5D still good enough ?
I've got a photographer friend that currently shoots with a 40D and has a selection of lenses inc. 28mm f2.8 and 24-70f2.8. Now her predicament is that she's currently finding some clients asking whether shes using a FF DSLR and specifically a 5DMKII at the minimum. She was looking at several options including buying a 5DMKII or even switching to a D700 as she's worried that she will continue to loose potential new work. My own thoughts were that she should hold off from getting the 5DMK2 or even the D700 and rent them as both are due replacements soon or alternatively pickup a used 5DMk1 until Canon announce the MK111.
Is the 5D MK1 still good enough and a big enough step up from the 40D in terms of IQ and specifically high ISO and AF performance or should she just bite the bullet and get the MK2 knowing that there's a MKIII just around the corner?
Cheers
Harj
Is the 5D MK1 still good enough and a big enough step up from the 40D in terms of IQ and specifically high ISO and AF performance or should she just bite the bullet and get the MK2 knowing that there's a MKIII just around the corner?
Cheers
Harj
0
Comments
The 5D MKII has better noise signatures at high-ISOs. The 5D MKII tolerates smaller apertures and does allow for more DOF control too. Other than those capabilities, which aren't always needed, the 40D is still very competent.
What is it that the clients think the 5D MKII will offer? (It would be best if your friend could reply herself.)
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Regards the clients.. my first thoughts were they must be crazy .. what would they say if she showed up with a 12MP D700 or a Leica M8.. not good enough !!!??? Zig, Barb .. I don;t know why theyre asking if she's shooting full frame and its a good thing I'm not being asked as I'm shooting with an E3! Personally, I'd like to slap them with a big wet fish .. whats the next criteria.... F2 zooms (wait .. thats easyI have one!) ??
I'll ask her to sign up and post the exact criteria for why they need FF.
The client expectations about your gear can be easily navigated by responding in general terms, eg FF is useful sometimes and so too is crop, that the 40D in some ways is a better choice, depending on the desired result. And by further shifting the client's attention and concerns to *results* by showing examples of your images and getting them to realise that what makes images special is what you do, that it is *your special skills and vision* which can best get them what they are looking for. FF, yes sure, nice, but in whose hands? That's the critical factor!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
The only reason my personal standards only allow me to fully recommend the Nikon D700 is the responsiveness, accuracy and customizability that I have grown accustomed to. For anyone who shoots fast lenses in low light, the D700 (or D3-series) is the hands-down winner.
Or of course, the Canon 1-series. You can get a used 1Ds mk3, with the same sensor as the 5D mk2, for about $3K these days. Or you can get a used 1D mk3 for about $2K!!! (Sure, it's 1.3x, but it still looks gorgeous even at ISO 6400...) That's an absolutely screaming deal for anyone who demands that level of accuracy and performance in general. So, I usually DON'T recommend that Canon users switch,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Sure, and every camera before the D700/D3s/1D3 doesn't cut it, and you can stick any lens on them it makes no difference they are so uber, and as for the photog... well, why even mention such an irrelevance?
???
No. The stars of photography are stars mainly because of their processing style, always have been. Eg, the American photographer William Eggleston relates how he saw some prints taken from original Henri Cartier-Bresson negatives but not developed by him, and reacted that he "wouldn't give ten cents" for those prints, and they were some of the pictures in HCB's book "Decisive Moment", which Eggleston idolised! He realised that HCB's development techniques, with which HCB had worked the images for his book, gave those images the distinctive impact that they had.
And still do...
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
The 5D or 5Dmk II or 1D mkIII or 1Ds would be a good upgrade but I would also think it's odd that a client would questions using full frame ! Actually lens makes more of a difference
A skilled photographer can certainly use any camera to create a great image. That is not in question. And I would be a hypocrite to disqualify everything "less than" the current flagships. I paid my bills for years with various "lesser" DSLR's, and I know perfectly well that they're capable of getting the job done.
