Considering a 5D2

<p>Let me start this by saying that I'm not a professional, however I am interested in taking great pictures and I'm considering moving into photography as a second career in a few years as I wind down my business. I've been shopping for a good DSLR and have been considering buying a 5DmkII. I don't have any lenses and would probably be starting with a 50mm prime, probably the 50 f/1.4. I'd mainly be shooting street, architecture, some landscape, family, indoor low light, and travel. Is there any reason why I wouldn't want to go FF? The 5D2 is a little larger than I'd like it to be ideally, but it has some features that really appeal to me.<br>

Any thoughts?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Dave</p>

 

<p>There is no valid reason to prefer a crop camera over FF, unless your use would benefit from the advantages of a crop sensor unit. Unless you are planning on shooting things like birds in flight, at distance, action sports, or at ultra-high framerates or for similar reasons, there really isn't a benefit to APS-C over FF sensors. The benefits to a FF sensor though are obvious.</p>

<p>Of course all that being said, you can absolutely take great pictures with something as 'small' and 'old' as a 400D (or XTi), or even 'older'. The new rebels have most of the capabilities of the 5d2, and are a fraction of the price. If you have a budget, a new rebel paired with high quality, fast lenses, are going to produce far better imagery than a 5D2 paired with crappy lenses. Not to mention, the limits of your glass are far more quickly reached than the limits of the body.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What are the features that appeal?</p>

<p>For a starting out camera the 5D MkII is expensive, by the time you have got to grips with it, and the software learning curve needed to get the best out of digital cameras, a 5D MkIII could well be available and much more interesting. Also one prime lens might be considered limiting, especially given your diverse interests. For landscape, street and indoor low light few would choose a 50. Mind you I started with a 50 and it was the only lens I had for three years :-)</p>

<p>I would probably not recommend a 5D MkII, but it would be hinge on your interesting features.</p>

<p>What appeals to be about the 5D MkII are; (in no particular order) the feel of it, the large, bright viewfinder, the sound of the shutter and the beautiful LCD screen. In some ways, other cameras that I have tried seem like toys in comparison. Does that seem crazy? I would be adding other lenses in fairly short order, however, I just don't see myself as much as a zoom guy.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...the feel of it, the large, bright viewfinder, the sound of the shutter and the beautiful LCD screen.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Have you compared image quality of the 5DII and other EOS's?</p>

 

<blockquote>I just don't see myself as much as a zoom guy.</blockquote>

<p>You normally would consider a zoom if you need to react fast in composing a scene (i.e. fast paced weddings, chasing the royal couple and at times, travel photography). For vacations, the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM is on a gripless 5D. The backup camera for short telephoto reach would be the Canon PowerShot G12. But, there is a huge difference in low light image quality between the two.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Is there any reason why I wouldn't want to go FF?"</p>

</blockquote>

<ul>

<li>better image quality vs crop sensor</li>

<li>shallower DOF</li>

<li>more wide lens options</li>

<li>brighter VF</li>

<li>no regrets</li>

</ul>

<p>Only thing missing from the 5D MKII is the 60D's swivel LCD.</p>

<ul>

</ul>

<p>Dave C.</p>

<p>What camera are you using now (DSLR, compact digital camera, film camera)?</p>

<p>In what areas to you feel that your current gear is lacking?</p>

<p>What do you think the 5D2 can do for you that your current camera cannot?</p>

<p>I love my 5D2. It wasn't the first camera or even the first DSLR that I owned. There's nothing wrong with the 5D2 being your first DSLR, but some smaller, less expensive cameras can do a very good job as well, especially since you'll be climbing a steep learning curve for a while.</p>

<p>How old are you, and what sort of film slr's have you had in the past?</p>

<p>Reading between the lines about "winding down a business", and your desire to start with the 50mm f1.4 on a full frame dslr, I suspect that would be an excellent starting point for you</p>

<p> <a></a><a></a>For a little more satisfaction and latitude, you might want to pick up the 24-105 "kit" lens as well. It's price is reduced a fair bit when purchased togetether with 5D body.</p>

I often go out with my 5d 1 with only the 50mm. It's a great combo and much lighter than a zoom!

