5D versus 5D Mark II

Hello,

My question is as follows. I am shooting with a 20D. I have as 24-70L, 70-200L IS, a sigma 180 Macro and a sigma 70-300. I am think of upgrading to used 5d or a newer 5d Mark II. I quess the basic question is whether the 5d Mark II creates special problems with the lens I have and the relative advantages/disadvatages of the larger sensor. Are there other issues that I need to be aware of in comparing these two options. I am not a pro but reallly enjoy photgraphy and its my only hobby. I plan to travel a bit taking pcitures over the next few years. I think my computer can handle the larger file sizes so that is not an issue.

I was thinking of the 50D as a possible upgrade but the reviews seems very mixed.

Thanks,

Ken

the real question is: do you need 21mp? or is 13mp enough?

having both cameras, the 5D2 is a very definite step (a big step at that) up from the 5D1.. but both are great bodies.

on the 5D2, the 3" VGA screen is better than the screen on the 5D.. the access to higher ISO ratings is just amazing.. 4fps vs 3fps... faster focussing... video capability... sometimes one wants that...

bottom line... if you need the 21mp, go for the 5D2.. if not, stay with the 5D1.

the user interface is very good and intuitive on both.

coming from a crop body, you will notice the larger image in the VF, the louder slap of the mirror...

cheers,
S.
--
5DmkII**

--Thanks

Firstly, I don't find myself 21MP is a necessary at the moment, and I would only consider the 5D2 when I need that. Secondly, I don't need additional pixels from the 50D either.

My 12 MP 5D is serving me very well for landscape and still portrait work.

--
http://www.photos-of-the-year.com/contest2008/

I've got a 40D, 5D and 5D MkII. If I were looking to move from a 20D I'd most definitely go for the 5D MKI - second hand possibly - and spend the large difference in terms of the 5DMKII price on some tasty primes.

No 1 the difference between the 20D and 5D in terms of IQ is a big one. The diffwerence between your zooms and a good prime or two will give you something more again.

Thats not to say I regret buying the MkII.....

--
-- Terry
http://www.pbase.com/tkclarke

You're switching from crop to full frame, your 24-70 will serve you probably better on 5DII. You'll lose some long focal on the other side though (currently your 200mm is like a 320mm on 5D).

if you don't care about 21 Mp well... shoot sRaw You'll have a more detailed and way less noisy image than 20D does in any case, with more dynamic range.

You get a better body, a much much better LCD, videos, better AF (despite being more squeezed around the center). And if 200mm are too short... shoot Raw and then crop
Cheers
Luc
--
http://www.pbase.com/duca_v2

priceken1 said:

Hello,
My question is as follows. I am shooting with a 20D. I have as
24-70L, 70-200L IS, a sigma 180 Macro and a sigma 70-300. I am think
of upgrading to used 5d or a newer 5d Mark II. I quess the basic
question is whether the 5d Mark II creates special problems with the
lens I have and the relative advantages/disadvatages of the larger
sensor. Are there other issues that I need to be aware of in
comparing these two options. I am not a pro but reallly enjoy
photgraphy and its my only hobby. I plan to travel a bit taking
pcitures over the next few years. I think my computer can handle the
larger file sizes so that is not an issue.

I was thinking of the 50D as a possible upgrade but the reviews seems
very mixed.

Click to expand...

At print sizes that are the same as you produce with the 20D your lenses will look the same. If you make huge prints that really take advantage of the 21mp sensor you will start to see more optical issues because, well, you're printing huge.

Canon's bargain primes (50/1.4, 85/1.8, etc.) will have excellent resolution on the the 5DII if you don't use them at their widest aperture settings. The new Sigma 50/1.4 (if you get a good copy) should look incredible on a 21mp DSLR.

Sal

I misread the topic, well, a used 5D would be a much better value for the money, regarding image quality (much closer to 5DII than 20D). Compared to 5DII: more or less same AF, a bit more noisy especially compared to 5DII sRaw, less detailed but not so less, a way worse cyan-friendly display, a bit warmer colors and sliightly more exposed images out-of-the-camera (as far as I could see from the few comparisons - nothing you can't easily fix in PP anyway), no live view, no video, no sensor cleaning (and it's actually a dust-magnet), no focus micro adjustments, no high tone priority, no detailed information about battery charge, and few others.
Luc
--
http://www.pbase.com/duca_v2

I got a 50D last month. But the IQ wasn't so impressive coming from a 40D
Bought me last week a 5D Mark 2. WOW. all i can say is WOW everytime

i take a picture. The price difference is well worth it if you are serious about your photography. Honestly, if your just gonna upgrade to a 50D better not upgrade at all.

