50D vs 5D mk1

<p>Is it a good step to swap my 50D with a 5D mark I. Need it mainly for portraits and macro.<br>

Thanks Simon.</p>

<p>On portrait ,The 5d have the advantage, You will have greater background blur with it compared to 50d.</p>

<p>For macro, The 50d have the advantage, Not only that the closest framing is already cropped, You will also have more pixel density for cropping on the pc.</p>

<p>Either will work for portrait. 50D has live view which will become very handy for macro work.</p>

<p>I recently went from a 40D to a 5D. I love the FF DOF and the images have just a little bit more "pop." I also get about 1 stop higher ISO before noise bothers me.<br>

There are some downsides since it is an older camera. The screen is smaller and lower res, and you loose dust reduction and auto ISO. There are a few other software things you loose that don't really bother me at all.<br>

I mainly shoot portraits and art photos, and I'm happy I made the change.</p>

<p>In fact its the quality of the output that interests me. Especially in the subjects that interest me.</p>

<p>Most serious macro photographers I know use crop-sensor cameras (some of them Rebels), but I believe that one of the very best, Brian Valentine (for example, http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=157648) recently got a 5DMkII. The crop sensor will give you more working distance with a given lens, and for an equivalent field of view, it gives you more DOF--and DOF is in short supply in macro work. (See http://www.photo.net/learn/optics/dofdigital/). And I agree with the comment about cropping. it would be a harder issue if you were comparing to a 5DMkII, but one often needs to crop quite a bit in macro work, and I find the extra pixels in my 50D (I used to use an XTi) helpful.</p>

<p>Interesting that on a site where people obssess about sharpness that all they want is blur.</p>

<p>Thanks very much for your help. I do appreciate your help very much</p>

Is FF such an improvement over crop when you want both eyes sharp in a portrait?

 

Beyond a certain shallowness I'd say it becomes a hindrance. Or am I totally wrong?

 

M.

<p>I would try to save up for the 5D and keep the 50D. This way you don't lose the longer length of telephotos that you're used to with the crop factor, and you don't lose burst speed. Having both would be very versatile and would virtually double your lens set. I think if I could have only one, I'd stick with the 50D, b/c it can do it all prety well, while the 5D does stills extremely well, but not so good with action. Then again, if you're ONLY shooting stills, go with the 5D, but if you ever do wildlife or action, you will miss the 50D. If you need a little more money to keep both, then sell the 50D and get a 20D. This way you keep the 1.6x factor and still have 5fps, while still getting the 5D.</p>

<p>Too much is made of the DoF differences between APS-C and 35mm. It's just not that significant. An 85 f/1.8 or 135 f/2L will give you all the blur you could want with your 50D. In fact, you'll often have to stop down 1 stop to keep both eyes sharp, or a bit more when dealing with multiple people. If all you have right now are slow zooms, a 5D won't help. You need a fast prime, not another body.</p>

<p>The 50D will have a big advantage in macro in terms of usability because of live view.</p>

<p>As for IQ, the 50D will resolve a bit more than the 5D. Out of camera it's not as sharp, but proper application of USM, or an increase in the sharpness setting for JPEGs, takes care of that. If your 50D is not giving you the sharpness or "pop" or "3D" or whatever you see in a photo from a 5D, then your post work is not optimized for APS-C. Or your lenses suck. Take your pick.</p>

<p>The only place where the 5D would have an advantage is higher ISO noise.</p>

<p>It really, truly amazes me how much angst there is over APS-C vs 35mm. It seems that every amateur is convinced that they need "full frame" to get the best results or to be complete or something. As I've said before, I've seen amateurs spend serious money on full frame only to produce the exact same photographs they were producing before. There's nothing you can produce with full frame that you can't produce with APS-C except at very high ISOs, or when using certain specialty lenses. (I'm thinking of the 17mm T/S or a 14mm prime in the EOS system.) If you think trading bodies or spending a ton of money to add FF is going to magically change your photography, it won't. Take a class, take a trip, or add a needed lens instead.</p>

<p><em>Interesting that on a site where people obssess about sharpness that all they want is blur.</em></p>

<p>Great observation. Thanks for making me laugh :-)</p>

<p>I think you should own both. I do and I am very happy!<br>

If I was going to own one body it would be a 5D Mk II. Full frame and the pixel density to crop like an APS-C.</p>

