5d Owners, is it Worth Upgrading?

07/21/2006 08:03:17 AM · #1

I am currently considering upgrading to a 5d from a 20d. Am I going to see enough improvement in quality of images and features to warrant an upgrade?

Jaded_Housewife

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

07/21/2006 08:05:59 AM · #2

I dont know about from a 20d but i went from 350rebel xt to a 5d just a couple weeks ago and I think the difference was amazing. i can really tell. especially in post processing those extra megapixels make quite the differernce.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

07/21/2006 08:09:17 AM · #3

That's a tricky question.

It all depends on what features you really want in the camera.

Do you just want resolution? I understand that it does a totally wicked job. I think I heard from kirbic that the anti-aliasing is significantly less too (I BELIEVE that this is due to the larger photosites, so less correction has to be done to the information before it hits the sensor... I'm a little fuzzy on the details here though...), so the images are a fair bit higher quality to start with straight from the camera...

07/21/2006 08:11:23 AM · #4

I'm after an image that is pretty good straight from the camera. I don't know photoshop enough to spend much time post processing. I'm also interested in the amount of noise produced.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

07/21/2006 08:14:12 AM · #5

One of the great things about the 5D (due to the sensor size) is the added dynamic range and reduced noise in the images it captures. The 20D does "pretty good" with ISO 800 and above. The 5D is excellent.

I primarily shoot weddings, so I also like the 5D because my favorite 70-200mm lens becomes much more useable. On the 20D that lens is a bit long (effective focal length being 105-360mm). And so a full length portrait of a couple with the 20D and the 70-200mm lens, means walking 100 feet away from the couple (I'm exagerating, of course). With the 5D I can stay pretty close to the couple and still get a great picture with that lens. So the 70-200mm lens is almost a "walk around lens" on the 5D. I only switch to the 24-70mm lens when I need wide angle shots.

For sports, the 20D is a much better camera, with a faster frame rate and a crop factor that helps bring the action up close.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

07/21/2006 08:18:42 AM · #6

The only real trick of it is that you might end up having to learn the picture styles thing... You shoot RAW? If so, you can probably get a fairly decent idea how things work because the picture styles can be added in Canon Digital Photo Professional.

At least you can learn a lot...

Personally, where it counts, I always shoot RAW. I was converted after processing only a couple of shots.

Hot Diggity!

07/21/2006 08:20:50 AM · #7

That's interesting about the lens as I have both. Good to know how both can be used.

I was concerned about loosing the crop factor of the 20D. I didn't know if I should add a teleconverter to help overcome this. In your opinion is it just the reduction of frame rate that makes the 20D better or is image quality also reduced?

07/21/2006 08:23:21 AM · #8

For the past couple of months I have been shooting in the RAW/ JPEG combination. Fills up the cards really quickly but I have a portable hard drive to download to during the day and an external hard drive at home to store the images before burning them to DVD.

07/21/2006 08:31:07 AM · #9

Originally posted by Hifi:

I wouldn't throw a teleconverter on there. If you use the 5D and really need the crop factor of the 20D, your best bet (for quality) is to just crop the image after the fact (or get closer to your subject).

The 5D image quality surpasses the 20D. But the frame rate and crop factor of the 20D are what makes the 20D a much better sports camera. But if you're really into sports, then you need the MkII with it's 8.5fps. :-)

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

07/21/2006 08:34:47 AM · #10

My dream camera is the Canon EOS 1dsMk11 - one day! I also don't intend to give up the 20D either so I can use both to overcome any sporting problems.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

07/21/2006 09:30:46 AM · #11

Originally posted by Hifi:

My dream camera is the Canon EOS 1dsMk11 - one day! I also don't intend to give up the 20D either so I can use both to overcome any sporting problems.

