Move to 5Dmk2 from 10D with lenses - some advice sought...

[john clark]

<p>Hi folks.<br /><br />First, some very brief history. Bought a 10D plus 17-40/4L in 2003, have enjoyed it ever since but its limitations are beginning to frustrate me: iso 800 and up is noisy, the crop-factor bugs me (as it means large lenses given that this is pre-EF-S), it's general sluggishness and little niggles like that. <br /><br />I'm thinking about a 5D mk2, which in the UK is hovering around the £1600-1700 price mark ($2400-$2600). So, not a small investment and I'm keen to make sure I'm doing the right thing here.<br /><br />What I want to do is to ensure that the 5D represents an improvement over the 10D in all areas - and to try to get a handle on how much of an improvement.<br /><br />The big unknown for me is AF. The 10D felt fine when it was new in 2003 but compared to my EOS 3 it feels very sluggish, especially in lower light. That's not to say it's unusable - far from it - but there are times when it doesn't lock on as well as it ought, or hunts a bit. <br /><br />The other thing is high ISO performance. Much of my photography is in-doors, and I find ISO800 and ISO1600 to be a tad noisy on the 10D. I'm wondering if it'd be possible to get a handle on comparable ISOs - e.g. things along the lines of 'ISO 800 on the 5Dmk2 has roughly the same noise as ISO200 on the 10D' (say).<br /><br />Lastly, ergonomics. I've found the 10D to be actually quite rugged - it's well made and a good weight. However, I'm wary of anything significantly larger or heavier. Specs suggest the 5D mk2 is probably about the same size and heft as a 10D, but how do they compare in terms of build quality, balance in the hand, durability of finish (the 10D being particularly good here) and so forth.<br /><br />The wildcard option might be to sell the 17-40/4L and get a 7D with a quality EF-S wide-angle (my other lenses are: 28-135IS, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro and 70-200/4L (non IS)) - I'd save roughly £700 and the impression I get is that the 7D is the better at AF and 'responsiveness' although being crop-factor that might continue to frustrate me...<br /><br />Anyone been in this situation before? Making a jump from a (comparatively) ancient dSLR to a 5D mk2? How did that work out for you? Do you ever use the old body?<br /><br />Thanks!</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>I'm in the same sort of boat you are. I've decided on smaller jumps however. I have many of the same lenses you do, (17-40, 50, 70-200). I would think that you have a couple of options you might not have thought about. </p>

<p>My plan with photography is that I don't need the newest and best (maybe you do and that is ok). I basically wait until a camera body is pretty old (5 yrs or so) and then get it at a great used price. Started with a canon D60 (basically your 10D with worse AF) and have since upgraded to a 20D. I chose 20D because it was the next jump in Sensor... I dont care about the bells and whistles. Will I get a 5D? probably at some point I will consider getting an old Mark I, but as an non-pro photographer, $2500 is more than I would like to spend for a camera body at the moment.</p>

<p>Don't forget you don't have to make the huge jump. You could always get a 40D used, they are selling by the cratefuls at the moment on used camera websites such as fredmiranda.com. A 40D and a 10-22 EF-S would probably be a good choice if you need that wide of an angle. But I hear and see many great things about the 5D II, I guess if you can afford it, why not?!</p>

[caba]

<p>Hi, entered the DSLR world with 10D plus 17-40/4L in 2003 as you. Last year I upgraded to 5D MKII. Build quality, balance in the hand are same if not better than 10D. From time to time I´m using the old 10D as backup body. </p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>Hi John, wow, you want to know if it will be a goo upgrade from a 10D to 5D mark II? You bet it is. I can't even think of ONE thing the 10D is better at. You can use ISO 3200 with little noise, so yes the full frame is way better. I also have the 7D and make no mistake, when I'm shooting an event or a portrait session, I ALWAYS reach for my full frame. The DOF is dramatically better. You will be happy with the upgrade. 5D mark II is one outstanding camera. v/r Buffdr</p>

