Reading mode: Light Dark

How many 5D owners upgrading to 50D?

Go to last post
upnorthfar said:
You will get crispier landscapes and A LOT more reach!
Click to expand...
Of course you really meant downgrade, didn't you?

I don't see anybody who has and loves the 5D settling for anything less than a 5D MkII.

Cramming more pixels into a dinky little sensor is not the answer to IQ.

As old and lame as the 5D is, it still produces excellent images if you know what you're doing.

Larry
 
You don't get more reach what you get is a cropped field of view.

Full Frame is what the lenses are designed for and moving to a smaller sensor is pointless. The next step in quality and resolution from it is MF.

--
'You know he heard the drums of war
Each man knows what he's looking for'
'Sean Flynn' by The Clash
 
Stovall said:
You don't get more reach what you get is a cropped field of view.

Full Frame is what the lenses are designed for and moving to a
smaller sensor is pointless. The next step in quality and resolution
from it is MF.

--
'You know he heard the drums of war
Each man knows what he's looking for'
'Sean Flynn' by The Clash
Click to expand...
--Although I agree that FF is the way to go, cropped sensor is not pointless. The ability to shoot telephoto is greatly enhanced by the cropped sensor. When you consider that a 200 2.8 becomes a 320 2.8 for less then a $1000.00, it makes a cropped sensor pay for itself. If I shot sports and wildlife on a shoe string budget, I would certainly opt for the smaller sensor.
http://digitalphotonut.zenfolio.com/
 
I'll stick with my 1.3 crop this seems to me to be the best of both worlds and on top of that I can have speed and precision in one package. Besides when I had the 5D I had to crop every photo so It really made more sense to get a cropped camera this also allowed me to use the sweet spot in the lens... MF would not really be practical for myself in that I have yet to find a decent MF sports cam....
Stovall said:
You don't get more reach what you get is a cropped field of view.

Full Frame is what the lenses are designed for and moving to a
smaller sensor is pointless. The next step in quality and resolution
from it is MF.

--
'You know he heard the drums of war
Each man knows what he's looking for'
'Sean Flynn' by The Clash
Click to expand...
--
Cal

Put a Canon to your head, You deserve it....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/
 
True the 5D does have good image quality, now if they could just fit it into a D3 body we might have something there....
LarryK said:
upnorthfar said:
You will get crispier landscapes and A LOT more reach!
Click to expand...
Of course you really meant downgrade, didn't you?

I don't see anybody who has and loves the 5D settling for anything
less than a 5D MkII.

Cramming more pixels into a dinky little sensor is not the answer to IQ.

As old and lame as the 5D is, it still produces excellent images if
you know what you're doing.

Larry
Click to expand...
--
Cal

Put a Canon to your head, You deserve it....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/
 
A 200mm focal length lens is a 200mm lens regardless of the sensor size. Just get a cropped field off view.

--
'You know he heard the drums of war
Each man knows what he's looking for'
'Sean Flynn' by The Clash
 
As the other 2 or 3 people before you noted.
 
If you correctly composing the shot in the viewfinder you should not need to do much if any cropping.

--
'You know he heard the drums of war
Each man knows what he's looking for'
'Sean Flynn' by The Clash
 
Funny thing is : everyone's right, the only difference being the point of view.

For some situations the 5D will blow away the 50D : when shallow DoF plays an important aesthetic role, when lens performance wide open matters (due to the much larger pixels).

For other situations the 50D is the obvious choice over the 5D: sports, telephoto and macro for example where the smaller sensor and faster body have a clear advantage.

Different people, different needs and values. Different tools for different jobs. I use both APSC and FF and I can't really compare them or draw a clear winner since they play on different fields of photography.

--
Dragos Jianu - http://www.dragosjianu.com
 
That's nice but all I have is the 500mm and I still have to crop with the 30D in most cases. I guess I could suggest to my better half that I need the 800 F5.6, but that might be pushing it....
--
Cal

Put a Canon to your head, You deserve it....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/
 
Yes, you said it - keep the photosites big and maximize S/N - just like the 5D and FF nikons. I just wish that this formula be applied to some top-end PS. The recent canon (G9 is it??) should be 6 Mp rather than the lunatic 12 million noisy sites.

I find it amazing that marketing dipsticks hold such sway over engineers and scientists. Tail certainly wags the dog, big time, these days...

(And this unfortunate fact goes right across both private and public enterprise, from education and health care to manufacturing and defense - hows your 2008 mission statement going??? [common denominator; MBA graduates]).

W Bill Wilson
 
...my son's girlfriend was searching the web for a MOBILE PHONE with a camera of more than 5 Mp - because 5 was "just barely adequate" for decent prints of any size!
 
Thats pathetic, upsetting, but probable.
Few know what they are doing now with digital photography
in the masses.
PhillipA said:
...my son's girlfriend was searching the web for a MOBILE PHONE with
a camera of more than 5 Mp - because 5 was "just barely adequate" for
decent prints of any size!
--
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top