The frugality of going full frame via 5D

<p>I need to make a decision over going full frame and which body to choose. My existing DSLR system is an old Sony A100 and an assortment of old lenses, some auto focus but the majority are old manual focusing and with stop down metering for that matter. I do shoot a lot of film through a very old 120 folder and Rolleiflex.<br>

When shooting digital I rarely carry extra lenses. Going further back or close in works out absolutely fine for my zooming needs! So I could definitely live with manual focus and one cheap prime like the 50 1.8. I also tend to look after my bodies and lenses and quite happy to spend an entire day walking with my Panasonic G1 or the Sony and just take a dozen carefully composed shots. Oh and lastly, I only really shoot RAW.<br>

Even the cheapest secondhand full frame Sony A850 or A900 are too expensive for my very limited budget. I have been looking at Canon 5D (Mark 1) as the cheapest route to full frame. I envisage buying a second hand 50 f1.8 as my main lens and perhaps using a couple of the Zeiss and Russian M42 lenses as adapters if I need anything else. <br>

I am absolutely positive that image quality and ISO performance with a 12MP 5D is going to be miles better than my existing DSLR. Autofocus when used is likely to be better than present options. I don't envisage upgrading for probably another couple of years should I get the 5D. There are more secondhand EOS lenses out there than any other system so my meagre budget would allow for an easier lens upgrade as and when I need it.<br>

So yes, trying to work if I have thought of all possibilities!</p>

 

<p>Actually the 5D is 13MP, well 12.7MP to be exact. It was the first really good digital camera I owned. However, it is now 9 years old and good copies are getting harder to come by. As nice as the image quality is, the LCD leaves a lot to be desired and I found it nearly invisible save for dim light. I'd save a little more and spring for a used 5D MKII. A lot more camera for the money and a much better chance of finding a nice example.</p>

<p>I owned an original 5D, and now have a Mark II, and agree with Puppy Face. Either is good, but the Mk II is more refined. There are lots of gently used Mk IIs out there now since the Mk III came out, and the prices have come down.</p>

<p>The 5D (Mk.I) was, and still is, an excellent camera. I do agree, in part, with Puppy...it is a bit long in the tooth technology-wise, and the monitor is not great by current standards. But, after 6 or 7 years I do still use mine (with recently replaced shutter) on occasion, and the results are usually very good. A quick look at KEH shows about a $1,000 price jump to a comparable condition Mk.II. I think your needs, as you've described them, will be well met by the Mk.I, provided you find one that has been well cared for and has low mileage.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even the cheapest secondhand full frame Sony A850 or A900 are too expensive for my very limited budget. I have been looking at Canon 5D (Mark 1) as the cheapest route to full frame. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really perceptive, Brent and Puppy, if Starvy can't afford a Sony 850 or A900, how can he afford a 5dII? <br>

Me? I question Starvy's need of FF. Aps-c sensors are damn good these days. The current m4/3 are great as well... </p>

<p>Hi Leslie,<br>

I want the depth of field advantage that full frame brings more than anything. I have older generation crop and m4/3 and don't really see the point of going for more advanced versions of these. The LCD isn't really that important and in the part of the world I like, sunshine is only there for three months of the year! It rains in Wales all the time, hence the lush green vegetation and sheep ;) </p>

<p>I still use a 5D. When I compared images against those from a 6D I was surprised at the minor difference in observed resolution. The 5D lacks only in certain areas. Ergonomics for one (small LCD) and its high ISO performance isn't as good as more recent models. However I wouldn't worry about it "only" having 12.7MP. I presume you don't want/need video or live view or the other bells and whistles that come with more recent models.</p>

<p>For use with the 50/1.8 and a few M42 lenses it's definitely the most cost effective solution and I don't think you'll be disappointed with the image quality.</p>

<p>Compared with the A100 you'll probably gain a stop or two in noise performance, but I wouldn't expect to see a HUGE difference in image quality at low ISO settings.</p>

