Move to a 5D ?

[museebfoto]

<p>Some body want to move up and others ( like me ) want ( in some technology ) to move down.</p>

<p>After one year of having Canon 40D i had sold it without taking with it more than 400 photo. I always compared its results with my old one ( Konica Minolta 7D ) and I always finished with Minolta results satisfaction. I like its natural colors and the bokeh of Minolta lens. Indeed i sold my first Minolta 7D, because it was suffered from the well known malfunction ( Black first Frame ).</p>

<p>Week ago I bought Canon 5D + Canon 28-105 mm f3.5-4.5 ( in a very good condition ) for $1400. Today I have seen Canon 20D ( like New ) in just $475. Is it worth to buy and keep 5D, worth to buy and sale 5D, Doesn't worth to buy anyhow ?.</p>

 

[faysal]

<p>museeb, i think you should have started another post for the second bit, but I'd keep the 5d. Why downgrade?</p>

[ejchem101]

<p>I couldn't handle it... the 5D is on the way, I have to at least try it out. If I dont like it at least I can sell it for what I bought it for... but I doubt that will happen once it's in my hands.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=6095207">Faysal Akbik</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub1.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jul 02, 2010; 07:15 p.m.<br>

<br /> If you think about it, the 7d has about 4 years of technology of crop sensor improvement, and it still only matches the IQ of the 5di. That's really funny to think about when you are reading through the 5dii vs 7d argument.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The 7D only matches the original 5D in large prints? You obviously haven't made comparisons. At 20x30, the 5D is not a match for it at all....it's not even close. Sorry, but you've been drinking the FF Koolaid nonsense.</p>

<p>I've done hundreds of large prints from both cameras, as well as the 1Ds2, 1Ds, and Pentax K20D. Stating they are equal on large prints is false. Sorry.</p>

[faysal]

<blockquote>

<p>edit: Screw it. I disagree with you, but am not in the mood to read some online flaming.</p>

</blockquote>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Faysal, whether you're in the mood or not, the 7D beats the 5D in terms of frame rate, resolution, AF speed, AF accuracy, AF in low light, noise (especially at 100 and 200), bit depth, LCD rez, flash sync, dynamic range, weather sealing, performance at the edges and corners and shutter life. </p>

<p>The 5D beats it in being able to be FF. </p>

<p>Sorry, but print samples don't lie. In terms of ultimate image quality, the 7D beats this old FF camera. You can argue if you wish, but test results are not opinion based....they are based upon fact....not an emotional attachment to some mythical FF magic. Your claim that the two are equal in large print is like saying the original 1Ds and 1Ds2 are the same in large prints. You won't find anyone agreeing with you on that front.....and as an owner of all the said cameras, neither do I.</p>

[faysal]

<p>Well in that case,<br>

First off arguing something like 1D vs 1Ds with someone not making that argument is not only ridiculous but really shows ego issues. Extrapolating logic only leads to outlandish statements that make one feel more confident about an argument without actually contributing anything to it.<br>

The 5di vs 7d, however, is what we were talking about. No one is denying that the 7d has faster AF and better metering, however this does not play into the final image if you do not need faster AF (its not like the 5d is horribly slow!) and if you choose to shoot RAW. My view on crops is that they are in fact better when you need something faster, but again, if you don't need it, then whats the point? Regardless of the larger MP on the 7d, it still has noise issues. Thats where FF has the advantage. There is less cramming involved. Prints don't lie, and neither does pixel peeping, and if you google 5di or 5d original or even 5d classic vs 7d you'll see several images and write ups where either the 5d barely beats the 7d in IQ, they are matched, or the 7d barely beats the 5d - all of which can be attributed to the photographer themselves, and yes, because of the caustic nature of your last message, I'll go ahead and suggest that may be the issue in your case. Also, in many of these ties, a large deal of it was smaller yet sharper resolution vs larger yet noiser image - which is the point that I and many others will make. A small chip has to fight noise more than a large chip does. That is the biggest advantage of a full framed sensor. <br>

If you are having performance issues at the edges, I might argue that it lies with your lens selection.<br>

If you are arguing that the LCD in the back takes better pictures, I might argue your sanity as a photographer. People used to do with worse, the most useful feature of the LCD is the histogram, you can still see that very well on a 5d.<br>

Also, I have a crop camera, I just got a new crop camera, but yes, at the end of the year, I'll be getting a FF camera. The reason I love FF is because of fact, the pixels show less noise, I like to print big, and honestly, that's whats important to me, not fast AF - I still use AF, but then I adjust via the convenience of a USM ring manually to get what I want. I am not wrong because I don't have an emotional attachment to a cropped sensor. <br>

If the OP wants to shoot sports or fast moving wildlife, then go for the crop, otherwise why would you need it? If one spends this much on a camera and they hit 100,000 shutter actuations on it, then they should probably be able to spend a little more to get it replaced. You're also arguing 1/200th vs 1/250th flash speed sync, and again, if the OP does not need the extra speed, then they don't. Bottom line.<br>

Preference, needs, and image quality can beat the 7d craze.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Faysal,</p>

<p>Your reply has so much nonsense in it I won't even bother.</p>