What's new

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

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?)
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?)

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.
IMG_6755.webp
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Is the 40D APSC or FF?
Because it is probably the body I will get.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 
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.
 
As an eBay Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
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
 
40D...used, cheap, APS-C...old-tech.
 
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
 
APS-C. Can it be described as the lense sees and captures more than will fit on the APS-C?
Yes, that is right.
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.
 
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!
 
Last edited:
Well I'm still sold on the 40D!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk
 
Found in another thread


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.


If they don't I hope the airlines cooperate with me about switching flights to a different destination. Don't think the Olympic National Park is on fire, and nothing west of it can be on fire because only the Pacific is west of there!

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

Most reactions

Back
Top Bottom