Second body quandary: Pls help!

[Chris Brennan]

OK, a little background: I guess you could say I'm back in the amateur ranks having shot professionally for about 35 yrs. My principal photography is flight photography: air shows and raptors although I shoot almost anything that catches my eye and I usually shoot everything at ISO 400 occasionally straying up into 640 or 800. I will sometimes print my best work at home up to 13x19 using a Canon Pixma Pro9000, and I'm pretty anal about color calibration between computer and printer.

My current camera is a 40D which I adore. I'm in the process of trading in my 300 f2.8L IS towards a 400mm f4 IS DO. I'd like to add a second body and I have about $1200 to spend. As I see it, my options are: add another 40D which I'm already very comfortable with, and bank the difference; purchase a pre-owned 1D MkII or MkIIN, which would give me faster AF acquisition, faster fps, and the ability to AF at f8, or purchase a new 50D. My quandary is finding a decent 1D MkII or MkIIN with a low shutter count that's in good shape, the learning curve involved in learning a brand new piece of gear, and the slight loss of crop factor of 1.3x down from the 40D's 1.6. The Series 1 camera will give me the ability to AF at f8 but I'm trying to be realisitc when thinking that having the ability to have a decent 800mm f8 with AF just isn't that important. The final option is to add a 50D but is having some new bells and whistles like lens micro-adjust and an increase in pixel density that much more worth it. I've read from a number of sources that the 50D performance at ISO 400 is not as good as the 40D and that's of primary concern. Right now, I'm leaning towards just getting a 40D for now....

I'm looking forward to your suggestions and opinions!

[Doug West]

No camera suggestions, but one question that you may or may not have asked...

Why do you think you need a second body?

For years I use to walk around with two bodies...a 20D and 1D Mark II. I thought
I needed the two to be prepared for just about anything. For example one might
hold my 70-200 and the other my 600.

It finally got to the point where having two cameras were just to cumbersome.
With careful planning and preparation, I've learned to live with only one body.
I'll usually go with my 600 attached and my 1-4 on my hip if I find the need to
change.

Doug

[Alfred Forns]

Hi Chris

I would recommend the 50D from your list. Better AF than the 40D and better image quality than the Mk2 not to mention twice (almost) the file size.

If you go with the Mk2 just make sure and get a good price. If you need to replace the shutter won't be a big problem. btw my last choice would be the 40D

[Chris Brennan]

Doug -

For birding, having a second body isn't important for me at all. But for airshows, where action and subjects change very quickly, it would be an asset. I could mount my 100-400 on one body to be ready for air action, and my ultra-wide for unique angles, crowd shots, etc... I went to several shows last year when having 2 bodies would have been very helpful.

Chris

[John Chardine]

I ended up complementing by 50D with a used 5D. There's a lot to be said for owning a crop body and full frame and a good used 5D would be in your price range. I admit that the 5D is not the fastest body in the world but for everything you do other than aircraft and BIF it would work great for you. IQ out of the 5D is stunning and your wide angles (if you have any) work as they should.

[Chris Brennan]

John -

That is a good suggestion... problem is, I've become very spoiled by the 1.6x "crop factor" with my xxD cameras. I could probably more easily adjust to the Series 1 1.3x crop factor but going full-frame at this stage, I don't think, is a viable option for me.

Chris

[Charles Glatzer]

No camera suggestions, but one question that you may or may not have asked...

Why do you think you need a second body?

For years I use to walk around with two bodies...a 20D and 1D Mark II. I thought
I needed the two to be prepared for just about anything. For example one might
hold my 70-200 and the other my 600.

It finally got to the point where having two cameras were just to cumbersome.
With careful planning and preparation, I've learned to live with only one body.
I'll usually go with my 600 attached and my 1-4 on my hip if I find the need to
change.

Doug

Doug, even if you only shoot with one camera at a time, having a second body on you person is just good insurance when traveling a field. FYI-I find it prudent to carry two bodies with similar ergonomics, batteries, etc.
I second Al's 50D recommendation fitting your needs at this time.

Best,

Chas

[Chris Brennan]

Chas -

Thanks for your suggestion of getting the 50D! My research in the last day or so has really confirmed Al's initial suggestion and you "seconding" it really confirms it!

Chris

[Paul McAdams]

John -

That is a good suggestion... problem is, I've become very spoiled by the 1.6x "crop factor" with my xxD cameras. I could probably more easily adjust to the Series 1 1.3x crop factor but going full-frame at this stage, I don't think, is a viable option for me.

This is an interesting statement given my understanding of fovcf. At the simplest level, the reason for the appearance of more focal length with a APS-C sensor is because you take a lens with a focal plane / image size that was intended for a full frame, you capture roughly 50% of the image the lens is capable of, and then blow up the photo to standard sizes. Would you not capture the same image with a full frame DSLR if you took the shot and then cropped and enlarged the resulting image by 1.6 % ?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/C...op-Factor.aspx

[John Chardine]

Paul- The problem with the comparison is that you have to specify the density of sensor sites, or pixel pitch (distance between sensor- site centres), on the sensors in question. Imagine two bodies, one full frame and one with a 1.6 crop factor, but both with the same pixel pitch. All you would have to do to the FF image in this case would be to crop down to the size of a 1.6 crop factor image. No enlargement would be necessary because you would end up with the same number of pixels in both cases.

However, typically, pixel pitch is larger in FF sensors than 1.6 sensors so if you simply cropped the FF to 1.6 size you would end up with a lot fewer pixels in the image so indeed you would have to enlarge (interpolate) the FF image to obtain the same image as the 1.6 sensor produced.

[Paul McAdams]

OK, so if I understand you correctly, what I described would be correct as long as the full frame DSLR was for example a 5D Mark II, with an effective pixel rate of 21.1 megapixels, and the APS-C was roughly 10.5 megapixels or less ... which up thru a 40D would be true...but not true with a 50D since the pixel rate is > 1/2 the FF pixel rate? I am assuming that if a FF sensor, which isn't twice the size of an APS-C, has over twice as many pixels, then the pitch is at least as good if not better on the FF. Are my assumtions correct or am I missing it ? :)