Advice please

dmac120

At the moment I have a Canon 450d, I have just about enough saved to upgrade to the 5d mk II body only. If I do this I would only have one lens that I could use, 50mm 1.8.

Alternatively should I stick with my current camera and buy an L lens, eg: 24-70mm 2.8 L, and keep saving for the 5d as I want to move up to a full frame camera.

The money is burning a hole in my pocket, any advice is greatly appreciated.

jpb1974

Save up a few sheckles more and get the 5D MKII + 24-105 L package e.g.

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-Digital-24-105mm-lens-FREE-4-/120677037353?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item1c18e97529

Edit: 24-70 package:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-24-70mm-f2-8-FREE-4-GIG-/130477390035?pt=UK_CamerasPhoto_DigitalCameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item1e610ef8d3

oshead

I have the 5D MkII and it's a great camera. If you are not all hung up on full frame capability which is very nice, then you might consider the 7D. With the money you save going toward the 24-70 or the EF-S 17-55 f/2.8 IS.

5uspect

Where have you priced the 5D?
You may be able to get a good deal online for camera and an L lens with just a bit more saving. Many here have bought from Ian Kerr (Kerso on ebay). Ask him for a quote outside ebay, he can give you a better deal that way.

5D mkII and 24-70 would be an excellent combination.

gloobag

If it was me, I'd get the 5DmkII and start saving immediately for an L lens like the 24-70. I have both of these myself and I can attest to their awesomeness as a combo.

Being restricted to just the 50mm for a while will do wonders for your photography chops I'd say. And don't worry about the 50mm 1.8 not being up to scratch on the 5D. I often use my girlfriends 50 1.8 when I'm too lazy to bring my 1.4 and it's perfectly fine.

Promac

dmac120 wrote: »

At the moment I have a Canon 450d, I have just about enough saved to upgrade to the 5d mk II body only. If I do this I would only have one lens that I could use, 50mm 1.8.

Alternatively should I stick with my current camera and buy an L lens, eg: 24-70mm 2.8 L, and keep saving for the 5d as I want to move up to a full frame camera.

The money is burning a hole in my pocket, any advice is greatly appreciated.

I just did exactly what you're talking about last week. Was on a 450D, upgraded to a 5D mark II with only a 50mm 1.8 to use on it. I have to say - if you have the money and don't mind spending it - do it.

The 5D is lovely, even without L glass or the kit lens. The low-light capabilities and full-frame are just lovely when coming from a 450D. I'd much rather have this camera while saving for another lens than have a new lens on the old 450. And the image quality on the 50mm is great too - while it was a bit close on the cropped sensor, it's definitely a walkabout lens on the 5D.

dmac120

I am swaying more to the option of buying the camera and sticking it out with the 50mm for a few months. Thanks for all you help

jpb1974

I am swaying more to the option of buying the camera and sticking it out with the 50mm for a few months.

I love when people ask these questions... I'd say 90% of the time they've already made their mind up to go with the most lustful option i.e. "must have it now, can't wait any longer"

dmac120

Cheers Promac, you've made my mind up.

Promac

Absolutely! People just need to be told it's ok.

jpb1974

God forbid you could be dead in the morning... splurge now and never look back!!!!

dmac120

jpb1974 wrote: »

I love when people ask these questions... I'd say 90% of the time they've already made their mind up to go with the most lustful option i.e. "must have it now, can't wait any longer"

i know, i was defo going to have to buy something. just unsure of what combination.

kelly1

OP, if you don't mind me piggy-backing, can I ask people if there's much difference in image quality between cropped and FF assuming low ISO?

Promac

Yeah there is. For one thing at least you get to use a 50mm prime as a walkabout which is much better quality than a cheap zoom. Plus the bigger sensor means more data being used for the image and better DOF effects.

The 5D also handles ISO much better. "Low" ISO is anything up to 1600 but it's more than comfortable with anything up to 3200. The 450 would start showing unacceptable noise after 400 (or 200 if you're outdoors at night).

5uspect

kelly1 wrote: »

OP, if you don't mind me piggy-backing, can I ask people if there's much difference in image quality between cropped and FF assuming low ISO?

In terms of noise? If the photosites are bigger on the FF sensor then yes.
Of course a newer sensor with a good microlens array will do quite well against a old FF sensor.

Framing the exact same scene on a FF vs a crop means you have to use a 35mm lens on the crop body and a 50mm on the FF. With the same f-number set on both lenses you'll get shallower depth of field on the FF camera.

kelly1

Guys, thanks for the replies. I talking about the difference compared at low ISO e.g. 100-400. I realize the FF has greater dynamic range and lower noise. I thought there might be some other factor that might influence quality.

