Upgrade from Canon 30D to 5D for Image Quality?

[oleg_lempert2]

<p>Hi, I'd like to know your opinion if I should upgrade to 5D. My criteria is solely IQ, i.e. would IQ improve if I shoot the same scene with 5D with all other parameters being the same. What I mean is same time,same lens, same RAW camera settings. Then dispalying on same LCD monitor/printing same printer using same photo size (30D @ 8MB vs 5D @ 8MB ), not cropped or changed in PP in any fashion.<br>

Essentialy, my question is "does 5D image sensor produces better IQ and sharpness than 30D sensor"?<br>

I know there're many features in 5D that are not in 30D but my discussion is solely about IQ at this point.<br>

Thanks for you input.</p>

 

[alan_bryant1]

<blockquote>

<p>there're many features in 5D that are not in 30D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually no, if you're talking about the 5D Mk 1, the feature sets are very similar. The 5D lacks a pop-up flash but has a better viewfinder, other than that not much difference. In hand, the cameras feel practically identical.</p>

<p>I have a 5D and 30D, and at lower ISO the image quality is quite similar. At higher ISO the 5D has substantially less noise. Even at mid-ISO the 5D does better in shadow areas. That's been my observation, anyway.</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>Oleg,</p>

 

<p>If you use the exact same lens, then the 5D will show a much wider field of view, thereby

making a direct comparison using your other criteria pretty much useless.</p>

 

<p>However, if you shoot an equivalent scene with the 5D, then, yes, it will have better image

quality. An equivalent scene might mean, for example, shooting the 30D at 50mm / 1/100s / f/5.6 /

ISO 100 and the 5D at 85mm / 1/100s f/8 / ISO 400. That’s a rough estimate; there are

calculators out there somewhere that will let you figure it all out exactly. And, of course, the 5D will let you shoot scenes you simply can’t with the 30D, mostly because you can get a shallower depth of field and images with less noise with less light hitting the sensor. You can also shoot wider with the same focal length lens, but you can mount 10mm lenses on the 30D that look similar to 16mm lenses on the 5D, so that’s not as significant a factor as it was before such lenses were being made.</p>

 

<p>A big question, though, is how big you’re planning on printing. Unless you’re

planning on printing bigger than about 13″ × 19″, you’re not likely to be

able to tell the difference. A skilled print operator working with good equipment should be able to get

good 20″ × 30″ prints from a well-executed original from a 30D; while an

equivalent exposure from a 5D will be visibly better, the 30D may well remain “good

enough” in such circumstances.</p>

 

<p>Where things really get interesting is a comparison of the 5DII to the 30D. The 5DII has the

same pixel resolution as the 30D, meaning that a crop of the central portion of the 5DII is identical

to the exact same picture taken with the 30D — with the caveat that the 5DII’s sensor

and related electronics are of higher intrinsic quality than the 30D’s. In that case the

comparison between the two is exactly the same as a comparison between APS-C and 135 film

formats.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>Yes...it will. One thing, the image size has no bearing on print quality. I know many say these huge 50MB TIFF files will print much better than the 2-3MB jpegs....BS!</p>

<p>I made a 57MB TIFF file from RAW on my 40D back in 2007 I guess, the image is in my profile, its the eagle looking towards the camera. I also had a 1.5MB jpeg of the same image and cropped the same for 16x20.</p>

<p>Not paying attention, Iwhen I loaded the file at Wolf Camera, I accidently loaded the jpeg that was 1.5MB. Went home and before I was ready to go back and pick it up, I noticed which file I had uploaded(file name) and it wasnt the TIFF. When I arrived, it was too late, the print was half way hanging out and I told them what had happened, they said just load the TIFF, they'd reprint it for me and it didnt take long cause I was the only one there. Well, both came out and on the counter, me my wife and 3 other printers could not tell them apart. They were identical. If there is a difference between a 16bit 50MB TIFF and an 8bit 1.5MB jpeg, I cant see it and neither could anyone else. We even used a magnifying glass and could see no difference. The guy printing thought for sure the big TIFF would be way better, to all of our surprise, it wasnt.</p>

