Rebel XT ... all the way to ... yes 5D - advice?

[nicolas505]

Hello everyone,

I have been obsessed with photography (still a newcomer to it). But in the past 6 months I have learned more and more everyday and taken millions of pictures with my Rebel XT. I have never had this much fun learning since I started playing guitar. I master fairly well all the concepts and techniques of photography in the sense that if I have a shot in my head I can get it. Granted, I know I still have much to learn and that only time will bring that to me. But I feel I am limited creatively by the FOV factor 1.6x of the XT, and I feel I could get soooo much more out of a full frame camera. Another thing is that I shoot a lot in low light, and not only does the XT stop at 1600, but to my taste it's quite noisy. So the 5D is cleaner at higher iso's goes even to 3200 and gives me full frame capabilities. The only downside is the "revealing" of the full lens, and sometimes that can be bad if the lens isn't great. But I would really tremendously appreciate any input... (The budget isn't an issue here). Would you advise me to stick to the XT for a while longer, or would you say... go 5D? Thank you very much!

Nick xx

[Tancor]

You're asking for a very opinionated answer.

If you're asking for approval to go from an XT to a 5D based upon your competency, you won't get any without a bunch of pictures to look at, and even then many might find it hard to say "yeah, the 5D is your next step".

Here's what you have to ask yourself because only you can answer this - will the 5D really provide you with something that will benefit you with the type of photography you engage in? For example - aside from noise in photos - are you shooting a lot of landscapes, or are you doing more wild life or astrophotography? Do you do a lot of portraits? Are you shooting sports? etc. You really need to evaluate what you are wanting to do and what tools are available to make it easier for you to take your images.

For example, let's say you mostly do sports, you're at a distance so having a longer lens is better, and speed is a necessity - I'd say either 20D or 1dMarkII N.

Another example, let's say you are doing portraits in a fairly small studio or are trying to get landscapes in where you need wider angle shots - I'd say a 5D or a 1DsMarkII for full frame.

These are just simple examples, not to be used as sole determinators of which camera to get.

Also keep in mind lenses. For example, if you've already invested in lenses designed for crop cameras (whether EF-S lenses or 3rd party APS-C designed lenses like Sigma's DC line of lenses) then it might be better to stay in the crop world, otherwise you will have to dump your glass for new glass. If all you have is the kit lens then it's no big deal, but if you have a couple of $K in glass for APS-C sensor cameras, then it could be an issue to start over.

This is such a personal decision it's hard to give a complete answer. Some people will say stay with the XT, some people will suggest moving to 20D some to 5D some to the 1 series.

I hate to harp on the same subject again, but you really need to look at the camera lineup available (features, weights, designed for uses, etc.) compared to what you want from the camera and to do with the camera and make a choice that way.

-Tony

[davidfig]

Well Tancor has covered it. From my perspective, it goes like this. Get the cheapest camera in the brand I want. Then get all lenses for the FF day when it arrives.

So I got an XT, with kit lens so some day I can sell it that way. Added a sigma 18-125 to get walk around reach. But from now on all lenses must be full frame capable. I even play with manual screw lenses.

I do want a 5D, but at this point I have to save for it. But some day the money I have and the cost will meet. When they do, I will jump at it.

[prime80]

If you want one, and budget is not an issue...get one. It's pretty simple.

[puttick]

Newcomer? Stick with the 350D for another year or so. Buy some fast lenses if you like low light - 50/1.4, 85/1.8 for example. Learn the "trade". You can get beautiful 12x18 prints from the 350D.

You can buy an awful lot of lenses for your 350D with the money you would spend on a 5D, and it will still be there (or a 6D etc) in a year or so...

[tim]

Just get a wide angle lens for your 350D. The 5D might have a little less noise than the 350D, but from what i've read it's not a big thing. Does the 350D really stop at ISO1600? I have no idea... I know on the 20D you have to turn on a custom function to enable ISO3200.

