# So, I'm switching it up already... sold my camera



## inTempus (Jan 21, 2009)

I decided this week to sell my new 40D.  The reason was mostly centered around my discovery that my wife (and even myself) want to do more 8x10 prints and perhaps bigger.

I had a pic I took of the Chicago L that I cropped and wanted to print as an 8x10.  While it turned out ok, it's obvious that it's pixelated.  It's not as sharp as I would like... 

So I decided I needed more megapixels.  That leaves me either buying a 5D (really pricey) or a 50D.  I planned on buying a 50D this weekend but now I'm reading reviews of all sorts of things including Nikons.

So, here's where I'm at.  I'm not heavily committed to Canon as I only have a 580EXII speedlite and no additional lenses.  I can easily switch platforms now that my camera is sold.

I've read the D90 has better color reproduction, better focusing in low light, better AF in general with (more AF points), the ability to increase saturation +4 without PP, etc.  There seem to be a lot of little features on the D90, including HD video, that the 50D lacks.  I've also considered the D300...

But I'm still drawn towards the 50D for it's higher resolution (15.1mp vs. 12mp), familiar controls, supposedly better/more lenses, and a better construction (metal vs. plastic).  I hear that the 50D's focus (the same as my 40D) while it only has 9AF points it's just as good as the D90's.  The 50D shoots faster (6.3fps) which I do like.  

What are some of your opinions?  Is the D90 noticeably superior to the 50D?  If so, in what areas that you see?  Should I jump ship and go Nikon or stick with Canon?  Is the IQ really superior on the D90 vs. the 50D?

Any input would be appreciated!


----------



## usayit (Jan 21, 2009)

If the 5D is stretching your budget, you probably just be happy with the 50D.  that's just my opinion.

But

Please realize that increasing the megapixel of the sensor does not necessarily produce a sharper 8x10 print.  The 40D is more than capable of producing a sharp 8x10 or even larger.  I guess what I'm trying to say is that your should determine the cause of the unsharp prints before making a decision.  I hate for you to move forward only to be disappointed.


----------



## Overread (Jan 21, 2009)

which ever camera you go with make sure that you budget for some really good glass to go with it! Good glass can really make a massive difference in the quality of image that you get from a lens. Canon L - Nikon Nikkor (I think) - Sigma EX -- top quality glass helps a lot.


----------



## ShutterSpeed (Jan 21, 2009)

is this another way of starting a Nikon v. Canon debate?  lol


----------



## gsgary (Jan 21, 2009)

40D should make good 8x10 prints it could be down to your lenses, i get fantastic A3 prints from a 4mp 1Dmk1, it's not all about mega pixels lens quality has a lot to do with it, if you get a 50D you will still have the same mediocre kit lens


----------



## inTempus (Jan 21, 2009)

gsgary said:


> 40D should make good 8x10 prints it could be down to your lenses, i get fantastic A3 prints from a 4mp 1Dmk1, it's not all about mega pixels lens quality has a lot to do with it, if you get a 50D you will still have the same mediocre kit lens


I don't think I was clear, the 8x10's I've printed thus far have been crops from full shots.  I often crop my shots, the one in question was about a 40% crop.  With a higher resolution I can crop and still get decent larger prints... or so that's my understanding based upon everything I've read.

But the cats out of the bag, I sold my 40D last night.  A sad moment, it's a GREAT camera... but now is the time to move on.  I have to decide do I go 50D, D90 or even perhaps D300.

I'm still leaning towards the 50D.


----------



## Ls3D (Jan 21, 2009)

Having jumped from the 40D to 5Dm2 I can relate to the keyword in your post, CROP.  The 40D does not leave much overhead for crops, so you either work towards getting the shot full frame, or dish big bucks for the huge pixel space.

LENS:  Have you shot any primes?  Even the $80 nifty fifty will change your mind about image quality and sharpness.

I say go with the 50D for now, and try some prime lenses.  I let a select few (3 people) grab a couple exposures with either my 50 or 100mm primes and they have all made the jump.

-Shea


----------



## Overread (Jan 21, 2009)

Ahh cropping space!
were I going for cropping space I would say that the 5D or a nikon might have an advantage over the 50D - there is a lot of speculation that the increase in MP on the crop sensor that canon have opted for means that only top end glass will be able to perform well with the camera. 
I can't say from experience, just from the views of others. However if cropping is a big thing on a crop sensor camera already then there are 2 things to consider

1) a 5DM2 would mean a full frame sensor so you would be cropping even more than you are now

2) a longer lens might be what you need


----------



## nmerrick (Jan 21, 2009)

usayit said:


> Please realize that increasing the megapixel of the sensor does not necessarily produce a sharper 8x10 print. The 40D is more than capable of producing a sharp 8x10 or even larger. I guess what I'm trying to say is that your should determine the cause of the unsharp prints before making a decision. I hate for you to move forward only to be disappointed.


 
Absolutely, what he said... the pixellation could be from a number of reasons, including JPG compression in the camera being set too high, post-processing compression before printing, inappropriate resolution, printing issues...

