prguarrera Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 BFA in photography from the 80's and I've been out of it for sometime now. I did some semi pro work. I still have my F1 and A1. I am ready to dive into the DSLR world and have a bit a difficulty deciding on what to buy my budget is around 2k for now which means I can get the 50d. The 5d Mark 2 is a bit more but would require a bit more savings. I plan on portrate work and stock photo work. Does the 50D have what it takes or should I wait and save for the 5d Mark 2? Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 5D MK I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmccracken Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 The 5D is an excellent camera and is very good value at the moment. The only question you should be asking is, "Would I regret buying the 5D when I know the 5D MkII is a better camera?" If the answer to the above question is, "Yes." Then save for the Mk II. If you are going to get back into photography professionally it would be good to have the best of equipment you can afford. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_beisigl Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I suggest you buy what you can afford now, then later, after you have made money doing your portrait and stock photo business, then go for the 5DMK2. I don't know what the price difference is between the tow cameras, but you may be able to buy another lens; with the money you save, unless you already have the lenses you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 What is wrong with the 5D? IMO, High Quality Portraits = Prime Lenses. There is more leverage with the 5D (or 5DMkII) than with any APS-C regarding the primes available. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerhard_hofmann1 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Philip, I can't comment on the 5D Mark I;I but frankly the 50D is a stunning camera. I usually work with a 1DS Mark II but prefer the 40D when my 500mm with the attached 1.4 converter is not long enough (pixel density). After using the 50D for two weeks I more than satisfied; the 15MP are a real benefit as long as the lens in front of the camera is good enough ( I tested the 180mm, 100mm Macro as well as the 4.0/300 2.8/300 and my standard lens the 4.0/500 they all work perfect with the camera) the 15MP files come very close to what I get with my 1DS MArk II. You may have a look at where I posted some shots http://www.hofmann-photography.de/eos50d/dybowski/IMG_0274.html http://www.hofmann-photography.de/eos50d/gould/IMG_7407.html http://www.hofmann-photography.de/eos50d/painted/IMG_7385.html Use the slider at the bottom to magnify (up to 100 %) and the thumbnail in the upper left corner to navigate. I am really happy about the colors of the gouldian finch (second link), and the red color of the Painted Firetail (link3). All pictures are 100 ISO from raw files now NR or sharpening, no color adjustment. Link2 2 was pushed 1stop. If money is an issue I would go for the 50D. Regards Gerhard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin_sibson1 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 As a dual-format user the only answer I can give you is 'both', but that's not too helpful in the context of a limited budget. You probably need to specify your requirements a bit more - how strongly targeted are you on portrait and stock photography? Does the phrase 'stock photography' imply what I think, namely that you will be doing semi-pro work again? I don't think you can decide about a camera body without also thinking about the lenses you need, either now or in the future, and if you are doing semi-pro work you're going to need very good glass, since otherwise any of the high-pixel-count bodies you are considering - 5DII, 50D, 'even' the original 5D - will be very cruel to any weaknesses. As an example, if you go for the 50D then the 85/1.8 will provide you with a reasonably priced head-and-shoulders portrait lens of excellent optical quality, but don't for one moment expect that the 85mm end of the EF-S 17~85 would cut the mustard for that purpose. To obtain comparable performance on FF you would need to go for the 135/2L, a classic all-time great among 35mm camera lenses, but not cheap. Unless you can revise your budget radically, you are not going to be able to afford the glass that you would need for FF, even if you choose a 5D rather than a 5DII, but 50D + EF-S 17~55/2.8IS + EF 85/1.8 would work well together withoug going too far beyond your budget. I'm afraid my 50D is too new (arrived yesterday, to replace my 40D, which itself has been a very good camera) for me to comment from experience on its performance, so I was interested and encouraged by Gerhard's report of his first fortnight with it. I have good reasons for needing FF, and I will in any case be replacing my 5D with a 5DII before too long, but that's not because of any dissatisfaction with 5D image quality. If you do want a FF body, getting started with a bargain-price 5D would indeed be an option worth considering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I may have misinterpreted the meaning of ``budget`` in the question. I thought the US$2,000 budget, was for the body only? WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robin_sibson1 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Good point, Bill, I had obviously made the opposite assumption. Either way, since you are apparently starting from scratch, Philip, you need to think about your total initial budget (and don't forget spare battery/batteries, CF cards, software, and any enhancements your computer system may need) and about what you might be prepared to spend a bit further down the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_henderson Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Some of the bigger/better stock agencies will only accept photographs made on full frame cameras. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul_b.1 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I see things different : The mechanic of 50D is better than 5DmK2 (better frame rate : 3- 6,3 vs 4 fps, better flash sync : 1/250 vs 1/200) . Due to 1,6 crop frame, you can use Efs 50/1,4 and 85/1,8 , with great results and less money. These lenses are great 4 portrets on 50D ! BTW I'm very satisfied with color and resolution . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Yes I agree, the EF50F1.4 and EF85F1.8 are very nice lenses for portraits on an APS-C, I own both those lenses and they are shared across three APS-C bodies and all give very nice results (20D, 30D and 400D). An EF135F2L on my 5D is better, though . . . which was one of the reasons for my comment about leverage. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berg_na Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I think you should read the new <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos50d/">test report on dpreview.com on the 50D</a>. It's noise performance is not stellar. The 5D-Mk2 is a better choice in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arie_vandervelden1 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Portraiture and stock photos - neither of these two requires high iso. So I don't think this is a major decision criterion. As you check out the cameras I suggest paying close attention to the viewfinder - this may be a deciding factor. Full-frame cameras allow shallow dof at wider angles of view. If you like thin dof and studio space is an issue (usually is) then a full-frame camera may be the way to go. In stock photography, more megapixels can mean more money. As such the 50D may net you slightly more dough compared to the 5D1. The 5D2 produces 21 megapixels - worth quite a bit of money if the client wants the highest resolution possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igord Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 Mark II's files will be huge, the best would be probably 5D markI as other posters told. 12 mpx of 5D is enough to print even huge advertising photos (I have just seen my photo printed in huge format on a building and was amazed by quality). Stocks accept 5D quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prguarrera Posted October 31, 2008 Author Share Posted October 31, 2008 Thanks everyone for your responses. I am leaning towards the 50D and spend money on good glass. Something David said concerns be a bit, "Some of the bigger/better stock agencies will only accept photographs made on full frame cameras." Other than resolution or weight of an image (Mega Byte Size), how will a stock agency know if a image was take with a full frame or not? With a 15MP shouldn't that be enough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel_pena Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Wait. You'll have the 21 mp for the stock houses... and 1080 digital video.. 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