I'm Selling My 5D Mark II

silvex wrote in post #7113448
To the OP. I think if you drive an Enzo ferrari and a toyota truck during the morning rush in southern california. The toyota truck might me all you need and no point in owning a $1M italian beauty. This becomes less of a choice when you drive in the autoban in europe. The Enzo's handling and HP will sing to you! Then a again the Enzo can't carry a sofa of a soccer team...

In a similar fashion. The 5D MkII will seem not like a lot when using a 40D when the ISO needed for a shot is about 100-400. The 5DMkII will start to show its "enzo" soul when the ISO needed starts to go above and beyond 3200...

If the 5D2 is an Enzo, then what, exactly, is the 1D3/1Ds3?

If anything, I think that you got your analogy backwards. Like a Toyota truck compared to an Enzo, the 5D2 is slower than the 40D, while the 40D is smaller, faster, and, from what I understand, noisier.

He's not having buyer's remorse. His critics are having post-purchase rationalizations for themselves. He is absolutely correct about image quality being negligible for prints up to 16x20 inches. Over that and yes, I think you will start to see a difference. There are several threads here including one of mine that compare side-by-side identical setup shots between the 5D and 40d and other xxD bodies. If you are in doubt take a look at the pictures. Lots of people deny it but they never post side-by-side identical shots to prove their point. You are hard pressed to see the difference in IQ. Of course IQ is not the only factor in evaluating cameras. I like my 5d2 for 3 main reasons: 1. wide angle, 2. bokeh and 3. nice lcd that you can use to check focus. The OP is wise to sell the 5d2 and buy some glass for the 40D for his needs.

SwingBopper wrote in post #7114769
He's not having buyer's remorse. His critics are having post-purchase rationalizations for themselves. He is absolutely correct about image quality being negligible for prints up to 16x20 inches. Over that and yes, I think you will start to see a difference. There are several threads here including one of mine that compare side-by-side identical setup shots between the 5D and 40d and other xxD bodies. If you are in doubt take a look at the pictures. Lots of people deny it but they never post side-by-side identical shots to prove their point. You are hard pressed to see the difference in IQ. Of course IQ is not the only factor in evaluating cameras. I like my 5d2 for 3 main reasons: 1. wide angle, 2. bokeh and 3. nice lcd that you can use to check focus. The OP is wise to sell the 5d2 and buy some glass for the 40D for his needs.

That's an old argument and, given a set of parameters and context, is certainly valid. In fact, we can stretch it and say that given the right lighting, framing, technique, type of photograph, and viewing size, me 4,5, and 6 MP compact cameras have produced images with image quality that rival any of my DSLRs.

So, in those parameters, it's all good, and is in fact a compelling reason whay many people are best served staying with P&S cameras, while relatively few are probably best served by moving from a crop DSLR to a full-frame DSLR. By the same token, relatively few 35mm format DSLR users are well-served by spending the big bucks to buy into a high resolution medium format digital back system. It's not that there are not real qualities and benefits to the medium format system, but the high price and to some the size makes it not the best choice.

So, the high resolution full-frame body has a similar payoff in quality over the crop camera. The one fundamental deciding factor is price vs performance. It's not, and can not, be that the crop is equal in quality to the equivalent to the same generation full frame sensor, simply that the crop gives great quality that within the same parameters rival the quality you may get from a full frame sensor, although it will not always give that if you stretch the parameters of your shooting and what you do with your images.

So, what's the big deal? For most people, not as much, which is why most DSLR users are best served with a crop body with all the features that make their shooting easy and the best it can be. It's really no big deal, except when people get argumentative or make statements that are rather far-fetched. Either side (users of either system) can do this, hence the rapid-fire debating that tends to go nowhere!

Wow 14 pages in a day I wish my northern lights picture https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=632418 got that kinda press.

Kajuah wrote in post #7114992
Wow 14 pages in a day I wish my northern lights picture https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=632418 got that kinda press.

Heh! You have to stop posting pictures, in fact, stop taking pictures at all, and jump in and start arguing about gear and stuff that's important!

tonylong wrote in post #7115069
Heh! You have to stop posting pictures, in fact, stop taking pictures at all, and jump in and start arguing about gear and stuff that's important?)!

Bingo, we have a winner.

