building equivalent systems

[ElFenix]

prices from amazon

5D $2750
24-105L IS (inc with camera)
70-200 f/4 L $550
50 f/1.8 $85
=$3385


40D $1150
17-55 $1300
50-150 f/2.8 $680
30 f/1.4 $380
=$3510

interesting. you could upgrade the 5D to a 50 f/1.4 and be less than $100 above the 40D package. the 40D has a slightly longer telephoto, and the 5D has a better standard zoom (build quality, more range). the 5D will offer slightly more detail (which makes the lenses appear sharper, even if they're not). the noise proposition is where it gets interesting. the equivalent ISO for a 5D is 2.5x the 40D's ISO (that is, ISO 100 on the 40D is equivalent to ISO 250 on the 5D assuming the same absolute aperture and shutter speed). while the 5D may be ahead on noise, it certainly isn't that far ahead (it's replacement could be). with the 5D you could shorten the DOF by using a larger absolute aperture, but then you're not really getting the equivalent picture (and you'd have to buy faster lenses than what i've got listed, adding about $750). you could also leave the shutter open longer, but that has its limits.


comparison for 4/3:

E-510 $480
14-35 $2300
35-100 $2200
25 f/1.4 $800

:shocked:

(note that you would need a 25 f/1 to get an equivalent image from the 4/3 as you would from a 50 f/2 for 135 for a 30 f/1.4 for APS)

 

[kalster]

the oly's are so small though, i think they make great travel kits, if they could release pentax like pancakes, it would be perfect

 

[soydios]

why would you need a 25 f/1.0 to equal a 50 f/2.0? all lenses of the same aperture at any focal length put the same amount of light onto the sensor.

EDIT: here's a somewhat similar Nikon, just to play devil's advocate. Nikon and Canon seem to avoid directly competing against each other, though (Nikon doesn't make a 70-200mm f/4, 40D is bracketed by D80 and D300).

D300: $1800
AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G VR DX: $650
AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR: $500
AF 35mm f/2.0D: $350

total = $3300.

replace the D300 with a presumed D90 successor to the D80, which would have similar features to the 40D, and you save $800 in the body.
kit lens has a faster maximum and slower minimum aperture, but has a greater zoom range than the 24-105mm f/4L IS.
telephoto has a slower aperture than I would like, but has VR and goes further to make up for it. drop down in focal length to an AF 80-200mm f/2.8D for an additional $400 if necessary.
35mm f/2.0D is pricey for a prime, but worth it for a normal lens. I find that I don't use mine much creatively, though. normal lenses are really only good for preserving an exact scene.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: soydios
why would you need a 25 f/1.0 to equal a 50 f/2.0? all lenses of the same aperture at any focal length put the same amount of light onto the sensor.

equivalent means equivalent field of view and equivalent dof. dof is based on absolute aperture, not f-stop. to have the same absolute aperture as a 50 f/2 you need a 25 f/1. otherwise, you're taking different, rather than equivalent, pictures. (it's a little more complicated than that, but, all other factors held equal, such as FOV, perspective, output size, scaled circle of confusion, it boils down to absolute aperture). f-stop is intensity.

didn't see this edit earlier:

Originally posted by: soydios

EDIT: here's a somewhat similar Nikon, just to play devil's advocate. Nikon and Canon seem to avoid directly competing against each other, though (Nikon doesn't make a 70-200mm f/4, 40D is bracketed by D80 and D300).

D300: $1800
AF-S 16-85mm f/3.5-5.6G VR DX: $650
AF-S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G VR: $500
AF 35mm f/2.0D: $350

total = $3300.

that combo won't provide an equivalent image to what i've got listed. the dof will be deeper at maximum aperture than either the 5D system or the 40D system by any where from 1/2 a stop worth to 2 stops worth. if you're taking landscapes that's not a problem (yet another reason the olympus is a great travel camera, it's easier to get the foreground and background in focus with larger f-stops in comparison to 135 and APS cameras). but not really the point of my exercise.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: soydios
why would you need a 25 f/1.0 to equal a 50 f/2.0? all lenses of the same aperture at any focal length put the same amount of light onto the sensor.

equivalent means equivalent field of view and equivalent dof. dof is based on absolute aperture, not f-stop. to have the same absolute aperture as a 50 f/2 you need a 25 f/1. otherwise, you're taking different, rather than equivalent, pictures.

ah, I was thinking of getting light past the shutter, not depth of field. eh, I do a lot of stage photography, so I think more about light-gathering and high-ISO performance than anything else.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Man, this list really puts things into perspective for me. I was always under the impression that FF would be a LOT more expensive than that if I decided to move up to it. I think I'll go back and figure out what I can do with my current gear.