 

A fine choice.

<p>My first DSLR was a 5DII with an EF 50/1.4. I opted for a full frame body because I'd only ever used 35mm film, and for an EF 50/1.4 because I had always been impressed with my FD 50/1.4's. (I confess, however, that although the 50/1.4 was my first autofocus lens, I used it on my EOS-1V and 3 before I got my 5DII).</p>

<p>Although I now tend to use other EF primes and zooms more than my EF 50/1.4, the 5DII-50/1.4 combination has produced some stunning imagery for me, and if I were to be "starting from scratch" again, there's no question which camera and lens I'd be acquiring.</p>

<p><em>Is there any reason why I wouldn't want to go FF?</em></p>

<p>Cost vs utility. A 60D is $1,500 cheaper than a 5D mkII. A Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 crop UWA lens is $1,000 cheaper than the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II needed to match it on FF. A Canon 300 f/4L IS is $1,400 yet on crop gives you the reach and brightness of a $7,000 500mm f/4L IS on FF.</p>

<p>The $1,500 savings with the 60D means you wouldn't just start with a 50 f/1.4, but could start with, say, a Tokina 11-16 and Canon 70-200 f/4L as well.</p>

<p>We are at a point in sensor evolution where the best FF sensors are not much better than the best crop sensors. After post processing you're not going to see a difference even in 24" prints with low to mid ISO images. FF sensors still have a discernible advantage at high ISO, and have about 1 stop more DR. But you pay a lot for those small gains.</p>

<p>(No doubt my above statement will bring the typical storm of "No way! FF is SOOO much better! I swear I can see it!" type comments. Trouble is the people who reply that way always scurry and run when asked to say which image came from which in a test with no labels.)</p>

<p>I imagine the gap will widen with the next generation of FF sensors, but it's never going to be very wide again, and the next generation of crop sensors will probably shrink it back down again. Too many people are stuck in the days of 5D vs. 20D comparisons and crummy UWA options for crop. Those days are long gone. I don't know why anyone ever thought a great difference in IQ would persist between two formats so close together that they share bodies and lenses. Moore's law is clearly on the side of crop in terms of shrinking the gap.</p>

<p>The advantage in shallow DoF is also of dubious value. I generally have to stop down a 50 f/1.4 on crop to f/2 to get enough DoF in a portrait shot. Of what advantage then is even less DoF?</p>

<p>So...if you need to make large prints (i.e. 20" or 24") from high ISO (i.e. 3200) shots, you definitely want FF. If you want certain lenses (i.e. 35 f/1.4L or 17 T/S), then you will probably want a FF body to put them on to maintain their intended FoV.</p>

<p>And if you don't fit in those categories, you really need to think about whether or not you want to spend your money on a sensor that will never yield a print noticeably better than the print you would have gotten with the cheaper sensor.</p>

<p>I guess if you can tell me which crop came from which sensor in these two links (without cheating by finding the original source images) you should go FF. If not, then you should ask yourself where that $1,500 should be spent.</p>

<p>http://www.taylor-design.com/photos/2/test.jpg</p>

<p>http://www.taylor-design.com/photos/format_test.jpg</p>

>>> Is there any reason why I wouldn't want to go FF?<P>

 

If image quality is not the most important factor to you. If you rarely shoot in low light. If having better dynamic

range is not that important. If you don't have any lenses that require FF to achieve desired quality/fov. If

you need to shoot sports at high fps. If you are limited on $$$.<P>

 

Was an easy choice for me, having both. Full frame... <a href= "http://www.citysnaps.net/">(loads of

photos here)</a>

<p>I've owned Canon DSLRs for years and most recently a 5D2 for almost two years. My major use was for capturing landscape/nature images for sale. My clients often wanted very large, mural size images. This often meant stitching frames to create adequate file size and some situations did not work well with stitching. I recently sold my Canon systems and went to a Pentax 645d digital medium format system.</p>

