Will a 5D give me inferior pictures

[peterq]

Dear Anesh,

 

If you want the 5D to give you inferior pictures, it's easy to set it to do that.

But why not trying that with your 40D, it will certainly give you inferior pictures too.

 

No, honestly, choose the right tool for the kind of pictures you make and then the quality fully depends on YOU.

If you can answer the question "why full frame?", you know what to do.

 

I enjoy my 5D for most of my pics and my 30D for the super-tele (800 mm or more, compared to FF)

[freelance]

"I went from a 40D to a 5D and now I dont use my 40D" Ross Murphy. So do I.

[John Crowe]

There is more to full frame than the strict math. For whatever physical reason they provide smoother images with better detail than same MP count crop bodies.

[Stock-Photos]

The 24-105 will show more vignetting ( at wide apertures) on the 5D than the 40D.

 

However, this is no reason not to buy a 5D or a 24-105.

[asher]

That Ken Rockwell site is full of laughable comments. Case in point: <i>"if your subject holds still and you

aren't shooting in the rain, the 5D easily can exceed the technical quality of anything from Nikon"</i><p>

 

I use my 5D in single shot mode (not burst) and it's incredibly responsive. I used it exclusively for <a

href="http://www.asherschachter.com/mccurry_nyc/index.htm"><u>street shooting during a recent weekend workshop in

NYC</u></a>. I never had a problem with it being "sluggish" with moving subjects and rapidly changing scenes. I

nailed several decisive moments.<div></div>

[Landrum Kelly]

Take Ken Rockwell with a grain of salt, but take his pictures seriously:

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2007-10-395/images/22/IMG_6496-original.JPG

 

This is one that he took with the 16-35 2.8 II at the wide end.--using the 5D.

 

Are the corners sharp enough for you? I have the 5D and love it. Full-frame is generally better at wide angle, cropped sensors can be better for telephoto work. There is no single camera that is best for all applications.

 

Me? I love full frame, but I also would like to get something to replace my XTi for shooting telephoto. (I got rid of the XTi, but it was really quite good. Resolution tests indicate that it does about as well as the 40D, although the 40D has other features.)

 

What would I recommend? Get the 5D for wide angle and most everything else--except for extreme telephoto, and then get yourself an XTi or its replacement. Total? Right now, you could get both of them for about $2500, bodies only. Buy no EF-S lenses, so that the glass you buy could be used on either.

 

Knock over a convenience store if you have to. . . . Both cameras (5D adn XTi) are going at almost discount rates right now, and used in tandem you could cover pretty much everything you would want to shoot.

 

--Lannie

[Landrum Kelly]

But here is one I took a coupe of years ago with the Kodak 14n using a $300 Nikon 24mm f/2.8 (not the $1500 Canon 16-35 f/2.8).

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/6002245&size=lg

 

There are a lot of good camera-lens combinations that can get you the results you want.

 

--Lannie

[Landrum Kelly]

Here is the original from which the above was cropped, resized of course:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5989742&size=lg

 

These are made with Nikon lenses. I get good results with both brands and with cropped sensor and full frame. Shoot what you want, but get good glass.

 

I shoot Canon now, for what it's worth.

 

--Lannie

[Landrum Kelly]

Finally, here is one that I shot with the 5D and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/5744613&size=lg

 

They all look good to me.

 

I'll shut up now.

 

--Lannie

[dogbert]

Here's my simple answer. By taking advantage of the sweet spot a 1.6 crop camera might give more even quality across the frame. Due to its larger format size the 5D should in most cases give better picture quality, including in the corners, unless the corners of a lens really suck compared to the center.

 

None of this should matter unless you are printing big, eg bigger than A4. By far the most important factor is your skill.

