# a used Canon 5D, a budget way to go full frame?



## billnelson75 (Nov 5, 2012)

So I've really gotten into DSLR over the past 1.5 years. I've spent some money on lenses, I have the 28 f1.8, 50 f1.4, 100 macro IS USM, 24-105 f4, and my DSLR is the t3.

I don' t have an unlimited budget, so I was thinking of picking up a good condition used 5d online, looks like around $600 is the going rate, and spending the $1000 I'd save over a Mark II towards the 70-200 f2.8 IS USM.

Bad idea or good idea? What are the primary drawbacks with using a 5d? How is the ISO performance? I shoot mostly portraits of family or landscapes, not a lot of action or fast movement. 

Is the 5d obsolete or is it a good carry over for a year or two until I spring for a newer full frame camera? Anyone still using the 5d alongside a newer full frame? What are the primary differences? Thanks.


----------



## verysimplejason (Nov 5, 2012)

Canon 5D is a pain to use compared to T3 (no sensor cleaner, no live-view, 230K resolution screen, slow AF, no built-in flash for fill-in flash usage). You'll also get "minimal" IQ improvements. I'm also in the same boat with my "aging" Ti1 (500D), 28mm F1.8, 50mm F1.8, 100mm Macro F2.8 and 17-40L. After trying 5D several times, I'd say I'm not that excited. I've tried 5D2 and that's what I call improvement. I'm just holding on to my money a little bit more due to the coming 6D. I'd like to know if 6D is worth it (not enough money for 5D3 right now) or just go with a 5D2. I'm also hoping that 6D will bring the cost of 5D2 a little bit more. Some of my friends are offering 1DS3 but its almost 5D3 price. I'd say try the 5D first in shop or look for someone using it. If you can live with its shortcomings then feel free to upgrade. It's just my 2 cents though. In the end it will still be your decision to make.


----------



## tomscott (Nov 5, 2012)

Ye as ive said many times its an old camera, its a backward step in pretty much all areas except IQ. No live view, low res screen, no flash, slow performance, no sensor cleaning etc etc

If you can live with it being a poor performer for IQ then ye go for it. I would wait and save for something else like the 5D II or 6D.


----------



## lonelywhitelights (Nov 5, 2012)

According to what I've read before the 5D is pretty notorious with dusty sensors. As verysimplejason says above you'll get very little improvement and the camera doesn't have Live View (which isn't always essential but it's very, very handy). It also has an unreliable rear LCD with regards to producing accurate colours when reviewing your photos.

Personally, being a 5D mark II user, I would absolutely recommend you spend the extra cash on upgrading to the mark II - it's better to do that than buy a 5D mark I hoping to save for the 70-200 and then realise in a few weeks or a month that it's really not an upgrade at all.

If you shoot mainly portraits you should sell the 50mm f/1.4 for a few extra $$$ (I find 50mm not to be a useful portrait lens due to the distortion) to help towards the 70-200mm. I also suggest going for the cheaper NON IS version or even the f/4 NON IS version, the f/4 is a remarkable lens and and still sharp as hell and at around $600 you can't really argue with that! but to be absolutely honest with you the 100mm macro (f/2.8L ?) that you have is probably your best portrait lens - no need to go out and get a 70-200mm right away. Just get those legs working and move around a bit ;D haha

Definitely go for the 5D mark II, you won't regret it


----------



## steliosk (Nov 5, 2012)

5D1 FF positives +
+ full advantage of EF lenses
+ correct depth of field.

5D1 FF negatives -
- poor FF sensor suffers from noise in high isos, 
- doesn't go further than 3200 iso
- suffers from banding as well
- 12 bit color depth instead of 14
- soft corners with f wide open and heavy vignetting (thats a negative thing for all FF cameras)

Personal opinion? no reason to upgrade to FF
EF lenses perform WAY better in crop cameras if you can accept the negative side of a crop sensor (small, noisy, bad dof)

However the best value for money to invest on is a used 5D 2.
I don't like 6D. No pc sync, no dual cards, no articulated screen, 2 megapixel less than 5D2 and no reason why to drop a 1000$ on that hardware... Canon commited suicide with this crap. Way outdated


