tell me the truth

James P wrote in post #11319062
I have a 40D and a 50D, but have always wondered about moving to full frame. I can get a new 5D Mark II at $400 off the regular price at a local camera store. My question is this, will I really see enough difference between the croppers and the full frame to justify the hassle? I would sell the 40D, but then have two different kinds of batteries, would have to use DPP or get CS5 to work in RAW. I shoot everything from sports to birds to scenic. Your thoughts would be greatly appreciated.

Heh! Are you still around James!

As for software, the 5D2 can be handled by the same software you use for the 50D, I believe. If you are talking Raw shooting, CS4 or CS5, or Photoshop Elements in a recent version should do you fine. Or, of course, Lightroom 2 or 3 would work.

For less experienced Raw shooters I always advise the use of the Canon Raw software Digital Photo Professionsl either to start with or to use alongside of your "normal" software, and also, of cource, EOS Utilities has useful tools as well.

James P wrote in post #11320547
Thank you for your replies. It seems I'm still getting the same mixed opinions that made me hesitate in the first place. A friend who has a 5D II raves about how much better it is over his 50D, but I've noticed that most people will try to praise the equipment they own. Can any 5D II owner tell my why they think it's that much superior to a 50D?

As you've noted, yeah, opinions will vary. A lot depends on the type of shooting you do. That's just the way it is. In fact, some people have used a ff camera and gone back to a crop camera because it suits their shooting needs. But, as you have seen, plenty have gone full frame and not turned back because it meets their shooting needs.

From the sound of things you are considering keeping your 50D, selling the 40D and getting the 5D2 so you would have both the 50D and 5D -- am I correct? If so, I can say that many of us are very happy with a combo like that, both formats have uses they are suited for. So, I'd say that could be a good move!

Delija wrote in post #11324084
Not an unexpected or unique experience I'm sure. People love instant gratification. Digital photography provides that.

And almost every industry requires it. Film still has its niche, but its no longer useful for "most" professional applications. Certainly not 35mm film.

mikeassk wrote in post #11324733
And almost every industry requires it. Film still has its niche, but its no longer useful for "most" professional applications. Certainly not 35mm film.

Agreed.

I came from Nikon APS-C bodies (D90 & D200) to a Canon 5D2 and really like the difference. Full-frame has a much more 'organic' look to it that I like. It's easier to yank backgrounds out of focus, focal lengths of lenses and especially zooms make more sense (70-200) with no need to buy special APS-C lenses especially if you shoot film too like I do (haven't bought a Canon EOS film body yet but plan to). I also like the vignetting/falloff that you can get at larger apertures with full frame. I tend to actually add that in post a lot, so one of the very first things I did was to disable peripheral illumination correction in-camera. APS-C bodies look so 'sterile' and flat and boring in comparison. Some people like that, but I think full-frame has a dreamier look to it. The high-ISO is nice, too. I actually shoot the camera down in 11MP mode a lot, but 21MP is nice for landscapes once in awhile.

Overall very very pleased with the jump. I'll still probably pick up a cheaper used Canon APS-C body at some point (40/50D) as a beater/secondary body if I'm roughing it (out playing in the snow) and don't want to risk the 5D2 (or spend a fraction of that and get the EOS film body that I was planning to get anyways...) but have no plans at all to go back to APS-C as a primary format. If the stuff I mentioned above is stuff you'd think you'd like too then go for it, but otherwise it's not like there aren't zillions of example photos here from APS-C bodies that aren't outstanding. In fact if you want more depth of field rather than less, and more even illumination across the frame rather than falloff, APS-C can actually be a big advantage, all depending on what you shoot.

tonylong wrote in post #11324696
Heh! Are you still around James!

As for software, the 5D2 can be handled by the same software you use for the 50D, I believe. If you are talking Raw shooting, CS4 or CS5, or Photoshop Elements in a recent version should do you fine. Or, of course, Lightroom 2 or 3 would work.

From the sound of things you are considering keeping your 50D, selling the 40D and getting the 5D2 so you would have both the 50D and 5D -- am I correct? If so, I can say that many of us are very happy with a combo like that, both formats have uses they are suited for. So, I'd say that could be a good move!

Yes, I'm still here, reading every single reply. (except the ones that aren't on topic)

I will keep the 50D if I get the 5D II.

This may sound strange to some, but removing my expensive, legal copy of CS3 and buying CS5 so that I can process my RAW files using the same work flow I've been using for years is one of my main concerns. I'm going to try out DPP today and see if I can get by with it. At my age (60) I can hear the sands flowing through life's hour glass, so the cost of the 5D II is not really a concern. (You older guys can relate, I'm sure).

As you can see from the responses, there are so many who rave about Full Frame cameras and just as many who point out there shortcomings. I'm going over to my friend's house today and try out his 5D II and make my decision.

Keep the opinions coming guys. I really appreciate your help.

Delija wrote in post #11324084
Not an unexpected or unique experience I'm sure. People love instant gratification. Digital photography provides that.

Is there something that you can ONLY learn through films?

James P wrote in post #11325622
This may sound strange to some, but removing my expensive, legal copy of CS3 and buying CS5 so that I can process my RAW files using the same work flow I've been using for years is one of my main concerns. I'm going to try out DPP today and see if I can get by with it. At my age (60) I can hear the sands flowing through life's hour glass, so the cost of the 5D II is not really a concern. (You older guys can relate, I'm sure).

You don't need to buy CS5 to process 5D2 RAW files. If you can get by with it, all you need is Photoshop Elements for $50, which also gives you access to the latest versions of ACR which support the 5D2. And DPP really isn't that bad in my experience. I actually prefer it because the colors come out more consistently than with ACR.

Another horrifying suggestion would be to shoot JPEG. No they're not the best and yes you can get 'better' results with RAW, but are you really going to stuff your nose into the equivalent of 5 foot wide prints to notice the difference? 90% of my photography is of my two kids where the 11MP medium/fine JPEGs are perfectly fine. Landscapes I shoot large/fine RAW + JPEG and most of the time the JPEGs are fine, but once in awhile the low-level low-ISO NR messes up details even with NR turned "off" and I process from the RAW file.

James P wrote in post #11325622
This may sound strange to some, but removing my expensive, legal copy of CS3 and buying CS5 so that I can process my RAW files using the same work flow I've been using for years is one of my main concerns. I'm going to try out DPP today and see if I can get by with it. At my age (60) I can hear the sands flowing through life's hour glass, so the cost of the 5D II is not really a concern. (You older guys can relate, I'm sure).

If you're primarily just editing photos, LightRoom 3 is worth looking at. I think that the layout is more sensible and streamlined for photographers and it's $300... ($99 if you know a student that can buy it for you).

x_tan wrote in post #11323381
+1.

I almost gave up photography due to the poor print job from my local camera store.

And digital photography give me the instant, and true feed feedback. And I can lean from my mistake and improve my technics all time.

I did give it up back in my college days. I've only recently come back to it since I can fund a digital setup now.

alpha_1976 wrote in post #11325882
Is there something that you can ONLY learn through films?

Developing...just for starters

I wish I could offer more than to say I just did the same swap you are contemplating. I had a 50d and 40d that I've been using for a couple years and just sold the 40d for a 5d MkII I'm super psyched to put this camera through its paces but as of yet haven't really been able to get out yet. I had weighed all the pros and cons of both and like someone mentioned, people tend to defend whatever they are using, its probably human nature. Hopefully I'll be able to provide some more concise (worthwhile) feedback in a next couple weeks.