Rumors > EOS Bodies

Upgrade from 400D to 5D MKII after 5 years, thoughts?

(1/7) > >>

johle:
EDIT: I Bought the camera! :D

Hi everybody!

I've been a frequent reader at this forum for a while now, but I never posted myself.

First out, I'm an amateur so I don't make any money off of my hobby.

I bought my first DSLR back in November 2006, a Canon 400D, and it's been with my up until this day (50k+ actuations).
I initially had the kit lens which I was pleased with up until it broke during a trip to Cambodia.
I later bought a replacement lens in South Korea, without really doing any research (I hadn't found this site at the time).

I ended up getting the Sigma 24-60 F2.8 DG EX which really opened up my eyes to photography in general and shallow DOF and low-ligh photography in particular. I got so hooked that I bought the Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG EX half a year later.

Now I feel that the body really is limiting me, since I LOVE shallow DOF and low-light photography (often combined). E.g. in-door portraits, pictures of food in candle-lit conditions etc.

Also, FF would be really awesome in order to get "more" out of my lenses in terms of FOV. Since the kit lens i had was 17-55mm it would be the equivalent if 17*1,6=27mm on a FF. My Sigma is 24mm, and on FF I would therefore achieve wider FOV than I ever had on the 400D before :D

I initially planned on getting the 600D, and then the 60D but I have realized that those will not really benefit me the way I want, since shallow DOF and low-light are my priorities. I never use my flash anymore. Sure, they have way better NR etc, but when doing an updrade after 5+ years, I want to take the leap.

So, the important questions (now that you've got my background):
How big of a revolution will this upgrade be, in terms of IQ, AF and well... pretty much every aspect?
I mean, it's a lot of money for me (I'm going to buy a used)

Currently anything above ISO 400 on my 400D pretty much ruins the picture, but I "have" to use 1600 in order to even be able to capture pictures in low-light, hence the upgrade. ISO 3200 looks great on the 5D MK II, so I really want that :)

This became a very long post, but I would really want to hear some thoughts... I'm thinking of upgrading within 1-2 months. Has anyone done the same journey? Will the lenses be a good combination with the 5DMKII?

My two current lenses are supposed to work with FF, so I will keep them :)

Btw, i could just get the 5D MK I and probably get way better IQ very cheaply, but I would like to experiment with video as well :)

Johan

smithy:
Maybe I'm a bit 'old school', but traditionally, when shooting in low light situations you don't have to use ISO1600.  You just need a tripod.  But only if your subject is not moving.  :)  Either way, even if you use a 5D II (or III for that matter), there will be some noise at ISO1600.

Going to a full frame body from the 400D will give you more bokeh (the blur from shallow DOF).  You'll also be able to get more from the wide end of your 24-60mm lens, which isn't really a wide angle lens on a 1.6x body.

One of the downsides of going from crop to full frame is that you don't get to enjoy crop factor 'sweet spot' of your lenses.  Most zoom lenses are nice and sharp in the centre, but at the edges they start to blur.  With a crop body, the blurry parts are partially cropped out - but with a full frame body, you might get a bit of a shock to see what it's actually like at the edges.  (Which might make you want to go out and buy more prime lenses!)

Other than that, you won't regret going for the 5D.  If you ever happen to shoot sports or wildlife, you might miss the extra reach of the 1.6x factor, but just keep the 400D and use it for those situations.

johle:
Thanks for a great answer! :)

In low-light situations, I usually shoot at family, holiday gatherings etc. So a tripod is not really possible there, it's more a "point-and-shoot" kind of situation, with people moving and talking. Of course, there will be noise, but it would be nice if the noise at 3200/1600 was so good that I didn't even have to shoot RAW. Mostly, people want the pictures right away (new year's eve, birthday parties etc) and it's nice to be able to avoid post-processing all the pics for these occations. Of course, if I were to shoot something "important", I could use RAW and post-processing, for a graduation ceremony or something similar (which I will shoot on June, hence the new camera). I'm also looking forward to take at-night-city-portraits, and only using the natural lightnight. When travelling in big cities etc :)

As you pointed out, I miss some reach vs. a crop camera, but I rarely take pics of that sort. Then there is the "sweet spot" problem, but I mostly focus on things in the middle of the picture, so a little blur in the corners will not be a problem :) I image my lenses are quite OK, at least the 50mm which I've read a lot of nice things about. The beautiful bokeh is the reason i bought it, and I LOVE a nice bokeh more than anything else within photography.

My 400D usually has some problems focusing in dim light, and quite a lot of inaccurate focusing even after locking. How much better is the 5D Mk II here? I will only use the center focusing.

Again, thanks for your thoughts! :)

smithy:
In terms of focussing in low-light, I'm not sure the Mark II will offer much improvement over the 400D.  It doesn't have an AF-assist light either, which means the subject will need to be illuminated well enough to obtain focus.  I'm not sure why Canon omit the AF-assist feature from their higher end cameras - perhaps to sell more Speedlite flashes?  There's always the manual focus option I suppose.

City portraits do usually look nicer (to me, anyway) with longer exposures rather than high ISO, as long as it's just architecture rather than people.  However, using either method the 5D Mark II will be sure to satisfy your requirements.  It is a big step up in image quality from a 400D (and is almost the same quality as the 1DSIII).  In fact, the whole camera layout and functionality will make you feel like the 400D was little more than a toy.  :)

Mokh24:
I am upgrading from a 400D to a 5d mark iii
I was using the 400D since 2008 and finally i decided to invest in a 5d mark iii and a 16-35 L (waiting for the new 24-70).
This is huge money for me as photography is just a hobby. But i thought it is worth it as i will be using my new toys for my italy honeymoon next june.
I really cant wait to feel the huge difference (my 5d3 is still backordered :(

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page