# 5Dc a good option?



## JPlendPhoto (Mar 24, 2013)

I currently have a Canon 450D and I have been looking at going full frame by buying a used 5D Mark ii in time for a wedding in June, but as I have a low budget of around £900, I was wondering if I might be better off with a 5Dc for around £400. 

I know my 450D is a newer camera with a DIGIC III processor and the 5Dc has a DIGIC II processor, but would going back to an older processor matter? Other disadvantages of the 5dc is a small screen, no sensor cleaning and well I think it’s just those three things. With the 5Dc being full frame the ISO and image quality will be much better than the 450D, am I right?

Is there a big difference in image quality between the 5Dc and 5D MKII?

I do understand that the 5DMark ii is again better than the 5Dc, but I am trying to save money. I am basically asking is going from the 450D to a 5Dc a good option?

Thanks


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 24, 2013)

You're never really better off by choosing a 5Dc over a 5D2. If you are doing the wedding for money, why don't you get the 5D2, shoot the wedding, then keep shooting more weddings after that, for money? You'll pay it off in no time.


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 24, 2013)

Be careful going full frame: there are hidden costs there as these cameras demand a lot more of your glass. I would suggest going for a 7D if you're on a budget. It's a great camera and you can tap into APS-C glass as well as full frame.


----------



## mememe (Mar 24, 2013)

I went 5d -> 5dII -> 1dsII -> 5d again.

Its enough for me. But having this resolution is really nice if you earn your Money with it. I just did not like the 5d II somehow.


----------



## mb66energy (Mar 24, 2013)

I just had the same thought yesterday checking different dxomark results for different camera-lens-combos. My observation: the 18MPix sensor of a 7D gives you just a few megapixels more USEABLE resolution than a 40D. This supports my (unscientific but well founded) observation that the sharpness perception of my 40D doesn't quite differ from that with my 600D with good lenses: 24mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2.8, 100mm f/2.0 etc.

dxomark results support the same for FF cameras: With a 5Dii you will not gain twice the resolution of a 5Dclassic but perhaps 10 or 20 percent ... except with a 70-200 f/2.8 ii ...

A 5D classic would be interesting just for me at 600 Euro from a dealer (1 year warranty) and be compatible with my stock of BP-511 batteries. 12 Mpixel Raw files would be very handy and sufficient for my purposes.

On the other hand: No video, a moderate LCD are drawbacks to me. And video support might be of interest for me. And there is the sRAW mode to decrease the stored MPixel count to keep files smaller (never tested it but it should be the case).

Wanted to share my thoughts because I am in the same decision process. But there is a good chance that I will wait one or two years ... APS-C is so good compared to what I see from the film slides I reproduced the last days ...


Best - Michael


----------



## agierke (Mar 24, 2013)

the 5Dc is severely hampered in low light situations. the usable ISO caps around 1600 but. the Mrk2 you can push to 3200 or slightly more if absolutely necessary.

i own both and shoot weddings. during ceremonies i try not to use the 5Dc at all...the Mrk2 is just so much better in those situations. in daylight i use both simultaneously. at receptions i favor the Mrk2 but with my flash and room strobe the 5Dc does fine.

at this point in camera evolution i would not waste any money at all on a 5Dc.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 24, 2013)

At Building Panoramics we use both Mk1 and 2. I prefer the mk1. Why ? Data at 100 ISO. But then we only shoot commercially at 100 ISO. LCD is fine for lighting and exposure (histogram) when you're used to it but I really truffle if going from the much much better mk2 screen. 

On an A1 size print ( 34x23" ?) you really have to peer close at the print to see the difference between 13 and 21 mp, which is after all only a 14% increase in resolution but a whole heap of increas in file size. 

The mk2 probably is a little better between 800 and 1600 ISO. Wouldnt touch 3200 on mk2. 

Guess it comes down to money. Mk1 is better value IMO. Our battered mk1 is now basically worthless so I guess we'll never sell it !!


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 24, 2013)

mb66energy said:


> And there is the sRAW mode to decrease the stored MPixel count to keep files smaller (never tested it but it should be the case).



