# Have 3 original EF lenses from early 90's, taken good care of...wondering which camera I should get.



## TimmyD11 (Jul 20, 2017)

I have 3 original EF lenses from early 90's, taken good care of...wondering which camera I should get.

The lenses are:

Canon EF 85mm 1:1.8

Canon EF 28-105mm 1:3.5-4.5

Canon EF 70-210mm 1:4

I've been away from photography for a while and things have changed and gotten interesting...but too many choices rattles me!

My options seem to be use lenses AND newer lenses with a new DSLR...but there are probably 10 good DSLR's by Canon between $600 and $1200 and I don't know if I need the more expensive ones (I like the creative filters idea and the handheld in camera HDR, but which ones have that and which ones don't?)

Should I sell lenses and go smaller, micro four thirds / mirrorless? Seems like if you don't go huge with prints you can get results as good as APS-C and full frame...while cutting your weight and cost down by half?

By the way, my passion is the great outdoors, hiking, backpacking, mindblowing mountains and forests...so landscapes and occasionally wildlife will be my primary interest.

Thanks.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 20, 2017)

For the three Canon EF lenses that you currently have, I would suggest full-frame cameras only.

Canon 5D Classic...$395 or so here in this town, used....a solid imager!
Canon 6D...solid picture-maker. $795 or so here, used, locally, all the time. VERY nice image sensor in it, good low-light AF on the central AF point.

I would not suggest a Canon APS-C camera (crop-sensor) for the three lenses you already own...those are for full-frame angles of view, and will be adequate on the above two cameras.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Jul 21, 2017)

Correct me if I'm wrong, they would just be more "telephoto" no? If I add a 15mm (or so) lens I should be covered at the wider end.

I'm not thrilled with buying used, and full frame is probably outside my budget.

So should I go APS-C DSLR or the new technology (mirrorless)?


----------



## Braineack (Jul 21, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> So should I go APS-C DSLR or the new technology (mirrorless)?


no.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 21, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, they would just be more "telephoto" no? If I add a 15mm (or so) lens I should be covered at the wider end.
> 
> I'm not thrilled with buying used, and full frame is probably outside my budget.
> 
> So should I go APS-C DSLR or the new technology (mirrorless)?



More telephoto...that's one way of looking at it, yes, but that's a gross oversimplification. THe 28-105 will no longer be the wide-to-tele it once was. The 70-210 will be too long for family events. The 85 will be very narrow, and useless indoors.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Jul 21, 2017)

The 28 to 105 isn't prime lens quality obviously but it still sufficiently covers often used focal lengths, correct?

The 70 to 210 now multiplied by 1.6 could become a fair to good big game wildlife lens in the mountains, no?

Add a prime lens somewhere in the 15 to 20mm range and i shouldn't be in a terrible situation, no?

Admittedly I have been out of the game for a long time so if anyone has a good argument for why I may be looking at this wrong I am all ears.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Jul 21, 2017)

Braineack said:


> TimmyD11 said:
> 
> 
> > So should I go APS-C DSLR or the new technology (mirrorless)?
> ...



No may be the answer but it should be accompanied with a good argument for why it's not a good compromise if I don't want used full frame and cannot afford new.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Jul 21, 2017)

Bueller?


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 21, 2017)

Braineak often seems to be a man of few words... I think he and Derrel are trying to tell you that APS-C or 4/3rds etc. won't be the best option with your lenses for landscapes, etc. 

I've bought used plenty from reputable dealers - KEH, Adorama used dept., etc. Might be a better option to get used, and buy what would work best for what you want to be able to shoot. 

Sometimes these things can snowball, if these lenses don't do well for wildlife on a smaller 4/3rds or whatever then you need to get lenses for the camera body you bought, and then that still isn't working out so then you need to get a full frame and new lenses for that.... and you would have been better off keeping it simple from the get go. You can always start with a used body for the lenses you have now and then trade in/sell and upgrade at some point down the road.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Jul 21, 2017)

Let's expand this discussion on the pros and cons of using these lenses on a Canon APS-C DSLR so that I can be fully convinced that it's not a good idea.

