Upgrade to full frame

Hi

I have a 550D and want to upgrade [Skip over the "background" if you want and read form the red "So..."]. I use it mostly with a 50mm f/1.4 lens and the main reason I want to upgrade is for better ISO. The only camera I can upgrade to is the 5DII. To best honest, I'm seriously thinking about changing to a Nikon camera. I was almsot sure I would do that actaully. I still think for ISO improvement alone a Nikon would probably be better. Something like a D3S would be optimal.

But here is the thing. This camera is very expensive used (new is not even an option) and it doesn't really have video (5 mintues is basically nothing). This isn't critical but I really rather not give that up "completely". It is also big and heavy (a disadvantage to me). A D800 is also an option but I rather not buy new and especially considering all the issues I read about it... It is also very expensive, same price as used D3S. D700 is a good option but doesn't video at all, so I would really have to get another smaller Nikon camera with video, like the D3200 or maybe D5100, which I checked and found I liked significantly less than my current 550D, plus carrying two cameras is a hassle.

Although for my reason of better ISO and overall I think a Nikon would give me better results for what I need, overall I think the compromises are too big for the imporvements. In addition, I read a lot about the companies and overall was much more dissapointed with Nikon in how they handled issues.

So... I'm now seriously considering the 5DII. It has several obvious advantages. Some are minor( like more MP for some macro shots I do occasionally e.g. tiny screws, etc.). Some are less minor (viewfinder). I still think it is not as good as those Nikons for low light, but how better than my 550D is it...?

Right now, I use ISO 1600 very often. Most of the time it is ok, often enough not great, with the 550D. I sometimes use ISO 3200 but most of the time it isn't good enough to be usable (depends what I shoot). ISO 6400 is not possible for me with the 550D. I'm not looking for super clean photos with ISO 3200 and 6400, just clean enough to be usable to me. Hard to explain what that is. If 5DII is one stop or more better than 550D then I think it is a good improvement.

I'm going to buy used and probably look into used lenses too, that way if I ever decide to upgrade again in a few years or even change to Nikon I won't lose so much.

Thank you!

Don't know what your budget is or if you really even need FF for what you shoot (as you haven't stated). If you just want better ISO performance but are otherwise completely happy with the features and functionality of your 550D, then maybe you should wait for the T4i (650D). If you look at the sample images, the ISO improvements look pretty good. Maybe wait and see some more real world tests before you make your final decision.

Take a look at this thread I started. I have a 60D which is basically the same sensor as in your 550D, you'll see my reasons for considering the upgrade and you'll get to read a lot of helpful comments, mixed in with some... less helpful comments...

In the end I decided that the low light performance along with micro adjust justified adding the 5D2 to my bag.

get a 5d2 if u dont care much about fast moving subjects. if u do care, then u need a 5d3 im afraid

I believe the noise performance of the 5d2 is about 1 stop better than the 550d...

chrismarriott66 wrote in post #14572131
I believe the noise performance of the 5d2 is about 1 stop better than the 550d...

yup thats the case

tagnal wrote in post #14572058
Don't know what your budget is or if you really even need FF for what you shoot (as you haven't stated). If you just want better ISO performance but are otherwise completely happy with the features and functionality of your 550D, then maybe you should wait for the T4i (650D). If you look at the sample images, the ISO improvements look pretty good. Maybe wait and see some more real world tests before you make your final decision.

Thanks, I don't want to rush into buying so I will wait anyway. I also read the thread posted by Stealther. Here is a bit more info.

The thing with the 650D is that I really prefer to buy used and it has a bunch of features that I don't need (like the screen).

When I first bought my 550D it was mainly for photos of musical instruments for my website. For this it's still just fine. A lot changed since then and I never realized most of what I shoot would be all sorts of performances and exhibitions, often in very low light and sometimes with moving people. Since I use manual focus a lot the viewfinder will hopefully be much better.

clarnibass wrote in post #14572034
a Nikon would probably be better. Something like a D3S would be optimal.

But here is the thing. This camera is very expensive used (new is not even an option) and it doesn't really have video (5 mintues is basically nothing)!

I don't get the worry about the 5 minute limitation, unless you are planning on just slapping the thing on a tripod and shooting your kid's birthday or something. And for that, a cheaper still camera with a better camcorder is going to be a lot less than a Nikon D3S.

Just about any serious video work should be edited together from a series of short scenes, no? I'm struggling to picture a video use where the output from a dSLR is important (vs. a smaller format video specific camera) and the work consists of scenes lasting over five minutes with no cuts.

Are you using your 50mm f1.4 at f1.4 or do you stop it down? Because surely f1.4 @ ISO 400/800 gives you fast enough shutter speeds?

I'll reconsider that re video. The things I video tend to be 5-15 minutes long, I guess that is just the way the type of music/art/performance I video developed. 5 minutes will probably work fine as a second camera.

chrismarriott66 wrote in post #14572264
Are you using your 50mm f1.4 at f1.4 or do you stop it down? Because surely f1.4 @ ISO 400/800 gives you fast enough shutter speeds?

No. I'll clarify. I sometimes find that f/1.4 and ISO 1600 don't give me a fast enough shutter and raising ISO even more is not good enough on my camera for those specific photos. The most recent was when I got mostly 1/50-1/80 shutter speed in these settings. A camera with relatievly clean ISO 3200 and (very) usable ISO 6400 (at least for me, in comparison with my camera) would solve the problem. It would also make better photos for those situations where ISO 1600 is good.

clarnibass wrote in post #14572361
I sometimes find that f/1.4 and ISO 1600 don't give me a fast enough shutter and raising ISO even more is not good enough on my camera for those specific photos.

Fair enough... it must be pretty dark or fast moving then!

I think you'd be best suited with a 5DII. I'm on the brink of picking one up as well to become my main photo and video camera over my 7D. 5 min. of max video recording time is just pitiful to me and I am really not pleased with 15 minutes from the Canon. The mark III has kicked up this allowance to some 29 minutes now. Nothing like having to cut a live performance in the middle because your camera has to stop. I've been in your situation many times where I'm shooting video wide open at f/1.4 ISO1600 and wishing that I had a 5DII rather than my 7D in regards to noise. The 5DII has been doing well shooting -

House episodes
SNL
Hawaii Five-O
The Avengers (2012)

Hmmm, interesting dilemma. It's not a matter of going FF, it's more a matter of low light photography. What you're really looking to get is good low light performance, not a full frame. I own both a 550D and also a 5D mk III. The 550D is closer to the 5D mk III than a lot of people think. Even though I can boost ISO to 12500 without crazy amounts of noise, it still takes skill and thought to capture low light photos which I try to do at ISO 800 or lower with a f/1.2 lens. At f/1.4, you should have plenty of light coming in through your lens to shoot at ISO 800 with a 1/50s shutter speed. If you're trying to capture things moving decently fast at night, you'll need a shutter speed of about 1/100s. ISO 1600 would be able to produce that result but you'll be looking at a decent amount of noise. To counteract this, you'll need either high resolution or a high sensitivity sensor such as a 5D mk III or Nikon D800 with a f/1.4 lens. Resolution will be able to mask noise. The cheaper route is to use lights. I would suggest some cheap Yong Nuo 460 ii flashes to illuminate your subject in low light. This will help freeze motion at 1/100s or 1/80s even with a 550D.

chrismarriott66 wrote in post #14572438
Fair enough... it must be pretty dark or fast moving then!

Depends on the situation, but yes, dark and fast enough to have this issue

I don't know how much I can trust the DPR examples but I guess I trust them. I downloaded all the samples of all the cameras I'm considering and also my 550D samples @ ISO 6400, both RAW and JPG. I then saved them all at the same size which is the D700/D3S size of approx 12MP. Especially RAW, the 550D was by far worst. Less difference in JPG but still some significant difference. The 5D2 looked better. Some of others looked even better but not enough to justify the cost I think. But I don't know if they use the same lens for all, or at least the same on all Canons/Nikons, and then I guess they used a different focal length for cropped vs. FF. So hard to know what the difference really is (I guess it's the camera for 5D2 vs. 5D3, or the FF Nikons between themselves).