jon_kobeck1 Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>One of the things that frustrates me about DSLR's is that just as soon as I save enough money to buy the "latest and greatest", a "newer and better" model comes out.<br> I bought my 5D last year and already I am beginning to feel its behind in technology. Meanwhile my 30 year old FM2 remains constant. <br> Am I the only one who feels this way?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrepsom1 Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>The 5D is as excellent today as it was when it came out. So still a perfect tool for the job. Of course, there are always newer and maybe better cameras being thrown on the market, but that does not make an existing camera worse. People tend to be influenced by marketing brainwash telling them that a 2-3 year old camera is "obsolete". What a nonsense.<br> Keep using your 5D and stop worrying about technology. It's the image that matters, not the gear.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alan_bryant1 Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>I bought a 5D last year too. It was an awesome camera when it was new, an it's an awesome camera now. I've got no plans to upgrade.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sattler123 Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>What is it you are missing that your 5D wouldn't do for you? I can't imagine anyone complaining about the Image Quality of this wonderful camera. Mine is three years old and going strong - I have no desire to upgrade. The new 5DII has some cool features (like micro adjustment for lenses) , but also stuff I would never use - like video. I don't need the additional MPs. My 5D will be with me for a long time.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>If I had purchased a 5D just last year, I'd continue to shoot with it. The 5D is a really fine camera and it can produce excellent images, including quite large prints. I understand how you feel, but in real, practical terms you have a great camera.</p> <p>Dan</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former P.N Member Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>I just took a few shots with my <gasp> Canon 10D. Contrary to what you might believe based on advertising the images are still just as good as they were when I first bought it. </p> <p>Actually some of them are even better - at least the ones taken with a 70-200 2.8 are (go figure).</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2008. Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>I agree with all comments it is a superb camera i have a mark I and now there is a mark ll out next most likely a mark III that is busness Canon has to do that to keep selling cameras !but the 5D mark I will still make good photos what ever comes out !.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenPapai Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>The 40D already nearly trumps the 5D.</p> <p>DSLRs are nothing more than image-sensing computers... three years is OLD for a computer. They still work but there's a whole generation already far better. Why ask this question now anyway?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tonai Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>I would feel this way if I considered the technology of the camera to be the most important thing. I value the image creation the most important. This doesn't matter if it is film or digital. I bought the 5D in September of 2005. Based on my minimum requirements for a DSLR it was the first camera that met them. Since then I've never felt that the technology was outdated. I don't need Live View, I don't print out large images, I don't use video. For my methodology it works fine. This doesn't mean that I don't study newer cameras, I just haven't needed to update the equipment. I did buy a Panasonic G1 because I wanted a smaller camera and it could use my Leica mt lenses.</p> <p>Your FM2 is at most 24 years older than my 5D, but what film do you run through it? The technology of the film has changed a lot since 1982 (first year of the FM2). Other than maybe Plus-X (and I may be wrong about this film) I can't think of any film available then that hasn't been reformulated/updated.</p> <p>If this is a problem for you, you either need to realize that there will always be a new model (Nikon did make the FM3 after they made the FM2n) and it isn't always an upgrade, or you need to come to grips that you WANT the latest and greatest even though you are trying to convince yourself you are above that.</p> <p>For the first situation, always buy for your needs. If you need a feature and your camera doesn't allow it, consider buying it. If you think that it sounds really cool, wait a while to see if you still feel this way in a few months. If the only reason that you want the latest and greatest is because your photos haven't been getting any better and you want to take better photos--DON'T BUY ANYTHING. Just go out and shoot-maybe in a style/manner, or of a subject you haven't done before.</p> <p>For the second situation, it really isn't so bad. Photographers as a whole (not individually), tend to be equipment junkies. This helps keep the industry going. Besides, photography is a technology-based art form. We need equipment to make the photos, although the importance of the equipment varies among photographers. Here is where I completely disagree with your statement that your FM2 remains constant. I worked in the retail photo industry for 14 years. I can't count the number of customers who came in looking for the newest release of a film camera. Or they hear that another brand of camera is better so they trade in their entire system for the new one-only to find that their photos look exactly the same.