demonstrated over the 5D at the same focal length on the linked thread? Okay... then yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. You can trust whomever you want to trust, but I'll note here that I'm pretty sure he and I are just using the term 'bokeh' differently. If it matters to you, I've been doing photography for 28 years now both as a hobby and occasionally as a paid freelancer. Of course, I know lots of old-timer pro photographers who are misinformed about some of the more arcane aspects, so age and/or experience alone don't necessarily make me right.

David

I think we actually all agree in the principles, we are just arguing over the symantecs. I think it is a terrible thing to tell somone that doesn't understand that they get more "reach" with a crop camera, because they don't get anymore reach. But again, we both know what the effect is, it is just in the words we choose to use that we disagree.

 

[handicap18]

If you have 5x7 picture and then crop it to 4x6, does that 4x6 print now give the lens you took the picture with more reach? Or is it just cropped.

A 300mm lens on a digital SLR does not become a 450mm or 480mm lens. It doesn't get any more reach. It is still a 300mm lens. Its still looking at the same distance. Its just taking the final image and croping it.

Now if you take say a 50-500mm lens and zoom from 300mm to 450mm or 480mm then your getting more reach.

Will you not get the same image from your 5D as you would from a 40D if you take the 5D image then crop it on the computer 1.6 times (or take 40% off or what ever the proper mathamatical term/equasion is).

I think its the way you have appearded to define the word "reach" that has caused a stir here.

 

[jann1033]

uhhmm(clearing my throat to get attention)..so anyway, what do you think of the 40d?

 

[mabas9395]

uhhmm(clearing my throat to get attention)..so anyway, what do you think of the 40d?

Way to go Jan, look at what you started.

 

[jann1033]

Way to go Jan, look at what you started.

i've just got this knack.....

 

[dqpowell]

I think it is a terrible thing to tell somone that doesn't understand that they get more "reach" with a crop camera, because they don't get anymore reach.

I didn't say a crop camera provided more reach. I said the 40D provides more reach than my 5D. This is not because of the smaller sensor, but because of the pixel density of the sensor. You wrote in to object that a crop doesn't provide more reach, and we got off on a long tangent.

The fact remains that focal-length-limited users will indeed get more reach out of a 20D or 40D than they will out of a 5D. The images on the linked thread clearly demonstrate this.

handicap18 - Your analogy does not hold. Cropping a print is not the same thing as comparing one camera sensor to another, when their physical sizes and (especially) pixel densities are not the same.

A 300mm lens on a digital SLR does not become a 450mm or 480mm lens.

*Sigh.* I never said it did.

It doesn't get any more reach. It is still a 300mm lens.

Yes, it's still a 300mm lens. But the sensor capturing the image in the 40D captures much finer detail due to its higher pixel density. That detail allows for bigger enlargements. More detail and bigger enlargements is absolutely the same practical result as if you used a longer lens on the 5D.

Will you not get the same image from your 5D as you would from a 40D if you take the 5D image then crop it on the computer 1.6 times (or take 40% off or what ever the proper mathamatical term/equasion is).

No, absolutely not. A 5d image cropped to the same framing as a 40D image is only about 5 megapixels. Are you trying to say a 5 megapixel image will contain anywhere near the same detail as a 10 megapixel image with the same framing? Are you trying to imply that a 5 megapixel image can be enlarged to the same final output size as a 10 megapixel image?

Again, I did not say that the smaller sensor provides additional reach (other than the framing advantage). It is the fact that the 40D's pixel density is much higher than the 5D's pixel density that means images captured with it really do provide more reach than images captured with the same focal length lens on a 5D.

Please, read the thread I linked to and examine the images. This is not a matter of opinion... it is a simple fact. The 20D provides more reach with the same lens than the 5D. The 40D will provide an even bigger advantage than the 20D.

I'm just repeating myself now, so I would advise anybody who still objects to read back through what I've already written and to read and understand the other thread I linked to.

David

 

[Master Mason]

Again, I did not say that the smaller sensor provides additional reach (other than the framing advantage). It is the fact that the 40D's pixel density is much higher than the 5D's pixel density that means images captured with it really do provide more reach than images captured with the same focal length lens on a 5D.

David

Again, it is symantical, but it DOES NOT provide more reach, it provides more pixels of a smaller portion of the total image. This will give you more detail of the smaller portion of the image, but it will not provide REACH. REACH is a function of the magification of a lens period. The lens is not magnified in anyway on a crop body.

We understand what your saying, we are just trying to tell you your saying it wrong.

 

[handicap18]

So we're changing the field of view. You want the 40D to provide a closer field of view so you don't loose image quality. Rather than croping on the computer, your using another camera to crop. Or change the field of view.

We need to get rid of the word 'reach'. 400mm has a longer "reach" than 300mm. 400mm on a FF body has the same "reach" as a 400mm on a DX body. Though the DX shows a different 'field of view'.

So what you want is a closer "field of view".