| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/22/2008 09:15:26 PM · #1 |
| mainly shooting weddings/portrait sessions, have 70-200 and soon to purchase 24-70 and just getting an idea of whether i should go for the epic 5d or new technology and iso advantages. thanx |
|
|
|
09/23/2008 05:30:32 PM · #2 |
If i were you i would'nt hesitate, i'd get the 5d. Since you're going to use it commercially, you should more than recover your cost.
And you already have full frame lens to begin with.
Message edited by author 2008-09-23 17:31:43. |
|
|
|
09/23/2008 05:52:59 PM · #3 |
I'd get the 50D if I were you. Both are very capable, but I don't see the 5D offering enough added features to be worth an extra $1000+.
Use the money you save for more/better glass - that's where it's at, anyway.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2008 05:56:02 PM · #4 |
I would opt for the 5D given your requirements (might myself when the 5DII comes out). You would gain a real 24-70 lens rather then been on the longer end and that 70-200 would probably get a bit more practical as well. Now if you are always on the long end, then another story :-) I would guess a good 5D will be within a few hundred bucks of the 50D soon.
Message edited by author 2008-09-23 17:56:34.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2008 06:24:55 PM · #5 |
Old or new 5D? Old one, no way over the 50D. Why? Speed. Of every kind in every way the 50D is better - faster /better focus, faster FPS, faster operation overall (writing, display on LCD, startup, etc). HTP - highlight tone priority is a fantastic feature, the 50D has weather sealing and sensor cleaning too and is TWO generations newer on the processor and has live view (handy for quickie macro wedding detail shots). The 50 also does 14 bit raw - more DR is the advantage (5D does 12 bit)
The original 5D had one claim to fame - excellent high ISO performance. The 40D matches it within 1/2 stop and from what I understad the 50 is 2 stops better than the 40 - so 1 to 1 1/2 stops cleaner high ISO than the 5D.
If you're asking about the 5D2...then that's a different animal. I am shooting with 2 40s and 30 and will likely replace the 30 with a used 40 later this month (I LOVE the 40D) and in the spring get a 5D2. I'd like to try one out first just to see, but the movie mode has me intrigued.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2008 07:02:18 PM · #6 |
| nice, i love the two sides imputs from everyone. i am kinda siding with the 5d aspect in due part that i will gain my 70-200 as a "more practical" lens, which has been a huge downside the my 1.6x 20d and 30d. but as far as the priceing goes, how much do you think the 5d will drop in the future 3-4 months? since the markII is going to release, im excited to see the prices plumet. keep the comments rolling, i would also like other wedding photographers opinions if any have done so add that you are currently a wedding photographer, but i would like some real life reviews if there are any out there. Thanxs |
|
|
|
09/24/2008 11:52:46 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by dmadden:
If i were you i would'nt hesitate, i'd get the 5d. Since you're going to use it commercially, you should more than recover your cost.
And you already have full frame lens to begin with. |
I actually meant the 5D II :) |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 12:19:25 AM · #8 |
I have a 40D at home and a 5D at the office. Of those two, I would slightly favor the 5D for weddings, however the 50D offers enough of an improvement on noise, resolution, and AF performance to tip the scales for me. I'd rather have the 50D's fast burst mode to capture just the right moment for fleeting expressions and action, and the hi-def video capabilities could be intriguing for wedding clips since the videographer isn't always around.
The ONLY advantages to a full frame are the noise performance (largely negated with the 50D's improvements) and the wider "true" field of view. It's easier to match a FF field of view with Canon's 10-22 on the 50D (albeit with a less shallow DOF) than it is to match the 50D's telephoto reach on a 5D IMO. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 12:31:35 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
I have a 40D at home and a 5D at the office. Of those two, I would slightly favor the 5D for weddings, however the 50D offers enough of an improvement on noise, resolution, and AF performance to tip the scales for me. I'd rather have the 50D's fast burst mode to capture just the right moment for fleeting expressions and action, and the hi-def video capabilities could be intriguing for wedding clips since the videographer isn't always around.