I shoot SRAW1 all the time on the 5DII, and MRAW on the 7D. This gives an effective resolution on each camera of about 10 Mega pixels, sufficient for my needs. Processing these files does however still require significantly more computer grunt than did the 10 Mega pixel files from my previous 40D.

Quality wise it's fine and I believe grouping of pixels in this way helps a little in the way of built-in noise reduction.


----------



## mememe (Mar 24, 2013)

agierke said:


> the 5Dc is severely hampered in low light situations. the usable ISO caps around 1600 but. the Mrk2 you can push to 3200 or slightly more if absolutely necessary.
> 
> i own both and shoot weddings. during ceremonies i try not to use the 5Dc at all...the Mrk2 is just so much better in those situations. in daylight i use both simultaneously. at receptions i favor the Mrk2 but with my flash and room strobe the 5Dc does fine.
> 
> at this point in camera evolution i would not waste any money at all on a 5Dc.



Thats why i didnt like the 5dII. It didnt give me that much better IQ at 3200 that everyone hyped about... It was even a more ugly noise with more banding etc. Its much overrated...


----------



## TrumpetPower! (Mar 24, 2013)

The original 5D is a wonderful camera. If it seems less than stellar, it's only in comparison to its successors.

It's important to understand what its successors offer that it doesn't. And, if nothing that's been added is of any consequence to you, then there's nothing to be gained from the new bodies.

First is resolution. But, if your printer sits on your desktop -- that is, unless it takes ink by the gallon and paper by the yard -- then you'll never be able to tell the difference in a print. (Of course, if you crop heavily, you might need more resolution.)

Next is high ISO noise performance...but, again, this is largely determined by print size. If all you're doing is 12" x 16" and smaller prints, you can really push the ISO even on the original 5D and you'll be just fine. It's only at the larger print sizes that the high ISO noise starts to fall apart.

Then there's autofocus. It's barely adequate on the original 5D and not much better on the 5DII. The 5DIII has the second-best autofocus of any camera ever made, only barely behind the 1Dx. If autofocus at all matters to you, that's plenty of a determinant right there.

Close on the heels of autofocus is frame rate and buffer size. It sucks on the 5D, it isn't too terrible on the 5DII, and it's plenty for all but the _SI_ crowd on the 5DIII. Indeed, put the 5DIII's autofocus and shooting speed together with its high ISO performance and image quality and the rest, and it's probably Canon's #3 sports camera of all time, second only to the 1Dx and the 1DIV.

And last is ergonomics, especially including things like the LCD screen and buttons and all that stuff. There's no question but that there's been a very steady improvement, significant bordering on dramatic...but it's not like there's anything horridly worng with the 5D. It'll get the job done just fine, so long as you know its quirks and how to live with them.

So, yes. The original 5D isn't just a good option; it's a very good option. That the 5DII and 5DIII are excellent and unbelievably fantastic options doesn't make the original 5D bad; it's still every bit as good as the day it was released, and it was revolutionary and very, very good back then.

Cheers,

b&


----------



## Hesbehindyou (Mar 24, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> I currently have a Canon 450D and I have been looking at going full frame by buying a used 5D Mark ii in time for a wedding in June, but as I have a low budget of around £900, I was wondering if I might be better off with a 5Dc for around £400.





> I do understand that the 5DMark ii is again better than the 5Dc, but I am trying to save money. I am basically asking is going from the 450D to a 5Dc a good option?



I recently got the 5Dc for much the same reason, wanting that FF look for photos that matter (new baby). I'm also on a budget.

It's gonna come down to lenses. If using slower lenses on FF the sharper, more distracting, backgrounds that result may make you wish you went for an option that gave you both the bigger sensor and the faster glass. If you've got, or have already budgeted for, something like a Tamron 28-75 and/or Canon 85 f1.8 / 100 f2 the mk II will be peachy, if you haven't yet got fast glass the cheaper 5Dc and new lenses is the way to go.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 24, 2013)

@Hesbehindyou, I presume you're meaning the mkii needs better glass because of the pixel density. 

As a user of them both I can assure you that the mki thrives on the best glass you can attach to it.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 24, 2013)

The 5Dc is excellent, but has no liveview or AFMA, to big features that might matter to you.
It is excellent at high ISO's.
FF does not demand a better lens, its the opposite, just check the lens review sites. The MTF is always higher for the same lens on a FF body.