I think you'll shortly have to revise your dream. Rumor of a 22+ Mpx full-frame camera from Canon are flying, and the 1DsMkII is in fact due for an update.
The image quality of the 5D so closely approaches the 1DsMkII that it can be very hard to tell them apart. Canon did put a fairly weak anti-alias filter on the 5D, so the images out-of-camera are quite sharp, needing little in the way of sharpening in post-processing. It's a very responsive camera, and the 3fps has in no way hampered me. Noise performance of the 5D is superb. With the 10D, I used 1600 ISO when the ony other option was not getting anything. With the 5D, I regularly go to I0S 1250, even 1600 with confidence. ISO 3200 is quite usable, especially if the end product will be converted to B+W.
At current prices, the 5D is a great value.
Keep in mind that RAW files from the 5D run about 13 MB. JPEGs are in the 6 MB range. It does eat up storage space *fast.* You really need a couple 2GB cards, perhaps more if you regularly shoot several hundred images at an event. Relatively fast cards are recommended, as is a FireWire reader.

hankk

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

07/21/2006 11:56:41 AM · #12

Originally posted by dwterry:

For sports, the 20D is a much better camera, with a faster frame rate and a crop factor that helps bring the action up close.

The 5D has six "hidden" AF spots that the 20D doesn't have, and you can crop somewhat in PP, so its a trade-off for sports: better focusing and less noise (think indoor sports) on the 5D or more FPS on the 20D.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/21/2006 12:16:36 PM · #13

Psychology dictates the answer will almost invariably be yes.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

07/21/2006 12:26:11 PM · #14

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Psychology dictates the answer will almost invariably be yes.

Yes.

Mick

07/21/2006 12:29:36 PM · #15

I'm psychologically happy with my 5D, but less so monetarily. ;P

07/21/2006 12:30:21 PM · #16

Originally posted by hankk:

Yeah, I've tried it. The main problem is that a lot can happen from one frame to the next when you're only shooing 3 fps. I was at the Utah Summer Games a few weeks back. I did most of my shooting with the 20D, but the indoor shots I did with the 5D. What made things even worse that, I was sitting next to my partner with the 1dsMkII and could hear him firing away at 8.5fps. My 5D felt like a pea-shooter compared to his machine-gun! :-(

I mostly do weddings, so for me the 5D+20D combo works out great. But if I were to get more into sports, then the 1D MkII would be high on my list.

Message edited by author 2006-07-21 12:59:43.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

07/21/2006 12:55:36 PM · #17

Originally posted by dwterry:

...What made things even worse that, I was sitting next to my partner with the 1dsMkII and could hear him firing away at 8.5fps. My 5D felt like a pea-shooter compared to his machine-gun! :-(

I mostly do weddings, so for me the 5D+20D combo works out great. But if I were to get more into sports, then the 1dsMkII would be high on my list.

You mean 1D Mark II...the 1Ds Mark II is full frame at 3 fps

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

07/21/2006 12:59:25 PM · #18

Originally posted by doctornick:

You mean 1D Mark II...the 1Ds Mark II is full frame at 3 fps

Oops, good catch!

coolhar

07/21/2006 01:19:12 PM · #19

Originally posted by hankk:

Originally posted by dwterry:
For sports, the 20D is a much better camera, with a faster frame rate and a crop factor that helps bring the action up close.

The 5D has six "hidden" AF spots that the 20D doesn't have, and you can crop somewhat in PP, so its a trade-off for sports: better focusing and less noise (think indoor sports) on the 5D or more FPS on the 20D.

For shooting sports action you are usually taking lots of frames so the increase in file size of the 5D is not that much of an attraction, may even be considered a negative. And I doubt that many serious sports photojournalists would be willing to give up the burst speed. Better focusing and high ISO performance would be nice, but the 20D isn't exactly deficient in those areas. If Nikon's D2X had the focus and ISO performance of a 20D or 5D it would trump the 1D Mk IIn in my book.

hankk

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

07/21/2006 01:35:02 PM · #20

Originally posted by coolhar:

Agreed, that serious sports PJs will have a 1DMII (or 1DMIIn). But the discussion here was between the 5D and 20D, and I think each body has its own advantages, you just can't say one is better than the other for sports, you have to take it on a case-by-case basis and consider the type of game shot. Some users of these cameras take pictures of thier kid's games while pro sports shooters probably use a 1 series body.

As far as file size goes, memory is cheap and workstations are getting faster. IIRC, if I use a fast CF card and set the camera to medium JPG, I can hold the shutter of the 5D down and it will do 3fps till the card's full.

Message edited by author 2006-07-21 13:36:17.