Tempting myself with full frame

El Kiwi

Hi all,

In an incredibly dangerous move, I'm trying to figure out how much it will cost me all up to go full frame. This would be to the 5D. A couple of questions:

1. If I understand the rebate correctly, if I buy the camera and a qualifying lens together, I get double the rebate off both - is that correct?

2. How much can I expect to get for my existing camera (350d/Rebel XT) and digital-only lenses? I've seen figures quoting about 80-85% of retail, is this realistic?

3. For selling second hand, is it a disaster if I don't have the original box, or the instruction manual?

There are also a lot of rumours of a 5D replacement at the end of February. If true, historically what is this likely to do to the price of the 5D? Will it drop below the current price minus twice the rebate (currently about $2200)? Obviously this is all guesswork, but my impression is that Canon is a fairly predictable beast...

Thanks for any advice.

ziggy53

What I've seen of XT prices are that they sell at between $400 and $600USD, depending on condition, whether a "kit" lens was included, etc.

Original box and manual are important, but not to everyone equally. I value more the condition of the camera and approximately how many actuations.

Lenses will vary all over the board, with "L" lenses tending to hold their value best, followed by Canon manufactured lenses, followed by non-Canon lenses. Sigma "EX" lenses have more value than lesser lenses in the Sigma line, as do the Tamron "XR" and Tokina "AT-X" series.

It's always easier to lower your asking price during a sales transaction, than it is to raise it if you feel wronged.

A lot of people like to think they have Canon and other manufacturers figured out, but I never rely on anyone's guesses to make a camera purchase.

A camera is a tool, and not a good investment (mostly). If you can make money with it, it "becomes" a good investment because of its ability to operate in a reliable and predictable fashion, as a tool. The real value of any photographer rests just above their own shoulders in the form of their experience and capabilities.

Remember that a great image (generally) consists of:

1) Good lighting, you can't begin to form a quality image without light that is appropriate to the shot.
2) Lenses with the "right" qualities, to actually take the lighted subject(s) and form the image.
3) Adequate camera body and imaging chip or film, to actually record the image in a fashion conducive to the subject.
4) Processing/Post-processing, to refine the image into a form that represents the subject as well as the photographer's concept of the image.
5) Appropriate distribution, not all images respond equally to all methods of distribution and display.
6) A receptive audience, "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder". (I just made that up, but feel free to use it.:D)

I am constantly aware that many people feel that the "equipment" makes the biggest difference in quality photography, when the truth is that the "right" equipment" in the hands of a "trained and skilled photographer" appears to the winning combination, in most cases, and the "right" equipment is often surprising and not what many believe is the "best" equipment.

ziggy53

El Kiwi

Hi Ziggy,

Thanks for the comments! I'm definitely not under the impression that a better camera will make me a better photographer, and there's certainly plenty I can learn with my current setup - I'm still (relatively speaking) a beginner. But I do end up wanting to take a lot of shots in low light, and the 5D is a star here. I also have a few digital-only prime lenses that I don't use much since I got a decent mid-range zoom, and if I add up 80% of all of that, it's actually pretty close to the 5D and a good lens with the double rebate.

Plus I'm just lucky that I'm relatively uncommitted and my day job pays me enough to be able to indulge the odd whim - Santa wasn't kind to me, maybe he needs a hint

ziggy53

To my thinking, the Canon 1D MKII (and the "N" version) is the very best low-light dSLR.

This last Christmas Eve, I was taking photos outdoors, after dark, with "no" visible light. (We were shooting in the backyard, but in the shadow of a couple of vehicles, and the closest outdoor light was about 50 feet away, on the opposite side of the vehicles.) I was able to focus by having an assistant illuminate a certificate, held by the subject, but the only source of illumination was a tiny pocket LED flashlight!

The 1D KMII was able to determine perfect autofocus, and I got the shot. I honestly don't think even the 5D would have been able to achive the same degree of reliable autofocus because the 1D MKII has a center sensor that is at least twice as sensitive as the 5D. (BTW, the lens was the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L, non-IS.)

(To be fair, all of the 1D bodies have the extra sensitivity at the center, but the 1D MKII appears to also have faster processing of the autofocus information, presumably to keep up with the 8.5fps continuous mode.)

ziggy53

jdryan3

I have no idea what goes on in the minds @ Canon (I've been waiting for the i9500 pigment printer since it was announced last February!) :cry

But I do know that just before the 400D came out last year I sold my 300D w/kit lens and battery grip w/about 5000 actuations for $650 ($1200 originally). I saw another posting earlier today that it is worth maybe half of that now. Check online at eBay or KEH.