----------



## EchoLocation (Nov 5, 2012)

The 5D classic is a pretty solid camera. I had one for a year and a half and just upgraded to the d700. I think it was a great camera, especially for a first time FF user.
It will make your 24-105 way better than it will ever be on a APS-C body(i hated my 24-105 on my 550d and loved it on my 5d.)
The camera is very basic, which i think was really cool as it was almost like using a film camera... center point AF, no fancy anything, simple everything... I just capped the ISO at 1600 and it was pretty decent. Nothing amazing for low light, but for playing around, and using for general fun, it was totally worth the 800 dollars I spent on it in 2010. I sold it for 650 and don't regret it for a second.
When I first saw your post i thought you should just buy the 5DII, but if you want other lenses, etc, just sell your T3i for $400-500 on craigslist, and pay 100 bucks to upgrade. Unless you really care about the video, i would say you don't really lose anything except maybe a couple hundred bucks. If it was possible, i'd try to get a used 5DII, but tbh, I never really liked the 5DII all that much for the price.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 5, 2012)

The 5Dc is still better than any APS-c camera canon currently makes in the IQ department. If you can over look its limitations, you'll be rewarded with files that are very similar to film. 

I was able to use all ISO speeds with good results, even ISO 3200 with some NR. 

These are some examples


----------



## 87vr6 (Nov 5, 2012)

The 5D is definitely the way to go for budget full frame. 

http://www.sdobbins.com/home.html

This guy runs quite a successful business using mainly (maybe only) a 5Dc.


----------



## dshipley (Nov 5, 2012)

As many other people have mentioned I would also suggest picking up the 5D2 over the 5D1 for the added benefits it provides. 

You mentioned wanting to pick up a 70-200 f/2.8L IS, but you might also consider selling a few of your current lenses as your focal lengths will change when moving to full frame. Lets take a look at what you currently have and the focal lengths that they are on your T3...

28 f/1.8 (~45mm)
50 f/1.4 (~80mm) 
100 f/2.8L IS Macro (~160mm)
24-105 f/4L (~38-168mm)

You might not be satisfied with the quality of the 28 and the 50 on a full frame camera as your current T3 only is using the center of the lens (image quality tends to be best in the center of a lens). If you're shooting portraits and landscapes and prefer zooms you might consider selling all your lenses except the 100 f/2.8L IS Macro and buying a used 24-70 f/2.8L or if you don't need f/2.8 you could always just sell the 28 and the 50 and pick up a used 70-200 f/4L IS.


----------



## Standard (Nov 5, 2012)

Without going into specific details regarding the pros and cons of each camera as I am sure many here will aptly point them out, I recommend you aim as high as you can Bill. Simply for the reason of gaining more technological advantages. If you don't plan on upgrading regularly then I believe this will be to your advantage down the road. So yes. upgrading to the Canon 5D Mark II is a better decision in my opinion.


----------



## MK5GTI (Nov 5, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> The 5D classic is a pretty solid camera. I had one for a year and a half and just upgraded to the d700. I think it was a great camera, especially for a first time FF user.



EchoLocation, mind sharing how the D700 excel over the 5Dc/5D2? i am using a 5Dc and am eye-ing on a D700 as well, don't like the focus system from 5D2/6D/D600, i like the coverage from the D700, and can't afford the 5D3.

to the OP, i often use ISO3200, with minor NR, i don't mind using that ISO all day long, i upgrade from T1i, and think the upgrade is definitely worth it..... the DOF is just something i do appreciate over the crop, even with all the cons, such as poor LCD, limited ISO, no anti-dust, etc....


----------



## sjp010 (Nov 5, 2012)

billnelson75 said:


> I have the 28 f1.8, 50 f1.4, 100 macro IS USM, 24-105 f4, and my DSLR is the t3.



I think you have two questions here:

1. Will a full-frame camera be beneficial to me with my current lenses? In my opinion, absolutely. I upgraded from a 40D to a 5Dc about a year ago with a very similar lens lineup (28/1.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 ) and I've barely touched the 40D since. The 5Dc image quality is noticeably better than the 40D, and my lenses (similar to yours) shine on the full frame format. Yes, this is true even for the 28/1.8 with its supposedly soft corners - it's better on full frame. Maybe you'll be less happy for your landscape work, but for my indoor family shots, I love 28/1.8 with 5Dc - probably my most used combination.

2. Is a 5Dc the right full frame camera to get right now, given the current prices? In my opinion, not really, unless you simply can't afford a 5D2. When I bought the 5Dc, the price difference was huge ($800-ish vs. $2300-ish) so the choice was easier. Now.... 5Dc has come down a bit ($600-ish used) but the 5D2 has come down a LOT ($1300-ish used, can get as low as $1500 brand new). If I was a buyer right now, I think I'd pinch my pennies and go for the 5D2. This is nothing against the 5Dc - if it's all you can afford I still think you should do it - it's just that the 5D2 offers a lot of upgrades for not that much more money.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Cosk (Nov 5, 2012)

A year ago, I upgraded from Crop to a 5Dc ($750 used on eBay) - and it's fantastic! I'm absolutely in love with my 5Dc. And for about the price of a rebel, you can get a full sized sensor. 

