thomas_brabant1 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Why have the majority of the contributers to this site seemed to have bowed to and worshipped the Canon 5d. It seems that so many of the contributers are so proud to announce that they are saving their money to buy a 5d, as if it were going to solve all their photo problems. As a user of Leica film cameras for over 40 years, and more lately the user of digital point and shoot cameras, and for over a year a Canon 30d, I am glad to get to get back to a DSLR. I realize that the 1.6 crop factor is not good for those who like the wide angle lenses. But aside from that, what it the great advantage of the full frame 5d? I make very decent, and sharp, 13x19 prints on an old Epson 1270. Are you people with a 5d making 40x60 inch pictures on some kind of printer? Let me know, please. OK, I am going to duck down low, while you throw mudballs at me! But, as Yakim would say, "happy shooting". Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jon_austin Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 Bigger, brighter viewfinder. Cleaner images (less noise). Shallower depth of field for comparable field of view. Bragging rights. Not necessarily in that order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 What Jon said - the brighter viewfinder, very low noise at higher ISO's, no "crop" and the bottom line is the images look great and enlarge very well. Also, the only FF alternative is the 1Ds II at around twice the price. That said, one can take perfectly good photographs with a 1.x "crop factor" camera so there's no reason to feel inadequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wilbur_wong Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 If you value being able to selectively have a shallow depth of field, the larger the format the more ability you have to select what is (and what isn't) in focus. Small point and shoots nearly don't need to be focused! With a short focal length lens the depth of focus is completely amazing. If an out of focus back ground doesn't appeal to you or is not necessary for your style of photography, there is probably little to justify the high cost of a full size sensor. (Portraiture with a 4 x 5 camera could have focus limited from the tip of the nose to not even approaching than the ears!) I won't try to explain further, I am sure you could find more info on the web regarding the relationship of focal length to depth of focus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wingell Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 There is no putting aside the advantage of using a full-frame body with a lens such as the 16-35mm 2.8L. Combine that advantage with the 5D sensor's low-light, low-noise performance and you have more than enough reasons to use that model. Up until I purchased my first digital Canon (a 10D) four years ago, I, too, was a 40-year user of Leica rangefinders. And while I don't expect any camera to solve all problems, I know that if I hadn't used the 5D today to shoot a feature in a large lumber mill, I would have had one big problem. Cheers...Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Crowe Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 When I get a full frame body it will primarily be for my 14/2.8. Oddly enough for some sports the 1.6x is a little long for my 400/2.8 so again the full frame will come in handy at times. For most sports I will keep a 1.6x body too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_lubow Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 It is one of the few digitals that actually feels just like a good-old film camera, with the other ones being the 1Ds models and the Kodak SLR 14 models. Lenses look like what you would expect, the viewfinder is the same as what I'm used to, pixel dimensions are larger than the 1.6 cameras, and the high ISOs are cleaner. Sure, the 24x36mm frame is an arbitrary set of dimensions. 1.6 APS cameras are technically a different format (reminiscent of 110 format...close to 16mm film width). I like 135, personally, and you only get that format in a digital camera from the above-mentioned cameras, and the 5D is more affordable than the other models. I don't have one, but I regret not buying one when the $600 rebate was available. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_lau3 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I also both FF and 1.6X. The advantage of FF is that I have a lot more wide lenses to choose from. In FF, my 24-105/f4 is a wide enough lens for walk around, my 16-35/f2.8 is a fast wide lens for low light, my 24/f3.5 TS-E is a wide lens with tilt and shift. If I want to travel light, my little wide 24/f2.8 and 35/f2 serve me well. If you put these on 1.6X, they all become not wide enough. The only wide lens (except 3rd party) available on 1.6X is the slow 10-22/f3.5-4.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_langfelder Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 My answer would be that since the MTF of any lens is higher at the frequency corresponding to the pixel pitch of the 5D than that of a 30D, the images taken by the 5D will be higher quality, even if all else were equal (which it isn't). The above poster's statement that the images look great and enlarge well may just be a different way of saying the same fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PuppyDigs Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 One word: 5D ergonomics. I'm an old man and my eyes ain't so great. The 30D is a jim-dandy piece 'o work but the viewfinder is a peephole. Everything is small and hard to see. The 5D viewfinder is big, bright and much easier to compose with. Reminds me of using my EOS 3. So you young upstarts blessed with eagle eyes enjoy yo' 1.6x crop while you can. When you're an old fart you'll have to upgrade to FF to keep your horizons straight... Plus, the 5D is is much more comfy to hold (contoured grip). Again, I'm old and my fingers hurt. A smoothly contoured grip with finger dents feels like part of my hand. Now the 30D/20D ain't so bad, just not as good as the 5D or 1 series. The most painful grip to use is the Rebel XT/XTi. No contour or finger dents. It's so small you have to squeeze it tight so as not to drop it. Digs into your dad burn joints and hurts like hell after a few minutes. Of course the creamy smooth and highly detailed landscape images the 5D yields are an added side bonus. Did I mention AF, metering and flash are much better than my old 10D and 20D? Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see. - Robert Hunter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I started out w/film SLRs in the late 70s. For me 1.6 was always a stop-gap. I wanted my 28mm to be a 28mm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jim_larson1 Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 All that being said. . .with the XTi at $800 and the 5D at $2800. I will take two XTi's. and pocket a fair bit of change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