<p>So that out of the way, dont worry about file size in your comparison. You'd have to compress the 5D file anyway to get it to match the default 20D file in terms of MB's, so its pointless. Its about the resolution.</p>

<p>The only way you'll be able to compare the 5D file to the 20D is to make sure the 5D is zoomed in slightly to make it the same field of view as the 20D. Remember, the 5D will have a wider angle view than the 20D so the image wont be the same for comparison purposes. And dont resample the images either, you are comparing what the 2 cameras produce, so this would fudge the results. Use what the camera produces, but make sure the images are almost the same.</p>

<p>Set your tripod and use a lens like the 70-200 that mounts to the tripod instead of the camera body, this will allow you to leave the lens without moving it when transfering bodies to the lens. Zoom the to say 200mm on the 5D, focus and take the shot. Then dismount the 5D, mount the 20D and zoom the lens to a wider focal length to match what you saw in the 5D image. Just use the LCD to find something common in the edge of the screen or so. Dont use the Viewfinder for this, the 20D doesnt cover the whole image like the 5D. Look at the LCD....as this is your image.</p>

<p>Done this way and printing the same image size, the 5D will win hands down. The 5D sensor will make a huge improvement over your image quality. It has more resolution and lots less noise. The noise at say 400ISO will be almost non existent compared to the 20D. The 5D will have a very life like feel to it. For those thats never used a larger sensor over the 1.6x, they dont understand. There is something about the look of the image with FF. Less noise, more resolution, better DOF control. I'm sure the DR is better. You will see an improvement. I went to a 1D3 from my 40D and the image size is exactley the same. But the 1D3 has a 1.3x sensor. I noticed immediatley the 1D3 images even at ISO 400 were soooomuch cleaner, the image had a smooth look to it. But seemed to reveal more detail. They looked as though you could touch the subject. The 40D images were good, but they always had this look like they were speckled or so, they didnt have that clarity of the 1D3, and the FF's are that much better.<br>

That said, you wont see a huge improvement in 8x10 prints, 8MP is plenty for 8x10's. You will most likely see the difference in above 11x14. You will however see a difference in qulity overall and a huge difference on screen which will translate to better prints.</p>

<p>Old 5D or 5D2? Doesnt matter, either will be a huge improvement. I was assuming above you were looking at a used 5D(12MP)</p>

[bill_mussett1]

<p>Oleg, Based solely upon your parameters the short answer is No. I had a 30D, upgraded to a 5DII and I can say that photos I took with the 30D are just as sharp as those taken with the 5DII under the same conditions with the same lens.</p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>Oleg:<br />I have the 30D and the 5D mk 1. I ssume your question relates to the mk 1 and not the newer model mkII.<br />As stated above, they are very, very similar cameras. The 30D is a bit smaller in your hands and I find its size a bit more to my liking. (I found the Xti and the Xsi too small and the 5D too large and too heavy. Even the 40D and 50D were larger than I liked). Controls wise they are pretty much identical. Neither has a sensor cleaner.<br />For landscapes and portraits, I use the 5D. I do see a difference in favor of the 5D. But it's not enormous. Using the same lenses (primarily a 17-40 and the 85 f/1.8 and less often the 28-70 and 70-300IS), I find the 5D superior in terms of the colors, smoothness and overall IQ (which simply means I can't put my finger on it - what does "image quality" really mean anyway - I find it really hard to use that term).<br />For me, aside from the obvious benefit of having the 17-40 act like, well, a 17-40, instead of an inadequate walk around lens (which is what it is on the 30D due to its "long" being 40mm), the DOF and bokeh issues (superior again in the 5D), the biggest plus of the 5D is the ease with which the RAW processing perfects a shot. Again, I cannot explain the scientific reasons but can only tell you that you will find (I use PS Elements 7) that converting the RAW image of the 5D to a jpg and adjusting its white balance, exposure, saturation, clarity, tint/hue etc. will, in almost all cases, be easier and much more productive than doing the same thing with the 30D image. And that goes for the Xsi, Xti, 50D (definitely the 50D) and the 40D as well (meaning their RAW conversions are very similar to the 30D). YMMV, but that's my story and after processing thousands and thousands of images from these cameras, I am sticking to it.<br />If you can get beyond the size and weight of the 5D and your loss of the reach that the 30D gets with your lenses (and the loss of any EF-S lenses you have), you will love the 5D mk1.</p>