First, I wouldn't consider anything other than FF

- You have FF lenses... you will liberate your 24-105 on a FF, and your 28mm will produce more 3D-like images when you unlock it's DOF capabilities. 
- You said you shoot portraits... you will really enjoy the shallower DOF on FF
- You said you don't shoot sports... so you won't miss your crop reach. 

Next, you said your budget is $1000... lenses hold their value, while bodies depreciate. Spend your cash on glass, and get a 5D. You'll have no regrets. Plus, the 5D is probably nearly depreciated. Buy one now, use it for a year, and sell it for $50 less than you paid for it next year. You can't lose.


----------



## thelebaron (Nov 5, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> The 5Dc is still better than any APS-c camera canon currently makes in the IQ department. If you can over look its limitations, you'll be rewarded with files that are very similar to film.
> 
> I was able to use all ISO speeds with good results, even ISO 3200 with some NR.
> 
> These are some examples



I think this is a fallacy, I bought an old 5d before jumping right to the 5d3 and it(5d) and my 7d were pretty much even in terms of image quality


----------



## tomscott (Nov 5, 2012)

thelebaron said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > The 5Dc is still better than any APS-c camera canon currently makes in the IQ department. If you can over look its limitations, you'll be rewarded with files that are very similar to film.
> ...



It is

http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D-vs-Canon_EOS_7D


----------



## sjp010 (Nov 5, 2012)

tomscott said:


> It is
> 
> http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon_EOS_5D-vs-Canon_EOS_7D



Tom, if you read down in the link you sent, one of the advantages to the 5D in this comparison is "better image quality." That was the only point RLPhoto was making, and your link helps make it for him.

Of course, the 7D is superior in a multitude of other ways.


----------



## K-amps (Nov 5, 2012)

lonelywhitelights said:


> According to what I've read before the 5D is pretty notorious with dusty sensors. As verysimplejason says above you'll get very little improvement and the camera doesn't have Live View (which isn't always essential but it's very, very handy). It also has an unreliable rear LCD with regards to producing accurate colours when reviewing your photos.
> 
> Personally, being a 5D mark II user, I would absolutely recommend you spend the extra cash on upgrading to the mark II - it's better to do that than buy a 5D mark I hoping to save for the 70-200 and then realise in a few weeks or a month that it's really not an upgrade at all.
> 
> ...



+1:

The ISO improvement on the 5D over the T3 is not much, there is a difference and it is demonstratable, but you need to "nail" the exposure and not easy to get shot to shot in terms of usability but it is "technically" there ... the 5D2 however takes it to a whole new level... it is usable, cleaner, practical and just so much better in IQ.


----------



## risc32 (Nov 5, 2012)

that's a very funny comparo, i nearly thought i was reading the onion.(reason to buy the 5d, 1/8000th shutter...) the 5d is a very good camera, but the mk2 is better in a number of ways, and you'll have to weight it's advantages -vs- cost for what sort of things you are looking accomplish. I have a 5d for a few years now and use it regularly, despite having a mk3. i think i've cleaned the sensor once.... maybe. the LCD isn't so bad, but clearly not current tech.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 5, 2012)

tomscott said:


> thelebaron said:
> 
> 
> > RLPhoto said:
> ...



Disagree. I've already had this discussion here.

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9773.msg176369#msg176369

I could never get as clean ISO-3200 Shots w/o serious NR out of my 7D. 

Un-edited full-res JPG from 5Dc @ 3200 W/ No NR below. I could only dream of this on my 7D.

http://images.us.viewbook.com/9a8bb8062cdfc9b86e057b85a601e742.jpg


----------



## bycostello (Nov 9, 2012)

i use a 5d as my 2nd camera on jobs.. nothing wrong with it.. and you'd not really see a difference between the images taken on that or my mk2... however... it doesn't have the same high iso capability, so depends on what you will use it for...


----------



## billnelson75 (Nov 20, 2012)

Thanks for the input everyone. I was able to pickup a very nice used 5d on ebay for $585. The prices vary pretty widely on ebay, but I think right around $600 is the most common range. I've only had it for a week, but its already pretty evident that it blows my t3 out of the water for portraits. The shallow DOF and bokeh is great, and while I wasn't super happy with the t3 even at low ISO's, this seems to be much better at 400 ISO than my t3. I haven't had a reason to use much higher than that so far. I will probably upgrade to a "newer" FF at some point, but I don't think I can go wrong with what I spent, and the quality of the photos are great. If you can grab a nice condition 5d, I think it is something to consider if you are using an older rebel and you want to go FF.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 20, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Disagree. I've already had this discussion here.
> 
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9773.msg176369#msg176369
> 
> I could never get as clean ISO-3200 Shots w/o serious NR out of my 7D.



