canon 20D versus 5D

System

I don't know if this has been discussed or not-

if it has, please point me in the right direction-

for those of you that own or have owned the 20d and now have the 5d, was it worth it?-

what changed the most for you? the best change? the worst?-

would you have rather waited for the next one (new versions every 12 to 18 months?)-

thanks
george

Andy

gefillmore wrote:

for those of you that own or have owned the 20d and now have the 5d, was it worth it?-

I own both. It's definitely worth it.

gefillmore wrote:

what changed the most for you? the best change? the worst?-

Detail on landscapes and portraits is much finer on the 5D. The bigger LCD is a huge plus. The worst? Can't think of any. Both cameras are really good at ISO 1600, 3200, but the 5D simply rocks at these high ISOs.

5D at iso3200:
http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1134620/1/53163544/Large

I really like the full-frame sensor, and my lenses act like the focal lengths I have - no FOV crop.

gefillmore wrote:

would you have rather waited for the next one (new versions every 12 to 18 months?)-

Waiting? I've heard of such a concept, but I don't really understand it.

System

no flash!? in the subway!?

I'm sold!

very informative!

thanks much, Andy-

george

gluwater

Have you noticed any change in dynamic range with the 5D? Or does that have more to do with the processor, DIGIC II. If so do you speculate that the rumored DIGIC III will be better as far as dynamic range is concerned. Not that it is currently bad but as with everything it could always be better.

Andy

gefillmore wrote:

no flash!? in the subway!?

I'm sold!

very informative!

thanks much, Andy-

george

Cool.

One drawback of the 5D, IOW, to make the 5D really really uber-useful, would be to have a nice popup flash like the 20D has. The 20D flash is pretty darn useful. Not as good as the 580EX I have, of course, but it's handy when you need it. The 580EX is only useful if I have it with me

luckyrwe

How about the 5D vs your old 1DsII?

wxwax

Andy wrote:

The worst? Can't think of any.

What about file size and computer slowdown (for those who haven't bought the latest and greatest computers?)

DanielB

luckyrwe wrote:

How about the 5D vs your old 1DsII?

i shudder to think how large the 1DsII's RAW files are.

Andy

wxwax wrote:

What about file size and computer slowdown (for those who haven't bought the latest and greatest computers?)

It's all relative, Sid. Kind of like, if you have to ask how much gas costs are for a Mercedes over a smaller Toyota.

Andy

luckyrwe wrote:

How about the 5D vs your old 1DsII?

Oh Gosh, I answered that at least in a few threads... Net net, there's VERY LITTLE difference. Sure, the 1-Series build is better, but the 5D build is no slouch. Image quality? I can't really see a huge difference - though I'm certain that you can get "better" "bigger" etc out of the 1Ds II over the 5D, it's minute degrees of greatness IMO. 1Ds II a great camera for Studio and Landscape work. Sure, other stuff, too. But the 5D is so much more convenient to carry, use, pack, etc. The interesting decision points now are, a 5D and 20D for example, for LESS than a 1Ds Mark II. Heck, at MSRP, 2 5Ds for less than one 1Ds Mark II. And if you're shooting with a 1Ds Mark II, you're probably doing so professionally - or are a passionate, passionate amateur, and therefore you need backup.

pathfinder

I don't find much difference in processing 20D or 5D files in RAW on my MAC in terms of speed..

I do find the autfocus on the 5D is very similar to the 20D, and way poorer than the 1Series cameras. The 5d is not a sports shooters box. It is happier in a slower venue. I tried using the 5D to shoot birds in FLA, and found it missed a lot more shots due to AF than my 1DMkII.

For low light shots the 5D really rocks. I shot a ton of night shots at Disney Land in Orlando and was quite pleased with it. If I am not shooting sports or birds, the 5D is my tool of choice. But for birds, or faster subjects, it is not.

luckyrwe

Ooh, two 5Ds, now THAT sounds tempting!

Rohirrim

pathfinder wrote:

I don't find much difference in processing 20D or 5D files in RAW on my MAC in terms of speed..

I do find the autfocus on the 5D is very similar to the 20D, and way poorer than the 1Series cameras. The 5d is not a sports shooters box. It is happier in a slower venue. I tried using the 5D to shoot birds in FLA, and found it missed a lot more shots due to AF than my 1DMkII.

For low light shots the 5D really rocks. I shot a ton of night shots at Disney Land in Orlando and was quite pleased with it. If I am not shooting sports or birds, the 5D is my tool of choice. But for birds, or faster subjects, it is not.

Not sure if this is the best thread to start this but I'm considering upgrading from the 20D to the 1D Mark II N for the following reasons.

• Faster autofocus
• 21 zone autofocus points
• Better build- weather protection
• Faster burst
• Larger preview screen
• Better pictures?

My primary interest is Birds. The increased weight concerns me a bit, but not too much. Any thoughts?

Should I start a new thread for this? I don't mean to highjack this topic.

Regards,

System

Steve-

doesn't bother me any re change of direction with the thread-

might get a better response, though, with a new thread title-

george

pathfinder

Steve, if your interest is birds primarily, I think the 1DMkll N will make you much happier camper, than the 5D. The 1DMkll is a little bigger, but it also has a larger, longer lasting battery, and the AF is dramatically faster than the 5D/20D. The high speed frame rate is also needed. The frame rate on the 5D just does not compare to the 1DMKll at 8fps. And overall the weather sealing and build quality is better, and the viewfinder is brighter as well. What's not to like here?

I used a 5D and a 1DMKll at Orlando. My percentage of shots in focus was MUCH better with the 1DMkll, especially in flight shots, or shots with vegetation between me and the subject.

The 1.3 mag factor ot the 1DMkll is a virtue also. Why give up the length of your lens with a full frame camera for birds?

