It's finally time for me to make the move to full-frame, after about 5 years of crop-sensor photography (300D, then 400D). I was lusting after a 7D, and was about to plurge the cash, when a brief spell of sobriety led me to examine my rationale. I mostly shoot landscape and portrait - so the 7D would have been the wrong choice. A better move would be to full-frame, and a used 5D mk1 or new 5D mk2 conundrum.
The price difference is about £1k - a hell of a lot to me. I can get a used, but well treated mk1 for about £800, whilst the mk2 is closer to £1700. My current lens setup (don't laugh too hard) is:
Sigma 10-20mm, Canon 17-85mm IS (the worst lens I've ever owned, inc. the orignal 18-55mm), Canon 70-200 f4L, nifty-fifty.
What I'd like to know is if the mk2 is worth the huge price difference to someone who:
1) isn't interested in video
2) has never used LiveView, so doesn't know what they're missing
3) has never shot with over 10MP
4) really needs to buy some glass (17-40 first, then 24-105 when I have enough magic beans)
Cleaning a sensor doesn't bother me - I work in a lab, so I just use a jet of argon and a high-vacuum line to clean them. But is the older LCD any worse than that of my 400D?
You can't go wrong with the 5D Classic, 12.7mp. It'll leave you more "magic beans", leaving you a touch closer to getting the 24-105 a little sooner, too. I love that lens...Starting with the 17-40 is a pretty good choice also, you already have the Portrait zoom with the 70-200. And your standard is covered also.
Pretty passionate about the disdain for the 17-85...Even the original 18-55 was better in my mind also. Good luck and Good Decision....
Seeing your flickr's the 5D is a PERFECT fit in your arsenal.
Oh and why would we laugh? My current lens setup (don't laugh too hard) is:
Sigma 10-20mm, Canon 17-85mm IS (the worst lens I've ever owned, inc. the orignal 18-55mm), Canon 70-200 f4L, nifty-fifty.
PDoc: The 5D was and still is a wonderful camera. Given your need for glass, buying an original 5D plus lens(es) seems the best route. I'm still very happy with my 5D, which I occasionally shoot alongside a 1DsMKIII. I'm sure the 5DII has more to offer, but as you point out, you won't miss most of it because you've never had it. Get a 5D and enjoy!
Agree with the others, the 5D is a great camera, and adding that extra £1k in glass will definitely help your photography more than putting it into the 5DII (especially when you don't want/need video or live view).
My response to this question has been and still is: "If you can afford the 5D2 it offers some very useful features that are not limited to just the greater number of photosites, including somewhat better low light performance and the live view feature, etc. On the other hand, if you are cost-constrained, the 5D was and is a fine camera and it will produce excellent images."
Dan
(I have both)
PDoc wrote:
Hi folks,
It's finally time for me to make the move to full-frame, after about 5 years of crop-sensor photography (300D, then 400D). I was lusting after a 7D, and was about to plurge the cash, when a brief spell of sobriety led me to examine my rationale. I mostly shoot landscape and portrait - so the 7D would have been the wrong choice. A better move would be to full-frame, and a used 5D mk1 or new 5D mk2 conundrum.
The price difference is about £1k - a hell of a lot to me. I can get a used, but well treated mk1 for about £800, whilst the mk2 is closer to £1700. My current lens setup (don't laugh too hard) is:
Sigma 10-20mm, Canon 17-85mm IS (the worst lens I've ever owned, inc. the orignal 18-55mm), Canon 70-200 f4L, nifty-fifty.
What I'd like to know is if the mk2 is worth the huge price difference to someone who:
1) isn't interested in video
2) has never used LiveView, so doesn't know what they're missing
3) has never shot with over 10MP
4) really needs to buy some glass (17-40 first, then 24-105 when I have enough magic beans)
Cleaning a sensor doesn't bother me - I work in a lab, so I just use a jet of argon and a high-vacuum line to clean them. But is the older LCD any worse than that of my 400D?
5D Classic is awesome, you save $1000 which can go to an L glass.
I'm in the same boat as you, I don't need video and I don't use Live View. I think the only big (not really) advantage the 5D2 gives is the LCD, 3 inch at 920,000 pixels is really about 10 times better than the 5D1's.
I got 5D classic...I own 50D...and don't miss that high-res LCD on 5D..just get used to.After I got 5D ..50D will find some use only for macro ( have EF-s 60mm).
So get 5D+L glass, and start save $$$ for 5DIII..which will be amazing I guess.
Thanks for the advice, folks. I'll be buying a 5d mk1 in the next month or so.
BTW, the reason I said 'My current lens setup (don't laugh too hard) is:' is all down to that damned 17-85. I knew when I bought it that a 17-55 would have been far better, but the price difference was too high. I should have stuck with the 18-55 IS I had at the time, and saved further.
The annoying thing about it is that from a specifications POV, it's pretty nice - decent range, IS, FTM, and not ridiculously slow. However, from an IQ perspective, it's like using a very fancy milk-bottle. I might not sell it - I might keep it just so I can stamp on it repeatedly
Sexymaru wrote:
.... I think the only big (not really) advantage the 5D2 gives is the LCD, 3 inch at 920,000 pixels is really about 10 times better than the 5D1's.
The 5D Mark II is a better camera in nearly every respect compared to the 5D Mark 1, which I owned and happily used for pro and personal work for several years.
The Mark II improves upon the Mark 1 in the areas of color accuracy (Mark II colors are significantly more accurate), dynamic range, high ISO performance, color depth, tone curves, resolution (obviously), overall handling and metering. The improved metering of the Mark II came as a surprise, since it's not much discussed in either the reviews or these forums. But the fact remains, the Mark II's metering ... while still not of Nikon caliber ... is a definite step forward compared to the Canon Mark 1. HD Video, Auto Sensor Cleaning and Live View are of little significance compared to the other aspects of the Mark II ... although I do appreciate Live View when I use my Nikon manual focus lenses.
You probably already know this but, just to make sure, you do know that damned 17-85 is not going to work on the 5D.
I don't even think it will mount.
I've had both the 5D and 5D2, both create wonderful images. With the money you save getting the 5D you can put that towards the 24-70 F2.8L or 24 - 105 F4L.
I've got both and just feel the need to say, IMO the 5D was and is a great camera, but the 5DII *IS* better in almost every way (except the focusing system)
The 5DII has liveview, 14 bit RAW files, more meg, more FPS, sensor cleaning, much nicer LCD screen, My menu, Video if you want it, some weatherproofing etc etc.
It's a significant upgrade and placed next to the 5D does feel considerbly more modern in operation (to me).
dhphoto wrote:
I've got both and just feel the need to say, IMO the 5D was and is a great camera, but the 5DII *IS* better in almost every way (except the focusing system)
The 5DII has liveview, 14 bit RAW files, more meg, more FPS, sensor cleaning, much nicer LCD screen, My menu, Video if you want it, some weatherproofing etc etc.
It's a significant upgrade and placed next to the 5D does feel considerbly more modern in operation (to me).
Just saying.
David
+1.
The MK2 was a significant upgrade from the original 5D. The LCD is so nice and combined with LiveView makes it easy to focus on the tiniest detail. The video is actually pretty useful and you can grab still images in the middle of shooting video.
I just got my 5D2 (started with the 450D) for weddings and portraits. I love it so much, it's almost weird...
Anyways, for you, I'd say the 5D1 is your best camera. But then I went to Flickr, and saw that you shot some wedding stuff. Well, if you are serious about weddings, then I'd say get the 5D2 for it's high ISO performance... But, if no weddings, then it's all 5D1 for me.