What I bought was the 5D. I wanted something a little more robust, faster/higher buffer, higher MP (300D was only 6.1) and missed shooting wide. I also prefer the metering options and the histogram on the 5D. I was actually going to get the 30D but made the leap to the FF since it really wasn't that much more once you add up all the $$$ I had sunk into photography. To make up for the 1.6 crop on telephoto, I ended up getting the 1.4X teleconverter.

I have no regrets at all, but look at the 30D and see if it meets your needs. Of course after you buy th 5D, it is THAT much easier to justify buying more 'L' glass.

El Kiwi

ziggy53 wrote:

To my thinking, the Canon 1D MKII (and the "N" version) is the very best low-light dSLR.

Well, I can indulge the odd whim, but that would be positively hedonistic! I think as an enthusiastic hobbyist, $6.5k is probably excessive... much as I would love it!

El Kiwi

jdryan3 wrote:

Of course after you buy th 5D, it is THAT much easier to justify buying more 'L' glass.

I'm just looking to give myself a convenient excuse

BTW how can I tell how many actuations my camera has had (apart from guessing)? Does the camera record how many times it's been fired?

ziggy53

El Kiwi wrote:

Well, I can indulge the odd whim, but that would be positively hedonistic! I think as an enthusiastic hobbyist, $6.5k is probably excessive... much as I would love it!

"$6.5k" That would be the 1Ds MKII. I have the 1D MKII, which is the least of the current 1D family (currently it is the 1D MKIIN). You can get a gently used 1D MKII for just a bit more than a Canon 5D. Everything about the camera is sooo immediate and responsive, except for startup time. But it is arguably the (current) ultimate low-light camera.

Please don't misunderstand, the 5D is a wonderful camera, but the extra resolution doesn't matter unless the lens is up to the task and the camera and lens (or you, if using the lens in manual mode) choose proper focus.

ziggy53

pathfinder

The 1DMKll is faster focusing, has a lot higher FPS rate ( 8 FPS vs # FPS) and has a brighter viewfinder than the 5d, but it is a smaller file size and significantly heavier to lug about. I don't think it is quite a smooth in regards to noise in the image either as the 5D rules here.

I suspect long term the 1DMKll will retain resale better than the 5D - The 1DMkll is is a 1 Series body , water seals, bigger battery, etc. I'll bet the shutter lasts longer also.

For a wedding shooter or a portrait shooter, the 5D can be sweet. For sports or wildlife, the 1DMKll is the top of the heap. JMO - YMMV

Either one can create first class images.

El Kiwi

Ah, sorry, my mistake. I hadn't considered the 1D series, I don't know much about them and I thought they were all in the $5k+ range. I'm not worried about the extra 2MP, I just thought the 5D was the only one in my price range (or at least, only slightly out of my price range!) The 1D does look big though, I'd have to go check it out to see if I thought it was too much. The relatively small size of the 5D appeals.

Thanks for all the advice, guys. Much appreciated.

pathfinder

Sports and wildlife or... weddings and portraits.

For 'boids', 1DMkll all the way.

But it won't use EF-S glass either, but it responds very nicely to L glass.

El Kiwi

For me, definitely weddings and portraits. In fact, I'm thinking about doing this sooner than I would have because a friend wants me to shoot his wedding in February, and the light is likely to be bad (evening on a beach, gah). A better camera won't save me but it might help

I've made a few enquiries, looks like getting rid of my EF-S glass won't be difficult.

ziggy53

pathfinder wrote:

The 1DMKll is faster focusing, has a lot higher FPS rate ( 8 FPS vs # FPS) and has a brighter viewfinder than the 5d, but it is a smaller file size and significantly heavier to lug about. I don't think it is quite a smooth in regards to noise in the image either as the 5D rules here.
...

The 5D is absolutely tops at the "creamy smooth" that Canon cameras are noted for.

pathfinder wrote:

...

I suspect long term the 1DMKll will retain resale better than the 5D - The 1DMkll is is a 1 Series body , water seals, bigger battery, etc. I'll bet the shutter lasts longer also.

...

The shutter of the 5D is rated at 100K actuations. The shutter of the 1D MKII(N) is rated at 200K, the highest rating of any camera by any manufacturer.

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=11933
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=12012

pathfinder wrote:

...

For a wedding shooter or a portrait shooter, the 5D can be sweet. For sports or wildlife, the 1DMKll is the top of the heap. JMO - YMMV

...