[zafar1]

<i>

That Ken Rockwell site is full of laughable comments. Case in point: "if your subject holds still and you aren't shooting in the rain, the 5D easily can exceed the technical quality of anything from Nikon"

<br>

I use my 5D in single shot mode (not burst) and it's incredibly responsive. I used it exclusively for street shooting during a recent weekend workshop in NYC. I never had a problem with it being "sluggish" with moving subjects and rapidly changing scenes. I nailed several decisive moments.

</i>

<br><br>

 

The metering and focusing on 5D are as fast or faster then the best camera out there (notwithstanding 1D series and EOS-3, and D3 on Nikon side).

<br><br>

Ken is talking about the Auto ISO feature on Nikon D200 and later cameras. Canon has just come around to doing this and hasn't quite done as well as Nikon. This along with some other features (e.g. higher FPS), are really the thorn in 5D's side. However I miss those only occasionally but enjoy the image quality of 5D daily. So I will take the IQ over features any day.

[dave404]

I have been using the 20D with the Canon 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L for several years. I recently borrowed a

brand new 5D and used it to shoot a friend's Christening party. Getting rid of the 1.6X factor made these lenses

so much better I could not believe my eyes. The 70-200 in situations like this is a bit too powerful, frequently

its a major problem and I get a lousy crop because I can't back up. The 24 of the 24-70 is not really a wide

angle lens at all - again you can't shoot a bunch of people sitting at a wedding reception without backing up to

the next table. This reminded of my film days when my 24 prime was a nice wide angle. I also got much better

background separation with the 24-70 than I ever got before. I was a bit disappointed in the 24-70 on the 20D, I

love it on the 5D like I should. On the 5D noise was much reduced, the brightness of the viewfinder helped me

achieve a much higher hit rate with the 5D in a very dark reception hall. I shot 200 shots with each camera and

so it was a good test. I had really wanted to wait for a 5D MKII but with the recent price cuts/rebates I did the

deed - the new 5D came today. Only a few pieces of dust on the sensor but it is a great camera. I would like the

electronics from the 40D but its the sensor that counts and this one rocks.

[charles_wood]

I'm not trying to hijack this thread but scanning it briefly I notice no one has brought up the topic of

stitching multiple frames as a technique to increase file size and resolution.

 

I have shot medium and large format for years having pretty much given up 35mm about ten years ago. As airline

hassles have made traveling with bags of film, bodies and lenses a real chore and age now precludes carrying a

60-70 pound backpack loaded with camping and camera gear, I turned to digital with an XT, then an XTi, and now a

40D.

 

I use the 40D for the majority of my present work along with a Fuji 617 for panoramic film work. But I learned

early on a single digital frame from any of these cameras was not adequate for large gallery quality work. My

solution was simple and it was taking multiple frames and stitching them. I display large prints side by side

with images shot with a 4x5 with equivalent resolution.

 

It's a time consuming process to shoot multiple RAW frames, adjust them identically and then stitch them. And a

hint, there are some better stitching programs than that in Photoshop. If you want to take the process to an

entire new level, HDR process the frames and then stitch them. The results may amaze you.

[dave404]

I have stitched before and someone always moves and there is a seam problem and I am cutting and pasting from some other photo. Make sure to shoot manual or the camera will switch exposure, Manual focus also. I shot about 450 pictures on this one outing, nobody is gonna stitich that many together. Now that I have my 5D the 20D will be relegated to backup and sports use. The 1.6X crop is good for sports at 5 frames per second. Even better on a 40D. So it still has a place.

[chrisjb]

The 5d is very very old, the day after buying one the new model will emerge.(hurry canon) your prints SHOULD look no different, if done right.

[JamieK]

The lens was designed to produce a full-frame image. If it had been designed for just the central 40% (1/1.6x1/1.6) of the

frame, then it would have been built very differently. The central 40% would be far better in this case, because the difficult

bit of lens design is not the paraxial area (the centre), but instead the periphery. If you want to use the lens to its best

advantage, get a 5D. If you want to use the small sensor camera to its best advantage, buy a lens that was designed for

it. As it is, you are wasting literally 60% of the glass, and an even greater proportion of the lens design expertise.

