DSLR options

-doomed-

-doomed-

film is exciting
Local time
7:35 AM
Joined
Sep 15, 2008
Messages
794
With an M9 being out of reach and an M8 being as expensive as a 5D and a good chunk of L glass Ive been contemplating the following.
5D and a 50/1.4 non L or a 17-40 F4L
1DS and the same lenses
I also have contemplated using either with the 50/1.2L
I owned a 20D with the 70-200 F4L and I loved the quality of L glass.
Or just buying an M8 with 1.3x crop and sticking with my stable of RF lenses, CV 50/1.5, 35/2.5, 15/4.5, and M-Rokkor 90/4.
So what I am asking here is, who has experience with these barring the M8 as I've read tons about the pros and cons of the M8 enough to weigh out the cons.
I'm just not sure which direction to go on the canon route -- I've used other Canon digital SLR's but I'd really like the full frame of the 1DS or 5D.
Ive got time to decide since tax season is a while away but I'd like to hear what users of the given options have to say.
 
If you really feel the need for full frame, why don't you buy a full frame DSLR Nikon or Canon camera and put some Leica R glass on it w/ an inexpensive adapter? Or just put it on the camera that you have? I know Canon L glass is nice, but how in the world are you going to do better than Leica optics? I've used the R lenses on numerous Canon and Nikon film cameras and the glass is as good as it gets. The folks over at the manual focus forum are probably the ones to go to on this question.
 
I think the „big“ Canons don’t have much in common with a rangefinder. Even if there are smaller ones than the M8. What about a compromise? What about either a small DSLR with nice lenses, e.g. the Pentax K-x/K-r with limiteds or even a EP-2/GF1 (or GF2, if announced soon) with some small lenses?
 
Oh I am aware of the obvious differences between SLR's and RF's but a Full frame Digital SLR is becoming a more affordable option.
I contemplated the Leica R glass on an adapter, but I at some point the AF is a useful thing to have.
The M8 is still on my digital radar though.
 
A refurb Nikon D700 would look good in you arsenal. Affordable, too, but big and bulky at least compared to an RF.
 
I have had the Canon 1D (orig) and 1D MK II and currently have the 5D. I loved the 1D series and all it gives you but the full frame sensor in the 5D is something else. Given the age of an original 1Ds (or even Mk IIs) I'd go with a 5D instead - assuming you can't spring for a MkIIIs or IVs. Unless you need the fps and autofocus of the 1D body go with the 5D. If you can reach the MkIIIs then get the best of both worlds.

Chris
 
Love my D700. I hate it's bulk, but it is a wonderful camera - and the one I go when I need to shoot low-light.
The D700 at ISO 3200 with a 50/1.4 is pretty darn effective.
 
Kolame said:
I think the „big“ Canons don’t have much in common with a rangefinder. Even if there are smaller ones than the M8. What about a compromise? What about either a small DSLR with nice lenses, e.g. the Pentax K-x/K-r with limiteds or even a EP-2/GF1 (or GF2, if announced soon) with some small lenses?
Click to expand...

Considering the price we're talking about, imagine how many Pentax Limited lenses the OP could get, along with the brand spanking new K-5. Lol, don't I sound like a Pentax salesman ;) I guess the only downside to Pentax is the lack of a seriously fast lens.
 
Get the Canon 5D Mark II. Lesser Canon cameras have compromises that get frustrating. If you can afford it, get the 5D Mark II.
 
Perhaps I should have specified that I was looking at used gear. While a 5D MKII would be fantastic it's just out of reach if I intend to buy L glass to go with it.

@ JSU,
I need to make up my mind on DRF or DSLR, I brought DSLR into the mix based upon my needs at the newspaper. If I actually had a camera I could use I'd get a chance to prove myself in that regard, adding another talent to my list of available skills at their disposal.
I'm sure I could pull off the news photos with a Leica, but an SLR with AF would be of more use in certain situations.
If I bought an M8 it may not prove itself as useful.
Part of me wants the M8 for my own personal use.
We don't do film unless I am writing some sort of filler material where I can provide the images from film I've scanned at high resolution.
I'm not a photographer for the paper, I'm a layout/copy editor/writer for it.
 
similar experience really, when shooting press it was a 5d mk1 and 1d mkIIn. i had the 28mm and 50mm and was pretty happy with that.

get a 5d. it is a great camera.
 
If monetarily possible and you shoot a lot of low light, definitely go with the 50mm L over the f1.4 non-L 50. In my experience it blows it out of the water from wide open to about f2.8. The 50L gets a bad rep online for some reason. It kills in low light. It's the only lens I have on my 5D right now and love it.