The Gear Forum: Where 2% of decent advice gets lost amongst 98% of babbling rubbish, over-obsessing about nothing and arguing the toss just for the sake of it. It baffles me why we get a new thread for every single bit of whatever that's been ordered or bought, why there's a thread to complain about everything, even though there are precisely 48.7 in existence already, and why we get rumour threads about the MkX+1 six days after the MkX is released. The only thing I can think of is that there's too many people who feel the need to attention whore or turn themselves on over pixel density this, and back focus this, instead of actually using their camera to shock horror, actually take pictures.

It's really bloody tiring.


That said, in order to prove I'm not a completely miserable sod, I find it interesting to note the OP sees no difference between a 40D and a 5D2. Personally, for what I shoot I can spot the difference between a 40D and a 5D instantly, but it's got to be said, in the internet land of willy-waving, kudos for having the balls to say you don't rate the new must have camera, and are spending the money on lenses instead. Gotta be said, they'd likely make more difference to your photos.

Yes 10 hours ago this thread was started, and it's got over 200 posts now. It's amazing how emphatically people have responded to a "selling my 5D II" type thread.

There are a whole bunch of people on this forum that need to stop concerning themselves with what gear to purchase, and instead go spend money on learning aids, classes, etc. It is pretty ridiculous.

But, that said...

Anyone here that thinks the 5DM2 and the 40D "produce" the same picture would be crazy. An 8X10 print-for-print of the same shot, perhaps. However, it isn't about that. It is about flexibility. Being able to crop crazily and still produce an 8X12 is a great option. The ability to shoot with a clean 3200 and 6400 iso is about the flexibility. Base IQ aside, these are MEASURABLE items that WILL effect the final output to your wall or your client in all but the most ideal situations.

With all due respect to the original poster: You stated you can't see the difference, and initially I though it was because you're probably shooting with lots of light, low ISO, and higher apertures However, you then posted a couple of images that I *know* could have dreamy bokeh that is easier to obtain with a full frame body and could be easier to obtain in low light because of ISO flexibility. The 5D Mark II would be a machine to create those images you posted over the 40D. It just smacks the 40D around for low light portrait work, without question, without debate. If you aren't noticing this or don't realize what I'm referring, I would suggest your skill is lacking. This has zero to do with how sharp the image is, or how it prints. If you don't agree, I would suggest you'll know out what I mean.

Video isn't even worth discussing, as it isn't a Best Buy camcorder and you cannot have expectations like that. It is quite amusing about the low light comments, as the 5D's video capabilities in low light are emmense compared to pretty much anything that shoots video. It requires skill to use effectively. Light is also required. It isn't a magic wand. I'm happy to go on and on about this as well, but I'm in the fairly passionate camp that feels the revolution it is causing and will cause in our industry is ground breaking. Probably best to leave it along I guess.

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for agressively stating some of this, but some of this just is. Some of us understand these facts, others do not.

I do agree with one thing: if you don't see the difference, by all means sell the camera.

Flexibility yes, that's why I finally bought a full frame camera, for flexibility of depth of field and wide angle lens options. But 95% of the decision was...narrower DoF.

If I could really afford and justify the cost of the 5D II I would've gotten it instead, but I couldn't, so I didn't. Getting involved in a full frame camera is enough right now, and the one I chose has an excellent reputation as a wedding photographer's camera, which is what it will see the most of. I would admittedly have plenty of use for higher ISO options, live view on full frame, video, and possibly the increased resolution, but being a budget photographer I can't justify or pay off such an expensive camera by my work within a reasonable period of time, and therefore the investment would not be very wise for me. On the other hand, paying about 2/5 of that amount is workable for me, and so I did that.

I still think that after buying one it would be incredibly unwise to sell it so quickly and for such reasons as the OP has.

JasonSTL739 wrote in post #7115294
There are a whole bunch of people on this forum that need to stop concerning themselves with what gear to purchase, and instead go spend money on learning aids, classes, etc. It is pretty ridiculous.

But, that said...

Anyone here that thinks the 5DM2 and the 40D "produce" the same picture would be crazy. An 8X10 print-for-print of the same shot, perhaps. However, it isn't about that. It is about flexibility. Being able to crop crazily and still produce an 8X12 is a great option. The ability to shoot with a clean 3200 and 6400 iso is about the flexibility. Base IQ aside, these are MEASURABLE items that WILL effect the final output to your wall or your client in all but the most ideal situations.