I'd stick with the 350D if you want to make the decision with your brain... but if you want a 5D then it'd be a great toy and an excellent tool :)

[nicolas505]

Yeah thanks a lot guys, I think I will stick with the 350D for now, I posted a thread on the Lenses forum and decided that for now at least I'd rather spend my money on the lenses... if any of you are interested (even if it's a bit off topic) I decided with the: 16-35L , 24-70L, 70-200L IS, and 180L Macro. There you go... thank you guys soo much for your help! I know I can count on the canon forums for any help, and maybe one day I can actually give back to the community by helping newcomers like myself to the wonderful world of photography! thanks again :)

[Asmodeus]

After a couple of thousand pictures with my 350D (and countless film pictures with the entire line of Pentax film bodies and most of the lenses), I walked into the camera shop planning on getting a 20D and walked out with a 5D.


Eventually got the 20D, too ;)

[Az2Africa]

Life is short. If you want the 5D and can easily afford it, get it.

[ScottE]

Be aware that the 5D cannot use EF-S lenses. In the future, as more of these lenses are introduced you may regret having a camera that cannot use them.

[Jon]

Be aware that the 5D cannot use EF-S lenses. In the future, as more of these lenses are introduced you may regret having a camera that cannot use them.
Huh? Every EF-S lens introduced to date has been a "1.6x crop" match for an existing EF. 10-22 EF-S has same AoV as 16-35 EF on a FF. 17-85 EF-S IS is basically AoV of a 28-135 EF IS on FF 60 mm EF-S scales up to 100 mm macro on FF. 18-55 EF-S about same as FF 28-90 EF. Canon has introduced nothing in the EF-S line that doesn't already have an EF equivalent, and as long as they're making FF film and digital cameras that's unlikely to change.

[ScottE]

A 312 mm f/4 IS EF-S lens on a 20D would take exactly the same pictures as a 500 mm f/4 IS EF lens on a 5D, but would be a lot cheaper. Also, since an EF-S lens does not have to cover the same image circle, it can be made with smaller diameter lens elements so a 300 mm f/4 IS EF-S lens shoud be cheaper than a full frame 300 mm f/4 IS EF lens. A full range of EF-S lenses has not been introduced yet, but if they ever are the cost savings will make many full frame users consider moving down to EF-S.

To use your example above, the Canon 60/2.8 EF-S macro lens is about $400 at B&H and the 100/2.8 EF macro lens is $450. The EF lens costs 12.5% more than the EF-S lens to take exactly the same pictures.

Will Canon ever bring out a full line of EF-S lenses? They will have to if they want to compete with Nikon, Nikon has commited to the smaller sensor for digital format and will sooner or later bring out more digital only lenses at lower prices to attract Canon customers. It does not really take too much imagination to predict the future developments.

[JDM EG6]

If you read a few threads down i say how i just got my 20d. i had enough cash in my pockey to buy the 5d and it was up to them to sell it to me. I had them both in hand. Shot wth both of them. 20d and 5d are both beautiful but reasons i went with 20d are as follows. You get a quickers shot rate (good for sports or action), which I like. The crop factor....... Well i have my 10-20 lens and its pretty damn wide even with the crop so with the 5d it would be stupid but i 1000% know I will benifit with the crop MUCH more as that distance is very nice. But 5d has a nice big screen which is actually nice, otherwise besides the full frame sensor... Ok, it has alot more but nothing id need and also the built in flash on the 20d is pretty good. Dont always have to lug around your speedlight.

I wanted 5d but 20d was much better overall, unless like said above. I wanted to do a ton of close up work! and still the 20d does that just fine! and i certainly dont need 12mp :S

good luck bro!

[RikWriter]

If you want the 5D and can afford it, get it. It's a great camera and I highly reccommend it.