However, you don't seem to have an equivalent for something like a 10-20mm.

The 17-40mm f/4L fits the bill, but I've heard of it being soft? I guess it'll probably still be sharper than the 10-20mm though, or at least as sharp. Hmmmm.... interesting.

What about an aperture equivalent to the 17-50mm f/2.8? IMO 24-105mm doesn't really fit the bill.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Man, this list really puts things into perspective for me. I was always under the impression that FF would be a LOT more expensive than that if I decided to move up to it. I think I'll go back and figure out what I can do with my current gear.

However, you don't seem to have an equivalent for something like a 10-20mm.

The 17-40mm f/4L fits the bill, but I've heard of it being soft? I guess it'll probably still be sharper than the 10-20mm though, or at least as sharp. Hmmmm.... interesting.

What about an aperture equivalent to the 17-50mm f/2.8? IMO 24-105mm doesn't really fit the bill.

24 on 135 gives a wider field of view than 17 on an APS. 105 gives a narrower field of view on 135 than 50 does on an APS. f/4 on a 135 body gives just about the same dof as f/2.8 on an aps body. so, the 24-105 f/4 is capable of delivering equivalent fov and dof, and then some. so it fits the bill and more. canon does make the 24-70L, but its $$$ and opening it up will give less dof than the 17-55 does, so its not an equivalent image. not really the point of the thread. if you want the option of sacrificing some dof for speed, but don't want to spend $$$, may i suggest the tamron 28-75 f/2.8? mine is excellent.

as for sharpness, make sure you're testing the lenses using equivalent images (failing to do so is the number 1 mistake of lens reviews and intarweb comparisons). so, if you've got a 10 f/4 on an APS body, you'd use 15 f/6 on a 1.5x and 16 f/6.4 on a canon. looking at slrgear, the 17-40 is sharper in the middle at f/5.6 than the 10-22 at f/4, and the corners are mostly the same. down another third stop to get equivalent images and i bet the 17-40 is sharper in all areas. corner shading on the 17 is about half a stop, which is a little better than the 2/3 of a stop that the 10 exhibits. not to mention that the 17-40, being longer, isn't a bad lens to just leave on for a typical urban shooting situation.

keep in mind, also, that capturing photons with a sensor is like throwing baseballs at a grid, and 135 cameras have much much larger grid squares than APS bodies of similar MP. a lens only has to be sharp enough to get the right photon into the right photosite, which is easier to accomplish with larger photosites. even the 1Ds has slightly larger photosites than a 40D, despite having more than double the MP.

 

[soydios]

@FBB:
My uncle has a 5D, and I have a few shots of his at various focal lengths with the 17-40mm. All of them seem to be at f/9 or f/14, so I can't comment on the wide-open performance, and I'm not sure if f/14 at the corners of a 5D is past the diffraction limit, but here's a sample shot (EXIF info is accurate): http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/7025/img0139mg2.jpg

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Thanks for the tips. I think f/14 is getting really close to the diffraction limit, but I can tell you now that on the 10-20mm f/14 would be pretty much useless. I try not to go past f/8 or f/11 on the lens, but then again the DOF is already so wide at these apertures.

When I was doing my whole "upgrade to FF" thing I think I sorta slipped a few lens "upgrades" in there as well. This is probably why the total came out to be a couple THOUSAND dollars more than what I wanted to pay, lol. I think instead of the 17-40mm I had used the 16-35mm, and some other not-so-equivalent "equivalents" to my current crop lenses. I was also aiming for a 1D body as well because my stupid self has to break my cameras at least once a year due to environmental exposure. APS-H is just so goofy though for wide angle stuff.