For a "traditional" wedding, I agree. For a "photojournalistic" style wedding, or for most event work, the responsiveness of the 1D MKII is a major benefit.

Locally, the top wedding photographer, who does a lot of PJ style, does indeed use a 1D MKII. The number 2 photographer, a lady I have known since we were both kids, acquired a 5D in 2006, and she does shoot mostly traditional. They both are very capable shooting either style, which seems to indicate that "they" (the photographers) make more difference than their equipment.

For sports, I would recommend either the Canon 1D MKII(N) or the Nikon D2H(s), with the nod going to Canon for me.

pathfinder wrote:

...

Either one can create first class images.

In total agreement here.

I hope that no one thinks I am saying that my recommendations "must" be followed. I only want to share my observations about certain features that may not be obvious to their benefit, or their importance.

ziggy53

El Kiwi

ziggy53 wrote:

They both are very capable shooting either style, which seems to indicate that "they" (the photographers) make more difference than their equipment.

Unfortunately for me, I suspect this is the case too!

ziggy53 wrote:

I hope that no one thinks I am saying that my recommendations "must" be followed. I only want to share my observations about certain features that may not be obvious to their benefit, or their importance.

Not at all, thanks for your input, it's really interesting. I hadn't even considered the 1D range, nor was I aware of the differences between them and the 5D. Although you may have made my decision more difficult than it was already!

claudermilk

Blame Canon.

I'd take a hard look at what you are shooting, what specs will assist that the most, then take a look at the 5D/1D-series bodies to see what the best fit is. Prices will be in the $3-6k range depending.

For example, for my shooting I've done just the above to see where/if there is a reasonable upgrade path. Unlike so many shooters, for me the 5D is not a good fit (to me a downgrade from the 20D actually). However, with the MkIIN at similar pricing it is my preferred upgrade path (1-series AF, 8.5fps, low-light ability, 200k shutter). Of course all it takes is money. :uhoh

ziggy53

claudermilk wrote:

... Of course all it takes is money. :uhoh

... Ain't that the truth!:eek1

El Kiwi

ziggy53 wrote:

... Ain't that the truth!:eek1

I had no idea when I started what I was getting myself into...

El Kiwi

ziggy53 wrote:

To my thinking, the Canon 1D MKII (and the "N" version) is the very best low-light dSLR.

Final question (I think) - when you're talking about low-light performance, are you only talking about focusing? Or image quality as well? The consensus seems to be that the 5D has better noise control, and it has higher resolution, should this not equate to higher image quality? Does the 1D have higher dynamic range or is there some other factor I'm not aware of?

pathfinder

The 1DMkll will focus better in dimmer light than the 5D will. It is a 1Series body......

The 1DMKll should achieve AF with an f8 lens on the center AF point, but I think the 5D requires an f5.6 lens like the 20D and the 30D - Not sure about this limitation for the 5D, but I am about the 20D and the 30D. The focusing of the 5D and the 20D seems very similar to me in use.

ziggy53

El Kiwi wrote:

Final question (I think) - when you're talking about low-light performance, are you only talking about focusing? Or image quality as well? The consensus seems to be that the 5D has better noise control, and it has higher resolution, should this not equate to higher image quality? Does the 1D have higher dynamic range or is there some other factor I'm not aware of?

I haven't done a direct comparison, but my understanding is that the chominance noise at ISO 3200 is smoother on the 5D than the chroma noise on the 1D MKII. Luminance noise (most of the image detail) appears to be about the same between the two. Noise reduction software seems to render the difference almost nil between the 5D and the 1D MKII(N) at ISO 3200. They have very similar pixel densities. The 1Ds MKII has a higher pixel density, but still very good ISO 1600. All of the 1D cameras and the 5D appear to have somewhat extended dynamic range compared to other Canon digital cameras.

The focus technology is quite different on the 1D cameras versus other cameras in the Canon lineup. The combination of 45 focus points, selectable focus points, greatly improved AI Servo mode, etc. just makes a much more diverse autofocus capability than any other camera I have ever touched. While the official autofocus sensitivity difference of the 1D cameras versus other Canon cameras is only one stop, it surely seems to be better than that in actual use. In particular, the 1D MKII autofocus speed with the Canon 70-200mm, f2.8L is nothing short of breathtaking.

The 30D is supposed to be very similar to the 5D in its autofocus technology.

