The Jump To Full Frame

[KitFireburn]

So i took the plunge and splurged on a 50D as an upgrade from my Rebel XS, this is my gift from "Santa" this year, but now i am considering getting a full frame camera to go with it since i now have a nice lineup of lenses.

The question being, should i upgrade to the Classic 5D, or the 5D Mark II when the time comes to decide. Probably going to wait until the 5D Mark III comes out so prices drop further and whatnot. Unless it would be in my best interests to save for the Mark III.

To be perfectly honest, the jump to any full frame camera would suffice in my eyes, i just love the shorter focal lengths, and from the photos i've seen come out of the Classic 5D, i'd probably be happy with one of them. Sure the controls may be clunky compared to the Mark II, but that still doesn't disregard it as a great camera.

Thanks for reading!
~Randy

Discuss.

 

[briansquibb]

The 5D classic is a nice camera - but is being rapidly caught by modern cameras, such as the 60D . I would go for a used 5DII if you can, or even a 1Ds2 if you are feeling adventurous

 

[Hillsilly]

Was in a similar situation recently and picked up a used 1Ds Mk ii. It has its pros and cons compared to a 5Dii, but was the right decision for me with a tougher body and faster autofucus and response times. But obviously it lacks video and I'm finding battery maintenance a little tedious. I'm liking the move from a 30D.

 

[KarelP]

I just bought a used 5D Classic with 6000 clicks and I love it. Sure, the mk II is more up to date, but the Classic is a fine combo with my 50D and it enables me to use all my L lenses to their full capacity. 17-40mm is very wide! I will probably eventually upgrade to a used mark II, but that will be a while.

It's a lot cheaper not to be on the bleeding edge! Used 5d Classic with grip and 3 batteries set me back E 675, my 50D batteries fit it as well, so now I have 8 batteries... a used 5D mk II with grip would have set me back around E1500, and then I'd still have to buy extra batteries for the mkII.

In the end it's your money, and it depends on what you shoot, but with a 50D which has the crop factor advantage and a reasonably fast burst rate and a 5D Classic that has the FF and DoV advantage you should be set for some time to come...

For now enjoy your 50D, it's a great camera as far as I'm concerned.

@briansquibb: can't judge about the 60D, is probably more modern, but I do know one thing: it's not FF...

Cheers,

Karel

 

[MazV-L]

I also own a 5D classic and 50D, I bought my 5D nearly 2years ago, be aware the 5D classic did have known issues with the mirror coming loose, I had that problem with mine, however, because it was a known issue, Canon replaced the mirror free of charge and I've not had any further major issues with the camera in abt 18 months of use, it's an awesome tool for portrait photography!

'Though having gotten used to the 50D's lovely big screen you'd find the one on the 5D is very inferior, and it doesn't have liveview and tends to overexpose in Av mode (on my 5D anyhow). These drawbacks annoy me enough to seriously consider an upgrade!

I'd recommend go straight to 5Dii or 5Diii when it comes out so you're less likely to have regrets!

 

[KarelP]

I also own a 5D classic and 50D, I bought my 5D nearly 2years ago, be aware the 5D classic did have known issues with the mirror coming loose, I had that problem with mine, however, because it was a known issue, Canon replaced the mirror free of charge and I've not had any further major issues with the camera in abt 18 months of use, it's an awesome tool for portrait photography!

'Though having gotten used to the 50D's lovely big screen you'd find the one on the 5D is very inferior, and it doesn't have liveview and tends to overexpose in Av mode (on my 5D anyhow). These drawbacks annoy me enough to seriously consider an upgrade!

I'd recommend go straight to 5Dii or 5Diii when it comes out so you're less likely to have regrets!

I do agree that the user interface of the 50D (and hence the mark II) is far superior tot the Classic. That does take some getting used to. Still, it beats the stuff I cut my teeth on: my Zenith and Nikkormat EL SLRs in the 70's didn't have any usable interface...

