My new 5D

Just got a 5D, up until now jpegs have been my M.O.
I have toyed with raw time and time again and keep coming back to jpeg for ease of processing. But, after just 2 days and about 200 pics on the 5D, I don't see much difference in the images.
Will the differences be more apparent if I use raw?
I have been shooting lots of flowers, some lanscapes and some portraits. I tried to use nearly the same subjects so I could compare but so far there isn't much difference.
I bought the 5D for better low light work and for more details in my lanscapes, flowers and plants.
I know it will not make me a better photographer, just thought I would notice more of a difference.
Will it take some time to find out where this camera shines compared to my 30D?
Thanks in advance for what your suggestions and experience.

thatkatmat wrote in post #3816933
Just got a 5D, up until now jpegs have been my M.O.
I have toyed with raw time and time again and keep coming back to jpeg for ease of processing. But, after just 2 days and about 200 pics on the 5D, I don't see much difference in the images.
Will the differences be more apparent if I use raw?
I have been shooting lots of flowers, some lanscapes and some portraits. I tried to use nearly the same subjects so I could compare but so far there isn't much difference.
I bought the 5D for better low light work and for more details in my lanscapes, flowers and plants.
I know it will not make me a better photographer, just thought I would notice more of a difference.
Will it take some time to find out where this camera shines compared to my 30D?
Thanks in advance for what your suggestions and experience.

Jpeg is fine but if you want more control over PP then you don't have a choice but to shoot RAW. Especially if you want to correct for under/over exposure. The RAW file saves all data captured, which gives you more to work with. But it's your choice.

It will also give you better WB control if you get into situations where you feel correction is needed. That's how I do my wedding work where the WB changes a dozen times at least during the course of the day; saved my bacon more than once.

thatkatmat wrote in post #3816933
Just got a 5D, up until now jpegs have been my M.O.
I have toyed with raw time and time again and keep coming back to jpeg for ease of processing. But, after just 2 days and about 200 pics on the 5D, I don't see much difference in the images.
Will the differences be more apparent if I use raw?
I have been shooting lots of flowers, some lanscapes and some portraits. I tried to use nearly the same subjects so I could compare but so far there isn't much difference.
I bought the 5D for better low light work and for more details in my lanscapes, flowers and plants.
I know it will not make me a better photographer, just thought I would notice more of a difference.
Will it take some time to find out where this camera shines compared to my 30D?
Thanks in advance for what your suggestions and experience.

are you comparing the 5d + 24-105L against the 30d + 17-55?

raw shouldn't make any difference if you were shooting jpeg on both cameras. and if you are getting your exposures close you probably wouldn't see any difference between jpeg and raw anyway.

BTW, the 5d produces superb large jpegs that can be processed just like a raw file -- of course you have to do your part and get WB and exposure closer than you would need to with raw.

ed rader

Interesting,
Yes I do know the advantages of using RAW. I can usually get my exposer and WB correct (or near anyway)and have used RAW a few times when I get into a challenging lighting situation, such as in a restaurant, with many different light sources.
So should I see a difference in dynamic range when I compare the two different sensors? Is the image just bigger, I mean, does the bigger sensor just give you larger file so that when you turn it say from a 16x20 to a 8x10 you'll get more detail? I have a couple books on the way but still I am very curious and impatient
Ed, I used a couple different lenses to compare, but mostly both the 24-105 and the 70-200. I think those two focal lengths are much better for me....on the 5D. I find the 70-200 a much more usable lens on the FF.
Thanks everyone, much appreciated.

There is only a very slight difference in dynamic range of the 5D over the 30D.

thatkatmat wrote in post #3817542
Interesting,
Yes I do know the advantages of using RAW. I can usually get my exposer and WB correct (or near anyway)and have used RAW a few times when I get into a challenging lighting situation, such as in a restaurant, with many different light sources.
So should I see a difference in dynamic range when I compare the two different sensors? Is the image just bigger, I mean, does the bigger sensor just give you larger file so that when you turn it say from a 16x20 to a 8x10 you'll get more detail? I have a couple books on the way but still I am very curious and impatient
Ed, I used a couple different lenses to compare, but mostly both the 24-105 and the 70-200. I think those two focal lengths are much better for me....on the 5D. I find the 70-200 a much more usable lens on the FF.
Thanks everyone, much appreciated.

the first time i used my 5d i noticed an overall improvement in IQ.

the 24-105L should look better with the 5d especially in low light.

the 5d gives you a larger, more hi-quality file. i had a 20d and now i have a 30d. i use the crop camera more like a TC...when i need more reach and the IQ hit is better than what i would get cropping a 5d image.

ed rader

17-55IS may be a sharper lens than the 24-105L. You should pick up something like the 100macro for the 5D to shine

Yeah, I did notice "some" improvement too Ed, but I guess I expected more. I plan to do the same as you, use the 30D like a 1.6x TC. I have a gig comming up where it will be soooooo much better having two bodies rather than switching lenses. And, yes, not only does the 24-105 seem a little better in low light on my 5D, the 81mm FL spread is simply amazing, so much range. the first time I put it on the wide end made me like Whoa, weird....cool! Really nice.

