shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
Cheapest, and by no means a bad choice: 5D.
Me personally, I'm waiting for D900 or whatever comes after D700.
Why? so D700 price will finally drop significantly. At about two thousand bucks used, it's still not justifiable for me.
Me personally, I'm waiting for D900 or whatever comes after D700.
Why? so D700 price will finally drop significantly. At about two thousand bucks used, it's still not justifiable for me.
Lame argument. I said DSLR. I own a Leica M4.
Fujitsu
Well-known
Didnt see the M4 in your signature before.
There are so few "bargain" options in "full frame digital" that I wonder why you ask anyway... EOS 5D. A crappy camera with a beautiful sensor. (Yes I proudly call it a crappy camera even though I was an early adopter and paid a lot of $ for it when it was new.)
braver
Well-known
Gotta agree with putting a bit of nuance on the praise for the 5D. It was also my pick as a 'bargain' full frame DSLR with a great selection of primes to choose from and spectacular image quality even by todays standards. As said, they all have pros and cons. However, even though it's a simple camera really if you compare it to all the automation and focus settings available on a D700, it's not all that well designed. I still have no idea what wheel does what in which situation, why it should be this hard to set up bracketing or why the evaluative metering is so crappy.
That said, the files it creates makes it worthwhile until the M9 drops to something I can afford.
Because I don't follow DSLRs and, now that some of these are getting old, their reviews are outdated vs. newer camera standards. If I ask the question here I get real world opinions within the context of 2010 standards.
kevin m
Veteran
Hardly. The 5D is an exceptional image maker and a brilliant bit of marketing. Canon made a state-of-the art sensor affordable by putting it in a prosumer body. It's only "crappy" if you shoot action photography in the pouring rain but, in that case, you should know better.
FWIW, I have shot weddings in the rain with a 5D without a hiccup. By one day's end, the 135L was so fogged it looked like the images were shot with a pre-war, uncoated lens, but the camera never missed a beat.
gavinlg
Veteran
I'll concur with this, mine is a tank and a trusty workhorse.
David Hegar
Established
I speak from my own experience of having and using 5D on regular basis.
The classic Canon 5D, not the Mark II version,....excellent camera that can be bought very cheap. Even many years later since its introduction, 5D image and color is still very competitive when compared to the latest FF cameras.
In fact, the color and image from 5D is often still used as a standard when a new camera is released.
-d
The classic Canon 5D, not the Mark II version,....excellent camera that can be bought very cheap. Even many years later since its introduction, 5D image and color is still very competitive when compared to the latest FF cameras.
In fact, the color and image from 5D is often still used as a standard when a new camera is released.
-d
Last edited:
yarinkel
yarinkel
Clearly, a used 5D (first version), I am myself a user and very happy with its image quality. Its sensor is something special.
Plus, it uses canon lenses which are quite good and diverse.
Plus, it uses canon lenses which are quite good and diverse.
sojournerphoto
Veteran
You also forgot the 1Ds3, but that's not cheap even second hand.
The 5D is still great camera and, imho, is a better picture maker than any APS-C body. The 5D was often compared more than favourably with the 1Ds2 in terms of image quality. They are also very robust and just seem to keep going.
Mike
Ronald M
Veteran
Don`t screw around with APS sensors. Definately don`t by lenses made for small sensors or you have to sell them to go full frame.
Nikon allows you to use older lenses that can be had cheaply.
Full frame is a decent improvement over APS and I would rent something and try it out.
Love my D700, but I still like my D200 and D40. I restrict their use to lower ISO and have no problem.
Nikon allows you to use older lenses that can be had cheaply.
Full frame is a decent improvement over APS and I would rent something and try it out.
Love my D700, but I still like my D200 and D40. I restrict their use to lower ISO and have no problem.
dfatty
Well-known
5d
5d
I have a 5D and it's really a remarkable camera. It's been out for 5 years, a lifetime in camera electronics, but it still competes with the best out there. APSC-wise, the new, highly touted, 7D comes close, but reviews I've read suggest that the 5D still bests it in terms of IQ (putting aside the bells and whistles like LCD and AF). The 5D mark II bests it by perhaps a stop or two, but a lot of original 5D owners don't deem it worth it to upgrade. In fact, there is some suggestion that the original 5D is cleaner at lower ISOs. See this thread for a lot of info on the original 5D, you'll quickly see how well-loved and how competent a camera it is even after all these years:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=857115
(I hope it's okay to post a link to another site here!)
