Digital EOS: 30D or 5D?

[davide_pastorelli]

I am trying to choose between the 30D and the 5D. If money was the only issue I

would easily go for the 30D. As it happens, money is an issue but I also have

another concern.

 

My lens gear is built on a full frame body. I mainly shoot weddings and my

fantastic 24-70L does 90% of the job. I have noticed that most of my pictures

are taken between the 24-50 range, which the 24-70L is not able to cover on a

crop body.

 

So, should I get the 5D or the 30D and another lens with more or less the same

working range as the 24-70? Here are a few options that I have identified:

 

- 10-22: the perfect complement to the 24-70, even though I need to go that

wide only rarely. Also, it can only be used on crop bodies (the same comments

apply to 3rd party super-wide zooms) and I can borrow it from time to time, at

least to test it before dishing out the money

 

- 17-40: a good choice, even though with significant range overlapping with the

24-70. f/4 should not be a concern because of the good ISO performance of Canon

bodies. I would probably sell my 20 prime in this case

 

- 17-55 IS and 17-85: either of them could be the perfect fit but... The 17-55

would erase the saving involved in buying the 30D almost completely, so forget

about it. The 17-85 has the best working range (it is a bit slow but IS can

partially compensate) and basically eliminates the need for the 24-70, which I

don't want to sell. I kinda feel this would be a longer-term commitment to crop.

 

- get the 30D (body only) and see how I manage or give the kit lens a try.

 

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

Davide

[chr15w]

I was in the same situation 6 months ago (20d or 5d) and opted for the 5d. I justified the extra cost for sensor size and have to say it was the right way to go.

I like you, use it mostly for weddings and you will find that you will get superb definition images from the 5d, even cropped images have superb detail. The output size of images also means you can get 14" prints without interpolation which you cant with a 30d.

The noise on the 5d (or lack of it) is also a good reason to buy, its hardly noticable up to 1000 ISO

My only warning is this, if you are converting from film and have non canon lenses they probably wont work, a mistake I made which has cost me a lot of money

[trothwell]

I too bought the 5D, after waiting to see what the 30D would have in store. For me, like many others I'm sure, the main selling point was the full-frame sensor.

 

It was more expensive, yes, but it's a great camera, and I don't expect to need to replace it for a long time.

[dmanthree]

How much of a price difference is there between the 5D body, which works with all of your lenses as you are accustomes, and a 30D with the wide angle zoom? Why bother with the sub-frame camera when the difference isn't that much (only a few hundred dollars)?

[canonfodder]

Davide, I moved up to the 5D from a 20D (the same crop factor as your 30D option)... This gave my existing lenses a new lease of life.. wide angle means just that! If you do go 30D and the EF-S lenses then you would need to replace the lenses too when you move to a full-frame sensor as these do not work with the 5D (I'm sure you know this already!).

[carlos_miami]

Go for the 5D. You'll have more resolution, interchangeable focusing screens, a huge viewfinder that is a joy to work with, and the excellent full-frame sensor.

[athinkle]

I'd agree that the 5D sounds like the way to go. Think about it this way: You shoot weddings and you're used to using a 2.8 lens. This means that you'll probably want/need another 2.8 lens to cover the wide angle with a 30D. This leaves you with 2 Canon options: The 17-55 and the 16-35. Either of these would, as you stated, remove the savings you'd get by buying the 30D body. Considering all the other benefits of the 5D, it seems like a no brainer from where I'm sitting. (you could go for the Tamron/Sigma alternatives for a 2.8 zoom, but since you haven't mentioned any 3rd party lenses I'm assuming you'd rather stick with Canon.)

[steve_dunn2]

<p>5D. You get more resolution and have no need to burn up the body savings on adjusting your lens collection to fix the crop factor. You're accustomed to the honest-to-goodness pro performance of the 24-70, so I suspect the 17-85 would not satisfy you; you'd have to get the 17-55, which as you point out pretty much eats up the savings from the body. Or the 10-22, which isn't cheap, either, and leaves you with a small gap in focal lengths plus the need to swap lenses on what could be a fairly frequent basis.</p>

 

<p>As well, there's no need to adjust your thinking to fit the crop factor, either; you already instinctively know which lens to pull out of the bag for a given situation.</p>

[grant g]

5D. It's very hard to beat for weddings.

