Why I Won't Buy the 5D

[toddklassy]

When information about the 5D first came out I was licking my chops.

But the more I thought about it, the more I decided not to buy it.

Tell me if you agree with this line of thought:

 

Back before the days of digital SLR cameras I think we were all told

at one time or another to use one type of film and stick to it for a

while (perhaps 1 to 2 years) before changing to another film. Doing

so would give us plenty of time to get used to the nuances of that

particular film, because each film was different. I think the same

thing can be said of the 5D.

 

I just purchased my 20D in June, and I love it. The 5D, I think,

would be a nice improvement for the money, but I think I'll leave

well enough alone. If Canon plans on releasing a nifty new camera

about once every year (e.g. planned bbsolecense) then I think I'll

use that time to get to know my 20D better. Then after a year or two,

when I've mastered the nuances of my 20D and know it like the back of

my hand, then I can think about getting another body to use side-by-

side with my 20D. In 4th quarter 2006 Canon may release another new

body that will surpass the 5D in features, technology, quality and

price, which will coincide with the launch of Windows Vista--when I

will likely upgrade my 3 year old computer and its operating system.

 

In the mean time I will go to the store on occaision and hold the 5D

in my hand, but I will think about what Canon has in store for us

with its new 3D next year.

 

Todd

[astcell]

Bodies come and go. Put your money in the glass. I have a 1D Mark II and love the tough build of it. At this rate a 1D Mark III will be 12.3MP and 8.5fps. The 1Ds Mark III will be, at this growth rate, 23MP and 4fps. It is bound to happen sooner or later. The original 1Ds was $8k, then it dropped to $3500 when the Mark II came out. With the news of the 5D I see the 1Ds going for aorund $2900 now.

 

Invest in gold, silver, stocks, bonds, even the 50/1.0 and 200/1.8 lenses. But when it comes to the bodies, plan on always having it cost you.

[yog_sothoth]

Reasons to buy a 5D-

 

You shoot a lot of wide angle shots.

 

You really need the extra pixels.

 

Other than that, the 20D is great.

[coolmingli]

Agree with you, unless you have money to burn, but even for someone who has extra money to burn, I will suggest to upgrade evey other generation. If I were you, I will skip the 5D, upgrade to the 3D or whatever they call it.

[yakim_peled1]

>> Tell me if you agree with this line of thought

 

It doesn't matter if we agree or not. It is a very personal decision.

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[PuppyDigs]

<BLOCKQUOTE><I>"Back before the days of digital SLR cameras I think we were all told at

one time or another to use one type of film and stick to it for a while (perhaps 1 to 2

years) before changing to another film. Doing so would give us plenty of time to get used

to the nuances of that particular film, because each film was different. I think the same

thing can be said of the 5D."</I></BLOCKQUOTE><P>Well, after 2.5 years I finally feel

like I know my 10D inside out, so I guess that means it's time to upgrade to a new film, uh

a 5D. I wish it had ECF...</P><P>Incidentally, I doubt a 3D is on the way. The 5D is close

enough. Probably a 20D replacement/upgrade will debut in 2006.</p>

[medina photography cherry]

The 5D would be a nice camera to have. It has better spot metering. No pop up flash. Full Frame! (which I so desperately need!)I think the 5D started it's life out as the digital version of the eos3 but quickly became a 20D alternative. If I were honest, I would go with the 1DMKII over the 5D. I think you get more features for the money. For the 5D to be a succesful sale I think Canon will have to bring the price down to around $2500 or below. Not many 20D users are going to spend that kind of money for an upgrade and no 1D user will downgrade to less features. Just my 2 cents.

Now, what about the 24-105 F4L USM IS? I will surely buy that lens(I know it isn't a 2.8- who cares it has IS to compensate)

[shawngibson]

That's exactly the reason I DO want a 5D, it's the first digital I feel is going to be 'good enough' for me to keep for a few years, and through experience with it, hopefully it will become an extension rather than a chunk of plastic in metal, in the same way Tech Pan and Pyro or Ilford Warmtone used to be an extension of me, and that, no matter what else, I always considered these 2 part of the process. I want a DSLR that does the same for me, and I think the 5D is there. Indeed, the D2X is almost there, too, it's just still too $, and I can't fully qualify a 1.5 crop, even though, outside the lenses issue, I have no problem as long as it performs, as the Nikon seems to do.