Then you weren't doing proper comparisons. Review controlled tests and noise measurements. The 5Dc is not better than the 7D at 3200.



> I could only dream of this on my 7D.



I see it all the time.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 20, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Disagree. I've already had this discussion here.
> ...



Sorry if I don't shoot shoot test chart but in real world use the 5Dc is better than the 7D.


----------



## bycostello (Nov 20, 2012)

i still use a 5d besides the iso beyond 800 it is a great camera


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 20, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Sorry if I don't shoot shoot test chart but in real world use the 5Dc is better than the 7D.



No it's not. We're not discussing opinion here. Noise levels are objective, testable reality. The 7D tests lower across the board (chroma, black, grey). This doesn't magically change with a "real world" scene.

The chroma noise difference in particular is human observable in print where the 7D clearly looks better.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 20, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if I don't shoot shoot test chart but in real world use the 5Dc is better than the 7D.
> ...



Show me some of your ISO 3200 Shots from both cameras. I've owned both before and the 5Dc has better ISO performance.


----------



## Sporgon (Nov 20, 2012)

At Building PAnoramics we use 5D mark I and ii. We certainly won't stop using the Mk I untill it's worn out ! In practical terms IQ is great up to ISO 800, then it drops off a cliff. Both Mk I and ii are more at home shooting things that only move real slow...........
In practice the more modern aps-c cameras have caught up in IQ, but.......but.... There is something about the Mk I images, it's like the difference between a high quality zoom and a prime, sometimes the prime just produces that luminosity that lifts the picture. As for 12 bit vs 14, our Mk I images have just as much colour depth as the Mk ii, if not more, although I will agree that Mk ii data stands up to more pp manipulation.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 20, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> Show me some of your ISO 3200 Shots from both cameras. I've owned both before and the 5Dc has better ISO performance.



No. You show hard evidence that the reproducible tests available at sites like DPReview and IR are wrong. I'm not the one waving my hand at and dismissing hard data. You are. Back it up or shut up.

And it better be perfect...and reproducible...right down to the last parameter. Not different subjects, lighting, and exposure, shot on the fly at different times and places, then compared, probably at the wrong magnification (i.e. 100% for both meaning the 7D file is inspected more closely), which is typical of people making claims that go against reality.

And don't reply with 36 point type like some child.


----------



## atvinyard (Nov 20, 2012)

Ooooh, Ooooh! I want to get in the fight!

From my personal experience, the 5D has better image quality than my T2i(which has the same sensor as a 7D), especially at higher ISOs. Also, I don't think anyone should be shooting either sensor at higher than 1600, because they both look like uber crap beyond that.

The 5D and 7D have similar noise levels, but the 5D is ever so slightly better, and for some reason seems to retain more detail. The noise has a different character. 

As far as it being quantifiable, when I look at comparisons online, they all seem to agree with the above, so I'm not sure where dtaylor is getting his info.

Check out DxO marks comparison. I know their overall ratings are meaningless, because no one can figure how on God's green earth they justify the weighting, but I think their testing is consistent for the individual tests and therefore, acceptable for comparison. 

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/645%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/619%7C0/(brand2)/Canon/(appareil3)/176%7C0/(brand3)/Canon

The 5D only loses in the dynamic range department at low ISO. And it's better than the 7D at ISO 800 and up.

Have a nice day everyone.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 20, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Show me some of your ISO 3200 Shots from both cameras. I've owned both before and the 5Dc has better ISO performance.
> ...



I made a statement, You said I'm wrong. The burden of proof is on you.

I've provided many, many samples of the 5Dc's superb IQ. You have provided none.


----------



## Chosenbydestiny (Nov 21, 2012)

I can attest to the 5Dc having nicer looking images at ISO 3200 compared to 7D. I've owned both extensively as well. Yes, in charts and 100% crops the 7D looks competitive, but in real world use the 5D images look so much better because of the huge pixel size. It might depend on the situation as well. But I take photos of people at events and I'd never use 3200 on a 7D at a wedding but I'd sure as hell use it on a 5d.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Nov 23, 2012)

A 5Dc for $600 is a steal, and a 5D2 for twice that is also a great deal. My experience with the 5Dc has been very positive. Love the images, love the simplicity of the camera and I love the Full Frame format. I think it works great in low light but I rarely go over 1600. Then use Lightroom to tweak the images a bit if you like. Yes, dust on the sensor can be an issue but I don't see how that is the fault of the camera. I would suggest anyone pick up an inexpensive used 5Dc to get into Full Frame. 

