[kentamcolin]

I'm about to invest in a new digital SLR camera system. After years of using Canon (EOS-1 & 620) I'm pitching (actually selling off) my film gear for all digital. I'm also planning on new lenses, upgrading what I have been using. I do have a 100mm macro that I love and plan to keep, but I'm sure Nikon has nice macro lenses also. What I'm looking at is a Canon 5D for color and B&W, and a Rebel XTi that I will have converted into a dedicated IR camera. I've never used Nikon gear, mostly because once I took the plunge into Canon years ago it's too hard to ever switch. Now I'm starting over and anything is game. I suppose if you have any other ideas I'm open to anything. I priced a $6K Canon system today for the two bodies and Canon 17-40mm/f4.0L, 24-105mm/f4L and 200mm/f2.8L. Most of my photography is B&W & IR landscape, some portrait and an only a very occasional wedding. Lets hear it.

 

[Davesrose]

Since you already have some EF lenses, I vote Canon (big surprise since I'm a Canon person)

The 5D is my first dSLR and I LOVE that its FF! Since you're coming from film, I think you'll appreciate its viewfinder (I was coming from a manual SLR, so I thought a FF camera would be an easier transition). The only real difference you'll find with the dSLRs is that they gather dust on their sensors (I guess it's just unavoidable since they don't have a frame advance like a film cartridge does). So make sure you have a rocket blower and some sensor swabs.

The only thing about your new lenses is I'm wondering why the 17-40mm/f4.0L and 24-105mm/f4L? Seems like you're getting some overlap in focal lengths there. Since you wouldn't need as wide an angle with the 5D, I'd go with a 28-75mm 2.8 lens (like the Tamron as a walkaround). If you then go with the Canon 70-200mm you'll have all your lengths to 200mm. But if you like doing portraits, then maybe you'll want a fast telephoto prime in there as well (the 135mm L is a really sharp lens that doesn't eat the wallet as much as other L lenses

).

 

[kentamcolin]

There is some overlap, but my thinking is that when I'm out shooting scenics, the 17-40 would be an ideal zoom. For general shooting the 24-105 is good, and for portraits the 100mm macro is have is very sharp, and the 200mm L lens is not to expensive. My real concern is planning on the Rebel for my IR work, which is mostly scenic. Having the conversion factor is undesireable but buying two 5D's is a lot of cash. Maybe using the 5D for IR and getting a 20D or 30D for color and B&W would be better.

 

[ojyarumaru]

I'm a Nikon user, and have never regretted it.

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentamcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif ...After years of using Canon (EOS-1 & 620)....... I do have a 100mm macro that I love and plan to keep, but I'm sure Nikon has nice macro lenses also. What I'm looking at is a Canon 5D for color and B&W, and a Rebel XTi that I will have converted into a dedicated IR camera. I've never used Nikon gear, ....... Most of my photography is B&W & IR landscape, some portrait and an only a very occasional wedding. Lets hear it.

This isn't even a difficult decision, you've answer your own question there.

1 - You had a Canon EOS setup

And if you pick up a Canon DSLR I guarantee you will instinctive know where 90% of everything is, from the use of the wheel, buttons placement, viewfinder info, LCD info. Its updated but it has the same basic principles.

2 - You like to keep the 100mm macro you already have

So get a Canon DSLR, it'll work 100%

3 - Landscape and portrait photography

5D is full frame, coming from film into 1.6X crop can feel strange especially with landscape (you lose the wide angles) and portraits (everything is closer).

I basically see Zero reasons for you to get a Nikon setup apart from want a change. Nikon have their fan and deservedly so but for you I see no point jumping over the fence. If you liked the film EOS system before then Digital is even better, you'll be amazed at the how low the noise are at 3200 ISO.


This is coming from someone went from a Canon Elan 7 to a 30D.

 

[kentamcolin]

You're right, why switch to Nikon. They are both excellent and I know Canon like my own hands. I'm curious why the Canon Rebel XTi is 10 megapixel and the 30D is only 8. Wouldn't the Rebel take better photos?

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentamcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're right, why switch to Nikon. They are both excellent and I know Canon like my own hands. I'm curious why the Canon Rebel XTi is 10 megapixel and the 30D is only 8. Wouldn't the Rebel take better photos?