 

Obviously, there are many reasons to think the 1DsMkII is a 'permanent' camera too, but for many reasons it wasn't the camera for me, not only for the $.

[paul_chilton2]

Todd,

 

don't buy one then, but if you keep the same mindset you'll never move on because there will always be a better model "next year". My 1D Mark II is already obsolete but I shot 600 images with it this morning at a triathlon and guess what, the camera functioned perfectly and the images looked just as good as ever. Obsolete cameras don't stop working when their replacement comes out, the marketeers just want you to think they do.

[ben z]

"When information about the 5D first came out I was licking my chops. But the more I thought about it, the more I decided not to buy it...I just purchased my 20D in June..."

 

If I had just spent $1500 on a 20D, as I alsmost did, I would now be looking for ways to reconcile myself to not getting a 5D. As it is, I am glad I didn't jump on the 20D because the 5D is exactly what I've been wishing for, a full-frame chip so I can use all my lenses at their full angles of coverage, in a body I can comfortably carry all day while travelling, at a price I can (almost) afford. I will be waiting for the early adopters to report on bugs, and for the usual firmware updates etc to solve them, and for the initial frenzy to die down and prices to fall, maybe even a mint used one or a refurb will show up. I'd like to spend no more than $2500. Meantime I've got a freezer full of film to use up anyway. If I had bought the 20D like you did, I'd just use it and enjoy it until the forementioned things happen with the 5D, and then either trade up or keep the 20D as a backup.

[crystal-lite]

I too would be licking my chops to see, feel and shoot with the 5D, but having bought the

20D recently and getting some great photos out of it, I'll be sticking to the 20D for a good

while yet.

[yog_sothoth]

Wlcome to the wonderful world of quickly obsolete electronics. Don't think in terms of "Is my piece of electronics the best available?", think in terms of "Is my piece of electronics good enough for what I want to do?"

 

I bought a 20D, and I love it. The photos look amazing. In five years, I will buy a new body. I won't worry about what comes out between now and then.

[dmanthree]

Well, I guess Canon still hasn't delivered the camera that's perfect for absolutely every use. Damn.

 

After Christmas, though, I think I'll compromise and get a 5D. Suits me pretty well.

[phyrpowr]

If I can see some truly obvious improvement over my 20D, then I'll wait a bit and get one, Right now I shoot anything that catches my eye, landscape (mainly), street scenes, candid portraits, you name it, print them up to 13x19, and am pleased with what I get.

 

Moneywise, I'm still comparing digital to film, i.e., what film and processing would cost versus my digital body cost. Refer to Paul Chilton's post above: 600 shots for the amortized cost of a camera and CF card against versus about...minus one, carry two, hold on...$250 or so for film IN ONE MORNING

[michael_gordon1]

Digital ones certainly have - and will continue to come and go. FOr film bodies, however, the reverse seems to be the case. Does anyone expect a "new" EOS 1 or 3 to appear? What would it have? A faster shutter?

[robert_k2]

I agree to wait till your current camera has reached it's zero accounting value (get your moneys worth out of it). And if you are on tight budget, your best buys are two generations behind. This also applies to computers. 10d is already selling for $600, imagine what would it be worth when the 5d is released. When the 5d is released the 10d is not going to stop functioning, it is still the same camera that it was when it was first released and it is going to serve the same purpose it served before.

 

Spend your money on the sharpest lens you can afford.

[carlos_santos2]

"If I had just spent $1500 on a 20D, as I alsmost did, I would now be looking for ways to reconcile myself to not getting a 5D".