Don't get me wrong - I like the 5D. If I am being a tourist, and can cover my needs with the 24-105 L, the 5D rocks. But if I am carrying a 500mm lens, I want the 1DMkll, NOT the 5D!! NO contest!! If I plan on shooting at iso1600, then I might want the 5D if I don't need the AF of the 1DMkll.

I had been considering selling my 1DMkll - but last week in Florida convinced me that if I want to shoot birds, in the Canon lineup, the 1DMkll is the weapon of choice.

All of my shots in this thread - http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=27872 - were shot with the 1DMkll.:):

Bodley

Bob Atkins Article addressing the 20D vs 5D Click Here

System

Bodley wrote:

Bob Atkins Article addressing the 20D vs 5D Click Here

great article!

thanks!

any thoughts on this? agree? disagree?

thanks
george

Bodley

gefillmore wrote:

great article!

thanks!

any thoughts on this? agree? disagree?

thanks
george

The article made sense to me. But considering I've never used a 5D, any opinions I have would be based on hear-say.

System

Greg

I guess more than anything I was impressed with Andy's subway picture (go to his link at post #2)-

george

pathfinder

gefillmore wrote:

great article!

thanks!

any thoughts on this? agree? disagree?

thanks
george

The points in the article about the 20D and 5D are well described. I like both cameras, but the higher frame rate of the 20D over the 5D might matter to a sports shooter on a budget. The larger file size of the 5D and the lower image noise might appeal to a lanscape shooter or a wedding photog or even a studio shooter. The shutter on both of them is quite noisy. The 10D was MUCH quieter. Theviewfinder of the 5D is significantly brighter than the 20D's. I do like the little pop up flash on the 20D for fill flash in sunlit shots. Works great. They take the same battery which I like - much smaller and lighter than the 1 series battery. But they also pack a lot less power, and long exposures with Image Stabilized lenses draw a LOT of current. Try shooting birds with long glass before sunrise at 17 degrees and batteries don't last nearly as long.

My main gripe with both the 5D and the 20D, and I use both and shoot with both, is that their AF system is a weak sister to the AF on the 1DMkll which costs about the same now as the 5D. The 8fps rate of the 1DMkll is the deal clincher then. The 1DMkll was built with sport shooters in mind. That is why it is so good for birds also.
It really comes down to what you want to use the camera for. In my limited experience, I keep finding new uses I had not anticipated, so I like to keep my options as open as possible. I own all three. If there is a new replacement for the 20D announced, I might swap them out then.

pathfinder

gefillmore wrote:

Greg

I guess more than anything I was impressed with Andy's subway picture (go to his link at post #2)-

george

Andy is a street shooter and a landscape shooter primarily - the 5D works great for him in those venues. Hi ISO, Lo noise, lighter than a 1DsMkll, uses the full width of wide angle lenses due to the full frame no mag factor. He does not usually shoot 8 FPS, nor lenses longer than 200mm. He does not need them for his style of work.

System

pathfinder wrote:

Andy is a street shooter and a landscape shooter primarily - the 5D works great for him in those venues. Hi ISO, Lo noise, lighter than a 1DsMkll, uses the full width of wide angle lenses due to the full frame no mag factor. He does not usually shoot 8 FPS, nor lenses longer than 200mm. He does not need them for his style of work.

yes, and mine is people and family and landscape and hopefully someday high quality bw and I would be hardpressed to lose any sleep over loss of focal length or magnification or whatever the semantics of it is-

ScottMcLeod

pathfinder wrote:

Andy is a street shooter and a landscape shooter primarily - the 5D works great for him in those venues. Hi ISO, Lo noise, lighter than a 1DsMkll, uses the full width of wide angle lenses due to the full frame no mag factor. He does not usually shoot 8 FPS, nor lenses longer than 200mm. He does not need them for his style of work.

Almost the same as mine.

I'm trying to find a way to get myself a 5D for a reasonable amount of money...

System

Scott-

if you find a good deal, please post it-

I'm looking also-

right now bh is 2970--

thanks
george

ScottMcLeod

gefillmore wrote:

Scott-

if you find a good deal, please post it-

I'm looking also-

right now bh is 2970--

thanks
george

I was thinking more used, but that's good to know that BH is 2970.

System

little early for a used 5d, yes? no?

it certainly doesn't hurt to look, though-

good luck!
george

System

Andy

re 5d-

just got it in-

the subway shot clinched it-

thanks
george

Andy

gefillmore wrote:

Andy

re 5d-

just got it in-

the subway shot clinched it-

thanks
george

congrats, George! Enjoy your new camera.

arroyoshark

Andy, you're experience and knowledge of Canon lenses seems pretty vast.

I am wondering, that if I "backended" into a 5d and then concentrated on glass, realizing that most L glass is off into the future....what non-L Canon glass would work reasonably well with the 5d?

I am more of a western landscape photagrapher, taking both wide scenes and closely cropped near scenes.

I realize that 'full frame' sensors will be most unkind to poor glass, but Canon must have a few good non-L lenses.

I am thinking of a wide prime of f1.8 -2.8, the 28-105 f3.5 zoom and perhaps a normal or normal tele lens of f1.9 - 2.0. Would these give satisfactory results with the 5d?

Hope this isn't too open-ended.

wxwax

I've seen the 17-40 used by a highly respected landscape photographer. It's a bargain for an 'L' lens.

System

Andy mentioned this on a related thread re the 5d-

"I can't say enough about the 85 f/1.8 for in-studio portraits. A great value, sharp lens, super results. The 85 f/1.2 is 4x the price, some think it's 4x the value but I do not."

about 330 to 360 b&h-
george


sorry, I missed the part about landscape-