In terms of AF, imo the 5D (and the 5D2, which has the same AF) aren't as bad as their reputation. They're obviously not sports cameras, but they have a very sensitive AF centerpoint that has assist points - so even in low light the center point works quite well. To put it in context, a lot of folks think they have a better AF centerpoint than the much newer xxD (40D/50D) line.
I've never tried the D700 but it seems to be a fantastic camera that has a lot of Canon shooters switching over. But I think it's at a totally different price point.
5d
I have a 5D and it's really a remarkable camera. It's been out for 5 years, a lifetime in camera electronics, but it still competes with the best out there. APSC-wise, the new, highly touted, 7D comes close, but reviews I've read suggest that the 5D still bests it in terms of IQ (putting aside the bells and whistles like LCD and AF). The 5D mark II bests it by perhaps a stop or two, but a lot of original 5D owners don't deem it worth it to upgrade. In fact, there is some suggestion that the original 5D is cleaner at lower ISOs. See this thread for a lot of info on the original 5D, you'll quickly see how well-loved and how competent a camera it is even after all these years:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=857115
(I hope it's okay to post a link to another site here!)
In terms of AF, imo the 5D (and the 5D2, which has the same AF) aren't as bad as their reputation. They're obviously not sports cameras, but they have a very sensitive AF centerpoint that has assist points - so even in low light the center point works quite well. To put it in context, a lot of folks think they have a better AF centerpoint than the much newer xxD (40D/50D) line.
I've never tried the D700 but it seems to be a fantastic camera that has a lot of Canon shooters switching over. But I think it's at a totally different price point.
Hmmm, after all of this I may just buy the D700. lol.
dfatty
Well-known
so much for cheapest, lol. supposed to be an amazing camera..
Yeah, I am thinking it may be time to move on from the Leica M8 and I don't want to buy a M9. The cheapest scenario came up when I was thinking of buying a FF DSLR while keeping the M8... but if I sell the M8, I can go all out. 
zoz63
Established
...............5d..................
MCTuomey
Veteran
i agree with nick trop's perspective. but more strongly. what are your goals photographically? what will a FF dSLR do for you that your M4, M8, and X1 don't do now? if you don't know or your mindset is more semi-idle curiosity about what dSLRs offer, then any fullframe dSLR will give you a taste. why don't you rent or borrow one for several days, shoot a lot of what you like to shoot, have a good look at the files, and print the best? then you'll have a rational basis to decide.
Last edited:
Well, I walk around NYC and make photographs. I'm influenced by William Eggleston, the photographers who were in the New Topographics show / book, Stephen Shore, William Christianberry, Walker Evans, etc. I don't copy their work, but it influences me... and I don't need to use the same tools (i.e. rangefinders or large format). I'd say street photography, but without people generally or where people are more incidental than the focus. Any camera works for my style if I want it to, but I want to have as little hassle as possible. My issue with the M8 is that the framelines are very inaccurate and I hate cropping. RF-ers are inaccurate in the first place but the M8 is a whole new level compared to film Ms. After using the X1, which is very accurate, the M8 won't do anymore. That is where the D700 comes in. It fits in my hand well, isn't crazy big, dials and buttons are in the right place for me, and full frame just makes sense when it comes to the history of Nikon's lens line-up. Most other DSLRs feel horrible to me after being a RF user for many, many years. The last serious SLR I used was a Nikon F4 in the 90s (which I sold when I discovered the Leica M). I no longer care about film and only use film because I enjoy using older Leica M cameras.
I love rangefinders (and will keep my M4), but my photography is changing. I now want the convenience of digital, clean images at high ISOs, and semi-accurate framing...and this is where DSLRs seem to thrive and the M8 only handles one well (it's digital lol). I also no longer care about having the smallest camera, just the best camera for my needs.
Renting for a few days is money that can be spent on 3 prime lenses for the Nikon. I understand the logic of this, but my wallet doesn't. Luckily, a friend has a D700 he may want to sell to me and said he'd let me try it out. Seems like the best way to do it.
Last edited:
MCTuomey
Veteran
sounds like you and nikon have some kinship. maybe try that D700and, if you bond, buy it and pick up a zeiss ZF 35 or 50 after selling the leica stuff, assuming manual focus is something you like. that's probly what i'd do if in your shoes.
Thanks for the tip on the Zeiss lenses. I forgot about those.