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

[johle]

EDIT: I Bought the camera!

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

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

[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]

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.

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]

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!

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.

[swannd]

I am also upgrading from a 400D, straight to the 5D Mark III. I have been saving for a while (and I am still ina  bit of denial about the price). Like many, just waiting for the camera to arrive.

For what it's worth, the best purchase I made for the 400D was the Canon 85mm f1.8 - and it will be more useful on the 5D; and not too different than your Sigma 50mm f1.4. I also have the 50mm 1.8, but the inconsistent  focus is a pain. No problem with my USM lenses.

I'll be stuck with the 28-105 f3.4-4.5 as all money will be gone, but at least I have 3 primes (Sigma 24mm f2.8, not-so nifty 50mm & 85mm f1..

I believe that the centre focus point on the 5D mark II is the same as the 400D (ie an f2.8 cross), but here are also the hidden assist points it has over the 400D.

Wishing you a wonderful experience withe the upgrade - and keep the 400D for times when you're worried about damaging the camera. For example I have swum across a river holding the camera in the air to then sit on a submerged rock to get a great waterfall shot - not something I'll be doing with a camera worth $3,500!


Swanny.

P.S. I love Raw for the lens fix you can get with DPP, and other software.

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Its a big improvement, and at a bargain price too.  If you need high ISO, I can use my 5D MK II for ISO 6400 if I really need it. 
 
You will need longer lenses, since everything will be much wider with the same lens at the same distance.  It will also take a little patience getting used to the new camera, so practice a lot.  The longer battery life is also a bonus.

[johle]

Since there have been some other threads out there asking if the 5D Mk II still is a viable option, I feel I should write here since I saw someone having the 400D.

I finally bought the camera, and I couldn't be happier. However, I tried it at a night club without a flash; it didn't work out. Therefore, I bought the Speedlite 430 EX II. Not to actually use the flash, but to use the auto focus grid. It focuses amazingly well! Since I've got the Sigma 50 F1.4, I can shoot confidently at ISOs up to 6400. While the photos look amazing up to maybe ISO 4000, they definately get grainy after that. It doesn't bother me THAT much though. As long as I can get 1/60 of a second in shutter time or so. I'm going to try it out again on Friday (Midsummer in Sweden!). Looking forward to that already! The only thing that actually could be better is to enable the Auto ISO to reach beyond 3200.

Conclusively, a GREAT camera! I love it every time i pick it up!

[RLPhoto]

EDIT: I Bought the camera!

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

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

If you can afford a 5D2, Get it, a great camera.

If you can't Get a 5Dc, Its also a fantastic camera. It has a very film look to its files and its around 700$. It still my bread and butter camera.

[johle]

If you can afford a 5D2, Get it, a great camera.

If you can't Get a 5Dc, Its also a fantastic camera. It has a very film look to its files and its around 700$. It still my bread and butter camera.

I decided to finally go with the 5D Mk II, and the results are stunning! I'm so happy with it!