5DMkII, 50D - what to do?

timk519

My current situation is I've already got a full set of crop-body lenses (10-22, 28-135 IS, 18-55 2.8 IS, 70-300 DO IS, 70-200L 2.8 IS), that I've been using with my Rebel XT with great success, but I've been thinking of the 5DMkII.

So far, it would seem that the only lenses that would work with a MkII would be the 70-200L 2.8 and (maybe) the 28-135 IS. (I read elsewhere that this lens will work with a full-frame sensor - true or no?)

If I were to go to the MkII - what lenses would I need in order to cover the same range I've got covered now? Alternatively, if I don't need on-board HD video, would I be better off going with the 50D, and stay with the lenses I already have?

My primary reason for thinking of a better body is for high-ISO shooting.

ziggy53

timk519 wrote:

My current situation is I've already got a full set of crop-body lenses (10-22, 28-135 IS, 18-55 2.8 IS, 70-300 DO IS, 70-200L 2.8 IS), that I've been using with my Rebel XT with great success, but I've been thinking of the 5DMkII.

So far, it would seem that the only lenses that would work with a MkII would be the 70-200L 2.8 and (maybe) the 28-135 IS. (I read elsewhere that this lens will work with a full-frame sensor - true or no?)

If I were to go to the MkII - what lenses would I need in order to cover the same range I've got covered now? Alternatively, if I don't need on-board HD video, would I be better off going with the 50D, and stay with the lenses I already have?

My primary reason for thinking of a better body is for high-ISO shooting.

Canon EF lenses are full-frame lenses. The Canon EF 28-135mm, f3.5-5.6 IS USM is definitely a full-frame lens.

For high-ISO work there is no better Canon camera, in terms of low noise, than the Canon 5D MKII. The Canon 1Ds MKIII is similar noise levels to ISO 1600 but with a much better AF system.

Rather than try to duplicate the range you have for the crop camera, just use what you have and build towards what works for the full-frame format.

For instance, you may feel the need for a super-wide zoom and the Canon EF 17-40mm, f4L USM is an awfully good choice. Couple that with your EF 28-135mm, f3.5-5.6 IS USM and your EF 70-200mm f2.8L IS USM and you would have a very capable range. I do think ultimately the EF 24-70mm, f2.8L would serve you better as a standard zoom but you could add it as needed.

Also pick up the Canon 1.4x teleconverter to extend the reach of your 70-200mm and you would have a very nice system.

I would also add the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM to get ridiculous low-light capabilities and then maybe a 1:1 macro to round things off.

pathfinder

The 70-300 DO IS will work with full frame cameras also - it works on my sons 1DsMkII.

The 5DMkII will definitely do better at the higher ISOs than the 50D. The 50D is a great camera, but the 5DMkII will clearly excel above ISO 1000-1600.

You may find you want to add a 16-35 f2.8 L II to have the width you get with the 10-22 on a crop body.

As Ziggy said, the 28-135 is a nice lens, but not the equal in image quality of the 24-70f2.8 or the 24-105 f4 IS L which is my choice of a walk around lens for my 5D. I own a 24-70 f2.8 but find it too large and too heavy to carry on my shoulder all day compared to the lighter, and longer 24-105 IS L - unless - I am going to be shooting indoors in dim light, where the 24-70 f2.8 really shines.

The 50 f1.4 is gem, and pretty cheap as well.

Robinivich

The 17-55f2.8 IS and the 10-22mm are the two lenses you'd be leaving behind by moving to full frame. I own both and love them on my 40D. Either choice (50d or 5d II) represents an absolutely massive upgrade from an XT (which was my main camera for a few years). I think that the 10-22 and the 17-55 will give you excellent performance on the 50d, they are two of the only EF-S lenses that I think would handle 15 megapixels well.

You'd be looking at a 17-40L and a 24-70L to "replace" them for use on a 5d II. You'd also be somewhat limited in telephoto range, the 70-200 has been behaving like a 112-320 on your XT, and your 70-300 DO like a 112-480 lens. So basically if you shoot some telephoto subjects like birds, large field sports, etc, you might need to look at a more serious telephoto like a 100-400. The 28-135 is probably going to strain to give you 21 megapixels of detail, but it's a handy range with a stabilizer for non-critical shots, vacation type stuff.

To weigh against the added expense of going FF, you'd have an incredible viewfinder, the toughest non-1-series canon, 21 megapixels, and greater high ISO performance than almost any other camera out there.

Personally ever since a wily salesperson gave me a chance to look through a 5d's viewfinder, it's been my ambition to go FF, but I'm at least a few years away still. If you are able to afford it, I'd say go 5d II, but keep in mind that the 50d won't be much behind, just high ISO and video really.