You can also use the DXO tool to compare sharpness of a given lens on different bodies. The 40mm has a 12mpix resolution on a 5Dc, but only 9mpix on a 7D

Play with it, a lens will have more resolution and rate higher on a 5D classic than on any crop body. It gets even better on a 5D MK II or MK III.

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/Canon-EF-40mm-F28-STM/(camera)/176/(cameraname)/Canon-EOS-5D


----------



## risc32 (Mar 25, 2013)

I agree that the 5dc is a great camera. I can't think of anything to add to this thread that hasn't just been mentioned except how much i like the 5dc's simplicity. the menu is one single column. i quick turn of one dial will get it done without all the submenus and settings BS that the newer stuff has.


----------



## stipotle (Mar 25, 2013)

I would say that unless you live at ISO 3200, and / or crop a ton, the 5Dc is WELL worth the savings. 
All the peripherals (fps, lcd, video etc) won't impress like the mkII, but the _images_ will. 
I would say it's very reasonable to use the extra money on glass (shorty 40 and 85 f/1.8 are my personal bargain faves), or to save until you can get a MkIII. 
And to add on - 1600 ISO raw files are great. I never liked the noise patterns on the MkII.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 25, 2013)

My understanding is that most new cameras today (including the rebel line) are better in practically every way save for image quality... and then you have the 5d/1d/6d line that are superior. But as someone else said, the lenses that work with full frame, especially the good ones are not cheap. 

Honestly... I'd suggest upgrading the body to a 60D and rent a 5d mkii for the wedding. The 5dc... some people love it and it is cheap, but I think there is a real challenge in getting really nice photos from that body. 

Don't crucifix me if I'm wrong, but I have a hard time saying that the classic is really worth getting in this day and age.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Mar 25, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> My understanding is that most new cameras today (including the rebel line) are better in practically every way save for image quality... and then you have the 5d/1d/6d line that are superior. But as someone else said, the lenses that work with full frame, especially the good ones are not cheap.
> 
> Honestly... I'd suggest upgrading the body to a 60D and rent a 5d mkii for the wedding. The 5dc... some people love it and it is cheap, but I think there is a real challenge in getting really nice photos from that body.
> 
> Don't crucifix me if I'm wrong, but I have a hard time saying that the classic is really worth getting in this day and age.



I agree. I'm thinking if you're going to be shooting paid events, I can't see why you would get a 5Dc over a 5D2. I guess that's just me though.


----------



## jdramirez (Mar 25, 2013)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The 5Dc is excellent, but has no liveview or AFMA, to big features that might matter to you.
> It is excellent at high ISO's.
> FF does not demand a better lens, its the opposite, just check the lens review sites. The MTF is always higher for the same lens on a FF body.
> 
> ...



Correct me if I'm wrong, but a ff option does bring out more vignetting which isn't the biggest problem in the world, but it can turn a good ef lens on a aps-c into a pain to edit on a ff.


----------



## agierke (Mar 25, 2013)

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but a ff option does bring out more vignetting which isn't the biggest problem in the world, but it can turn a good ef lens on a aps-c into a pain to edit on a ff.



correcting vignetting is a 1 click piece of cake in post...if you even find it unpleasant. for wedding work it can often add to the look of the shot.



> The 5dc... some people love it and it is cheap, but I think there is a real challenge in getting really nice photos from that body.



in good light the camera is still really good. in really low light (like what you would find at a ceremony and reception of a wedding) it is almost unusable compared to 5D2. i can't tell you how utterly frustrating it was to try to pull shots off with my 5Dc w/out flash during ceremonies. if you aren't equipped with 1.8 or faster glass you are in store for some serious frustration.....i've been there.

if you really just can't afford the 5D2 then rent it for this wedding. i can't see anyone who shoots weddings and is familiar with both those cameras advising you to go with the classic over the 2.


----------



## RLPhoto (Mar 25, 2013)

In short, yes. Per dollar it is the best value available out there in any margin. It's still better than any APSc camera canon currently makes.


----------



## elflord (Mar 25, 2013)

jdramirez said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but a ff option does bring out more vignetting which isn't the biggest problem in the world, but it can turn a good ef lens on a aps-c into a pain to edit on a ff.