I realize there is no landscape lens among the lenses I currently own, I understand that the first lens I will have to get will have to be something like a 15mm - X zoom if I am going to try to do landscapes with an APS-C DSLR.

And that 15mm - X will probably also cover the portrait / people lens range as well on an APS-C DSLR camera.

So then, will my good (good, not bad, not great) 70 to 210mm become a good 112 to 336mm telephoto lens? What will it's shortcomings be?

I don't think I'd like to buy used.

I don't think I want to go as expensive, heavy or large as a full frame DSLR.

So that leaves a beginner or enthusiast DSLR.

Or mirrorless.

And I recently learned that the Sony A6300 has an APS-C sensor.......................................

Does that mean a mirrorless Sony can be as good or better than a Canon APS-C DSLR?


----------



## Braineack (Jul 21, 2017)

Almost everything on the market is better than a Canon aps-c.  Those lens will suit a ff beautifully, there's no reason you shouldn't look at a used 5d or 6d to couple them with.  

You will lose auto focus if you go with anything else for them. 

Knowing Canon those might not even mount on a aps-c...


----------



## Jamesaz (Jul 21, 2017)

Just a thought: get hold of ae1 or rebel film body, shoot a roll of film and see if you like the result with those lenses. Maybe that can help you decide. I've had a 5D since they came out and have no complaints. Good reliable workhorse camera. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## TimmyD11 (Jul 21, 2017)

Braineack said:


> Almost everything on the market is better than a Canon aps-c.  Those lens will suit a ff beautifully, there's no reason you shouldn't look at a used 5d or 6d to couple them with.
> 
> You will lose auto focus if you go with anything else for them.
> 
> Knowing Canon those might not even mount on a aps-c...



They are EF lenses, they'll mount and work.

And are Canon APS-C DSLR's so bad? Many get good reviews.

And if I go mirroress I'll sell lenses and start over completely.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Jul 21, 2017)

Jamesaz said:


> Just a thought: get hold of ae1 or rebel film body, shoot a roll of film and see if you like the result with those lenses. Maybe that can help you decide. I've had a 5D since they came out and have no complaints. Good reliable workhorse camera.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



The lenses were fine with my EOS A2 before I broke a dial and just moved on to other hobbies.


----------



## Derrel (Jul 21, 2017)

Braineack said:


> *Almost everything on the market is better than a Canon aps-c.  Those lens will suit a ff beautifully, there's no reason you shouldn't look at a used 5d or 6d to couple them with.  *
> 
> You will lose auto focus if you go with anything else for them.
> 
> Knowing Canon those might not even mount on a aps-c...



The part I bolded is my thinking as well, and of course, I recommended a used $395 Canon 5D, or a used $795 Canon 6D: two fine cameras, with good performance. Dan Ostergren does amazing work with the "old and outdated" Canon 5D. I have a 5D, and shot it for five years..it has a good sensor for its era, and it's the RIGHT sized sensor for the lens set the OP currently has under discussion.

Sony makes the best-performing sensors now, for FF and APS-C cameras. Period. Mounting 1990's AF Canon lenses ona mirorless camera...ehhh...a LOT will be lost, like the convenience and sureness of Canon EF lenses on a Canon full-frame camera designed FOR THE lenses you have.

RE: 28-105's optics...it will be fine on a Canon 5D, which is 12.8 megapixels...it will be FINE on those big, huge, low-density pixels! APS-C at 18 to 24 megapixels demands MORE, and better lens performance than the 5D at 12.8 or the 6D at 20.2 megapixels...the bigger sensor performs BETTER with "average" lenses than the tiny APS-C sensor will.

If you're afraid to buy a used 5D or 6D, I get that. But don't expect Clinton-era lenses like the 28-105 to be all that good or very handy on a 1.6x crop-frame camera.

