| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/02/2008 08:05:22 AM · #1 |
I saw Canon is launching 50D, the question that i have is more about Full frame system. 5D was released in sometime 2005, does this mean support would go away or it would be discontinued soon? also I was looking at EOS-1Ds III but it cost a lot more :)
What is your recommendation, whether to upgrade to 5D or not? What about 50D? As per the specification, 50D is not full frame and it has 1.3 multiplier and also does not support EF-S lenses. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 09:01:56 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by pgirish007:
What is your recommendation, whether to upgrade to 5D or not? What about 50D? As per the specification, 50D is not full frame and it has 1.3 multiplier and also does not support EF-S lenses. |
Not sure where you got your info, but the 50D is the same 1.6 crop as the 20D, and takes all EF-S lenses. I am in the same boat as you. I am trying to decide between the 50D, and waiting to see what the replacement for the 5D looks like. Although, I am not sure I am ready to shell out the coin that would be required to upgrade to the 5D line.
~Ab
Message edited by author 2008-09-02 09:02:29. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 09:14:34 AM · #3 |
What are you looking for? FF for the bragging rights or what? The 40D will equal or exceed the 5D in IQ and it's a LOT faster and better focusing and has a flash and some weather sealing. The 50D now beats it in High ISO and MP. The 5D has no reason to be anymore.
As to a new 5Dn2 or whatever it will be called - I'm really surprised canon hasn't release something by now. Current rumour is it will be announced AT Photokina to all kinds of fanfare and such. We'll see. Expect it to be $3000 give or take a couple of hundred bucks. And your 17-85 won't work on it - so you'll need a new main lens and don't go cheap - even the 5D will show a cheap lens's deficiencies - the new body will do that even moreso I'm sure.
So you got $4000 to spend on a body and lens? if not, then get a good deal on a 40D or get the 50D when it hits stores in a month or so. You really can't go wrong with either one.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2008 10:38:25 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
What are you looking for? FF for the bragging rights or what? The 40D will equal or exceed the 5D in IQ and it's a LOT faster and better focusing and has a flash and some weather sealing. The 50D now beats it in High ISO and MP. The 5D has no reason to be anymore.
As to a new 5Dn2 or whatever it will be called - I'm really surprised canon hasn't release something by now. Current rumour is it will be announced AT Photokina to all kinds of fanfare and such. We'll see. Expect it to be $3000 give or take a couple of hundred bucks. And your 17-85 won't work on it - so you'll need a new main lens and don't go cheap - even the 5D will show a cheap lens's deficiencies - the new body will do that even moreso I'm sure.
So you got $4000 to spend on a body and lens? if not, then get a good deal on a 40D or get the 50D when it hits stores in a month or so. You really can't go wrong with either one. |
I must agree with Prof_Fate. Some people may appear enthusiastic with FF upgrade, but they may be quite disappointed when 'cheap' lenses are mounted on a FF body. I expect to see some serious drawbacks at the corners unless expensive lenses are used.
One of the major drawback with FF cameras is that it is a very expensive business. I still do not think that the price difference between smaller and FF sensors is justified. In 5-10 years, the price will probably go down significantly. Unless you do photography for a living (professional), i do not see the reason to upgrade at the moment. Things may change but it will probably take some years. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 11:10:20 AM · #5 |
Couple points on FF bodies and lenses. FF bodies are actually a little *more* forgiving of lens aberrations in the central 2/3 of the frame, but of course they use the full image circle of the lens at the corners, so if the lens has significant problems (softness, spherical aberration, CA) at the edge of the image circle, FF will show them.
It's not always a case of "you need the very best glass" but more "you need to pay attention to corner performance again."
Currently, the 5D is a great deal if FF is what you are after. The image quality from the 5D is still unequaled for the dollar, though the features not present are indicative of the fact that it is a 3-year-old product.
The 5D successor will no doubt be an outstanding camera, but at quite a price premium. If the resolution is as the rumor mill reports indicate, the file sizes are going to be very large and will tax older computers, so again plan accordingly.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2008 11:17:54 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The 5D has no reason to be anymore. |
This just isn't true.
I have a beautiful 15mm Fisheye lens that I love to use on occasion. It looks and works great on my 5D (FF). Sorta works (but loses much of the effect) on my 1D Mark III (1.3x crop) and does absolutely nothing for my 20D (1.6x crop) which means it would totally suck on a 50D as well. The 50D does *not* replace the 5D, at all.
Likewise, I have a couple of other wide angle lenses (17-35) that look and work great on my 5D but do very little for me on the 20D.
In fact, one of my most used lenses, the Canon 24-70 2.8L lens is almost a non-starter on the 20D due to the 1.6x crop.
