thefrogtog

NB: well to be fair, given how he would take pics, a 1990´s teen with a 35mm film camera would have probably taken more pics than him in his lifetime... in the analog age, apart from a few frenzied fashion shooters, or foaming at the mouth sport´s shooters who would take hundreds of pics a day...most photographers, even amongst pros, took a lot fewer pics than the average snapshot, selfies, Instagram modern shooter... though it is another debate as to determine what constitutes "pictures". In photography, the 10K rule of professional mastery doesn´t apply anymore. well, maybe 10k hours of photography still apply, but certainly not 10K pics taken anymore.

UNFAIR.... comparing apples and oranges...and i have a Leica iii from WW2 and a Voightlander folding MF from the 20´s..1920´s that is... with a perfectly functional shutter. also with free digital images, and spray shooting, your canon has probably seen less actual shutter use than a week or two of pro use with a digital camera.....i know some photographers who do over 300K actuation per year. i also still have, somewhere, a like new EOS 5/AE2 and an EOS 500/XS, as well as an old Canon AE1 and an FT-QL....all of which, combined, have seen, i am rather sure, fewer actuations than my latest, months old digital camera..... So, yes while your quip about better old build quality vs new is generally right....in this case, the way cameras are used has changed with digital picture taking. in his lifetime Ansel Adams has probably taken fewer pictures that the average teen with a cell phone.

depends on how many MP you need, and how modern...the old 1D and 1Ds´ series can be had for cheap and are made for this...look up the 1Ds2-3 and the 1D2-3 aps-h x1.3 drop... even a "grandfather" like the !D has relatively fast AF and does 8 fps.....and can be had for less than $200, i have seen 1Diii go for $400-500 look up Comparison of Canon EOS digital cameras - Wikipedia to help you decide, though the 7D is also a good option, a favorite amongst birders, and videographers, and general photographers...and would give you a X1.6 on your telephotos

true, maybe a silly notion,,, reminds me of the joke: how to make money from photography?...sell your gear

for me the issue is not for my personal use, i could do completely without it...the problem is people wanting to see the picture you just took and expecting some perfect poster like photoshopped image and seeing a nasty low res dim, greenish-tinted image (especially for the early versions) speaking of versions....you need to pay to pay attentiion to the 10 digits serial number as canon continuously made smalll improvement during the production run,,,canon doesn´t publish the data, but empirically....the serials starting with # 0 (the 0 is ommited in some EXIF) were the first produced in 2005, the serials starting with # 1 where produced in 2006, a less green LCD, but still the falling mirror issue, the #2 made in 2007 some small improvements, like the sensor coating, and mostly the mirror issue was fixed, the #2 later serials like 27, 28, 29 and the #3 were the last produced in 2008.....although age is not the whole story, and they all function the same with the lastest canon updates, it can be worth it to only look for later models...

one thing that wasn´t mentioned is the specific look that may not fit different visual tastes. the 5D, due to the low pixel density and canon sensor tweaks, has a very "fllm like" quality to it, that style is my favorite, smooth almost soft, organic, cinematographic, but i know photographers who like much better a higher pixel density more nervy sharp clinical digital look, these often actually prefer the aps-c look and the relatively sharper image achieved by shooting only though the center of lens, where it is often the sharpest, when using FFlenses with an aps-c...these same photographers, some of them accomplished pros, do not, therefore, find full-frame better, and see even less need for medium format unless for the ones that have many more MP than a 35mm...like the 80MP or 100MP backs....these would often be the same photographers pixel peeping and vaunting the merits of soulless "perfect" modern glass, and swearing by the DXo score,...well to each his own about the effect of pixel density, an easy way to see the difference is to try the sony a7sii, a7ii, a7R,ii or mark i or latest iii version....the exact same tech with respectively 12MP, 24MP, and 42MP.... for me when i tried the 42MP it was way too buzy, and though i was offered a fantastic used price on it i declined, though i should have bough it to resell...i tried the a7ii and while still a bit too digital for my taste i bought it, because sometimes i need a higher MP count, higher iso and video to complement my 5D´s...the IQ on the a7s is the most agreable to me, though i like it a lot less than the canon look and if i didn´t need sometimes a high MP camera, i would have gotten it...and maybe in the future i will get a consumer grade aps-c for my higher MP needs and stick to low MP cameras for my prefered work, like the 5D or that beautiful leica, or mabe an old low pixel density medium format back like the phase one P20+..... anyways the point is that a 5D produces a somewhat unique look, so you need to compare the type of images produced by it vs other cameras...

lately i have seen a lot of a7ii selling for relatively cheap on ebay and the like as many are upgrading to the new models....that might be your best option, as it has an IBIS stabilized body and with an OSS lens you combine both stabilizations up to a theoretical 10 stop stabilization, less in practice but still a lot more than a canon IS....otherwise, the larger the sensor and longer the lens, the more prone to shakes, so maybe look for a stabilized micro 43, some are quite good.