[mattb1]

<p>MO you would see a large improvement in ISO with both the 5D II and the 7D, but the 5D II will be a little better. This is not to say that there is no noise at 100% magnification, just a lot more manageable and less visible in print and normal viewing sizes. The 7D does have better AF, but one of the limiting factors for all AF in low light is the max f stop of the lens, f 2.8 or faster lenses will let in more light to allow the AF to work better. I found that to be the biggest factor in AF performance. So, the 7D may not be much better in your situation if you are using a f4 lens. </p>

<p>Both the 5D II or the 7D are excellent cameras, so would a used 40D. But, coming from a crop camera you may have more adjustments to your work flow with the 5D II, it may reveal short comings in your technique. </p>

<p>I love my 5D II, not worried at all about any supposed short comings in the AF. </p>

[ben_goren]

<p>John,</p>

 

<p>I don’t have a 10D to compare to, but I once used to use a 300D. I’d say that the 5DII

at ISO 6400 makes better prints than the 300D at ISO 100. Perhaps not in side-by-side comparisons of

100% pixel crops, but certainly in prints. (Remember, at actual pixels on a 100 ppi display,

the 5DII is a crop from a 37″ × 56″ image, while the 300D is a crop from a 20″

× 30″ image.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[anders_carlsson]

<p>A 5D/II is a dream maching for many of us. Still, in your case, a (used/refurbished) 40D or a (refurbished/new) 7D will be a significant upgrade and you don't need to sell/buy a single lens if you're happy with them. The 17-40/4L is actually quite small considering its specs: pro build <em>and </em>handling, seals, USM etc. Sure, a Tamron 17-50/2.8 is smaller but on the other hand the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS is quite a bit larger.</p>

[sreegraphy]

<p>Hi John<br>

5DII's AF is a minor set back otherwise to say with rest of the features it's a wonderful piece of m/c. Right now I use both 5DII and 7D. Both are good performers in their areas.. 7D ISO would not be as good as 5DII and it's not FF. On the other hand 7D responsiveness is unbeatable. I haven't tested 7D to it's full potential since it's new to my gadget. But so far so good. If you can then wait for the next version of 5D or next version of Full frame. Canon might add more bells and whistles to suit your need.</p>

[chas_brunk]

<p>John:<br>

I followed a very similar path. I bought my first dSLR (10D in 2003) then upgraded to a 40D in 2006 and then added a full frame 5D Mark II in 2009. The 40 D was a substantial upgrade in IQ and handling from the 10D. But the switch to the 5D Mark II was a QL (quantum leap) from the 40D in terms of Hi ISO/low noise, ergonomics and overall image quality. I especially enjoyed reclaiming the 17mm out of my EF 17-40mm L and shallower depth of field on most of my lenses. There has been much discussion both pro and con on the need for good glass on the 5D2; my experience after about six months is that it DOES point out a lens' shortcomings. However, you may experience this with the 7D body as well. Fortunately, you have good glass that should NOT be impaired (with the possible exception of the EF 28-135mm). That one I would consider swapping out for the EF 24-105mm IS — fantastic on the 5D2. All your other lenses will be fine/possibly better on the 5D2. BTW, I still use my 40D for reach and higher FPS, but really prefer the 5D2 overall.<br>

—Chas</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>Just an aside, have you looked to see what might be available used in the 1D series. I see perfectly good 1DM3s going for less than a new 5DM2 right now as people look to switch to the 1DM4. The same is true for full-frame 1DsM2 cameras--and, if the past is any guide--the forthcoming 1DsM4 will drive the price of 1DsM3s farther down that they have currently fallen. Any of them, as well as a good used 5D will outperform the 10D in noise control and resolution.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>5d2 + 24-105 and a 50 can cover most anything with pro quality. I found the 5D2 to be a huge upgrade from the 40D. I never tried a 7D but I hear its also a great camera. Anyone of the above would be huge upgrade but if your looking to shoot at higher ISO indoors nothing compares to full frame. </p>

