5D: What if?

I am defiantly looking into getting a 5D, just wish it was a little faster, since i mostly do sports. So what if they decided to make it a little faster in the up coming year or two. How many would run out and get one? I know I would( as long as the wife says ok, LOL). But then again that is why I am saving now so hopefully in the future they will make it a bit faster and then I can get one. Not to mention it's FF, gosh i would be in heaven( well at least for my budget). So am I thinking to far ahead or getting my hopes up? or do other people share this opinion.

for sports the 1D mkII/N is definitly the best camera easily. the 5d really isnt built for sports. the extra FPS of the 1D is definitly important, and the 1.3x crop is a perfect compromise, plus the long end is the most important for sports.

Ok i goofed. What I meant to say is that I do, do mostly sports, but am trying to get more int photojournalism. Even though I have been away from photography for a few years I strongly feel that my talents could do more good in the photojournalism world vs the sports world. and while i am don't have lots of cash for the 1D mkII/N the 5D would be a great place to start untill I could get enough work to make purchasing the 1D more justifiable.

murtaugh wrote in post #2331756
Ok i goofed. What I meant to say is that I do, do mostly sports, but am trying to get more int photojournalism. Even though I have been away from photography for a few years I strongly feel that my talents could do more good in the photojournalism world vs the sports world. and while i am don't have lots of cash for the 1D mkII/N the 5D would be a great place to start untill I could get enough work to make purchasing the 1D more justifiable.

i understand your point, but just to give you the option you could pick up a used 1dmkII for $2500 or less, which is less than a new 5D.

i get it now, sorry i am a little slow with it being 0533 in the morning. i will defiantly have to look into that. thanks

murtaugh wrote in post #2331722
I am defiantly looking into getting a 5D, just wish it was a little faster, since i mostly do sports. So what if they decided to make it a little faster in the up coming year or two. How many would run out and get one? I know I would( as long as the wife says ok, LOL). But then again that is why I am saving now so hopefully in the future they will make it a bit faster and then I can get one. Not to mention it's FF, gosh i would be in heaven( well at least for my budget). So am I thinking to far ahead or getting my hopes up? or do other people share this opinion.

From looking at your equipment list, I'd suggest getting better glass before a FF camera. You don't need L lenses for it, but you should have good lenses as a FF sensor will bring out weaknesses in your lenses. Your 20D does better already at sports with 5 fps and smaller pixels. A 5D isn't for someone who mostly does sports, but someone who would occasoinally do sports.

Hellashot wrote in post #2331868
From looking at your equipment list, I'd suggest getting better glass before a FF camera. You don't need L lenses for it, but you should have good lenses as a FF sensor will bring out weaknesses in your lenses. Your 20D does better already at sports with 5 fps and smaller pixels. A 5D isn't for someone who mostly does sports, but someone who would occasoinally do sports.

he has another thread in the lens forum about getting new glass.

i guess that makes some sense, i mean if get few more lenses then by the time i get a good suply maybe the 5D will be a little faster or somthing better will be out by then. so what do you think would be a good place to start. i really want the 24-70 2.8L. i see so many people talk about L series glass and i have yet to shoot anything with an L. On a scale of 1 to 10 how much differnce is the L vs non-L?

murtaugh wrote in post #2331925
On a scale of 1 to 10 how much differnce is the L vs non-L?

You can't really blanket compare them like that... L vs. $100 70-300 zoom is a very different comparison than L vs. 85mm 1.8 or 100mm macro. It depends on what you're looking for and on each individual lens...

murtaugh wrote in post #2331925
i guess that makes some sense, i mean if get few more lenses then by the time i get a good suply maybe the 5D will be a little faster or somthing better will be out by then. so what do you think would be a good place to start. i really want the 24-70 2.8L. i see so many people talk about L series glass and i have yet to shoot anything with an L. On a scale of 1 to 10 how much differnce is the L vs non-L?

depends what you are compairing to. you cant make a blanket statement really. L glass is top notch though. you are paying for fixed wide aperture, top notch build quality (very important if you plan to take up PJ with any seriousness), and fantastic sharpness, color rendition, and control over CA and other flaws lesser expensive lenses have. they arnt for everyone, and even with the high price tag they are well worth it in my opinion. your 20D is a very capable camera, and with some good skills it can make some great shots, having great glass in front of it helps you get what you want too.

While I really like the 5D, and it's my primary camera, the 1D-series is more versatile. I see PJ's using the 1D/M2/N all the time. I have used mine in that role before and feel no disadvantage.

The 5D really comes into its own when I shoot landscapes and want the look-n-feel that I can only get with a true 16 or 17mm ultrawide. My 1D makes the 17mm into a 22mm, which is not wide enough.

So it depends on your priorities....if you are PJ/sports/events, the 1D's fast focusing, responsiveness and build will be assets. Put a wide zoom on the 20D and a long zoom on the 1D. If you are going for low light, the 17-55 f/2.8 IS USM on the 20D is unbeatable (despite not being an L). I've seen accredited media PJ's use them in the field - and IMO that is a good call.

I own the 20D and 5D. A couple months ago I was debating whether to get the 5D or Mark IIn. Since I already have the 20D, I went for the 5D's full frame and 12.8MP. Although the Mark IIn is a far superior camera to the 20D, The 5's image quality is what sold me. Maybe I'll sell the 20 and eventually get the Mark IIn..who knows. But as I said in an earlier post today, I shoot surfers and my step-daughters drill team fairly often and eventhough I take both cameras, I almost always go for the 5D. It works fine for me for sports. Sports is not where I make my money, so it's not a priority. Weddings, events and portraits is mostly what I do, and is where my 5D shines! Good luck with your purchase, but stepping up to this caliber camera will require the highest quality glass...L...

So what about the 30D for sports events? I personaly shoot rodeos mainly and some portraits.

Murtaugh,

You mentioned that you have never shot with any L lenses. See if you can rent one to demo and you will notice the difference. You also mentioned the 24-70. It is a fine specimen to test out. Sharp, fast and is built like a tank. Once you do, you won't ever go back I assure you.
Also, you might think about getting a second body, it really helps to use two lenses for photojournalism as conditions change fast and you can't miss a shot because you had to change lenses. Maybe invest in another 20D body or even a used 1d Mark I. I picked up my recent 1D for 1,100 U.S. but there have been some on eBay that have sold for about $900 range. Even though it only has 4 megapixels, you will find that most newspapers will find that adequate.
Good luck on your move into photojournalism. It is a pretty hard business to get into (still trying to get my whole body through the door. Still wedged with half my body hanging out). By the way, have you checked out some PJ resources and websites? You might want to get involved with those as it does help make contacts.

I only own the 5D and have just ordered a second body to eventually pair up with the 70-200 2.8 iS. I don't shoot sports, but like Jonathan my bread and butter comes from wedding work. The 5D is excellent for that.

I picked the 5D as well as another because (a) it gave me the full frame that I've been accustomed to all my life (b) the viewfinder was fairly sizable, not horribly smaller than my MF gear, and (c) I needed something that would create a large enough "negative" to keep me from missing MF film.

At only 3fps, that's pretty adequate for getting the bride's bouquet toss - Stu