Nigel


----------



## gsgary (Jan 21, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I don't think I was clear, the 8x10's I've printed thus far have been crops from full shots. I often crop my shots, the one in question was about a 40% crop. With a higher resolution I can crop and still get decent larger prints... or so that's my understanding based upon everything I've read.
> 
> But the cats out of the bag, I sold my 40D last night. A sad moment, it's a GREAT camera... but now is the time to move on. I have to decide do I go 50D, D90 or even perhaps D300.
> 
> I'm still leaning towards the 50D.


 

So what your saying is, you want to take a wide shot and find a small bit that is interesting and crop most of the photo out, instead of using the corect lens :mrgreen:


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 21, 2009)

The most practical thing to do would be to find a better printer or use a program like genuine fractals. I've printed 30x45 images from 8mp files using Genuine Fractals to upsize and by sending an 1.5mb JPG edited from an 8MP RAW to WHCC and both turned out perfect.


----------



## tetricflow (Jan 21, 2009)

I've been making excellent 11X14 prints with my 20D for years....recently upgraded to 50D....but the 40D should produce nice prints.


----------



## Mgw189 (Jan 21, 2009)

I would have to agree with those that say you dont need more MP.  You would have benefited from a new lens possibly however.  If you need to crop that much to get the image you want you need more reach.  Its not going to matter what body you have if you dont have the right glass your not going to get the shots you want.  Also moving to a larger sensor instead of a crop sensor (correct me if I am wrong guys) is going to make it look like you are even futher away so you will have to crop more if you were using the same glass.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 21, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I often crop my shots, the one in question was about a 40% crop.



Why are you cropping shots so often ?
Is it possible that the lenses you have are limiting your ability to frame your shots the way you want them ?
If you are cropping images so frequently ... then I would say that you need a longer focal length lens than what you had on your sold system.

You do not want to crop ... as you loose image quality. You do not want a 15Mpixel image cropped down to 8Mpixels ... then enlarged to 8x10.

You should crop in camera by using a different focal length on the lens ... if you are not sure ... shot many different views.


----------



## ANDS! (Jan 21, 2009)

Not to be a dick, but a new camera isn't what is needed here.  Know how on how to crop and sample up an image is.  The 5D is 12MP and the 50D 15.  This is a MARGINAL increase in pixels from the 10MP of the 40D to 12 or 15 megapixels.  

I really am just stunned here that you would go out and purchase something like that without actually realizing what it is you are and are not getting.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 21, 2009)

Though ... having a high Megapixel sensor does give you a lot of room to crop.

Sony Alpha A900 = 24.6MP
Canon EOS 5D Mark II = 21.1MP
Nikon D3x = 24.5MP


----------



## gsgary (Jan 21, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Not to be a dick, but a new camera isn't what is needed here. Know how on how to crop and sample up an image is. The 5D is 12MP and the 50D 15. This is a MARGINAL increase in pixels from the 10MP of the 40D to 12 or 15 megapixels.
> 
> I really am just stunned here that you would go out and purchase something like that without actually realizing what it is you are and are not getting.


 

Well said:thumbup:


----------



## ANDS! (Jan 21, 2009)

If he's going for the Mark II, even worse, although yes he would see appreciable increases in megapixel count.  Still, a 10MP camera should allow sufficient upscaling to produce VERY useable and sharp 13x19 prints.  Certainly there is a limit to what you can crop, but man a 40% crop shouldn't be breaking the bank this bad.


----------



## Katier (Jan 21, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> Why are you cropping shots so often ?
> Is it possible that the lenses you have are limiting your ability to frame your shots the way you want them ?
> If you are cropping images so frequently ... then I would say that you need a longer focal length lens than what you had on your sold system.
> 
> ...



I agree totally. Should allways try to take pictures that need zero cropping. Some will be needed but 40% is extreme. I've only done that once that I recall and the primary reason I had to ( and was able to ) was that I was using my TLR and shot it with one shot in mind then spotted a second shot in the same frame. Because it's a MF 6x6 shot I could crop it with ease ( and probably still print greater than 10x8).

This is my crop in question.. but it's something I hate doing. But I'd never do that on a digital - they dont' have the megapixels ( based on 35mm being at best 24mpixels I had about 80megapixels effective to play with).


----------



## Overread (Jan 21, 2009)

OK I think we got the point across now 

I think now we need to move one - poor tharmsen is without a camera!!

I think the best thing is for some info from tharmsen:

1) What budget do you have now?

2) what subjects are you shooting - and what are some examples of shots which are needing the 40% cropping - might be we can stear you towards a better lens for such shots

Since you have a flash for canon already it would make sense to go canon - though the nikon rout is still open.


----------



## Katier (Jan 21, 2009)

Overread said:


> OK I think we got the point across now



hehe true 

I agree some examples of his crops would be handy


----------



## Kegger (Jan 21, 2009)

If you stay Canon, go for the 5D, FX is the definite winner. 

But if you go Nikon, go ahead and drop the money for the D300. Not only is the resolution fantastic, you can't beat a weather sealed magnesium body.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 21, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> Not to be a dick, but a new camera isn't what is needed here.  Know how on how to crop and sample up an image is.  The 5D is 12MP and the 50D 15.  This is a MARGINAL increase in pixels from the 10MP of the 40D to 12 or 15 megapixels.
> 
> I really am just stunned here that you would go out and purchase something like that without actually realizing what it is you are and are not getting.


