Full frame Canon DSLR on student budget

[4strinbass]

I'm looking into getting a full frame Canon DSLR. I own a 50D, but after spending 90% of my time shooting film for a year and a half a cropped sensor doesn't feel right. It's frustrating seeing my lenses' full potential on my Elan IIe and then seeing it cut on my 50D.

I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions of Canon digital full frames that could be on a student budget (less than $2,000). Used 5D Mark IIs are around $1,900.

Do you think even getting a 5D instead of a 5D Mark II would be advisable? I don't need the video function and 12 megapixels feels more than enough (i mean my 50D has 15). Only difference between the Mark II I see is video, better noise reduction, higher iso ratings, more megapixels, and better processor.

I just need some help with the decision.

 

[pellicle]

I would ... the 5D is a capable camera.

So why do you want full frame? Don't get me wrong, I like full frame too ... its just that 99% of what I do is on 4/3 because for me I finally realised that my lenses work better when I stop thinking of them being 35mm lenses.

Of course if you like wide and shallow dof I understand

 

[4strinbass]

Maybe that's my problem, that I can't stop thinking of them as 35mm. I shoot all around so it's nice being able to wide.

But the photo's what counts at the end of the day so maybe I should just get "wider" lenses. Maybe start thinking of their field of views as relative too.

 

[4strinbass]

It would be cheaper for me to just get "wider" lenses than to get a new camera to make the ones I have use a wider view.

 

[pellicle]

Hi

the Tokina 12-24 is a nice lens on the APS-C .. I used on on my 20D and found it good. Its also inexpensive.

The APS sized sensor gives you advantages in telephoto making your camera + lens setup more compact than full frame. For instance a 300f4 on an APS is a very nice lens with fast AF and IS ... even the EF50 f1.8 becomes a nice mild tele on APS sizes.

To get this sort of reach with full frame will cost and weigh a lot more.

So perhaps your problem is just that you're using zoom lenses which give deeper DOF on the APS digital than they may have on the Full frame or that perhaps you are missing the width.

some brief thoughts on the lens:
in my view ...: my Tokina 12-24

couple of shots with it

downstairs at Caminito in Kouvola by obakesan, on Flickr


upstairsInterior by aquinas_56, on Flickr

 

[2F/2F]

Your choices are very limited. With under $2,000, I'd get two 5Ds rather than a single 5DII, personally. The II is just overkill.

 

[Kerik]

If you don't need video, get the 5D. Great image quality and a fine camera. I often see them under $1,000.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

If you know people who need video, and you have a 5DII, you'll soon be recruited to shoot video, even if you don't currently imagine yourself doing it.

 

[4strinbass]

I know no one that needs video and I'd never shoot it. Not my thing.

Do you think the Mark ii has any value over the 5D other than video?

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

Bigger files, better low light.

 

[4strinbass]

I'm not shooting musicals, not shooting billboards, not displaying 8 foot high gallery pieces.

So which would you say makes sense?

 

[2F/2F]

At $2,000 give or take, you have four choices: 5D, 5D Mk. II, 1Ds or 1Ds Mk. II.

The 1Ds' only advantage is that it is a little bit cheaper than the 5D. But not much. Not worth getting IMO. The high ISO performance is atrocious, and it really sucks down the batteries. It would be a great option if you shot only at low ISO and if they cost half as much. $400 to $500 for a full frame studio camera? Sure! I'll take it! But that isn't the case.

The 5D Mk. II will not leave you dissatisfied in any way in terms of image quality. However, it is not the best bang for the buck, and is entirely overkill for most people, IMO.

The 5D is a well-rounded camera at a great price on the used market. The file size is great (12 MPix or thereabout is perfect IMO), it performs well in low light, and it is around half the price of the Mk. II. People were shitting themselves over this camera when it came out, talking about all the wonderful things they could do that they couldn't do before...and it hasn't gotten any worse since then; it is just that other things have gotten better.

But if I mostly shot in strong light or on a tripod, I'd get the 1Ds Mk. II. I appreciate a very-well-built, fast, and professionally-featured camera. The 5D is better in low light, though.

In short, my vote goes to the 5D. It will do the most for the most people in most situations, and it has the best value (i.e. "bang for the buck") of the lot. You will change cameras many times in your life. Don't overspend on bodies. Invest frugally in bodies, and spend your "real money" on "real equipment:" the lenses.

 

[pellicle]

I'm not shooting musicals, not shooting billboards, not displaying 8 foot high gallery pieces.

So which would you say makes sense?

The 5D, but ask yourself why APS-C is not in the picture? 20D produces sweet files and is peanuts, you can pick up the Tokina 12-24 and get wide

 

[donbga]

I'm looking into getting a full frame Canon DSLR. I own a 50D, but after spending 90% of my time shooting film for a year and a half a cropped sensor doesn't feel right. It's frustrating seeing my lenses' full potential on my Elan IIe and then seeing it cut on my 50D.

I was wondering if anyone had any suggestions of Canon digital full frames that could be on a student budget (less than $2,000). Used 5D Mark IIs are around $1,900.

Do you think even getting a 5D instead of a 5D Mark II would be advisable? I don't need the video function and 12 megapixels feels more than enough (i mean my 50D has 15). Only difference between the Mark II I see is video, better noise reduction, higher iso ratings, more megapixels, and better processor.

I just need some help with the decision.

You can purchase a refurbed 5D MKII from directly Canon for $1999. The MK II isn't over kill, IMO, it's a great camera though the AF isn't as good as say the 7D (which BTW can be bought refurb'ed directly from Canon for $1360). But, if you are on a budget why not keep using the 50D. It's a great camera (unjustly maligned by some internet reviewers like dpreview). If you want or need a wide zoom take a look at the Tokina or Tamrom WA zoom or if you want to spend the bucks the Canon EFS 17-55 f/2.8 is an L quality optic without the red stripe and the resell value for that lens is excellent as long as it is in good condition. The dig on the 50D is noise at higher ISOs but with RAW processors like LR 3.5 the problem becomes moot. Or just shoot JPEG. Or simply use Canon's DPP software for a free but very capable RAW processor.

I can't imagine trading the 50D for a 20D or anything less really.

I say keep you money and shoot what you've got unless you absolutely need a FF camera (in that case consider a well cared for 5D if you want to save money.) There is no doubt the FF will out perform the APS-C in certain situations like landscape photography, but most of the time a modern APS-C will perform admirably.

 

[pellicle]

also, just for the other view (on why you may want FF) I just finished writing a comparison of 100mm on a full frame vs 50mm on a 4/3 on my blog here.

Essentially I find that on smaller sensor (such as your Canon or any 4/3) that 95% of what you may need is met by the shorter focal lengths. However there are a few reasons to consider the full frame for the additional edge.

Entirely up to what you need and what you're willing to spend