Out went the Canon EOS 5D and in its place came the Nikon D700.  So, why the big move?

• Improved high ISO performance. From everything I’ve seen, read and heard from others, the D700 has arguably the best low-light capabilities of current DLSRs.  As I mostly shoot in natural light without flash, being able to use higher ISO settings without significantly degrading image quality is a significant benefit to me.
• Automatic ISO selection. This was a hugely useful feature which I missed on the 5D.  Shifting in and out of low light conditions meant manually changing ISO along the way.  Forget to change from ISO 1600 when moving from a dim room into the bright outdoors meant unnecessarily noisy images.  Then there’s the reverse of moving from bright conditions into low light with ISO 100 and trying to shoot with shutter speeds likely to suffer from camera shake.  This might not be an issue for some, but it was for me.
• Up to 9-exposure bracketing. The 5D could bracket up to +/-2 stops, but only for 3 frames.  The D700 is capable of bracketing more frames which offers potentially better material for HDR.
• Live View. I’ve found this to be a very useful feature for those times when looking through the viewfinder is difficult (e.g. when holding the camera overhead) or just not the preferred option (e.g. when shooting candids).
• Electronic virtual horizon. For landscape shooting, I usually carried a hot shoe mounted double-axis spirit level to help ensure my horizons are level, but this meant not being able to mount a flash gun or radio remote release receiver.  The virtual horizon removes the need for a separate accessory and can be layed over the Live View image.
• Bigger, higher resolution LCD monitor. Compared with the 5D, reviewing images is a whole lot easier with the D700.  A larger screen with a higher resolution gives me a better idea of whether a shot was focused correctly and is sharp etc.
• Access to the Nikon 14-24mm f/2.8 lens. I love shooting landscapes and usually with an ultra-wide lens.  On the 40D, I used a Canon EF-S 10-22mm and on the 5D I used an EF 17-40L.  The images and reviews of the Nikon 14-24mm showed it to be a fantastically sharp lens, even sharper than some fixed focal length lenses within the same focal range.
• Improved autofocus system. With 51 autofocus points and more focus modes than I can shake a stick at, the D700 has the best performing AF of any camera I’ve used.
• Faster access to important settings. Having more dial and switches to control important functions such as autofocus mode and bracketing means less time hunting through menus.
• Built-in wireless TTL control of remote flashguns. Who needs a separate remote flash controller when there’s one built right into the pop-up flash.
• Built-in pop-up flash. Whilst it’s not something I’d use unless I really had to having the option of a flash on board is a nice option to have when you’re desparate for light and you don’t have your flashgun to hand.
• Ability to use lenses designed for cropped sensor bodies (DX) on a full frame body (FX). When I sold my Canon 40D and old-graded to the 5D, I was forced to replace my EF-S mount lenses with EF lenses.  I’m unlikely to want to use DX lenses, but it’s nice to have the option and should also make the upgrade path for existing DX users a little smoother as they’d be able to continue using their lenses before upgrading to FX lenses.

The above are some of the main reasons why I migrated to Nikon.  At this moment in time, Canon just don’t seem to be able to offer what Nikon can at this level.  The 5D Mark II was the obvious consideration, but with all I’ve researched the D700 was the better route for me to take because it seemed to be the better overall package.

For example, Nikon’s implementation of the auto-ISO feature is an excellent example of how they’re delivering to photographer’s needs.  Not only does the D700 (and some other Nikon cameras) let you specify a maximum ISO value, but you also get to specify a base ISO and a minimum shutter speed which it will maintain by varying the ISO giving you the best quality output for as long as possible.

For example, let’s say you set the base ISO to 200, minimum shutter speed to 1/100s and maximum ISO to 6400.  This means the camera will try to maintain ISO 200 as possible as long as it’s able to use a shutter speed of at least 1/100s.  Only when 1/100s becomes insufficient for the metered scene is the ISO increased.  Fabulous!  It’s so obvious and yet not every camera manufacturer offers this feature.  Why?