For a given lens that's true, but that's a property of wide fov lenses, not full frame. To compare apples to apples, you need to compare equivalent focal lengths (same fov) and either optimal apertures on both bodies, or "equivalent apertures" (e.g. to take into account that you can stop down a bit more and bump ISO if necessary on full frame for the same depth of field and comparable image quality)

Once you do that, it becomes much less clear that you'd expect more vignetting on FF. One thing that you do gain is that Canons wide primes are all FF lenses (and some of these, such as the tilts are outstanding). There's little point (in my opinion) in APS-C users going with FF primes wider than about 35mm because you're paying a staggering amount of money to cover a wider fov than you need.


----------



## TexasBadger (Mar 25, 2013)

Best value in a FF that you are going to find. In the hands of a skilled photographer, the results are outstanding.


----------



## verysimplejason (Mar 25, 2013)

5DC is good/better for beginners rather than getting a rebel. However, if you are getting paid, you better get a 5D2 at the very least. 5DC got limitations in low-light. You don't want to compromise your work especially when you are getting paid. Getting paid means you're also setting up yourself for future earnings. If you turned in a sloppy work, you might already blemish your reputation that's just beginning. That said, it's still no guarantee that you'll not turn in a sloppy work even when using a 5D2 but at least it will give you a little bit of a headroom. In my profession (programmer/analyst) we have a saying:

"You are only as good as your last project".

I think it's also true with paid photography.


----------



## faccray (Mar 25, 2013)

..I have to agree that I would go for the 5DMK2 as well for the same reasons as whats been written. There's some excellent deals around at the moment.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Mar 25, 2013)

Thanks everyone for your advice! 

Well this wedding in June I will not be getting paid for it, but yes I guess if I have a regular income paying for a 5D2 shouldn’t be a problem. However, as a photographer who has only used APS-C bodies, I feel I should look at going full frame but I am not sure if spending over twice what the 5Dc costs on a 5D2 is a good use of my money. Is the image quality that different between the two? 

I understand the 5Dc is not the best in lowlight, but it can’t be worse than my 450D! I don’t like going up to 1600 on the 450D, even 800 is not great.

If I was to buy a 5Dc I may have enough money next year to buy a 5D3 and keep the 5Dc as a backup, also the 5Dc is the cheapest way to get into/practice with full frame.

So I guess from what I have been reading I have to options, they are:

•	Buy a used 5Dc for around £400 and buy an 85mm 1.8 (Which I think will fit in well because my two L lenses are f/4’s - EF 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L, although I do have a 50mm f1.8 ) 
OR
•	Buy a used 5D2 body only (If anyone knows of any good deals in the UK please let me know!)


----------



## mrsfotografie (Mar 25, 2013)

JPlendPhoto said:


> If I was to buy a 5Dc I may have enough money next year to buy a 5D3 and keep the 5Dc as a backup, also the 5Dc is the cheapest way to get into/practice with full frame.
> 
> So I guess from what I have been reading I have to options, they are:
> 
> •	Buy a used 5Dc for around £400 and buy an 85mm 1.8 (Which I think will fit in well because my two L lenses are f/4’s - EF 17-40 f/4L and 70-200 f/4L, although I do have a 50mm f1.8 )



This, the way you put it, sounds like the most sensible option. Even if you haven't saved up enough for a 5D3 by next year, you could go for the MkII. Having 2 bodies is always nice, and well, you could also sell the 5Dc at a tiny loss if you find you don't need it.


----------



## paulc (Mar 25, 2013)

I came from an XTi. For all of the creature comforts (AF, menus, features) it was pretty much a lateral move. For you going from one Rebel newer than my old one the only feature you'd be missing out on going to the older camera is the additional integration that the EX II speedlights bring in, but the menus are older looking.

I find the 5D to be on par with my Rebel as far as AF goes. The adverse lighting conditions that affect the Rebel more or less are the same conditions that affect the 5D. The 5D, like all other non-Rebel bodies brings in the ability to swap out the focus screen. I exclusively use the Ee-S precision focusing screen. That plus MTF lenses and the back button feature and all my focusing needs are met. The bigger viewfinder is a help too. If you've survived the 450D's autofocus then you should be just fine on the 5D. Moving subjects probably track a little better but it's not a huge difference. Wether that fits your definition of acceptable is entirely your determination.

