ALPrasetio wrote in post #14735281
Hmm...so then should I go for a 5Dc? Also, as I stated before in my original post, will I have to have the L series lenses to really bring out the beauty of the 5Dc or will any fast prime do?
No, that would be a big step backward in many respects. 5D Classic is now a 7 year old model, was contemporary with the 30D. Yes, it's still a decent camera, but now I'd suggest at least holding out for a 5D Mark II (a 4 year old model).
For what you shoot, the 5DII is what I'd recommend. It's AF isn't improved over the 5DC and even the 50D has, in some respects, better AF. But, used right, the AF on 5DII is fine for the types of subjects you shoot and can be used occasionally for sports/action, but isn't as good following movement.
I don't know what your problem was with 50D. I have shot with three of them and find their AF system to work quite well. You just have to keep it simple... I used center point only most of the time, and Back Button Focusing.... much of what I shoot is moving and for that I have to use AI Servo.
With 50D, I could pretty consistently get 95% of shots acceptibly within focus. Now shooting with a pair of 7Ds, I get 97-98%, using the same lenses and techniques to shoot the same types of subjects. The 7Ds, and before them the 50Ds, are my "AI Servo" action cameras.
I use 5D Mark II differently. It's my "One Shot" camera... mostly used with stationary subjects such as you describe. It's the best high ISO camera too... I'll use it to 6400 without much concern (higher if I need to, but more post processing will be needed). With 7D, I try to stick to 3200 or lower ISO. With 50Ds, I tried not to go above 1600 unless really necessary. So, whatever you were happy with using 50D, figure about an extra stop with 7D and an extra two stops with 5D Mark II. The 5DC is also quite good at high ISO, but it's highest available setting is 3200 (5DII goes to 25600 and 7D tops out at 12800.... but I'd only use those for B&W conversions, in all likelihood).
I have two out of three of your lenses, too. The 28-135 works well for me (it's a backup lens and a lightweight alternative I use for backpacking and such). I've used three copies of that lens over the years and it's always impressed me. It's sort of the Rodney Dangerfield of Canon lenses... gets no respect, but really is quite good and versatile. I have to say, I can't imagine shooting what you say you like to shoot, with nothing wider than 28mm on a crop camera (I use a Tokina 12-24 on crop and a 20/2.8 on full frame).
If your 100/2.8 Macro is the USM model (not the L with IS, but also not the earlier non-USM model), it's a superb lens that I wouldn't be too quick to sell off. Actually, all three of the Canon 100/2.8 Macros are excellent. The two later ones with USM are a bit more versatile though, thanks to USM focus that makes them more useful for non-macro shooting.
If you aren't getting sharp shots with either of the above two lenses shooting stationary subjects, you have to be doing something wrong or maybe you have "protection" filters on your lenses that are messing with image sharpness or causing focus errors?
For what you say you shoot, AI Servo isn't necessary or the best choice... actually is the least accurate focus method and makes focus/recompose technique impossible unless also using Back Button Focusing. One Shot would be more accurate, with stationary subjects. Live View, which is available on 50D, 7D, 5DII... but not 5DC... is the most accurate focusing method of all, though it's slow.
The 50/1.8 I don't have. I've looked at them over the years and think I'd break one in half or snap off the bayonet mount in short order. That lens isn't USM and are known to be very erratic about focus accuracy (Reikan FoCal couldn't calibrate several copies they tried, the lens just didn't re-focus consistently enough). Is this the lens where you saw most of your focus/image softness problems? If so, I'm not surprised. It's a great, cheap starter lens for someone who has never used primes, for occasional use it's a good intro to using larger apertures. But an upgrade might be in order... either the Canon or Sigma 50/1.4 would likely give you much better results.
No, you do not have to have L-series lenses. In fact, there are many excellent lenses that give great image quality, that aren't L-series. About half my lenses are L's, the rest aren't. I just get the appropriate/best lens for the job and don't really care if it has a red stripe painted on it or not. I do try to stick with USM lenses, for their better accuracy and focus speed (Sigma offers similar HSM and Tamron has begun offering similar USD). These tend to be better built, too... call it "mid-grade".
You wouldn't see much difference in image quality, going to 7D. It does allow for a little higher ISO. Mostly, it's a more feature filled camera... heavier and more pro-oriented. It takes more thinking to set it up, more time to learn to use well, especially the much more complex auto focus system. It is versatile, can be used for just about anything.... But 7D's true forte is action/sports shooting.... you pay extra for features on 7D that are especially useful for that type of photography. So since that's not what you shoot (at least rarely), in a sense you would be paying for features you'll have little use for. I'd have recommended 60D (which I understand you don't care for) or your 50D instead, for what you say you like to shoot. T2i/550D, T3i/600D or T4i/650D give virtually identical image quality to 7D and 60D... but if you don't like 60D, you probably won't like them either. T2i and T3i also have AF system simpler than 50D, similar to 5DII.... T4i has almost identical focus system to 50D and 60D.
I think 5DII would be fine, and perhaps the best for the type of things you want to shoot... though it's AF system is a slight step backward compared to your 50D. To get top IQ and top AF performance in full frame, you'd have to go to 5D Mark III (an lay out another big chunk of money) to get better AF. And, from what I've seen, 5DIII doesn't ratchet up image quality very much over 5DII. It appears to produce cleaner JPEGs at higher ISOs, but the RAW files don't appear all that different. So I'm guessing it's in the JPEG conversion process where the gains are being made, not so much the sensor and processor. It would be interesting to see if the latest version of Canon DPP makes higher ISOs from 5DII more usable.
.