<p>The improvement over the 5D2 was significant but the 645d could not totally replace all of the capabilities of the 5D2. As a backup I purchased a Pentax K-5. I am not trying to suggest you shouldn't purchase the 5D2 if that is what you have your mind set on doing. I have high praise for Canon products and their customer service, and I own and use their wide format printers. That said, the K-5 (along with the Nikon 5100, D7000, SONY a 580) uses a new SONY manufactured sensor that is equal in most respects and superior in others, to any of the Canon sensors. The high ISO capabilities of the K-5 are pretty much a match for the 5D2 and the K-5 has 14EV of dynamic range, almost 2 EV better than the 5D2 and it is particularly cleaner in shadow/dark areas at high ISOs than the Canon. And it will shoot 7 fps with shutter quietness that is probably superior to even a Leica M9. TheK-5 body is built to professional standards (alloy, weather seals, etc) with an outstanding feature set. Pentax also produces an outstanding range of prime lenses, if primes are your choice.</p>

<p>You won't be unhappy with the 5D2 but you should have a look at the Pentax K-5. I have absolutely no regrets.</p>

<p><em>" A Canon 300 f/4L IS is $1,400 yet on crop gives you the reach and brightness of a $7,000 500mm f/4L IS on FF."</em></p>

<p>No it will not. It will give you exactly the same subject reproduction ratio on the sensor, whatever size that sensor might be. The subject might be easier to frame with a crop camera, but that is a different matter, a 300 is a 300 is a 300, no matter what camera it is mounted on.</p>

"A Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 crop UWA lens is $1,000 cheaper than the Canon 16-35 f/2.8L II needed to match it on FF"

 

Again, if you are talking equivalence, then you would need the 17-40 f4 to more than match the range and effective

DOF of the Tokina on a FF. In fact you would have a lens that was wider and conciderably longer for the grand sum of

$150 more.

 

I've never scurried anywhere!

<blockquote>

<p><em>" A Canon 300 f/4L IS is $1,400 yet on crop gives you the reach and brightness of a $7,000 500mm f/4L IS on FF."</em><br /> No it will not. It will give you exactly the same subject reproduction ratio on the sensor, whatever size that sensor might be. The subject might be easier to frame with a crop camera, but that is a different matter, a 300 is a 300 is a 300, no matter what camera it is mounted on.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The gain arises from the higher pixel density of the crop body, not from the fact that it is a crop body. If you have a 5DII with 21Mpixels, then a 20D or 30D with 8Mpixels gives you no gain at all, and a 40D with 10Mpixels gives very little gain. On the other hand, a 7D or other 18Mpixel crop body gives a substantial gain, but not quite by a factor of 1.6; you would need a 21Mpixel crop body to achieve that. The actual gain (using round figures) is 1.6×sqrt(18/21), or just under 1.5, so a 300mm lens on a 7D will provide the same subject detail as a 450mm lens on FF, but with a slightly narrower angle of view (that of a 480mm lens on FF).</p>

<p>I have used a dual-format kit for some years, currently 5DII+7D, so I have no axe to grind as between FF and 1.6-factor. Both formats have their advantages for different types of work. In comparing the 5DII and the 7D you have to remember that the 7D is a more recent and advanced body, and it is important to separate out the inherent advantages/disadvantages of FF over 1.6-factor from effects due to the specification of the body. If, as far as it is possible to do so, you compare cameras of the "same generation" (5D and 30D; 5DII and 50D) you can see that the FF sensor has advantages in terms of image quality that become much more marked at high ISO, and for as long as we are talking about mirror/pentaprism systems it will probably remain the case that FF viewfinders will out-perform 1.6-factor viewfinders. Finally, again on a same-generation basis, a higher pixel count is possible on FF, allowing printing to larger sizes or (perhaps more important for most users) more flexibility over cropping. Set against those points is the difficulty of moving all that machinery around on FF, leading to lower maximum frame rates and slower flash synchronisation.</p>