<p> </p>

[jeff_higdon]

<p>I forgot to mention that I completely agree with the following assessment by Alan, above:<br /><em>"at higher ISO the 5D has substantially less noise. Even at mid-ISO the 5D does better in shadow areas."</em></p>

[elliot1]

<p>My response would be sometimes yes and sometimes no. It really depends on what you are shooting and the shooting conditions and how you are processing your images. For example, the 5D has better high ISO performance so when shooting at higher ISOs you will get better results with the 5D. At base ISO you will typically not see any difference (all things being equal except for the camera body). Post processing levels the playing field when it comes to colors etc.</p>

<p>Your best bet would be to get your hands on a 5D and do a side-by-side comparison for yourself. If you often shoot at higher ISOs, the 5D is the way to go.</p>

[jeff_delisio]

Purely subjective experience.

 

Had a 30D and borrowed a friends 5D to compare on a few local snaps. Other than the larger field of view the photos did not look dramatically different to me once processed in Lightroom and viewed on screen or in medium-sized prints.

 

Later purchased the new 5D MK II and was very impressed by the results shooting around town and now coming back from an extended trip in Tibet have a huge smile on my face.

 

Not only do I like the results but also noticed how little I felt I needed to do in processing them AND how much I COULD do in the few cases where I chose to.

 

So I have nothing to add to discussions of pixel pitch etc. but would urge you to seriously consider forgoing the certainly more reasonably priced 5D and either buy now, or wait till you can justify the 5D MK II. To my eyes the differences were clear and more easily realized.

 

 

Jeff

[images_in_light_north_west]

<p>Well when you put it the way you did, you might see a little differance. but if you use the 5D to its full capability you will see a big differance.<br>

Ross</p>

[Gus Lazzari]

<p>Oleg, I've said it before:</p>

<p>If you wish to upgrade the image quality where you can actually <em>see a difference</em>, then the only real move is to go "<em>full frame</em>".</p>

<p>Some have done tests with an <strong>average</strong> zoom lens shot <em>full frame,</em> vs. a high quality <strong>prime</strong> lens shot cropped sensor. No doubt about it, a clear winner... <strong><em>full frame</em></strong>.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I have a 20D (which has an older feature set and perhaps more noise than a 30D, but is 8MP like the 30D) and a 5D mk 1. With equivalent focal lengths there's not a huge difference between the 8MP and the 12MP images. Yes, there is less noise. The main thing for me was a legacy 35mm perspective control lens that doesn't do its job on the APS-C sensor. Otherwise, I probably would have gone to a 50D or now to a 7D.</p>

[bob_osullivan]

<p>Oleg:</p>

<p>I have both cameras and use them both constantly. I only use the 5D if I"m going to need huge prints or want the shallower DOF the larger sensor provides. I must have some very good samples of 30Ds or just good technique because the high ISO performance of my 30Ds is comparable to the 5D. Both are fine up to 1600. You do have to expose properly of course.</p>

<p>If you are seeking better image quality, I suspect upgrading camera's will not do it. You'll be dissapointed. I think you'd get more bang for your buck by identifying what it is about your images that you don't like and then adjusting your technique to fix that.</p>

<p>Is it noise, sharpness, lack of "pop" seperation of subject from background, low contrast?</p>

[rsriram]

<p><a href="http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/820707">http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/820707</a><br>