I shoot with the 20D and was considering the 50D having decided I didn't need the pixel count of the 5D11 and prefered not to spend that much on another body. . However yesterday I came across a 7 month old 5Dmk1 for just under the price of the 50D and decided that was a better choice for me. I haven't had chance to do much with it but I already know I'm happy with it to use along side the 20D.

I now have more and bigger pixels, less noise, much better viewfinder and better control of DOF. The crop body will still be used, mainly for birds where I'm always focal length challenged. Also in bright light if I'm shooting for web.

priceken1 said:

Hello,
My question is as follows. I am shooting with a 20D. I have as
24-70L, 70-200L IS, a sigma 180 Macro and a sigma 70-300. I am think
of upgrading to used 5d or a newer 5d Mark II. I quess the basic
question is whether the 5d Mark II creates special problems with the
lens I have and the relative advantages/disadvatages of the larger
sensor. Are there other issues that I need to be aware of in
comparing these two options. I am not a pro but reallly enjoy
photgraphy and its my only hobby. I plan to travel a bit taking
pcitures over the next few years. I think my computer can handle the
larger file sizes so that is not an issue.

I was thinking of the 50D as a possible upgrade but the reviews seems
very mixed.

Thanks,

Ken

Click to expand...

Sal Baker said:

priceken1 said:

Hello,
My question is as follows. I am shooting with a 20D. I have as
24-70L, 70-200L IS, a sigma 180 Macro and a sigma 70-300. I am think
of upgrading to used 5d or a newer 5d Mark II. I quess the basic
question is whether the 5d Mark II creates special problems with the
lens I have and the relative advantages/disadvatages of the larger
sensor. Are there other issues that I need to be aware of in
comparing these two options. I am not a pro but reallly enjoy
photgraphy and its my only hobby. I plan to travel a bit taking
pcitures over the next few years. I think my computer can handle the
larger file sizes so that is not an issue.

I was thinking of the 50D as a possible upgrade but the reviews seems
very mixed.

Click to expand...

At print sizes that are the same as you produce with the 20D your
lenses will look the same.

Click to expand...

Maybe on 4x6, but with a decent printer, you will still notice a difference. Of course, then you add in the cropping ability, and you certainly make the same size prints much better.

Sal Baker said:

If you make huge prints that really take
advantage of the 21mp sensor you will start to see more optical
issues because, well, you're printing huge.

Click to expand...

Even a simple 11x14 or 13x19 will really show the advantage of the extra resolution, again not counting for cropping (which you generally have to do some of...)

Anyway OP, if you can afford it, get the best you can (in this case, the 5D II). The 5D is good, but unless you can get it really cheap, I think you would be better off buying new (warranty), and having something that will last you longer than the old 5D..

--
My ever-growing flickr gallery:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dsbphotography

priceken1 said:

Hello,
My question is as follows. I am shooting with a 20D. I have as
24-70L, 70-200L IS, a sigma 180 Macro and a sigma 70-300. I am think
of upgrading to used 5d or a newer 5d Mark II.

Click to expand...

Why not a new 5D?

priceken1 said:

I quess the basic
question is whether the 5d Mark II creates special problems with the
lens I have and the relative advantages/disadvatages of the larger
sensor.

Click to expand...

There is no disadvantage to the larger sensor. It will give you sharper images than the 20D. However, the 20D is capable of 5 fps. The 5D only 3 fps and the 5DMKII is 3.9 fps. So the 20D is slightly better than either shooting sports and action, not because of the longer reach, but because of the slightly faster frame rate.

priceken1 said:

Are there other issues that I need to be aware of in
comparing these two options. I am not a pro but reallly enjoy
photgraphy and its my only hobby. I plan to travel a bit taking
pcitures over the next few years. I think my computer can handle the
larger file sizes so that is not an issue.
I was thinking of the 50D as a possible upgrade but the reviews seems
very mixed.

Thanks,

Ken

Click to expand...

The 50D is a bit higher in resolution than the 20D, slightly faster, with a bigge buffer, so it is better for sports and action than either the 20D or the 5D/5DMKII. If you are mostly into taking travel pictures and don't need bursts of 10-20 frames at a time, then the 5D or 5DMKII would be the better camera.

