Help me decide.......New 5D M2 or a lens.

scottcolbath

For the past three years, my bonus check from work has gone towards camera gear. First my 30D, then a 400mm and an 85 F.1.8, and now this year, I'm not sure.

The 5D is a possibility, as is a lens or two.

I like to shoot motorsports, landscapes, wildlife, and just about anything but weddings and portrait sort of stuff.

I'm not sure where to go. A new body or new glass.

Tip me one way or the other.

S.C.

Candid Arts

Are you happy with the body that you have now? Options, picture quality, comfort of use, etc... Do you need the new features of the 5DMKII? Do you need HD video?

The 30D is a great body. YOU make the picture. Followed by your glass, then the camera. As the 5DMKII is an AMAZING body, and I want one extremely bad, my 50D works plenty plenty fine for anything I need. Now I just need glass to get the pictures I can't reach right now with my limiting 105mm.

My vote...if it's not obvious enough yet...is glass. If you don't decide on glass, you're more than welcome to get the glass and ship it my way...

Manfr3d

Seeing the world we're photographing through a bright and large full frame viewfinder instead of a keyhole is worth the upgrade alone (at least in my opinion). And if you keep your 30D as a backup camera your selection of focal lengths (lenses) has suddenly doubled (1.0x and 1.6x crop).

scottcolbath

Great two responses, both on different sides.

S.C.

Candid Arts

He makes a good point. It sounds like you do a lot of things that are either wide angle, or zoomed all the way in. The wide angle stuff will work better with the 5D as it's full frame, so no crop factor involved. But with the wildlife, the 30D will be more effective as all your telephoto lenses have an effective range of 1.6 times the rated focal length of the lens. So benefits for both.

Buying the 5D and keeping the 30D is a great idea, kind of get the best of both worlds. But you gotta have the lenses for what you like to capture. Tough decision...

Good luck!

Manfr3d

scottcolbath wrote:

Great two responses, both on different sides.

S.C.

Things will clear up the second you try out the 5D II and a new lens on the 30D in a shop.

erson83

scottcolbath wrote:

For the past three years, my bonus check from work has gone towards camera gear. First my 30D, then a 400mm and an 85 F.1.8, and now this year, I'm not sure.

The 5D is a possibility, as is a lens or two.

I like to shoot motorsports, landscapes, wildlife, and just about anything but weddings and portrait sort of stuff.

I'm not sure where to go. A new body or new glass.

Tip me one way or the other.

S.C.

Well...how much more reach do you need? You could buy the Body, and maybe spring for the 1.4 TC...making your 400 MM on the cropped 30d insane!!! That sure sounds nice...

Candid Arts

erson83 wrote:

Well...how much more reach do you need? You could buy the Body, and maybe spring for the 1.4 TC...making your 400 MM on the cropped 30d insane!!! That sure sounds nice...

That'd be roughly an effective 896mm lens. Not too shabby...

Manfr3d

Candid Arts wrote:

That'd be roughly an effective 896mm lens. Not too shabby...

If you crop the 21MP image from the 5D II to the dimension of the 8MP image of a 30D you end up with the same image as shot with the 30D.

Candid Arts

Manfr3d wrote:

If you crop the 21MP image from the 5D II to the dimension of the 8MP image of a 30D you end up with the same image as shot with the 30D.

Same quality maybe yeah, but not the same file size... That'd be greatly reduced.

Manfr3d

Candid Arts wrote:

Same quality maybe yeah, but not the same file size... That'd be greatly reduced.

Oh absolutely so. Let me show you:

5D Mark II (21.0 MP) image size: 5616x3744 Pixel
30D (8.2MP) Image size: 3504x2336 Pixel

We we crop the 5D II file with a crop factor of 1.6 (the crop factor of the 30D) we get a file with the following size:

5616 / 1.6 = 3510
3744 / 1.6 = 2340

and 3510x2340 is practically identical to the file size of the 30D.

ziggy53

Candid Arts wrote:

Same quality maybe yeah, but not the same file size... That'd be greatly reduced.

Nope. The Canon 5D MKII and the Canon 30D both have a pixel density of approximately 2.4 MP/cm², so a 22.5 x 15mm crop out of the 5D MKII (assuming the same lens and distance from the subject) should yield a very similar megapixel count compared to the 20D/30D and a very similar file size as well (assuming identical file type and compression for both images).

Candid Arts

Manfr3d wrote:

Oh absolutely so. Let me show you:

5D Mark II (21.0 MP) image size: 5616x3744 Pixel
30D (8.2MP) Image size: 3504x2336 Pixel

We we crop the 5D II file with a crop factor of 1.6 (the crop factor of the 30D) we get a file with the following size:

5616 / 1.6 = 3510
3744 / 1.6 = 2340

and 3510x2340 is practically identical to the file size of the 30D.

ziggy53 wrote:

Nope. The Canon 5D MKII and the Canon 30D both have a pixel density of approximately 2.4 MP/cm², so a 22.5 x 15mm crop out of the 5D MKII (assuming the same lens and distance from the subject) should yield a very similar megapixel count compared to the 20D/30D and a very similar file size as well (assuming identical file type and compression for both images).