So, on the whole, the move to Nikon has been a wholly successful one barring a slight defect with the D700 I received and I’m very impressed with the lenses I’ve got.  The 14-24mm f/2.8 is very wide and very sharp.  The 24-70mm f/2.8 is also incredibly sharp.  Much sharper than Canon’s equivalent L lens, I’d say.  The 85mm f/1.8 is astounding as a portrait lens.  Its relatively low cost belies its sharpness wide open and its ability to blur a background.  The built-in remote flash control has opened up a whole new area of photography for me to explore and so far, I’m loving that too.

If Canon had produced a like-for-like equivalent to the D700 then I probably would still be shooting Canon now.  Trouble is, they had their chance with the 5D Mark II and, in my opinion, blew it.

Anyway, the path from 40D to 5D is considered by most to be an upward one due to the increase in sensor size even though the 40D is 2 years the junior in terms of release dates.

Okay, bigger sensor size.  What exactly does that mean?

Technically speaking, DPReview provides the following information about the difference in 40D and 5D sensors:

Canon EOS 40D

• 10.1 million effective pixels
• 3.1 MP/cm² pixel density
• 22.2 x 14.8 mm CMOS sensor

Canon EOS 5D

• 12.7 million effective pixels
• 1.5 MP/cm² pixel density
• 35.8 x 23.9 mm CMOS sensor

These spec’s tell us that the 5D’s sensor has a much greater area (855.62mm²) to capture light than the 40D’s (328.56mm²), approximately 20% more pixels, but that the pixels are spread less densely.  We know that the individual photosites which collect the light from the scene are larger.  This means they can collect more light than the photosites in the 40D sensor within the same period of time.  More light means more information about the scene and less pixel density means each photosite is exposed to less noise-causing interference from other photosites.

In real-world terms, this equates to:

• Greater dynamic range
• Less image noise especially at higher ISO settings
• Easier to blur backgrounds due to shallower depth of field (no field of view crop factor)

For me and the type of photography I engage in, this means the sensor in the 5D is a better sensor than that in the 40D.  There are, of course, other differences between the two camera bodies, but none are as important to me than the sensor.  Now, with that out of the way, have I actually noticed any difference in the photos I take?  The answer to that is most definitely yes!

In terms of user experience, some of the differences I noted 5 months ago are still prominent.  The biggest ‘downgrade’ for me in terms of user experience is the lack of a permanent display of the current ISO setting in the viewfinder.  Accidentally shooting at ISO 3200 when ISO 400 would have been a better choice is just too easy to do.  Also, more of an issue is the amount of sensor cleaning that can be required.  A lack of an automatic sensor cleaning feature costs time and money spent on cleaning tools.  Less annoying are the lack of Live View and the smaller LCD on the back of the camera.

All in all, I’m very happy with the move I made from the 40D to the 5D.  Even though the 5D Mark II has been release, I still feel very content with my Mark I.  When teamed up with a selection of good quality lenses, it’s a combination I find difficult to falter.

However, having shot with 35mm film in the past, in the back of my mind there was always the desire to get back to shooting with a full frame sensor.  With the recent release of the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, I decided it was a good time to look for used copies of the 5D Mark I.  Given that the 5D is 2-years older than the 40D, it might seem like a bit of a downgrade, but most of the features I use are also on the 5D and then there’s that glorious full frame sensor.

After much consideration, I ordered a used 5D body earlier in the week and received it yesterday.  As yet, I’ve not been able to test my 5D outdoors.  I only got it after darkness had fallen and the weather today has been awful.

