 Robert Harrison |
the new canon eos 50d or the old eos 5d my question is simple, would you go for the new canon eos 50d, better technology, smaller sensor,or the canon eos 5d (old),bigger sensor, a huge debate for me, please can somebody lend me a hand in some advice. ??
|
|
|
|
||
|
doug Nelson |
If you like to shoot wide (24mm or 20mm equivalent), then you'd better go with the full frame sensor. If manual focus, especially using manual lenses via adaptors, is important to you, go with the 5D. If you really like prime (non-zoom) lenses, the 5D gives you full coverage, ie. a 28 really is a 28 in angle of coverage. All this applies to me, but I can't justify the 5D's price, as I am a hobbyist. If none of this applies, especially if you like to shoot sports, then the smaller sensor is fine. I am considering looking for a good deal on a 40D.
|
|
|
|
||
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
Robert, I'm asking the same questions to myself...I have the Canon 30D and am hesitant to purchase a used 5d (old). But I like the extra megapixels and the full frame. So, my other options are the 50D or the 5d (new). But the 5d (new) is bigger bucks and the files are huge...so that might be a little too much...which leads me back to 50D versus old Mark 5d. I will be curious if the prices for a new 5d (old) comes down..
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
About angle of view and sensor size: The full size sensor we all know and love measures 24mm height by 36mm length. It replicates the 35mm film frame manufactured in 1924 as the Leica camera made by E. Leitz. 35mm film was plentiful, a spin-off from the motion picture industry. The motion picture frame measured 18mm height by 24mm wide. Mr. O Barnack, chief Leitz engineer envisioned his camera would be used mainly in the horizontal position whereas the motion picture camera was always vertical. Thus with the format tuned on its side he was able to double the 18mm height, making the frame width 36mm. The other dimension, the 24mm width became the height as it was unalterable because it nestled between the sprocket holes at the film’s left and right edges. Now frame size is a result of technology. In the old days, making an enlargement was impracticable so the film had to be big. Most of the old time famous photographers used 8 inch by 10 film. As film improved as to resolution, these old masters switched to 5 x 7 and then to 4 x 5. When film got really good the same images could be achieved on 35mm film. About 10 years ago a big push was on to switch us all to 24mm film and an new hybrid camera loaded with chip logic. This movement failed, not because of the film but because of unanticipated technological advances incorporate into the praiseworthy 35mm camera bodies. Today the digital chip is shrinking because technology marches on. I predict tiny chips and tiny cameras. The current format ratio is exactly the counterpart of a 4x6 print or 8x12 etc. the ratio is 1:1.5 i.e. the length is 1.5 times the height. I predict the future camera format will be 16:9 i.e. the same ratio as the HDTV screen ( the length is 1.8 times the height. Prints will be 4x7 or 5x9 or 8x14 etc. Now the focal length lens we mount on any camera is based on the diagonal measure of the format size. The venerable 35mm (24x36) has a diagonal of 43.3mm. Thus the ‘normal’ lens for this format is 43mm. If mounted, the combination provides an angle of view of 53°. Most often the 35mm is mounted with a 50mm because this focal length is more convenient. Such a combination yields a smaller angle of view equal to 47° other focal lengths 20mm = 95° 24mm = 84° 28mm = 75° 35mm = 63° Now the 50D sports a smaller sensor. It measures 14.9mm by 22.3mm the diagonal = 26.82. So the sensor is smaller, so what? A smaller sensor is more likely to show noise (digital equivalent of grain). Now likely software inside the camera can mitigate this somewhat. I continue to believe sensor size will shrink as time goes by. Anyway comparing the diagonal of the 35mm full frame to the diagonal of the 50D thus 43.3 ÷ 26.82 = 1.6. That’s the magic comparer or the so called crop factor. How to use: You love the effect of the 20mm on a 35mm with its 95° angle of view. Now divide 20mm by 1.6 = 12.5. Mount a 12.5mm on the 50D and you get the same angle of view. The answer, by way of thinking, is move forward, get the 50D. Alan Marcus (marginal technical gobbledygook)
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Ken Smith Contact Ken Smith Ken Smith's Gallery |
Thanks Alan. Yes, the full frame definitely reduces the "zoom" effect. But I suspect there are pros/cons to this as well. Thanks for your advice on the 50D!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Robert Harrison |
hey hey guys, sorry I am late on my own question, but we on different time zones here....Ken, I can't believe it, I am in exectly the same predicament. Ok, so I have the 30d also looking to upgrade, then this bella 50d slaps me in the face. was always looking to go for the 5d(old) ..as far as a price range, I can only talk in percentage and ratio, europe style. but the new 50d is defenetly worth the price in consideration to the rest of the ranges. another thing to consider is that for a camera of such high quality, lower the price, compared to the 5d old, you can afford to get yourself a good lense to go, also consider that if you have a battery grip for the 30d it is compatible with the 50d, flashes, equipment etc etc, it is another whole level I think.... but my gut tells me to go with Alan. I think the question is not a choice of the two cameras but a choice of jumping to another level...also the new 5d is not bad in terms of pricing compared to that of the old, almost a third more..!! not bad at all for what it offers. I am thinking to go for the 50d, but work with that hard and fast and then make the move in a short time to the new 5d....when the pocket gets full..!! otherwise guys, thanks so much for all your help and advise, Alan and Ken, much appreciated and best of luck to you both...!! ciao ciao
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