 

I use both at weddings and while I like the 30D with the 10-22, 17-55, 70-200IS, and various primes, the image quality from the 5D is usually a notch above and much better for enlargements.

[alexdi]

The one place the 5D is noticeably superior to the 30D is in DOF. That's really the reason to buy it. Crop sensors have a nasty tendency of neutering lenses that have marvelously thin DOF on a full-frame body.

 

That's the major reason I'm much not inclined to buy a lens slower than f/2.8 on a 30D. For most people, the difference between digicams and "professional" results has nothing to do with noise or whatever; it all comes down to creamy backgrounds. And frankly, slow lenses make expensive crop SLRs look too much like digicam shots they could have made themselves.

 

DI

[lb-]

<i>The one place the 5D is noticeably superior to the 30D is in DOF</i><p>

 

reality check.....<p>

 

total dof with an 80mm@ f 1.8 on a 5D focused at 6 feet is 2.16 inches.<p>

 

total dof with a 50mm@ f 1.8 on a 30D focused at 6 feet is 3.48 inches <p>

 

feel free to list all the types of shots where this differential makes some small difference, but in practice 99.9% of the time it's a non issue.

 

cheers

[._._z]

A model 7D is rumored to be out in February, offering full-frame in a 30D-type body, for around $2100 street price.

[alan_myers]

Hi,

 

Actually, you might find eventually you'll want both cameras.

 

But if you are currently using full frame film cameras the 5D will most likely be a more comfortable transition to digital. This because, in a sense, if you switch to one of the smaller sensor cameras you need to "relearn" your lens selection. That takes some getting used to! With the smaller sensor camera, initially you will probably find yourself occasionally pulling the wrong lens out of the bag.

 

There are some advantages to the smaller sensor and to a 20D/30D in particular. For example, I believe the 30D has a 1/250 flash sync, while the 5D has 1/200. Also, 30D has 5 fps mode, while 5D has 3 fps.

 

These factors may or may not be important to you, but are worth considering.

 

Larger files, such as from 5D, require larger compactflash cards to hold a day's work, which are more expensive. Larger files will also require longer post processing and handling times (although you can undoubtedly set the 5D to produce smaller files, if you wish) and more computing power in your "digital darkroom". This might be close to a non-issue for someone shooting and handling a small number of images, but becomes a big factor when shooting high volume. There are softwares that can speed things up with batch processing, but they're pretty expensive and an added cost on top of a solid image handling software like Photoshop.

 

Smaller sensor cameras can use smaller/lighter/less expensive/more unobtrusive lenses to achieve similar results in terms of "reach". I.e., a 200mm on full frame "becomes" a 300mm on the smaller sensor format.

 

The smaller sensor uses just the "sweet spot" central area of a lens, too, a bit more forgiving of lens quality than full frame, thus you might find new use for a lens that seemed a little soft in the corners on full frame.

 

Of course, there are advanteages the other way around, too, besides the obvious image quality potential of a full frame camera with a nearly 13 MP sensor. For example, the 5D has a few interchangeable focusing screens, where the 20D/30D do not. (I sometimes miss the grid screens used in my EOS3s.)

 

And, 5D and 30D share some characteristics, too. Although I use battery grips/vertical releases on all my Canon cameras, I like that the 5D has the potential to remove that grip and lighten the load/reduce size, if hiking or travelling make that a consideration. Wonderful as it is, the 1Ds Mk II is a large, heavy camera all the time, and there's no changing that.