Really guys... When you need Full Frame you need Full Frame and there's no way around that.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2008 11:22:29 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The 5D has no reason to be anymore. |
This just isn't true.
I have a beautiful 15mm Fisheye lens that I love to use on occasion. It looks and works great on my 5D (FF). Sorta works (but loses much of the effect) on my 1D Mark III (1.3x crop) and does absolutely nothing for my 20D (1.6x crop) which means it would totally suck on a 50D as well. The 50D does *not* replace the 5D, at all.
Likewise, I have a couple of other wide angle lenses (17-35) that look and work great on my 5D but do very little for me on the 20D.
In fact, one of my most used lenses, the Canon 24-70 2.8L lens is almost a non-starter on the 20D due to the 1.6x crop.
Really guys... When you need Full Frame you need Full Frame and there's no way around that. |
Ditto, it's all about the wide angle for me. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:22:51 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by scarbrd:
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The 5D has no reason to be anymore. |
This just isn't true... |
Ditto, it's all about the wide angle for me. |
And another ditto... it's about:
- Wide angle
- DoF control
- Big pixels (there really is a difference!)
In the end, APS-C and 35mm are just different formats. Saying that APS-C makes 35mm obsolete is like saying that 35mm makes medium format obsolete. Not so, although "the chains have moved" in relation to what end uses one puts them to; for instance, high-end 35mm can do landscape every bit as well as medium format film (arguably better in some respects) but medium format digital has advanced far beyond teh bounds of medium format film, with the exception of the still-limited sensor sizes (there is not yet such a thing as a 6x4.5 cm sensor). |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:29:37 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Couple points on FF bodies and lenses. FF bodies are actually a little *more* forgiving of lens aberrations in the central 2/3 of the frame, but of course they use the full image circle of the lens at the corners, so if the lens has significant problems (softness, spherical aberration, CA) at the edge of the image circle, FF will show them.
It's not always a case of "you need the very best glass" but more "you need to pay attention to corner performance again."
Currently, the 5D is a great deal if FF is what you are after. The image quality from the 5D is still unequaled for the dollar, though the features not present are indicative of the fact that it is a 3-year-old product.
The 5D successor will no doubt be an outstanding camera, but at quite a price premium. If the resolution is as the rumor mill reports indicate, the file sizes are going to be very large and will tax older computers, so again plan accordingly. |
Well, the 'corner performance' is quite correlated to what you pay for. Most of the time, you will find very good corner performances for semi-pro/pro lenses. Price is commensurate with quality, no matter what (except maybe for prime lenses, but still some of them can be quite expensive, and I found them quite inconvenient).
I agree with you on the final point, 'plan accordingly' means invest, and not a small amount of money.
One thing to say that the FF option is not longer a Canon product, Nikon and Sony are going to this direction, and maybe others, but that will take some time. Some may not like it, but that's the way it is... |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:37:37 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The 5D has no reason to be anymore. |
This just isn't true.
I have a beautiful 15mm Fisheye lens that I love to use on occasion. It looks and works great on my 5D (FF). Sorta works (but loses much of the effect) on my 1D Mark III (1.3x crop) and does absolutely nothing for my 20D (1.6x crop) which means it would totally suck on a 50D as well. The 50D does *not* replace the 5D, at all.
Likewise, I have a couple of other wide angle lenses (17-35) that look and work great on my 5D but do very little for me on the 20D.
In fact, one of my most used lenses, the Canon 24-70 2.8L lens is almost a non-starter on the 20D due to the 1.6x crop.
Really guys... When you need Full Frame you need Full Frame and there's no way around that. |
Look at the nice collection of expensive lenses [dwterry] has. That makes sense to go FF. But most users cannot probably afford what [dwterry] has.
If people want to have the optimal optical quality, of course, FF will give better results than APS-C....but it does not mean people cannot make outstanding pictures using the latter type of sensor.
Message edited by author 2008-09-02 13:41:40. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 01:43:17 PM · #11 |
True... I was only arguing against the point that the 5D (or that Full Frame) no longer matters. And as Kirbic added .. besides wide angle, there are also DOF control and image quality gains to be had by using FF as compared to a cropped sensor.