We fit lens based on the diagonal measure: What you are talking about is a mismatch! Let’s say you are a student attending a lecture series on photography in the auditorium. The professor makes use of a slide projector and screen. Today the class discovers that the accustomed screen has been borrowed by the history department. Students quickly procure a substitute screen but it’s smaller. Its use crops out all sides of the projected image i.e. the screen is a misfit. This error can be remedied by a. changing out the projector lens b. readjusting screen to projector distance. This is exactly the problem you describe as the ‘zoom’ effect. Why all the sentimentality regarding 35mm camera lenses? The 35mm film format 24mm by 36mm has be around since 1924, some 84 years. It was ahead of its time. It took till the latter part of the 20th century before film was truly up to the task. Early 35mm cameras were cumbersome as to focusing and composing. The SLR design of the middle 1950’s solved these two main issues. Remaining was the fact that enlargements were usually substandard thus professional often embraced larger formats. Additionally the SLR requires a complicated mirror movement mechanism that can induces vibration that blurs. SLR requires a complicated 5-sided prism arrangement in the viewfinder optical path otherwise the view upside down and reversed left to right. The mirror is directly in front of the lens-to-film optical path. Short lenses (wide-angles) must have elongated back throw to cause them be seated forward so they don’t interfere with the mirror swing. The sentimentality is due to the fact that this design proliferated and the market is flooded with copious lenses designed for the 35mm. These lenses will work if adapters are available. However, keep in mind that modern designs often depend on communications lens-to-body via mechanical or more likely, electric signals. My advise it, the past points the way, the present features new technology that blows away the past. Move forward! Modern digitals will ditch the SLR design in favor of an electronic viewfinder. Alan Marcus (marginal technical gobbledygook)
|
|
|
|
||
|
Scott McCord |
Robert, Due to hiking accident with my 40D, I found myself having to quickly replace a camera. I was having the same debate as you are. I had decided before my purchase that I would most likely get the 50D due to Canon's touted improvement in noise reduction at high ISOs. Then I picked up the 50D and shot it at the store at ISO 3200 in RAW. That sealed the deal. I was able to shoot at 5.6 at 125sec. with no flash in a dimly lit store and the photos turned out perfectly exposed. And at 100%, I just could not notice much noise at all. And I also noticed that the 50D AWB is much more accurate than the 40D. The colors really came out natural in AWB under tungsten lights. And the tungsten setting just improved the photo more. And, what further impresses me is that I was using the kit lens which comes with it (which is actually a fairly good lens - 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS). I'm a wedding photographer and own the non-IS canon 20-200/2.8. So I photograph in a lot of dimly-lit environments with no IS. The performance at ISO 3200 is going to dramatically improve my photos and capabilities. I personally think the 50D is probably one of the biggest improvements on models that Canon has produced.
|
|
|
|
||
- Carolyn M. Fletcher  Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
This might seem a dumb question, but why does everybody keep upgrading constantly? It sure seems like a waste of good money if there's nothing wrong with the camera you have now. Just upgrading because it's there seems just plain silly to me. Somebody please explain!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Alan N. Marcus |
Hi Carolyn, Over the years I have observed that women love to shop (observation over the span of two wives’s). Particularly, women love clothes and jewelry. Now men are different as to shopping habits. Consider that cars, tools and cameras and electronics are their jewelry. These items are colorfully pelted, laced with chrome and flashy screens. Photography depends on the use of tools. The camera and its related paraphernalia satisfy – its called retail therapy. Alan Marcus
|
|
|
|
||
|
Scott McCord |
For me, when you throw your camera down a cliff, you pretty much leave yourself no choice but to upgrade.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Marianne Fortin |
The manufacturers are introducing upgrades at an alarming rate but, of course, they have to compete with each other. I think most people skip a few upgrades and then decide to jump in. I recently upgraded from an XTi to a 40D and won't be upgrading again for a while (unless the 40D suffers an unfortunate hiking accident!). The problem is that there is always something new, whether it is computers, monitors, software, cameras, lenses and most of us have to make do with older technology until we can afford to update. Then you have to prioritize. For example, I want to get a widescreen monitor, but my old PC (4 years) won't handle the resolution so I would have to get a new PC because I can't update the video card in mine. I don't want Vista so I'm stuck unless I buy a Mac but then I have to buy new software, etc. So, sometimes you just have to decide to put up with what you've got a while longer. BTW Alan, I don't buy jewelry or spend much on clothes, but I do like cameras and electronics!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Oliver Anderson |
Robert, 2 months ago I would have said the old 5D was the correct choice. Now the 50D would be my choice, even with the sensor size issue. the ability to shoot in lowlight is incredibly important for me and I kinda like the extra reach the cropped sensor gives me with a 70-200 2.8IS.
|
|
|
|
||
|
- Carolyn M. Fletcher Contact Carolyn M. Fletcher Carolyn M. Fletcher's Gallery |
It just seems like people just can't stand not to have the latest whatever. I guess most of you are still working and can afford to do it..I'm working with a second hand 10D and will be for the forseeable future.. Regarding the Vista, you're right, you sure as heck don't want that!! It's horrible.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Scott McCord |
Oliver, I've seen your gallery before, but just looked at it again (BTW, outstanding work). And something I've always thought about but never posted... It must be rough to photograph the subjects you do. You couldn't pay me to photograph that (do you sense the sarcasm?)
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||