50D moving to 5D MkII

Sounds like a solid idea if you're willing to spend the extra money. I doubt you'll need to shoot more than the 4fps that the 5D mkII can do, with the type of photography you're describing. You might consider the 50mm f/1.4 over the f/1.8 if you want to spring for it. If not, the 1.8 is fine.

I should tell you though, I have 4 friends who use that camera and they have all had similar problems. The metering on the camera is off, it forces underexposure. 1 has had it die in the middle of a shoot (not good at a wedding). Another had the battery grip strip off in the tripod mount when putting it together the day he got it. Canon acknowledged it was a defective screw and replaced it, but it took 20 business days, after waiting 3 months to get it. But I know there are many people who probably haven't had any problems with theirs, just throwing out information for you to consider. Canon has really started to slip in quality lately, hopefully they can get some of that back.

I have used the original 5D and now the 5D mkII and the results are nothing short of spectacular. Image quality matches or beats my 1Ds Mark III and it is considerably lighter!!

If the money is there, I would trade up in an instant.

davegregory said:

The metering on the camera is off, it forces underexposure.

Click to expand...

I doubt that the cameras as a line are all that badly calibrated since I've seen well-exposed images from more than one of them- however even if they were, and especially if it were in every metering mode, exposure compensation is built in to pretty-much every SLR and DSLR manufactured in the last two decades. Also, you should know that if the images are being put through Adobe's Camera Raw Converter in LR or PS, there's a per-camera exposure bias being set in the converter that isn't displayed.

The 5dMrkII is an incredible camera to shoot pretty much anything but sport and wildlife because of its 'low' fps.

You can visit my blog for more tips and advices about the 5DMrkII (url in sig) but basically think a bit before getting the 50mm1.8. If you are used to use a 50mm on a 1.6 crop, you might feel more comfortable with a 85mm1.8, which is as good if not better (but a bit more expensive).

Also, the 24-105IS4 is a great all around lens and I would confirm your choice. BUT it is one of the easiest lens to get cheap used. There are overstock of them on Craigslist so you might want to check that first and save the money to get something else (17-40?).

Also, there is an article about the effects of IS when shooting video with the 5D, you might want to check that out too. You might not think that you will be shooting video now, but once you see the quality that can come out of it, trust me, you will turn into a cinephotographer as I did! And in this case, you will be happy to have IS lenses.

Last advice: buy a fast CF card. Writing speed is not that important, it is the reading speed that is going to kill you. Everytime I come back from a shoot and I have 32 gigs of pictures & video to upload, I want to shoot myself in the head. So a fast card (UDMA) and card reader is a real time saver!

Have fun, this is a major improvement over the 50D, trust me! I shoot without tripod at night now ;-)

i moved from a 30D to a 5D2 when it was first released. I loved it. at that time, i too had the sigma 30 f1.4 which was my favorite lens. i upgraded to the sigma 50 f1.4 when i picked up the new camera.

the 5D2 is phenominal in all it does: low light, video, capturing highlights/shadows, etc.

you may miss having an on camera flash if you use that vs off camera lighting, although the on camera flash was never something i used.

if you have the means, by all means do it. it's a much better camera.

ThunderRobot said:

I've not heard this before. A very quick Google search suggests this may only be a problem using Spot metering. Would this tie in with your experience?

Click to expand...

Yes, sorry I should have been more specific, it is in spot metering mode. My apologies. Also, I'm not trying dissuade you from getting it. I think it's a fantastic camera and the images it produces are stunning as previously stated. I just wanted to share the experiences I've seen with this camera, so you can get the whole picture. Like I said, I'm sure there are a vast majority of people who own this camera and have never had a problem with it, and probably never will.

ThunderRobot said:

I have one EF-S only lens (Sigma 30mm f1.4) which I would probably replace with the Canon 50mm f1.8, again as part of the part exchange.

Click to expand...

The move to the 5DmkII is a good one, but for goodness sake, don't burden that fantastic camera with a plastic piece of junk like the 50/1.8. The 1.4 is markedly better, and still doesn't really cost all that much in absolute terms (especially when paired with a $2500+ body).

Seriously. The 50/1.8 is bad for your health.

a 5D will open up lots of new possibilites when it comes to wide lenses - you won't have to get as wide (wider = more expensive and rarer, in the case of manual focus) shift lens for architecture, and you gain access to the world of wide-angle primes.

but a 5D is more than "a little" slower than a 50D...

According to the rumors, Canon is set to announce EOS 7D in early September. No full details but it is slated to sit between 5D Mark II and 50D, providing 12 MP full-frame image sensor with new 3" OLED screen, built-in flash, and movie recording.

Who cares about FPS, all you need is one shot. Make it perfect

nutmac said:

According to the rumors, Canon is set to announce EOS 7D in early September. No full details but it is slated to sit between 5D Mark II and 50D, providing 12 MP full-frame image sensor with new 3" OLED screen, built-in flash, and movie recording.

Click to expand...

They need something to go head to head with the D700. If they can get close to the D700/D3 high ISO performace with the 5DmkII, imagine what they may be able to accomplish with a 12 MP sensor and the same processing engine etc.

