Upgrading from a 30D

[audreylynn3]

...and I thought I'd narrowed it down between a 60D & a 7d, until it was mentioned to me that a used 5D (the original one) would be better.

I understand that full-frame is way better, but what about the increased ISO capabilities on other two? Can anyone explain why the 5D is better? I'm excited to move up, but it's an investment and I want it to be the right one!

[dlambert]

I just upgraded from a 30D to a 40D, so I'm afraid you'll have to take this with a grain of salt. Having said that, my understanding is that since the sensor on the 5D is larger than the APS-C sensors, it's physically gathering more light, which offsets the ISO capabilities to some extent (in other words, you might not care that you can't shoot at 6400). It also seems like full-frame has some clear advantages for portrait photography.

Here's a good discussion (not quite the pair of cameras you're evaluating, but close):

http://photo.stackexchange.com/quest...anon-40d-or-5d

[inkista]

Originally Posted by audreylynn3

I understand that full-frame is way better,

Blink. It is?

but what about the increased ISO capabilities on other two? Can anyone explain why the 5D is better? I'm excited to move up, but it's an investment and I want it to be the right one!

Full frame isn't really intrinsically better. It's different. Kind of like the difference between medium format film and 35mm film. One isn't necessarily better than the other. They're just different. And the fact that you're comparing the much older 5D classic (introduced in 2005) vs. the current crop of APS-C cameras means that you don't have a resolution advantage (megapixels), as you would with the 5Dii.

The 5D is 12.8 megapixels. It doesn't do video. It doesn't have liveview. There are decided feature advantages to going with a newer model, despite the crop factor, since the 60D and 7D both have higher resolution (18 megapixels) and high iso performance sensors.

Where the 5D has a full-frame advantage with older technology is that the low ISO settings are going to look better, and the high-ISO performance is still damn good (better by about a stop than the crop-bodies that were around at the same time). The viewfinder will be larger and brighter. And the angle view is wider, which renders focal lengths identically to how they were on 35mm film, which is what the majority of SLR lenses were designed for.

The effects of getting a wider field of view with a longer lens are manifold: because you'll either use a longer lens, or be closer to your subject to frame as you would have with a crop body, your DoF will be smaller. You can purchase wide angle lenses more easily (a 24mm lens on a full frame is the equivalent of a 15mm lens on a crop body). And using longer lenses means you're less likely to have distortion and C/A issues than with the much wider lenses required to get similar FoVs on a crop body.

The bad news is that now you can see lens corner performance (where lenses are traditionally at their weakest), which crop bodies shielded you from ever seeing. And you can't use any EF-S (DX, Di II, DC) lenses. And finding a fast ultrawide is going to cost quite a bit more.

Is a 5Dii clearly better than a 50D? For landscapes, portraits, weddings, yeah, probably. But for wildlife/birding photography or sports?, my 50D has the crop "reach" advantage, as well as a faster framerate and better AF tracking system. As a travel camera my 50D is smaller and lighter, and can take smaller and lighter EF-S lenses. And it has a pop-up flash (the 5D doesn't).

How do you plan to use your camera?

[dlambert]

Landscapes / portraits vs. action / wildlife ---->> absolutely. That's the summarization I see pretty consistently. I saw all the portraits on Audreys' web site and jumped to the conclusion that she'd be doing mainly portraits.

[Thunder_o_b]

Take a close look at the 50D before you spend your money, the prices have come done a bunch. But don't wait too long as I understand that has been discontinued, at least that is what is on B+H's site.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by Thunder_o_b

Take a close look at the 50D before you spend your money, the prices have come done a bunch. But don't wait too long as I understand that has been discontinued, at least that is what is on B+H's site.

hmmm...wonder what the planned replacement will be? (it's not the 60D, for sure) If the 7D is/was the planned replacement, interesting that Canon would not follow up with the legacy model numbering scheme

[Thunder_o_b]

Originally Posted by autofocus

hmmm...wonder what the planned replacement will be? (it's not the 60D, for sure) If the 7D is/was the planned replacement, interesting that Canon would not follow up with the legacy model numbering scheme

Canon has a bunch of us wondering what is going on. I believe (as do many others) that making the 60D a super Rebel was a massive mistake. Oh well, it is their co.

