Upgrade - DPChallenge Forums

05/02/2006 06:48:33 AM · #1

I'm looking to upgrade from my 300d either the end of this month or next month. I'm very pulled between the 30d and the 5d from canon. Here's my situation: if I go for the 30d, I can also get better glass (i.e. 70-200mm f/2.8 is usm) if i go for the 5d, it will be a while before I can get that new glass.

I'm the military so I take a lot of action shots. Also, I go to a lot of sporting events back at home, so I see where the 5fps of the 30d would be good. However, I also like taking scenery and I want to start taking portraits. Thus, from what I've read, the 5d would be the choice.

Anyone have any advice for what I should go for?

UAE_Guy

Hasselblad H4D-40

Hasselblad HC 80mm f/2.8

05/02/2006 06:54:58 AM · #2

buy 5D or better 1Ds Mark 2, and sell your 300D, and try to get some money from somewhere then buy 70-200mm and thats all
I got money to buy 1Ds Mark2 and 70-200mm f2.8 IS USM but i still didn't buy, i don't know why but because it is very expensive in my country but by online purchasig it is much cheaper even expensive but i don't have credit card and i don't know good trust website to buy from, any idea?
I know that 30D is good, but 5D is professional 12.8MP and it is full frame, so if you don't care to take professional DSLR camera then 30D is a good choice

Message edited by author 2006-05-02 06:56:09.

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

05/02/2006 07:43:44 AM · #3

Originally posted by UAE_Guy:

thanks for the advice, but the 1ds is just a little bit out of my budget.

UAE_Guy

Hasselblad H4D-40

Hasselblad HC 80mm f/2.8

05/02/2006 07:54:16 AM · #4

and how much is your budget?

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

05/02/2006 07:59:40 AM · #5

For action shots the 5D may not be up to expectations. (Depends on the action though) - 3 fps

The 1D Mark II (1.3 crop) has 8.5 fps. I've shot next to someone with that camera and the fast fire rate is amazing. Since you're looking at the 5D this may be another option.

fotodude

Nikon D70

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

05/02/2006 08:06:36 AM · #6

always try and go as pro as you can.

this would mean the 5D the reason is rather simple you are right at the hight of technology for as long as possable... now althought the mark is a beast of a camera and really nice i would say if you don't feel that its worth talking about in the thread leave it out, it only makes the choice more complex....

you have some nice glass already (Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM), and i would say that the glass will always be there but the camera won't with the push that is on in the digital world if you have to upgrade and you want the most out of you purches you have to buy as top as you can afford...you can always but glass for you camera, and the 5D is full frame so you have even more options with it...

thats just my very small opinion on it but i think you might find it helpful..i work in a camera store and see people with regrets all the time buying new suff and hoping to sell their old on ebay...this is my reason for holding off on getting the D2X (its a nikon for those who are canon one track minds) i think the second i buy even tho it is fully pro now something else will take over...

the other thing is the 5D has the resolution to make it last like the D2X...it will be considered pro for as long as i can see b/c thats the file size people want to see (people meaning clients and other you might work for) it also allows you to bill your self as a pro. (if you so chose) it is no lie you would be working with top of the line equipment.

good luck with which ever way you go, i'm sure you will make the right choice for what you need...

_bran("buy the camera that feels best in your hand, its where it's gotta to be for you to take a picture isn't it?")do_

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/02/2006 08:30:16 AM · #7

I would go with the 30D (or if you could get a good deal on a 20D maybe that). IMO the glass will make more of a difference then the body (some will disagree).

I don't think the 5D is AS good (It would certainly be workable) for sports due to the slower frame rate and the fact that you need long glass - The 30D 1.6 crop gets you the same view for less money; sort of like a free extender. Depends on the sport but have a look at how the price increases from the 200mm range up.

For portraits and landscapes - well the 5D would be better IMO.

Not sure you can make a bad choice between these two bodies, just a matter or weighting the choices for the way you shoot.

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

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

05/02/2006 08:38:44 AM · #8

That 85mm f/1.8 is a serious throw of the stone in the direction of the 5D.

I've recently been shooting with an EOS 1n and a 30D using the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8.

Shooting the 85mm on the EOS 1n is pretty much as good as it gets.

Shooting the 85mm on the 30D gives fantastic results, but makes you stand a bit too far away. A lot of the time, you end up too close in some way. This is especially the case if you are doing anything with kids. I switched to the 50mm f/1.8 and am quite happy with it. The 85mm sits unused in my camera bag until I have to return it to my friend who is lending it to me. If I had purchased this lens, it would be a dust collector and paperweight in my backpack. Later, I may consider getting the 50mm f/1.4 instead, which is a bit more, but if I were the owner of the 85mm, I would still end up losing money switching lenses.

Put the price of the 85mm up against the price of the 5D... Might help rationalize it a bit. It's a 340 dollar lens, so if you buy the 5D online for 3000, that makes it 2650ish...

Now the 1Ds is definitely out of your league, but have you considered the basic 1D Mk II or 1D Mk IIn?

I believe you can find one of those for around 2000 dollars in the second hand market right now (check www.fredmiranda.com) and it would also allow you to use your 85mm f/1.8 (which if you count the price against it brings the equivalent price down to 1650). It would work out to around a 110mm lens, which isn't tooooo bad for portraits and still retains that f/1.8... (100mm lenses are generally f/2.8 for comparison to the 5D).