No please, be a dick.  We all need to flex our internet muscle at every given opportunity.

Perhaps you don't think 50% increase in megapixels is much, but in just about any math course you can take from high school arithmetic to college algebra, they'll pretty much tell you 50% is significant... not to be a dick or anything.

Truth be told my wife talked me out of the 50D camera and into the 40D camera because of Christmas time expenses.  Based on my research I wanted the 50D to begin with, but negotiated to the 40D to keep the peace in the household.  Now that I've had a chance to play with the 40D, I really want the 50D or better and I sold it to her as well.

The $300 or so I've lost in the lesson isn't really an issue to me.  What is important is that I get what I deem necessary to what it is I want to do.

Yes, I'm a noob to photography.  I'm sure you were never new to photography, or anything else, and you've probably never made a purchasing mistake.

Oh, and I'm sorry to have stunned you.  It must have been horrible.  Please accept my apologies.  :hug::


----------



## Katier (Jan 21, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Perhaps you don't think 50% increase in megapixels is much, but in just about any math course you can take from high school arithmetic to college algebra, they'll pretty much tell you 50% is significant... not to be a dick or anything.



Now I'll preface this by saying that not being familiar with these cameras in question it might not be the case here ( probably isn't ) BUT the assumption is wrong.

Take a compact 10megapixal camera, the images that produces, especially at high higher ISO's will not be as sharp/noiseless as my 6 megapixel DSLR with quality glass. Thus my images will be more useable even though the actual physical size is the same. This is because a compact camera will have a sensor which has far more megapixels per squaremm than mine, This creates noise. 

In your case your better off IMO either going for the best glass for the job OR even considering film as the effective megapixels from film allows better cropping, BUT if your finding yourself cropping it really does mean you have an aspect of your photography you need to improve.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 21, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Truth be told my wife talked me out of the 50D camera and into the 40D camera because of Christmas time expenses.


Sounds like a reasonable compromise to keep the peace and to keep getting a piece. These are necessary things to do to have a healthy relationship.



> ... and I sold it [the 40D] to her as well.


Curious relationship, but.......



> Now that I've had a chance to play with the 40D, I really want the 50D or better ....


..... seems like it's a no-brainer then. If she has a Canon now, why would you go with Nikon? Share the same lenses and accesories.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 21, 2009)

I just got back fro Best Buy where I could play with both the 50D and the D90.  I will be sticking with Canon.  I like the controls better on the 50D (perhaps I'm just used to them), I like the heft of the Canon and I like the images it produces.   I think the 5D would cause a riff in my marriage that might take months to repair... so I'll go with what I originally wanted.


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 21, 2009)

seems like your beginning the journey of never being happy with your shots aka the "its the equpiment" road.  ive seen some stunning pics w/ a heavy crop still look amazing.  I would have gone with better glass and learning to fill your frames more instead of the added expense of a new camera.  i mean there are people still turning out crazy good pics w/ a canon xt


----------



## ANDS! (Jan 21, 2009)

> Perhaps you don't think 50% increase in megapixels is much, but in just about any math course you can take from high school arithmetic to college algebra, they'll pretty much tell you 50% is significant... not to be a dick or anything.





			
				ANDS said:
			
		

> If he's going for the Mark II, even worse, although yes he would see appreciable increases in megapixel count.



Reading comprehension.  So long as we're tossing out petty insults.



> I'm sure you were never new to photography, or anything else, and you've probably never made a purchasing mistake.



I'm sorry that I didn't fall over and overwhelmingly endorse you throwing cash at a problem.  By all means though, assume everyone who cautions against your line of thinking (which is a bit faulty) is personally attacking you or denigrating you and get butthurt about it.  It is your money, but when you post what you are doing with YOUR money in a public forum, expect some folks to say "Hey what a minute."  Already folks have come forward and said "the problem isn't megapixels" - its your choice whether or not you validate the opinions of those who don't validate your purchase.  ROck on brotha!

In the end, yes I would say if you are upsampling 40% crops of an original image and it is coming out "pixelated", then you are doing something wrong; whether that is not compossing properly in the first place and instead of working on that tossing megapixels at it, or you just dont have that good a familiarity with Photoshop or whatever editing program.


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jan 21, 2009)

Why are you cropping so heavily? Because you can't get close enough to what you want to photograph or because you want to change the composition after the fact?


----------



## kundalini (Jan 21, 2009)

Damn.... forgot to hit on the "huge" increase in megapixels. A 3MP increase is insignificant.

Sorry if I get the models mixed up, but I believe you are only talking of a 20% increase rather than a 50% increase. Regardless.... as others have stated, you should be able to get a very good print from a camera with half the resolution you had at hand. GLASS.....GLASS.....GLASS.....

BTW... if you work on composition, the need to crop heavily will be reduced, yeilding less degradation in your reults.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 21, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> I'm sorry that I didn't fall over and overwhelmingly endorse you throwing cash at a problem.