[Jon]

A 312 mm f/4 IS EF-S lens on a 20D would take exactly the same pictures as a 500 mm f/4 IS EF lens on a 5D, but would be a lot cheaper. Also, since an EF-S lens does not have to cover the same image circle, it can be made with smaller diameter lens elements so a 300 mm f/4 IS EF-S lens shoud be cheaper than a full frame 300 mm f/4 IS EF lens. A full range of EF-S lenses has not been introduced yet, but if they ever are the cost savings will make many full frame users consider moving down to EF-S.

To use your example above, the Canon 60/2.8 EF-S macro lens is about $400 at B&H and the 100/2.8 EF macro lens is $450. The EF lens costs 12.5% more than the EF-S lens to take exactly the same pictures.

Will Canon ever bring out a full line of EF-S lenses? They will have to if they want to compete with Nikon, Nikon has commited to the smaller sensor for digital format and will sooner or later bring out more digital only lenses at lower prices to attract Canon customers. It does not really take too much imagination to predict the future developments.

Actually, and this has been discussed repeatedly here, a 312 mm EF-S on an APS-C won't take the exact same photo as a 500 EF on a FF body. Perspective and DoF, among other things, will differ.

As for the 60 macro, that's a very recent price drop, and you'll notice that B&H is also listing it available "used", while they aren't showing used 100 macros. This suggests that the 60 mm EF-S is being produced somewhat faster than market demand warrants, and that the early adopters are having second thoughts. You'll note that the 10-22 EF-S actually costs more than its closest FF competitor, the 17-40 f/4 L, as does the EF-S 17-85 when compared to the FF 28-135.

I think that the converse will be true - Nikon's going to hit the wall in sensor pixel density sooner than Canon, since Canon's offering the larger real estate, so sooner or later, Nikon's going to have to either freeze sensor density or move to full frame digital, angering all their current digital customers who might have bought lenses which can't be migrated. Since Canon already had FF digital bodies out when they introduced EF-S, Canon useres have no excuse for being unaware of the FF option. And Nikon's currently at the mercy of outside suppliers for their sensors, so they're stuck with what they can buy. If they want to go full-frame, they'll either have to convince Sony to make new sensors for them, piece together two APS-C sensors to act as a single FF sensor, or start designing and building their own sensors (and the fabs to make them). No - Nikon has to live with what they can get on the market. Canon can look ahead. That's why Canon's stayed ahead of Nikon in sensor density, while achieving better prices, across the board.

[Tom W]

Actually, and this has been discussed repeatedly here, a 312 mm EF-S on an APS-C won't take the exact same photo as a 500 EF on a FF body. Perspective and DoF, among other things, will differ.

DOF will indeed be different - perspective is another issue that has been tossed about repeatedly. It is the basis for some very long threads.

As for the 60 macro, that's a very recent price drop, and you'll notice that B&H is also listing it available "used", while they aren't showing used 100 macros. This suggests that the 60 mm EF-S is being produced somewhat faster than market demand warrants, and that the early adopters are having second thoughts. You'll note that the 10-22 EF-S actually costs more than its closest FF competitor, the 17-40 f/4 L, as does the EF-S 17-85 when compared to the FF 28-135.

If not for past market demand, these lenses wouldn't be used, they'd be new. But demand has faded, perhaps due to the introduction of the 5D. Or, due to the fact that the 100/2.8 Macro is also an excellent lens and can be used universally on all Canon formats.

I think that the converse will be true - Nikon's going to hit the wall in sensor pixel density sooner than Canon, since Canon's offering the larger real estate, so sooner or later, Nikon's going to have to either freeze sensor density or move to full frame digital, angering all their current digital customers who might have bought lenses which can't be migrated. Since Canon already had FF digital bodies out when they introduced EF-S, Canon useres have no excuse for being unaware of the FF option. And Nikon's currently at the mercy of outside suppliers for their sensors, so they're stuck with what they can buy. If they want to go full-frame, they'll either have to convince Sony to make new sensors for them, piece together two APS-C sensors to act as a single FF sensor, or start designing and building their own sensors (and the fabs to make them). No - Nikon has to live with what they can get on the market. Canon can look ahead. That's why Canon's stayed ahead of Nikon in sensor density, while achieving better prices, across the board.