Oppositely, my advice is directed towards the big picture, and from a professional, "workhorse camera" standpoint. My advice is about pushing the envelope to the absolute extreme of what is possible with today's latest equipment. And, for my line of work, (tracking moving subjects in extremely difficult light, at fast apertures) ...I cannot deny that I trust one system more than any other. Of the cameras I can afford, that is. That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that anything less is un-usable. I'm certainly not discrediting the technical skill or artistic eye of a photographer who uses camera XYZ... I just like to push the envelope as far as I possibly can, that's all... :-)
Regarding prints and processing:
I do absolutely agree with the point that processing can make or break an image, and it can define a photographer's style. However I like to think that, for some types of photography, simple color correction is all that is needed to allow an image to stand on it's own two feet. Anybody who knows me knows that I'm quite a fan of pursuing the art of clicking an image that requires zero editing whatsoever, actually. I've posted a few examples here and there, but basically with the right adjustments in-camera, clicking the photo is sometimes the very last step I take to influence the final image. It's more of a hobby and artistic practice exercise, but I do enjoy it...
Anyways, I hope I have finally made my reasonings understood. I know my advice / recommendations seem to be elitist or discriminatory, but I am simply trying to help people make the best long-term equipment decisions. AND, I do like to make it clear that no amount of equipment can make up for a lousy photographer of course... But that doesn't stop it from being fun to geek out!
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
It seems to me that in both cases - preference and capability - results are the determining factor. It's very plain to see that not every successful image depends on the bodies you mention, and you only mention bodies. Preferences and capabilities extend beyond just the camera body. Even in the case of your fast action wide aperture example much more is involved than the camera body.
Matt, the gist of your comments is too simplistic a view of things in my opinion. Sure, new gear just might have more potential, but there's a big distance between a camera body's potential and a superlative result that gets attention.
You also judge past superlative photography in the light of the latest product releases, downgrading it by saying it is not as good as it could have been with these new products. Even with the latest and greatest product in the market, for each image which is actually made with it there is an infinite number of potential images which are not made with it! It is illogical to argue that the infinite number of alternative images which *might* have been made discounts the *actual* image that was made! The potential images don't exist to make a comparison!
It's one thing to talk about what gear you use, but quite another thing to speak in absolutes by saying only the latest gear of a certain price *can* be considered adequate. On the next release of new products your reference point will have shifted again.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I can have a wonderful camera, if my images are junk what does it matter? On the other hand, if my images are amazing do you really care which camera captured it?
---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.457216,-81.500039
My statements probably do sound general and simplistic, but that is my fault. My reasons for having such high standards, especially when it comes to camera bodies, are actually very specific and specialized. And most of the features that I "demand" in a camera are not really going to be improved upon any time soon.
For example, when shooting weddings and photojournalism, I've customized all my cameras' "OK" buttons to one of Nikon's unique custom settings, LCD zooming at medium magnification. This allows me to check 100% focus almost instantaneously, even if I used an off-center focus point. By comparison, Canon firstly doesn't even allow you to start zooming on image playback, you have to hit the play button once first, THEN you have to hit the zoom button 3-5 times, then you have to scroll over quite a few clicks. Really, it's not the end of the world and plenty of wedding shooters do without this convenience, but I really do *hate* to shoot without it, and there are plenty of other little things that just seem to add up for me. They're not the type of features that will be totally out-dated by the next model, although I do hope that Nikon will re-vamp it's AF system for the next round of flagship cameras; the central points are awesome but the outer rim of points is not as good as Canon's 45 point system. (all cross-type around the edge)
Depending on the TYPE of photography that someone is into, I will not hesitate to recommend a different camera or system. It just so happens that recently a few people have inquired about portrait / wedding photography equipment, And for that purpose I do have some very strong opinions and high standards.
:-)
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Fair enough, but you have in other threads associated, apparently exclusively, the possession of the latest of a certain level of body with responsibility on the part of the photographer and with the guarantee of quality of the product. This seems to me pretty much the attitude of those clients who won't hire you unless you have that certain level of gear. I think that attitude is mistaken, and is best not reinforced.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I think your friend should ask what her clients needs and expectations are of the final images.
