orly_andico

<p>Thanks Don. That data point (<1 second startup from sleep of an XT-1) is actually something that is useful to me.<br> It's still not great, but probably something that can be lived with.<br> What's the battery life like?</p>

<p>Brian Southward, everyone on this forum is afflicted with First World problems. Your point being?</p>

<p>Hm. Sounds like there isn't actually a solution for my specific itch..</p>

<p>Zane, for some reason, even with WiFi and GPS turned off, the 6D (slowly) drains its battery when sleeping. Not true of the 5D and my old 40D.<br> Gerry, switching the camera on is a separate action with a separate switch. It's one extra thing to think about. When walking around, I don't want to think about turning the camera on and off. I just want to trigger the shutter whenever I want. Leaving a mirrorless on while walking around drains the battery faster (although my only mirrorless was a GF2 and that was pretty old - so I don't know what's the effective battery life of a modern mirrorless if you never turn it off).</p>

<p>That's my concern, the 1-second wakeup time. My current small camera (Canon G5X) has about 1.5 second startup time. It can be lived with but the user experience is still far from even an ancient Canon DSLR like my old 40D.<br> Ironically I like the behavior of the 5D (classic) more than the 6D. The 6D can't be left turned on for months (things like WiFi and GPS drain the battery).</p>

<p>I've had a variety of Canon DSLR's and I can just leave them not turned off, they sleep after a while but are immediately ready to go even weeks later with a half-press of the shutter.<br> Unfortunately Canon kit with L lenses is bulky. I would like something with a 24mm or 28mm fast prime, <strong>but that never needs to be turned on</strong>, i.e. it should be ready to go immediately like the Canon.<br> Does such a beast exist?</p>

<p>I believe the 5D can still stack up to somewhat more modern reduced-frame bodies. End of the day, it's the cheapest entree into full frame. If you can live with the sluggish interface, mediocre LCD, mediocre high ISO (compared to a 6D/5D3) you will be happy. I am. (and I have a 6D)</p>

<p>I used a 40D for years. It's a bit newer than the 5D but the interface is very similar.<br> You get used to mediocre high ISO performance..<br> I have a 6D, then got a (dirt-cheap) 5D Mk 1 as backup. Guess what.. all those years with the 40D mean I feel more comfortable with the 5D. Sure the 6D has amazing high ISO. But I've gotten so used to topping out at ISO 1600 (actually never going over ISO 1250) that the 5D does the job just as well.<br> Besides that's what flash is for. If it's too dark for a fast prime and ISO 1250, it's too dark for interesting photos.<br> One thing I really hate about the 6D is that if you leave the GPS on, it will flatten the battery. The 40D (and 5D) can be left powered on for months and they go to sleep and don't drain their battery.<br> So 90% of the time when I pick up the 6D, the battery's dead. While the 5D is alive.<br /> But then.. I use mostly fast primes (and the 16-35/4L IS) so I don't really use high ISO that much.<br> Also. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. Has anyone seen the new Leica full frame that doesn't even have an LCD screen? talk about going minimalist. I'd buy one if I could afford it. The 35 Summilux is amazingly small and amazingly good (the 35/1.4 Canon I'm using is a huge misshapen lump by comparison)</p>

<p>Well.... I have a 6D. Then I bought a 5D (original) for $300-ish just to have a second body I could mod without fear (put in a split-screen viewfinder).<br> I'm not a professional or anything, and tethering is not a use case I have. So given my usage, the 5D isn't significantly worse than the 6D. Yes the ISO could be better - but I used a 40D for many many years, so I'm used to bad high-ISO performance. The screen is bad (worse than the 40D) but it's not killing me. The interface is slow, etc. etc. but all things that can be lived with.<br> etc. etc. I could live with a 5D. It should be alarming to Canon than a 10+ year old camera is still this usable.<br> Again someone who counts on their images for their livelihood etc. could find much to recommend the 6D. But me, I wouldn't give up a 5D + 70-200 for a 6D + 85.</p>

<p>I got a modified Ec-L for my 5D classic. (from FocusingScreen.com) this was a spendy focusing screen, not those cheap Chinese ones.<br> the 5D doesn't have Live View. What I noticed is that with fast lenses (e.g. 135mm f/2, 35mm f/1.4) AF is more accurate than using the split screen, unless you're stopped down to f/5.6 range.</p>

<p>having just gotten back from a holiday...<br> i think the 18-135 is ok. use the 70-200 when you need more reach. and if you need even more reach, just crop. The T5 has lots of pixels.<br> but i bet you will not be using the 70-200 much. It's a hassle swapping lenses particularly in precarious situations, and the 70-200 is no lightweight. you may often find cases where you head out the door, think about bringing the 70-200, and decide not to.</p>