Bah, I dunno. I feel that each body has its merits and I think that I'll find it hard to actually get rid of a body. The XT is just so small and light and useful as a second camera (and monetarily worthless as well), so I'll probably keep it until it blows up or something. The 30D is a very capable camera with the added reach of a 1.6x crop factor, something that I really don't want to give up. But FF/APS-H has the resolution, viewfinder, autofocus, ISO, and weathersealing advantages. Bah. All in good time I guess. When I get a job later this year I'll probably start investing in a 1Ds/1D or D3 or something.

 

[OdiN]

I "got rid" of my 10D after I got my 40D. But I still have my 20D.

I sold it to a good friend who I know will get a lot of use out of it. She had a roommate steal her old camera when they were moving out and has been without one for a while. I needed some more CF cards for my 40D and it's larger file sizes so that helped with that.

I ordered 2 8GB Extreme III's and a 4GB Extreme III the other day so I don't have to worry about having enough memory.

 

[soydios]

Eh, I was at Best Buy the other day with a friend sending his laptop in for repair (I was there to make sure he wasn't pwned by Worst Buy, but thankfully the guy at the customer service desk knew what he was doing), and I browsed over to the DSLR section. The Rebel XTi felt puny in my hands, like the grip is designed for 8-year-old hands. The D40 felt slightly smaller than my D50, but better than the 400D. The D80 felt nice.

But what surprised me the most was when I picked up the 40D. The camera felt perfect in my hands. It was very solid and well built, the viewfinder blackout was short, and the shutter sounded good. Obviously the zoom and focus rings turned the wrong way from my perspective as a Nikon user, but other than that it was nice. But then I tried to adjust things, and I realized that you have to move your right hand from that comfortable and secure position to adjust damn near anything on the camera. Example: to turn on the top LCD, you have to pull your hand up and over the right side of the camera, reach ACROSS the LCD, and push the button. Doing this requires that you support the camera body with your left hand in the process. Oh, and the power switch is at the bottom of the back. :frown:

Lesson: if you're thinking of investing in full-frame Canon glass and a 1D/1Ds/5D body, you're effectively changing systems from EF-S to EF, and you should consider Nikon as well. Why? Not for IQ, but because your right hand never moves from gripping the right side of the camera. Canon is all well and good once everything is set up and you're taking pictures, but before and after that I find it a pain, because nothing is in easy reach.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: soydios
Eh, I was at Best Buy the other day with a friend sending his laptop in for repair (I was there to make sure he wasn't pwned by Worst Buy, but thankfully the guy at the customer service desk knew what he was doing), and I browsed over to the DSLR section. The Rebel XTi felt puny in my hands, like the grip is designed for 8-year-old hands. The D40 felt slightly smaller than my D50, but better than the 400D. The D80 felt nice.

But what surprised me the most was when I picked up the 40D. The camera felt perfect in my hands. It was very solid and well built, the viewfinder blackout was short, and the shutter sounded good. Obviously the zoom and focus rings turned the wrong way from my perspective as a Nikon user, but other than that it was nice. But then I tried to adjust things, and I realized that you have to move your right hand from that comfortable and secure position to adjust damn near anything on the camera. Example: to turn on the top LCD, you have to pull your hand up and over the right side of the camera, reach ACROSS the LCD, and push the button. Doing this requires that you support the camera body with your left hand in the process. Oh, and the power switch is at the bottom of the back. :frown:

Lesson: if you're thinking of investing in full-frame Canon glass and a 1D/1Ds/5D body, you're effectively changing systems from EF-S to EF, and you should consider Nikon as well. Why? Not for IQ, but because your right hand never moves from gripping the right side of the camera. Canon is all well and good once everything is set up and you're taking pictures, but before and after that I find it a pain, because nothing is in easy reach.

The XT/XTi really needs to be used with the grip. I consider this almost a necessity because it is so small without one and there's no place to put your pinky. With the grip it is a lot more usable, while still being light.