 

<p>I've been a Nikon guy who bought a 50D because it was cheaper than a D300. A few days back I purchased a nice, used 5D (original mark 1 ) off my dealer's shelf for a decent price. I've already decided to sell the 50D and keep the 5D. Some folks are looking to multiply their telephotos but I prefer to have a 50 act like a 50. To my eyes the 5D has better image quality and definitely better high ISO. As for new tech vs old? You may very well see me walking around with an Oly Om1n loaded with Tri-x or Delta 100 B&W film. Believe me the 5D is cutting edge. :)</p>

<p>(BTY Canon's 50 1.4 is superb on the 5D. If I didn't need a bit of wide angle now and then I'd never take it off.</p>

<p>I own the 5D myself, though I have on occasion considered a 50D as a companion camera - for my 70-200 lens where I often find myself wishing for more reach - and leaving the 5D for low light and wide angle work.</p>

<p>I have been looking at all the developments since getting the 5D, and despite being a veritable dinosaur in digital technology terms, it is still - as many dionsaurs were - a giant compared to what is both before and after.</p>

<p>What I wouldn't have minded seeing was Canon releasing a new 5D with the same resolution and anti-alias filter as the original, add a better screen, larger viewfinder, improved microlens technology and image processing, live view, why not throw in a movie mode too. They could call it 5D Classic (why not?) and it would be an amazing camera for its 2-3 stop low-light improvement over the original as well as for its other improved features.</p>

<p>I'd buy one. If they don't make one. Well, I'll keep my old 5D for now.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In fact its the quality of the output that interests me.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>In what way the quality of the output from your 50D does not meet your demands?</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br />Yakim.</p>

<p><em>In what way the quality of the output from your 50D does not meet your demands?</em><br>

I'm happy with my 50D, I just happen to read that FF offers advantages over crop. I just asked for experiences if what is said is true. In case I was going to consider a swap.</p>

 

<p>For your intended purpose, portraits and macro, you could use either of the cameras and get great results. I would not upgrade, unless you know what you're missing with 50D, not enough DOF, too much DOF, bigger viewfinder, etc. Upgrading to FF, just because of higher potential IQ is not a good idea withou having a real need/reason. I would imagine that neither portraits nor macro require extremely high ISO.<br>

<br /> I've upgraded from 20D to 5D and feature comparison aside, here are my general recommendations/thoughts for someone who shoots variety of objects.<br>

<br /> - APS camera with very good EF-S lenses, say 10-22, 17-55, 60mm macro is a lot cheaper and smaller/lighter package than FF and L lenses<br /> - If you use mostly fast L lenses, you may as well switch to FF to get the most out of them. If you are happy with EF-S quality and size, stick with APS-C<br /> - FF is overkill for a family/trips/general purpose camera. It's way too heavy and expensive if you're trying to have complete focal coverage.<br /> -- FF is great if you want to use tilt-shift lenses or large aperture lenses f/1.2, f/1.4, etc. or if you really need the last 10% of IQ or print billboards :)<br /> -- APS camera will give an average user 95% IQ of what FF would offer. Think hard weather you really need the last 5 % and are willing to put up with the cost and size.<br /> -- FF and large aperture lens is a disaster for people who don't have at least some photo experience. If you give FF and f/1.4 lens to a spouse to take pictures in Auto mode, it will most likely be blurry as depending on the light the camera may choose a large aperture and the wrong focus point. f/2.8 lens on APS is a lot more forgiving.</p>

<p>I personally have chosen the route of FF with fast prime lenses to achieve small DOF and the last bit of IQ. I will however complement this with a pocket camera with APS or micro4/3 sensor to have something light and flexible for travel. The FF with prime lenses are great for dedicated photo sessions or focusing on getting a very specific result. The pocket camera is for convenience.</p>

<p>O can agree with Pavel. I've been here and there and finally stick with APS-C camera. still I'm surprised how good was pictures taken many years ago with old D70s with 'crappy' all can do lens. D700 was awesome in IQ but still - do you really need FF? now I'm looking even for good light P&S camera for workaround. there's no need to carrying huge FF for a fortune cost. unless you will make really huge enlargments and sell it for editors or whatever. that's a real life and regular APS camera is good enough to free your creativity...</p>