<p>.. environmental portraits was also what I had in mind. But guess what.. when traveling, you don't do very much of those. And when you take portraits at f/1.4, nothing of the background is recognizable (I tried). And background context is kinda important when traveling.<br> <br /> As for the fashion show.. well that's not quite the same thing as travel.<br> <br /> For landscapes, sure you can use it - stopped down quite a bit. Since I also have the 16-35 f/4 (which is amazingly sharp wide-open), the 35 f/1.4 is redundant for this use case.</p> <p>Again, when I say the 35/1.4 is a gimmick for travel, this is in the context of my personal experience traveling and <strong>also carrying the 16-35/4</strong>. Because (1) when traveling you'll often be stopped down a lot; (2) the 16-35/4 is very, very sharp wide open so is perfectly usable at f/4 when you need it (but most of my photos were at f/5.6 to f/8 anyway)</p>

<p>After snagging a 300/4L non-IS, I started drooling about getting a 500mm lens.<br> Seems that the old 500/4.5L non-IS is still a good choice at around $2200 used. Sure it's got no IS, but the types of use cases for this lens benefit from a faster shutter speed (higher ISO). And one can't have everything..</p>

<p>When you're at your daughter's recital, your daughter is the subject, so it's OK if everything else gets blurred out by the f/1.4. Ditto for taking a photo of a statue.</p> <p>But if you want to take a photo of an entire church aisle, or an altar, f/1.4 will give you very limited DOF. It is better than having no photo? yes. But the 16-35 with it's IS will give you deeper DOF even at a much slower shutter speed. Obviously this solution won't work for a piano recital due to motion blur, but for my specific use case, IS trumps f/1.4 (frankly even f/4 has too-narrow DOF, so I often ended up with f/8, and 1/8 second).</p>

<p>to clarify - i find the 35/1.4 not useful for general travel, where you want deep DOF, when you also have the 16-35.<br> i certainly don't think the 35/1.4 is useless, and i'm definitely keeping mine - it's just not useful when you don't need f/1.4 - f/2.8 and you already have another slower lens covering the same FL.</p>

<p>Well, from my past experience with a 10-22 on APS-C (equivalent to 16-35) and a 17-40 on APS-C, I knew going in that 16-35 was a focal length I would really, really, <strong>really</strong> use. And it seems that Dieter has the same attitude.</p> <p>I read about a person who traveled Europe with the 35/1.4 and 135/2 only. I can see that working, if the main purpose of your trip is making photos. The 35 can do most everything the 16-35 can... if you have enough space to walk away. For indoor wide photos of those amazing cathedral ceilings though, the only thing that would beat the 16-35 at 16mm is either the 11-24 or (better) the 17 TS-E. The 35 simply doesn't have the wide angle to take in an entire cathedral ceiling (or most of it, or the entire roof of the Golden Room in Augsburg). And you can't walk away.</p> <p>As for the long end, I can see that a 70-200 would be more useful than the 135 (partially to fill the gap from 35 to 135, e.g. the 70-135mm range) but the longer end isn't that useful. Sure, 200mm is better than 135mm when taking a photo of Neuschwanstein from Schwangau, but almost the same effect can be achieved with a slight crop. The 6D has a lot of pixels, and the 70-200/4L is still larger and heavier than the 135/2.</p> <p>The reason I think the 35/1.4 was a gimmick was because, when traveling you'll almost never use f/1.4 - that's almost solely for portraits. For dark interiors, you can't use f/1.4 anyway because the DOF is too narrow. You are stopped down to f/5.6 or f/8 for the DOF, and in that case the 16-35 does exactly the same thing as the 35/1.4 (in fact it's probably optically better and has IS - which is quite useful for those dark church interiors).</p> <p>In retrospect, the 16-35 alone would work for me. I can't do with a 24-70 or 24-105 because 24mm isn't wide enough.</p> <p>What would really be a killer app would be a 2-axis inclinometer in the camera, and a way to record the tilt in the EXIF. Then some post-processing software to correct perspective based on the angle. That would give some of the benefits of the TS-E lens, without the inconvenience of manual focus. Hey, there's an idea!</p>

<p>Probably half of the images were at 16mm and the other half at 28-35mm. I get what you say about the massive distortion at 16mm when the camera is tilted. I suddenly had a brain wave about why the TS-E 17mm exists!</p>