 

I'm currently using a 10D and 30D with an assortment of lenses (17 to 500mm) for event, sports, macro and wildlife photography (but not wedding photography), shooting 700+ images some days. I do plan to add a full frame camera eventually, so have avoided the EF-S lenses. I do need a wider lens at times, so am considering the Tokina 12-24/4, until I get the full frame body. I do like that Canon provides three sensor formats - 1.6X, 1.3X an 1.0X - unlike any of the other DSLR manufacturers. To me, this just makes my lens kit potentially much more versatile (sort of like combining film 35mm and medium format into one kit).

 

I'm very interested to hear the rumors about the possible 7D. Makes marketing sense to me and I would expect to see something in the 10 MP range, since the bar has been raised there by other camera manufacturers.

 

If you are just now converting from film, you may not realize how much you will save in terms of film and processing. Now that the resolution is high enough and the prices have come down out of the stratosphere, DSLRs pay for themselves pretty darned quickly. OTOH, I find I tend to shoot 2X or maybe even 4X as many shots, especially since there's no cost of film and processing, so am putting a lot more wear and tear on the camera than I did with film!

 

Cheers!

[jim_larson1]

Cost is a factor. Is time a factor?

 

The 30D is obsolete -> it should have the features of the new 400D. Expect this model to be replace March next year. . .maybe xmas if 30D sales REALLY tank.

 

But assuming you buy now. . . .remember that the 30D and 5D are practically identical except for the sensor. Is the price difference worth it? I would go for the 30D.

 

As for lens. . .don't go for any EF-S lens**, unless you are prepared to dump it down the road. And certainly don't get the waaaaaay overpriced 17-55/EF-S.

 

The 17-40/4L is a good lens. You won't be disappointed. If you currently use a 80/1.8, you probably want to pick up a 50/1.4 for portrait work.

 

**except for the 10-22/EF-S, for which there is not really a good substitute.

[steve_robertson2]

Hi Davide

 

Each body has its strengths, with the larger view finder, more capable low light focusing system, better image quality at higher ISO's >400 - 1600 and lower FCOV the 5D advantages lie in hand held available light photography, the 30D with its greater FCOV, higher pixel density/sq mm, and good noise suppression <= 400 ISO the 30D favors longer distance outdoor work. That said each body is capable of doing the job you want, it really comes down to what best suits your shoot needs? If I had to choose one camera body with the lens you have, it would be the 5D.

[pavel_olavich]

For weddings get the 5D for higher quality cropping...higher pixel count trumps interpolation every time. Also low light church type shoots can take advantage of the fameous low noise of the 5D...although the 30D is not bad either.

[eric merrill]

I went with the 5D over the 20D because it wasn't that much more expensive. At the time, I believe the 20D was $1300 or so. And the 5D was $2900. Add another $1100 to the price of the 20D so I could buy the 24/1.4L and still have the approximate view as the 35, and the price difference was actually 2400 vs 2900. $500 for full frame.

 

That was my reasoning. Or faulty justification. Whichever. :)

 

 

Eric

[davide_pastorelli]

First, thank you all for your help, your suggestions have been very useful.

 

This is the conclusion I've come up with. Given my current lens gear (20 2.8, 24-70L 2.8, 100 2.0) the 5D is the best choice, no doubt, but at this moment in time getting the 30D and the 17-40 seems the most reasonable compromise. Here's why.

 

Here in Italy the 5D body sells for 2,400 euros (lowest available street price), whereas the 30D 17-40 bundle would cost me about 1,800 euros. Now that's a 600 euros (about 750 dollars at the current rate) saving. Also, I should be able to sell my 20 prime for roughly 400 euros (current used prices), and that will raise the total savings to 1,000 euros (1,250 dollars). Now, this will buy me a nice laptop so I can complete my film to digital transition. So with the same outlay needed for the 5D I get a full digital darkroom equipment. The 5D (or any other FF DSLR) will be funded by the earnings of my activity, and I will still be able to use my 17-40 with it. This gradual approach sounds very reasonable to me. So far the economics.

 

Now picture quality. For weddings I don't usually make prints larger than 11 x 14 at most, and I reckon this is too small a size to fully appreciate the resolution of the 5D.

 

Thanks again and happy shooting.

 

Davide