Rumors > EOS Bodies
Upgrade from 400D to 5D MKII after 5 years, thoughts?
Enrico:
I have had the 350D since 2005 and a few months ago I went for the 5d2.
I am not a professional and mainly shot family and family events.
The difference is huge!
The viewfinder, ISO capabilites, body and hanndling, and IQ in general is just from a different world.
There are alot of complaints on the 5d2 AF... Well... compared to my 350d the 5d2 is awesome :)
I think the easiest way to get an answer for yourself is to go to a local store and try different cameras.
I have saved money so that if the 5d3 would be released I would get one. But honestly, after shooting more with the 5d2 I really can't justify it. I would gain in AF and ISO. But my type of photography doesn't really need that. And for those monies I will get some very nice L-lenses...
adebrophy:
Hi
I've just this month bought a 5Dmkii after enjoying using a 40D for several years and a 350D before that.
I have to say that I'm really pleased by the creative opportunities created by the shallow DOF. My 50mm 1.8 is REALLY shallow now so I'm learning to take much more care in getting focusing right but getting lovely results when successful. Moreover, when I'm using the 24-105L kit lens zoomed in at f4 the DOF is also very shallow, so the upgrade of body is giving me so much more flexibility from the slower zoom lenses. I'd been using a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 on the 40D and was seriously torn as to whether to go for the 24-70 f2.8L to keep the DOF but already I think that f4 on a longer lens on a FF body is a step up so not regretting this (the weight of the 24-70 put me off - I'll go primes for faster requirements).
IQ is incredible - so much detail from those 22MP. If you've been using an older generation body that jump up in capability is a revelation. This shot persuaded me of this http://www.flickr.com/photos/adebrophy/7049020227/#
AF is much criticised on the mkii, however it's probably about the same (or near enough) to my 40D, which I've already learned to use. As I'm not doing sports stuff or anything demanding, this is absolutely fine and I suspect that coming from a 400D you'll also be fine with it.
The other reason to upgrade for you, will be getting a body that has more heft and weight to help balance your larger lenses (such as that Sigma). Moving from a 350 to a 40D was such an improvement for me to help balance the bigger lenses, and the similar form factor of the 5D will give you the same improvement in comfort - this is a real big deal when using the camera for any length of time.
CanonCork:
Hello,
I've been reading this forum for a long time but this is my first post. I too have a 400D. 2 actually. Couldn't turn down the offer of a second mint condition body for €50. I have taken approx 70-80k exposure since I bought the first body new when it came out. I currently have the 18-55 kit lens x2 (came with both bodies), 70-300 Sigma and 50mm 1.8.
My hobby is starting to turn into something more. I have 3 weddings a few events and some studio portraits under my belt. I bought a set of Elinchrom BXRI 500 studio lights just before christmas and an Elinchrom white paper background for the portraits. These lights are just so good. Can't recommend them highly enough.
I too am going to make the jump to FF. I like so many others have been waiting for the 5D Mark 3. My 400Ds really struggle at weddings once the light starts to drop. The ISO range is just not modern enough for clean images. That and my low quality lenses make a pretty Poor combination. Without my 580EXii I would have been sunk.
You can see a few of my pics here.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Darren-O-Brien-Photography/258081710913115
Im like a little kid waiting for Christmas. My biggest problem is a popular one. Lens option.
1 Get the kit lens 24-105
2 Get the 24-70
3 Wait for e 24-70ii (will the difference really be worth the extra cost)
4 Would a 16-35 be useful for wedding shots in tight spaces
Looking forward to a whole new world of photography.
smithy:
--- Quote from: CanonCork on April 16, 2012, 08:31:28 AM ---Im like a little kid waiting for Christmas. My biggest problem is a popular one. Lens option.
1 Get the kit lens 24-105
2 Get the 24-70
3 Wait for e 24-70ii (will the difference really be worth the extra cost)
4 Would a 16-35 be useful for wedding shots in tight spaces
Looking forward to a whole new world of photography.
--- End quote ---
As you have no doubt discovered with your current setup, you can take really great photos with even the 18-55mm kit lens. I took some of my favourite photos with the original 300D (Digital Rebel) and the 18-55mm lens.
But getting one of the lenses you've listed will really help get the most out of the resolution of the 5D (any version). I really enjoy using the 24-70mm lens - it spends a lot of time on my 1V film camera and occasionally visits my 40D (it's not wide enough on the crop body). To counter this, I bought the 10-22mm lens for the 40D. This is the equivalent of the 16-35mm lens, which is why I mentioned it. That focal length is amazing for tight spaces, landscapes and cityscapes. While it's ideal for wedding group photos, you'd really want to avoid taking photos of people close-up with it, because it makes their facial features distort wildly. An 85mm prime is better for this (such as the Canon f/1.2 or the Sigma f/1.4).
The 24-70mm lens is very sharp in the centre, with some drop-off at the edges. It's very heavy - be warned - and the version 1 has an awkward 'reverse zoom' mechanism where the lens extends at 24mm and shrinks at 70mm. But despite that, it's a solid, bulletproof lens. I've used it in all sorts of weather and it's never missed a beat.
Version 2 of this lens is supposed to allow one to use some of the extra focussing points in the 5d3. I can't remember the specifics though. It's also lighter. Whether it's worth the significant extra outlay of cash, I seriously doubt it, but everything at the pro/semi-pro level from Canon seems to have increased in price recently.
Random Orbits:
--- Quote from: johle on April 15, 2012, 08:51:51 AM ---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! :)
--- End quote ---
I think you would still rather shoot RAW. The processing from new RAW engines are better than the in-camera versions that are years old. That said, I'm happy shooting the 5DII up to 1600 and occassionally up to 3200, and cleaning up the light noise in LightRoom. I typically don't bother with NR at at ISO 800 or below.
The 5DII center point works well in low light and is accurate. I use fast primes with it, and it works much better than my old crop body. I made the switch to the 5DII last month, and it's a major upgrade.
I would also suggest getting the body only and experimenting with the lenses you already have (50 and 24-60) before getting any new glass. If your Sigma lenses hold up well, then you can let your preferences guide you as to what lens to get next. I'd avoid the midrange zooms if you're happy with the 24-60. FF is definitely wider than crops, so a lot of people opt for a tele lens before a UWA lens.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version