I don't recall asking for your endorsement or anyone elses, however I do recall asking for an opinion as to which camera would be better (50D, D90, D300, etc.).  If I was looking for your approval I would have PM'ed you.



> By all means though, assume everyone who cautions against your line of thinking (which is a bit faulty) is personally attacking you or denigrating you and get butthurt about it.


If your intent was to offer some friendly advice, why did you preface your post with "I don't mean to be a dick" then proceed to talk to me as if I were 10 years old?  You knew full well your post was going to be inflammatory, and now you want to play sophomoric internet games.



> It is your money, but when you post what you are doing with YOUR money in a public forum, expect some folks to say "Hey what a minute."


You don't play the victim role so well, you're far better at being the dick.  If all you said was "hey man, think about it this way" we wouldn't be having this conversation.  Note that other posters did offer friendly advice regarding my rationale and I didn't respond to them negatively, did I?



> Already folks have come forward and said "the problem isn't megapixels" - its your choice whether or not you validate the opinions of those who don't validate your purchase.  ROck on brotha!


Got it.  The problem is, if you care to read (reading comprehension) you'll discover I had already sold my camera and mentioned this in the very first post.  I don't need a recap of what I should have done, I was asking for an opinion on equipment going forward.  

Even if I had asked for an opinion about what to do chances are I would have gone for the 50D anyway.  It's been driving me nuts since I left the store with the 40D.  I don't expect you to understand, or pretend to understand.



> In the end, yes I would say if you are upsampling 40% crops of an original image and it is coming out "pixelated", then you are doing something wrong; whether that is not compossing properly in the first place and instead of working on that tossing megapixels at it, or you just dont have that good a familiarity with Photoshop or whatever editing program.


I got it, crystal clear.  As noted I will further investigate my pixelation problems with my new 50D.  I'm sure I'll figure it all out given time.


----------



## Mgw189 (Jan 21, 2009)

Another option is you could look at the older used 5D as an option.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 21, 2009)

tharmsen, did you only have the Canon kit lens with the 40D ?

If so, I would suggest that you invest in another lens ... such as a wide to long focal length zoom.
ie 18-200mm
I think that there is a kit with that lens.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 21, 2009)

kundalini said:


> Damn.... forgot to hit on the "huge" increase in megapixels. A 3MP increase is insignificant.
> 
> Sorry if I get the models mixed up, but I believe you are only talking of a 20% increase rather than a 50% increase. Regardless.... as others have stated, you should be able to get a very good print from a camera with half the resolution you had at hand. GLASS.....GLASS.....GLASS.....
> 
> BTW... if you work on composition, the need to crop heavily will be reduced, yeilding less degradation in your reults.


Yeah, I'm going to get a body only and picking up a 24-105mm f/4 IS USM lens vs. the kit lens (28-135mm).  I'll probably pick up something like a 70-200mm f/4 IS USM lens as well.  Then I'll pick up a cheap 50mm prime and call it a day.  That should get me through for a while, what do you think?

And yes, I know I need to work on my composition... that I've known since day 1.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 21, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> tharmsen, did you only have the Canon kit lens with the 40D ?
> 
> If so, I would suggest that you invest in another lens ... such as a wide to long focal length zoom.
> ie 18-200mm
> I think that there is a kit with that lens.


Is that a really good lens or is it just a marginal kit lens?  I'm thinking of just spending the money and getting a L lens in that range (see my post above).  

Thoughts would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## dxqcanada (Jan 21, 2009)

You do not shot wide angle ?


----------



## Mgw189 (Jan 21, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Yeah, I'm going to get a body only and picking up a 24-105mm f/4 IS USM lens vs. the kit lens (28-135mm).  I'll probably pick up something like a 70-200mm f/4 IS USM lens as well.  Then I'll pick up a cheap 50mm prime and call it a day.  That should get me through for a while, what do you think?
> 
> And yes, I know I need to work on my composition... that I've known since day 1.


Seems like your going to do a lot of overlapping with your lens selection listed.  Dont know much about it but Canon has a 18-200mm lens out now.  Its not quite as fast as the others but its another option.  Or are you talking about the L series 24-105 f4?


----------



## inTempus (Jan 21, 2009)

Mgw189 said:


> Seems like your going to do a lot of overlapping with your lens selection listed.  Dont know much about it but Canon has a 18-200mm lens out now.  Its not quite as fast as the others but its another option.  Or are you talking about the L series 24-105 f4?


Yeah, I'm thinking I'm going to stick with the L series lenses.  

The 18-200mm obviously has a varying aperture and I hear they aren't the sharpest lens around.  That's why I'm thinking of sticking with L's... just sucking up the price difference to be sure I get glass I'm content with.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 21, 2009)

dxqcanada said:


> You do not shot wide angle ?


I need to keep the lenses down to a reasonable level (number of them).  I can probably swing two lenses and not wind up in a divorce.    I'm open to suggestions as to which two I should consider.

I shoot more portraits (my kid and wife) and a lot of city-scape type shots.  I'm more inclined to take pics of cars, buildings, signs, bridges, houses, stuff like that... I like going on treks on the weekends for a couple of hours looking for things to shoot.