Scroll halfway down for 5D vs 7D samples. Though unscientific, my experience has been the same. The 5D images I have always appear to resolve more detail and have that "pop" compared to the very slight mushiness or softness from my 1.6 crop DSLR. </p>

[gerrymorgan]

<p>Oleg, you might be interested in <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00RKeR"><strong>this thread</strong> </a> where I posted some photos comparing the 5D (Mark 1) and the 20D (same sensor as your 30D, of course). In summary, the difference is subtle. It's not a rigorously conducted test in that the 5D was using the 16-35L and the 20D was using the 10-22mm. However, that ought to tip things even further in favour of the 5D and yet the difference was still subtle.</p>

[landscape_shooter]

<p>In my eyes, yes there is a difference. But only if you are pretty serious into photography and know how to use your cameras wisely. If you are new to the hobby, learning how to use a 30D to the full potential could also result in much better photos. As far as 5D vs. 30D, The difference can be lower noise, a better blurred background, more dynamic range. In my eyes if you did a similar photo side by side, the 5D has a little more dynamic range, and colors are more bold. You can take great photos with your crop camera though. Price lenses out also if you are considering a new camera. Lens prices seem to be going up every month.</p>

[landscape_shooter]

<blockquote>

<p>"If you are seeking better image quality, I suspect upgrading camera's will not do it. You'll be dissapointed. I think you'd get more bang for your buck by identifying what it is about your images that you don't like and then adjusting your technique to fix that."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>-I agree with this, also that you should want something particular in changing gear or upgrading, not just buying for "better photos". The last sentence could be---adusting your technique to fix that or weighing the price of something that can do what your current gear can't.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[philk]

<p>The answer would be a simple YES for me. I came from film background and just being used to the way lenses look on a full frame would make it easier for me to relax and take the shot rather than having to fuss with doing the 1.6x math in my head as I reach for a lens.</p>

[carlwakefield]

<p>I have the 30D and upgraded to the 5Dmk1. If I want best image quality I take the 5D. It is better. But saying that if I lay a pile of prints made 50, 50 with both cameras sized at 13x19cm on a table. I don't think most people will be able to sort them out into 30D shots and 5D shots. But the 5D is a big way in front. I also like a 24-70 on a 5D as It has exactly that field of view and a 70-200 is for me a perfect length me on full format. For my Macro I mainly use the 30D and ten again the 24-70 on 30D is then super for portrait with it so called 38-112 field of view. I would recommend the upgrade if it lays in finanacially.</p>

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

<p>Haven't read all comments above yet but I'd suggest that you get the Canon 7D. It's simply an awesome camera.<br>

If you already have a few EF-S lenses than it makes it even more sens.<br>

Check this lick for all the details comparing the Canon 5D Mark II, Nikon D700 and the Canon 7D<br>

<a href="http://nomadphotography.com.au/blog/2009/10/canon-7d-out-of-the-box/">http://nomadphotography.com.au/blog/2009/10/canon-7d-out-of-the-box/</a></p>

 

[david_amberson1]

<p>This whole post proves that there are some out there that just dont know the difference between good noise control or bad. And it also proves how subjective the "which camera" thing is.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I must have some very good samples of 30Ds or just good technique because the high ISO performance of my 30Ds is comparable to the 5D</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All 30D samples produce the same noise, there arent such things as ringers in this area and technique has nothing to do with the amount of noise the sensor produces <strong>as long as its exposed correctly</strong>. But the idea of being a good photographer wont change the way a sensor produces noise. And the 10,20,30,40,50D are in no way comparable in noise control to any of the 5D's. I have a 40D and its noise is almost identical to the previous models and I also shoot a 1D3 and its not even close. The 1D3 at ISO1600 looks like the 40D at about 640-800ISO. Some of my ISO1600 shots with the 1D3 you cant even see any noise in the image unless viewed at 100%. You can see noise in the 40D at 0% at ISO400 sometimes. This proves how subjective it is. To some, they either dont know what noise is, or they dont care or care a lot less about it than others.<br>