KevC wrote in post #3817769
17-55IS may be a sharper lens than the 24-105L. You should pick up something like the 100macro for the 5D to shine

You may be right, the 17-55 is very sharp and a really great lens, I will be renting some lenses over the next month or two (until rebate season) to decide what I will get. I have most all the zooms I want for now, and will be renting the 35L,85/1.8 and L, 50L and 1.4 and the 135L as well as the macro you brought up. I need low light primes for the type of shooting I want to do.
I thought and actually posted my 17-55 on here for trade for a 24-70 or a few primes I'm interested in, but tonight decided to keep it for the 30D for a while and see if I use it.

thatkatmat wrote in post #3816933
Just got a 5D, up until now jpegs have been my M.O.
I have toyed with raw time and time again and keep coming back to jpeg for ease of processing. But, after just 2 days and about 200 pics on the 5D, I don't see much difference in the images.
Will the differences be more apparent if I use raw?
I have been shooting lots of flowers, some lanscapes and some portraits. I tried to use nearly the same subjects so I could compare but so far there isn't much difference.
I bought the 5D for better low light work and for more details in my lanscapes, flowers and plants.
I know it will not make me a better photographer, just thought I would notice more of a difference.
Will it take some time to find out where this camera shines compared to my 30D?
Thanks in advance for what your suggestions and experience.

The differences in raw vs. jpg can be very big, situation depending. But to get those differences, one needs to know how to expose for raw, as it is not done the same way as for jpg. Also, one must know how to post process, otherwise one may often see raw as showing LESS image quality then jpg....if your post processing and camera workflow skills are not up to par, raw shooting will often show LESS quality...but if you know what you're doing, raw shooting will very often show much better quality...also, if your eye is not attune to quality, you will not see any differences....many new-to-raw shooters have come from the Sony-Eye-Candy over saturated over contrasted Point & Shoot world, and until those folks spend considerable time with a DSLR and learn proper raw camera workflow & post processing, they are often disappointed, and give up without giving it a good amount of time to conquer the learning curve.

Thank you Steiglitz for your well thought out answer. So, I guess It's like most other things, practice makes perfect. I am reletively new to DSLR only about a year and 15,000 shots into it.I have learned much, but know I have a long way to go to get to some of my goals. One reason I brought this up is, I did shoot a few in RAW yesterday when I first got the camera, checked out the images, they looked great, then switched to JPEG right away and started shooting and pretty much just stopped this afternoon. After an hour of processing the shots I was left a little underwhelmed. They look good but I know they can look a lot better. So, I figured I'd ask....you get a mixed bag of answers but that is what I'm looking for.
So......I've become pretty decent at, and have a good eye, for processing JPEGS, perhaps that will translate into processing RAW.
Thanks

Interesting thread katmat, i use jpeg mainly with my 5d as i find that tweaking the jpegs to be quick and easy and find that i can enhance them quite a bit. Although when I take my paid shots of backyard landscapes I use raw and convert, but i am looking for a specific outcome with these shots and if im out on my shot i have more room for correction - as i cannot go back to shoot again.

For my bulk fun shooting - jpeg for its sheer ease.

Can i hijack your thread for a sec... looking at getting a 40d and 17-55 2.8 ... i have the 5d/24-105 and love it... from what you have said it seems that you really really like your 17-55... More than the 5d 24-105 combo??? if so then i wont feel so bad for getting an efs lens that wont fit my 5d (i need a walkaround on both as i often need to send the 5d out) and i dont think i could handle the 24-70 2.8 as i dont think its wide enough.

just chasing your thoughts.... cheers

thatkatmat wrote in post #3816933
Just got a 5D, up until now jpegs have been my M.O.
I have toyed with raw time and time again and keep coming back to jpeg for ease of processing. But, after just 2 days and about 200 pics on the 5D, I don't see much difference in the images.
Will the differences be more apparent if I use raw?
I have been shooting lots of flowers, some lanscapes and some portraits. I tried to use nearly the same subjects so I could compare but so far there isn't much difference.
I bought the 5D for better low light work and for more details in my lanscapes, flowers and plants.
I know it will not make me a better photographer, just thought I would notice more of a difference.
Will it take some time to find out where this camera shines compared to my 30D?
Thanks in advance for what your suggestions and experience.

My experience was also to start that I wsn't too sure that iot was an improvement, certainly there diodn't seem to be more detail in landscapes

However when I had used it more I saw that there was a definite impovment in the IQ over the 1.6 camera, difficult to define for a laypersn like me but I expect the techies could explain it better. I first noticed it shooting Bluebells in a wood. Creamy qulity.

RAW v JPG? The main difference IMO is the dynamic range and sublety of colours

The is DEFINITELY an increase in available DR ith RAW, at least that s what I find, a huge differenc in that respect. Also the colours are more subtle
don't know if it shows online but:
http://digital-finger.smugmug.com/gal​lery/1310428#75652259-L-LB

I usually shoot RAW and have noticed a great deal of difference between the quality of the images shot with a 5D and those shot with a 20D (using the same lenses).