Are they just wanting small web images, or 16 x 24 prints, or even 30 by 45 inch prints? Are they expecting available light shots in the dark, or will the images be captured in a studio? Are the clients expressing valid concerns about the images they need, or are they just anxious about the final product they will receive and think that more expensive cameras will assure them of better pictures. I think we all know that is not necessarily true.
As discussed, there certainly are potential differences between a file from a 40D and a 5D, or a 1 series camera. But there are an awful lot of images that I'll bet most folks could not discriminate between on the basis of 10x15 inch prints also.
If I can find the link, Michael Reichmand has offered professional editors images shot with a Canon G10 P&S, and Hasselblad Phase One P45 back medium format DSLR, and found that with modest print sizes ( less than 13 x 19 inches ) , most folks cannot reliably tell which is which. Hah, here is the link - http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml
He does say it is easier to tell which is which onscreen looking at the individual pixels, but that prints can be harder to identify.
Certainly, clients may well have a clear understanding of the tools needed for their desired image quality, or they may just be anxious to receive a high quality result, and think that "better tools" = better pictures.
But if I am going to buy a fine art quality table from a furniture craftsman, I do not want to look at his toolbox, I want to look at tables he has crafted. Whether he uses hand tools or power tools really is no concern of mine; I want to see the quality of his finished tables to make my hiring decision... Just my opinion.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I've had this discussion in other communities before- what is "professional responsibility"? I believe, for sure, it has much less to do with image quality, or frames per second, or any of those specs that are unfortunately the most widely discussed (and braggged about) by both photographers AND camera makers. To me, professional responsibility is about reliability. Neil, I don't know if you shoot professionally, part time or full time, but all I can say is that cameras DO fail. Often. There is an infinite number of ways that you camera system could go kaput 10 seconds before a bride and groom kiss at the altar, or whatever. Again, it's not life-or-death, it's just a professional responsibility to use reliable equipment, and more importantly have a backup ready. I would rather shoot a wedding for example with two 7D's, or even a single 7D and a 60D, than just a single 5-series. Even a 5-series and a rebel backup would scare me. Image quality be damned, I want a reliable camera and a reliable backup when I go into a work environment.
And, to those photographers out there who would bring up the fact that MANY professionals once shot full-time with cameras like the 10D and 20D, very successfully indeed, I would say that was in fact a risky era in professional digital photography and it wasn't really the smartest thing to do, jumping on the digital bandwagon so quickly. The Canon 10D and 20D, as well as the Nikon D70 and D2 series, all had SERIOUS bugs that could completely incapacitate the camera without warning. Google "Nikon D70 BGLOD" or " Nikon CHA error" or "Canon 20D err99, take battery out" or "battery grip short out" and see what comes up. Indeed, those were very dark days for a professional using a DSLR without any backup. Heck, until I bought a 2nd DSLR body, I carried around 1-2 film bodies with me to every wedding I shot. And even then I usually had a film body with a roll loaded, somewhere in the bottom of my bag...
Portraiture alone is a little different because a shoot can easily be re-scheduled in the event of camera failure, but you get the idea- A client is WISE to make sure that a photographer has at least half-decent gear, for a wedding situation in particular, as well as a reliable backup. I would not fault a client at all for avoiding a photographer because of *REASONABLE* equipment standards. (For example, the original poster's friend uses a 40D. I would consider it REASONABLE for a client to NOT hire that photographer, if a SINGLE 40D was the only camera they were bringing to a wedding. HOWEVER if they simply had TWO 40D's, or if it were just a portrait session, that'd be just fine to me. It wouldn't be professionally optimal and I would encourage that photographer to acquire and master a better camera asap, especially if they want to do this full-time, but as long as the photographer has mastered their current camera, and has a reliable backup, I'd be fine with that.
But that's usually just not the case. Usually, there are far too many people out there shooting their first or second wedding with a single Rebel, or sometimes even wosre- a rented 7D or 5-series that they've NEVER used before, ...and unfortunately some technical issue severely harm the quality of the final product. So, for the fourth or fifth time, I'll say- Indeed, an experienced photographer can get a job done with practically any gear. But just because it's possible, doesn't mean it's professionally optimal. Personally, I've shot at least one entire wedding with the 5D "classic", and plenty of weddings / portrait sessions etc. with the 5D mk2 as well as the 7D. To be sure, I'm proud of the results. But day-in and day-out, I'd rather have my D700 simply because it takes one small aspect of reliability (focusing in low light at shallow apertures) to a higher level that I feel I really do need. (Again, keep in mind that I'm NOT talking much about image quality or other other things that change dramatically from generation to generation. I'm talking about reliability and backup plans...)