Personally, I don't think Nikon is going to hit the wall on sensor density, I think that they already have hit it with the D2x (and maybe the D200 as well - we'll see). If you've ever seen what happens to images in that camera when the ISO gets turned up to 800 or higher, you'd see what I'm thinking. The detail gets destroyed by the on-board noise-reduction.

[Jon]

If not for past market demand, these lenses wouldn't be used, they'd be new. But demand has faded, perhaps due to the introduction of the 5D. Or, due to the fact that the 100/2.8 Macro is also an excellent lens and can be used universally on all Canon formats.
Yes, and considering the 60 EF-S was only introduced in March, I find that bears out my consistent stand that the 60 EF-S macro was a lens without a mission, but offered as a marketing exercise.

[Tom W]

Yes, and considering the 60 EF-S was only introduced in March, I find that bears out my consistent stand that the 60 EF-S macro was a lens without a mission, but offered as a marketing exercise.

It's a shame, as it's reputed to be an excellent lens. But why go with a 60 mm when you can get the 100 at the same price. And be able to stand back a bit farther. And maintain forward compatibility with larger formats if they come about at an affordable price.

A fast 17-50 or 60 mm f/2.8 EF-S zoom would have been a better product. And it may be in the works. Maybe the 60 macro was an easy one to design and build, but its usefulness isn't quite as obvious in the lineup.

[I Simonius]

Hello everyone,

I have been obsessed with photography (still a newcomer to it). But in the past 6 months I have learned more and more everyday and taken millions of pictures with my Rebel XT. I have never had this much fun learning since I started playing guitar. I master fairly well all the concepts and techniques of photography in the sense that if I have a shot in my head I can get it. Granted, I know I still have much to learn and that only time will bring that to me. But I feel I am limited creatively by the FOV factor 1.6x of the XT, and I feel I could get soooo much more out of a full frame camera. Another thing is that I shoot a lot in low light, and not only does the XT stop at 1600, but to my taste it's quite noisy. So the 5D is cleaner at higher iso's goes even to 3200 and gives me full frame capabilities. The only downside is the "revealing" of the full lens, and sometimes that can be bad if the lens isn't great. But I would really tremendously appreciate any input... (The budget isn't an issue here). Would you advise me to stick to the XT for a while longer, or would you say... go 5D? Thank you very much!

Nick xx

The 5D is tres expensive, get a 20D second hand first! (very cheap!)

[likophoto]

FF lenses tend to be much cheaper if you want to get wide angle shoots, and 1.6x tends to be cheaper if you're interested in telephoto shoots. I find myself taking more pictures over the normal focal length than under, so the 1.6x combo is better for me. But if you shoot more under the normal viewing focal length (50mm in FF), then go with the FF 5D.

[Jon]

FF lenses tend to be much cheaper if you want to get wide angle shoots, and 1.6x tends to be cheaper if you're interested in telephoto shoots. I find myself taking more pictures over the normal focal length than under, so the 1.6x combo is better for me. But if you shoot more under the normal viewing focal length (50mm in FF), then go with the FF 5D.
There just aren't any long EF-S lenses. The longest one is the 17-85. OK - there are the 18-200 3rd-party lenses, but they're not in the same ballpark. It's cheaper to go long with the APS-C format because of the "crop factor". It's barely possible to go truly wide with the APS-C format without getting an APS-C lens - there are a couple of FF 14 mm primes and Sigma's 12-24, but other than those you can't get an ultra-wide (wider than 24 mm FF equiv.) unless it's designed for the "crop". And you'll pay for it, because the demand isn't there as much as anything.

[ScottE]

Actually, and this has been discussed repeatedly here, a 312 mm EF-S on an APS-C won't take the exact same photo as a 500 EF on a FF body. Perspective and DoF, among other things, will differ.