And I agree about the button layout on the Canons. Have to reach across the damned top LCD to get to things like WB or the LCD backlight. My fingers are not that long and it's a pain. The power switch on the back of the body is also retarded, I agree. Despite it being mounted pretty flush and low profile to the body, I've actually accidentally switched it numerous times from it rubbing against me when I'm carrying it. With it in the halfway position the back scroll wheel no longer works, which means things like exposure compensation all of a sudden get disabled when you least expect it. Ugg.

And yeah, Nikon is definitely up there in the running. I like their feel and ergonomics better.

 

[ElFenix]

i hate where the on switch is on the 40D. the xti has a great on switch, you can hit it easily with your right thumb (it's around the dial on the top and its huge). 40D i can barely operate using both hands.

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

The XT/XTi really needs to be used with the grip. I consider this almost a necessity because it is so small without one and there's no place to put your pinky. With the grip it is a lot more usable, while still being light.

pinky goes under the camera where god intended it to go.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i hate where the on switch is on the 40D. the xti has a great on switch, you can hit it easily with your right thumb (it's around the dial on the top and its huge). 40D i can barely operate using both hands.

Heh, when I first got my 30D, moving up from the XT, I looked at the power switch and my brain practically exploded in confusion. I mean, seriously.

 

[jpeyton]

No love for Tamron, Tokina or Sigma on these lists?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
No love for Tamron, Tokina or Sigma on these lists?

2 of the lenses for the 40D list are sigmas. yes, money can be saved by going with alternative lenses, but take a look, you're actually spending more on glass by going with the APS body and alternative lenses than by going with the 135 body and genuine (someone have a better term?) lenses. all because you need faster glass by a little more than a stop to get equivalent images.

yes, as i suggest to fbb the tamron 28-75 would be a good substitute for the 24-105 from a practicality standpoint, and it'd slash about $350 off the price of the 135 system. but to get an equivalent image from the APS system you'd need a 17-55 f/2. no one makes that. and as the point of the thread is pricing for equivalent systems, subbing in alternative lenses and options is really neither here nor there (especially when there isn't a 17-55 f/2).

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
i hate where the on switch is on the 40D. the xti has a great on switch, you can hit it easily with your right thumb (it's around the dial on the top and its huge). 40D i can barely operate using both hands.

Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny

The XT/XTi really needs to be used with the grip. I consider this almost a necessity because it is so small without one and there's no place to put your pinky. With the grip it is a lot more usable, while still being light.

pinky goes under the camera where god intended it to go.

then obviously god did not intend for you to hand-hold a 70-200mm f/2.8. I've used a 70-200mm f/2.8 with my D50 a few times, and my right hand was definitely cramped after about an hour, because the grip wasn't tall enough for me to get full leverage. a vertical-grip camera would solve that problem. hence I'm really hoping for a D90 + MB-D90 release at Photokina in September.

granted with the Nikon layout you do need to reach up with your left hand to get to the WB/ISO control to the left of the rear LCD, but at least your right hand never moves.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: soydios

then obviously god did not intend for you to hand-hold a 70-200mm f/2.8. I've used a 70-200mm f/2.8 with my D50 a few times, and my right hand was definitely cramped after about an hour, because the grip wasn't tall enough for me to get full leverage. a vertical-grip camera would solve that problem. hence I'm really hoping for a D90 + MB-D90 release at Photokina in September.

granted with the Nikon layout you do need to reach up with your left hand to get to the WB/ISO control to the left of the rear LCD, but at least your right hand never moves.

god intended you to have a 50 f/1.7, a 35 f/2, a 28 f/2.8, an 85 f/2, a 105 f/2.8 and a 135 f/3.5. and if you were really lucky you might get a 21 f/3.5 and a 200 f/4. if you were born under a blue moon on the 29th of february you had the mark of the devil but at least you got access to the 500 f/8 mirror.

 

[PHiuR]

If I were to get setup, it would definitely be a full frame camera.

5D
20mm/2.8 USM
50mm/1.4
maybe 35/2

not really necessary, but if you want the long glass...
85/1.8 or 70-200.