Canon EOS 5D Owners input appreciated...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mr.Noisy, Oct 24, 2007.

  1. Mr.Noisy macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #1
    I'm thinking of getting a full frame camera and for a while ive been looking at the Canon EOS 5D + 24-105mm F4 IS USM Lens as a kit, do any of you have any input, pros & cons i'd be interested to read about, at present i'm using Nikon equipment but might sell my whole rig to fund the Canon, also interested in Canons 70-200mm F2.8 so views on that too would be great.

    Thanks Guys :D
     
  2. Lovesong macrumors 65816

    Lovesong

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2006
    Location:
    Stuck beween a rock and a hard place
    #2
    I have the 5D with a 70-200 f/2.8 (non-IS), and the 24-70L (also a 50 prime, but you don't care about that).

    The camera is fantastic in terms of image quality. I have some pictures where I failed to capture the right exposure, but due to the dynamic range of the camera, there is little that I can't really compensate for.

    It's built like a tank, and despite all the things that you may have read from people about the lack of sealing, I have used this camera extensively in pretty harsh conditions (think downpours on the Olympic Peninsula in Washington state), and it is yet to fail me.

    There are some downsides, as you may be aware of going FF. First, the 1.5 FOV crop is gone, and so is your extra reach that you have with APS cameras. Also, the FF sensor is merciless on inferior glass. I borrowed a number of lenses (including the 24-105L), and pretty much came to the realization that it has to be all L glass from here on out (and some good primes). I would actually advise you to check out the 24-70 over the 24-105. The IS is nice, but the fast glass (and gorgeous bokeh won me over).

    Another thing that you might notice when you pick one up is the viewfinder is huge. You just can't appreciate it enough until you have experienced it.

    The 70-200 is the best piece of zoom glass that I have owned ever. Period. Just get one.
     
  3. Grimace macrumors 68040

    Grimace

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2003
    Location:
    with Hamburglar.
    #3
    I agree with Lovesong. My gear follows the same path...I think the f/4 is okay...but I'd much rather have f/2.8. My gear is in the signature.
     
  4. Mike Teezie macrumors 68020

    Mike Teezie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2002
    #4
    The 5D a bloody fantastic camera. Full Frame is something that I now seriously can't work without. I have to have it. What it does for depth of field is amazing. Skin tones are absolutely perfect. I can't think of any cons, really.

    As for the 70-200, I have the 2.8 IS version. I like the lens, I really do. It's tack sharp, and on the 5D, a really nice set of focal lengths. I have to be totally honest, I much, much, much prefer primes to zooms. I shoot with the 85 f/1.2L and the 35 f/1.4L primarily. The minimal depth of field for portrait work is stunning. As soon as it becomes available, I'm buying the 200 f/2L IS and selling my 70-200. Don't get me wrong, the 70-200 f/2.8 is an amazing piece of kit. I just really prefer primes as I said.

    2.8 seems so slow to me now, which I know sounds wild. If I was buying the 5D, and one lens, I would get the 50 1.2L. The 50mm focal length is a thing of beauty on a full frame sensor.
     
  5. brett33 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Waco, TX
    #5
    While I do not have a 5D, I have shot with one and use a 1DSII as my main body. The 5D is a nice camera and can be had for a decent price now, especially if you are considering going for a used copy.

    After having used a full frame body for about a year now, I'd have to say that I actually prefer the 1.3x crop of the 1D series to either the 1.6x or full frame bodies. My wides still seem wide on the 1.3, plus the 45 point AF on the 1D, 1DII, 1DIIn, and now 1DIII covers more of the frame that it does on my 1DsII. Another advantage of the 1.3x crop is that it's not as hard on your lenses as the FF sensors. I had a couple of older L series lenses that I had to replace when I went to the 1DsII. The only instance where I really like the full frame better is with an 8mm circular fisheye. Anot

    That being said if you are set on a full frame camera and are already a nikon shooter, why not take a look at the D3 when it officially lands? I know it's more money, but you wouldn't have to change over your whole kit, and learn a new system.

    The debate regarding the 24-105/4 v. 24-70/2.8 will rage on, and is largely a personal decision. I went with the 24-105 as I wanted the extra reach and just about anytime that I use that lens lighting is adequate. When I tend to get in a situation where I need a lens faster the f/4 IS, f/2.8 isn't going to be fast enough either and I'll switch to primes. Just take stock of what you plan on shooting with the lens and decide which one best fits your style of shooting.