Look...I've been shooting d-slrs since 2001 with 1.5x and 1.6x Canon and FX Canon and FX Nikon, and have used 1990's era lenses...even used a 28-105 Nikon on FX...a VERY handy lens--on a full-frame camera! Lenses on APS-C never really do translate perfectly to what they were_* designed to be*_ when you throw away half of the image area. Last week I bought a $29.95 1990's Tokina 70-210 f/4~5.6, and on FULL-frame Nikon D610, it is a SOLID poerformer, and useful for what it was designed to be..._a short to medium-long telephoto, with an f/4 to f/5.6 max aperture_. Which means to leverage that slow lens, I needed to pair it with a large sensor that is good in LOW-light, and right now, Canon is weak(ish) in low light and in higher ISO levels on all their APS-C cameras. Your 28-105 is also slow...so, again...I told you the 5D and 6D are solid imagers, because they can be shot at ISO levels of 1,000 or 1,250 for the 5D, and much higher for the 6D...not so with Canon APS-C sensor cameras with slooooooow lenses.

The 85/1.8 EF is a SOLID lens. Owned it. GOOD, no, damned good lens, on any sensor size.

A Canon 5D or a Canon 6D is almost the same, exact size and weight as a Canon 1.6x body...

You ALREADY OWN an entire, complete, useful *full-frame lens set*. My suggestion is 1)Either get a FF Canon, or 2)sell all the stuff and buy the right, new, modern, AF lenses for a Sony mirrorless. Or 3)buy a Nikon D3400, 18-55 AF-P VR and 70-300 AF-P VR two-lens kit and be very amazed. I'm outta' here.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Jul 21, 2017)

How about the 6D if I decide to stretch my budget?


----------



## TimmyD11 (Jul 21, 2017)

And why would I be "amazed" at a base level Nikon DSLR with an APS-C sensor but not amazed by a Canon 80D or T6s?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 21, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> And why would I be "amazed" at a base level Nikon DSLR with an APS-C sensor but not amazed by a Canon 80D or T6s?



TWO words describe it all."ISO invariance."

Sensor technology in Nikon,Pentax,and Sony camerras is advanced, ahead of where Canon's home-brewed sensor technology is. How so?

 "ISO invariance"  is what Nikon has, what Sony has, and what Pentax has, and what Canon lacks. Severly.

ISO invariance means that with a new,modern,* state-of-the-art *sensored Nikon APS-C camera, you can under-expose to a high degree, to protect highlights from over-exposure OR to get a fast shutter spoeed in sucky light conditions, and then, later, in software, you can "lift the shadows" to a huge degree--all without horrible noise in the shadow areas. And I mean on 4-,and 5-stop shadow lifts. THIS is what is ****amazing****. THIS is what Nikon, and Sony, and Pentax, have developed, with sensors made by Sony AND also, by Nikon. Sony builds sensors on steppers made by Nikon, and has for years.

Canon sensors OTOH, have a long way to go.* ISO Invariant *cameras like the Nikon D7200 are amazing. So is the full-frame D610's sensor. In simple terms...Nikon APS-C sensors can recover HORRIBLY under-exposed shots in software, with little penalty. Not so with Canon's older sensor technology.

Sony Alpha 7R II: Real-world ISO invariance study

The Nikon D600 has a VASTLY superior sensor than the Canon 5D Mark III, which came out priced around $3,499. WHY? ISO invariance on the D610 makes it a simply astounding imager, in a low-cost, serious enthusiast's body. Far better than the older-tech 5D-III.

Canon's 6D is a first step toward catching up to Sony, circa  2009. But Canon's APS-C sensors are still far from state-of-the-art, like Nikon's D3400 and D5400 have.


----------



## weepete (Jul 21, 2017)

Much as I respect Derrel and Braineack's opinions I'm going to disagree on this one. Yes, there are benefits from going to a full frame and I understand where they are coming from in that these lenses were made to work with that format. Yes, fast glass can be good, but if your primary subject is landscapes you are going to want to be at f8-f16 anyway most of the time, and you'll generally want to be shooting from a tripod for landscapes so shutter speed is the thing that you can leverage to get good quality shots. 

if you want a wide there's the Canon EFS 10-18mm STM wich is cheap but performs really well which would sit nicely with the lenses you already have.

It's true that the Nikons have slightly more dynamic range and are ISO invariant but for landscape photography as long as you take care with your exposure there is not a huge difference for most (empasis on most) people. For really good landscape photography you'll need the light to be right anyway.

I'd say keep way from in camera instagramish filters and get some half decent PP software.