The larger photosites would I suppose be less prone to diffraction softening at small apertures.

I think the shallow DOF argument is a bit moot because for the same angle of view, the DOF is the same. If you have 30mm on a crop sensor and 50mm on a FF, the longer focal length on the cropped body will give shallower DOF. But I could be wrong!

5uspect

You're wrong.
You need the longer focal length on the full frame body.

So take a 5D and a 450D and pop on a 50mm @f/2.8. The lens will project the same image onto the sensor plane of both cameras and the depth of field will be the same.
The camera doesn't come into the equation yet. We could simply focus the image onto a piece of card.

However the 5D will see much more of the image circle than the 450D so the image from the 450D will be cropped accordingly. In order to get the same view you need a wider 35mm lens on the 450D (or a longer 85mm on the 5D). By changing the focal length you change the depth of field. For the same object distance wider lenses have deeper DoF than long lenses. So the 5D will give you a narrower DoF for the exact same scene with the longer lens.

By the way this is a great article on the subject:
http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html

kelly1

5uspect wrote: »

You're wrong.
You need the longer focal length on the full frame body.

So take a 5D and a 450D and pop on a 50mm @f/2.8. The lens will project the same image onto the sensor plane of both cameras and the depth of field will be the same.
The camera doesn't come into the equation yet. We could simply focus the image onto a piece of card.

However the 5D will see much more of the image circle than the 450D so the image from the 450D will be cropped accordingly. In order to get the same view you need a wider 35mm lens on the 450D (or a longer 85mm on the 5D). By changing the focal length you change the depth of field. For the same object distance wider lenses have deeper DoF than long lenses. So the 5D will give you a narrower DoF for the exact same scene with the longer lens.

By the way this is a great article on the subject:
http://toothwalker.org/optics/dof.html

You're right but I'm not wrong either because I said "for the same angle of view" :cool:

5uspect

But the angle of view isn't the same. Yes you'll get the same DoF with the lens set to the same focal length but you'll get a different image as a result from either camera.

woody_2000

Hi. I was just reading through some of the previous posts, and would offer my own take as follows...

All other things being equal (i.e. technology/quality, etc.) my assumption would be:

The quality of a sensor is based on the size/density of its photosites - i.e. larger photosites are more light sensitive, and consequently have greater dynamic range.

A 10MP APS-C "cropped sensor" would have photosites of approximately similar size/density to a 24MP "full frame" sensor, and therefore similar light sensitivity and dynamic range.

In addition to greater light sensitivity and dynamic range, larger photosites would have lower noise and better ISO performance due to their inherent ability to generate a stronger signal and therefore a greater signal to noise ratio (S/N ratio). This stronger signal is due to the larger photosites greater capacity to capture light, and hence create a stronger electrical signal. ISO being essentially signal amplification, in the case of digital image sensors.

Because of the above, a sensor with larger photosites would also have better low light capability due to its inherently greater light sensitivity and better ISO performance (and also with the need to crank up ISO being less of an issue with larger photosites). These factors would also allow for the use of higher shutter speeds in brighter light, where necessary.

Sensors with smaller and more densily packed photosites may, however, may be inherently more capable of resolving finer detail (especially under optimal conditions with good quality optics and lighting).

Size of photosites would also have an influence on diffraction, and depth of field, as there would be a consequential shift in aperture size used (along with other exposure settings) due to differing light sensitivity of different sensors.

All of the above is, of course, seperate from other factors such as matching lenses with sensors - and consequential field of view, depth of field, etc.



Regarding depth of field:

Actual depth of field appears to me to be mainly a function of the size of the aperture - i.e. the actual physical size of the aperture, and not just the f-number (which is a function of both aperture size and focal length). Apparent depth of field (what you actually see/percieve) appears to be a function of both f-number and focal lenght used (actual focal length, and not 35mm equivalent). Actual depth of field remains the same across focal lengths with the same actual physical sized aperture, but apparent depth of field (again, what you actually see/perceive) varies with f-number and focal length. This is because different focal lenghts have different fields of view (i.e. magnification), and therefore causing magnification of out of focus areas to vary. This would imply that longer focal lenghts magnify the out of focus blur to effectively create an apparent shallower depth of field, and shorter focal lengths reduce the blur to effectively create an apparent deeper depth of field.

Again, this is just my own take - fwiw.