Nikon is also rumored to be prepping a D700x which would be targeted directly at the 5DmkII, if it's got the same speed as the current D700 I'll be all over that as a second body.

SLC

JFreak said:

Who cares about FPS, all you need is one shot. Make it perfect

Click to expand...

It's not just FPS, it's in AF speed also that the 5DmkII is lacking. It's not marketed to shoot sports, but a sports capable camera like the D700 can still shoot portraits and weddings with ease.

I'd rather have a fast FPS and AF camera and not need the speed all the time, than have a slow FPS and AF camera and not have the speed for some things when I need it.

SLC

SLC Flyfishing said:

It's not just FPS, it's in AF speed also that the 5DmkII is lacking. It's not marketed to shoot sports, but a sports capable camera like the D700 can still shoot portraits and weddings with ease.

Click to expand...

ugh. the 5DII's weakness is not autofocus speed. it's tracking, since only the center point is cross-type and all the servo help-points are within the spot-metering circle.

It's a great step up in kit to be sure but don't get the impression that better gear is going to make you a better photographer. You have not mentioned specifics but judging by the post it is not an insignificant amount of cost to upgrade. I'm not making any judgements on your skill level (as this should apply to anyone considering a gear upgrade), but you need to think carefully about what it is you find limiting about your current gear gear, and if moving up to better gear is going to alleviate that.

One last thing, I know 21MP sounds great and all, but also consider that it will require the highest technique and lenses to truly benefit from the added resolution (i.e., How good is your tripod?). If you're relying on IS to help you out in low light situations then the 21MP advantage might just be getting you soft 21MP pictures, because the extreme resolution of that sensor is resolving beyond what IS can fix. Or, with less than the highest caliber of lenses, you will only be capturing the softness in the mediocre glass. I know you're a Canon shooter but if you read the D3x review by Thom Hogan (http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xreview.htm) he has some good discussion on ultrahigh MP cameras and the consequences of such a body. Much of it applies to Canon's high MP camera line too. I'll copy his Bottom Line statement here, emphasis added by me:

Bottom line: the D3x produces excellent, best-of-class images, but that comes at a price that's the highest of any existing DSLR. You'll need really top notch lenses and technique to resolve that performance. Are you really ready for all that portends?

Click to expand...

IMO if you're not ready for such a camera, (and there's no shame in that) save your money and keep shooting what you have until you are. Then, when you are prepared to upgrade, then the cameras will only be better (or cheaper) than making that purchase now. Alternatively, a cheaper option might be to just upgrade your glass first and wait on a new body).

Ruahrc

There is a marked difference (in my view, at least) between crop cameras and full frame ones. I made a move similar to the one the OP is contemplating (just with Nikon gear) and I love it so far.

If you want a cheap and easy way to see if you would like full frame, get a Canon film camera, a full frame lens if you don't already have one, and start shooting for a few weeks. I had my N80 for about six months before I decided to get a D700, and I ended up liking photography a lot more with it than with my D300. Sure enough, I love the D700, and it's not just because of the remarkable sensor in it.

If you want to shoot wide, then why wouldn't you consider the wonderful 16-35 f/2.8L

JFreak said:

If you want to shoot wide, then why wouldn't you consider the wonderful 16-35 f/2.8L

Click to expand...

Price?

The 17-40 is close enough in performance, plus it's around a 3rd of the price (depends which country you buy it though).

Kebabselector said:

Price? The 17-40 is close enough in performance, plus it's around a 3rd of the price (depends which country you buy it though).

Click to expand...

About $1500 new (street price), and you can probably get the older Mark I model for about a thousand on eBay or your local camera store.

I myself would not buy the 17-40 because it's only f/4, even though it would get more use outdoors where fast aperture is not that important, but I'm thinking it would also get lots of indoor use, group photos and such, so I'd want to be using that f/2.8 quite often.

Sure, faster glass is more expensive, but that's the price you pay for the wider aperture. But you do get brighter viewfinder and more accurate autofocus as a bonus

ThunderRobot said:

My hope is with this plan that I would have little or no need to ever change my body (at least for a long time) and concentrate all my cash into glass.

Click to expand...

Naturally, your needs and point of view may vary, but take a moment to think longer term as you already pointed out; so, is that 24-105 really THE glass you want to be using, or would you want something else to go with the 16-35 that you seem to be eventually buying? Would you be better served with the 135 f/2L as a companion? Probably you won't be needing the fast aperture if you're only shooting still subjects, but IMO it's a whole lot easier to carry 16-35 and 135 together, because they're physically sized almost the same (thus you'd be fine with one and the same lens pouch).

Maybe it's just me, but I've never been fond of the 24-70 or 24-105 and even the red ring does not make me like them...

JFreak said:

I myself would not buy the 17-40 because it's only f/4

Click to expand...

On a 5D MkII that's not really an issue. Just up the iso a little and you'd get away with it.

you can probably get the older Mark I model for about a thousand on eBay

Click to expand...

But would you want it? There's a reason the MkII came out

Kebabselector said:

On a 5D MkII that's not really an issue. Just up the iso a little and you'd get away with it.

Click to expand...

f/2.8 vs f/4.0 is probably a never-ending debate