Is it worth getting a Canon 5D?

[Nev]

Hi All,

First of all, I'm loving the site! Wow. :-D A fantastic place full of really knowledgeable people. I've learned loads just looking around the forums and the tutorials. Thanks!

And on to the question (you knew it was coming). A friend might be selling his 5D, and I was wondering if it's worth buying it from him and getting rid of my current camera (Sony a350).

This is quite a difficult decision because I'm very much an amateur, and after spending quite a lot on my current setup I'm hesitant to change.

In order to get an idea of the type of images I typically create I thought I'd include a link to my portfolio:

General Portfolio - fenn's Photos

I'm not trying to solicit any kind of critique - the only reason I include the link is so it might give you an idea as to whether I would gain any benefit from changing camera body (after all, if I take mediocre photos, it really doesn't matter what kind of camera I use).

Any ideas or suggestions are gratefully received.

Cheers,

Nev.

[Peapod Photo]

This is so not helpful, but I've been considering the same thing, myself.

[WVCoalMiner]

1 reason- FULL FRAME!!!!
Yes do it. I replaced 2 APS-C's with 2 5D's and have not regretted it at all.

[oldwolf]

You've got a good eye. Love the shot of the Minis.

Is it the 5D or the 5D MkII?

Do you have a lot of money invested in Sony gear already?

Why do you think you need to go full frame?

Canon makes a good camera though. I've shot Canon from the film days all the way to digital. Currently own a 7D and my wife shoots with a 5D MkII. We love both of our cameras. I didn't go full frame because I have some glass that only fit on the crop sensor that I'm in love with so I went from the XTi to 40D to 7D. She went from XTi to 40D to 5D MkII.

One thing you have to remember, it's the person behind the camera and not the camera that sees the image. With that being said, the camera doesn't make the image; the photographer does. If you're happy with your current setup then stick with it. Looks like you take some great shots already.

[Peapod Photo]

Sorry if I'm sabotaging this thread, but I just thought I'd ask: is full frame worth it? I've been considering going to 5D Mark II for the full frame, but I'm not sure it's really worth it?

[oldwolf]

Originally Posted by Peapod Photo

Sorry if I'm sabotaging this thread, but I just thought I'd ask: is full frame worth it? I've been considering going to 5D Mark II for the full frame, but I'm not sure it's really worth it?

You have to figure out what your current camera isn't doing for you and see if it's due to the camera not being full frame. If it's because it's not a full frame then it's worth getting one.

[Peapod Photo]

Originally Posted by oldwolf

You have to figure out what your current camera isn't doing for you and see if it's due to the camera not being full frame. If it's because it's not a full frame then it's worth getting one.

Well, call me stupid, but I got my 60D, not knowing that it didn't have the full frame capability. And then I got the 24-70mm lens, and then got told recently that having that lens is kind of pointless on a camera without full frame. Does having a full frame really add much?

I dunno... these things are really hard to tell when you haven't actually got one to try out, first!

[oldwolf]

Originally Posted by Peapod Photo

Well, call me stupid, but I got my 60D, not knowing that it didn't have the full frame capability. And then I got the 24-70mm lens, and then got told recently that having that lens is kind of pointless on a camera without full frame. Does having a full frame really add much?

I dunno... these things are really hard to tell when you haven't actually got one to try out, first!

The person that told you it was pointless to get the 24-70 with your camera body is talking out of their a**. That's a just a personal opinion of course. The equation of glass > camera holds true here.

I have some glass that will work on a full frame but the one piece that I love only fits on a crop sensor. The 24-70 is well worth it on a crop or full frame sensor. Maybe they wanted you to sell them the 24-70 for cheap?

The full frame sensor will give you better low light performance. The image quality is going to be a bit better than crop sensor but some will argue that could be operator error as well.

My suggestion is to play with your camera and glass for a bit. When you start noticing limits or things it can't do then come back and ask whether a full frame will fix that.

[Peapod Photo]

Originally Posted by oldwolf

The person that told you it was pointless to get the 24-70 with your camera body is talking out of their a**. That's a just a personal opinion of course. The equation of glass > camera holds true here.

I have some glass that will work on a full frame but the one piece that I love only fits on a crop sensor. The 24-70 is well worth it on a crop or full frame sensor. Maybe they wanted you to sell them the 24-70 for cheap?

The full frame sensor will give you better low light performance. The image quality is going to be a bit better than crop sensor but some will argue that could be operator error as well.

My suggestion is to play with your camera and glass for a bit. When you start noticing limits or things it can't do then come back and ask whether a full frame will fix that.

Thanks for the advice! :-) That's a relief to know. I had a bit of a spaz when the guy told me that, thinking that it made a massive difference that I wasn't even aware of! But if it doesn't make a huge difference, then I guess I'll hold off for a while. I would like the capability to shoot in lower light situations, but since I've had my speedlite, I'm not too worried about that now. But he made the full frame thing sound as though my lens is practically worthless on my 60D. :-( But if that's not so true, then I'm quite relieved!

[inkista]

Well, it does make a difference, but certainly not the kind of difference that makes the 24-70L worthless on a 60D. Think of it this way--the FoV you'd have on full frame with 24mm is the same as what you've have on your 60D with a 15mm lens.


Canon 5D Mark II, EF 24-105 f/4L IS USM @24mm.

To the OP, for the type of shooting you do (mostly landscapes), the 5D would be a good camera. The general wisdom is that for landscape and portrait shooting, full frame can give you the advantages of wider field of view with longer lenses (i.e., a 1x crop factor), and the ability to get a narrower DoF with a similar composition (either by using a longer lens, or by shooting closer to the subject). The 5D Mark II also offers a higher resolution.

But not as high as the A850, and if you can afford the Zeiss ZA lenses, you'd probably have the ultimate in landscape dSLRs by staying with Sony. There's no reason for you to be leaving Sony for Canon image-quality wise, or simply to go full frame. The only reasons I'd say that Canon might be better is if you desperately need better high iso performance (unlikely, given what you shoot), you're a filmmaker and you want the 5D Mark II's video capability, that you can find lower-cost lenses in a midgrade range that Sony typically doesn't seem to have (e.g., a $400 85mm f/1.8 USM), or if you wanted an ISO-standard flash hotshoe to do Strobist work (again, not part of what you seem to shoot).

In addition to this, a 5D (classic) is a pretty old camera, and doesn't have current dSLR features like HD video. I'd say you might be better off looking for a used A850, even though it is likely to be more expensive than a 5D classic. If, however, you're looking at a 5DMkII, an A850 is probably less expensive.