Pixel densities (and related stuff):
http://www.rtope.com/mi/SensorSizeCompare.html
http://www.canon.co.jp/Imaging/cmos/technology-e/light_gathering.html
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Staring to ramble, time to stop,

ziggy53

Duckys54

By 2008 do you think canon would have another in the 1D series or 5D series out?

ziggy53

Duckys54 wrote:

By 2008 do you think canon would have another in the 1D series or 5D series out?

If you are asking me, Canon hasn't listened to anything I have thought so far, and it doesn't look too good for the future either.

It is my "hope" that there will be more developments in the 1D line, and I "suspect" that the 5D is just the first of that line.

My personal prediction is that new dSLR models will continue to come from all the major players, and that Sony may become a major player because of their ability to produce imaging chips and acquisition of Konica-Minolta. Pentax is also poised to attempt a major upset.

ziggy53

pathfinder

Sony is really pushing their in-camera stabilization with full page adds in the Wall Street Journal saying the pictures are always sharp, clear, and never blurred or something to that effect.

They are poking fun at lens based image stabilisation that Nikon and Canon have used, as opposed to in-camera stabilisation used by Sony. They suggest that in camera stabilisation will prevent blurred images.

I wonder how upset some of their customers will be when they realize to their horror that they CAN take a blurry image with a Sony camera just like I can with a Canon or a Nikon camera if I do not have any idea what shooting technique is entailed, or what shutter speeds mean.:D

LiquidAir

As long as you stick to the center focus point, the 5D focuses quite well in low light. I have not noticed any trouble focusing until the light got dim enough that I couldn't see the focus target either. The outer focus points are not as good and generally I don't trust them unless I am stopping down quite a bit. In fact, this is my biggest single complaint about the 5D: I don't need any improvements to the center focus point but I do I wish the outer 8 points were as accurate as the center one. If there is one issue that will eventually drive my to buy a new body, that is it.

The problems I have had with focus on the 5D all stem from the shallow DoF. As an example, a 30D at 50mm and f/2.8 has 1.6 times more DoF than a 5D at 80mm and f/2.8 even though they have the same field of view. It takes very good technique to get crisp focus at wide apetures on the 5D. I regularly get out my camera and take a bunch shots with one of my primes wide open just to practice getting accurate focus.

As for glass and the 5D: most full frame lenses look better on a 5D than they do on a 30D. Remember that while the 5D has higher resolution, it has a lower pixel density than the 30D. What this means is that lens softness is less well resolved in the 5D than it is on the 30D. So, for instance, the 50/1.4 will look sharper at f/1.4 on a 5D than it will on a 30D because the lens imprefections are not magnified as much when you make a print. The price for that, of course is more distortion, vignetting and CA at the edges of the frame. However, distortion, vignetting and CA are much easier to correct for than lens softness so I will make that trade any day. Personally I use DxO optics to correct images that need it and the results are amazing.

The reason you want L glass for your 5D is not because the 5D shows lens imperfections more than the 30D. Rather, when you start looking at those large files at full magnification on your computer you develop an completely new sense of what is possible and your reach gets higher. When browsing through a good capture in Photoshop it is easy to get lost in all those pixels and forget how far zoomed in you are. Do you really need all that resolution? For most applications probably not but is sure is intoxicating.

pathfinder

LiquidAir wrote:

..........The reason you want L glass for your 5D is not because the 5D shows lens imperfections more than the 30D. Rather, when you start looking at those large files at full magnification on your computer you develop an completely new sense of what is possible and your reach gets higher. When browsing through a good capture in Photoshop it is easy to get lost in all those pixels and forget how far zoomed in you are. Do you really need all that resolution? For most applications probably not but is sure is intoxicating.

You may be right. I remember the limitations of film, whether positive transparencies or B&W negatives, as opposed to the resolution and low noise of modern digital images from DSLRs. I really enjoy the capabilities of modern DSLRs, and the digital processing that lets me create the images that I see in the viewfinder.

claudermilk

pathfinder wrote:

Sony is really pushing their in-camera stabilization with full page adds in the Wall Street Journal saying the pictures are always sharp, clear, and never blurred or something to that effect.

They are poking fun at lens based image stabilisation that Nikon and Canon have used, as opposed to in-camera stabilisation that Sony uses. They suggest that in camera stabilisation will prevent blurred images.

I wonder how upset some of their customers will be when they realize to their horror that they CAN take a blurry image with a Sony camera just like I can with a Canon or a Nikon camera if I do not have any idea what shooting technique is entailed, or what shutter speeds mean.:D

Heh. Sounds like they are setting themselves up for a LOT of pissed customers who will move to ANY manufacturer so long as it isn't Sony...again.