14mm 2.8l Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Why do you think the 5D is $2800 Jim? B&H has steadily dropped their price the last 70 days. I wonder whats up? ;^) Still not down to the $2200 after rebate in Fall 2006 when I should have bought one but I think it'll get there without a rebate before 2008. $2569 is fully $230 below $2800. "Canon EOS 5D, 12.8 Megapixel, SLR, Digital Camera (Camera Body) Mfr # 0296B002? B&H # CAE5D Availability : In Stock Price: $2,569.95" Lindy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknagel Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I shoot my 5d for everything but tele. I keep the long lenses on my 20D. I like the way my lens' ranges work on my 5D. 24-70 is perfect on FF and almost too long on my 20D. The 16-35 out performs the 10-22EFS, so ultra wide on the 5D is better. Low DoF and Bright View finder! m Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin carron Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 The pop-up flash on the 5D is way better than anything else I have tried.:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 > The pop-up flash on the 5D is way better than anything else I have tried. < The film advance is whisper quiet too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 In the digital world, at this time, my perfect kit is a 20D and 5D and a cache of lenses, both bodies being able to exploit each lens. I think the 5D and 20D (30D) both supplement and compliment each other: I see neither as an all encompassing solution. The 5D is in the kit, for all the advantages mentioned above (except the pop up flash and film advance). My key supplementary uses of the 5D are: low light quality (and brighter viewfinder doing low light work) and the ability to use the wide angle. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colinsouthern Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Personally I can never understand the FF hype either - my EF24-70mm F2.8L USM had nice reach on my 20D, and was almost wide enough for every occasion I had - for those other rare moments my EF16-35mm F2.8L USM II lens picks up the slack. On my 1D3 it's far wider than I'll ever appear to need (missing a bit of reach though - my EF70-200mm F2.8L IS USM is certainly getting used more since I changed from the 20D to the 1D3). Cheers, Colin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernardwest Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I bet yer Leica didn't have a direct print button... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garry_tan Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I recently upgraded from an XTi to a 5D. No regrets -- worth every penny. There are shots you can get clean usable exposures from at ISO1600 on a 5D which will get you a grain silo at ISO1600 on a 30D or XTi. Depends on what you shoot -- for me, that was important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_ginman Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 A bigger brighter viewfinder which helps my aging eyes but is better for composition anyway. Lower noise. "Why have the majority of the contributers to this site seemed to have bowed to and worshipped the Canon 5d" Maybe we have just made a different decision to you. People are different, you know. Regards Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christian deichert Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I looked at both the 5D and the 30D last year when I decided to switch from film. One of the main reasons -- practically the only reason, really -- I chose full-frame is the crop factor. I can't get a full fisheye effect with a 1.6x crop. I can't take full advantage of the shift of my 24mm TS-E with a 1.6x crop. And though the extra telephoto effect might be neat, I rarely put a teleconverter on my 300mm lens when I shot film, so I wasn't looking for a longer lens than 300mm in digital. I picked up a refurbished Rebel XT a couple months after I got the 5D and had it converted to full-time IR. I don't like the crop factor on it, so I think I made the right choice for my preferences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 http://www.nikondigital.org/articles/canon_fullframe_whitepaper.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aquilanebula Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I didn't seriously consider moving from film to digital until an affordable full-frame DLSR was available (for all the reasons given above). Well, I'm not sure the 5D is affordable, but have been the proud owner of one for just over a year now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sknowles Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 You have and use Leica cameras and you ask about the 5D? I have a 5D, my only digitial camera alongside a EOS-1n, only partly because of the full-frame sensor - and use lenses identical to the 1n. I have it for the full features not available in lessor models, such as different metering, exposure mode, white/color balance, user/custom functions, etc. It replaces a lot of different types of films in one body and has a lot of capabilities available to the photographer. What's not to like about it? And if price is your only argument, one could ask why you bought Leica cameras and lenses over cheaper cameras that can do the same and/or more with the same quality for prints? Or is the camera more important than the photographer? It's the obvious tongue- in-cheek, but seemingly appropriate to ask of a Leica user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now