Good Call(s). Wasn't sure on the exact file size the 5DMKII made.

Well then I guess it just comes down to do you need more glass, or the features of the 5DMKII over your 30D?

scottcolbath

Damn, now that's some good conversation. I'm still undecided.

S.C.

catspaw

scottcolbath wrote:

Damn, now that's some good conversation. I'm still undecided.

S.C.

Well, at least you are well informed and educated now!

or toss a coin, buy one, and save up for the other. :ivar

erson83

scottcolbath wrote:

Damn, now that's some good conversation. I'm still undecided.

S.C.

I sure didn't know my TC idea would cause so much discussion. I would venture to say that the file size the 30D is putting out is yielding the pixels needed for what you want. buying TC 1.4 would be a fraction of the price of a big dog lens and, as previously stated, give you plenty of reach. Also, more megapixels means a ton more storage and clogging of the computer. Think about your needs. Do you really need 21 MP? I know I don't. Do you need what the new body is sellin? If you enjoy sports and subjects that enjoy far reaching lenses, then surely 800 plus MM would be sufficiant. (current lens with TC). And if you enjoy landscape and other subjects requiring wide angle, then might a suggest the Tokina 12-24. I love mine. If the images the camera is putting out is sufficiant--why buy the body. (O no, I sound like my wife trying to be rational...hell, buy the body and new lenses-you've earned it right?)

Candid Arts

Might I also suggest the Canon 10-22. Amazing...just won't fit on the 5DMKII.

ripbob

Lens
I vote for a new lens. Good luck on your choice.

Candid Arts

You've specified the body you want if you go that route, but what lens are you gonna get if you go the lens route?

scottcolbath

More excellent talk.

Lens.........Mmm. I don't have a nice wide angle lens. I think that is what I would be considering. Of course, one of the downfalls of the 30D is the 1.6 crop. It's great when going the telephoto way, but not the wide way.

My current lenses are:

18-55 kit lens
28-135 EF-S
85m F/1.8
100-300 EF
400mm F/5.6L

If I'm going to remain with the 30D body for a while, the 10-22 would not yield me much more than the 18-55 once you do the 1.6 crop math, although I'm sure it takes a much nicer picture.

I guess I'm looking at what would essentially be upgrading to a better quality lens in one particular range. Maybe replace the 100-300 with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L (close enough) or replace the 18-55 with the 10-22.

S.C.

scottcolbath

BTW, will I retain autofocus with the teleconverter on my 30D with the 400mm?

S.C.

Candid Arts

scottcolbath wrote:

More excellent talk.

Lens.........Mmm. I don't have a nice wide angle lens. I think that is what I would be considering. Of course, one of the downfalls of the 30D is the 1.6 crop. It's great when going the telephoto way, but not the wide way.

My current lenses are:

18-55 kit lens
28-135 EF-S
85m F/1.8
100-300 EF
400mm F/5.6L

If I'm going to remain with the 30D body for a while, the 10-22 would not yield me much more than the 18-55 once you do the 1.6 crop math, although I'm sure it takes a much nicer picture.

I guess I'm looking at what would essentially be upgrading to a better quality lens in one particular range. Maybe replace the 100-300 with the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L (close enough) or replace the 18-55 with the 10-22.

S.C.

Go to a photo store, with your 30D. Set your camera on a tripod, or something so the camera doesn't move while you switch lenses. Put your 18-55 on the camera, take a picture. Then put the 10-22 on and take a picture. Review both photos. Purchase 10-22.

It is SO much wider than an 18-55. It's SO much wider than the 16-35 L, and the 14mm 2.8L even. It is ridiculously wide. 8mm on the wide end shows a lot more subject than 8mm on the narrow end.

ziggy53

scottcolbath wrote:

BTW, will I retain autofocus with the teleconverter on my 30D with the 400mm?

S.C.

I do not believe that the AF section of the Canon 30D is designed to work beyond f5.6. I do think there is a method of taping some pins on the teleconverter that would allow AF but it would probably be slow. I think only the Canon 1D/1Ds bodies allow AF at f8.

20DNoob

scottcolbath wrote:

BTW, will I retain autofocus with the teleconverter on my 30D with the 400mm?

S.C.

The quick easy answer, nope. Unless your using the 2.8 version and if you had that one I imagine money wouldn't be much of an issue.

The wonkier answer, yes. Some TCs' are non-reporting(couldn't tell you which ones) so you can AF albeit slowly. You could try the ol' taped pin trick but from what I remember reading about it it's pretty iffy locking on.

Edit: Lol, Zig beat me to it.

Edit 2: 1 series will AF to f/8.

kdog

ziggy53 wrote:

I do think there is a method of taping some pins on the teleconverter that would allow AF but it would probably be slow.