<p>Then you need to consider tha interaction between bodies and available lenses. As has already been pointed out, for long-lens work on FF you need to be prepared to carry a lens that is substantially bulkier and heavier, and much more expensive, than you would need for 1.6-factor. That would always be the case. Other effects arise from what lenses are actually available, for example the TS lenses, from which you certainly do not get full value if you use them only on a 1.6-factor body. Another example is in copying work, for which Canon offer no suitable lens for 1.6-factor (the EF-S 60/2.8 is a great lens, but has too narrow an angle of view for handling medium to large artwork, and even the EF 50/2.5 suffers from that problem, whereas it is ideal on FF).</p>

<p>At the moment, I would say that unless you do a lot of high-ISO work or have a specialist requirement that depends on using a FF body with particular lenses, then the 7D is a better, and certainly more versatile, choice than the 5DII. When, as is expected shortly, the successor to the 5DII is announced, that may tilt the balance – but it will be at a price!</p>

<p><em>"The gain arises from the higher pixel density of the crop body, not from the fact that it is a crop body."</em></p>

<p>Another oft quoted misconception Robin. I would add that I have absolutely no axe to grind either :-)</p>

<p>The extra pixel density of the 7D only translates into additional resolution and image quality if each smaller pixel is as good as a larger ff sensor pixel, the fact that the 7D does not have the dynamic range or the high iso abilities of the 5D MkII would point to the fact that they are not. Also you need to use particularly good technique in near optimal conditions to have a chance of realising that resolution advantage.</p>

<p>Well that is the result I came to after testing both sensors thoroughly enough to draw my own conclusions.</p>

<p>That is not to say the 7D is not a superb camera, it is, and it is not to say for the majority of people the 7D would be a better general use tool. But as Dave asked about reasons to not get a 5D MkII (and he must have known the cost) then I think it would take a brave person to convince him of a completely different sensor. Having said that, I did think, and suggest, that as the 5D MkII is very mature in its product cycle, and if you are new to digital there is a ton of other stuff to learn, it might be a good idea to get a stand in until the MkIII becomes available.</p>

<p>I'll catch some flak for this but, why not pickup a used 30D for right now and use the saved money to get good glass? I use my 30D for my street/biker photos and my used original 5D for the studio.</p>

<p>Dave,<br>

In my personal (and these days somewhat unpopular) opinion you are absolutely on the right track. If you like the 5DII already from just trying it out that's a good indicator. And I love the combination with the 50 1.4. If you can stick to that combo for a while you'll likely learn a lot that may come in handy once you're ready for a second career in photography. And I'm saying that as a non-professional but as a long time user of this type of lens and 35mm cameras. It always was my favorite and still is.<br>

People who tell you otherwise may be "correct" in their own right of course and have likely gotten used to certain aspects of digital photography that I probably don't value enough yet. And honestly, I would still be shooting film if that was still possible at reasonable cost and quality. The 5D and now the 5DII (and probably their Nikon equivalent) were the first digital cameras that sort of interested me because I consider them a en par replacement for "35mm" film - if you can get adjusted to AF and, well rather dim viewfinders that is... I'm still struggling with that last part but there is no alternative in the DSLR word.<br>

But yes, there are a lot of people using "crop" cameras who take and make amazing images. To me "full frame" makes more sense and is a little more rewarding.<br>

As far as cost is concerned: I did the math when I bought my 5DII and figured that the 7D I was briefly taking into consideration wouldn't have been cheaper! Why is that? Because you end up spending more money on lenses just to make up for the difference in DOF and the loss at the wide angle end.<br>

I didn't see the need to wait for a 5DIII because the 5DII had pretty much what I was looking for (and then a lot that I was not looking for...).<br>