Really great landscapes are much more about the right lighting and the right location.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Jul 21, 2017)

Why has Canon allowed themselves to be so far behind?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 21, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Why has Canon allowed themselves to be so far behind?



When you're the sales leader, there's no real incentive to improve your products...just to maintain the status quo, and keep churning out those clever Canon television and magazine advertisements.

"*The Canon AE-1: so advanced, it's simple*."THE TV slogan that made Canon a force to be reckoned with! Canon used TV advertising to become a HUGE market force in the mid- and late-1970's. Marketing is a big thing for them. They KNOW how to market products to huge, mass audiences. Nikon and Sony suck at marketing! Canon was a major early adopter of prime-time TV camwera commercials, and knows that advertising is a huge factor is sales. Nikon's ads have been laughable!

SONY spent hundreds and hundreds of millions of Yen to develop new sensor fabrication technology, in an effort to develop sensors for SALE to other camera makers, and for their own use... SONY bought Konica-Minolta's camera IP and patents and tried to gain a place in the Japanese camera industry after decades in consumer electronics...Sony needed an inside anglke, and they develpoped one with HUGE investment in sensor fabrication and design...Canon? Nope, too busy maintiaining sales position to decide to challenge the other players. Smart for Canon corporate and shareholders.

Canon has a nice photocopier division. Nikon is the last mostly image-making company left in Japan: the industry has been compacted/decimated/consolidated over the last few decades. Nikon is an old-line optical and camera company...and is small...Canon is HUGE....Sony is HUGE.

*Canon's goal has been to maintain its #1 camera sales lead position, for years*...Canon re-used the same crappy 18-MP sensor in five sequential Canon d-slrs over more than half a decade....Nikon and Sony could not coast on their laurels the same way....they HAVE to try harder...Canon did not want to invest hundred of millions of Yen to make better sensors: it makes MORE sense to spend the money on advertising, promotion, and R&D for lenses and other accessories, as long as the sales come in, it doesn't matter to Canon corporate nor to Canon shareholders if their sensors are state-of-the art and class-leading, or below that, as long as the sales stay high, that's the critical factor. AND the industry is not an expanding one, so...stay the course, keep the ads cranking, keep the prices competitive, and do not spend hundreds of millions of Yen if the #1 sales position stays at #1. Simple, right?

Sony OTOH...spent heavily on sensor R&D, on fabs, and now can SELL these key pieces to Nikon,Pentax, Fuji, Hasselblad, and to other, industrial users of sensors (CCTV, industrial imaging sensor rigs, etc) AND ALSO use them in its OWN bid to enter the high-end camera and video markets in an industry where MANY buyers are very tech-savvy. When you are brand-new to a business, you have to have an edge, and angle, a business plan. When you are small, you need an edge.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Jul 21, 2017)

Perhaps, maybe people will drop $1000 to $2000 on a camera and lenses, without doing their homework, and let name recognition being the deciding factor, but I won't. Does Canon know they are getting their asses kicked? Because if you read real people reviews of their cameras...they seem to still like their Canon cameras - they haven't gotten the word that they are inferior to something else they could have gotten for the same price? But that makes me wonder: Is the consumer clueless? Do these poor results only show up in laboratories and not in real world uses?


----------



## Derrel (Jul 21, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Perhaps, maybe people will drop $1000 to $2000 on a camera and lenses, without doing their homework, and let name recognition being the deciding factor, but I won't. Does Canon know they are getting their asses kicked? Because if you read real people reviews of their cameras...they seem to still like their Canon cameras - they haven't gotten the word that they are inferior to something else they could have gotten for the same price? But that makes me wonder: Is the consumer clueless? Do these poor results only show up in laboratories and not in real world uses?



MOST users will not switch brands. So, it doesn't matter to the large user base if the competition has something better; until you've actually bought and used a superior system, you never really know what you are missing, and many people get along just fine with less. Ford makes a nice family sedan. Does Mercedes make a nicer family sedan?

Fanboys can convince themselves that what they have is plenty good, and that there is nothing else better on the market. McDonald's and Walmart are huge sales forces in the "restaurant" and "retail store" businesses; are they the best of their kind?


