Thinking of buying a 5D

Greywolf123

I have a Canon 20d and was thinking about buying a 5d. Am I going to see any jump in quality at all??? Is it worth spending $2500 or should I put that towards a lens? And is Canon going to bring out a new camera if I buy the 5D like they did when I bought my 10d LOL?


Thanks Owen

Owen

I am thinking the same thing right now. I used the 5D a couple weeks ago for a bunch of shoots, and I loved it. The extra resolution was a huge bonus, as was it's ability to handle backlighting, and I found the color rendition to be much better than the 20D. The size didn't bother me, it felt great in my hand and balanced well with my L lenses. I am going to hold out until my 20D breaks. I have 35,000 frames on it now, so it's only a matter of time...

Greywolf123 wrote:

Thanks Owen

You're welcome.

Owen

ziggy53

Greywolf123 wrote:

I have a Canon 20d and was thinking about buying a 5d. Am I going to see any jump in quality at all??? Is it worth spending $2500 or should I put that towards a lens? And is Canon going to bring out a new camera if I buy the 5D like they did when I bought my 10d ?


Thanks Owen

The 5D is a full-frame dSLR, so any EF-S lenses are not going to work well at all on it. (Most will not fit and can cause damage if they could fit.)

It is capable of higher resolution and lower noise, so it's a definite "potential" improvement. You do need the right light, the right subject and great glass to see most of the improvements it can offer. It is also perfectly capable of poor quality as well, so technique is an important factor.

Will Canon bring out new cameras that will obsolete the 5D? Gosh I hope so, but it could be a while. If you wait long enough, I'm sure it will happen, but think of the opportunities you would miss.

The best approach is to learn and practice with what you have until you exhaust the capabilities of your current system. For most folks, including me, the limiting factor is not the camera.

jdryan3

ziggy53 wrote:

. You do need the right light, the right subject and great glass to see most of the improvements it can offer. It is also perfectly capable of poor quality as well, so technique is an important factor.

Ziggy is right about the glass. I upgraded from the 300D to the 5D and have no regrets. Love the camera: fast, 4 metering options, great images, but the FF definitely highlights the weakness' of poorer lenses, specifically vignetting when shooting wide & open.

wxwax

If you enjoy shooting wide, then the 5D is a excellent choice. But if you've invested in EF-S lenses, as was said above, you might be pissed that they won't work on the 5D.

I love the full frame, and the extra pixels that allow me to crop aggressively. I was also delighted at the quality of the files shot at ISO 1600. I was even able to mess with the exposure levels a little, without introducing obnoxious noise.

dogwood

The 5D is a nice camera and I'm only shooting mine with L-glass so glass quality isn't an issue.

You'll need to decide what the extra resolution will get you-- how big are the prints you want now? I've easily printed up a 13x19 with my old 20D (and even 10D) so that wasn't much of an issue.

Not sure what the comment about the 5D being fast was about though

I also shoot a 1DMKIIN and find the 5D slow and clunky in comparison. But part of that depends on my style-- I am a very fast shooter. Anyway, I shoot a lot of fashion and almost always shoot with strobes, so by speed I'm not talking the 1D's 8 frames per second since strobes can't keep up with that. It just focuses faster, more reliably, has a louder focus confirmation beep, has a faster sync speed (the 5D is 1/200, the 1D is 1/250) and gives me better results if I'm working fast. But that's just me and part of it is the overall handling of the camera.

Anyway, if you can swing it, the 5D is a great camera, I'm not arguing that. But believe it or not, I often use it as my backup on fashion shoots and use the 1D (even though it's 8 MP) for my main camera. I just find the handling on the 1D better and more suited to my style-- and I've even grown to like the much more complex layout of controls on the 1D (except the image review... that's still a pain!)

Alright, so really none of us are answering your question-- it's all a matter of taste. I'd suggest either you rent one for a weekend or try one in a camera store and see what you think. Resolution ain't everything. If you get it right in camera, and 8MP pic can work great for many things.

LiquidAir

The resolution difference between the 5D and the 20D is eqivalent to the difference between an 8x12 print and a 10x15 print (the 20D is 292 dpi at 8x12 and the 5D is 290 dpi at 10x15). If you don't print larger than 8x12 you won't notice the difference in resolution.

That said, I don't think it is the entire story. For day in, day out shooting I notice a bigger quality difference between 20D and the 5D than the resolution would suggest. I think this is because typically the lower pixel pitch and wider field of view of the 5D actually make lenses look better. Yes, you get a bit more vignetting and CA in the corners, but when a 20D user has a 35/2 on the camera the 5D has a 50/1.4. When the 20D has a 50/1.4, the 5D has a 85/1.8. In each case the longer focal length lens is sharper than the wider one.

My sense of it is that if you typically shoot between 24mm and 200mm FF equivalent field of view and you often use apertures wider than f/8, you will notice a fairly substantial improvement in image quality with the 5D. Shots on a 20D that will be showing some lens softness at 8MP will be sharp as a tack on a 5D at 12MP because of the combined differences in focal length and pixel pitch.

jdryan3

dogwood wrote:

The 5D is a nice camera and I'm only shooting mine with L-glass so glass quality isn't an issue.

Not sure what the comment about the 5D being fast was about though

I also shoot a 1DMKIIN and find the 5D slow and clunky in comparison. But part of that depends on my style-- I am a very fast shooter.

Pete - I should have been clearer. Fast compared to the 300D. Fast in 2 ways: Even with my older 28-135, it focused much faster than the 300D with the same lens. Of course I agree with Ziggy 'cuz that lens was replaced with the 24-70 f/2.8 L (and now focuses even faster than before - gotta love that L glass).