----------



## ANDS! (Jan 21, 2009)

> I don't recall asking for your endorsement or anyone elses



As I said, this is a public forum, and as such people are free - whether you like it or not - to voice their opinion.  I wrote "Not to be a dick. . ." to spare you the butthurtedness that inevitably follows when someone doesn't endorse another someone wildly riding on that Euphoria Horse all the way to the store.  If you were somehow able to turn that into a personal denigration, then brotha thats all on you.



> You knew full well your post was going to be inflammatory, and now you want to play sophomoric internet games.



It's inflammatory to say "The problem isn't the camera, its what you are doing"?  Christ Almighty well there we go.  



> You don't play the victim role so well



No victim here.  I have no problem standing behind the comments I make.  This is a learning forum, and HOPEFULLY someone who sees this episode will think twice before throwing the baby out with the bath water.  Trust, nowhere will you find me soliciting mea culpas or trying to soften/harden any tone I have had.



> I was asking for an opinion on equipment going forward.



The recommendation was implicit - get the same camera. 



> I don't expect you to understand, or pretend to understand.



As if you're the first person to have camera envy.  Right.

Still, its your money.  I suspect you'll still be chasing that "perfect picture" and we'll be seeing you solicit recommendations on pro "L" glass in no time (as the sub-1000 lenses just aren't cutting it).

Such is life. . .


----------



## kundalini (Jan 21, 2009)

Dude, don't get such a hard on with ANDS!.  The guy knows some $hit.  Apply the brake and digest the intent.  Too many of us will eagerly spend your money, but only a handful will make you re-consider and possibly save you a few bucks to get similar or improved results.


----------



## Mgw189 (Jan 21, 2009)

If your sticking with the L Series then look at the 24-105 and the nifty fifty from what I have seen and remember of your photos they should do you well.  Also witha  new baby your going to that 50mm for shooting in low light.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jan 21, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I decided this week to sell my new 40D.  The reason was mostly centered around my discovery that my wife (and even myself) want to do more 8x10 prints and perhaps bigger.
> 
> I had a pic I took of the Chicago L that I cropped and wanted to print as an 8x10.  While it turned out ok, it's obvious that it's pixelated.  It's not as sharp as I would like...



A. You need to learn how to shoot better, equipment doesn't fix that.

B. You need to learn how to print better. 

2, or 5 MP at those kind of resolutions isn't going to change jack. I completely agree with ANDS!


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 21, 2009)

i dont understand even comin close to putting strain on your marriage for a hobby. Seems kind of selfish and like your priorities are kind of messed up.  Christmas is only a month gone, whats changed in a month that you can drop more money for a body upgrade and L lenses, when just a month ago you "settled" on the d40 to compromise so that you can have a xmas..

i honestly dont see a solid path in your rationale.  

It's all said and done, and in either case i could care less what you do with your own money...its yours and  you earned it, and you can spend it however you like...but I'm just trying to understand the thought process. especially in this economy, i cant fathom losing more money than i have to.

The last thing I would test limits w/ is my marriage...no hobby is worth that.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 21, 2009)

Dionysus said:


> The last thing I would test limits w/ is my marriage...no hobby is worth that.


Most of those comments have been made tongue in cheek.  My wife totally supports my hobbies, to a point.  I don't cross that point.  Trust me, photography isn't my most expensive hobby.  But I do have to be somewhat sensitive to her requests.  She thought the 40D was fine, I capitulated and now I've decided it was the wrong decision for me.  Probably not the wisest decision I've made, but fortunately the cost is relatively insignificant.  If only other mistakes in life only cost me a couple hundred bucks.


----------



## Mgw189 (Jan 21, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Most of those comments have been made tongue in cheek.  My wife totally supports my hobbies, to a point.  I don't cross that point.  Trust me, photography isn't my most expensive hobby.  But I do have to be somewhat sensitive to her requests.  She thought the 40D was fine, I capitulated and now I've decided it was the wrong decision for me.  Probably not the wisest decision I've made, but fortunately the cost is relatively insignificant.  If only other mistakes in life only cost me a couple hundred bucks.



What the hell is more expensive than Photography?  Do you SCUBA dive or something?


----------



## inTempus (Jan 21, 2009)

kundalini said:


> Dude, don't get such a hard on with ANDS!.  The guy knows some $hit.  Apply the brake and digest the intent.  Too many of us will eagerly spend your money, but only a handful will make you re-consider and possibly save you a few bucks to get similar or improved results.


I have no doubt he knows his stuff.  That's not what's at issue here.  His talking down to people is intolerable, at least from my perspective.

I don't expect him to apologize for being rude, I don't think he has it in him given what I've seen of his posts elsewhere.  

If the cost of his amazing advice is being talked to like I'm ignorant, I'll pass on the advice.  There are plenty of knowledgeable people here who don't treat others like idiots.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 21, 2009)

Mgw189 said:


> What the hell is more expensive than Photography?  Do you SCUBA dive or something?