[abouddweck]

All this internet posted techno-crap is misleading and has little real world application. The 5D is a fine camera. I and many working pros,

some of the best in the business, use it with great results. I would however wait for the next incarnation, possibly coming out this summer,

the 5D Mk II. Why buy four year old technology when the more advanced version will be on the market shortly?<div></div>

[Ian Taylor]

5D will give inferior photos to inferior photographers.

[bill_dewberry]

The reason to buy the current 5D, as opposed to waiting for the new version is price, the new version will be more advanced, yes, and probably cost 2X more. A choice of $$$.

[peter_j2]

I have owned and used the 5D for 2 years. It is a camera worthy of professional use with Canon's best lenses. Do a search on Photo.net for the best lenses for the 5D.

[chrissyone]

I've been getting great images out of my XTi, but I'll be buying a 5D II when it comes out. Horses for courses, as they say.

Do some research and don't buy cheap lenses and you shouldn't have a problem getting good results from a 5D. Take a

look at the equipment reviews here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

 

Sometimes a lens does come along that falls on its face on a FF. The 100-400 L leaps to mind.

In any case, as someone mentioned above, a crop sensor is just cropping image circle for you. Why not capture it all and

decide later?

[jeff_louie]

I always forget to mention that I wear glasses and I find the image in the view finder much better in the 5d than in "APS"

digital SLR cameras, Canon or Nikon. And that helps me compose better casual pictures.

[peterq]

Reaction to Christina:

 

It's not only a cropping matter, because there is a point where the cropped image of a 5D has less detail than a smaller sensor with a higher pixel density getting the same view. That for me is the moment to take my 30D for the super-tele.

In which case, I can't use the 5D and decide later.

[l_t6]

I don't know about the lenses you own because I don't own them so can't comment. I got my 5D in February this

year. I had considered the 40D too. With my lineup of "older" EF lenses (100mm f/2.8 macro, 24mm f/2.8 prime

and 28-70mm f/2.8 L) the images are really good and has "3-d quality" to it as someone else mentioned. Images

were tack sharp - sometimes scary sharp. I rented a 70-200mm f/4 L IS for a recent trip... again, the IQ was

really sharp. I have no complaints about this camera or the quality of the output (assuming I didn't screw up).

 

Be aware that with a wide lens wide open (e.g. at 2.8) you're going to get some vignetting - it was obvious on my

24mm@2.8. I shoot raw and large jpg simultaneously (writing to 2GB Extreme III) and had no problems with the

camera response time, but I only shoot in single shot mode. It does everything I need without all of the other

extras that I don't need. My only other SLR camera is (still have it) the original EOS Elan (100). Even since I

dipped my toes into the digital world with the PowerShot A95 I have been eyeing the 5D. I have not regrets, but

it took me a while to save the money to spend on this body.

 

My reason for the 5D over the 40D, I want my existing lens to be exactly as they are rather than 100 being 160,

especially with the macro. And because I'm use to that "format" from film and tend to shoot more on the wide end

or macro. But ask yourself why you want FF before putting down $1600.

 

With the $300 rebate now and you want FF, a 5D body can be had for $1600 (Amazon it's $1900 before rebate, B&H

it's $1900 with the rebate). I rather not wait for the 5DMkII which will be price well over $2000 (and who knows

when it will arrive).

[chrissyone]

@ Peter Quaedvlieg

 

True. And for long lenses I completely agree, and will keep my XTi for just that reason. I spent some time lugging

around a 400mm 2.8L and after I got the hang of it, I got some nice results. It did feel a bit like fitting a Saturn rocket to

a bicycle, though...

 

I guess I should have mentioned that most of my work is done with my 16-35L, so getting back the whole frame is more

important to me than what I'll get with long lenses. But as I said, I'll have both bodies to choose from.