The other fast item: bigger buffer (yeah, not obvious by my comment ).
Not because I shoot 5 fps but I can keep shooting continuously without worrying about waiting for writing to the card. Sometimes I just got ahead of the original Digital Reb.

claudermilk

Owen wrote:

I am going to hold out until my 20D breaks. I have 35,000 frames on it now, so it's only a matter of time...

You've got a long wait then. My 20D is about double yours (about 70k-80k on it), and showing no signs of slowing down.:D

For me the 5D is the wrong tool for the job, I'm looking at a used Mk IIN or maybe, possibly a Mk III. Examine your shooting habits before jumping.

rutt

All my ballet shots are with 5D, at least for a long time. I started off shooting with 1D Mk II and 5D at the same time (with different lenses). It pretty quickly became clear that the 5D made much cleaner images at high ISOs and that made my post processing (admittedly very aggressive) a lot easier. The same is true of 5D vs 20D. So I pretty much stopped using the 1D mk ii for ballet, even though I sometimes miss it's speed and more powerful auto focus point selection. I have high hopes for 1D Mk III in this role.

5D is very like a 20D with a few extra (important features): Full frame, better high ISO perforamnce, spot metering. And one misfeature, fewer frames / second.

So, yes, examine your needs. But I've loved my 5D.

claudermilk, want to buy a 1D mk II? Email me.

sw001

Fun topic, so I'll finally post. I've also been considering upgrading my 20D to a 5D. My biggest problems with the 20D so far has been focusing (never enough focus points it seems, and it misses more then I think it should), and lens selection.

I tend to always want more wide angles when I shoot, and less zoom. It is frustrating, especially in a house with smaller rooms, to never quite be able to frame enough when shooting, whether taking pictures of the kids, or my wife, etc.

The solution for the crop cameras I guess is the EF-S lenses, but I really am not sure I want to take the leap and grab one. I already feel locked into the Canon system, and by buying EF-S lenses I get locked into the Canon crop system as well, unless I want to lose money down the road selling the EF-S lenses. Right now, EF-S seems to confining.

It also seems a lot of the really nice glass is setup for the full frame cameras. The 24-70 L lens is great, but not wide enough on the crop cameras all the time, and its the same with the 24-105, and 17-40 too. The 17-40 just doesn't get wide enough really to not get the 10-22 EF-S if you really want a wide alternative.

Anyway, just frustrated. I love my 70-200 f/2.8 lens as well, but it'd seem even more useful if the 70 part was really 70, and not 112mm because of the crop.

I'd really love a new 5D that was weather sealed, and had a built in flash. Not having the flash on the 5d for me is a negative, as it really limits its general use. Sometimes the flash on the 20d is nice to have for casual shots.

Anyway, that's my ramble on the 5d.

I'm curious though, does the 5d with its extra focus points focus any faster or better then the 20d? I'd like to not always depend on the center point on the 20d all the time.

LiquidAir

sw001 wrote:

I'm curious though, does the 5d with its extra focus points focus any faster or better then the 20d? I'd like to not always depend on the center point on the 20d all the time.

My biggest complaint about the 5D is the AF system. The outer focus points are fast enough for my needs but not accurate enough. Much of my photography is at close range with apetures wider than f/4 and I find only the cross-style center point is accurate enough to give reliable focus.

For me, the most exciting thing about the 1DmIII announcement is that finally Canon is putting cross style AF points far enough way from the center of the frame to be useful for portraits. A full frame sensor with the mIII AF pattern and ISO capabilities would seriously tempt me to upgrade and call the 5D my backup. I am dreaming this will be what Canon puts in a 3D in a year or so.

wxwax

Interesting, Liquid.

I haven't had that problem.

I shot in a club last Saturday, pretty low light, never once used the center focus point, and didn't really have much of a problem. Every once in a while it was simply too dark, but it would have been for the 1DmkII as well. Lenses were 135 f2, 85 f1.8, 35 f1.4.

On Tuesday I shot in an office lit only with overhead fluorescents, again never used the center point, and again had good results. Lens was 24-105.

I'm happy.

wxwax

BTW, the 5D with the 24-105 is a perfect all-in-one travel package.

pathfinder

One way to really improve the AF with the 5D in low light is to plop an ST-E2 IR trigger on it. I agree that the AF of the 5D is really not much different than that of the 20D. Ceratainly not in the class of the 1DMkll.

I can focus a 5D with a 24-105 f4 IS L in light so dim I can't read in it, with the ST-E2 IR assist.

LiquidAir

wxwax wrote:

Interesting, Liquid.

I haven't had that problem.

I first noticed the problem shooting with the 85/1.8 wide open. I did some measurements and found that outer AF points often missed focus by more than an inch at a focus distance of 6 feet which is significanly larger than the DoF at f/1.8. The center AF point is around 5 times more accurate and rarely misses focus by enough to be noticable. It is possible that my body needs adjustment.

jdryan3

Sometimes I use the various focus points, but I actually have a habit (bad?) of focusing with the center in AF, flip to MF and recompose.

Then the red lights show me what is in and not in focus. Doesn't work in all type of shooting situatiosn, but...

wxwax

LiquidAir wrote:

I first noticed the problem shooting with the 85/1.8 wide open. I did some measurements and found that outer AF points often missed focus by more than an inch at a focus distance of 6 feet which is significanly larger than the DoF at f/1.8. The center AF point is around 5 times more accurate and rarely misses focus by enough to be noticable. It is possible that my body needs adjustment.

Fascinating, thanks for posting this.