OK so I have a Rebel XTi with which I have taken about 8000 photos since I got it 6 months ago. I also have 2 lenses 50 f1.8 (my favorite) 17-40 f4. My dad has the ability to get about $2000 in gift certificates to best buy. He offered to get a 5D and then trade it with me for my rebel. My dilemma is that I feel that the 5D is allot of camera. I mean I just got the Rebel and I feel like a 5D is just spoiling me. I am not saying that I don't want it I really really want it but I don't have allot of glass (see above) and it is more conspicuous camera. It is a real step up. I would rather get $2000 in glass but that is not the deal. What kinds of things am I getting from the 5D that I don't have in the Rebel aside from a full frame sensor (which is why I want it less noise)? Do you think the 5D is overkill for me? Also he doesn't have to buy it immediately so I have some time to think about it. Any thoughts?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Canon 5D dilemma
- Thread starter buywisdom
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The 5D certainly sounds very very nice (I've never used one), and would make you want more lenses pretty quickly. And to take advantage of the camara's abilities, you need good glass (which your lenses certainly are). Something on the lines of the 70-200 f/4 (at least) should probably be in your near future if you got a 5D.
I think it's great that you're thinking through the appropriateness of this camera rather than just taking it. I think that shows a lot of maturity. What other things might you and/or your dad do with the best buy coupons?
On the other hand, you do sound like a shutterbug. If your dad's impressed by your commitment to photography, this could be a great camera for you for a long, long time to come. The 5D is likely the next Canon camera to be upgraded, but realistically the improvements in the upcoming revision and over the next several years, even 10 years, are going to be minor bells and whistles. The 5D will be able to hold its own on image quality for a long, long time.
How interested are you in photography? Do you see this as a camera you can truly grow into, or is photography more of a passing interest?
I think it's great that you're thinking through the appropriateness of this camera rather than just taking it. I think that shows a lot of maturity. What other things might you and/or your dad do with the best buy coupons?
On the other hand, you do sound like a shutterbug. If your dad's impressed by your commitment to photography, this could be a great camera for you for a long, long time to come. The 5D is likely the next Canon camera to be upgraded, but realistically the improvements in the upcoming revision and over the next several years, even 10 years, are going to be minor bells and whistles. The 5D will be able to hold its own on image quality for a long, long time.
How interested are you in photography? Do you see this as a camera you can truly grow into, or is photography more of a passing interest?
What type of photography do you do? Would you benefit or be hurt be not having the 1.6x crop factor? Have you considered getting the 40D and using the rest to buy lenses, or is the deal a 5D or nothing? (You might also consider waiting for the 5D replacement that has been rumored as others have suggested)
I really need to sell mine fast then. My friend gets back with it in 2 weeks and its going right on ebay while they are still going for a good price.
That's always the 1st question that pops into my head when someone talks about getting a full frame camera. For someone who wants to shoot more ultra wide-angle shots, then it's perfect. If you want more zoom, then I think you'll find that it's highly overrated, and you'll wish you had got a Canon 40D instead. For those who want more reach, I don't really understand the obsession for a full frame camera, but I may be in the minority when I say that.
And I'd say that a camera like the 5D is MORE forgiving with regards to lens quality. A lens has to be sharper on your XTi and 40D than it does on a 5D, as the 5D has a sensor with larger pixels. The pixel on the 12 MegaPixel sensor are certainly larger than the pixels on my Nikon D300, which is also 12 MP.
What's overkill? Is buying a BMW or Audi considered overkill when most of us only need a Honda Civic? If you can get it for almost free, then get it. It won't be too much camera. You'll just adapt quickly.
The advantage of the XTi and other crop cameras in terms of lenses is that they use the middle 38% of the 36x24mm full-frame, which is almost always where the lens is the sharpest. The 5D uses a lot more of the edges of the lens, which means you get a lot more light falloff and corner softness on lenses that might be great on the XTi, but aren't up to snuff on the full-frame.
Oh man those rumoured specs looks good and even thought I really want a FF camera, I should probably hang on to my 40D for now. Maybe when that dies then I'll upgrade to that. 1 step at a time.
Lens comment about sharpness and using limited area is firmly agreed with. The 50mm f/1.8 II's edge weakness will become more noticeable, for instance, and you'll have to move up to the 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.2. The 5D could start a snowball effect on expense.
Just starting out, a 5D would be lovely, but by the time you have enough money to invest in more equipment to do the new camera justice, a new 5D version will be out and your investment will be devalued. Not necessarily so if you instead put the same amount of money towards lenses or other equipment that doesn't become antiquated as quickly.
Just starting out, a 5D would be lovely, but by the time you have enough money to invest in more equipment to do the new camera justice, a new 5D version will be out and your investment will be devalued. Not necessarily so if you instead put the same amount of money towards lenses or other equipment that doesn't become antiquated as quickly.