As for the 60 macro, that's a very recent price drop, and you'll notice that B&H is also listing it available "used", while they aren't showing used 100 macros. This suggests that the 60 mm EF-S is being produced somewhat faster than market demand warrants, and that the early adopters are having second thoughts. You'll note that the 10-22 EF-S actually costs more than its closest FF competitor, the 17-40 f/4 L, as does the EF-S 17-85 when compared to the FF 28-135.

I think that the converse will be true - Nikon's going to hit the wall in sensor pixel density sooner than Canon, since Canon's offering the larger real estate, so sooner or later, Nikon's going to have to either freeze sensor density or move to full frame digital, angering all their current digital customers who might have bought lenses which can't be migrated. Since Canon already had FF digital bodies out when they introduced EF-S, Canon useres have no excuse for being unaware of the FF option. And Nikon's currently at the mercy of outside suppliers for their sensors, so they're stuck with what they can buy. If they want to go full-frame, they'll either have to convince Sony to make new sensors for them, piece together two APS-C sensors to act as a single FF sensor, or start designing and building their own sensors (and the fabs to make them). No - Nikon has to live with what they can get on the market. Canon can look ahead. That's why Canon's stayed ahead of Nikon in sensor density, while achieving better prices, across the board.
Perspective may have been discussed, but you must not have been paying attention. Perspective is a function of the distance from the subject and background. If you take two pictures of the same subject from the same location, perspective will not change regardless of what size film/sensor or what focal length lens you use. (Look out the window at the scene across the street and make a frame with your fingers. The perspective (relationship of foreground, middle ground and background) will not change regardless of how big a frame you make with your fingers or how close you move the frame to your eye.) If you want to fill a picture with a 2"x3" rectangle with a 60 mm lens on a 20D or a 100 mm on a 5D you will have to have the cameras exactly the same distance from the subject. Perspective will be identical. You are correct, depth of field will be slightly different, but by such a small amount that it is almost irrelevant. In any case, this is a macro lens, one of the main problems in macro is getting enough depth of field and any DOF advantage goes to the smaller sensor.

No one has any idea why there are used 60 mm EF-S macro lenses. Perhaps some people believe they will get improved performance with the 5D and have traded up. Perhaps some people have found that the 100 mm is currently so close to the price of the 60mm that it makes sense to get the added working distance of the longer lens. As for cost, you are comparing lenses that have been around for some time with lenses that are newly introduced. Both manufacturers and retailers tend to charge higher prices for new products and lower the price as the market becomes saturated. The fact remains that the EF-S lenses require small diameter elements so they will be cheaper to manufacture when quatities are establised and in the long term, cheaper cost to the manufacturer ususally ends up as cheaper cost to the consumer.

No one is going to argue that you can get as many pixels on a small sensor as you can on a large sensor. The question is how many pixels do most people need? For colour photography, cameras like the 20D currently give as good image quality as was ever avalable from 35 mm. 35 mm film was a very successful format, even though there was no dispute that medium format film could produce a better image. For people who were satisfied with the quality fo 35 mm film there is no need for full frame cameras that are always going to cost more because the sensor size. Also, in the long term, you will probably see a similar lens price comparison between EF-S and EF lenses to what you currently see between 35 mm and medium format lenses. (The cost difference is partly due to the volume produced which reduces per unit cost and partly to the smaller diameter of the lens elements.)

[I Simonius]

No one is going to argue that you can get as many pixels on a small sensor as you can on a large sensor. The question is how many pixels do most people need? For colour photography, cameras like the 20D currently give as good image quality as was ever avalable from 35 mm.

That is debatable!

I produced a poster size colour print from my canon AE-1 and 50mm1.8 lens when I first used canons,(many many years ago:)) - it had excellent resolution, crisp and saturated.

I have projected 35mm slides to wall size, with impressive quality

Last year I displayed prints that were A1 size from 20 yr old B+W AgfanPan 25 films, which had detail and tonal quality that could not have been done on the 20D.