The Rebel came out after the 30D, and the Rebel also have sensor cleaning (some prefer not to have it as it, the 5D don't have it either). The difference is tiny (both in terms of output file size and pixel count), where the 30D wins is with features like Spot metering, better built quality, the layout (you get a back thumb wheel), and a bunch of other things

If I were you I'd get the 5D since you want to do landscape, here is one taken with 3200 ISO on my 30D. Just imagine doing that with film and the amount of grain you would get !

It has gone through a little bit of post processing but the original is not far off.

 

[choomanchoo]

Previous Canon(20D) owner here, and I really miss it, I'd say Canon FTW

 

[Dimitris]

Go for Canon. You already have a lense (the 100mm macro is good for portraits too) and they have full frame too. I switched from Nikon film to Canon digital and I do miss full frame!

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dimitris /img/forum/go_quote.gif Go for Canon. You already have a lense (the 100mm macro is good for portraits too) and they have full frame too. I switched from Nikon film to Canon digital and I do miss full frame!

Save up for a 5D

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentamcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif There is some overlap, but my thinking is that when I'm out shooting scenics, the 17-40 would be an ideal zoom. For general shooting the 24-105 is good, and for portraits the 100mm macro is have is very sharp, and the 200mm L lens is not to expensive. My real concern is planning on the Rebel for my IR work, which is mostly scenic. Having the conversion factor is undesireable but buying two 5D's is a lot of cash. Maybe using the 5D for IR and getting a 20D or 30D for color and B&W would be better.

My heart just skipped a beat when you suggested using a 5D for IR photography

I would say spend most your dough on the 5D as your general camera: assuming your color/B&W camera will be the one you mainly use. Since any camera gets iffy focusing and all when converted to IR, I wouldn't spend that much on a body just for IR work. A 350, 400, or used 20D is what I'd get to butcher to IR work. BTW, with ISO: the 5D is known to be king for high ISO (well except since the 1D Mark III will be able to get to ISO 6400, it might actually be better

).

As for lenses....I think you won't have many surprises with focal lengths with the 5D: since it does translate to film cameras. I still think that 24 or 28mm is wide enough for the 5D, but maybe your shooting style demands a true fisheye.

Or if you mean that you're wanting a 17mm zoom for IR work with the Rebel....then maybe you can save some money with this Tamron. Tamron's optics are really good: their sharpness and bokeh is just as good as Canon. They just don't have as nice a finish, the AF isn't as fast, and their focus ring doesn't let you MF with AF enabled. But if you're mainly looking for optics, they do offer the best bang for buck IMO.

http://www.amazon.com/Tamron-Autofoc...0058903&sr=1-4

 

[3x331m]

Quote:

Originally Posted by kentamcolin /img/forum/go_quote.gif After years of using Canon (EOS-1 & 620)

You knew the systems well, and you've already got your investment set. I don't see why you want to switch brand ?

I can assume that, at your caliber, the brand does not mean much to you, but what it can help to put on the images.

 

[kentamcolin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif My heart just skipped a beat when you suggested using a 5D for IR photography I would say spend most your dough on the 5D as your general camera: assuming your color/B&W camera will be the one you mainly use. Since any camera gets iffy focusing and all when converted to IR, I wouldn't spend that much on a body just for IR work. A 350, 400, or used 20D is what I'd get to butcher to IR work. BTW, with ISO: the 5D is known to be king for high ISO (well except since the 1D Mark III will be able to get to ISO 6400, it might actually be better ).

My only reason for wanting the 5D for IR though is it's mostly wide angle work. You make a good point about sending a new 5D off to get IR converted. Most of my "fine art" photography has been IR, but I could pick up a Rebel or used 20D and see how it goes and then upgrade later to the 5D for IR if desired. Meanwhile I could get a 5D for general photography now. I'll check into some of the Tamron optics as well.

 

[lan]

If you really wanted wide angle that means full frame and the only cheap game in town is the Canon 5D. So I think it all depends on what focal lengths you want to use.

Is it safe to assume for landscape you'll be doing mostly daytime and at f/8 to f/16 or something or tripod mount for lower light situations?

The advantages of a cropped camera using full frame lenses is that it uses the middle portion of those lenses which yields better performance. You also get more infocus. Something like <24mm on full frame camera might have more distortions.

200mm prime is rather special. I like 70-200 for more flexibility.

 

[kentamcolin]

Cropping brings up another subject actually, panoramics. I would love to do some panormic shots, and I could probably crop the 5D's 12 megapixel image and still get a nice, large print.

I've shot all my IR film at f11, bracketing around the cameras visible light meter +/-1 stop.