As a matter of fact, I do.    I also have several sets of full face masks, comm gear, surface units, etc.  That's my summer time hobby... well, it was... the little man (new born son) has put a damper on dive trips for the foreseeable future.   But I'm good with that, he's worth it.


----------



## Mgw189 (Jan 21, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> As a matter of fact, I do.    I also have several sets of full face masks, comm gear, surface units, etc.  That's my summer time hobby... well, it was... the little man (new born son) has put a damper on dive trips for the foreseeable future.   But I'm good with that, he's worth it.


:lmao: There were only a hand full of hobbies that I could think of that are more expensive.  Now all ya need to do is get a waterproof case and you can combine them both.....  I hope your wife isnt a member on the forum cause if she is I am gonna go hide now.


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 21, 2009)

Mgw189 said:


> What the hell is more expensive than Photography?  Do you SCUBA dive or something?



I for one have a hobby/activity more expensive than photography: Japanese Sword Arts.  Before I had a family I had a custom order katana forged to my specifications (and this was on US soil, not even a japanese blade), and it cost me 7,000.00 when all was said and done, finished product to my door.


----------



## kundalini (Jan 21, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I have no doubt he knows his stuff. ........ There are plenty of knowledgeable people here who don't treat others like idiots.


 Check you own ego.  Have you seriously reviewed ANDS! replies?  He is much more tolerable than I.  I consider his contributions to Beginners as a positive influence.  I don't know him, never met him and could care less if he enjoys sushi.  That's all beside the point, isn't it?  

If to-the-point responses to ignorant points of view makes the OP feel like an idiot, then that person should consider to take deep breaths, get grounded and repeat a positive mantra.


----------



## usayit (Jan 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Yeah, I'm going to get a body only and picking up a 24-105mm f/4 IS USM lens vs. the kit lens (28-135mm).  I'll probably pick up something like a 70-200mm f/4 IS USM lens as well.



If you were cropping THAT much with the standard kit lens (I assume), then the 200mm focal length is probably still too short.  An old 10D (6 mp) body with a 400mm optically excellent lens will outperform a 50D with 100mm lens cropped down in PS.

I agree.... u should back off on ANDS! and listen.  There are harsher people on this board (for the most part) have good intentions.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jan 22, 2009)

Canon 24-70 f/2.8L
Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
Canon 10-22 f/variable whatever.

About $3600.


----------



## usayit (Jan 22, 2009)

or

Canon 17-40L
Canon 24-105L
Canon 100-400L
Canon 50mm f/1.4

For the same $3600

or

My favorite set: 
24mm f/1.4L
50mm f/1.4
85mm f/1.8
135mm f/2L
300mm f/4L


----------



## ksmattfish (Jan 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Perhaps you don't think 50% increase in megapixels is much, but in just about any math course you can take from high school arithmetic to college algebra, they'll pretty much tell you 50% is significant... not to be a dick or anything.



Math is a lousy way to judge photography, and you have pointed out exactly why it's better to ask photographers about cameras rather than mathematicians.  50% more pixels isn't much more.  15mp is like adding a few thin rows of pixels around a 10 mp sensor.  

But anyway, this post is about upgrade fever, not photographs.  Buy, buy, buy!!!  It's the only way you'll ever get over the fever so you can get on with photography.  If you can't get great 16"x24" prints from a 10mp APS DSLR then your skill set has room for improvement.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 22, 2009)

I think you are going to be very disapointed when you see the difference between the 40D and 50D


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

gsgary said:


> I think you are going to be very disapointed when you see the difference between the 40D and 50D


In terms of cropping, perhaps.  It's funny, everything I've read on the forums indicates MP plays a big role in larger prints.  I can search it here even and find lots of references.  But all of a sudden in this thread it's irrelevant and we'd all be better off with 4MP cameras again.  Kinda funny how that works.

As for the feature set, I will be much happier with the 50D.  DOF preview, the vastly improved LCD screen (enough of a reason for me to buy the 50D alone), the extra ISO stop, the 15MP images, even the AF in Live View (I'll play with it) - all will keep me quite happy with the purchase... it's the camera I originally went for and was talked out of.  I won't let that happen again.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

ksmattfish said:


> If you can't get great 16"x24" prints from a 10mp APS DSLR then your skill set has room for improvement.


That much has been well established.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

Village Idiot said:


> Canon 24-70 f/2.8L
> Canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS
> Canon 10-22 f/variable whatever.
> 
> About $3600.


Hummm....

I may go the 24-70 f2.8L route for my first lens then pick up the 70-200 f/2.8 next.  I can wait a little while on the 10-22.


----------



## Overread (Jan 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> In terms of cropping, perhaps.  It's funny, everything I've read on the forums indicates MP plays a big role in larger prints.  I can search it here even and find lots of references.  But all of a sudden in this thread it's irrelevant and we'd all be better off with 4MP cameras again.  Kinda funny how that works.



Its about priorities - more MP definatly does help allow for bigger prints, no one can deny that fact. However what is being said is that when you up from 10MP to 15MP (for example) the increase in quality and abilty to print at larger sizes is less than if you were to invest in L glass for the focal range that you need.
Glass has a much bigger effect on the quality of image that an SLR can produce than the SLR itself - since the camera body is just a recording device which records the light - the light itself is controled and directly affected by the lens on the camera - thus high quality lenses even on beginner level cameras can give fantastic results - whilst a kit lens for a 400D is always going to give a similar level of quality be it on a 400D or a 1D.