Cheers,

Karel

 

[briansquibb]

@briansquibb: can't judge about the 60D, is probably more modern, but I do know one thing: it's not FF...

Which is why I suggested the 5D2 and the 1Ds2 which are both ff. I would suggest for battery life grips aren't needed for the 5D2 - they are a pain if using a flash bracket

 

[pwp]

So I took the plunge and splurged on a 50D as an upgrade from my Rebel XS, but now I am considering getting a full frame camera to go with it since I now have a nice lineup of lenses.
The question being, should i upgrade to the Classic 5D, or the 5D Mark II when the time comes to decide.
To be perfectly honest, the jump to any full frame camera would suffice in my eyes
Randy

You have just got your 50D. It's a great camera. My suggestion would be to have a total passionate love affair with the 50D, get to know it backwards and enjoy the output before putting too much attention on what your next upgrade will be. Quality time with the 50D is going to inform you in ways you could not anticipate. What is it about full frame that makes it a "must-have" for you?

I shoot full frame, 1.3x crop & 1.6x crop bodies on a daily basis and move freely between the three. My personal viewpoint isthat there is an overblown marketing department driven perception that full frame is something etherial and almost mystical...it's not. It's useful at times for sure, and very nice to have, but unless your kit is making money for you, upgraditis can be a financially punishing trap.

The magic is in the pictures you take.

Paul Wright

 

[Rampado]

my sugestion is spend on the newest tecnology you can afford without donating yous kidney in the black market

 

[elflord]

So i took the plunge and splurged on a 50D as an upgrade from my Rebel XS, this is my gift from "Santa" this year, but now i am considering getting a full frame camera to go with it since i now have a nice lineup of lenses.

The question being, should i upgrade to the Classic 5D, or the 5D Mark II when the time comes to decide. Probably going to wait until the 5D Mark III comes out so prices drop further and whatnot. Unless it would be in my best interests to save for the Mark III.

To be perfectly honest, the jump to any full frame camera would suffice in my eyes, i just love the shorter focal lengths, and from the photos i've seen come out of the Classic 5D, i'd probably be happy with one of them. Sure the controls may be clunky compared to the Mark II, but that still doesn't disregard it as a great camera.

Thanks for reading!
~Randy

Discuss.

Just to throw another idea out there -- you could get a film camera like the EOS 3 for peanuts these days -- you could resell it for what you by it for, so you would only be out of pocketing shipping costs.

 

[shermanstank]

Have you tried a film camera? A lot of professional grade 35mm cameras are already heavily discounted and though it costs to process the negatives, you won't be shooting as many compared to a digital camera.

I have a CANON EOS 1V-HS and I love it. It is excellent for portraitures, landscapes and fast-paced action -- shoots 10fps ( 3.6 seconds on 36 exp film roll ;D ) with very accurate AF. If I were to "upgrade" on a 35mm film SLR, it would be on film emulsion which costs 5-6 bucks. On digital, you would have to upgrade the body every couple of years, which costs thousands of dollars.

Which one is more economical? Well it depends on your shooting style and needs. If I were to shoot an event which would require hundreds of shots, I would basically use my digital camera. If during the course of the event, I have the opportunity for a more intimate portrait shoots, then I will use my 1V-HS. For me I love the look of film on portraits. I do plan on shooting weddings professionally and a lot of high-end photographers, use BOTH FILM AND DIGITAL. They even use a Medium Format film camera!!--- I would only buy a high-end digital camera once I am making money. I could always rent a 1D, 1Ds or 1Dx if need be.

For the meantime, I am having a lot of fun a with the film SLR and together with the L lenses, I am capturing beautiful images.

My 2 cents.

Cheers!

Sherwin

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

In the past, prices for the 5D went up after the 5D MK II was introduced. Prices were at their lowest a month or two before. I have no way of knowing for sure if this will happen again, but prices are dropping a little too much right now, so they may very well go up after a new model is introduced.

