The 5D or the 20D(plus ef 24-105 f/4L IS and the 580 ex flash)?

[jay_d.__los_angeles_]

I want a good DSLR to shoot my portraits, weddings, and wildlife.

I have decided to stick with film for my lanscape shots. I was very

interested in the 5D, but at 3200 green backs, I won't be left with

money for a great lens or great flash. Also don't know how big of a

problem the vingetting/light fall off is in the 5D, but I don't want

to have to fix lots of pics with photo shop.

So here is what I was thinking, get the 20D, get an ef 24-105 f/4L

IS lens(38-168 on the 20D), which will also work great on my elan

7n. I can also afford a 550ex or 580ex speedlite if I go this

route. Would love some feed back on whether or not this is a good

idea.

Thanks, Jay

(p.s.) Is the AF on the 20D truely THAT BAD?

[conraderb]

I use two 20D's for weddings. No problem with AF except for extremely dark situations, and in that case, most cameras have trouble anyway.

 

CE

[martin_doudoroff1]

The 20D sounds like the camera for you. I doubt you'll be disappointed. If you want to hedge

your bets, wait 2-4 months and see if Canon introduces a new model.

[robert_nancarrow]

I have the 20D and might soon be moving up to the 5D but not for more resolution or better pictures, the 20D is fine for those IMO. I will be moving for a bigger, brighter viewfinder and the larger LCD screen, I am a young 51 year old but I have old eyes and both the viewfinder and the 1.8" screen of the 20D make it hard to work with. I have read some posts that suggest that the image difference is not that great between the two cameras and one should base their decision on the other factors like the ones mentioned and use of wide angle lenses, etc. Bob.

[david robinson]

I have used both. The image quality of the 20D and 5D are basically the same. I would have remained with the 20D except I needed the higher resolution for larger prints -- on the order of 20x16+. Your set up sounds very reasonable. Oh yea there is significant vignetting with the 5D and this lens...

[roisin_murphy]

you might as well get the 350d, and save some more money, no real life difference for me between the two, and i find XT to be more sexy :)

[andrew robertson]

So, if you buy the 5D, you won't get any lenses or anything for it?

 

It's hard to take a picture without a lens, and there's no sense in getting a 5D if you are

going to throw the cheapest zoom lens you can find on it!

[John Crowe]

I find the price of the 24-105 IS a little tough to swallow. I know it seems ideal for weddings but their must be a better way to spend $1250 on lenses to get better optical performance and smoother backgrounds. I've only done weddings with 6x6, and 35mm film so the lenses I'm used to considering may not work well with the 20D. I have a funny feeling anything over 50mm on a 20D may be wasted. I'm thinking about 28/1.8 and 50/1.4 or maybe just 35/1.4. Just something to think about.

[jim_doty]

The autofocus on the 20D is actually pretty good except in very low light levels. Image quality is very good and essentially the same as with the 5D. The 20D just has less pixels so the maximum enlargement size is somewhat smaller. Your choices sound reasonable to me.

 

Both cameras have their pluses and minuses when compared to each other. The 5D is only worth the extra bucks for individuals who need some particular features. More here:

 

http://jimdoty.com/Digital/20d_5d/20d_5d.html

 

Jim

[rodney_gold1]

Jay , The 5d will be better for weddings IF you want to print real big , otherwise I would suggest a 350xt or a 20d (especially for wildlife due to is "multiplication factor" with long lenses). You have to remember with digital the camera is a consumable , it's actually the film and thus I suggest the lower cost 350 and to wait for a few months till the 20d succesor is announced , you can then upgrade to that if you are finding the 350 limiting with verly little loss financially. Image quality on both is almost identical.

The 24-105 is not the best lens on the 20d/350 , it was designed for a FF camera and its range is not that great for wedding stuff on a cropped camera , you will most likely need wider than 38mm. The 24-105 does exhibit significant light drop off and this will be evident on your film camera as well as a 5d , however for landscape you will be stopped down somewhat so this might be academic. I would suggest the 17-85is for range if range and IS is what you want , as it is the cropped cameras equiv of the 24-105 tho it wont work on your elan

Failing that , the 17-40 L if you do want L quality which would work on both(also good for landscapes)

 

I would also go for the cheaper 550ex as its as good as the 580 in just about all respects. Essential for weddings and portraits is the stofen omnibounce diffusor for the flash. AF on the 20d is fine , I have both the 20d and the 5d and they are much of a muchness.

In terms of bang for the buck , this is what I would use if I were you

350xt , 17-40 L , 50mm 1.8, 70-200 F4(or 2.8) + 1.4x TC + 550 ex.

Covers you from 28mm to 450mm and is most likely the same money as a 5d body alone (didnt do the maths so might be wrong) You can use all those lenses on your elan , not sure about the flash tho , but I think it will work. What lenses do you have with the Elan?

 

Robert , the larger LCD is useless in anything approaching bright light or daylight and the viewfinder is not significantly brighter at all , but is bigger . If you wear glasses (you mentioned poor eyesight) you might have a problem with the 5d viewfinder. I really don't think those are good reasons to UG to a 5d.

The only real reason to pay that kind of money for a 5d is its sensor which essentially is more resolution and FF.

[jim_larson1]

In my mind, a F4 lens is not quite an ideal wedding lens. It may work fine for receptions. . . but for portraits this lens is a bit slow.

 

If cost is not an issue, I would supplement any F4 zoom with a 50/1.4 for portraits. Perhaps add a 85/1.8 as well.

 

If cost is an issue. . .then for a "single lens" solution I would head to the 24-70/2.8L.

 

For a multiple lens solution (and lowest cost), I would go with a 28-135/IS for receptions; 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 for portraits, and perhaps throw in a 24/2.8 for wide angle work.

 

I would also recommend a 420EX flash (if you can get one) as a good starter flash. 550EX and the equally-capable-but-more-expensive 580EX may be a bit overkill unless you do manual flash exposure.

[robert_nancarrow]

Rodney, you're right and after some thought I've decided to wait on the successor to the 20D to see if it has slightly larger viewfinder and LCD, I actually like the crop factor as I take wildlife photos. Bob.

[wilfred_m_rand]

The 20D is a fantastic wedding camera, and I wouldn't worry about print size. I get up to 2x3 ft prints on LightJet and inkjet equipment with no visible pixels. AF system is exactly identical, except the 20D covers more of the frame as it's a 1.6 facor (advantage 20D!). The f/4 lens is an iffy proposition, especially at that money. I see a lot of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and the new Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 at weddings, mounted on 20D and 10D's.

 

The 20D viewfinder has a higher magnification, too, so it's easier to focus manually.