With all due respect to the original poster: You stated you can't see the difference, and initially I though it was because you're probably shooting with lots of light, low ISO, and higher apertures However, you then posted a couple of images that I *know* could have dreamy bokeh that is easier to obtain with a full frame body and could be easier to obtain in low light because of ISO flexibility. The 5D Mark II would be a machine to create those images you posted over the 40D. It just smacks the 40D around for low light portrait work, without question, without debate. If you aren't noticing this or don't realize what I'm referring, I would suggest your skill is lacking. This has zero to do with how sharp the image is, or how it prints. Eventually you'll figure out what I mean.

Video isn't even worth discussing, as it isn't a Best Buy camcorder and you cannot have expectations like that. It is quite amusing about the low light, as the 5D's video capabilities in low light are emmense compared to pretty much anything that shoots video. It requires skill to use effectively. Light is also required. I'm happy to go on and on about this as well, but I'm in the fairly passionate camp that feels the revolution it is causing and will cause in our industry is ground breaking. Probably best to leave it along I guess.

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for agressively stating some of this, but some of this just is. Some of us understand these facts, others do not.

I do agree with one thing: if you don't see the difference, by all means sell the camera.

not by me; we're saying the same thing.

-- small prints ARE NOT the way to judge a cameras IQ potential. that notion is preposterous.

-- if you can't see the difference in IQ or don't need the resolution or have any other regrets sell the 5d II right now to minimize your losses.

ed rader

form wrote in post #7115314
Flexibility yes, that's why I finally bought a full frame camera, for flexibility of depth of field and wide angle lens options. But 95% of the decision was...narrower DoF.

If I could really afford and justify the cost of the 5D II I would've gotten it instead, but I couldn't, so I didn't. Getting involved in a full frame camera is enough right now, and the one I chose has an excellent reputation as a wedding photographer's camera, which is what it will see the most of. I would admittedly have plenty of use for higher ISO options, live view on full frame, video, and possibly the increased resolution, but being a budget photographer I can't justify or pay off such an expensive camera by my work within a reasonable period of time, and therefore the investment would not be very wise for me. On the other hand, paying about 2/5 of that amount is workable for me, and so I did that.

I still think that after buying one it would be incredibly unwise to sell it so quickly and for such reasons as the OP has.

This is a idea. I will take it a step further and direct it at the original poster.

Get a used 5D. You get lots of better results for what it appears you shoot, without the price tag. Better DOF results, better low light, fabulous "feel" of the images.

I think it's kind of crazy that anyone would buy a new body thinking they were going to get better pictures automatically just.like.magic. Isn't that the whole issue? If a person buys a 5D Mk II and thinks, "this thing is going to make my photos look SOO much better" then they aren't buying it for the right reasons in the first place. I'm not surprised that someone who entered into that transaction with that frame of mind is selling after a week.

This is a very common theme here. I see people who keep upgrading and upgrading and then wondering why their images aren't great. Many of them don't know about toggling focus points or how their meter works, but they have the best money can buy and will defend their right to have it, and of course they have that right... but it's a shame seeing people think that a better body will simply automatically exponentially improve their across the board results but they haven't given much thought to actually SHOOTING.

They wonder if the problem is with the body or with the lens. They upgrade again and they still get the same results... upgrade glass, same results... blame the gear some more and then upgrade again. Frankly, I'm surprised they have so much time to do online shopping in between the constant posting in threads trying to justify the idea that better gear makes you a better photographer and trying to figure out why they can't get a sharp, well exposed photo to save their heavily indebted lives.

It's maddening to watch, which is why I never come to the gear forums... except for tonight when I hit "New Posts" for the first time in months.

I still say you have to be an idiot not to see the IQ jump.

I bet by saying that I'm going to get flamed a thousand times over and it will probably make this thread 10 pages longer, but it's what I notice in comparison.

Kajuah wrote in post #7115549
I still say you have to be an idiot not to see the IQ jump.

I bet by saying that I'm going to get flamed a thousand times over and it will probably make this thread 10 pages longer, but it's what I notice in comparison.

It's really not being "an idiot". No need to disparage people. It's a few factors, separate or together, but not "idiot", more like perception. The only problem is that when someone takes their perception and then declares that as reality in the face of very real factors. That can be a problem, and it can work in both directions.

mattograph wrote in post #7114342
Gone with the Wind, Spartacus, The Ten Commandments, The Godfather, and 10 billion other movies were made WITHOUT Auto Focus. Imagine that.

No doubt. It takes 3-10 people to operate one of those cameras. One to load, one to hold, one to pull focus, and 7 to push the cart it all sits on.