</p> <p>I had one customer who followed me as I worked at different stores. He started out with a Pentax Spotmatic system. He decided to upgrade from the screw mount system to a modern bayonet mount (reasonable). He bought an Olympus OM1n. A few months later he said that his friend had a Pentax MX and he thought that his friend's photos were sharper so he wanted to trade in his system for the Pentax. Despite my pleading with him that it wasn't a good idea, he traded everything in for the Pentax LX. (At this point I should mention that he was a cardiologist and was filthy rich so money wasn't an issue.) This started his migration to Canon FD, Nikon, Contax, Leica M Hasselblad and Canon EOS. Each time trading in the entire system for the newer one because people said it was the best. Each time he did this I tried to discourage him. As a conscientious sales person-especially to such a loyal customer I thought that it was a waste of money and instead tried to sell him on the idea of taking extension classes and workshops to help him with his photography.</p> <p>But he taught me something when he realized that the Hasselblad system was a horrible mistake. He said that although he like taking photos, he LOVED the equipment. He was fascinated by the technology of the cameras and lenses. To him it was like buying a new toy, or (this is his actual statement paraphrased) dating a new woman, or when the Lakers got a new player (once again, this is his statement). In the beginning everything is great, new and fun. But as time goes on, it wouldn't be as fun and he started to get into a run and eventually the fun disappeared. Eventually he got so bored with it (I'm assuming he meant the cameras-I don't think he considered women "it") and looked to something new. While it was tough for him to come to grips with this he eventually realized that it was this attitude that made him happy with photography.</p> <p>BTW, he sold me his 8 month old Hasselblad 503CX, SWC/M, 50FLE, 60, 120, 150, PM finder, 5 A120 backs, and Polaroid back for $1,000 for trying to convince him all those times NOT to change system</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swilson Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p> <p>My wife and I have two DLSRs, a 20D for her that we got in late 2005 and a 350D that we got for me in early 2006. Both cameras are still going strong and I am not feeling any great need to upgrade either one.<br> If the 5D is giving you the photos you like then why worry?</p> </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <blockquote> <p>The 40D already nearly trumps the 5D.</p> </blockquote> <p>"Nearly trumps." Interesting turn of phrase... Should I interpret this to mean that you think the 40D is <em>almost as good as</em> the 5D?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDMvW Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Of course it is technologically outdated. That's why I was just able to buy one in near mint condition for a good price.</p> <p>Be glad you got a year out of it as the "latest and greatest" -- that's a long time in technology terms. <em>I</em> usually end up buying something just one week to the day before its replacement is announced.</p> <p>If you pursue always having the latest and greatest you will be one of those most marvelous of camera users who are constantly supplying late model cameras to the used market, so that persons willing to wait a bit will get nice cameras cheap.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samoksner Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Outdated... that's a loose term. Do newer cameras have more bells and whistles? yes. Do they have more megapixel and less noise at higher ISOs? yes. Does that mean that your 5D is any less of a camera on it's own? no. We feel compelled to upgrade once a newer model is out, and we naturally compare the new features with the old ones. However, many of these features have no use / very little use for many photographers. Some love the new features. Live view would be a waste of money as far as I am concerned, micro adjustments too (sounds like a way to reduce the number of people sending in lens to be calibrated). Other features make me drool: noise at 6400, the movie mode, 3 in LCD<br> A camera may be slower, or not as exciting... In fact, i'll be buying a second 5D (the original one) next weekend because i love that camera so much.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davebell Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>If your primary objective is to have the satisfaction of keeping up with the Jones' and owning the latest gear, then yes it is outdated and it really doesn't look good hanging around your neck. If on the other hand you are purely interested in photography, then the 5D is a fine tool and will still be taking fine photographs next year and the year after and so on until it eventually fails as all goods do. My 350D still performs as it did the day it was born.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nhut-nguyen Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <blockquote> <p>Is the 5D Technologically Outdated?</p> </blockquote> <p>Technological speaking it is outdated, but that does not mean it cannot produce excellent work. I bought my camera to take pictures, then I'll show off those pictures. I never buy my camera to show off my camera.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g dan mitchell Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <blockquote> <p><em> I never buy my camera to show off my camera.