----------



## TimmyD11 (Jul 21, 2017)

No bad PR in photo magazines showing Canon getting destroyed by the competition, if not necessarily the sales?


----------



## Braineack (Jul 22, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Why has Canon allowed themselves to be so far behind?



Nikon would be just as far behind if they weren't smart and used Toshiba and Sony sensors instead of developing their own and letting them age on the market for over ten years like Canon did.


they've improved some, but they cant hold a fiddle, still, to today's newer market contenders:













And once you're invested in Canon lenses, it's hard to just switch to Nikon or alike, so users are just going to stick with it, and pretend that blacks should be purple.

Everything Canon puts out on the market, Nikon calls and raises with a direct competitor that typically does everything a little better.

IMHO, I still think both are behind the times about 5 years and are both still resting on laurels and will fall eventually to Sony/Fuji/etc who are innovating and improving and will be too far behind the curve to catch up.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 5, 2017)

So you were saying that Canon sensors are very inferior to Nikon and I think Sony. Has this changed with these newer Canon DSLR's? I understand there are improved sensors in the T7i / 77D / 80D.

Any Canon almost as good as the Nikon D7200, which seems to be the best APSC camera before the leap to full frame?

I'm considering one of those 3 cameras...unless I splurge a little more and go full frame...or do something entirely different like mirrorless APSC.


----------



## Braineack (Aug 5, 2017)

They have improved a bit so far as I've seen.  But having an ISO invariant sensor is fantastic when you miss the exposure and need to recover.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 5, 2017)

And if ISO invariant is good Canon hasn't made theirs that way because?


----------



## Braineack (Aug 5, 2017)

they were market leaders and didnt have to.   once you buy into a brand, it's expensive to switch.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 5, 2017)

Alright but now that THAT can of worms has been opened they didn't make it a priority to at least match that technology?

And if not HOW are these new sensors an improvement over previous ones?


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 5, 2017)

Braineack said:


> They have improved a bit so far as I've seen.  But having an ISO invariant sensor is fantastic when you miss the exposure and need to recover.



And if you take over a dozen pictures of anything worth photographing? What's the odds of not getting at least one exposure right?

Seems like a nice feature but if I am going to photograph something I go a little overboard...I'm probably going to have something to work with and not requiring something like that (I'd have to really have goofed to need that feature, no?)


----------



## weepete (Aug 5, 2017)

it's good to have an ISO invariant sensor as you can do more things in one frame. With canon sensors to get a similar quality in the shadows you'd need to shoot a few more exposures and combine that will a good HDR techniqe like luminance masking. 

So it makes workflow a bit easier, especially when the dynamic range is pushed or you eff up a shot and underexpose by mistake (especially useful for holiday shots and candids).


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 5, 2017)

So Canon, even with their new sensors in their new cameras, are still lagging behind competitors in a big way?

I'm torn between finding this hard to believe and asking how they are letting this happen.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 5, 2017)

You apparently do not fully grasp what an ISO invariant sensor allows one to do. It is not just a matter of getting the exposure correct; it is the ability to deliberately under exposed by pne, two, three, or four or five EV in order to build shutter speed if needed in dim lighting and to then brighten the exposure in software, later. Please look at the above example photographs of what a Canon 5D series full frame can do; it is so far behind what a Nikon D600 or D610 can do for 2,000 fewer dollars. I cannot help you understand why a market leader would not improve its products when it's competition has improved so tremendously. Two of us have told you that Canon neglected to improve its sensor technology level for over a decade, because they were in a market leading position and there was no incentive to markedly improve their sensor technology levels. Nikon went outside of its own company to procure the best sensors possible. Canon stuck with its own, home-grown and inferior sensor technology. This is about technology and at times, market leaders do not have the best technology--but they DO have a sales leadership position.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 5, 2017)

TimmyD11 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > They have improved a bit so far as I've seen.  But having an ISO invariant sensor is fantastic when you miss the exposure and need to recover.
> ...





TimmyD11 said:


> So Canon, even with their new sensors in their new cameras, are still lagging behind competitors in a big way?
> 
> I'm torn between finding this hard to believe and asking how they are letting this happen.