Crop sensors have a clear IQ advantage (aka sweet spot advantage) in virtually all aspects: sharpness (the sharpness decreases towards the edges), vignetting, chromatic aberration, distortions, you name it. Many of these effects grow exponentially towards the borders and are significantly more visible.
That's why you need exceptional lenses with your FF body.
I agree with the fact that in terms of vignetting and distortion, lenses clearly have a disadvantage on full frame cameras. Same with sharpness in a sense. A lens doesn't have to be as sharp from corner to corner, because only the central area of the lens is used to produce the image on most DSLRs. On full frame, you'd need corner to corner sharpness. However, even if a lens isn't quite as sharp, you do get some leeway on the 5D because the pixels are just that much bigger than on other cameras. If you move your camera 8 um on a 5D or D3, you're still going to hit 1 pixel, possibly 2. If you do the same on the D300, the light will hit 2 pixels, possibly 3. The only time I see exceptionally sharp "full frame lenses" being really needed is when FF cameras have something like 21 MP or something (Canon 1Ds III), where the pixel size is similar to that on cameras like the D300.
I wonder if the image quality of the D300 has been reported to be better than the D3 at ISO 200? I haven't read this anywhere.
I wouldn't really expect the performance of a typical FF lens to be any worse on a FF camera than a "digital only" lens performs on an APS-C digital SLR like the D300, 40D, XTi, etc.
You can say the same thing about going to medium and large format, can't you? I always thought this was why nobody ever talked about lens sharpness on large film formats.....because it didn't really matter.
I wonder if the image quality of the D300 has been reported to be better than the D3 at ISO 200? I haven't read this anywhere.
I wouldn't really expect the performance of a typical FF lens to be any worse on a FF camera than a "digital only" lens performs on an APS-C digital SLR like the D300, 40D, XTi, etc.
You can say the same thing about going to medium and large format, can't you? I always thought this was why nobody ever talked about lens sharpness on large film formats.....because it didn't really matter.
I hope it's not updated that soon, puts my chances of getting a new 5D in September down a bit.
I have a few more questions based on the comments above.
1) If the sensor gets +3MP to 15 does that mean it will be a worse camera because the pixels will be larger. Is there a sweet spot for pixel size?
2) I see the rumor sounds cool. Except the price jumps by more than 50% putting is out of the $2000 range I have to spend. On a side note the points that are redeemable for among other things best buy gift cards are about $2000 and best buy nor any other place that the points can be redeemed for sells lenses thus I cannot use it towards a 40D plus lens. Also I must upgrade the body because the deal is my dad gets the Xti.
The 1.6 crop is just that a crop. Doesn't that mean with the 5D I have 40% more image and thus I could crop down to what the XTi/40D "see" and be left with something like a ~7MP Xti photo that is better because the pixels are larger.
Finally I don't do a specific type of photography. Recently I used my camera to take panoramic landscapes later stitched in PS. But before that I did a portrait series. I don't have a reach lens so maybe 100mm is my next purchase. After getting the 50mm it seems that Primes are much much better than zooms. Is this generally true across the board?
1) If the sensor gets +3MP to 15 does that mean it will be a worse camera because the pixels will be larger. Is there a sweet spot for pixel size?
2) I see the rumor sounds cool. Except the price jumps by more than 50% putting is out of the $2000 range I have to spend. On a side note the points that are redeemable for among other things best buy gift cards are about $2000 and best buy nor any other place that the points can be redeemed for sells lenses thus I cannot use it towards a 40D plus lens. Also I must upgrade the body because the deal is my dad gets the Xti.
The 1.6 crop is just that a crop. Doesn't that mean with the 5D I have 40% more image and thus I could crop down to what the XTi/40D "see" and be left with something like a ~7MP Xti photo that is better because the pixels are larger.
Finally I don't do a specific type of photography. Recently I used my camera to take panoramic landscapes later stitched in PS. But before that I did a portrait series. I don't have a reach lens so maybe 100mm is my next purchase. After getting the 50mm it seems that Primes are much much better than zooms. Is this generally true across the board?
On quite a few tests I've seen, the 12.4 MP D2X has beaten the 16 MP Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II, because of this sweet spot advantage (at full aperture).
If you use high-quality lenses, its resolution is high enough (keep in mind that the pixel size of high-res FF sensors is comparable to that of crop sensors). So I guess I'm saying that you need quality glass, but IMO there is no FF advantage when it comes to IQ from the same pro-level lenses.
Yes and no. Medium format is high-end these days, the IQ is exceptional, because the lenses and everything else is top-of-the-line. So you're correct that in principle, but given the money you invest on quality, you can achieve exceptional results.
No, it will not be a worse sensor because of that. There is no sweet spot as far as pixel size and image quality from the lenses is concerned. I think you're mixing two arguments here: size of sensors vs. size of pixels.