</em></p> </blockquote> <p>+1</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ken schwarz Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <blockquote> <p>BTW, he sold me his 8 month old Hasselblad 503CX, SWC/M, 50FLE, 60, 120, 150, PM finder, 5 A120 backs, and Polaroid back for $1,000 for trying to convince him all those times NOT to change system</p> </blockquote> <p>If the original poster has something along the lines of the above and needs some coaching like this, please let me know. :-)</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phyrpowr Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>We never quite outgrow the "Aw, Mom, all the other kids have one" stage</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photog630 Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Jon:<br />I bought my 5D in the Spring of 2005 as my first serious foray into digital. Up until that point, (for digital images) I had been using my Nikon Coolscan 9000 to scan in negatives from my Hasselblad, various Rolleiflexes, a Leica M6ttl and a Contax RTS II.<br> It was actually a bit hard to dive into the DSLR pool, knowing full well that Canon would soon come out with a "better" version of the 5D-- and it's the same exact issue as buying a computer; we all know that it won't be long before a faster/bigger/better version will supplant our previous system. But I knew I had to get into digital eventually and it was the superlative image-making quality of the 5D that convinced me to do so. For whatever reason, the images from this camera looked more like that of film than any other to my eye. They still do.<br> A photographer buddy of mine was talking to me a few weeks ago about the 5D II, and he made a great point: the larger 21 megapixel images will take up an awful lot of space on his computer, and they will take a lot longer to process as RAW files (which is what I only shoot as well). If you're getting good results from your 5D --- like we all are--- then I wouldn't worry too much about having the next version of the camera. Once I see a significant, noticeable jump in the image quality that a "next" version produces some day down the road, I may have to upgrade, but until then I'm going to sit out this trip on the Upgrade Train.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tonai Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Dan,</p> <blockquote> <p>But I knew I had to get into digital eventually and it was the superlative image-making quality of the 5D that convinced me to do so.</p> </blockquote> <p>What was your reason that you had to do it? I had to because I taught photography and borrowing from school was a hassle and I needed to be imbedded in the process to be able to teach it better.<br> Also, (small point) was it Spring of 2006? Canon announced the camera in August and didn't start to ship the camera until September 2005.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marco_hidalgo Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Marketing people want you to feel this way, so you will be unsatisfied with your present life. But you don't need to, the 5D is a great camera! With excellent colours and it already has a very good MP count. None of my clients are crying for 21 MP because the quality the 5D delivers is already really good.<br> A few months ago I saw a photographer shooting a fashion catalog. Hasselblad, Boncolor packs, an external EIZO monitor attached to the MacBook Pro, etc. The photos were only used as thumbnails on a website! What an overkill and waste of resources. Those photos could have easily been taken with a 3MP P&S. <br> Be happy with your 5D, I am.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tonai Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>But Marco,</p> <p>While for that job, the equipment could be overkill, the photographer knows that equipment combination. Nothing worse than not knowing how a piece of equipment works while on the job (A great argument for not constantly changing equipment). It may also be the only equipment the photographer has. Also, with the Hasselblad, there isn't a moire problem that a DSLR might have.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doug_harhai Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>No, I don't feel that way and I'll tell you why: There is nothing wrong with the 5D. Although other cameras have improved, that does not mean that the 5D is any more less of a camera. As I look at my images, I can't (honestly) say that a better camera would have made better photos. However, a better photographer (using that 5D) would have. By investing more time in training, I can get the 5D to produce the images that I want. (BTW, the one area where the 5D sometime lets me down is in the FPS, but I knew that going into it; I took my film EOS-3 out this weekend and was amazed at the shutter speed, as well at the autofocus. I love that camera).</p> <p>If every camera produced this year was able to shoot at 12 frames per second, and captured at 50 megapixels , would that make a difference to me? No. How many times would I need that extreme speed, or resolution/capture ability? Thirteen megs and 4 FPS is good for me; but YMMV if you are into sports photography, etc. The tool has to fit the job. </p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thomas_hardy1 Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p> Well my 20D is probably outdated too but the shots I took last night at a recital with a 50mm lens at ISO 800 were great.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mbkissel Posted March 22, 2009 Share Posted March 22, 2009 <p>Jon, I think there's cutting edge and there's also bleeding edge. A lot of folks (including me, and very probably you, too) feel a little left behind when that next new product is introduced. As such, we jump on the bleeding edge and rush to buy. The marketing and sales folks love us. We're not satisfied with that cutting edge product any longer, we want the latest and greatest. Sigh...(I admit it...I've been lusting after that 5DII). </p> 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