Good luck and enjoy</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm sorry that I've been away from the keyboard for awhile. Thanks for all the thoughtful responses. Here are some answers to the many questions in no particular order. My current equipment setup is dismal and consists of an old AE1 and a couple of lenses as well as an older G5. Over the years, I've owned Leica, Nikon and Pentax. I'm in my late 40's and as far as my business is concerned, my business partner and I have been discussing spending less time working and more time doing things that we have an affinity for, so we are working on a plan to transition ourselves over the next few years. Hence the comment about a second career. I'm starting some college courses in digital photography part time this fall to help me hone my skills and learn the software and plan on continuing this program over the next few years. There are probably many less expensive cameras that would enable me to get the job done, however, there are many intangibles involved as well which I realize can come at a price. Today, at lunch, I ventured down to a local camera shop and spent a bit of time comparing the 5D to the 7D. I learned a couple of things. First of all, I just can't seem to escape the shutter on the 5D. Every time I take a shot, it just feels/sounds so right to me, whereas on the 7D, it doesn't. Would it not bother me on the 7D, if I were not comparing them side by side? I don't know. The second thing I learned is that I had forgotten how much I liked the FOV offered by a 35mm lens. Whichever camera I get, I have decided to get the 35mm or equivalent lens as my first lens. The 5D with a 35 f/1.4 L as a combination is a thing of beauty. Whether I get the L up front is yet to be determined, but it's very tempting.<br>

Charles, you are the second person to mention the K-5 to me. I should check it out, however, it's pretty scarce. I'm traveling next week so I'll see if I can locate one on the road. I looked it up on B&H's website and it seems that Pentax has a limited amount of lenses, or am I missing something?</p>

 

>>> The 5D with a 35 f/1.4 L as a combination is a thing of beauty.

 

Absolutely. That's the only lens I use on my 5DII today; for street photography and and street portraiture. I

should probably sell my 24-70 f/2.8, which I haven't used in a year since getting the 35mm.

 

Also, the 35mm f/2 is a fine lens. Much smaller and lighter weight. It's a real shame that extra stop costs

an extra $1,000...

<p><em>No it will not. It will give you exactly the same subject reproduction ratio on the sensor, whatever size that sensor might be. The subject might be easier to frame with a crop camera, but that is a different matter, a 300 is a 300 is a 300, no matter what camera it is mounted on.</em></p>

<p>To put (roughly) the same number of pixels on the subject as an 18 MP APS-C sensor with a 300mm lens will require a 500mm lens on a 16-21 MP FF sensor.</p>

<p><em>Again, if you are talking equivalence, then you would need the 17-40 f4 to more than match the range and effective DOF of the Tokina on a FF. </em></p>

<p>It's true that the Tokina does not zoom in as far, but that range will likely be covered by other lenses in one's kit. It's not the tele end that's important when considering UWA.</p>

<p><em>I've never scurried anywhere!</em></p>

<p>You've also never correctly identified 5D2 and 7D crops in an unlabeled test.</p>

<p>The 35 f1.4 is a good enough reason on its own to only consider full frame. There is no crop camera equivalent. </p>

<p>That lens on a ff body make a sublime pairing.</p>

<p>Daniel, not interested.</p>

<p><em>The extra pixel density of the 7D only translates into additional resolution and image quality if each smaller pixel is as good as a larger ff sensor pixel, the fact that the 7D does not have the dynamic range or the high iso abilities of the 5D MkII would point to the fact that they are not.</em></p>

<p>It translates into additional resolution, period. You can prove that easily by shooting a resolution chart with the full 7D sensor and with the APS-C center of the 5D2 sensor.</p>

<p>As to DR and noise level, the differences are far too small at low to mid ISO to put the 7D at a disadvantage, especially in a limited reach scenario where per pixel noise is going to be amplified when you crop the 5D2 shot.</p>

<p>For a range of subjects and print sizes the difference between a 7D telephoto image and a cropped 5D2 telephoto image will simply not be dramatic. But that doesn't mean it never comes into play. I have some 20" prints of surfers made from 9 MP crops out of the 7D's full 18 MP. On a 5D2 that would have left me with 4 MP, not nearly sufficient for a 20" print. The differences would have been obvious.</p>

<p>If you're pushing print size then you can either slap a $1,400 lens on the 7D or a $7,000 lens on the 5D2. Your choice.</p>

What Scott said. Not interested...