Here’s what I’ve found to be the biggest differences between the 5D and 40D (relevant to my style of shooting), so far:

• Full frame sensor. The 5D features a 35.8 x 23.9 mm CMOS sensor as opposed to the 40D’s 22.2 x 14.8 mm CMOS sensor.  That’s approximately 2.6-times the surface area which is quite a significant difference and I’m hoping to see this difference reflected in image quality especially when it comes to shooting landscapes.
• 2.7 million more pixels. More pixels, but spread over a larger area.  Aside from the numbers, I don’t yet know what the real life difference is until I can get out to test it.
• Smaller LCD screen. This makes reviewing images slightly less beneficial as it’s more difficult to see whether or not anything’s blurred.  The 40D screen isn’t ideal for this purpose either, due to it’s relatively low resolution compared to the likes of the 5D MKII, but at least it’s 0.5-inches bigger.  You can still zoom the played back image as per the 40D.
• LCD screen flanked by buttons on left-hand side. This means the LCD screen is further away from the left-hand edge which is a plus point for me as I’m forever getting oil from my nose onto it resulting in constant wiping of the screen.  I’m not as bothered about greasy buttons.
• No built-in flash. Apparently, the larger prism means there’s no room left for a built-in flash.  This isn’t much of an issue for me since I rarely used the 40D’s built-in flash as the results I got from it weren’t great.
• No Auto ISO in AV mode. Aperture priority mode is where I spend most of my time and the 40D provides automatic ISO selection in this mode whereas the 5D only offers automatic ISO selection in fully automatic.  I usually shoot in the lower ISO modes, but do find auto ISO useful on occasion so this is something I’ll miss.
• No fully automatic picture modes i.e. portrait mode, sports mode, night time mode. The 5D’s target audience is more towards the professional end of the market so there are less of the more consumer oriented features.  Again, not really an issue for me since I never really used them.
• No Live View. The 5D pre-dates Live View and this, unfortunately, is one feature that I’ll miss especially when it comes to framing low-level macro shots.
• More prominent Depth of Field preview button. It’s in the same location, but it protudes more from the body making it easier to find.  I always had trouble trying to find the DoF button on the 40D when looking through the viewfinder.  Maybe it was more flush with the body because it was less likely to be used on a more consumer-oriented body?
• Different shutter release sound. The mirror of the 5D still clunks, but the shutter noise is more of a whisper.  It doesn’t make any difference to image quality nor does it have any impact on how I use it.  It’s just a difference I noticed straight away.  I guess it’s similar to noticing the difference between exhaust notes when it comes to cars i.e. a bit nerdy!
• No sensor cleaning. The 40D automatically shakes the sensor upon start-up and shut down.  The 5D has no such feature and any dust collecting on the sensor has to be removed manually.
• Different menu structure. The menus that control the 5D’s behaviour are structured into a single list with the jump button to take you straight to the next section as opposed to the tabbed approach of the 40D.  No great shakes here, but the 5D method might be a littler easier to use.
• Only 10-second self-timer. On the 40D, I used the 2-second self-timer a lot as a means of releasing the shutter without causing any movement of the camera or lens.  10-seconds is too long to wait to take a shot.  Fortunately, I’ve got a cheapo wired remote release which I can use instead.  It’s just not as convenient.
• Different layout of function buttons. For some reason, Canon decided to change the layout of the function buttons that live in front of the right-hand LCD.  That means it’s going to take me a little while before I can change ISO without taking my eye away from the viewfinder.
• Current ISO hidden away. The 40D shows the current ISO value in the viewfinder and in the top-right LCD panel at all times.  The 5D only shows the current ISO when you press the ISO button to change it to a different value.  I think this was a very poor design decision since it’s too easy to be shooting at a completely unsuitable ISO without knowing it.

Full frame means that I can no longer use the APS-C format EF-S lenses, but it does mean that I get much closer to subjects  in order to obtain the same field of view.  This can make a huge difference when it comes to making a subject more prominent against a blurred background and it’s this shallower depth of field that I was really hankering after.  From the indoor test shots I’ve taken, the shallower depth of field is very noticeable.

Hopefully, the weather tomorrow will be improved and I’ll be able to get some naturally-lit shots.

As well as the f/1.8, there are f/1.4 (2/3-stop faster than f/1.8) and f/1.2L (1/3-stop faster than f/1.4) versions each with their own strengths and weaknesses.