<p>My wife and I just got back from our Germany holiday, and I brought three lenses (16-35/4L IS, 35/1.4, 135/2) defying the recommendations from this forum.<br> 900km of driving and 40GB of images later, what I found was - the 35/1.4 is a gimmick lens. When traveling, f/1.4 is useless. In fact there were many occasions when using the 16-35 at 35mm when there was too little DOF even when stopped down to f/8 (I'm thinking a premium P&S would actually be more useful!) meanwhile the 135mm had some use for the castles when we couldn't get close enough. But we probably used it 5% of the time. Methinks a 70-200 would be a bit more useful but the one we have is f/2.8 and way too heavy, I'm glad we didn't bring it for a possible 5% to 10% use.<br> 16mm is very useful, hence I don't believe any 24-70 or 24-105 zoom would meet my needs.<br> In summary.. I think the ideal travel range at least for me, on FF, would be something like 16-85. I'm fairly sure such a beast doesn't exist though..</p>

<p>I had the 17-40/4 for quite some time but on a 40D.<br> I now have the 16-35/4 on a 6D. Everybody says the 17-40 is one of the weakest Canon ultra-wides particularly corner sharpness, but the original 5D has rather fat pixels so the issue should not be too unmanageable.<br> For $500 I really can't think of a better lens than the 17-40.<br> I got this dirt cheap 20-35 Tokina which was surprisingly good for under $200, but the rotating focus ring, coffee grinder AF motor, turned me off. Nothing beats ring USM.</p>

<p>Thanks for the insights. Didn't know the 85/1.2L was that heavy!<br> I did think about the Sigma 35mm ART - which allegedly fixes the autofocus inconsistency of the non-ART version. But resale's a b*tch, and you never know if the thing will keep working five years down the road. I have read that the Sigma is actually optically better than the 35L which is a pretty old design.<br> In any case I happened upon a 35L for a pretty low price on ebay (my 300/4L also came from ebay..) and nobody else bid on it, so...<br> <br /> I'll probably get rid of the 28/1.8 and the 70-200/2.8L non-IS. The 28 is redundant as it is (the only thing it has over the 16-35L is the f/1.8 and size).</p>

<p>I'm sorely tempted to go out and look for a 35/1.4L</p> <p>However, due to cost control, if I go get that lens, I will probably have to get rid of my 70-200/2.8L non-IS.</p> <p>Is this idea worth considering? the 70-200/2.8 has gotten used a grand total of... two times in the past year (it's vast bulk demotivates me). But I don't want to sell it away and then later regret doing so.</p> <p>Currently I have the 28/1.8, 16-35/4L IS, 135/2L, 180/3.5L, 300/4L, and the aforementioned 70-200. Using a 6D and 5D.</p> <p>I could also get the 50/1.4 instead for a much lower cost (it fills the hole between 35mm and 135mm) or the 85/1.8 - but feel the 35mm focal length would get more use than a 50mm or 85mm. I'm thinking of having the 35 permanently on the 5D (or swap between the 35 and 135). Of course the 28/1.8 is quite close and is also very general purpose, but it doesn't have quite the same level of depth of field control and bokeh.</p> <p>Or.. 85/1.2L? much more expensive, much less usable than the 35. But it fills my focal length gap.</p>

Thanks to all for the responses. I actually went against most of you and went with the 5D. I guess all those years with a 40D left me liking the old clunky interface. The large viewfinder is an added bonus, so I can use all my old manual focus lenses. And old 28 and 35mm lenses are still wide due to full frame. I'd be a bit wary of modding the 6D or a newer camera, but not a beat up old one. So I've added a split image screen to the 5D. It does feel old and slow.. but I'm fine with that. I hardly ever used the 5fps burst mode on the 40D anyway.

<p>Yeah.. that is my thought. I have gotten rid of my EF-S lenses, all my remaining lenses are EF L's (except for the 28/1.8) and I'm more of a wide shooter than a long shooter. Must be the weak upper body strength, ha ha!</p>

<p>Rice may not work but a sealed box with a couple jars of silica gel might. +1 on rinsing with deionized water though.<br> I used to have an old Pentax K10D and K20D and they could withstand submersion. These are bodies in the same class as the 60D. I know some Canon lenses have a rubber gasket on the mount and that, in combination with a front filter and a weatherproof body, should have provided some protection.</p>

<p>Hmmm.. I got to try a 5D Mk 1 and it is indeed sluggish.. but not much more so than my 40D. And the screen is indeed mediocre, but not much worse than the 40D either (both wash out in bright light). The lack of Live View is not a major issue although I did use Live View when doing critical focusing on stars (for my other hobby of astrophotography).<br> What the 5D has got going for it is it is FF like the 6D, so no field of view conversions, and it's a credible backup for the 6D. I do get the point about the 7D providing additional capabilities particularly at the long end.</p>