|
|
|
|
09/02/2008 06:07:02 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
Well, the 'corner performance' is quite correlated to what you pay for. Most of the time, you will find very good corner performances for semi-pro/pro lenses. Price is commensurate with quality, no matter what (except maybe for prime lenses, but still some of them can be quite expensive, and I found them quite inconvenient). |
Yes, primes can be less convenient, however they will quite often yield superior results to zooms at less cost. Some moderately priced Canon primes that yield very good to outstanding results on 35mm frame:
Canon 35/2.0
Canon 50/1.4
Canon 85/1.8
Canon 100/2.8 Macro USM
Canon 200/2.8 L
In zoom lenses, it's not so much that APC-C zooms are really cheaper; in fact to get a sharp, fast zoom on APS-C, the cost is pretty much the same as on FF. The choices may be different, for instance the EF-S 17-55 as opposed to the 24-70, or the EF-S 10-22 rather than the 17-40/4 L or 16-35/2.8 L but the cost is not that different. Slow "consumer" zooms will not yield the same quality images, so whatever format you choose, yes, planning for an investment in glass that exceeds body cost by several times is wise. |
|
|
|
09/02/2008 06:26:06 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The 40D will equal or exceed the 5D in IQ |
I disagree with this comment, I have both camera's and if I have a choice I would ALWAYS use the 5D i think the IQ is much better.
I'm not sure if there is a problem with my 40D? but whilst I get good results with it, they're never as good as shots with the same lens on the 5D. Just my experience of the two camera anyway
|
|
|
|
09/02/2008 09:48:09 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by kevip6:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The 40D will equal or exceed the 5D in IQ |
I disagree with this comment, I have both camera's and if I have a choice I would ALWAYS use the 5D i think the IQ is much better.
I'm not sure if there is a problem with my 40D? but whilst I get good results with it, they're never as good as shots with the same lens on the 5D. Just my experience of the two camera anyway |
No, nothing wrong with your 40D, you're absolutely correct, the 40D will not equal the 5D in IQ. Why? Let's ignore the 20% deficiency in pixels, that's really not that big a factor. What the big factors are:
- The fact that, over the area the 40D sensor covers, the pixel density is much higher than the 5D. Lens softness will show with the 40D long before the 5D "notices" it. So much for the 5D needing a diet of "L" glass" to shine ;-)
- The 5D has a significantly weaker AA filter, and as such has better acuity (per-pixel sharpness) than the 40D (at the cost of occasional moire).
- The 5D captures many more photons per pixel, resulting in an inherent advantage in noise, prior to any noise reduction. Remember that a fair portion of random noise comes from the statistics of photon arrival, in other words, limits of physics. Larger pixels, more photons, less random noise.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2008 07:35:53 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by kevip6:
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
The 40D will equal or exceed the 5D in IQ |
I disagree with this comment, I have both camera's and if I have a choice I would ALWAYS use the 5D i think the IQ is much better.
I'm not sure if there is a problem with my 40D? but whilst I get good results with it, they're never as good as shots with the same lens on the 5D. Just my experience of the two camera anyway |
No, nothing wrong with your 40D, you're absolutely correct, the 40D will not equal the 5D in IQ. Why? Let's ignore the 20% deficiency in pixels, that's really not that big a factor. What the big factors are:
- The fact that, over the area the 40D sensor covers, the pixel density is much higher than the 5D. Lens softness will show with the 40D long before the 5D "notices" it. So much for the 5D needing a diet of "L" glass" to shine ;-)
- The 5D has a significantly weaker AA filter, and as such has better acuity (per-pixel sharpness) than the 40D (at the cost of occasional moire).
- The 5D captures many more photons per pixel, resulting in an inherent advantage in noise, prior to any noise reduction. Remember that a fair portion of random noise comes from the statistics of photon arrival, in other words, limits of physics. Larger pixels, more photons, less random noise. |
This is nice piece of information, Thanks!
At the same time, what are the changes in 5D firmware upgrades? something that would make this product more useful. |
|
|
|
09/03/2008 08:58:07 AM · #16 |
| isn't the pixel density higher on the 40 for the same crop with the 5?--the 5 has 20% more pixels but the 40 is shooting a 1.6cropso wouldn't it actually have a higher density? |
|
|
|
09/03/2008 09:19:15 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by rider:
isn't the pixel density higher on the 40 for the same crop with the 5?--the 5 has 20% more pixels but the 40 is shooting a 1.6cropso wouldn't it actually have a higher density? |
Yes, that's what Kirbic said: that even in the cropped area, the 1.6 sensor has a higher pixel density.
R.
|
|
|
|
09/03/2008 09:48:51 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by msieglerfr:
Look at the nice collection of expensive lenses [dwterry] has. That makes sense to go FF. But most users cannot probably afford what [dwterry] has.
|
David should donate some lenses to the less fortunate :-P
|
|
|
|
09/03/2008 11:08:29 AM · #19 |
| thanks bear i reread that and now it i get it i guess it was too early before--lol |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/23/2024 08:57:32 AM EDT.