• 50mm f/1.8 (aka nifty fifty) offers sharpness, shallow depth of field and low-light capability in a very light and inexpensive lens.
• 50mm f/1.4 improves on the build quality, image quality, autofocus performance and bokeh of the f/1.8.
• 50mm f/1.2L delivers the best sharpness, image quality and build of the range, but at a cost of money and weight.

On a full-frame camera these lenses offer a versatile focal length suitable for a wide variety of different subjects.  On a cropped sensor body, the 50mm focal length moonlights well as a short portrait lens, highly usable for full-body through to head and shoulder portraits.  The maximum f/1.4 aperture is very effective at blurring backgrounds helping subjects to really pop out of a photo.

I used to own a 50mm lens on my old Canon 1000FN, but must admit that it didn’t get to see much action.

Now, with my 1.6x cropped sensor 40D, my 70-200mm f/4L is just too long to get the kind of bokeh I really want for portraits and as good as my EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 is sometimes its depth of field just isn’t shallow enough.

After seeing its almost cult-like following and a number of wonderful shots (including this one), I decided to take the plunge again with a 50mm lens after deciding the EF 85mm f/1.8 would just be too long for portraits on my 40D.

Interesting to note that Canon’s 50mm f/1.4 seems to fall behind in the sharpness and contrast stakes when compared against Sigma’s own 50mm f/1.4.  Here’s a link to a 100% crop comparison of Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM and Sigma 50mm f/1.4 EX DG HSM and I’m afraid to say that the difference is very apparent.

Given that the Sigma costs about £100 more than the Canon it ought to perform better, but of course they’re just photos of charts.  What’s more important is their performance in the field and I’m glad to report the Canon’s no slouch in any department.  What’s more, the shallow depth of field and bokeh – albeit octagonal – make for very pleasing results.

• 15.1 MP (APS-C) CMOS sensor
• DIGIC 4 processor
• ISO range up to 12800
• 3.0″ 920,000 dot VGA LCD with Live View
• Face detection technology [on a semi-pro model?!]
• AF adjustment

I’ll leave the feature debate for others and simply say that I won’t be replacing my 40D with the new 50D.  Why?  The feature set isn’t so different from that of the 40D and the next major feature step for me would be to a full frame sensor body.  Even then, I don’t see such a purchase anywhere on my horizon.  For the time being, my 40D serves me well.  Besides, £1,200 would be better spent on a nice, shiny new 70-200 f/2.8 L IS USM lens instead.

Read a preview of the 50D at DPReview and place your pre-order at Warehouse Express.

Also in the news is the release of the Canon EF-S 18-200mm 1:3.5-5.6 IS zoom lens; a lens that’s sure to be popular as a walkabout lens.

What’s a good walkabout lens for my xxxD?

Rather than it being a reference to lenses with legs, a walkabout lens is one with which you might take out on a day of walking whether it be to a park, to the shops or to your friends barbeque. The requirement being that because you don’t know what type of subject you’re going to come across you take a lens that can cover most general situations rather than lugging about a heavy bag filled with lenses. Prime lenses don’t fall into this category very well unless you’re deliberately wanting to restrict yourself to a single focal length. As such, zoom lenses – particularly those around the ‘standard’ lengths – are favoured for this role. In particular, zoom lenses that start at a wider (<= 35mm) focal length and reach up to short telephoto (=> 50mm). These ranges often provide a good balance between focal length range, image quality, cost and weight. As I shoot with a 40D, my own choice of a walkabout lens has to take into account the ‘multiplication factor’ due to the cropped sensor. Initially, the Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM zoom was my choice of lens. After deciding that I wanted a standard zoom which offered a faster aperture, I bought a Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM zoom lens despite reports about problems with dust. After my initial encounter with dust inside the lens, I’m glad to say that I’ve not had any more such issues and that the lens has performed brilliantly for me.

If I could only take one lens out with me, perhaps if I was traveling and wanted to keep weight to a minimum, my choice of walkabout lens would be the Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. It’s certainly not the cheapest lens in this category, but it’s by far one of the best for a cropped sensor Canon DSLR in terms of features and performance.