The ONLY advantages to a full frame are the noise performance (largely negated with the 50D's improvements) and the wider "true" field of view. It's easier to match a FF field of view with Canon's 10-22 on the 50D (albeit with a less shallow DOF) than it is to match the 50D's telephoto reach on a 5D IMO. |
This is exactly how I've been feeling as I'm looking to upgrade next year. The 5D II didn't interest me until I saw the video but then I wonder how much I'd use it being a hobby photographer. With a 2 year-old and a new baby I think the burst mode is the key factor for me to go for the 50D next year. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 12:46:37 AM · #10 |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 02:16:32 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
... The ONLY advantages to a full frame are the noise performance (largely negated with the 50D's improvements).... |
That point is key, but I wonder how much improvement has actually been achieved with the 50D's handling of noise, and if it will match (or almost match) the 5D/2. Also, is the 5D/2 supposed to be an improvement in IQ over the original 5D, I wonder.
I'm going back and forth between these two cameras, but so far I'm with the 5D/2 with the thought of keeping it 5+ years before another upgrade. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 04:13:43 AM · #12 |
| I got the 5D MkII in my hands yesterday at the Photokina and must say, it has everything the 50D has (including fast frame rate), PLUS 21 Mpix on FF sensor, Full HD video and a better feel in the hand. As far as I could see , the Image quality hasn't improved over the old 5D, though. Price difference in Europe will be about 700€ (approx. US$ 1,030). |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 10:15:11 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by eyewave:
I got the 5D MkII in my hands yesterday at the Photokina |
Sweet!
Originally posted by eyewave:
it has everything the 50D has (including fast frame rate) |
huh? What do you mean by this? The 50D is 6.3 fps, the 5DII is 3.9 fps.
Originally posted by eyewave:
As far as I could see , the Image quality hasn't improved over the old 5D, though. |
What do you mean by "image quality" here? From the samples we've seen, it looks like low-light performance has certainly improved. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 10:27:24 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
Originally posted by eyewave:
it has everything the 50D has (including fast frame rate) |
huh? What do you mean by this? The 50D is 6.3 fps, the 5DII is 3.9 fps.
Originally posted by eyewave:
As far as I could see , the Image quality hasn't improved over the old 5D, though. |
What do you mean by "image quality" here? From the samples we've seen, it looks like low-light performance has certainly improved. |
You're right with the frame rate, my fault (while 6.3 fps is only true for the 50D when shooting JPEG only). 3.9 fps still is faster then the old 5D
I couldn't test any setting of course, but I couldn't see any enhancement in IQ under the conditions at Photokina. The new processor might be better, but the effect IMO dissolves through having more pixels on the same sensor size (i.e. smaller pixels, smaller gaps between them) |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 10:29:08 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by nova:
I wonder how much improvement has actually been achieved with the 50D's handling of noise, and if it will match (or almost match) the 5D/2. |
I doubt it. I suspect the 50D will approximate the original 5D in terms of noise while the 5D/2 will improve upon both (however it didn't look like that was an option for the OP)
Originally posted by nova:
Also, is the 5D/2 supposed to be an improvement in IQ over the original 5D, I wonder. |
Almost certainly. 14-bit conversion alone should improve image quality, and new technologies like highlight tone priority will help, too. Furthermore, I'd wager a sharp photo at ISO 6400 will look better than a slightly blurry one at ISO 3200 regardless of noise. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 11:48:15 AM · #16 |
| I'm surprised nobody has really mentioned it, but the new 5D, as far as fps goes, is effectively a 2.3MP camera at 24 fps (or whatever framerate the video captures at). You aren't going to be able to blow up past, say, 8x10 on that, but for web applications it would be plenty. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 11:55:22 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'm surprised nobody has really mentioned it, but the new 5D, as far as fps goes, is effectively a 2.3MP camera at 24 fps (or whatever framerate the video captures at). You aren't going to be able to blow up past, say, 8x10 on that, but for web applications it would be plenty. |
Vincent Laforet's blog proves this very point with actual frames from his 5DII movie (resized to 700px) being represented there. |
|
|
|
09/25/2008 05:27:12 PM · #18 |
| so the vibe im getting from the overall opinion of the forum is to go with the 50d persay and just adjust my lens's appropriatly to make up for the 1.6x cropping. i may be able to get my hands on a 5d the next time i go out and have a go with that, and possibly try and compare with the 40d even though its still not a 50d. big woop. any other comments? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/19/2025 08:56:19 AM EDT.