ISO performance is about one stop (maybe 1 and 1/3) better than my Rebel. That is to say, if 800 is acceptable on my Rebel then 1600 will be just fine on the 5D. I'll actually use 3200 on the 5D, but for the most part won't touch 1600 on the Rebel unless I'm desperate.

My lenses are: 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 28-135, 40/2.8 The 50 was my go-to lens on the Rebel. I've been spending a lot more time with the 85 whenever I'm shooting with strobes ever since moving to FF. The 40 was purchased as mostly a toy for when I want things the be as compact as possible, but it is amazing when asked. The 50/1.4 is pure magic, pure absolute glowy magic on a 5D.


----------



## agierke (Mar 30, 2013)

> If I was to buy a 5Dc I may have enough money next year to buy a 5D3 and keep the 5Dc as a backup, also the 5Dc is the cheapest way to get into/practice with full frame.



once you get a 5D3 you wont want to touch the 5DC...even as a backup. The 5D2 can still hang as a backup to the Mrk3. the 5DC, while a wonderful camera for quite some time, is just not anywhere close to being in the 5D3 neighborhood. at least not for weddings.

if you want to go cheap/low risk...the 5DC will work.


----------



## V8Beast (Mar 31, 2013)

agierke said:


> > If I was to buy a 5Dc I may have enough money next year to buy a 5D3 and keep the 5Dc as a backup, also the 5Dc is the cheapest way to get into/practice with full frame.
> 
> 
> 
> once you get a 5D3 you wont want to touch the 5DC...even as a backup.



There's a lot of truth to this statement! While I loved my 5DC during its heyday, I'm so spoiled by the 5D3 that I hope I'll never have to touch the Classic again, even as a backup.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Apr 2, 2013)

I wish I had the money for a 5D3!


----------



## Welendlenses (Apr 3, 2013)

I've heard that the 5Dc IQ actually beats the 1Ds II because of better color definition and better high ISOs, which apparently are the same as the 5D II as some mentioned. At a wedding I'll use flash before using anything above 1250 ISO anyway.

As for handling I hated (hated) the 7D. The 5D II and 6D aren't much better but at least the AF makes sense. I dislike the mushy buttons. Nowhere near 1D/1Ds handling (even the old ones). I've never had a 5Dc but I'd assume it feels like the 20/30D and 1D II with firmer buttons and smoother/less grippy material. More satisfying imho.

And think about resale value. The 5D II will lose a few hundred before the 5Dc loses one hundred.


----------



## V8Beast (Apr 3, 2013)

Welendlenses said:


> I've heard that the 5Dc IQ actually beats the 1Ds II because of better color definition and better high ISOs, which apparently are the same as the 5D II as some mentioned. At a wedding I'll use flash before using anything above 1250 ISO anyway.
> 
> As for handling I hated (hated) the 7D. The 5D II and 6D aren't much better but at least the AF makes sense. I dislike the mushy buttons. Nowhere near 1D/1Ds handling (even the old ones). I've never had a 5Dc but I'd assume it feels like the 20/30D and 1D II with firmer buttons and smoother/less grippy material. More satisfying imho.
> 
> And think about resale value. The 5D II will lose a few hundred before the 5Dc loses one hundred.



Yes, the 5DC handles much like the 20D. One of the worst aspects of the Classic is the LCD screen. It's not so much the size, but rather the screen's weird colors. I always knew the screen sucked, but after shooting with the 5D3 for the past year, the Classic's screen might as well be black and white!


----------



## bdunbar79 (Apr 5, 2013)

Welendlenses said:


> I've heard that the 5Dc IQ actually beats the 1Ds II because of better color definition and better high ISOs, which apparently are the same as the 5D II as some mentioned. At a wedding I'll use flash before using anything above 1250 ISO anyway.
> 
> As for handling I hated (hated) the 7D. The 5D II and 6D aren't much better but at least the AF makes sense. I dislike the mushy buttons. Nowhere near 1D/1Ds handling (even the old ones). I've never had a 5Dc but I'd assume it feels like the 20/30D and 1D II with firmer buttons and smoother/less grippy material. More satisfying imho.
> 
> And think about resale value. The 5D II will lose a few hundred before the 5Dc loses one hundred.



