Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
Thread started 08 Apr 2016 (Friday) 13:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Upgrade body or buy better glass?

 
01Ryan10
Goldmember
1,066 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 2487
Joined Aug 2012
Location: OC, California
     
Apr 08, 2016 13:08 |  #1

I feel like I need to upgrade my camera body at this point, but I could use some opinions. I know generally people say to buy better glass before camera body, but I'm still shooting with my 5D Classic (MKI). I feel I'm missing out on dynamic range and image quality in general compared to the 5D MKIII.

So, in respects to image quality and dynamic range only (forget all the other bells and whistles between the two), should I just keep buying "L" glass that fits my needs, or upgrade to 5D3? My current lenses are the following...

50mm 1.8 MKII
85mm 1.8
70-200 4.0 IS

I'm really itching for a Sigma 35 Art, but at the same time, I feel like I should use that money to help fund a used 5D3 for $1600ish.


http://RyanLunaPhotogr​aphy.com (external link)
IG: @01ryanluna10 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
PhotosGuy
Moderator
Avatar
75,776 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 2457
Joined Feb 2004
Location: Middle of Michigan
     
Apr 08, 2016 13:30 |  #2

You have some nice things in your portfolio, but your prices look low. When I used to shoot full frame film, the 35mm was my least used lens. I mostly used the 20, 105, & sometimes the 50.

If you're shooting full time, a strong case could be made for getting a back-up camera, especially if you're shooting in RAW. If you're not shooting RAW, then it's time to start, to get that "dynamic range and image quality in general."


FrankC - 20D, RAW, Manual everything...
Classic Carz, Racing, Air Show, Flowers.
Find the light... A few Car Lighting Tips, and MOVE YOUR FEET!
Have you thought about making your own book? // Need an exposure crutch?
New Image Size Limits: Image must not exceed 1600 pixels on any side.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
6,025 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 3216
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Apr 08, 2016 13:39 |  #3

Keep your 5Dc (as a backup) and buy a 6D... or wait to buy a 5D3 until this fall when the 5D4 comes out.


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - Laowa 9mm - 18-55 - 23/35/50/90 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
     
Apr 08, 2016 13:44 |  #4

Let me start off by saying that the 5Dc is the only DSLR I totally regret selling.

I looked through your portfolio. I saw nothing suggestive of the need for a 5DIII. The 6D is a major upgrade to the 5Dc, but the controls are enough dis-similar to throw you... for a day or two. Put the $1,000 difference into a 35mm lens. I use the 35 IS, and am completely happy with it. An extra stop of aperture and losing IS appeals to me not one bit. My 50mm STM is my least used prime.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sandpiper
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,171 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 50
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Merseyside, England
     
Apr 08, 2016 13:51 |  #5

What is it about the 5D image quality you feel is letting you down? "Image quality" has many areas, but I find the original 5D to still produce excellent quality images when you aren't pushing it's limits. I have had a "classic" 5D since they first came out and a 5D mk3 for around 3 years, so I am well versed in the qualities of both.

I upgraded, primarily, for the better AF and other features that make the mk3 better for sports etc., which used to get handed off to a 40D. The mk3 is a solid all rounder and the 40D rarely gets used these days. However, the old 5D does still get used as the images have a certain indefinable something that makes them really good. So long as I don't need high ISO, fancy AF etc., I will often use the old 5D in preference to the new one for the better image quality in some areas. In particular I find the 5D records better skin tones than the mk3, not by much, but I do find that with studio portraiture the old 5D can produce better results than the mk3.

Either camera though produces great images, so I wouldn't switch for IQ / DR purposes unless you are pushing the limits of your camera and are unhappy with your images due to noise etc. Clearly in low light situations the much greater ISO capability of the mk3 will give better results at high ISO (particularly as the 5D tops out at 3200 so if you need more than that it really suffers).

If you are feeling limited by your current 5D, then an upgrade may be the answer (and probably is). However if you are happy with the results you are getting, and just feel that you would get something better with a newer camera, then you are probably better off investing in lenses. The classic still produces results that are good enough for national exhibitions.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
01Ryan10
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,066 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 2487
Joined Aug 2012
Location: OC, California
     
Apr 08, 2016 14:24 |  #6

I do mostly portrait, studio and location. Lately, I'm getting into a lot of sunset portrait work, and I feel I'm missing out on more "dynamic range" within the sky/sunset.

Also, even though I setup and compose with the intent of not having to crop, I feel as though cropping on the 5D classic can get tough as the pixels start showing fairly quickly. So if i see an opportunity to crop, my guess is the 5D3 will do it much "cleaner".


http://RyanLunaPhotogr​aphy.com (external link)
IG: @01ryanluna10 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
windpig
Chopped liver
Avatar
14,789 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 1107
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Just South of Ballard
     
Apr 08, 2016 14:53 |  #7

5DIII rocks! That's what I would go with. Fuji X-T1 kills also, have you thougjt about going mirrorless?


Would you like to buy a vowel?
Go ahead, spin the wheel.
flickr (external link)
I'm accross the canal just south of Ballard, the town Seattle usurped in 1907.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
01Ryan10
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,066 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 2487
Joined Aug 2012
Location: OC, California
     
Apr 08, 2016 15:45 |  #8

windpig wrote in post #17965006 (external link)
have you thougjt about going mirrorless?

I'm under the impression that the cost of converting is too much for me at the moment. I suppose I could just use a lens adapter/converter if I went with Sony, but I don't think they are 100% seamless conversion yet.


http://RyanLunaPhotogr​aphy.com (external link)
IG: @01ryanluna10 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Apr 08, 2016 15:56 |  #9

01Ryan10 wrote in post #17964970 (external link)
I do mostly portrait, studio and location. Lately, I'm getting into a lot of sunset portrait work, and I feel I'm missing out on more "dynamic range" within the sky/sunset.

Also, even though I setup and compose with the intent of not having to crop, I feel as though cropping on the 5D classic can get tough as the pixels start showing fairly quickly. So if i see an opportunity to crop, my guess is the 5D3 will do it much "cleaner".

Are you lighting your subjects? That will help reduce the scene's dynamic range.

You've got a great camera with a great big sensor, the best value portrait lens in the 85mm, and presumably some good lighting. What else do you need for portraits?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
01Ryan10
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,066 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 2487
Joined Aug 2012
Location: OC, California
Post edited over 3 years ago by 01Ryan10.
     
Apr 08, 2016 16:17 |  #10

frugivore wrote in post #17965066 (external link)
You've got a great camera with a great big sensor, the best value portrait lens in the 85mm, and presumably some good lighting. What else do you need for portraits?

This is what I'm contemplating. Best case scenario is for me to use both cameras on the same shoot getting multiple duplicate shots with same lens; however, I don't know anyone well enough that has a 5D3 and is willing to let me barrow it for a shoot, and I don't want to rent one for $100 to try it out either. lol


http://RyanLunaPhotogr​aphy.com (external link)
IG: @01ryanluna10 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
01Ryan10
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
1,066 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 2487
Joined Aug 2012
Location: OC, California
     
Apr 08, 2016 16:25 |  #11

frugivore wrote in post #17965066 (external link)
Are you lighting your subjects? That will help reduce the scene's dynamic range.


Yeah, I am lighting my models with ocf, but will that actually reduce a landscape's dynamic range?


http://RyanLunaPhotogr​aphy.com (external link)
IG: @01ryanluna10 (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Apr 08, 2016 16:49 |  #12

01Ryan10 wrote in post #17965087 (external link)
This is what I'm contemplating. Best case scenario is for me to use both cameras on the same shoot getting multiple duplicate shots with same lens; however, I don't know anyone well enough that has a 5D3 and is willing to let me barrow it for a shoot, and I don't want to rent one for $100 to try it out either. lol

I don't think there's much of a difference in terms of image quality at low ISOs and dynamic range. Here is a comparison:

http://www.dxomark.com …us-Canon-EOS-5D___795_176 (external link)

I've had both and wouldn't hesitate going back to the 5D if I did only portraits.

01Ryan10 wrote in post #17965097 (external link)
Yeah, I am lighting my models with ocf, but will that actually reduce a landscape's dynamic range?

The comparison shows a half stop improvement. Not worth it if you ask me.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Apr 08, 2016 16:54 |  #13

01Ryan10 wrote in post #17965097 (external link)
Yeah, I am lighting my models with ocf, but will that actually reduce a landscape's dynamic range?

Not if your background is a landscape with deep shadows and bright sky. But you wouldn't want that as a subject's background. I aim to have a uniformly lit background that is darker than my subject.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2733
Joined Oct 2015
     
Apr 08, 2016 16:58 |  #14

frugivore wrote in post #17965123 (external link)
I don't think there's much of a difference in terms of image quality at low ISOs and dynamic range. Here is a comparison:

http://www.dxomark.com …us-Canon-EOS-5D___795_176 (external link)

I've had both and wouldn't hesitate going back to the 5D if I did only portraits.

The comparison shows a half stop improvement. Not worth it if you ask me.

Between the 5Dc and the 5DIII? I don't buy that for a second. My 60D was as good noise-wise as my 5Dc at 1600. At 3200, the 60D was clearly superior. The 5DIII is quite capable of really good results at ISO 12800. If you are willing to shoot raw and PP, ISO 25,600 is usable. My 6D is roughly equivalent to the 5DIII, WRT noise. Let's see - 1600, 3200, 6400, 12800, 25600. That is four stops, any way you shake the tree.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Apr 08, 2016 17:01 as a reply to  @ Bassat's post |  #15

I meant dynamic range. Sorry, I should have made that more clear.

Yes, high ISO is one reason why I upgrade to the 5D3, but not low ISO or dynamic range.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

4,223 views & 2 likes for this thread
Upgrade body or buy better glass?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Camera Vs. Camera 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is jawatts
989 guests, 253 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.