Canon 5D dilemma

[Abstract]

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....

Yeah, I figured that much. I wasn't crystal clear, but I meant the difference of going from 35 mm or APS-C to either Medium format, or large format. Neither require super-sharp lenses, nor do people really talk about lens sharpness as much as SLR users do (as far as I knew).

 

[compuwar]

format, or large format. Neither require super-sharp lenses, nor do people really talk about lens sharpness as much as SLR users do (as far as I knew).

Never met many doctors with Hasselblads, huh? For LF, it's more about how big the image circle is, as that determines how far you can tilt shift, rise and fall the lens or film. Some of the "I shoot tech pan" 'blad crowd were obsessed with sharpness, but it centered more around film and developers as you were approaching the limits of what you could do (and for MF, of course the enlarger lens was as important as the camera lens for very high detail- with more wiggle room at the small LF sizes and the ability to contact print with the larger LF sizes.)

Some people did a lot of the equivalent of pixel peeping with their grain magnifiers, but you pretty much had to be doing your own enlargement for that to work well- it's not like now where everyone has Photoshop.

 

[dreadthis]

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.

It's cheaper to rent glass than it is to rent a camera body. So I would say go for the camera body. The fact of the matter is the camera, lens, and the photographer make a great photograph. I shoot with a 5D and a 50mm 1.4 and I love every shot that I take with it.

From the situation the original poster stated. It seems like he'll run into either one of these problems.

If he buys the 5D, he's stuck with the lenses that he already has.
- you can always rent lenses... I rent them for about $30 - $40
-
If he buys the lenses, he's stuck with the same camera body.
- you can rent a camera.. the 5d in Kansas City rents for $250

My advice.. go with what you can afford and what will benefit you in the long run.

 

[pdxflint]

It's cheaper to rent glass than it is to rent a camera body. So I would say go for the camera body. The fact of the matter is the camera, lens, and the photographer make a great photograph. I shoot with a 5D and a 50mm 1.4 and I love every shot that I take with it.

From the situation the original poster stated. It seems like he'll run into either one of these problems.

If he buys the 5D, he's stuck with the lenses that he already has.
- you can always rent lenses... I rent them for about $30 - $40
-
If he buys the lenses, he's stuck with the same camera body.
- you can rent a camera.. the 5d in Kansas City rents for $250

My advice.. go with what you can afford and what will benefit you in the long run.

Renting might be a factor if you're doing contract photography and making money with your photos, but here's the big problem - you have to take the stuff back...! What about those casual weekends when you just want to go out seeking photos, or those impromtu moments etc... when there are no places around the corner to go rent a lens real quick? Most places (if you can find one) rent equipment by the day, which can add up on a trip.