[john clark]

<p>Thanks, folks, some great responses.<br /><br />Though a used 1D(s) mk(2/3) would make sense, to be honest I think they're too big and I'd rather a 'lesser' camera that's around my neck than a 'top of line' camera that's sitting on a shelf because it's too big to take. To be honest, sometimes the 10D/17-40 falls into the latter bracket when I'm out with the family, but a 1 series would be worse for me. Not to mention that my wife uses the 1Ds mk3 at work and finds it a bit unweildy.<br /><br />So, I think my mind is made up: 5D mk2. Sure, I could wait for a mk3 (but could be waiting a while) but full frame is what I really want, and whilst a used 5D is a tempting alternative, the HD video capability would allow me to scratch an itch (not quite in a Vincent LaForet way admittedly).<br /><br />As to the lenses: well, I like and use all of them though the 28-135IS I took as a part-exchange for something else and it's good on the EOS 3. <br /><br />The '5Dmk2 @ 3200 better than 300 @ 100' claim is quite difficult to believe, though. I'd be DELIGHTED if it were true, even if the 5Dmk2 @ 1600 were as good as the 10D @ 400, I'd be happy.<br /><br />I briefy contemplated selling the lot (my Contax G2, the 10D and lenses and a few other bits and bobs) and pushing towards a Leica M9, but the price is crazy for what it is. A very very very high price to pay for a somewhat smaller system. But that's a discussion for another day :)</p>

[tdigi]

<p>John the 5d2 ISO is pretty impressive, I would say 3200 looks like 800 on my old 40D. ( never used a 10d but I would suspect the 40D beats it )</p>

[mattb1]

<p>There may be some hyperbole on the ISO performance, but you will be delighted with it. As well as the HD video. Here is an example of a video I did at ISO 3200 hand held in a venue where I always had problems taking photos.

[philip_wilson]

John I have both the 7D and the 5DII, I used to have the 17-40 (now replaced by the 16-35 II) and my lens collection includes the 50 F1.4, 100 f2.8 (mine is the new IS one) and the 70-200 F4 (mine is IS but my 70-200 F2.8 is non IS). Of the two bodies I prefer the 5D although they are both very similar and make a good pair. The 5DII AF is not as bad as many people make out but is not up to the 7D. In all other respects (built in flash, wireless flash, 8fps and 1.6x for long lenses) the 5DII is a better camera. So long as you just use the center AF point (with or without AF assist) and good (USM) lenses you should not find any real problems with the 5DII AF. Mine performs about as well as the EOS 3 or 1V except for a few circumstances, these are:

 

When shooting in very low light and low contrast (although the difference is not great)

When shooting a fast moving object that suddently appears (not very common but the 5DII takes longer to focus)

When using an AF point other than the center point

 

I do not own any EF-S lenses (except the 18-135 which was cheap but is not great) and so I find the 7D is very limited for wide angle use. I expect the 10-22 can solve this but have no desire to buy an expensive EF-S lens.

In terms of high ISO I find my 5DII is about 2 stops better (ISO 3200 is slightly worse than ISO 800 on the 7D but much better than ISO 1600 on the 7D).

 

Which ever body you buy you cannot lose.

[John Crowe]

I started with a 10D in 2005 and switched to Nikon and now have a D2X (12 MP pro crop body) and Kodak SLRn (14 MP pro full frame). In terms of resolution the jump from the 10D to the 5DII won't be as staggering as you may think, but it is significant. Speed of use, however, goes up 10 fold! So should battery life! The jump to full frame alone, especially with your lenses, will be magical. Hi ISO performance seems to be overrated in just about every camera out there, but again you will see a significant improvement.

 

 

As old as the 10D is you must not underestimate it's abilities at ISO 100. As a 1.6x crop body, it did not get truly beaten until the 40D came out.

 

 

Go for the 5DII, and don't look back!