This is not to say that bodies are not important since better ISO noise control and other features are important considerations that let you get more out of a lens - but that most people put improving glass before improving body


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

Thanks Overread.  I plan on doing both, improving the glass and improving the body.  Combined it's a win-win situation for me.

The member here who purchased my 40D is getting an amazing camera for a very good price and I'm getting the camera I should have bought the day I walked out of the store with the 40D and not the 50D.  Everyone is happy.

I ordered my 50D a little while ago and it will be here tomorrow afternoon (assuming Amazon doesn't screw the pooch again).  Now I need to figure out which L glass I'm going to pick up.  The 24-70 f/2.8 or the 24-105 f/4.

Decisions, decisions.


----------



## gsgary (Jan 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> In terms of cropping, perhaps. It's funny, everything I've read on the forums indicates MP plays a big role in larger prints. I can search it here even and find lots of references. But all of a sudden in this thread it's irrelevant and we'd all be better off with 4MP cameras again. Kinda funny how that works.
> 
> As for the feature set, I will be much happier with the 50D. DOF preview, the vastly improved LCD screen (enough of a reason for me to buy the 50D alone), the extra ISO stop, the 15MP images, even the AF in Live View (I'll play with it) - all will keep me quite happy with the purchase... it's the camera I originally went for and was talked out of. I won't let that happen again.


 

I'm happy with 4mp when it is paired with a 300mmF2.8L (also got 12.8MP) i can't even zoom in on the LCD screen but it makes me money and cost very little wouldn't swop it for a 50D and 15mp


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

Dionysus said:


> I for one have a hobby/activity more expensive than photography: Japanese Sword Arts.  Before I had a family I had a custom order katana forged to my specifications (and this was on US soil, not even a japanese blade), and it cost me 7,000.00 when all was said and done, finished product to my door.


Swords... nice.  I'm more into European swords and have often wanted to have a custom sword (Rapier) made for my office.  A $200 wall hanger just won't do, I have to know it's a real weapon otherwise it's not of interest to me... even if I don't know how to properly use it.  

My other expensive hobby is firearms.  I have several handguns worth twice what the 50D is worth. I have some rifles worth $18,000 or more, depending on the market (collectors items no longer available).  It's a never ending cycle... you get something you've wanted for years, then something else pop's up you can't live without.


----------



## Overread (Jan 22, 2009)

tne 24-70mm f2.8 L is a good solid choice of lens - its fast aperture is great when in lower light conditions and for that reason (along with its focal range) its a very popular wedding photographers lens - for all those inside situations

The 24-105mm f4 IS L is another good solid choice, and is often chosen more as a generalist walkaround lens because of its slightly longer focal length and IS - f4 whilst not f2.8, is stil a respectable aperture for a lens.

As an aside I think that - since you found yourself cropping a lot before - the 24-105mm might be the better option for you


----------



## gsgary (Jan 22, 2009)

Mine is motorbikes :lmao:


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

gsgary said:


> I'm happy with 4mp when it is paired with a 300mmF2.8L (also got 12.8MP) i can't even zoom in on the LCD screen but it makes me money and cost very little wouldn't swop it for a 50D and 15mp


I think we've found the crux of the argument.  It boils down to what *you* want.  You're happy with a 4MP camera that doesn't even have zoom in preview.  I wouldn't even consider it as an option.  Different strokes for different folks.

I am quite content with the 50D that's on the way.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

gsgary said:


> Mine is motorbikes :lmao:


After 20 years, I got out of that hobby.  I have more broken bones from failed landings and failed hops over things like fences...   I think the longest time spent in a hospital bed was by a street bike though... 4 weeks with a broken pelvis.  I'm motorcycle free as of right now, I sold my last bike a couple years ago... but damn it if I don't find myself in the wrong section of the magazine isle at the store from time to time.


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

Overread said:


> tne 24-70mm f2.8 L is a good solid choice of lens - its fast aperture is great when in lower light conditions and for that reason (along with its focal range) its a very popular wedding photographers lens - for all those inside situations
> 
> The 24-105mm f4 IS L is another good solid choice, and is often chosen more as a generalist walkaround lens because of its slightly longer focal length and IS - f4 whilst not f2.8, is stil a respectable aperture for a lens.
> 
> As an aside I think that - since you found yourself cropping a lot before - the 24-105mm might be the better option for you


I think that's the way I'm leaning too.  I'll figure it out and place an order by this weekend.


----------



## Dionysus (Jan 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> Swords... nice. I'm more into European swords and have often wanted to have a custom sword (Rapier) made for my office. A $200 wall hanger just won't do, I have to know it's a real weapon otherwise it's not of interest to me... even if I don't know how to properly use it.
> 
> My other expensive hobby is firearms. I have several handguns worth twice what the 50D is worth. I have some rifles worth $18,000 or more, depending on the market (collectors items no longer available). It's a never ending cycle... you get something you've wanted for years, then something else pop's up you can't live without.


 
i practice iaido and shinkendo, and actually use my swords to cut constantly. wallhangers = unsafe and never meant to cut. and in arts where your sword is your soul, you want an accurate representation  of what that is. practical beater swords only last for so long, but you always want that custom made sword with the theme you want, to pass down to your kids generation to generation.