N:B the WA needed is not for architecture or landscapes use,...only for portraiture and group shots...and i did get the 16-35/2.8 because i convinced myself i need the range, IQ and verstility and cringed at even thinking about the "loss" ofa few degrees angle of view and f stops that i would get with the cheaper old 17-35/4...and sorry if the answer is already somewhere in the forum, still new here though i used to be a photo.net member in the late 90´s have only been back to photography recently.

not really a good mechanic, but i was thinking that since sooner or later i will have to dismantle them to change the shutter, or something else, i may as well get used to it...but yes you have a point, last time i tried to fix adn clean an EF 50mm and a 80-200mm i ended up with 2 scrap lenses

not really a good mechanic, but i was thinking that since sooner or later i will have to dismantle them to change the shutter, or something else, i may as well get used to it...but yes you have a point, last time i tried to fix adn clean an EF 50mm and a 80-200mm i ended up with 2 scrap lenses

i have the 16-35/2.8 ii which i love but i feel i don`t use it often enough to justify keeping it. so i am considering FF alternatives, most likely primes. with my 16-35 at the zoom end, i usually switch to my 35/1.4 anyways, i also have the 24 prime, but almost never use it and will probably sell it. i know from experience that i dislike the 24mm and 28mm angles of view and avoid them when i can. So i am looking more in the 15-20 range. there is that superb UWA canon zoom, but that is even pricier than my 16-35 and images bellow 15mm look quite unnatural to me... i need something with a normal look, free of distortions, and cheap if possible. i don´t mind too much slower speeds or manual focus, or vintage lenses, or 3d party, or other mounts lenses with adapters, as i don´t often use UWA...i have been eyeing some laowa and samyang but i am not convinced, any recommendations?

i am a fan of the 5D classic and have 4 bodies. i was wondering if it is realistic to try to pick the best parts of each to create 1 or 2 better bodies as some may have been more used and some have issues and having bought them used i don´t know their histories. - 1 of them has a touch of rust in the lens mount - 1 has had the mirror fall and be glued back with some traces of glue on the mirror edge, not affecting function, but still... - 1 is an early, 2005 with the greenish LCD which was updated in 2006 and then in 2007 - 1 has a top and back LCD scratched - 1 had the canon mirror fix and another came after canon resolved the mirror issue ..... so i was thinking of combining the best elements, like re-build up 2 bodies with the latest LCD´s, least used parts, latest mirrors... so i was wondering if it is realistic to try this, and if before shutter failure, is there a way to determine shutter usage (unlike later models the 5D doesn´t record shutter actuation), and general fatigue of parts? i was also wondering if there is a way to adapt a better LCD from another eos ?

i bought 1 last year, then another 2 months later, then another and then another this month. i now have 4 Canon 5D classic, for pro portrait use....that should speak by itself....the image quality due to a low pixel density surpasses later models...the optimal pixel number for a FF sensor is in the 16-18 MP range, a bit more for the latest cameras. the 5d2 cramed twice as many pixlels with the same sesor technology, so: a horror show, the 5d3 is a bit better, as the sensor tech caught up with the pixel number but it is still too much, i am not sure about the 5d4...for the optimal pixel numbers/sensor tech, i would stick with the canon flagship models 1D´s... the 1Ds at 11MP, 1Ds2 16MP, 1Ds3 21MP, 1DX 18MP, 1DX2 20MP... they realized they put too many pixels in the !ds3 at 21MP it was suffereing in quality like the 5D 2-3, and went back to 18MP and only later 20MP which might still be a tad too much, i would stay bellow that as non flagship models aren´t as advanced as the 1D´s. but the 5d suffers for being old, the iso limits you to the film era, pushing it at iso800, the LCD is bad, and there is no video...appart from that it is, IMHO, one the best, and certainly the best value, image quality camera, apart from medium format digital cameras, ever produced.