Can't wait for the 5D Mark III that is rumored to be released some time this month….Don't hold your breath though

[audreylynn3]

Originally Posted by dlambert

I just upgraded from a 30D to a 40D, so I'm afraid you'll have to take this with a grain of salt. Having said that, my understanding is that since the sensor on the 5D is larger than the APS-C sensors, it's physically gathering more light, which offsets the ISO capabilities to some extent (in other words, you might not care that you can't shoot at 6400). It also seems like full-frame has some clear advantages for portrait photography.

Here's a good discussion (not quite the pair of cameras you're evaluating, but close):

http://photo.stackexchange.com/quest...anon-40d-or-5d

Thanks! This is an interesting article. I'm noticing the first answer stating the image quality of a 5D is going to be better pretty much overall, even though it's an older camera.

The thing that confuses me is that it's stated that the 5D has a higher ISO sensitivity, but later someone else says that high ISO performance is worse than the 40D.

Inkista - dlambert is right - I use my gear for portraits and I'm working as a second shooter for weddings as well. I have lighting for my studio setup, but I want to do more natural light photos. A camera that does well in low light situations is a must.

I've also heard the argument that the lens is more important than the body. I don't have L lenses (I own a Tamron 24-75 2.8, Tamron 70-300 2.8 and Canon 50 1.8) - is a camera upgrade the answer, or a better lens? Decisions, decisions!

I suppose another route is just to keep saving up until I can afford a 5D MKII?

[dlambert]

FWIW, I have a feeling you'd see an improvement moving from the 30D to the 5D for portaits.

As far as lens vs. body for low-light shooting, you've already got what appear to be some pretty decent lenses (though I haven't heard of a Tamron 70-300 2.8 -- I can see a 70-200 2.8 and a 70-300 variable aperture). There Canon L lenses are better quality, but other than picking up a medium-telephoto prime, you're not going to see a lot more light getting through the lens, per se. If you like your 50 f/1.8, you could look at an 85 f/1.8 or a 100 f/2, for instance.

The lens question is worth a quick look, though, if you're considering moving to full-frame, because you're going to lose the 1.6 crop factor that's currently making your 50mm lens act like an 80, etc. You'll want to make sure you're not going to run out of reach with the lenses you've got. This should be less of an issue w/ weddings than wildlife photography or something like that, though.

Finally, I think the comment where you saw "high ISO performance worse than the 40D" was actually comparing the 40D with the 50D, where they increased pixel density of the sensor and (subject to a fair bit of debate) took a step backwards in per-pixel sharpness.

[Thunder_o_b]

Originally Posted by audreylynn3

Thanks! This is an interesting article. I'm noticing the first answer stating the image quality of a 5D is going to be better pretty much overall, even though it's an older camera.

The thing that confuses me is that it's stated that the 5D has a higher ISO sensitivity, but later someone else says that high ISO performance is worse than the 40D.

Inkista - dlambert is right - I use my gear for portraits and I'm working as a second shooter for weddings as well. I have lighting for my studio setup, but I want to do more natural light photos. A camera that does well in low light situations is a must.

I've also heard the argument that the lens is more important than the body. I don't have L lenses (I own a Tamron 24-75 2.8, Tamron 70-300 2.8 and Canon 50 1.8) - is a camera upgrade the answer, or a better lens? Decisions, decisions!

I suppose another route is just to keep saving up until I can afford a 5D MKII?

From the stand point of IQ the 5D Mark II is the best that Canon has to offer. If you are doing weddings and portraits then the 5D Mark II is what you want. 5D Mark II is outstanding at high ISO, I have never heard otherwise from the people that I know that have this camera. Pick up an f1.4 lens if you are serious about low light shooting. The Sig 50mm f1.4 (I'm getting one next month) is an outstanding lens as I understand, and is much more advanced than the Canon which was designed 20 years ago.

In the end there is no cheep way to get high IQ and high iso at the same time.