Look, the 5Dc is a good budget option. But let's not get carried away. It does NOT have better IQ than the 1Ds Mark II. Anyone who has owned these cameras need not repeat what I just said.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Apr 8, 2013)

I think after some more thought that I will buy the 5D2, this would be for around £999. This is still £500 cheaper than a 6D, that £500 saving is a lot of money to me and if I wanted to I could put that £500 towards a prime lens, I have been impressed with the 135mm f/2. If I was to spend an extra £500 on a 6D I would rather wait and get a 5D3, but for me at this time I feel a 5D2 a good choice. 

Yes I know the high ISO is a bit better on the 6D and there is a small difference in image quality, but the 5D2 is still a massive improvement over my 450D. I didn’t hear people complaining about the 5D2’s ISO before the 5D3 and 6D came out, the opposite, people thought it was amazing! I also don’t need wi-fi or gps, plus I prefer the size and feel of the 5D bodies.


----------



## kennephoto (Apr 8, 2013)

5dc or 5d2 both awesome still! If you can't make a great print with either of those cameras something ain't right. I love my 5d2 it was my first DSLR I bought new and it's hard for me to look at or through my 50d.


----------



## Mika (Apr 8, 2013)

I've been going with 5Dc for some time now, got it around 450 € second hand. If you aren't a professional, I wouldn't put my money on the bodies, and I don't know whether there is that big a difference between 5D and 5DII.

My worst deal ever was to buy 20D new. Now I could only get about 10 % of the price I paid back, and this hasn't changed. I don't want to buy 5DIII for that reason only. If you plan on using 5DII, be prepared to sell it after 5DIV or 6DII comes out, that way you'll probably get most of it back.

Currently I'm just using 5D and 20D until they break, after that it will be the next cheapest FF frame available.


----------



## JPlendPhoto (Apr 8, 2013)

Mika said:


> If you aren't a professional, I wouldn't put my money on the bodies, and I don't know whether there is that big a difference between 5D and 5DII.



I am a professional photographer and want to buy a decent camera that I will use over the next few years.


----------



## bigal1000 (Apr 8, 2013)

NO


----------



## Sporgon (Apr 8, 2013)

Mika said:


> I've been going with 5Dc for some time now, got it around 450 € second hand. If you aren't a professional, I wouldn't put my money on the bodies, and I don't know whether there is that big a difference between 5D and 5DII.
> 
> My worst deal ever was to buy 20D new. Now I could only get about 10 % of the price I paid back, and this hasn't changed. I don't want to buy 5DIII for that reason only. If you plan on using 5DII, be prepared to sell it after 5DIV or 6DII comes out, that way you'll probably get most of it back.
> 
> Currently I'm just using 5D and 20D until they break, after that it will be the next cheapest FF frame available.




I use both the mk1 and 2. There's probably going to be howls of disagreement, but IMO the mk2 is just the mk1 with 12% more resolution, a much better LCD monitor, video and live view capability. And I suppose I should add that the file transfer rate is much better. At low ISOs I prefer the mk1 data.


----------



## Mika (Apr 8, 2013)

It's not the first time I hear 5D would have better low ISO performance. Haven't seen that many 5DII images to make the call.

But if OP is a professional, then 5DII is pretty clear answer. I can live with the risk of 5D coming apart any day. Professional can't, and that would be enough for me to turn towards 5DII, the probabilities work in its favor. For amateurs I would say to get the original 5D.


----------



## AJ (Apr 8, 2013)

_I know my 450D is a newer camera with a DIGIC III processor and the 5Dc has a DIGIC II processor, but would going back to an older processor matter? _
yes.

_With the 5Dc being full frame the ISO and image quality will be much better than the 450D, am I right?_
yes.

_Is there a big difference in image quality between the 5Dc and 5D MKII?_
yes.

_I do understand that the 5DMark ii is again better than the 5Dc, but I am trying to save money. I am basically asking is going from the 450D to a 5Dc a good option?_
and yes again.


----------