The 5D is cheaper, has clean high ISO and it is cheaper to buy a replacement battery for it. The 5DMKII has video, which may come in handy when you travel. As there may be situations that a video tells the story better than a series of photos. The 5DMKII is newer and better sealed against moisture and dust and it has more pixels, which comes in handy when taking macro photos. The 20D is limited by diffraction to 7 mp resolution at f/11. Full frame DSLR cameras are limited to 16mp resolution at f/11 by diffraction. The 5D, with only 12mp, cannot take advantage of the 16mp available from the lens, but the 5DMKII can. So, if cost is not a problem, the 5DMKII appears to be the better camera overall for your intended uses.

I had a 40D and move up to a 50D and I think that there was a huge improvement in IQ. The crop capability is amazing. The files are pretty big at 15 megapixels so be prepared for the 21 if you go that way! The only issue I have with the 50D is I could not get a great super macro. The small pixels packed tightly may make it more prone to camera shake at the super macro level I think. Also with a smaller sensor as you increase the size it gets worse. I do know that my 30D took better macros. I picked up a 5D demo on the weekend so now I have the best of both worlds. 50D for birding, sports, airshows, light travel and the 5D for landscapes/travel, portraits and macros. The 5D is amazing for the super Macros. The only thing I'm going to miss is the auto sensor cleaning on the 5D. So it all depends on what you shoot most often. The 5D is not a great birding/action/airshow camera. 40/50D are better for fast focus.

50D with 70-200L F4 with Canon 1.4 converter - focal point = 280





5D taken with MP-E 65. There are couple of dust spots. I'm just starting out with this and the place I bought it at will pay for the sensor cleaning.



--
I have made my decision. Don't confuse me with the facts.

Maybe I'm confused but I have been reading and getting involved quite a bit at DPR to learn more about the science/physics of light, glass ext. I was under the impression the sensor had nothing to do with diffraction. The lens causes diffraction and depending on the sensor resolution it will determine how much more it shows. Maybe I misunderstood and got it wrong.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=30301695
--
I have made my decision. Don't confuse me with the facts.

I just want to echo the sentiment that megapixels are not the only thing to consider between the 2-- right now I'm shooting with sRaw on the 5dII, which is actually fewer MP than the 5d.

I really hated how my old 5d was a dust magnet (had a large spot in my images within a week or 2 of shooting with the 5d-- and it was my first dSLR and I was not equipped on that trip to remove dust from the camera. Really annoying.) In contrast, I've had no issues with dust in the months of use I gave my 40d-- the dust removal system seems to help a ton. So the mere addition of this to the 5d is a big bonus to me.

Throw in live view, video (this one is controversial, some people don't care for it, others are really excited about it-- as a creative, I see it as one more tool to use), increased ISO range w/ auto ISO (and better low-light performance, IMO, even though the 5d is still great).

Ultimately the 5d II is what it sounds like, and what I was waiting for: an updated 5d, rather than an entirely new camera. I'm more than excited about how this thing does in low light compared to my 40d, that was one of the things that convinced me to pull the trigger on a 5d II early.

As others have said-- both cameras will be a significant step forward in terms of IQ. The price difference between a used 5d and a new 5d II is significant enough that you'll have to decide what your wants really are (though it's nice, to me, that the 5dII's starting retail is less than what I paid for the 5d 2 1/2 years ago).

Luciano Morpurgo said:

You're switching from crop to full frame, your 24-70 will serve you
probably better on 5DII. You'll lose some long focal on the other
side though (currently your 200mm is like a 320mm on 5D).
if you don't care about 21 Mp well... shoot sRaw You'll have a
more detailed and way less noisy image than 20D does in any case,
with more dynamic range.
You get a better body, a much much better LCD, videos, better AF
(despite being more squeezed around the center). And if 200mm are too
short... shoot Raw and then crop
Cheers
Luc
--
http://www.pbase.com/duca_v2

Click to expand...

That's what I got out of the previous post-- simply that the 5d doesn't have enough MP to take full advantage of what the lens can capture at f/11. Perhaps the difference when it comes to sensors is simply the crop / magnification factor on the xxd body.

Zee Char said:

Maybe I'm confused but I have been reading and getting involved quite
a bit at DPR to learn more about the science/physics of light, glass
ext. I was under the impression the sensor had nothing to do with
diffraction. The lens causes diffraction and depending on the sensor
resolution it will determine how much more it shows. Maybe I
misunderstood and got it wrong.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=30301695
--
I have made my decision. Don't confuse me with the facts.

Click to expand...