[bkpix]

<p>Improvement in image quality depends a lot on what you do with your photos. When I had a 20D, for example, I test drove a 5D for a while -- and sent it back. There was no noticeable difference in image quality, up to about ISO 800, in the 12x18 prints I made from the two cameras. And I didn't like the 5D's viewfinder (dim LEDs).<br /> A key fact is that I compared images of the kinds of photos I actually make, as opposed to careful lab-style tests involving brick walls and newspapers. I rarely, for example, use a tripod in real life. and I rarely print beyond 12x18.<br /> Perhaps if you plan to print big and shoot in gloomy light, the difference will be huge. But it will come at considerable financial cost.</p>

<p> </p>

[ejchem101]

<p>Bob, I have to thank you for your very logical post. I (and I think most photographers now in the digital age) seem to all feel the urge to upgrade to the newest thing.</p>

<p>My decision that I am more than happy to stick with is, why buy the newest body? In 4-5 years it will be 1/5 of its original price. Instead, buy a used body (that is 4-5 years old) that still takes amazing pictures.</p>

<p>Example: Buy a 20D for $200 - $300 (when it was $1400 new in 2004-2005)</p>

[chris_clarke3]

<p>Erik, I went from the 20D to the 5D2. True it was a bit of an expensive move but it was a good one, no regrets here.<br>

First off the LCD is very useful. I've tried to use my 20D's 1.8 inch job but I just can't go back!<br>

1600 ISO is like 400 on the 20D. 3200 is very useable. I stick with centre point AF and I basically use fast primes (24LII, 50L and my new 100L). Personally I find the AF isn't a problem for me, it's better than the 20D's was.<br>

From what I've read the 17-40 is a great lens and works well on the 5D2. I'd hang on to it as I often grab my 16-35 when 24 isn't wide enough.</p>

<p>5D2 all the way.</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>Maybe you should wait a bit--if you liked the M9--there may be a competitor. Rumor has it that there is a new full frame digital rangefinder with AF undergoing field testing. The consensus is that it is probably Canon and the test photographer (unless it's an April fool's joke, as some are suggesting) says that it is a game changer. See<br>

http://jeffascough.typepad.com/af_rangefinder_blog/</p>

[clgriffin]

<p>Darn, it was an April Fool stunt! Ascough wanted the reponse to encourage Canon to make something like his spoof.</p>

[valko]

<p>Hi,<br>

strangely enough if you look at the overall quality of the images and Signal To Noise Ratio, Tonal Range, and Color sensitivity:<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/329%7C0/(appareil2)/267%7C0/(appareil3)/178%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon" target="_blank">http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/Image-Quality-Database/Compare-cameras/(appareil1)/329%7C0/(appareil2)/267%7C0/(appareil3)/178%7C0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon/(brand3)/Canon</a><br />you will see that 20D is the best camera, followed by 40D, then by 50D then the newest 7D takes last place :-)<br />The reason is simple 20D Pixel pitch size is 6.3 µm, 50D is 4.7 µm and 7D is 4.3 µm. The camera with fewer but bigger pixels will capture a greater tonal range, and will produce a better image. So get back your 20D I would say ;-)<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/" target="_blank">http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter/</a><br>

<br />About going full frame there are lenghty discussions about vigneting (used wide open the full frame sensorwill have significantly more vignetting) and how actually you can utilize much better lenses with smaller sensor, for example 300mm lens is 480mm on smaller sensor, so I am not convinced this is the right route either :-))<br>

<br />My point is on certain ocassions you can do better picture with 20D then with 50D or 7D and of course there are times you can do better picture with 7D ;-)<br>

Obviously the 7D is one fine camera and because fo the advancments of the technology it has some features that you simply do not have in say 20D, however for semi-pro guy like me it is not worth the upgrade in any way the proce difference is 1 to 10 so for the small fraction of the 5D/7D price you get a camera that in 98% of the cases is just better (I mean my cases).<br>

<br />Is it worth paying more money for new bodies? I do not think so.<br />Is it worth paying more money for better lenses - absolutely :-))</p>