Ric Grupe

How about a 40D...and a 100-400 lens...both for less than the 5D2.

Some people prefer the 40D over the 50D and it cost less.

Just food for thought.

Zanotti

There has been some discussion on shutter lag on the 5dMII, making it difficult to use for sports? Anyone experiance this?

Also, given the larger sensor size, DOF is reduced. So, perhaps if you crop a 5D photo to a 50D size, they will be the same size, but the 5D will show less DOF - good or bad - hard to decide.

Or is all this simply internet legends and nothing to worry about?

I too think of the options between 5DMII and a 50D, not really over these things, bit overall use as a general use camera. You know, not a pro, but an advanced novice who does a little bit of everything, but doesnt specialize in anything.

I dont have EFS lenses, have mostly "L" glass and want good quality photos of a wide rande of situations. I go between family portraits, kids sports, and small wildlife.

I am not Harry B, or Nik but a minor combination of both. I just enjoy sharp clean images, easy set up, and a capable kit.

My own progression is from a P&S, to a Rebel, to now using a 30D.

I watch with interest these discussions to help decide.


Z

ziggy53

Zanotti wrote:

There has been some discussion on shutter lag on the 5dMII, making it difficult to use for sports? Anyone experiance this? ...

AF acquisition speed (or AF lag)
AI Servo speed and accuracy
Shutter lag
Meter lag
Mirror blackout
FPS
Buffer depth
File write-out speed
Low-light affectations
etc.

... are all measures which impact "responsiveness" and which may affect the ability to capture action, whether it's sports or photojournalism.

Basically anything that improves the responsiveness of a camera is probably a good thing for action photography. Whether it is always necessary is a topic for much discussion and considerable interpretation and sometimes zealous beliefs.

My own priorities are that for sports/action the AF must respond quickly and accurately and in low light. This is absolutely critical. AI Servo speed and accuracy factor into this equation. The faster the AI Servo acquires and the more accurately it can predict the better for sports/action. The lenses used are often a major component of the AF system and some lenses are much better than others for sports/action. I still believe that the Canon 1D/1Ds AF systems are considerably better than the other Canon AF systems in terms of speed and accuracy and low-light sensitivity. While not absolutely necessary for sports/action it is certainly helpful and I think allows more keepers.

Shutter lag and the ability of the camera to recycle and prepare for the next shot are the next most important qualities because if the camera takes too long to respond to my request via the shutter release, I can lose the opportunity of that moment.

FPS is important for sequences but I often shoot very small bursts for those sequences. I don't often shoot in bursts but sometimes it is important in telling the story of the event. (In other words buffer depth and file write-out speeds are less critical to my style of shooting. The nearly 5 year old 1D MKII cameras do fine for my needs.)

Zanotti wrote:

... Also, given the larger sensor size, DOF is reduced. So, perhaps if you crop a 5D photo to a 50D size, they will be the same size, but the 5D will show less DOF - good or bad - hard to decide.

Or is all this simply internet legends and nothing to worry about?

...

..., this is a misconception. The same focal length lens (at a given aperture) on both crop camera and a full frame camera cropped to the size of the crop camera will have the same DOF and FOV. The misconception originates in how we use the different focal length lenses on the different formats.

Zanotti

Ziggy:

You have long commented on how well the 1D series works on sports. If I worked for SI, then I would most assuredly have a 1D series camera.

That aside, as an owner of the new 5DMII, do you still think this true from a practical point of view? Yes, perhaps, as a professional you are of course right, but as an advanced amature is this really so in every day use?

I once read that mirror lock up was "glacial" on the 5DMIII - but of course this was from one of the Sports Shooter guys who measure everything to the nth degree.

Going back to the origional premise, is the 5DMII a viable everyday camera - say with a 24-105 and 70-210 set of lenses?


Z

ziggy53

Zanotti wrote:

Ziggy:

You have long commented on how well the 1D series works on sports. If I worked for SI, then I would most assuredly have a 1D series camera.

That aside, as an owner of the new 5DMII, do you still think this true from a practical point of view? Yes, perhaps, as a professional you are of course right, but as an advanced amature is this really so in every day use?

I once read that mirror lock up was "glacial" on the 5DMIII - but of course this was from one of the Sports Shooter guys who measure everything to the nth degree.

Going back to the origional premise, is the 5DMII a viable everyday camera - say with a 24-105 and 70-210 set of lenses?


Z

Your original question had a query about sports. While I think that the 5D MKII has somewhat better AF speed than the original 5D and the fps has improved by about 1/3rd, the shutter lag and mirror blackout are about the same.

