Upgrade to 5d1 from 500d?

[paul_richardson9]

<p>Hey,</p>

<p>Currently I'm shooting with a 500d, but I'm already noticing the limitations of it. My friend will give me a good price for it, so I'm considering upgrading. I mainly use my camera for shooting in low light. I shoot a mixture of handheld (wide open, iso 1600, 1/2 second shutter), and some on a tripod.</p>

<p>With my 500d I feel quite restricted with my focal lengths. Due to the nature of where I take photos, I need to use a wide angle to get the shots. The only wide angle I currently have is a 8mm fisheye, and then the 18-55mm kit lens. The kit lens is absolutely awful wide open, it would probably be sharper if I smeared Vaseline on the sensor.</p>

<p>Going full-frame makes sense to me as I can use all my old film lenses via adapters. Sure these aren't going to be as nice as modern lenses, but I'm not interested in super laser sharp images.</p>

<p>I'm trying to figure out what my options would be and if it is really worth changing up. So far the only option appears to be a used 5d1. But I'm wondering what the high iso performance would be like, when compared to the 500d? The only feature on the 500d that I think I would miss, is the live view.</p>

<p>To me it seems like a really good idea to upgrade, but maybe I'm just excited at the idea of a new camera. Do you think the benefits of a 5d1 would outweigh the benefits of the 500d? Or would there be any other cameras that you would recommend? To be honest I would prefer to stick to canon, as I've shot with them for nearly 3 years and never had an issue.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br /> Paul</p>

[franklin_white]

<p>If the focal length is the problem, why don't you try the Canon 10-22mm lens. I'm not sure why you want a new camera body when your problem is with the lenses you're using. </p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>The 5D is limited to ISO3200, but it's performance @ ISO3200 is very very good. Far better than the 500D @ ISO3200.</p>

<p>It is worth it (IMO).</p>

<p>The tendency to use LV is the only reason I would hesitate if I were you. Personally I virtually never use the function, but, as has been pointed out to me, it can be useful if you do a lot of landscape and macro. Of course, the 5D also has a viewfinder that is actually <em>usable</em>, unlike the 500D.</p>

<p>Of course, despite it's FF capability, and excellent performance, the 5D is NOT a new camera. It is slower, and the LCD is much smaller (and, depending on the unit, may have a greenish tint to it), and is missing much (like LV) of the 'modern' convenience of a 'modern' DSLR. That said, it is an excellent tool for taking pictures, and I (for one) would take it over any rebel just from a ergonomics & usability standpoint. --nevermind the 'proper' focal lengths for your stable of glass, and the 'proper' resulting DOF.</p>

[paul_richardson9]

<p>The 10-22 are too wide for my liking, the distortion around the edges is horrible. And they're pretty slow too! I won't go any wider than 28mm realistically.</p>

<p>Yeah, I don't imagine I would ever go above 3200. If I *really* needed to get a rubbish noisy photo, I could always push the RAW file 2 stops to 12800.<br /><br />The main reason I use LV, is because some of my lenses don't have hard infinity stops. If I only start using lenses that have this (or adjust them so they do), then I won't have a problem! There's some really nice old glass out there that will far suprass anything my kit lens could ever produce.<br /><br />I like being able to shoot photos fast (often shooting 8 frames in a row). So having a camera that can keep up is good. I've reached the limits of my 500d on a few occasions when it was stuck for 20 second writing images. But, I can just learn to shoot slower in some situations. It's not like sports where you HAVE to shoot all the time.</p>

<p><br />The screen is 2.5" as opposed to 3.0". It's not too much of a difference! If it was like 2" I might not be able to deal with it, but a 20% difference isn't too bad. And a green tint wouldn't bother me, I can just learn to ignore it.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>However, the screen is much dimmer, and harder to use to check your images - esp. in sunlight. I personally never felt that the limits of the rear screen was an impediment to my shooting, but the reason I mentioned it is that it is one of the biggest (and most common) complaints I've heard over the years about the 5D. Personally, I feel that the complaint is kind of stupid, and roll my eyes, but in fairness, everybody shoots differently.</p>

<p>I've pushed ISO3200 RAWS from the 5D +2 stops before. The end result strongly depends on the exposure of the original (a bit over is good). Depending on the specifics, the imagery can be quite usable - even printed.</p>

<p>I can't remember (off the top of my head) what the buffer capacity was on my 5Ds, but I certainly recall it being significantly smaller than my 5D2s. The good news is that the RAWS are only ~12-14mb, which means that it does a pretty good job of emptying the buffer at a fair rate (w/ appropriate cards - you'll not need anything over 133x because the camera can't write any faster). The bad news is that the 3fps and small buffer do slow you down. The 5D of course was never designed or built to be a 'fast' shooter, and I found that it never failed to produce great results when I was shooting specifically.</p>

 

[mjferron]

<p>I love the old 5 original and just picked up another cheap. It has a clarity of image that I've personally not received from many different aps cameras I've tried. Yeah it's a bit dated when it comes to features and the screen is small and low rez but I'm not a movie guy and really don't want features and can live with the shortcomings. I'm sure the latest high MP cameras eek out a bit more detail and can print larger but I'm not willing to pay the money for them. Maybe 2 years from now when the 5DII is selling for $700-$800 because the 5 IV was introduced I'll spring for that. </p>

<p>PS the new 40 pancake is super on this camera. Very decent @ 2.8 and a complete wow into the corners at F5.6. Makes the larger 5D much more portable. It's built much better than the 50 1.8 as well.</p>

[martin-s]

<blockquote>

<p>"Going full-frame makes sense to me as I can use all my old film lenses via adapters. Sure these aren't going to be as nice as modern lenses, but I'm not interested in super laser sharp images."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you're referring to old Canon FD lenses you need to be aware that all the FD/EOS adapters contain optical elements that will reduce the angle of view and degrade the image quality. I doubt you'll be happy with that.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<p>40D + 17-55/2.8 IS would make more sense IMHO.</p>

<p>Happy shooting,<br>

Yakim. </p>