If you know anything about photography, you will see the difference immediatley.</p>

<p>As for comparison, folks all these test you are doing with the 5D and one lens, the 20/30D with another will absolutley fudge the results. The two lenses will resolve differently and produce vastly different color characteristics. One aperture sweat spot on two different lenses are different. Its edge performance characteristics are vastly different. Hardly a way to evaluate the differences in bodies.</p>

<p>The only real way to test the bodies sensors against one another, is to do as I said above,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Set your tripod and use a lens like the 70-200 that mounts to the tripod instead of the camera body, this will allow you to leave the lens without moving it when transfering bodies to the lens. Zoom the to say 200mm on the 5D, focus and take the shot. Then dismount the 5D, mount the 20D and zoom the lens to a wider focal length to match what you saw in the 5D image. Just use the LCD to find something common in the edge of the screen or so. Dont use the Viewfinder for this, the 20D doesnt cover the whole image like the 5D. Look at the LCD....as this is your image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This will ensure the scene doesnt move too much and you are at least using the same lens.....this makes showing body differences much easier. Trying to use one prime on a 5D and a wider prime on the 20D is....</p>

[anthony_zipple]

<p>If IQ is the sole criteria, I would not upgrade unless I had extra cash to burn. The 5D and 5d MKII are great bodies that offer a bit better IQ at higher ISO, but their IQ overall is not much better. Take more photos, work on your technique and your eye, and worry less about gear is my advice. You already have better gear the most of the famous photographers had prior to the 1960's and they seemed to do quite well. YOU will make far, far more difference than the camera will.</p>

[randyhargraves]

<p>I upgraded from a 40D to a 5D and personally I think it is a world of difference. I will add that I also upgraded lenses so that may have something to do with it. The 5D output is definitely "sharper" than the 40D files, but I never did a true resolution comparison. It certainly appears to resolve more detail than my 40D. Go to the-digital-picture.com and he has resolution charts for just about any canon dslr and lens you can think of. </p>

[christian_odell1]

<p>I just went from a 30D to a 5DM2 and I have to say, I'm astounded at the difference. Yes, resolution-wise you can easily get by with the 8mp from the 30D. However, to me the metering and color is better by far in the 5DM2. The high usable ISO is a nice touch as well. Having said that though, the thing I like about it most is actually being able to use my EF lenses on it the way they were intended. Plus, my Zuikos and Mamiya 645 lenses work better on it with the FF sensor. The APS-C sensor was ok for the Zuikos, but the Mamiya lenses were cropped in too much and the focal lengths became longer than I liked. With the FF sensor, things are much better.<br>

I've never had the original 5D but I did shoot some out of a borrowed one and find it to be a much better camera overall than the 30D. Again, I'm looking at color, range and metering. You may be comparing it differently.</p>

 

[david_amberson1]

<blockquote>

<p>I upgraded from a 40D to a 5D and personally I think it is a world of difference.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I just went from a 30D to a 5DM2 and I have to say, I'm astounded at the difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thats because there <strong>IS</strong> a difference.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> You already have better gear the most of the famous photographers had prior to the 1960's and they seemed to do quite well.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes they did well in <strong>THE 60's</strong>. That junk doesnt fair too well these days unless thats the look you are going for, dull, grainy. That was then and that was the best they had to use back then. Now, even the old 1DII outperforms the old film from that era. Maybe you dont see the actual image quality/clarity improvements of today, but many do. Composition/exposure wise only practice will create a better picture, but overall image quality in relation to clarity, smoothness, sharpness, and a depth that looks life like can only be achieved with great equipment. I'm sorry, but all of you out there hung up on the dream that you alone will make you pictures seem more life like are doing just that....just dreaming. Reality is, until you ditch the Rebel XTi with 18-55 kit lens and step up to a 5D or so with an L lens, you'll never see what you were missing. Theres a differnce, dont kid yourselves.</p>