Here is some information I gathered and reformatted from the following link:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx

The pertinent data:



Note the time differentials between the 5D models and the 1D models. The shutter lag is one of the timings before the camera responds and the blackout is a timing before you can do anything else. Add the slower AF speeds of the 5D models and you can begin to see how you might be affected.

Would "you" be affected? (That's a very ubiquitous and global "you" meaning anyone reading this thread.) That would depend upon the nature of the action, your ability to anticipate and respond, the proximity of the action, the amount of available light, etc.

I know everybody would like a cut-and-dried answer but it is not like that.

There was a time when I shot some American HS football using a Canon XT. Did I get any results? Of course I got some images, but neither a large number of images nor a large number of keepers. After considerable research, and watching a friend with his Canon 20D, I decided that my best course was both a lens upgrade and a camera upgrade. I upgraded from an older Sigma 70-210mm, f2.8 to a Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L USM and from the XT to a 1D MKII. My capture and keeper rate both went up but the keeper rate was a higher slope, meaning that I was getting a much better return for my time and money.

The keeper rate for night games was probably 4 times that of the XT. That is a significant increase.

Was it worth the money? It was to me. I have no idea whether it would be worth it to anyone else. I know that the number of visitor to my site also skyrocketed and I think I had one month of around 35,000 hits against the site. People seemd to like the images of their children (parents) and classmates (kids).

I purchased the 5D MKII as a special purpose camera and I will probably never try sports with it. I do not think it would make a very good sports camera.

As a general purpose camera, again it depends. I still use the XT/350D for just knocking around and especially when it might get lost or stolen. (For instance camping or festivals, etc.) I also use the XT for panoramics as the pano head I'm using is not designed to handle a very heavy camera and lens.

I use the 40D for other purposes like family events and paying events like receptions and such. For the wedding itself I will continue to use the 1D MKII for the actual ceremony and some of the formals. The 5D MKII will be used for other of the formals and for landscape photography and other stuff that requires the attributes of the 5D MKII.

I don't anticipate doing much with sports anymore but if I did the 1D MKII is the camera I would use for sure. With current used prices putting the 1D MKII at $1100-$1300USD you don't have to be a "professional" to appreciate and use one. If you want to do action/sports it is still very competent and more competent than the 5D models or the Canon xxD models.

timk519

I'd like to thank everyone for their comments on this question, the comparison and information's been quite informative.

All the shooting comparisons, etc. aside, the lens recommendations have given me the ability to get an idea of the full cost of getting a 5dII and given how ugly the exchange rate's gotten over the last few months, it's looking pretty pricey.

All told (all prices in Canadian $):
Mk2 body: $3199 (if you can get one),

and the lenses mentioned in this thread so far:

24-105L: $1299
24-70/2.8L: $1499
17-40L: $899
16-35L: $1899

I liked it better when the US/CDN exchange was at par... :cry

So, if I get just the body and a 17-40L, the minimum expenditure is > $4K CDN. Even if I trade the 17-55/2.8 against a 24-105L, I'd probably be looking at a ~$300 difference, and I'd lose a sweet crop-body lens to use with the XT - or it's replacement.

On the other hand, I can get a 50D body for ~$1299, use the lenses I've got now, keep the XT as a backup/second/shoot-from-the-motorcycle body, and save my nickels for a Mk2 - or it's successor.

So, while a Mk2 may be a real nice-to-have, it looks like I've got a 50D in my future.

Unless - there's a different body that would do well in similar situations that I'm not considering... ? (I looked at the 40D specs, and for a few extra $ I'd rather get the 50D.)

Zanotti

Ziggy:

I read the referanced article with interest. Thanks for the thoughful answer. The article comes to many of the same conclusions you and I brought up in the discussion. Its worthwile reading for anyone considering this camera.

I am surprised that after buying a 5DMII that you would save it for special situations. I can see you rely on your 1D series camera as your professional go to camera, but surprised to hear you would bring a 40D to a family outing when having a 5DMII in the closet. Can you elaborate why?

Similar to you, I have my throw away camera for motorcycle outings and quick travel, but its a G9. I like the size, but don't ever like the photo quality - this particularly upsets me, because I see Pathfinder produce such steller shots with his.

I, too, shot HS football with an XT and moved up to the 30D. I also made the switch from a 70-200f4 to a 70-200f2.8. These changes were made simultaneously, so its hard for me to attribute a keeper rate increase to the body alone. I never was particularly pleased with the keeper rate with either set up in dark, poorly lit HS fields at night.

My son seems to have moved beyond football, but still plays baseball, so an occasional sports outing is not unlikely, but it isnt the main point of the camera.