5Dc Bottom Line: Pair the 5Dc with a used 40D and you have a great one-two punch to get width and reach for $1000 or less. And they share the same battery. I for one like the 5Dc in low light. Images require a little help in Lightroom but that's OK for me.

5D2 Bottom Line: Ditto for the 5D2, it's a great camera, most that have owned it loved it and so get a 5D2 + 60D for another great combo for less than $2500 that share the same battery and both have movie mode.

5D3 Bottom Line: Since using a new 5D3 and comparing it to the classic 5Dc, I'm not super over the top overwhelmed with the 5D3. It's a great camera but for $3000+ I'm not quite as wow'd as I thought I would be. The 5D3 is wonderful for those that need/love it but I will definitely be buying a 6D to compare and possibly selling the 5D3 if I can. At the end of the day, I'm still clicking the shutter and after that it's just more money spent on the equipment to do that. I would rather have another lens or two if I can make a 6D work as my new camera.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Nov 23, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry if I don't shoot shoot test chart but in real world use the 5Dc is better than the 7D.
> ...


Where does your information come from? I've had both and the 5DC is easily better. The 7D looks horrible at or above ISO 800.
From the tests I've seen, the 5D C beats out the 7D on s/n ratio handily. What reliable testing do you have to show us.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/(appareil1)/619%7C0/(brand)/Canon/(appareil2)/176%7C0/(brand2)/Canon


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 27, 2012)

RLPhoto said:


> I made a statement, You said I'm wrong. The burden of proof is on you.
> 
> I've provided many, many samples of the 5Dc's superb IQ. You have provided none.



You haven't provided a single sample for comparison. Nor could you provide one on request here, even though you claim to have handled both.

Your statement claims the opposite of published, professional test data and sample images (DPReview; Imaging Resource). Therefore the burden of proof is entirely on you.

But go ahead and rant in 36 point again like a spoiled child throwing a temper tantrum.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 27, 2012)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> dtaylor said:
> 
> 
> > No it's not. We're not discussing opinion here. Noise levels are objective, testable reality. The 7D tests lower across the board (chroma, black, grey). This doesn't magically change with a "real world" scene.
> ...



Controlled, published tests by reputable sites like DPReview and Imaging Resource. My personal experience concurs fully.



> I've had both and the 5DC is easily better.



Then it should be easy for you to provide test samples to prove the point. Have any? (I won't hold my breath.)



> The 7D looks horrible at or above ISO 800.



That makes me think you've never shot one.



> What reliable testing do you have to show us.



It's ironic you asked that just before posting DxO links. DxO is not a reliable or reputable site. The errors in their testing have been discussed many times here and on other forums. That they do not produce accurate results is self evident from their more absurd claims (i.e. greater RAW DR than bit depth; APS-C consumer cameras superior to medium format digital backs).

I'll say it again:

* Controlled tests by *reputable* sites like DPReview and Imaging Resource show the 7D to be better in IQ across the board than the 5Dc. In a lot of cases the differences are too small to matter in print, but the 7D measures better at high ISO and the chroma difference is human observable.

* Because this particular issue is one of objective, testable reality, *personal opinions don't mean squat* unless and until you can provide controlled test samples...including RAW files...which show something other than the test samples that are published.

Sorry to be such a hard a**, but I hate mushy thinking. And FF fans are full of mushy thinking when it comes to this particular comparison.


----------



## RLPhoto (Nov 29, 2012)

dtaylor said:


> RLPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > I made a statement, You said I'm wrong. The burden of proof is on you.
> ...



[size=24pt]Your plainly mistaken Mr. Taylor. I was a Avid 5Dc + 7D combo user.[/size]

1. http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=9773.45

2. http://ramonlperez.tumblr.com/post/34906285033/fast-prime-shoot-out-pt-2-50mm-1-2l-review

3. http://images.us.viewbook.com/9a8bb8062cdfc9b86e057b85a601e742.jpg

Since I don't shoot test charts and my experience is real world, If you don't get what not only myself have been saying but other 5Dc users have also agreed on. There is no helping you.

Please, I would love to see some of your ISO 3200 Shots from the 7D, Because I already know what they're going to look like.


----------

