Pixel Question For Large Prints

It all depends on long-term / short-term goals combined with your passion level of/for photography, your present photographic skill level and your discretionary income.

If you have a high level of photographic passion then maybe a long term goal over a short term goal would be your best course of action. Long term it would be best to acquire a 40D and good glass. Short term gratification I would consider as a 20D combined with good glass.

If your photographic skills are novice, (i.e. you don't use manual setting as an example), then I would get the 40D w/ the kit lens and learn photography and use the kit lens until you wear it out and it falls apart. There will be a point in this learning curve when you will detest the kit lens ... but also your skill level will be such that you will know what your next lens purchase will be.

Most photographers know the value of a dollar but not the value of pro-level glass. So during their photography growth they will initially buy cheap, one-lens-does-all, lenses. Then better glass and finally pro-level glass. If you know your passion level (assuming it is high) you can bypass the intermediate acquisition step(s) and buy pro-level glass out of the blocks and in the long run save beacoup bucks.

Finally, the more money you can and willing to devote to photography can dictate buying choices.

I have just seen a few images from the 40D and I don't a see real visible and significant dif between the 20D/30D (they have the same sensor) and the 40D.

I print up to 16x19 all the time ... at low ISOs it is hard to see a dif between my 20D and 5D.

There is a lot to say for Sw1tchFX statements ... and there is a lot more to image quality (IQ) then just MPs ... pixel density and pixel quality are just a few items which have a direct bearing on IQ.

Gary
 
It all depends on long-term / short-term goals combined with your passion level of/for photography, your present photographic skill level and your discretionary income.

If you have a high level of photographic passion then maybe a long term goal over a short term goal would be your best course of action. Long term it would be best to acquire a 40D and good glass. Short term gratification I would consider as a 20D combined with good glass.

If your photographic skills are novice, (i.e. you don't use manual setting as an example), then I would get the 40D w/ the kit lens and learn photography and use the kit lens until you wear it out and it falls apart. There will be a point in this learning curve when you will detest the kit lens ... but also your skill level will be such that you will know what your next lens purchase will be.

Most photographers know the value of a dollar but not the value of pro-level glass. So during their photography growth they will initially cheap, one-lens-does-all, lenses. Then better glass and finally pro-level glass. If you know your passion level (assuming it is high) you can bypass the intermediate acquisition step(s) and buy pro-level glass out of the blocks and in the long run save beacoup bucks.

Finally, the more money you can and willing to devote to photography can dictate buying choices.

I have just seen a few images from the 40D and I don't a real visible and significant dif between the 20D/30D (they have the same sensor) and the 40D.

I price up to 16x19 all the time ... at low ISOs it is hard to see a dif between my 20D and 5D.

There is a lot to say for Sw1tchFX statements ... and there is a lot more to image quality (IQ) then just MPs ... pixel density and pixel quality are just a few items which have a direct bearing on IQ.

Gary

there's a couple of reviews going round comparing IQ of the 40D with the 5D which is praise indeed. The IQ of the 40D is particularly good at higher ISO - even with the added pixel density.
 
Ok, I have heard the "right lense" argument and that most of these kits are coming equipped with, not so great lenses so. THe question then falls, would I be better off buying a less expensive body only and invest the remainder of the money in a better, more suitable lense.

I really like the feel of the Canons so, I think Im gonna stick with them. Im most interested ,right now, in shooting landscapes and possible some of the kids portraits type stuf, mostly landscapes. Would I be better offf picking up a 20D body with a better lense or the 30D with a little better lense then the 18-55 they offer? Is the 20D outdated at all or will it do the job for landscape work, with a really good lense?

These are some setups from Amazon I found, but I havent researched lenses in depth yet. Depending on the replies to this, thats the next stop on the learning train.

Canon 30D
Body Only - $978
18-55 - $1150
17-85 - $1514
28-135 - $1284

If you want quality, look at the Canon "L" lenses like the 24-105 f4L IS or the 24-70 f2.8L. Another that's worth a look for crop sensor bodies is the 17-55 f2.8 IS.

Any of those are better than the lenses you mention.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top