Perhaps I am overthinking this, but the contrast between several choices is unnerving. Canon has even indicated that they are segmenting the market with the choices.

What fun!


Z

timk519

I've shot services in the same church with an XT - once with a 70-300DO IS, and once with a 70-200 2.8 IS L - and the 2.8 did a much better job of getting keepers, while the 70-300 had a much higher reject rate.

Zanotti

timk519 wrote:

and the lenses mentioned in this thread so far:

24-105L: $1299
24-70/2.8L: $1499
17-40L: $899
16-35L: $1899

I liked it better when the US/CDN exchange was at par... :cry

Oh, you forgot a pair of 70-200 lenses:

the 70-200f4 @ USD$1100 and the 70-200f2.8 @ USD$1700!

Who would have thought that this silly little hobby of taking a few snapshots for ADV rider would lead to more equipment than the bike?!




Z

ziggy53

Zanotti wrote:

...

I am surprised that after buying a 5DMII that you would save it for special situations. I can see you rely on your 1D series camera as your professional go to camera, but surprised to hear you would bring a 40D to a family outing when having a 5DMII in the closet. Can you elaborate why?

Similar to you, I have my throw away camera for motorcycle outings and quick travel, but its a G9. I like the size, but don't ever like the photo quality - this particularly upsets me, because I see Pathfinder produce such steller shots with his.

...

The Canon 40D is part of my travel kit and already has all that I need for family events. I don't need the extra qualities of the 5D MKII and I don't need to lug all of the heavier lenses either. The 40D is just a really good camera for that purpose.

When I want to "really" travel light I have a Fuji F30 to which I sometimes add an external flash and a couple of accessory lenses to take me from (35mm equivalent) 28mm to 200mm. (The Fuji is not designed to accept "any" accessories, but I found a way.)

timk519

Zanotti wrote:

Oh, you forgot a pair of 70-200 lenses:

the 70-200f4 @ USD$1100 and the 70-200f2.8 @ USD$1700!

I've already got the 70-200 2.8 L IS, so I didn't put that in.

In CDN funds, a 2.8L IS is > $2.1K.

Zanotti wrote:

Who would have thought that this silly little hobby of taking a few snapshots for ADV rider would lead to more equipment than the bike?!

Speak for yourself - my bike's got a fair number of add-ons and gadgets, and uses a lot more in fuel than my camera does.

pathfinder

You will love the 50D - it is a great box! I like mine a great deal, and for sports is will beat the 5D/5D MkII hands down!

I tend to be like Ziggy and use a 40D or a 50D for a walkabout camera if I am taking a DSLR - smaller, lighter, and usually more than good enough. For sports or wildlife the mag factor is a big advantage over a full frame. Lately I have been using a Tamron 28-300 lens as a walkabout - not the greatest glass some would think, but I find it remarkable sharp and free of chromatic aberration. Even better than some of my L glass at times.

I use a full frame when I need the higher pixel count for images than I think I may want to print at 16x 20 or significantly larger - say 24 x 36. The 5D or the 5DMkII are not sports cameras - they just aren't. Too slow to focus and too slow a frame rate, and not water resistant enough. Great tools but you have to know their limitations.

As for the G9, George, shoot RAW, and shoot panos if you can. Run the frames through Noiseware as needed, and the sky usually needs it even at ISO 100. I do not generally print G9 images larger than 13 x19, but I occasionally make exceptions. I do have a nice shot of a reflection of the Santa Barbara Mission printed by Marc at 16 x 20 hanging in the entryway to my home.

All cameras are good, some are just better for specific tasks than others

jdryan3

I can compare the 50D to the 5D MkI (someone else has to compare the MkI to the MkII). I bought the 5D about 6 months after it came out (3, 4 years ago?). While it was adequate for my son's rec soccer and baseball, and great for portraits and landscapes, it definitely showed its weakness in really low light (AF hunting) and AF acquisition in faster moving sports, such as pro hockey. So I got the 50D just before heading out to Moab last October.

Additionally the FPS was lower and the write of the buffer was slower. I called Canon years ago re: the faster cards coming out then and the SanDisk Ultra II was faster than the camera. The 50D takes full use of the Extreme III or IV. And while 3 fps doesn't seem like much, it is huge when tracking a puck or a play at home plate. Not a machine gunner due to my legacy of shooting film then slower 5D, it is amazing what you can grab as keepers by holding down that shutter button and firing. I swap out the AF to a separate button on my cameras, and when shooting AI Servo with AF depressed on the 50D it tracks so well at times I wonder if AF is even on. 5D in normal lighting would acquire the target but at times drop it due to contrast changes. Reeeaaallly aggravating when shooting moving objects where you have no background control.