    Happy shopping.
     
  6. Mr.Noisy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #6
    Thanks for the speedy replies guys ;) , lots of good input, as for the 24-105mm lens looks like that would be kinda personal choice, i'd have to test it out, Ive been doing some web research and there is some real good feedback on the 5D, i will have to hire one, get a feel for it.

    ref what you said brett33 i have thought about the D3 when it lands, so far it looks to be a nice bit of kit, may be a wee bit overkill for my needs, but i would still have my lenses 50mm, 18-70mm, 70-200 f2.8, 105mm micro,.

    thanks guys, again i can rely on macrumors for good, solid advice :D
     
  7. Clix Pix macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    #7
    As another Nikon shooter here who has a substantial investment in Nikon lenses, I agree with Brett33 that it might make more sense for you to just hold off until the new D3 arrives on your dealer's shelf and see what you think about that camera. I for one am very eager to try some of my lenses on that baby! Yes, $4999.99 plus state tax is a substantial bit of change but the D3 offers more exciting features than just full-frame, so it could be quite well worth that investment rather than going through all the hassle of selling your current kit and changing systems.
     
  8. Butthead macrumors 6502

    Butthead

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    #8
    Not sure how far away from London or major city with large brick & mortar store is to you. But I would take the time to visit such a store that stocks the cameras you are looking to purchase. Spend as much time as you can using the display models in the stores, bring a mem card, take pictures and view at home on your computer (remembering that the screen does not produce as high a resolution as you would get from a print).

    In the larger cities of the USA you can rent a 5D for $150/weekend, along with many lenses (though not necessarily all you would want to compare) for $20-50/weekend, assuming that's what you mean by 'hire' one :D

    Same could be done for a Nikon.

    The D3 is exactly twice the cost of the 5D, neither of these are insignificant investments if your present gear is a 40/50/70 series Nikon. For the $2.5k differential btw the D3 & 5D, you can buy some nice lenses, sell off you Nikon lenses too.

    That being said, if you don't really need to replace the Nikon, I'd wait upwards a year to see how low in cost the next FF Nikon will be. If there is a FF version of the D300, and it's just a little more expensive than the current D300, that would be the killer FF app ;). So you buy a 5D now, it's getting long in the tooth, compared to more recent dSLR's, and then less than a year from now, the FF you really wanted for a few hundred £ less, is now in a Nikon body :(, consider that. And I'll bet the Live View has been further refined by then (never mind that some here, poo-poo that feature).

    The 5D is currently the 'world's smallest full frame dSLR' so says Canon. I say... It's too BIG. It's old, obsolete :D

    All dSLR's will become dated in a matter of a few years, your lenses should last a decade or more before something better comes along.

    Canon out of production 50mm F1.0 prime is better than the 50/1.2 btw, just costs >2x as much, even for a used one ;).
     
  9. Mr.Noisy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #9
     
  10. milozauckerman macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2005
    #10
    The 24-105 seems to be a very nice lens, but for my purposes I would choose the extra stop of light (IS rarely seems to net me more than a stop or two at most, so that evens the IS) w/ the 24-70/2.8.

    For my uses I can live without the telephoto coverage, and AF would work a bit better in lower-light situations.
     
  11. Clix Pix macrumors demi-goddess

    Clix Pix

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    8 miles from the Apple Store at Tysons (VA)
    #11
    The Nikon D2X and D2Xs are very nice camera bodies, indeed....I imagine that a lot of people will be able to get great deals on them as both camera shops and individual owners sell them off in order to have the D3 or D300.

    The 80-400mm is a lovely lens, too, but it IS slow. Much depends upon what you are intending to shoot with it. Birds-in-flight (BIF)? Forget it. A bird or animal which isn't moving much? A chance for some excellent images!
     
  12. Mr.Noisy thread starter macrumors 65816

    Mr.Noisy

    Joined:
    May 5, 2007
    Location:
    UK™
    #12
    The D2Xs i think would be ideal for several years, it's a great camera, but as for the 80-400mm, i do a lot of walking especially in the snowdonia national park in wales (uk), i found using the Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 a great experience but feel a bit more distance would be nice, and with VR on it's meant to be nice shooting a 400mm lens handheld, as for Birds in flight, thats a no-no, i prefer more architecture, landscape or nature (trees,plants,flowers) or shooting around lakes in wales where the 70-200 falls a little short, and plus the fact the 80-400mm isn't huge, thanks for the input Clix Pix :)
     

Share This Page