Considering the switch to Nikon

[Abstract]

I think the new 5D Mark II is still worth waiting for (at least until Photokina) as it just might include an APS-C crop mode. It's a longshot, but since nothing is known about the 5D Mark II, one might as well wait and see.

Doubt it. Canon's design supposedly doesn't physically allow Canon to allow their EF-S lenses to be fit onto their full frame cameras and have everything working. Nikon doesn't have that problem.

Also, a photo taken with a FF camera "cropped" to APS-C sized (due to severe vignetting) is only around 6 MP. From there, you'd have to crop even further to get the image you would have been after if you had an APS-C camera to begin with. If you just bought a D300 or 40D, you'd have 10 or 12 MP to crop from. If you crop a FF down to APS-C, you'll only have around 6 MP to crop and play with. That's not exactly the same as simply buying a current APS-C camera (or smaller in Canon's case).

Besides, the difference in high ISO performance isn't much better on a 5D, although it's an older sensor. I don't think there's much point buying a 5D for better ISO performance when the advantage over other cameras is so slim right now. The gap will widen once again when the 5D MkII is released, but not now. Besides, if he wants to go birding, cropping down to APS-C isn't a great option.

 

[ksz]

^^^ Remember, we're talking about the 5D Mark II, not the 5D. Both the D3 and D700 have a crop mode which obviously reduces the resolution. But if the 5D Mark II has a higher pixel count than its predecessor (which seems reasonable given the trend towards higher MP), then doing a crop even in post-processing may yield more than 6 MP.

But the other part of the story is how many megapixels you need. Some would say that 6MP is plenty. Many of the Canon Rebels (crop sensors) had 6 to 8 MP, as did the lower-end Nikon bodies. And people used them for everything.

Does the OP plan to make large prints? If so, how large?

 

[Westside guy]

^^^ Remember, we're talking about the 5D Mark II, not the 5D. Both the D3 and D700 have a crop mode which obviously reduces the resolution. But if the 5D Mark II has a higher pixel count than its predecessor (which seems reasonable given the trend towards higher MP), then doing a crop even in post-processing may yield more than 6 MP.

While what you say is true, I think you're missing Abstract's point.

On Nikon bodies, the mount is the same for all cameras, so a full-frame camera is capable of wearing a DX-specific lens. This is the reason Nikon has "crop mode" - it lets you continue to use some DX glass, if you choose.

On Canon bodies, the DX and FX mounts are different. Full-frame cameras can't physically mount DX-designed lenses.

 

[tip]

On Canon bodies, the DX and FX mounts are different. Full-frame cameras can't physically mount DX-designed lenses.

To elaborate on this - the rear of EF-S lenses protrude farther than their EF counterparts. This would interfere with the mirror. You cannot physically use an EF-S lens on a FF Canon without causing damage.

 

[Abstract]

To elaborate on this - the rear of EF-S lenses protrude farther than their EF counterparts. This would interfere with the mirror. You cannot physically use an EF-S lens on a FF Canon without causing damage.

Yep, that's it. You'd damage the camera. You can get an adapter to fit an EF-S lens onto a Canon FF, but I believe you lose all lens features.

^^^ Remember, we're talking about the 5D Mark II, not the 5D. Both the D3 and D700 have a crop mode which obviously reduces the resolution. But if the 5D Mark II has a higher pixel count than its predecessor (which seems reasonable given the trend towards higher MP), then doing a crop even in post-processing may yield more than 6 MP.

Say the new 5D MkII is 16 MP. Without using a calculator, if you were to crop that down to what you'd get from an APS-C sized image, say you'd get a 6.5 MP image. If you shoot wildlife, particularly birds, you'll likely be doing some cropping. You'd do it with a 40D, and you're going to do it with a 5D MkII image trimmed down to APS-C framing. So with a 5D MkII, you'd have to crop the image down to what you'd get from an APS-C sized sensor to make it "40D"-ish, and THEN crop the image again, just like how you'd crop a 40D image. You may end up with a 4-5 MP image. Yes, some people say even 6 MP is enough. It's absolutely true, but I'd say it's true for those people who take a perfect photo and don't have to crop that 6 MP image down to 4 MP. So 6 MP may be just the number of pixels necessary to print an 8" x 10" photo, but how would a 4 MP image turn out? OK for some, but I assume that if you want a 5D MkII, you care about image quality.

For a FF camera to replace my D300 in "DX" mode, it would need to have >24 MP.

 

[iBookG4user]

I guess I should elaborate a bit. While full-frame is nice and would be great for the IQ and high ISO it comes with, it would greatly hurt me on the long end of lenses which is where I shoot most often. Maybe I'll buy a full-frame body as a backup (yes, backup) to a crop body, although I can't see that happening in the immediate future.

And one of the major reasons why I was drawn to looking to switch was the 200-400mm VR. The image quality on that looks fantastic and the versatility of a zoom like that would be of great benefit to me, especially with the 1.4x TC.

 

[ksz]

While what you say is true, I think you're missing Abstract's point.

On Nikon bodies, the mount is the same for all cameras, so a full-frame camera is capable of wearing a DX-specific lens. This is the reason Nikon has "crop mode" - it lets you continue to use some DX glass, if you choose.

On Canon bodies, the DX and FX mounts are different. Full-frame cameras can't physically mount DX-designed lenses.

I understood his point, but the argument is moot because one can always crop a FF image in post-processing. Either you do it in-camera or off-camera.

 

[Westside guy]

I understood his point, but the argument is moot because one can always crop a FF image in post-processing. Either you do it in-camera or off-camera.

Okay, we're talking across each other somewhat then. Your statement is absolutely correct, of course. I'm just not convinced Canon willl go to the trouble of offering a "APS-C crop mode" (to borrow your earlier phrase), since those types of lenses can't go on the camera. With the Nikon, putting a DX lens on the D3/D700 is what normally triggers crop mode - although that certainly can be manually turned on/off as well.

I think a fair number of people are waiting for exactly what you're talking about. Not everyone cares about the sorts of high-ISO, low light capabilities that the D3/D700 offer - they care more about pixel density. I'm not sure the majority of those folks actually need that degree of pixel density, or will know how to really take advantage of it - but that's true of any technology. Certainly pro portrait shooters will slurp up every bit of resolution Canon or Nikon offer down the road.

 

[ksz]

Okay, we're talking across each other somewhat then. Your statement is absolutely correct, of course. I'm just not convinced Canon willl go to the trouble of offering a "APS-C crop mode" (to borrow your earlier phrase), since those types of lenses can't go on the camera. With the Nikon, putting a DX lens on the D3/D700 is what normally triggers crop mode - although that certainly can be manually turned on/off as well.

Abstract simply focused on in-camera crop, but it doesn't matter whether it's done in-camera or off-camera so long as it's doable.

He's making another point now, which is having to crop a cropped-sensor's image further. Since OP has a 10.1MP DX camera, he will need approximately a 22.7MP FF sensor to get the same crop resolution.

 

[compuwar]

Certainly pro portrait shooters will slurp up every bit of resolution Canon or Nikon offer down the road.

I'd expect catalog shooters, billboard shooters, fashion shooters and some landscape folks to grab resolution over portrait shooters- you generally don't enlarge portraits enough to make a difference and raw detail is normally a detriment (at least in almost every portrait I've shot recently- I spend a lot more time in PS for a portrait than for a fine art print.)