Page 1 of 1

One more dicussion... 5DII, 5D, or 50D?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 10:32 pm
by zipperfoot
All right, one more discussion, and then I'll try and stop bugging you all. xP
(I like to do as much homework [including dicsussion] as possible before investing in anything, can you tell?)

Now, granted, I understand that there's a bit of a chasm between these cameras -- I know that the 5Dii has a full frame sensor, and is slightly more recent than the 50D and the original 5D.

Here's my situation:
I am a student, practicing and hoping to go into fashion photography. I plan on going to school for photography in the fall of this year. I am looking for a substantial upgrade from the camera I have now. High resolution is an absolute must. (Mind, I am not about to turn professional, I just need a little bit more than what I have now.) I have narrowed it down to either the 5DmkII or the 50D, or possibly the original 5D if I can buy new. I have read and seen good things about both. Now. A full-frame sensor would more than likely mean that I would have to get better glass to take full advantage of the sensor size. This is something I am taking into my budget consideration. The 50D has a cropped sensor and, although I am fully aware of the importance of having good lenses, I may not need to invest quite so much into the glass because the sensor is not as comprehensive. The 50D also does not have the movie mode, which is a good thing for me -- the less "extra" stuff, the better. And then, what about the original 5D? Would that be a worthy investment? (This way I could avoid the video-camera issue and the price would be lower, but I have heard the 5D had some issues that were corrected in the mkII).

What my basic questions come down to, I guess, is:
1. Do you think I need to pay the extra cost for the full-frame sensor, given my situation?
2. If anyone has ever owned and used the MkII or the 50D (preferably for something similar to what I do, such as portraiture and the like), could you recommend the 50D for its price?

Thanks a lot again, guys. Your help is, as always, greatly appreciated.

Re: One more dicussion... 5DII, 5D, or 50D?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:34 pm
by bclaypole
My suggestion is to buy the "lowest $$$" body, full frame or not, and put the extra $$ towards good glass. Any body you buy will be out of date next season - glass, lasts forever (well, almost).
My 2 cents..

Re: One more dicussion... 5DII, 5D, or 50D?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 11:55 pm
by zipperfoot
bclaypole wrote:My suggestion is to buy the "lowest $$$" body, full frame or not, and put the extra $$ towards good glass. Any body you buy will be out of date next season - glass, lasts forever (well, almost).
My 2 cents..

Good suggestion c:
It's pretty much what I'm thinking I'm probably going to do.

Re: One more dicussion... 5DII, 5D, or 50D?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2010 7:06 pm
by bug322
I am 4 years happy with my D50 and i have spend only in good glass
Every time i thought i had an another camera :)

Re: One more dicussion... 5DII, 5D, or 50D?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:43 am
by phodeaux
A friend of mine was in a similar situation last year. She ended up going with the 5DMII. She wasn't sure about video, but tried it and shot lots of runway and other industry scenes in HD video. She is considering making a video tutorial on modeling as she observed and videoed several sessions with new and experienced models. She also took some pretty good stills, and recently did a shoot for a small boutique which is displaying several of her prints.

Good luck with your chosen profession.

Re: One more dicussion... 5DII, 5D, or 50D?

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2010 3:59 am
by paul_k

to begin with, I have no experience with Canon DSLR's

But from what I've read (yes, on the Net) the 50D was a major dissapointment for many Canonites as it was mainly more pixels compared to the 40D, and some minor technical improvements, and worse noise performance then the 40D. The 7D seems the rave at the moment, as Canon seems to have solved the AF problems they had with many (also pro) bodies lately. But, (again) from what I there also seems an QC problem with (for a major brand) too many lenses as members of reputable sites as Fred Miranda and Sportshooter regularly complain of only getting a decent copy on a second, third or even more try.

With Nikon, I'm an over thirty year user, so I lived through the good and the bad times with them (lately times are good again for Nikon, but I do remember the super slow AF of the F4, and disastrous - sorry if I miss-spelled , no native English speaker- career of the D2H).

Reason I switched over to Nikon was initially that when I entered pro photography (like you as a student) they were number one (service, availibilty, rental etc), and shortly after that because Canon dropped the FD/FL mount for the EF one, rendering the older system (which I happened to own also) obsolete with the stroke of a pen .

With Nikon I still can (and do so) use my old lenses, yes also for fashion, on both my F2AS and D3. I guess I have been dumb lucky for many years as I still get my pictures in focus when I put my lenses eg 2/200 or 4/200-400, even the secondhand lenses ones like 4/600, on any camera body I own, ranging from a F2 or FE, through a F90X and F100, to a D70S, D2X and D3, without back or front focus or extensive micro adjustments needed. And I only have had one body die on me, a previously owned (second,third, or more, hand, don't know) D1H I bought when the model was already six years on the market and after that owned for two years myself.

Now for fashion, yes if you go editorial you need pixels (sometimes). But to start with you will have to learn take the pictures. And for that you need a camera which will do what you want it to do, whenever you want it to do, as IMHO fashion is all about shooting mood and atmosphere, and technique comes in later (and can be hired in if neccesary, as shown by the likes of Ritts, Meisel and Leibovitz).

So IMHO as you are starting, you need a body with fast AF (because models are supposed to move, otherwise use mannequins) great high ISO (because you can't always light things out) and great ergonomics (because you should concentrate on taking the picture, not how the camera works)

The D700 has all the above ( as you would expect me to say as a Nikon owner).

But don't write of the 5DII immediately.

It has more pixels, and video.

The ergonomics are something personal, although many of the ex-Canonites who returned to Nikon (admittedly many were former Nikon users) after the introduction of the D3/D700/D300 raved about the superior button driven ergonomics of Nikon vs the menu driven Canons.

AF of the 5DII seems a dissapointment though (same as the six year old predessesor 5D, not famed for use with and tracking fast moving subjects, or low light) and of course more pixels means bigger cards, more storage, faster computer.

So in the end I can't make an absolute statement which one of the two is better.

As a Nikon user, it's clear what I would choose, but it would be the addition to an existing set of equipment.

As a fashion and sportsphotographer, I also prefer Nikon, as it fits my style of shooting.

For you, as a novice, go the the shop and compare them with the bodies in your hands. But keep in mind what you will be using the for, i.e. what is your shooting style and what are the pictures you want to shoot. The technical detals can be bought or rented when it really starts to matter, first go out, take pictures and find out what you demands are based on that, not on specs of a camera.

My two cents


Re: One more dicussion... 5DII, 5D, or 50D?

PostPosted: Thu Feb 04, 2010 7:51 pm
by canon_boy
Its simple really good glass like L glass wins over any camera body upgrade, I agree buy the cheapest body and spend all the saving on good glass if you are on a budget like most of us.