 

Well put! I agree. So many people with the 20D seem to be just going *so* out of their way to say why their 20D will be good enough and why they won't buy the 5D (even as adults we are still like schoolchildren). It just seems that the 20D was a such marginal upgrade model over it's predecessors, and a bit overhyped!

 

Image-quality wise, it wasn't all that over the previous 10D except for special cases of low-light noise. But back then, it was the same crowd going around hyping why the 20D was the bee's knees and why just had to upgrade over their previous 10D/300D generation cameras.

 

Personally it's kind of puzzling...this backlash.

 

The 5D is going to be a wonderful improvement in terms of viewfinder and sensor size, no doubt about it, plus it restores our lenses to the focal lengths we're used to. Justifications to the contrary aside, this camera *is* a major upgrade to the whole series...and it's going to be one of the classics I imagine, as being the first nearly-affordable full-frame dSLR.

 

Some niggling improvements and gripes aside (e.g. no solution to the dust issue, and a viewfinder that could have been a bit bigger), isn't this is the camera a lot of folks from the film world have really been wanting for all along?

[robert_k2]

Carlos, I have to agree with you, the camera is a major upgrade. but I still think If you already bought the 10d or 20d, It does not make business sense to just dump them and upgrade. I do not own either one of these cameras. My theory (if you want to call it a theory) only applies If you are using this equipment for business, you do not throw away your (work van) just because Ford Motor Company comes up with a new model every year, you use it till it no longer serving your purpose, then upgrade.

 

that is my story and I am sticking to it :)

[alexdi]

I imagine they'll eventually release a body with technology similar to that of Sigma's SD9/10.

 

It's evident from pixel-peeping comparisons that both the 5D and 1Ds MKII stretch the capabilities of even the best glass. I'm certain Bob can give me reasons why that shouldn't be the case, but pixel for pixel with similar framing, the 8 Mpixel SLRs have more detail because they use only the center of the lens.

 

This is abundantly clear in comparisons between 22 MPixel MF backs and the 16.8 MPixel Canon. The percentage change in length/width dimensions is trivial, yet the MF backs still resolve leaps and bounds more detail. Giant glass helps.

 

It would be technically trivial for Canon to release a 22 MPixel FF camera with the pixel pitch of the 20D, but that would only make the chromatic aberration and edge fogging more obvious. Instead, it would be more fruitful to do away with bayer sensors and interpolation entirely. Anyone who played with Kodak's 760M monochrome DSLR can vouch for just how much of an advance that would be.

 

DI

[jim_larson1]

The reason I won't buy the 5D is. . .it costs $3200!

 

I don't understand all the groaning of the crop factor crowd regarding this camera. A 20D costs $1200. This new model costs $3200. That is 2.6 times the price of the old model.

 

Maybe I am wierd. But to me. . .a $2000 cost delta is big bucks and reason enough not to get a full frame camera.

 

Don't get me wrong. . I am sure the 5D is a fine camera. Ground breaking even. Just out of my league.

 

As for the 24-105/4L-IS.. . .I have said too much about this lens already.

[cgo]

The definition of obsolete (per Oxford) is "no longer produced or used; out of date". Obsolete is not useless.

 

One of these days I will upgrade my 10D to a 5D or 4D or 3D or 2.5D or whatever it will be at the time, because I am ready to spend the money for the functionality that wasn't available when I was willing to spend the money on a 10D. It's not going to be because my 10D is crap and begins giving me lousy pics but because I can justify more.

 

So, let's all "droulle". This is no different than buying a 2000 Accord V6 with 200HP and seeing the 2005 240HP version with numerous other improvements.

 

We bitch when things don't get better and we bitch when they do.

 

Let's get a life ...

[jim_larson1]

No, that analogy is not really valid.

 

You are not comparing a 2000 Accord to a 2005 accord. You are comparing a 2000 Accord to 2006 Acura SUV.

 

Different application, newer, different price category.

[yakim_peled1]

I'm with Jim. I'd really like to buy a 5D but I'll settle for a 20D. Extra 2000$ just for the FF is something I can't currently justify.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.