Certainly, in two years, they will drop more, so it depends a loot on good timing and luck to catch them at the lowest point.

 

[archangelrichard]

1. let me join those suggesting a film body - there is no comparison for sharpness or dynamic range between film and digital - which isn't the point of digital (the output of digitalis not for high resolution surfaces' 300 dpi being standard for printout), digital is for CONVENIENCE, lower cost per image, ease of editing / creating cheap "artsy" effects

2. The "jump" to full frame is also a jump to a better caliber camera in your case (the 5D just plain does more than a 50D) so the build quality is different as well (and the 5d2 is a better build than the 5d1 - were there not improvements to lower light sensitivity, etc. as well?)

3. in the long run this is a personal (and budgetary) choice; I would go for the 5d2 if I could afford it

4. As well, I would go for a A2E (5 film) or 3 or 1 if for no other reason than just to handle it and take a few pictures and see what you are missing

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

1. let me join those suggesting a film body - there is no comparison for sharpness or dynamic range between film and digital - which isn't the point of digital (the output of digitalis not for high resolution surfaces' 300 dpi being standard for printout), digital is for CONVENIENCE, lower cost per image, ease of editing / creating cheap "artsy" effects

2. The "jump" to full frame is also a jump to a better caliber camera in your case (the 5D just plain does more than a 50D) so the build quality is different as well (and the 5d2 is a better build than the 5d1 - were there not improvements to lower light sensitivity, etc. as well?)

3. in the long run this is a personal (and budgetary) choice; I would go for the 5d2 if I could afford it

4. As well, I would go for a A2E (5 film) or 3 or 1 if for no other reason than just to handle it and take a few pictures and see what you are missing

Troll!!

 

[KitFireburn]

Wow! Thank you all so so much for your input! I didn't think i'd be getting so many replies, haha!

My reasoning behind getting a full frame camera would be for the look of the photos, 50mm is 50mm, very shallow dof, nice color reproduction, and so on and so forth.

So all in all, i have been looking at much older 35mm film SLR's aside from the 5D and the Mark II, and i remember the love affair i had with my very first camera a Kodak Star 110 film, maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea going back to film, it would bring back good memories.

And seeing as i don't really need 20+ megapixels to be happy with a camera (Megapixels are not a bother, i'd be happy with 10 imo) Maybe getting a professional film body wouldn't be a bad choice. (I'm all for that film feel, love it. )

I've had the idea of going back to a nice manual focus 35mm film SLR in my head for awhile now. Looking at AE-1 Programs, and the phenomenal F-1n. Maybe i should consider getting an autofocus SLR like the 1V or the EOS 630 (Since i've heard simply phenomal amounts of praise directed towards them) And that way, i'd be able to use all the current lenses in my lineup with them.

Thanks for all the ideas and thoughts on this guys! I'm beginning to like it here a lot. I might become a regular on the forums.

~Randy

 

[Mark1]

I upgraded to a 5D MK1 last year from a 30D. I don't think I will ever buy another APS-C camera!

Sure the LCD screen is crap but I'm more interested in the histogram so it's no biggy for me. People rage about the autofocus being ancient but I have never been able to attribute a poorly focused shot on the camera's inefficiencies. It works just fine for me, don't understand why so many people hate it. Maybe if you shoot flying birds I can understand but the 5D isn't built for that, buy a 7D and get your point and shoot focus with a bit of noise. The 5D was built for landscapes and portraits. Portraits are just awesome with full frame and if you get it right you can capture a kind of texture and dimension impossible with APS-C.

I have considered going for a 2nd hand 5d2 but I'm not sure what extra quality my images would gleen from it. I don't need HD video and can live without a better LCD. I have a good focus technique so don't need 4000 extra focus points to help me out!

I would echo other people's views on pro film cameras too. I bought a Canon EOS 1n recently. Beautiful camera which handles better than my 5D. It's very, very tactile, why can't they use the same ergonomics on the 5D?