----------



## ANDS! (Jan 22, 2009)

As with everything in this bidness ther is a middle-ground.  No one worth their salt is going to say pixels dont matter or pixels always matter, just as no one should absolutely say the camera doesn't matter or it does matter.  There is they grey middle that allows for variances in situations and different users.  

Years ago, when a 6MP camera was the high end as far as resolution is concerned, people weren't really concerned with printing 20inch plus prints after cropping.  Why would they; that is pushing the boundaries of what the average person might consider an "acceptable" print.  This is without even taking cropping into consideration.  These days, how many 4/6MP cameras are there?  Even when we crop, and pull the effective resolution down, these bodies still have more detail in them then those cameras of yesteryear, and the programs we are using have better algorithims to preserve detail when upsampling.  So megapixels do and don't matter.  If a person is able to appreciate the value in that statement, why the better off they'll be (and not chasing the pink dragon).

This isn't to say we should just snap shots off and then crop later; crop/compose first and then you don't have to worry about  how "bad" your photos will look when you have to start doing some aggressive cropping.  

This message isn't directed at the OP since he's already made his decision, but to anyone who might stumble upon this thread and want the opinion of the Devil's Advocate.


----------



## ShutterSpeed (Jan 22, 2009)

ANDS! said:


> As with everything in this bidness ther is a middle-ground. No one worth their salt is going to say pixels dont matter or pixels always matter, just as no one should absolutely say the camera doesn't matter or it does matter. There is they grey middle that allows for variances in situations and different users.
> 
> Years ago, when a 6MP camera was the high end as far as resolution is concerned, people weren't really concerned with printing 20inch plus prints after cropping. Why would they; that is pushing the boundaries of what the average person might consider an "acceptable" print. This is without even taking cropping into consideration. These days, how many 4/6MP cameras are there? Even when we crop, and pull the effective resolution down, these bodies still have more detail in them then those cameras of yesteryear, and the programs we are using have better algorithims to preserve detail when upsampling. So megapixels do and don't matter. If a person is able to appreciate the value in that statement, why the better off they'll be (and not chasing the pink dragon).
> 
> ...


 

I just wanted to chime in and say - really good post.


----------



## bevin (Jan 22, 2009)

tharmsen - I'm far more of a noob than you but for what it's worth I've got a 24-70mm f2.8 on the way... along with a 40D  I was originally looking at the 24-105mm but decided that the f2.8 is worth far more to me than 35mm which will be covered anyway when I get a 70-200mm f2.8 down the line.
I've also been looking at the Sigma 30mm f1.4. It's what my bro has for portraits, parties etc and he loves it.
Just some thoughts. Best of luck with the new camera. Mine's still at least a week away, New Zealand is totally sold out of 40D's!!


----------



## tsaraleksi (Jan 22, 2009)

Why do you need to crop so heavily?


----------



## gsgary (Jan 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> I think we've found the crux of the argument. It boils down to what *you* want. You're happy with a 4MP camera that doesn't even have zoom in preview. I wouldn't even consider it as an option. Different strokes for different folks.
> 
> I am quite content with the 50D that's on the way.


 
I take it you have never seen a print from one, this printed a treat at A3


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

tsaraleksi said:


> Why do you need to crop so heavily?


It's only happened a couple of times, but in one case it's an image I really-really like and wanted the largest print I could get of it.  This is the image.


----------



## Mgw189 (Jan 22, 2009)

What was the original photo if you still have it tharmsen?


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

gsgary said:


> I take it you have never seen a print from one, this printed a treat at A3


That's a nice pic.  I've seen similarly nice pics from 4.2MP 1D's from a few years ago.  It doesn't mean I would buy one today.


----------



## Josh66 (Jan 22, 2009)

tharmsen said:


> This is the image.
> [...]



Is that the crop, or the full image?


----------



## inTempus (Jan 22, 2009)

Mgw189 said:


> What was the original photo if you still have it tharmsen?


I have the unedited RAW on another machine, this is all I have access to right now which is a Photoshop tilt-shift edit.


----------



## iriairi (Jan 22, 2009)

I love my 24-105. I shoot mostly outdoors, though. It has given me the ability to zoom in on people without making them self-conscious. I was using it with my 400D and liked it, but I love it on my 5D. 

I second the nifty 50. It has be a good low light lens. 

Good luck and let us know what you decide and how it works for you.


----------



## tomhooper (Jan 22, 2009)

I found this a very interesting read with regards to the discussion above.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/50d.shtml


----------



## iriairi (Jan 22, 2009)

Actually, the more that I look at this, the more I like it. It has kind of a models/HO scale shot to it... Maybe it is just me.



tharmsen said:


> I have the unedited RAW on another machine, this is all I have access to right now which is a Photoshop tilt-shift edit.


----------