In the spirit of further understanding my crazy notions,
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Backup gear: goes without saying. But having said, no gear is immune from failure and sudden failure. Newer gear is likely more reliable, but that is in general and your gear, though the latest, could be among the statistical failures that are certain to occur. It is not rare to hear pro photogs describe having had their gear in and out of service a number of times. They work their gear hardest, which increases the likelihood of those statistical certain failures. So to repeat, backup gear for the professional goes without saying. Specifically in the case of the 40D and the 5D classic, in their history they have revealed themselves to be at least as reliable as the latest bodies. There is no evidence to suggest that backups for them are more critical than for later gear. They might have had more use than newer gear, which would have to be considered. On the other hand they might have had better care, been well maintained and serviced, perhaps better than a later model with less miles on the clock. And then what about a backup for the photographer? Surely another responsibility? After all you "could go kaput 10 seconds before a bride and groom kiss at the altar"!
Competence with gear: sure, but I think the results which clients can see are the best proof of that. It's unrelated to gear used. I would add that a photog has also to have competence with lighting and with software. The clients in question in this discussion are asking about camera body, but I say if they have to ask about anything it would better be how the photog lights and how they post process! If it's not obvious to the clients that the photog can give them the product they want they should move on, not get sidetracked by looking at the waistband of the photog's underwear, so to speak. The principal reason photogs show their photos on their websites and other advertising, as distinct from the label on their underwear, is to demonstrate their competence in photography, is it not? Why? Because that is what is relevant, not their gear. You might be wearing Armani personally signed limited edition raw silk shorts, but that doesn't guarantee you won't sh*t in them!
Style: yes this is the big thing out there in the professional world, t h e B I G t h i n g!! It's like sex appeal, it never goes out of fashion, no matter how much fashion changes! You either have it or you don't, and while the ads tell you otherwise - underwear ads and camera body ads - the labels you wear only show how much you paid to try to be sexy, which is often a real turnoff!
Don't feel squeezed into any policies of gear or underwear, Matt. The world is a wide wide place! Photography is not a fundamentalist sect, just a resource!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
In closing, I'll re-quote my original post: So, remember: I've shot with the 5D classic and the 40D plenty. I've pretty much shot with every Canon and Nikon DSLR produced since the 10D / 1Ds. They (the 40D and 5D, as well as most others) are GREAT cameras that work at a professional level, in most every respect. The images they deliver CAN be amazing. Much of my landscape portfolio was actually made on a Nikon D70 and a Canon 20D.
I just have higher standards now, personally, for certain aspects of camera performance, in professional situations. There is nothing wrong with that. I don't feel comfortable NOT mentioning the fact that I like to push the envelope in low light, and therefore I find a D700 to be the *only* camera I trust and fully recommend at this current time.
Indeed, just 1-2 years ago I was "making do" with lesser gear. I've probably profited over $10,000 in print sales from images made at ISO 1600 or above on older, crop sensor DSLR's. But if you are the type of person who masters their gear and likes to get every last bit of performance out of it, then certain cameras will give you less trouble than others. It's not a life-or-death difference, but I mention it because I feel the difference quite clearly in my day to day work.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I am talking about significant differences in results, results that affect a photog's business. Digressions to personal comfort and convenience, and ergonomic options, etc etc are all well and good, but are not critical to the matter we are discussing. If you are going to bar bodies from your acceptable list, and hand your list to others, lashed with a sauce of moralising about professional responsibilites, I think your own particular personal idiosyncracies are not sufficient justification. I say that without wishing to diminish those things' importance to you in any way.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
And sometimes, the results definitely ARE significant. Sure, my little customizations aren't life-or-death, but try focusing on a bride coming down the aisle with a 40D / 5D and an 85 1.2 L in a dimly lit church. It's 10% technique, and 90% sheer dumb luck if you get just one in ten images in focus. Sure, you can leverage technique in your favor with lots and lots of practice and experience, but my camera is nailing 8/10 or 9/10 shots with decent technique...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
No, the 5DII isn't part of the Loyalty Program anymore. When it was, it was $1600
Happily shooting with a D300...