The 1D cameras have a larger sensor than the 20D/30D. They have the same pixel pitch as the 5D. It is reasonable to expect that they will have the same image quality (including noise) as the 5D on the scale of the 30D. 8 megapixels is large enough for a lot of uses and situations.

The real benefit there is the use of 8.5FPS. That will give you whatever you want for action shots.

Also, as has been mentioned in other threads, you can put two cards in the camera, then when one card is full, you just pull it out and the camera will switch to use the other. If you have another card, then when the one in-camera is full, you can throw another one in there.

Load up with 2 4GB CF cards and 1 4GB SD card and you are laughing for just about anything.

I am not so sure that you would feel a need to go for the 70-200 f/2.8IS. You might go for a different lens instead if you were going with the 5D. It's not a bad lens with the 30D because of the extra reach, but it might be a bit short on the 5D.

Another one to check out is the Sigma 120-300mm and the Canon 35-350L as well as the 70-200 f/4.0L and the older 80-200 f/2.8L.

Prof_Fate

05/02/2006 08:47:08 AM · #9

Portraits - 5D
sports, action 30D

The reason is the full frame lets the 70-200 lens shine. on the 30D you gotta take a step or two back - not a make it or break it thing most of the time, but once in a while. For sports the 30D is faster (5fps is nice) and the crop factor makes that 70-200 2.8 a 112-320 f2.8 and a 1.4TC on there gives you 150-450 f4 lens for a lot less cash than you could get otherwise.

Something else to think about - the 5D has a rebate on it now - Canon does that right before they replace the model - so the 5D may be slated for replacement/upgrade at Photokina this fall - so it may get cheaper if you wait 6 months...or the replacement may just blow your socks off.

Good glass lasts, bodies get upgraded every year - get teh 30D and 70-200 2.8 and go make some money. if you make a go of it, you can get the 5D and have both. You will not be disappointed with the 30D's portrait capabilities.

Don't get a 20D - the 30D has enough improvements that make the exts $200-300 worth it - longer shutter life, picture styles, Larger LCD, longer batt life (like a lot longer) spot meter, etc

Message edited by author 2006-05-02 08:48:24.

LalliSig

Fisher Price Kid-Tough Digital

05/02/2006 08:52:28 AM · #10

All I can say is that go for better glass over a camera body any time! They will outlast any camera body and they matter much more in the quality of pictures than a camera body.

coolhar

Canon PowerShot Pro 90 IS

05/02/2006 09:24:16 AM · #11

Why do people think the 5D is more "pro" than the 30D? I thought they were both at the same "semi-pro" level, just different features intended for differing uses. The full frame 5D is more for large print oriented photographers while the 30D with it's 5 fps is aimed more toward sports shooters, and wildlife photogs who benefit from the 1.6 crop to make their lenses seem longer. Don't they both have the same (latest Canon) image processing technology? And aren't they both about the same size body as the 20D?

eschelar

Canon EOS-7D

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

05/02/2006 09:33:16 AM · #12

Doesn't it have something to do with putting out files that are much closer to required file sizes by the types of parties out there that buy photographs?

soup

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

05/02/2006 11:12:47 AM · #13

this is not nice glass.

Originally posted by fotodude:

Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 III

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/02/2006 11:17:47 AM · #14

Originally posted by Larus:

All I can say is that go for better glass over a camera body any time! They will outlast any camera body and they matter much more in the quality of pictures than a camera body.

What he said.

Full frame cameras like the 5D are very demanding and will show the slightest flaw in the lens in front of them. You won't be happy with the 5D if you put a low range lens on it. In your situation I'd probably go for the 30D, it's more than enough for most Pro purposes allowing huge prints if you need them.

Save your money for Good glass.

ragamuffingirl

Sony Alpha NEX-5N

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

05/02/2006 01:08:04 PM · #15

What is spot metering?

<<>

What kind of shots would I use this lens for, and is it a Canon lens or a Sigma lens? Does it cost an arm and a leg?

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

05/02/2006 01:28:08 PM · #16

Personally, I'd get the 5D and sell all of your lenses (save the 85 f1.8) and buy one good wide/tele zoom lens.

05/02/2006 06:17:53 PM · #17

Thanks for all your advice. I think I will go with the 30d though. Thank you all very much.

Prof_Fate

05/02/2006 06:28:22 PM · #18

Originally posted by coolhar:

Why do people think the 5D is more "pro" than the 30D? I thought they were both at the same "semi-pro" level, just different features intended for differing uses.

canon says so. in their literature, in the extra benefits you get as a 5D owner (like free loaner camera, priority repairs, etc). It has one number - 5. all their pro bodies are one number units, semi-pro are the 2 number units (10D, 20D, 30D) and the the consumer are the three digit (300D, 350D) and they have been known to make even lesser cameras with 4 numbers. Rumours are a 3000D later this year to compete with the nikon D50.

robshookphoto

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 28mm f/1.8 USM

05/02/2006 06:51:57 PM · #19

i think that the best choice is the 20/30d with the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L, because you get a decent frame rate and a great aperture for any sports pictures. What you could do, though, is try to find a used 1d mark II, and get the sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 at nearly half the price of the canon. i would only choose the 5d if your priority was image quality, and even then, the price is a very big jump for a relatively minimal difference in image quality. the difference is certainly not something noticeable in any prints under 8 X 10, or even higher.