I have tried the taping pins method with three different TCs by three different manufacturers (Canon, Kenko, and Tamron), on two different 400mm lenses, across two different bodies (20D, and 40D). So I think I'm qualified to say that it works like crap. The AF isn't just slow, but oscillates (hunts) at a rapid rate, and sometimes never achieves lock. For whatever reason, the 100-400 actually locks more successfully with the TC than does the 400mm, however it's still very dicey. Meanwhile, all that oscillation sounds to me like it's beating the snot out of the lens AF system. Thus, I no longer tape pins now.

Regards,
-joel

scottcolbath

20DNoob wrote:

The quick easy answer, nope. Unless your using the 2.8 version and if you had that one I imagine money wouldn't be much of an issue.

Honestly, while I am not rich, I have stepped forward in to the DSLR world with some caution, and a level of frugality as I learn all this stuff. I could drop the big money on high end stuff, but I don't think I'm the caliber of photog yet where it would be worth it. That is why I'm considering the 5D M2 or some lenses. A 1D is likely in my future, once I know I can make use of its abilities, and the complimentary lenses along with it.

S.C.

20DNoob

scottcolbath wrote:

Honestly, while I am not rich, I have stepped forward in to the DSLR world with some caution, and a level of frugality as I learn all this stuff. I could drop the big money on high end stuff, but I don't think I'm the caliber of photog yet where it would be worth it. That is why I'm considering the 5D M2 or some lenses. A 1D is likely in my future, once I know I can make use of its abilities, and the complimentary lenses along with it.

S.C.

My bank account wishes I shared the same logic.

At the moment I'm struggling between the 5D MkII for the insane ISO range and the 1D MkIII for the killer AF and the slightly higher ISO than the MkII N.

I'm thinking the MkIII is going to win this one.

scottcolbath

I just had a thought. Actually, I had it on Wednesday, but I was out of town.

Another way to make this decision........

Is the new 5D Mark 2 a better camera than my 30D when we are talking about shooting action/sports photography?

I ask it this way because if the 5D is no better for action/sports than my 30D, and the only advantage is the higher resolution (and I'm not forgetting the math lesson earlier in this thread) and HD video, which I like, but don't need, then I think the answer presents itself, and the 1D Mark 3 is the best choice at this time.

S.C.

tijoseph

scottcolbath wrote:

More excellent talk.

Lens.........Mmm. I don't have a nice wide angle lens. I think that is what I would be considering. Of course, one of the downfalls of the 30D is the 1.6 crop. It's great when going the telephoto way, but not the wide way.

My current lenses are:

18-55 kit lens
28-135 EF-S
85m F/1.8
100-300 EF
400mm F/5.6L



S.C.

Considering what you have now for lenses, I'm guessing your main bread and butter lense is the 28-135 ef-s. You won't be able to use this on the mark 2. And I'm not sure how happy you will be with the 18-55 kit lense on it either. I think, if you bought the mark2, your looking at buying another lense also.

With that said, I just got my mark 2 last week, and man do I love it. It screams for L glass though like your 400mm.

You mentioned action photography, I did some fast motorcycle shooting and was very capable of using servo focus mode, and snapped off a ton of clear images. It followed them right around the corners no problem.

Of course, I have no idea how good your current camera does it, and I know it has alot to do with the lense. In this case, a 24-70 2.8 L

So in summation, my advice is to buy a new lense or two, wait until next year when the camera body falls a bit in price. Just buy lenses you know will work well with a full frame camera.

tijoseph

20DNoob wrote:

My bank account wishes I shared the same logic.

At the moment I'm struggling between the 5D MkII for the insane ISO range and the 1D MkIII for the killer AF and the slightly higher ISO than the MkII N.

I'm thinking the MkIII is going to win this one.

For what it is worth, in this april 2009 shutterbug mag, page 127 does a short comparison betweem the mark 2 and the 1d mark 3. It says the 1d is not worth the extra 5 grand.

It says among other things "the 5d mark 2 offers a more advanced processing engine, which pays dividends when in super-high iso territory...."
it continues when comparing the two and picking the mark2 as the winner "kind of a no-brainer here"

There a tons of example iso pictures online. All I know is I am super impressed with mine. I don't see how it can be beat!

ziggy53

tijoseph wrote:

Considering what you have now for lenses, I'm guessing your main bread and butter lense is the 28-135 ef-s. You won't be able to use this on the mark 2. And I'm not sure how happy you will be with the 18-55 kit lense on it either. I think, if you bought the mark2, your looking at buying another lense also.

...

The Canon EF 28-135mm, f/3.5-5.6 IS USM is indeed capable of use on either the 1D/1Ds or 5D bodies as it is a full frame format lens. It is often bundled with the Canon xxD cameras and I think that's why some folks think of it an EF-S crop lens.

The Canon EF-S 18-55mm, f/3.5-5.6 is a crop only lens and will not even mount on the 1D/1Ds or 5D bodies.