<p>You don't seem perturbed using Prime Lenses - and if fast (sub F/2.8) is not necessarily a need, then if you want to build a kit WITH Auto Focus Lenses there are really good value for money EF Primes to look at. For example the 24/2.8; 35/2 and the 85/1.8 is excellent value for money: the 135/2.8SF gets overlooked.<br>

The 50/2.5 is very nice, have often thought I would have it as my 'only 50' if I were on a vey tight budget, worth considering depending upon your Photographic interests <br>

I kept my 5D when I moved to MkII's and I still use my 5D, often. It is a good camera.</p>

<p>WW<br>

</p>

<p>We gave my wife's 30D to another family member, so my wife took over my 5D, and I purchased a 5DIII. That's the ONLY reason I made the switch. The 5D's was an excellent camera, and continues to be.</p>

<p>The 5D is by far the best bang for your buck. If you're used to shooting with a Sony A100 then I don't think the older display of the 5D will be much different. A 5D Mk1 with the 50mm f/1.8 will give you outstanding quality photographs. </p>

<p>There is no doubt that there are better full-frame cameras today than the 5D. That may not be Starvy's question though, and there is equally little doubt that a camera that many professionals were pleased to use just a few years ago is a fine camera in absolute terms, and if the budget is a small number of hundreds of pounds this might well be a good way to spend it. </p>

<p>The issues I'd put to him are threefold. </p>

<p>I never really found the 5D performance in low light/high ISO to be pleasing and noise is an issue. Would that be important to your photography? </p>

<p>Second the 5D doesn't have sensor cleaning. Not such a big issue if you don't change lenses much, but I spent a lot of time cleaning my sensor.</p>

<p>Third the addition of Live View ( which the 5D doesn't have) has improved focussing and composition for me no end ( though it really requires a tripod). Would it help you?</p>

<p>Depending on how important these things are to you I could put forward an argument that these factors are more important than full frame and that your ideal target is the lowest cost credible way of achieving these , given that 12m pixels or more is pretty much a given. You may not have to spend much more than the 5D to get them.</p>

<p>Mendel and Jamie, thanks for your kind insight. David, thank you for raising the issues. Lowlight performance is poor with my Sony where I rarely go above what is the camera's Hi200 ISO. I have shot at 400 in concerts but noice can be a major issue. I am used to cleaning the sensor in my present A100 as it does tend to have three lenses that get regular use. So this is not much of a problem for me. I am only used to a built in EVF and liveview through my Panasonic G1 m4/3. While I don't mind the EVF, I don't use the liveview at all in that body. I believe the the optical viewfinder in the 5D has 95-96% coverage. This is more than what I am used to with DSLRs any way. I have long stopped comparing my beautiful Olympus OM4 viewfinder to anything out there!<br>

I'd like to be shooting more portraits. The idea is to get a 50 f1.8 and use that for almost everything, but mostly what portrait work I end up doing at work (this is unpaid by the way) and I also like the idea of shooting a little more cityscape. With older medium format cameras I am so used to doing sunny 16 and shooting at or above f5.6, when I do shoot digital, I feel a little more confident in the instant results anyway. </p>

<p>Leslie wrote: "Really perceptive, Brent and Puppy..."</p>

<p>Classy, Leslie... :-(</p>

<p>Moving along... While the OP is budgetarily limited, <em>if </em>it is possible to perhaps hold off and save up a bit more cash for a used 5D2, I think that could be a good idea. I have a 5D (since it was introduced) and a 5D2 (also since it was introduced). When it first came out, the 5D was almost a revolutionary product - the first "affordable" (by comparison to 1-series bodies) full frame DSLR, which primarily sacrificed only certain aspects of build qualit. y, a first-line AF system, and burst rate in order to give us a "consumer" full frame body that was also used by many serious photographers.</p>