----------



## TimmyD11 (Aug 5, 2017)

Derrel I have read in magazines that the T7, 77D and 80D have newer and improved sensors. I was wondering if these have made a difference or if they are still lagging even with their new sensors.

I was just wondering if YOU ESPECIALLY were factoring in their newer cameras in your critique of Canon and their sensors.


----------



## davidharmier60 (Sep 10, 2017)

Is the 40D APSC or FF?
Because it is probably the body I will get.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## www.PhotographyByJake.com (Sep 15, 2017)

I would recommend getting a used Canon 6D with those lenses.  It will create awesome results.  If you don't want to get a used 6D, then get a new 6D and you should still be able to stay under your $1200 top end budget.

You can find it used through a forum or ebay for sub $900.
You can find it on Adorama in used, great condition for sub $1000 - Canon EOS 6D 20.2 Megapixel Full Frame Digital SLR Camera Body
You can find it on ebay NEW (import model) for sub $1000 - Canon EOS 6D Digital SLR Camera Body 13803204131 | eBay

I love having this 6D with all of the features it has over the Canon 5DII.  Shooting is a breeze with it and it captures amazing pictures with all of the capabilities that FULL FRAME offers.


----------



## davidharmier60 (Sep 15, 2017)

Since there is no way on this earth that I could or WOULD spend $1000 on a camera body I really would like to know about the 40D body!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel (Sep 15, 2017)

40D...used, cheap, APS-C...old-tech.


----------



## davidharmier60 (Sep 16, 2017)

APS-C. Can it be described as the lense sees and captures more than will fit on the APS-C?
Meaning you have to shoot with the viewfinder less "full"?
Or something entirely different?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## john.margetts (Sep 16, 2017)

davidharmier60 said:


> APS-C. Can it be described as the lense sees and captures more than will fit on the APS-C?


Yes, that is right.


davidharmier60 said:


> Meaning you have to shoot with the viewfinder less "full"?
> Or something entirely different


Something entirely different. You shoot with the viewfinder entirely full. In fact, the viewfinder will only show you about 95% of the final Image.


----------



## Frank F. (Sep 16, 2017)

I read through this tiring thread and ask myself: Timmy, why do you ask for expert advice and not listen to the very good advice given. Today I walk into my brick and mortar on day one to get my D850 for 3700€....

but when I was an amateur I bought used cameras and lenses because I get much more bang for the buck.

400$ for a used 5D or 800$ for a used 6D is taking no risk. If you do not like it you can still sell it for the price you paid for it.

If you buy new chances are you lose a significant amount of money if you have second thoughts. The 1.8/85 alone can bring you through your life on a full frame!


----------



## davidharmier60 (Sep 16, 2017)

Well I'm still sold on the 40D!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


----------



## Frank F. (Sep 16, 2017)

Found in another thread




TimmyD11 said:


> So I just purchased the Canon 6D and the Canon 16-35mm f4 L lens as my landscape lens. I just thought I'd let everybody know because you all gave input (and I appreciate it). I think I will be pretty happy.
> 
> 
> Now if only the fires would stop in BC for my trip to Banff and Jasper next week. Well I don't want to be selfish, hopefully they stop for all the people that live there.
> ...



Very good choice. You may close your three EF lens thread now.


----------



## SCraig (Sep 16, 2017)

davidharmier60 said:


> Since there is no way on this earth that I could or WOULD spend $1000 on a camera body I really would like to know about the 40D body!
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk


Strongly recommend that you start your own thread regarding the 40D then as opposed to hijacking someone else's thread.  You'll get more answers pertaining to your question as opposed to the question originally pertaining to this thread.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Oct 1, 2017)

I am a Canon guy but I am disappointed in canon's dynamic range. Recovered shadows look like garbage. Nikon just destroys Canon when you pull the shadows by 5 stops.

Here is an example of the reflection in a TV monitor with the shadows pulled from a youtube video Nikon D850 vs Canon 5DSR
Gyazo - d831aeb39fe5b92d57dcda7b82d2b468.png


----------



## beagle100 (Oct 2, 2017)

SCraig said:


> davidharmier60 said:
> 
> 
> > Since there is no way on this earth that I could or WOULD spend $1000 on a camera body I really would like to know about the 40D body!
> ...



that will work
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------