For those who need prints no larger than A3 max (approx) then I'd agree that the 20D and film are on a par but for those needing larger prints then we still have a way to go yet!

[ScottE]

True, but if you really need very large prints, why stop at full frame 35 mm format? A digital medium format camera will give better results and both will be blown out of the water by a pictured taken on film with an 8"x10" view camera and scanned at high resolution on a flat bed scanner.

I have a poster sized colour print taken from vertical crop of a horizontal shot taken with my APS sized 20D. It has as much resolution as anything I have seen derived from 35 mm slide film.

I saw a digital picture that was made into a six story tall ovelay applied to the windows of an office building. From the road it looked quite sharp. Looking out through it from inside the building was a different matter.

There is no argument that a current B&W print from a 20D can come anywhere close to B&W film. The tonal range of film is far superior.

Your last paragraph is exactly the point I was making. For most colour photographers, the 20D sized sensors are going to be all they need if they were previously satisfied with 35 mm slide film. Many of those who previously needed medium format film cameras have now switched to the 1Ds2. It is possible that 36 or 45 mp medium format digital cameras may be able to give 4"x5" film cameras a run for the money in the near future. Smaller formats are being used with digital to give colour results similar to larger format film cameras.

[I Simonius]

True, but if you really need very large prints, why stop at full frame 35 mm format?

One word- Convenience


I have a poster sized colour print taken from vertical crop of a horizontal shot taken with my APS sized 20D. It has as much resolution as anything I have seen derived from 35 mm slide film.

maybe but it MUST have been interpolated to get to that size so quality is subjective at that size

I saw a digital picture that was made into a six story tall ovelay applied to the windows of an office building. From the road it looked quite sharp. Looking out through it from inside the building was a different matter.

Irrelevant- you will be assimilated

There is no argument that a current B&W print from a 20D can come anywhere close to B&W film. The tonal range of film is far superior.

-resistance is futile

Your last paragraph is exactly the point I was making.

It's also exactly the point I was making - we are Borg

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[ScottE]

maybe but it MUST have been interpolated to get to that size so quality is subjective at that size
Almost all digital prints are interpolated. Digital printers have one native pixels per inch (not the same as dots per inch) that they use for printing. Regardless of what pixels per inch you feed them the printer software will interpolate to the native pixels per inch needed to operate the printer. I would be extremely rare for a camera to produce a file with exactly the same number of pixels that the printer needs to make any specified size of photo. The only way you can stop the printer program from extapolating is to use software that extrapolates and feeds the final data. That is what the RIP programs used by prefessional photo labs do, or you can do the same thing on your home computer and printer using Qimage.

The reason people resample files to get closer to printer requirements is that they can control the process and bicubic resampling in Photoshop or pyramid resampling in Qimage do a far better job of interpolation than the software built into printer drivers.

If you make very big prints, an original with more pixels is going to give you more data. The trouble is to get double the print size you need four times the number of pixels. i.e. 1 pixel is replaced by 2 pixels vertical by 2 pixels horizontal to get twice the vertical and horizontal resolution. In order to get twice the resolution of a 20D your would need a camera with about 33 megapixels. For this reason statements such as, "The maximum quality print size for a 20D is 8"x10" while a 1Ds2 can go to 16"x20" before you see any image deterioration" don't make sense. The math doesn't work.

[I Simonius]

If you make very big prints, an original with more pixels is going to give you more data. The trouble is to get double the print size you need four times the number of pixels. i.e. 1 pixel is replaced by 2 pixels vertical by 2 pixels horizontal to get twice the vertical and horizontal resolution. In order to get twice the resolution of a 20D your would need a camera with about 33 megapixels. For this reason statements such as, "The maximum quality print size for a 20D is 8"x10" while a 1Ds2 can go to 16"x20" before you see any image deterioration" don't make sense. The math doesn't work.

Sounds great in theory but it's not what gets reported in practice