<p>The 5D2, however, added significant advantages: live view, video, better high ISO performance, and a functional dust reduction system. Depending on how you shoot, any one of these could be enough to make the value of the slightly more expensive used 5D2 appealing. Having had used the 5D for perhaps 3 1/2 years before moving to a 5D2, the dust reduction system alone seems worth it.</p>

<p><em>If </em>it truly is impossible to come up with the price of a decent used 5D2 <em>and </em>you really do need full frame, then a 5D may be your only option. But that seems like a rather small vector to me. There is a good chance that you might be overrating the potential advantage of full frame in your work and underestimating the usefulness of the added features of the newer camera. <em>If </em>you can somehow swing it, I encourage you to check out the 5D2. If you cannot, I urge you to think very carefully about whether you might be better served with a more up-to-date cropped sensor body.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>crazy thought, but how about a Pentax 67 with a fast lens? The original 67's (not the 67 II) are dirt cheap, and so are the lenses. You will get even better bokeh/smooth creamy portrait backgrounds than with a full fram 35 dslr. High iso, use Portra 400 or 800 - and they are optimized for skintones/portraits which is what you want to shoot. As you say you dont shoot hundreds of shots in an outing, so processing should not be a major cost issue, and you can have the lab scan them for you so you get digital.<br>

Or, check out the latest high end digital compacts. Leica/panasonic have a fast lens variant, and I bet so do the others. Probably better performance at high iso than an old camera like you are considering also.<br>

I dont know, buying an old 5D just sounds unwise.</p>

 

<p>Randall, I'd absolutely love a Pentax 67 but it doesn't offer the same lens choices as I am able to have with an EOS system. I shoot medium format quite a lot but rarely for portraiture of the kind that requires fines bokeh. Plus, the only reason I am able to afford film is because I shoot for a few months and get them processed in bulk. So scanning is done at home perhaps every four of five months after I have shot the original pictures. One of the reason for going full frame digital is so that there is no other cost for a while.<br>

G Dan, I get what you are saying and the most important of the options you have given me would make sense perfectly if cost was not an option. The lower noise levels in Mark II and the dust protection seems like worthwhile options. But, the price difference at present really does not make it a possibility sadly.</p>

<p>Starvy, with that in mind I have to wonder if you will actually get the increased performance from this older full frame body that you imagine, and whether a more capable cropped sensor body might turn out just as well for you.</p>

<p>Image quality differences between the 12MP FF 5D and later high quality cropped sensor bodies is minimal and might not even be relevant at all, depending upon how/what you shoot. Yes, you can get slightly narrower DOF with a given aperture, but with the prime you are thinking of you'll get nice narrow DOF either way. Yes, the potential image quality of full frame can be a bit better - if you use a higher photosite density sensor and print at the upper boundaries of print size. Yet here, with 12MP you are going to diminish even that potential advantage a bit.</p>

<p>These days I use a full frame body (5D2) and a 1.5x cropped sensor body (Fujifilm X-E1) - selecting the camera based on practical considerations related to what and how I'll shoot. You can make a really beautiful 18" x 24" print from the cropped sensor camera...</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Here's my usual comment when fast lenses, portraits and DOF comes up.</p>

<p>You're probably not looking for a shallow DOF. You're probably looking for increased background blur. The two are NOT the same thing. The FF body (with equivalent lenses) will give you more background blur (and a smaller DOF), How much more you can calculate using the program you will find at the following link. It's not a web based calculator. You have to download it and run it locally.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html">http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/bokeh_background_blur.html</a></p>

<p>Roughly, using equivalent lenses (e.g. 85/1.8 on FF and 50/1.8 on APS-C) and shooting from the same spot so you get the same subject magnification, you'll get about 1.6x as much distant background blur in a print of a given size from the FF combination. If you use the same lens in each case and change your shooting distance, you won't see much difference in distant background blur.</p>

<p> </p>

Bob it's a grest program. Probably only one in it's kind. You should consider version for ios and

android - everything I found can do only dof and hf distance. I would happily pay a few dollars

for having such a nice tool all the time in my pocket.