Also, I think if you want autofocus primes, the Canon L series has better options than Nikon (though they seem to be trying to play catch up). Also, pretty much any old manual focus lens can be adapted to a Canon.
 
Last edited:
I sold the 70-200 a few years ago. I got involved in shooting rangefinders as a hobby and sold my digital gear. Bought 10D for $50 and ended up selling it to pay off some bills. I wish I had kept the 70-200 and the 20D at times.
The 5D may be the choice for me.
The 70-200 and 17-40 are probably in the running as well.
 
andredossantos said:
If monetarily possible and you shoot a lot of low light, definitely go with the 50mm L over the f1.4 non-L 50. In my experience it blows it out of the water from wide open to about f2.8. The 50L gets a bad rep online for some reason. It kills in low light. It's the only lens I have on my 5D right now and love it.

Also, I think if you want autofocus primes, the Canon L series has better options than Nikon (though they seem to be trying to play catch up). Also, pretty much any old manual focus lens can be adapted to a Canon.
Click to expand...

Agree with everything said here. If you're used to and like the way Canon DSLRs work, you'll find nikons to be very odd.

The 50L is possibly the best 50mm lens for SLRs ever - it's significantly better than the f1.4 version. Another option with 50's is the sigma 50mm f1.4, which I just recently bought to see what it was like in comparison to the 50L - at less than half the price. So far I can say it's at least 98% as good, and that's still several times better than the crappy canon f1.4. It's very sharp wide open, has beautiful bokeh, auto focusses accurately, is built well, and handles flare amazingly, all of which the f1.4 canon doesn't do amazingly.

Buy the original 5d if you want to spend more money on lenses to go with it, it's still got one of the best IQ. Buy the 5d mkII if you want the epic video capability or the newer model.
 
Be prepared to be disappointed with the Canon 50/1.4. Not that it's a bad lens, but it's a real shame Canon doesn't make a nicer one. I'd be willing to pay quite a bit more for a decent 50/1.4 - the 50/1.2 looks nice but is pretty large. I almost wish they'd have made a 50/1.4 L for a the same price as the 1.2. The 1.4 WILL break on you at some point. Mine did. I sent it back for repair (very quick turnaround) and it broke 3 weeks later again. At least they repaired it the second time for free.

I also have the 28/1.8. Not the sharpest lens ever, but well built and compact. I like it.

If 50 is the primary focal length for you, and the Nikon 50/1.4 is a good lens (I don't know), then I'd be REALLY tempted by the D700.
 
Tim Gray said:
Be prepared to be disappointed with the Canon 50/1.4. Not that it's a bad lens, but it's a real shame Canon doesn't make a nicer one. I'd be willing to pay quite a bit more for a decent 50/1.4 - the 50/1.2 looks nice but is pretty large. I almost wish they'd have made a 50/1.4 L for a the same price as the 1.2. The 1.4 WILL break on you at some point. Mine did. I sent it back for repair (very quick turnaround) and it broke 3 weeks later again. At least they repaired it the second time for free.

I also have the 28/1.8. Not the sharpest lens ever, but well built and compact. I like it.

If 50 is the primary focal length for you, and the Nikon 50/1.4 is a good lens (I don't know), then I'd be REALLY tempted by the D700.
Click to expand...

Tim, give the sigma 50mm a go, and thank me later. Make sure you get the latest serial number one possible - they changed the finish and tightened up QC. Mine is wonderful.
 
You cant go wrong with a 5d mk1 or mk11 I have a couple of mk11 and they are great don't believe the autofocus is bad its fine and as long as you are not shooting sports its fast enough. I'm willing to sacrifice a bit of speed for the files. I think the original 5d is a great buy at the moment £700-£800 from a dealer for a full frame camera you can't go wrong with that!
 
I can't help wondering what the D700 will be worth when Nikon gives the punters a replacement ... I gather there isn't one yet?

A second hand full frame DSLR is nice thing to step into if your so inclined but I can't see the D700 dropping to the sorts of prices were seeing for the original Canon 5D.
 
Keith said:
I can't help wondering what the D700 will be worth when Nikon gives the punters a replacement ... I gather there isn't one yet?

A second hand full frame DSLR is nice thing to step into if your so inclined but I can't see the D700 dropping to the sorts of prices were seeing for the original Canon 5D.
Click to expand...

Just remember the original 5d was introduced in 2005, the d700 was in 2008. It'll drop to the same sort of price by 2013, don't you worry :angel:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom