We actually have a nice photo shop here in Greenville, NC but they typically are WAY, WAY overpriced. I just called them though and they are selling the body for $2699 and they have it in stock. I was quite surprised but they said on the high end cameras they dont mark them up as much. So I might just look at getting one here.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Advice on a Canon 5D Mark II
- Thread starter joro
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We actually have a nice photo shop here in Greenville, NC but they typically are WAY, WAY overpriced. I just called them though and they are selling the body for $2699 and they have it in stock. I was quite surprised but they said on the high end cameras they dont mark them up as much. So I might just look at getting one here.
This is a no brainer really since the camera has 1080P video you could always take a few videos during some of the weddings "just to play around with" and when you're finally ready take some gorgeous video that you can sell to the bride and groom for extra (at later weddings when you're comfortable shooting/editing/etc with video). As far as the full frame the only difference I've seen is the increase in DOF (aka extra bokah) from using a 1.0x vs 1.3x or even 1.6x.
To be honest if you can spend the 2,700 definitely buy it since the ROI on the equipment will pay for itself after a few weddings, not to mention if you start offering video shot with the same L glass you'll more then make up for it in the future.
Not at the moment, there appears to be a lot of Canon lenses on Amazon that are going in and out of stock pretty quickly at the moment. Maybe holding less stock due to slower sales?
The Economy...
It's not like people are going out every year to buy a new dSLR or pro lenses to replace an "outdated" one...
Crop factor has nothing to do with bokeh, period. Bokeh only depends on focal length and aperture, all the sensor does is record the image produced by the lens.
Sure, field of vision of a 30mm lens attached to a 1.6x crop sensor is *equivalent* to field of vision of a 48mm lens attached to a full frame sensor, but still optical qualities do not change. I mean that a 30mm lens is always a 30mm lens whether you use it with a full-framer or a crop body. It is the lens that determines what kind of a picture you are trying to capture, not the body.
This is not to start a flame, just to correct a misunderstanding.
first, "bokeh" is a lens quality and is independent of the camera format. second, depth of field is influenced by sensor size. DoF is governed by subject-camera distance, f-stop, focal length, some standard for the circle of confusion, viewing distance, and enlargement. all else held equal, the larger format has the larger DoF because it is enlarged less.
HOWEVER, no one takes pictures with different formats with the exact same settings, so it becomes pointless to think about. just know that larger formats yield less DoF since you need a longer lens or shorter distance for the same framing.
true, the smaller DoF is the most apparent difference (and highly desireable for many photographers). the extra detail captured by the larger sensor is only readily apparent in large prints.
True.. but i saw many times people saying they had just bought (model) and then when (new diff model) came out they were jumping to upgrade to the newest latest greatest thing. Like the OP, lots of people got the 50D and then a month or so later they were buying the 5DmkII, though unlike our OP it seems like he has waited a bit longer and has more use for it
Alright so now that I've gotten some feedback from you all, I'm worried I'm paying a heavy premium on the 5D II because it has the video capability which while nice, is not something I am interested in paying for. The main advantage, as I see it relates back to the full frame vs. 1.6x crop and I'm just not convinced at this point that full frame is that much better than a 1.6x crop. I need a second body for posteriority sake and I was originally thinking I would use the 50D as the back up and get the 5D II as the primary; however, now I'm contemplating getting another 50D - which can be had for around $1,000 and then invest in another L lens. What do you all think about that?
If you have zero use for the video functionality, and you do not believe that the 5DmkII will provide you with any upgrade in quality of photo nor lead to a higher sales price for your work, or more sales of your work, then a 2nd 50D is a great way to go. Two identical cameras, completely interchagable accessories, both with identical menus etc. Simplifies your life and everything is second nature when doing the photo shoot.
If you think you can maybe make just a bit more money with the 5DmkII then toss a coin.
If you think you can make a lot more money with the 5DmkII then buy it and work it to your advantage.
In the end, it isn't what camera you have, it is what you produce with it that matters. Ok, so maybe if you show up to my wedding with a stack of Kodak single use film cameras then I might be in a panic, but 50D or 5DmkII should not cause concern.
I would buy the 5D II, and use the 50D as backup. I will wait a couple of years before I buy a 5D II, but the video feature isn't something I need or want.
I understand the ISO is a big factor in the full frame; however, the 50D has had solid performance in high ISO situations since I got it because of the L lenses which are all 2.8 or lower. So I'm still not sold on it being a worthwhile investment for the features and benefits it offers in comparison to my current 50D. Plus both the 50D and the 5D II are built in a similar fashion and have similar features, also both have the new DIGIC processor in it.
well, an extra stop or two of clean ISOs can't hurt, right? gives you more DoF control in low light, or a faster shutter.
again, DIGIC is irrelevant.
if you want similar button placement, the 40D also fits the bill...save yourself a few hundred that way.
I don't claim to be a DIGIC experts by any means but according to Canon the DIGIC IV is much more advanced than the DIGIC III in terms of processing speed, noise reduction, and being able to shoot at higher ISOs.
Canon Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=jeNRKvX1kLo
Canon can say whatever it wants. what matters is real-world performance, and in the real world, DIGIC is only remotely relevant if you shoot in Jpeg.
the real difference between the 50D/DIGIC IV and 40D/III is this:
microadjustment
native ISO 3200 (not that it matters, since the 50D has just as much noise and still loses one stop from ISO 1600)
920,000-dot rear LCD
UDMA support
none are DIGIC-related, to my knowledge, except for maybe the last one. DIGIC is primarily for shoving stuff in the memory card (note that the FPS and buffer are roughly the same despite larger files in the 50D) and processing Jpegs (picture styles, highlight-tone priority, vignetting correction, etc.)
uh, i think there is some misunderstandings here. A 10-22mm lens on, say, a AP-C Canon, for example, is the same Focal length as a 16-35mm on a FF. I am re-reading what you posted, and is sounds as if you are saying the crop factor is actually in the lens, no? That is why there are wider focal lengths for EF-S lenses than on regular L lenses. they don't make anything wider (sigma 12-24, but not from Canon brand) than a 16-35mm that will mount on any EOS body.
DiG!C are the processors, well in the case of the IDSMKIII, as it has dual DiG!CS, for the cameras.
DiG!C has everything to do with shooting RAW, buffer/transfer speeds, ISO performance. Here is a good read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIGIC
went through it, doesn't mention anything (or i missed it) about RAW.
to take one portion:
RAW goes through minimal processing - an in-camera jpeg and white balance, and probably some other minor things. most of the above-mentioned processing is for jpegs. i'm also gonna assume this is part of how the 50D can cram 15MP images into a memory card at nearly the same rate as a 40D.
this is Jpeg-only.
this just means it can handle the larger, 14-bit and 15MP files as well as DIGIC III did with 40D files.
somewhere before that, it mentions white balance, which was the only part that directly influences RAW files.
Compared to the orignal 5D, or 5DmkII, your 50D sucks in terms of high ISO performance.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/en...305|0/(onglet)/0/(brand)/Canon/(brand2)/Canon
And as Toxic has pointed out, DIGIC is largely irrelivant if you're shooting RAW, where the additional processing power isn't needed, because only minimal processing is done in camera (hence the idea behind shooting RAW).
The other huge advantage of the 5DmkII is the much much much larger viewfinder. This isn't something most people thing about, but in comparison the viewfinder on the 40/50D is tiny, dim, and dull. It's much easier to compose and focus on a full frame body with a larger and fuller viewfinder.
No, the crop factor is in the sensor. But the lens and the body are two different things and many people are very confused about this.
First of all, a lens always has its own native focal length. This optical feature does not change whether one uses full frame sensor or a crop sensor. A 200mm lens is a 200mm lens optically, whether the FIELD OF VISION was 200mm (full-framer) or 320mm (cropper).
It means that if you shoot 200mm with a cropper, it LOOKS LIKE you have similar framing than if you shot 320mm with a full-framer. FRAMING however is only what you see from the rear of your camera. It is very different than what the lens produces for the body. Shooting with 200mm optics and 320mm optics is like comparing apples to oranges as the saying goes.
Now if you shoot 200mm with a cropper and 200mm with a full-framer, then the image produced by the lens is identical for both sensors. If the image produced by the lens is identical, then, why it looks different when you've shot the pics? The cropper only records the center part of the image whilst full-framer records the whole image. That is why APS-sized sensors are called "crop" sensors, because in effect they can only record part of the image.
My point was that given exactly same optics, two bodies produce same picture qualities. You just need to compare the center part of the full-frame image to the full frame of an already cropped image. That comparison shows that identical optics produce identical pictures.
FRAMING is another story. If you compare two identical framing, you are comparing it wrong. That is because even though using 30mm lens on a crop body it LOOKS LIKE you're shooting 48mm, you're still using 30mm optics that have features of a 30mm lens. Thus, to repeat myself, crop body only changes framing and optical qualities still define how the picture is produced.
Lens rules, not the sensor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor
i see what you are saying, and i can see how it is confusing for people. I am even kinda confused.
Let's say i have a SLR with a 1.6x factor. You have a FF sensor, or even a film camera (same difference). I have a 600mm lens, as do you. We are rich, I know. Now, we are shooting wildlife, for National Geographic, while we are at it. The lens/body combo I have will have a longer reach than you will. Yes, it is cropped in camera, no? I have read lots of stories where wildlife photogs sometimes will prefer the crop factor of the xxD series over the 1D series, as it is crop 1.3, thus having more "reach". I think we are talking about the same thing, but you are scientifically saying the same thing i am. A 50D "crop" out the edges of a scene, where as the 5D wont. Just look at the diagram on the right side of the link
i see what you are saying, and i can see how it is confusing for people. I am even kinda confused.
Let's say i have a SLR with a 1.6x factor. You have a FF sensor, or even a film camera (same difference). I have a 600mm lens, as do you. We are rich, I know. Now, we are shooting wildlife, for National Geographic, while we are at it. The lens/body combo I have will have a longer reach than you will. Yes, it is cropped in camera, no? I have read lots of stories where wildlife photogs sometimes will prefer the crop factor of the xxD series over the 1D series, as it is crop 1.3, thus having more "reach". I think we are talking about the same thing, but you are scientifically saying the same thing i am. A 50D "crop" out the edges of a scene, where as the 5D wont. Just look at the diagram on the right side of the link
1) You have a 600mm lens on crop body,
2) I have a 600mm lens on a full-framer,
WE BOTH GET IDENTICAL PICTURE WITH SAME REACH !!
It's just that my pic has more extra stuff recorded on the sides. But once I crop my pic on PhotoShop to match your framing, our pics are identical in optical quality. It's just that your body crops the image automatically, my body records the full frame (thus needing to crop later to match your framing).
2) I have a 600mm lens on a full-framer,
WE BOTH GET IDENTICAL PICTURE WITH SAME REACH !!
It's just that my pic has more extra stuff recorded on the sides. But once I crop my pic on PhotoShop to match your framing, our pics are identical in optical quality. It's just that your body crops the image automatically, my body records the full frame (thus needing to crop later to match your framing).
Would this make things less confusing?
Think of the full frame having the image produced by the lens of your choice. This is what the lens produces for every compatible body. Depending on sensor size, you can clearly see what gets RECORDED, iow. what you see on your camera once you've taken the pic.
But still, optical qualities do not change whether you record the full frame or just a portion of it.
Think of the full frame having the image produced by the lens of your choice. This is what the lens produces for every compatible body. Depending on sensor size, you can clearly see what gets RECORDED, iow. what you see on your camera once you've taken the pic.
But still, optical qualities do not change whether you record the full frame or just a portion of it.
Attachments
I think you're both misusing the term bokeh, which is supposed to be about the rendering of out of focus specular highlights, and while FL and aperture have some effect, it's more about the number of blades in the aperture and their shape which affect the out of focus specular highlights, so while crop factor indeed has nothing to do with bokeh, it's not just focal length and aperture, it's aperture design and spherical aberration correction more than anything.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bokeh
Almost- in general unless I'm shooting with a low-resolution camera and you're shooting with an ultra-high resolution camera, your crop will have less information than mine and mine will have more noise than yours, so the images aren't quite identical, so the optical quality isn't really the same.
For instance, if you have a D700, your crop will have 5.1MP of information, while my D2x will have 12.4MP of information, so (assuming lenses which out-resolve the sensor) my crop will have more information and more detail, but the well depth of the sensels will be smaller on my camera, so there'll be more amplification giving more noise.
With something like the D3x, the crop becomes closer and the differences more negligible, but you have to be on an ultra-high resolution body to close the gap.