The listing also attracted over 40 watchers, that is people subscribing to monitor the auction, and also a number of queries from potential buyers outside of the UK.

From what I could see, despite the bountiful supply of lenses from Hong Kong, there is an unfulfilled demand for genuine used Canon SLR lenses on eBay.

After 22 bids, my lens was finally sold for £230 which is about £100 off the retail price. Considering I only bought it in mid-March and it’s in pristine condition, it was quite a bargain.

Fingers crossed it’ll arrive at the buyer’s address safely…

Typical. Weeks after I buy myself a Canon Speedlite 430EX, Canon announce its replacement; the 430EX II. Still, from an initial read of the announcement, it doesn’t look like I’ve missed out on much. New features are said to be:

• 20% reduction in recycle times meaning it’s ready to fire quicker than the model it replaces.
• The high-pitched whine normally associated with a charging flash has been eliminated and it’s now silent to minimise distraction. Can’t say I ever found it distracting.
• The mounting foot is now metal constructed for a more robust connection with a camera body.
• A new quick release and locking mechanism has also been incorporated.
• In Manual mode, the Speedlite 430EX II allows the light output to be altered in 1/3 stop increments for increased precision of operation, bringing it into line with the 580EX.
• All on-flash settings can be controlled using the camera menu system.

I haven’t seen any prices yet, though.

EOS 1000D

Canon also announced a new entry level DSLR in the form of the EOS 1000D, this week. Supposedly pegged lower than the 450D, the 1000D is available at £499 (body only) and the 450D at £459 (body only). I can’t quite figure Canon’s logic on the price point since the 450D is better specified, cheaper and itself was only announced 5 months ago.

Many people are suggesting that the 1000D is aimed at those looking to replace their point and shoot cameras, but even Canon’s own fantastic G9 is a whole £200 cheaper than just the body so it’s not such an easy decision to fall into.

Back when I was first thinking about buying my 40D, I thought about the first lens I wanted to go with it. I considered the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM, but decided against it due to the relatively high cost. Then, after a couple of months with the EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM I settled upon, I decided I wanted, no, needed the 17-55mm!

The pull of the f/2.8 was just too strong and so last week I took delivery of the lens (and am now looking to re-home my 17-85mm) and it was just how I expected it to be; the fast aperture and IS resulted in an excellent low light performance and the autofocus is blazingly fast.

A couple of aspects which I’d read about, but weren’t expecting were:

• Slightly stiff zoom ring. The zooming action just doesn’t have the silky, dampened action of an L lens such as my 70-200mm f/4. Perhaps the stiffness will ease up over time. We’ll see.
• Clunking at each zoom extreme When you hit either 17mm or 55mm, you really do hit it. The clunking is even there when turning the zoom ring slowly.
• Dust behind the front element. I’d read about a potential dust problem, but didn’t think I’d be seeing it after less than a week. I don’t know how it’s getting into the lens, but I’ve managed to shake off a piece of dust that was sitting on the glass behind the front element. It’s not affecting image quality, though. I even attached a UV filter as soon as I removed the lens from its packaging so I don’t think the dust is making its way through there. See what people are doing to remove the dust [1, 2, 3].

These points aside, I’m going to give the lens a chance to make me overlook the points above and convince me that they don’t impact on what I’m expecting to be a superb lens.  After all, I don’t think a bit of dust inside the lens is going to be an issue at when something like this is taken into consideration.

Oh, and no, I don’t think it quite deserves to bear the L designation. At least not with the above, albeit minor, faults.

Follow-up

After a few months of using this lens, I have to say that I love it.  The dust issue that some people seem to complain about is a non-issue to me as image quality isn’t compromised at all.  The lens’ performance is outstanding; it’s incredibly sharp even wide open, focuses fast and works well in low light thanks to the fast f/2.8 aperture and IS.  For cropped Canon bodies, I think this is the best walkabout lens you could possibly get.  It’s not a cheap lens, but what you get is L-like performance on an EF-S mount.