Cheapest Full Frame DSLR worth bothering with?

luuca said:
sony A850 has not good lenses???:D

sony A850 and a couple of carl zeiss lenses (the choice is among cz16-35 2.8, cz24-70 2.8, cz85 1.4 and "the king" cz135 1.8).

gorgeous.

my cz135 at work, closed @f4.5:
DC43129F42034F6C8BBD75E799622E34.jpg
Click to expand...

Agreed ! And don't forget the great vintage Maxxum lenses.

Cheers
 
Those are good lenses, luuca, but they are expensive. I said that the selection available for the A850 is not particularly good. My current system, Olympus, has a range which takes into account those who must function on a budget.
 
original 5d is the bargain, and still hangs with the top DSLRs around at the moment. I could afford to upgrade, but don't, simply because my 5d is so good. It's also significantly better in IQ than any crop DSLR.
 
The D700 has a big disadvantage. It does not fit in my hand (the grip has a different shape than the grip of the Canons) and it's too heavy for my taste. No alternative for me.
 
D3 is the cheapest worth paying for as it is available second hand by now.
D3s for low light photography if you can afford it.
D3x for all the pixels if you can afford it. It is a setback for speed though.
The most important thing is that it gives you access to two fantastic zoom lenses. 14-24mm and 24-70mm. Close to Leica quality.
D700 is ok, exept that you have to fumble around in menues.
The combined weight of a D3 and the 24-70 lens gives stability at longer exposures. D700 is a little to small for the big lenses.
As usual: IMHO :)
(Wish there was a smaller camera with the same quality though.)
 
kuzano said:
Read the reviews at DPreview, Steves-Digicams, DCresource. They almost wet themselves when reviewing the 5D.

.
Click to expand...

Those reviews are old and are based on available technology at the time of the review. I need to know how they stack up to today's cameras.
 
jsrockit said:
Those reviews are old and are based on available technology at the time of the review. I need to know how they stack up to today's cameras.
Click to expand...

In what regards? Noise? Resolution?

with the 5d, It's still brilliant to use even at iso3200 - the d700 is maybe 1.5-2 stops better (but with lower resolution) and the 5d mkII is maybe 1-1.5 stops better but with higher resolution.

The d700 is great, but can't get the same detail as the 5d. The 5dmkII is great, but can't quite get the same noise performance as the d700 (though it has significantly higher resolution). They all have advantages and disadvantages.

The d700 is probably the best all rounder if you get one second hand and like nikkor lenses. The 5d mkII is the better new choice (imo) because of it's spectacular video implementation and basically being a high all-round achiever. The 5d mkI is cheap, durable as hell and simple. Very close in IQ to the d700 and MKII

I tend to stay with Canon DSLRs as they fit my hand like a glove (had a d300 and when I went back to a 5d it was like an old comfy couch in comparison). This is completely subjective.
The other thing is lenses. Both companies have great lenses, but canon has the newer, faster, wider range of brilliant primes. My 35mm 1.4L is just brilliant. Same goes for the 24 1.4L, the 50mm 1.2L, the 85mm 1.2L. Nikon has no fast 35, 50 or 85 (their 50 and 85 are old tech AF, and a bit average wide open.


iso 400/35mm 1.4L wide open - 5d
4318482600_d6742afc00_o.jpg



iso3200/50mm 1.2L wide open - 5d
4036079868_dcd57cc135_b.jpg
 
fdigital said:
In what regards? Noise? Resolution?

with the 5d, It's still brilliant to use even at iso3200 - the d700 is maybe 1.5-2 stops better (but with lower resolution) and the 5d mkII is maybe 1-1.5 stops better but with higher resolution.
Click to expand...

I meant that I did not want to rely on an outdated review (since a lot has happened since then) and would rather rely on real users opinions.
 
take a look on flick with "5d" as the keyword. Add the lens you want into the search string if you want to be more specific.
 
The 5D is an excellent choice, though I would also consider the 1Ds if you don't need the higher ISOs (I'd stick to 800 or below with one). It's a bit clunky but has excellent AF and is built like the proverbial brick sh*thouse. I have a 1Ds II which I think is possibly the best thing Canon's put out, but they run $1800+ in decent shape still.
 
I "upgraded" from a nikon d300 to a canon 5D, and I really enjoy using it, esp when pushing iso 1600 on the canon, something which i couldn't do due to excessive noise on the nikon. Besides, the 5d has the best mount to take most lenses of any mount and focus to infinity without the need of any "glass" in the adapter.

I have shot with the 5d many a time at iso 1600, and it gives satisfactory high iso performance:)

Sample (50mm f1.2 @ f1.2, iso 1600)
 
I've got the D700 and its been great. I upgraded from the D80 which had poor low light/high iso performance. I'm surprised about low light/high iso performance on the D300, I thought they'd fixed that and it was supposed to be good. ive used a 5D and it was very good and I liked it a lot, all aspects. However I worry about Canon build quality - the one I was using is now having its shutter replaced (!!) not my fault :). At the price you can get them for ($1000-$1200) they are a clear choice over any cropped sensor. I think I even liked the colour rendition (using a 24-105L) better than my D700. The D700 is heavier too.
 
jsrockit said:
I'm trying to do this as cheap as possible, but would love full-frame.
Click to expand...

Just get any film rangefinder that takes M lenses (which you already own) or buy into any classic SLR system (Minolta, Canon FD, Contax...) and you´re getting just that: Full-frame at a bargain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom