Reasons to get 5D over 30D

Accentor wrote in post #2303749
I know that the 30D has spot metering now and was very tempted to get this body, but reckon that something a bit better might be on the horizon. The 400D was an "interim" which I will use with my zoom lens when I find something else to replace. But, all in all, it is giving me excellent images with the 500mm L lens.

Again, the Digital Rebels are wonderful camera's. I may have sprung for the 400D myself had the batteries been the same as my 300D, or if I could have reused the grip. But the price difference between the 400D w/grip and new 30D w/grip was so close after rebate. Plus, I shoot an Elan film body from time to time so a glass prism and slightly better build was a nice plus. I'm too used to the rear thumb wheel, if they'd ever stick that on a Rebel I might be set to never upgrade.

At the moment the 400D likely has the highest resolution of any 1.6x Canon crop body, so if the build and control layout don't bother you, I doubt you'd find better results without jumping to a 1D mk II N. Even then depending on the print size you still might not see a difference. But the 1D might have the edge on AF performance for the larger tele's. But that's a fairly significant jump in price...enough to buy another tele

SeanH wrote in post #2303672
Now I have no intention of turning this into the 10 page sh*t storm it turned into over on FM, I just don't want guys to get blind sided when they get the camera home and get stuff like this. Thank god my camera store was cool and I didn't lose a dime when I returned it. Again I am just posting this to inform, and not to try and degrade, or insult the 5D.

17-40L @ F4

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

50 1.4 @ 1.4

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

.........and yet again, please try not to insult me for posting these test's. And no I did not run home and take pictures of white walls, after over 100 shots I was picking this up quite a bit on the normal shots..........so I figured the best way to see the full extent was to shot a white wall. The first shot was not touched, and no it's not under exposed, that's how a camera see's light 18% gray. The second was adjusted with levels..........becaus​e too many didn't seem to understand the 18% reading.

Great camera, files are like silk, but be aware of this before you buy........just the Nature of FF with certain lenses / F stops.

Tried it with a crop camera and a lens designed for that? Because Cos^4, (not vignetting, which is physical obstruction of the light path) will apply to those lenses too. Cos^4 is an optical design issue; to condemn FF while ignoring that it's every bit as likely on APS-C is folly.

mebailey wrote in post #2303745
Are you showing vignetting? Of course FF has more light fall off than crop. Its not the camera's fault but rather the lens'. Its usually alot less apparent in regular photos than pictures of white walls.

So on that score the 30D has the advantage BUT for most EF lenses the resolution of the lens is about the same as the resolution (measured in lines/mm) of the sensor. This means that the 5D would get better pictures than the 30D even if it had the same number of overall magapixels, both because of the low light performance of bigger pixels and because it is less critical of the lens performance than a cropped sensor.

I have the misfortune to have an old EF75-300mm lens, which is pretty poor on my 350D, but is a bit better on my 5D because it needs less lens resolution to match the sensore resolution (in lines/mm)

Of course some lenses are not sharp round the edges, and in this case the 5D shows the fuzzy parts more, but in general, you are wasting an EF lens' power by using it on a 30D. You a throwing away parts of the image which the lens engineers thought you would use, and which could increase your overall picture sharpness on a full-frame sensor.

Jon wrote in post #2304249
Tried it with a crop camera and a lens designed for that? Because Cos^4, (not vignetting, which is physical obstruction of the light path) will apply to those lenses too. Cos^4 is an optical design issue; to condemn FF while ignoring that it's every bit as likely on APS-C is folly.

Yea I ran the same test with my Mk2N, and yes your right it is there.........except it's 95% better.......you would never notice it. As I said, I noticed it in regluar shots way before I tested it.........mostly noticing it on the 50mm. Regardless of what causes it, it's still is there.........and is even worse on the better lenses (anything fast 1.2, 1.4)..........seems kinda silly to me to have fast lenses, but then to have to "fix" the shots you use them wide open........why not just buy everthing at 5.6

People can say all day that this is caused by the lens........maybe so, but who wants a camera where you have to avoid most of the good lenses? Sorry, I guess I'm just stupid that way.

SeanH wrote in post #2304322
Yea I ran the same test with my Mk2N, and yes your right it is there.........except it's 95% better.......you would never notice it. As I said, I noticed it in regluar shots way before I tested it.........mostly noticing it on the 50mm. Regardless of what causes it, it's still is there.........and is even worse on the better lenses (anything fast 1.2, 1.4)..........seems kinda silly to me to have fast lenses, but then to have to "fix" the shots you use them wide open........why not just buy everthing at 5.6

People can say all day that this is caused by the lens........maybe so, but who wants a camera where you have to avoid most of the good lenses? Sorry, I guess I'm just stupid that way.

Yes, you tried it with a 1D II, but there aren't any lenses designed for that. Note, I asked if you'd tried on a crop camera with lenses designed for it. Try your test on a 30D with a 10-22, say, or 17-55 f/2.8 or another EF-S lens, which is designed for that form factor. And Cos^4 will explain exactly why a wide aperture shows this falloff more than a narrow aperture on any given lens.

keitht wrote in post #2304300
I have the misfortune to have an old EF75-300mm lens, which is pretty poor on my 350D, but is a bit better on my 5D because it needs less lens resolution to match the sensore resolution (in lines/mm)

Of course some lenses are not sharp round the edges, and in this case the 5D shows the fuzzy parts more, but in general, you are wasting an EF lens' power by using it on a 30D. You a throwing away parts of the image which the lens engineers thought you would use, and which could increase your overall picture sharpness on a full-frame sensor.

I've owned the original 75-300 IS USM since my film days. I was very happy with this lens on film. But when I got my 300D I really liked this lens even more, I can only ration that using the middle 66% sweet spot of the lens helps in that regard.

I would find it hard to believe that this lens would perform better on a larger sensor SLR then on a crop body?

Then again I may be only person ever to be happy with the performance of the 75-300mm IS USM...

Jon wrote in post #2304348
Yes, you tried it with a 1D II, but there aren't any lenses designed for that. Note, I asked if you'd tried on a crop camera with lenses designed for it. Try your test on a 30D with a 10-22, say, or 17-55 f/2.8 or another EF-S lens, which is designed for that form factor. And Cos^4 will explain exactly why a wide aperture shows this falloff more than a narrow aperture on any given lens.

Never noticed it on the hunderds of shots I took with the 20D & 10-22. Truth be told, I'm kicking myself for selling it to get the 5D (that I returned), the math all worked out that I could just use my 17-40 and get the same wide angle I needed. Now they only option I have to get around 15 or 16mm is one of the off brand 10-22, or 12-24 to work on my Mk2..........that or lose about 500 bucks getting a 30D & 10-22 again. And the IQ I got out of that combo were so good I might just go that route.