The sweet spot advantage I was talking about just depends on sensor size and not pixel size: lens defects get significantly more important towards the edges and what corresponds to the corner of a crop sensor is the outer third of a full frame sensor.
Larger pixels tend to improve the noise characteristics, but that is by no means a guarantee. Nowadays, the noise characteristics of all types of sensors (full frame and crop sensors alike!) give you great-looking pictures at normal ISO settings (100-400 or 800). IMO the noise characteristics are overall better than on 35 mm film. As you can see from the D3 (and if we are to believe the specs on the 5D Mark II), Nikon uses a full frame sensors to push ISO values that were nothing but a pipe dream back in the film days. That's where FF sensors have an edge over crop sensors.
Then forget about the 5D and get a 40D -- which is a great camera that surpasses the 5D in quite a few things! Keep in mind that you'd have to spend an almost equal amount on lenses as well if you get the 5D -- because without prime quality lenses, the 5D is useless.
Yes, but if you're talking about the 5D, which is only 12 MP, even an average lens, or a poorly calibrated lens may still result in sharp photos. But the 21 MP has the same pixel pitch as crop sensors. I think that's when it doesn't matter. However, I've never heard a report of the D3 or 5D being beaten by a 10 or 12 MP crop sensor camera, regardless of lens.
But yes, of course I see your point regarding the sweet spot of the lens. I'm not actually a big fan of full frame. I don't really care for it. I'd have to spend a lot more money on glass to get the "reach" I'm currently getting. Sure, ultra-wide angle is more difficult to achieve, but my Tokina 12-24 mm performs well enough for me.
Same here, I don't have anything `against' FF (other than the price, of course), but it's not very high on my priority list.
That's driving folks crazy like a Mac rumor. Maybe, maybe not and what's it going to cost?
There's a bit of a love fest of 5D folks going on over on www.photography-on-the.net
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=462416
It's a fantastic body. Certainly it has a lot of fans. The above shot is a very close crop with a 85mm at 1.8 (the original had sky most of my daughter lots of surrounding area) ISO 3200 is fairly clean with no NR and very sharp files.
If I had just $2000, I might keep the XTi and get a lens or two depending on price (I didn't see what your lens situation is - but note that you want the money for lenses but that's not the deal). Once you get it, you'll likely want to / need to spend more on lenses (the $2899 kit with the 24-105 f4L is a good deal these days - you'd be over $3,200 if you bought each seperately).
If the choice is: A) get the 5D or B) get nothing (is that correct, reading you post to say that $2000 for lenses is not an option) I'd be inclined to go with A.
How about choice C - which you could also get from Best Buy - a 40D kit and gift certificate money left over?
I'd invest in glass first -- you'll keep that forever. There will be a new "must-have" body every year but the truth is, a skilled photographer with good glass can take great photos with any body.
As I see it to accept the 'deal' he has to give the Rebel to his dad.
Now once he gives it up he has $2,000 ???
I'd say .... get a 40D Body and a nice " L " series lens.
The 40D with the 17-40 f4/L lens should come in around $2,000
But another thought .... if you are shopping at Best Buy - might be able to get an excellent deal on a 30D body and " L " lens.
Talk to Best Buy - just because it is not in the store doesnt mean they cannot get it for you.
NOTE: I was given $2,000 to spend freely about a year ago. I purchased a 30D and the 17-40 f4 L with the money. It is a sweet package - since have added a 5D and 70-200 f2.8L IS lens.
Bottom line - If i was handed $2,000 today I would opt for a 40D and whatever "L" lens I could afford.
Now once he gives it up he has $2,000 ???
I'd say .... get a 40D Body and a nice " L " series lens.
The 40D with the 17-40 f4/L lens should come in around $2,000
But another thought .... if you are shopping at Best Buy - might be able to get an excellent deal on a 30D body and " L " lens.
Talk to Best Buy - just because it is not in the store doesnt mean they cannot get it for you.
NOTE: I was given $2,000 to spend freely about a year ago. I purchased a 30D and the 17-40 f4 L with the money. It is a sweet package - since have added a 5D and 70-200 f2.8L IS lens.
Bottom line - If i was handed $2,000 today I would opt for a 40D and whatever "L" lens I could afford.
Going from medium to large format brought so many other things in play that it wasn't like going from APS-C to 35mm at all- movements, film holders, bellows focusing... But overall, yes lens sharpness mattered a lot less, you can still find folks shooting with 50-100 year old lenses making great prints with incredible detail. While you can get really nice new Schneider-Kreuznach lenses that are made for digital where sharpness matters more LF was pretty-much limited more at the film level. Most lens issues I had were of the "gee, I'd like a nice super-wide angle, but those 90mm lenses are way expensive!" variety- though that was before I was making any money with my photography.
Even as small as 4x5, a cheap lens put many smaller format expensive lenses to shame.
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/qtluong/example.html