Paul Wossidlo
www.PaulRichardWossidlo.com
If the case, makes me wonder how said individual would categorise Canon 1.3 crop body users?
pp
Flickr
My response to such absurdity would be something along the lines of "...well then, I guess I better hire my uncle who has a 1Ds mk3, a 1D mk4, and over a half-dozen L lenses."
So, it's a two-edge sword. On the one hand, photographers who claim superior equipment are most likely a red flag for poor artistic technique or general experience, and yet a photographer who calls themself a pro but shows up to a wedding with just a rebel and a few kit lenses is cause for even greater alarm. Reality lies somewhere in between.
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Maybe we have different standards in camera performance, but forget that. If you're not secretly doing something outrageous like shooting weddings all the time with a single DSLR and no backup, or telling other aspiring pros that their best investment is the cheapest, oldest DSLR they can find, ...then I have nothing against your opinions and I welcome your thoughts on standards of equipment performance and reliability. I don't see why you keep arguing against the notion that equipment DOES matter, if you're going to call yourself a professional.
Keep in mind that I DON'T question the artistic skill, nor "equipment mastery", of a photographer. In fact to me, it is a GIVEN that the clients "like the photos" no matter WHAT camera is used. If you would humor me and let "liking the photos" be a FIXED variable in our equation of professional photography, ...wouldn't you agree that someone calling themselves a pro ought to invest in the most reliable gear they can afford, even though they have enough experience and artistic skill to get the job done under increased limitations?
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
Thought I had Matt!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
I would not advise someone looking to work professionally to buy backward, unless there were budgetary or some other relevant constraints or reasons. Of course they should if possible buy the latest gear.
However, that does not translate into: all you guys who are working professionally with earlier model cameras, you gotta chuck that sh*t away because otherwise you are unprofessional!
So if someone is doing great professionally with a 5D or 40D (with backups of course) they should not be told that they are persona non grata on account of that gear. It is clear in my mind from technical and user reviews, and my own experience, that earlier cameras such as those are little different in critical quality and functions to the latest models, and will in most cases not be the reason for the product of that someone suddenly becoming disreputable.
Hope I can get off my horse now!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I hope you would agree to one last thing- my above statement is FAR from "you gotta chuck that sh*t"... If that's what you actually understood, then my communication skills are quite insulted... I assume of course that you were just being dramatic.
I only wish to encourage someone who is "in the market" to consider the best possible equipment they can afford. Being skilled and comfortable with the gear you already own was an entirely unrelated matter at the time I gave my first bit of advice. (I actually find it hilarious, the number of times we've both made that statement and yet considered the other to be in disagreement. Clearly, we DO agree on this.)
As much as I prefer the performance of certain equipment, (namely, a body which is actually over three years old!) ...I'm not going around telling current 5D owners that they should upgrade / switch, not unless they actually mention dissatisfaction. I'm not a fanboy, just a camera geek who happens to have experience with more cameras than most...
=Matt=
My SmugMug Portfolio • My Astro-Landscape Photo Blog • Dgrin Weddings Forum
the 5D classic is still on top , better than the 5D Mark II , better than the D3 and D3s , better than the D700.
In terms of "body" is a 20D on steroids with few intentional limitations compared to the so-called "professional" models : the big wheel compensating in AV/TV , no voice memos.
Unlike the 5D Mark II it sports a decent AF engine (not fancy but capable of producing steady in-focus pictures also using the outer sensors). The AF (at least the center sensor) is even better then my 1Ds Mark II in low light.
It looks small-ish to me without a battery grip.
But the pictures are stunning, excellent colors after you adjust the (great) white balance shift (for both raw and jpeg) to take those magentas under control.
Only a D3x, or a sony a900/850 or (of course) all the MF hassy Phase etc can do better.