<p>The Pentax 67 that has been suggested is not something I would advise for "better bokeh". Yes, the 6x7 negatives are huge but how many Pentax 67 lenses open up to f/1.8 or even f/1.2?</p>

<p>As for pushing the crop DSLRs, I often find that many people here on this forum try and persuade people looking for a FF camera to buy a crop instead. They insist there is little difference but, like true hypocrites, most of them shoot FF themselves.</p>

<p>Starvy, go ahead and get yourself a 5D. They are amazing value for money. The high ISO performance, whilst not up to the standard of the latest models, is light years ahead of that on your current A100. You will see an immediate improvement in the quality of your photographs. For the record, I use a 5D2, but if I was short of cash the 5D Mk1 would be in my bag right now. </p>

<p>The 5D is a great camera. If you are taking carefully composed shots it is more than good enough. You will have no trouble getting good 13x19 prints if you use the 50 1.8. The only feature that it lacks that I miss is auto ISO, but that is not critical.</p>

<p>The original 1Ds is also good. The resolution (about 10 megapixels) is less than the 5D and I expect the low light performance may be a little worse too (though still usable up to ISO 800). It has better autofocus, which you may not care about with your manual lenses, and a better viewfinder, which you probably do. (The EC-CIV screen is a worthwhile upgrade.) Also there are some adapted lenses (Contax etc) which hit the mirror on the 5D but not the 1Ds.</p>

<p>I would get either a 5D or a 1Ds depending on what you see on the second hand market. A 1D with its 1.3 crop factor might be fun to play with, but only at a very good price (since it has only 4 megapixels of resolution). The 1D Mark II is better.</p>

<p>Go for it. The 5D is a nice camera. Be sure to check the sensor carefully. Some have goo on them from botched cleaning jobs.</p>

<p>Bob, thanks for that caculator, it is a really useful tool and I so wish that there was an android version of it for my phone! Jamie and Stephen, I am exactly of the same opinion as the two of you.<br>

I get a little stuck photographically every six months. One of these glut purchases was the battered old Panasonic G1 m4/3 in late April just before my mum passed away. I have to say that while I have shot less this year because of that but the Panasonic did get me out more often than I had cared to. Combined with a Jupiter 50/2 lens and shooting mostly manual, it brought a new fun dimension to my photography. The only issue of course was the mess of converting DNG into a WinXP computer. Having less expendable income on photography does make me think about everything I do rather carefully, and I guess, it also slows me down in how I shoot. This does not bother me as I am not trying to win any prizes, just achieve an inner contentment through creating a vision that the artists brush never really allowed me.<br>

I can't even dream of a Medium Format digital, but what I see from my Velvia negetives through these battered old uncoated Zeiss and Sneider optics yearn for a look that my m4/3 or the x1.5 crop does not provide within the same frame. My boss is a keen wildlife photographer and has 1D MarkII as well as the 1D X. I've looked at both although not handled them. A friend has a Sony A900 and again, I've had a chance to get some play. The quality simply blows me away. I also find that when I think of the capability of the gear or cost of processing before pressing the shutter button, my exposure tends to be a little better! Ed, I think you make excellent suggestions. One of the reason I was looking into the 5D was because of its size. The other full frames are a big jump in size compared to what I am used to. </p>

<p>If you're sold on the Canon system (you should buy into a system rather than just a camera) and if you cannot afford the 5D II now then why not get an APS-C camera, like the 60D, and when you have the money for a FF then buy the 5D II. As long as you get EF lenses for your 60D you will be able to use them on the 5d II. I use both the 5D II and the 60D and like the combination. They take the same battery which is a plus. They don't take the same memory card but I don't find that to be a problem. You may find that you like the APS-C camera so much that you might stay with that format.</p>

<p>I am not sold into the Canon system John but sold into the 5D being the cheapest full frame camera and that it would also allow me to use legacy lenses from many other systems to be used.</p>