 

[dr croubie]

I've been looking at used prices on fleabay for a while, and used prices (depending on condition and accessories) seem to be in the range of:
5D: $600-$1000
1Ds2: $1300-1800
5D2: $1600-1900 (at which point new models start at $1950)
1Ds3: $3k-7k (from not many sold)

Besides the drop from 21.1 to 16MP and lack of video, the 1Ds2 is so much more of a camera (build, sealing, AF) than the 5D2, I can't think of any reason not to get one, anyone else know in what respects the 5D2 beats the 1Ds2? But the 5D classic is a nice steal for the same price as a new 550D if it's in good nick...

 

[Hillsilly]

This was my thinking in deciding on a 1Ds Mk ii, too. But the 5D Mk ii has some benefits and its not easy to declare a clear winner. The 5D Mk ii is lighter and newer and has video capabilities. It performs much better at higher ISOs. Supposedly, its jpegs are bit sharper straight out of the cameras and its LCD is better. But if all you want to do is take photos at low-ish ISOs, the 1Ds is as good as it gets and is surprisingly simple to use. You can't go wrong with either.

 

[willrobb]

You have just got your 50D. It's a great camera. My suggestion would be to have a total passionate love affair with the 50D, get to know it backwards and enjoy the output before putting too much attention on what your next upgrade will be. Quality time with the 50D is going to inform you in ways you could not anticipate.

The magic is in the pictures you take.

Paul Wright

Wise advise, so many people seem to think that by buying new gear your photos are instantly going to change into something magical. Yes the equipment helps, but it isn't the deciding factor. Use, know, love your gear and once you've exhausted the possibilities of what you can do with it, then upgrade when you can.

 

[pj1974]

Hi all.

There are some interesting posts here, thanks for this online channel of communication.

I'm just going to pick up on what a few people said in this thread:

pwp wrote:
I shoot full frame, 1.3x crop & 1.6x crop bodies on a daily basis and move freely between the three. My personal viewpoint isthat there is an overblown marketing department driven perception that full frame is something etherial and almost mystical...it's not. It's useful at times for sure, and very nice to have, but unless your kit is making money for you, upgraditis can be a financially punishing trap.
The magic is in the pictures you take.

Mark1 wrote:
Maybe if you shoot flying birds I can understand but the 5D isn't built for that, buy a 7D and get your point and shoot focus with a bit of noise. The 5D was built for landscapes and portaits. Portaits are just awesome with full frame and if you get it right you can capture a kind of texture in people's faces impossible with APS-C.

My opinion is that having good equipment helps, but it is not 'the' deciding factor. I've seen award winning photos that professional journalists have taken with a point and shoot! (because a heavier, bulky and more wieldy DSLR would have actually been a hindrance, eg in real up close photos of street battles, where the journalists have to run, duck and hide, etc).

Obviously, we're not all at that 'extreme' (between possibly loosing our life if we're slightly slower at running with a DSLR in our hand, or round our neck). However my point is, (and that some have made above) - that learning about light, and a camera's real limits will give many people a lot more photographic prowess than having the 'top of the line and it's SURE to produce the best images'.

I wouldn't agree that an APS-C camera can not produce amazing texture. I've seen repeatedly that without EXIF data, and unless people almost count the pixels while pixel-peeping, an overall image itself is indistinguishable if used appropriately between a APS-C or a FF. As a generalisation, of course I know FF can give images that have more dynamic range, shallower DOF, sharper 'per pixel' detail, etc.

I learned a lot about photography with an old Olympus film camera, then a few Fuji P&S digital cameras, then moved to DSLRs in 2005. My Canon 350D has served me well for over 6 years, and in more recent years my 7D has indeed allowed my photo skills to continue flourishing.

Some of my 'most prized' photos, yes even of landscapes, are with a 3MP Fuji P&S way in the distant past... ie around 2000.

Paul