DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> 500mm or 1.6 crop?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 12 of 12, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/15/2007 09:19:15 AM · #1
Since I can't really afford the 500mm F4 IS my other option is a 40D. The 1.6 crop factor will take me to 480mm with my 300mm F4 IS for about 1/5 the cost. I also think I would get way more use out of a second body than I would a $5500 piece of "L" glass.
Any opinions on this?
 12/15/2007 09:50:48 AM · #2
Originally posted by NstiG8tr:
Since I can't really afford the 500mm F4 IS my other option is a 40D. The 1.6 crop factor will take me to 480mm with my 300mm F4 IS for about 1/5 the cost. I also think I would get way more use out of a second body than I would a $5500 piece of "L" glass.
Any opinions on this?


Would be a good option, I am toying with the idea of getting a 40D to compliment my 5D as well. It will be ideal as I seem to be doing more & more nature photography at the moment, but will also serve as an ideal backup for my 5D for weddings etc.. Currently my backup is my old 300D (yikes!).

Also, the 40D will provide you with 5fps which is almost double what the 5D does. If you can afford it, do it..
 12/15/2007 09:52:47 AM · #3
Originally posted by Simms:
Also, the 40D will provide you with 5fps which is almost double what the 5D does. If you can afford it, do it..


Try 6.5 fps, it rocks. And if 6.5 is chewing up your burst too fast you can drop it back to 3 fps too.

Message edited by author 2007-12-15 09:54:42.
 12/15/2007 10:03:54 AM · #4
Originally posted by Delta_6:

Try 6.5 fps, it rocks. And if 6.5 is chewing up your burst too fast you can drop it back to 3 fps too.


I like the 6.5 fps. I played with one in the store awhile back.
 12/15/2007 10:13:40 AM · #5
One of the reason I plan to always keep a 1.6 crop (while Canon make them anyway) is the cheap extension in length. I am hanging out for the 5D upgrade, so I can afford a 5D when everyone jumps on the 7D/5DmkII and this mix will allow me to have double duty on lenses so to speak as well as a second digital body (my backup and FF is film and it would be nice to be all digital and avoid the scanning - I know "film" is a dirty word around here :).

As you say, a second body is far more useful then a great honking piece of glass like the 500. Unless you need to shoot motor racing or something where you need a 1-series attached, I think it's a great option.
 12/15/2007 01:20:03 PM · #6
look at the sigma lenses. they have a great variety for super telephoto
300-800 and the 50-500

ive shot with the bigma (50-500) before and its a great lense if you have enough light, and as for the sigmonster (300-800) i havent had the privilage to shoot with that yet.
 12/15/2007 01:44:12 PM · #7
It is not true that the crop factor will get you a "longer" lens, all you get is the same focal length, but just a smaller crop of the same image. 300 mm will always be 300 mm, no matter how large the sensor is. But a full frame camera will always give you the opportunity to crop that same image you'd get with the 40 D out of the larger image the full frame camera produces. That's why I went for the 5D.
 12/15/2007 01:47:44 PM · #8
The Sigma 300-800 is a 13 pound monster. Never used one but held it in a camera store. Have seen some very good pictures that were taken with it. You would need a very good tripod and good lighting to use the thing. Not to mention a strong back to carry it and all you other equipment.
 12/15/2007 01:54:41 PM · #9
Originally posted by eyewave:
It is not true that the crop factor will get you a "longer" lens, all you get is the same focal length, but just a smaller crop of the same image. 300 mm will always be 300 mm, no matter how large the sensor is. But a full frame camera will always give you the opportunity to crop that same image you'd get with the 40 D out of the larger image the full frame camera produces. That's why I went for the 5D.


Cropping the 5D file to the same framing as the 40D file would result in there being many fewer pixels in the final image. The higher frame rate of the 40D would, I presume, also count for something if one is doing nature/sports photography, too.
12/15/2007 02:03:01 PM · #10
One thing I dont understand is the misunderstanding that the 1.6 gives you more reach. It doesnt give you more reach. It gives you a smaller field of view of the same image projected by the lens. A 500mm lens is still a 500mm lens wether its on a 5d, 1DMKIII, or a 40D. The only difference is get less of the what the lens sees on your sensor each time you step up a crop factor.

MattO
 12/15/2007 02:14:24 PM · #11
Originally posted by MattO:
One thing I dont understand is the misunderstanding that the 1.6 gives you more reach. It doesnt give you more reach. It gives you a smaller field of view of the same image projected by the lens. A 500mm lens is still a 500mm lens wether its on a 5d, 1DMKIII, or a 40D. The only difference is get less of the what the lens sees on your sensor each time you step up a crop factor.

MattO


I guess that it's the fact that the smaller angle of view equates to more reach. With more and more photosites being crammed onto the smaller sensors, the crop cameras can produce more detailed files (files with a greater number of pixels, at least) than the FF files cropped to match. Let's not talk about high-ISO noise, though. An example would be the 40D and the 1D III. Both about 10Mp, but differing crop factors. Crop a 1D file to match the 40D file and it would have fewer pixels.
 12/15/2007 03:03:57 PM · #12
All these people chiming in to say the lens isn't *really* "longer" on a 1.6 sensor are correct, of course. It's absolutely correct that you can crop the FF image and get the same result, as far as what's included in/excluded from the image. And for the matter of that, following that reasoning you don't need ANY lens except an ultra-wide; you can always crop the ultra-wide down to the same field of view as the tele and 'see" the same thing.

So what's the fallacy here? Image break-down, of course. You can only crop so far before you get a noticeable loss of quality. And *That*, of course, is entirely dependent on the desired physical size of the finished image. That is to say, you probably can't see the difference between, say, a 50% crop of a 100mm shot and a 100% crop of a 200mm shot at 640 pixels, but you sure as hell can see the difference in a 16x20 print.

As far as 5D vs 40D, I don't know where the cutoff is. The 5D is a much bigger sensor with a much larger pixel-pitch and not all that many more pixels: 12.8mp vs 10.1mp. The 5D is famous for the quality of its imaging, the smoothness of it, due largely to the greater pixel pitch I believe. So my gut feeling is the cropped 5D image should be very close in quality, if not even better than, the full 40D image.

Be interesting to see comparison shots from someone who has both bodies, if anyone does...

R.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/30/2025 06:23:49 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 12/30/2025 06:23:49 AM EST.