While I sing the praises of the 50D and it has served me well in its limited use, I love my 5D. I shoot everything in RAW, and I can tell the difference in the noise. It is noticable (but easily fixed) even at ISO 800 on the 50D. I only have real issues at 1600 on the 5D. I only own EF lenses, so that is not an issue. It is my main walk around, with the 35L, or the 24-70. My new girlfriend may be sweeter, but she just hasn't been there like my trusty old one.

rnourse

I would not rush to purchase a 50d... while I agree with the decision to stay on a crop body, I feel the 40D is not just much better value for money but actually a much better camera.

I had a 40D (before switching platforms to a full frame nikon) and I actually purchased a 50D and performed a set of side by side test shots. The images were significantly noisier than the 40D. So much so that I returned the camera.

If you're going to stay crop then I would recommend going to the 40D and purchasing some accessories such as a grip and/or flash + pocketwizards instead. I think you'll be much more pleased with the results than simply jumping on the 50D bus. Mind you, if you just went to the 50D and never looked at the 40D you wouldnt know what you were missing and would still be very pleased with the upgrade.

timk519

40D vs 50D comparison
I found this comparison between the 40D and 50D - and the pics almost look comparable, particularly when going w/a really fast lens. From what I can see the 50D's just bigger, looks a tad less saturated, and has a shallow DOF for some pics (which, in another article I read, could be explained by the higher resolution of the sensor.)

http://www.xtremephotography.ca/Canon-40D-50D-ISO-Comparison/default.htm

Nikolai

Many wise things have been already said, I'll just though in my own experience.
50D and 5D2 are two very different cameras. The key features of 50D is EF-S compatibility and a smaller sensor. Other than than it's sweet and swift. 5D2 is noticeably slower, takes only EF glass yet offers very nice high ISO work and is full frame. Price tag is also noticeably heftier.
I have both bodies and for studio/portrait/low light work 5D2 seems to be my workhorse. 50D serves as a spare and provides an inexpensive access to ALL my glass collection (wide side of which is mostly EF-S thus far). It's also great when you need a "reach".
My greatest wish is for Canon to come out with an EF version of EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM.

jdryan3

Nikolai wrote:

My greatest wish is for Canon to come out with an EF version of EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS USM.

Nik-
At first I was going to give you a :poke and tell you they did: it's called the 24-70 f/2.8 L

But it is has no IS. Do you really use the IS on the 17-55? Obviously the 24-105 is no f/2.8, but does have IS and the extra reach.

Nikolai

jdryan3 wrote:

Nik-
At first I was going to give you a :poke and tell you they did: it's called the 24-70 f/2.8 L

But it is has no IS. Do you really use the IS on the 17-55? Obviously the 24-105 is no f/2.8, but does have IS and the extra reach.

I am, actually... Quite often. That is - whenever I'm not shooting with flashes/strobes....
24-105 is a) slow b) too long
I already have 70-200/2.8 IS. All I need is to cover the wider range. 24-70 would be perfect had it had IS... :cry

jdryan3

Nikolai wrote:

I am, actually... Quite often. That is - whenever I'm not shooting with flashes/strobes....
24-105 is a) slow b) too long
I already have 70-200/2.8 IS. All I need is to cover the wider range. 24-70 would be perfect had it had IS... :cry

Yeah, I know there are plenty of threads comparing the 2. I just rarely shoot slower than 1/FL handheld in this FL range, even one stop faster, so the 24-70 serves me well as is.

Nikolai

jdryan3 wrote:

Yeah, I know there are plenty of threads comparing the 2. I just rarely shoot slower than 1/FL handheld in this FL range, even one stop faster, so the 24-70 serves me well as is.

My biggest issue with 24-70L is that lens is like ages old. There was some nice advances in lenses technology over the last years, I would really hate to pay a grand-plus for a lens that old...

timk519

I made my decision, and with the local camera store offering 10% off, a brand now 50D is now calling my place home.

Thanks for the input everyone, I appreciated it!

ziggy53

timk519 wrote:

I made my decision, and with the local camera store offering 10% off, a brand now 50D is now calling my place home.

Thanks for the input everyone, I appreciated it!

Congratulations on the new camera.

Moogle Pepper

Nikolai wrote:

My biggest issue with 24-70L is that lens is like ages old. There was some nice advances in lenses technology over the last years, I would really hate to pay a grand-plus for a lens that old...

True, but it is still a very good lens.

timk519

ziggy53 wrote:

Congratulations on the new camera.

thanks! Let the learning curve begin.