Sell out for 5D?

P

photophorous

Registered User
Local time
12:49 PM
Joined
Mar 13, 2007
Messages
383
Location
Austin, Texas
View My Gallery
I love my RF, but I'm getting film fatigue. The time I spend taking film to and from the lab and then scanning it, would be a lot better spent shooting. I love the look of film and the forced discipline, but I think the main reason I prefer film is the prime lenses. Prime lenses on my digital Rebel just don't work the way I want them to. Enter the 5D. I'd love to get a 5D Mk II, but I'm not sure it's worth 1200-1500 more than the original 5D. Either one of these cameras would allow me to shoot my Canon primes the way they were intended to be shot.

I'm not sure what my question is. I guess I'm wondering what you folks think about getting a used 5D this late in the game. The only way I could afford a 5D Mk II would be to sell my RF kit, and that just seems crazy...or is it? Even though I think the RF kit produce pictures with more character (for lack of a better description), the 5D would get more use...and I'd still have some Minolta manual focus SLRs and a Canonet for shooting film.

Someone please talk some sense into me.

Thanks,
Paul
 
I just sold the bulk of my 35mm film gear for a 5D mkii. I actually like scanning but agree with you about primes. I never use zooms. After playing with a friends 5dmkii and L prime lenses I was sold. Also, considering I shoot mostly color film my development costs are not trivial.

I still have my Rolleis for film and haven't regretted it yet.

Just think, if you hate it you can always buy your film gear back.
 
Last edited:
Is size an issue?
Personally, I would take an older 1D or 1DS over the smaller body 5D. Hell, a 1D MK III (or 1Ds MK II) can be had about for $2K now. That's in between the two 5Ds in terms of price, but you get a big pro body that's made of metal, tough and actually weather sealed.
For my primary digi body, I use a 1D IIN... Stupid fast autofocus, good frame buffer and when you let off at 9 frames/sec downtown you get to hear screams and cries of "he's got a gun!" 😀
 
I couldnt find a reason to upgrade my 5D to the MKii as I dont do video and hardly ever go higher than ISO800. I was a little cocerned about the print size until I saw Martin Parr's exhibition with 1.5m prints from the mk1 and they looked beautiful. So I didnt upgrade.

But if you have Canon primes it is a shame not to have at least a MKi, there's something special about this camera. I'd keep the film kit, ditch the rebel, get a Mk1 and maybe look at converting some Minolta glass to EF mount 🙂
 
Thanks for all the comments.

The video features of the Mk II are not a big deal to me. I'm sure I'd play with it some, but it's not a deciding factor. My biggest attraction to the Mk II is the dust reduction system. My 450D has it and it works really well. Since I'd be using primes most of the time, I'd be changing lenses often, so anything that helps minimize the amount of time I have to spend cloning out dust spots or cleaning the sensor is a big deal to me. I also like the AF microadjustment features and the better LCD. The higher sensitivity settings also appeal to me, but I doubt the extra resolution would ever really make a difference in my shooting.

I looked into renting one, but it's $175 per day. Not worth it. I already know I'd like the 5D or the 5D Mk II. The big question for me is whether or not I'd miss my RF kit.

Spleenrippa, Yes, size is an issue. Even the 5D seems too big to me. A 1D is not even a consideration. I'd never use the extra speed and the extra size would only be a burden. The weather sealing would be nice, but it's not worth it to me.

I'm leaning towards the Mk II. I'm afraid if I got the 5D, I'd still just wish I had the Mk II.
 
photophorous said:
I love my RF, but I'm getting film fatigue. The time I spend taking film to and from the lab and then scanning it, would be a lot better spent shooting.
Thanks,
Paul
Click to expand...


One thing you need to be careful of: the myth that digital somehow saves you time. One thing that I've found is that you still have to be disciplined in your shooting, otherwise you'll burn off hundreds of shots without even thinking, then be so overwhelmed with the sheer number of images you have to go through that you'll end up just letting them sit on a hard drive without even bothering to process or print.

With film, I find that I spend much more time shooting and much less time post processing and tweaking.

Don't fully commit to digital because you think it will make photography more convenient, as it won't. Commit to digital because you like the results that it gives, with the understanding that it takes time and effort just like film does.
 
buy one, try it. if you don't like the 5D, you'll be able to sell it for nearly what you paid. if you really like the camera and find you need more resolution, you can move up to a Mk II later.

a 5D and one of the manual focus ZE primes can be a very fine imagetaker, if the Canon L's seem too large/expensive.
 
Last edited:
kshapero said:
The real answer to me is the M9. But until then I will soldier on.
Click to expand...


i don't understand this comparison at all. a 5D is about $1K. what's "real" about a $7K camera if one can't afford it? for most the M9 is more dream than real, i'd guess. no need to soldier on when a 5D can be in hand now, if dLSRs are acceptable.
 
Last edited:
MCTuomey said:
i don't understand this comparison at all. a 5D is about $1K. what's "real" about a $7K camera if one can't afford it? for most the M9 is more dream than real, i'd guess. no need to soldier on when a 5D can be in hand now, if dLSRs are acceptable.
Click to expand...
or a Nikon D700 or a Sony a850 or some of us just have to dream so we can stay in the RF world.
 
If you have the money, get the 5D II. If you have to sell a lot of stuff then I would start with the 5D I. I am sure you want to use a RF again here and there.
 
Get the 5d mk1 if you're short on cash - it's pretty much just as good in most areas for a lot less money.

Try to spend the extra on something like the 35mm 1.4L or any of the L primes, and you won't regret it. Somebody mentioned using Minolta glass adapted - I think they'd be shocked to see how much better the latest canon prime lenses are... hehe.
 
I'm w/those suggesting that you just go w/the original 5D. Still a perfectly good camera (I think it's destined to be 1 of the few "classic" digitals) if you don't need the added features of the Mk II (video, live view, etc.) & much cheaper.
 
As someone who had a 5D for years and used a 5Dii for a little bit, get the 5D used. Shop around a bit, there's tons for sale used. If you find yourself limited in megapixels or high ISO after 6 months, sell it for the same price and get a 5Dii.

I love my 5D, still do, just got tired of carrying it all around, so here I am in rangefinder land learning film. It's different, but if I had to go to DSLRs, I'd grab a 5D, no questions asked.
 
Well, I can relate to reverting to the past.

Well, I can relate to reverting to the past.

tom.w.bn said:
If you have the money, get the 5D II. If you have to sell a lot of stuff then I would start with the 5D I. I am sure you want to use a RF again here and there.
Click to expand...

I'd like to stay in the 60's as well, for a number of reasons.

However, the drugs today aren't nearly as good and they are a ton more expensive. So I think we're apples to apples here.

I think it's splitting images here to consider the range finder focus all that.🙂 the split image focus screens on all my SLR's worked faster than the focus mechanisms on any other camera I owned.
 
I can heavily recommend the 5D. I bought it used about a year ago when the 5DMKII came out and got it for about $1k with a low amount of clicks. I use it with primes only (mainly manual focus primes from olympus and nikon).

However, I have been really tempted lately to get an E-P2 with the Pannasonic 20mm lens. You get a small package, autofocus, fast lens and a perfect focal length.

Either way, you can't go wrong. The 5D is an AMAZING camera. I love using mine.
 
A used 5d is a screaming bargain at the going rate of +/- $1k. In real world use, lens dust is more of a retouching problem than sensor dust, so unless you really need/want the video of the MkII, go with the MkI.

I keep thinking I need to "upgrade" until I look at my files. Instead, I'm getting a second body for my wedding work. With a prime lens mounted (I usually use the 28/1.8 or 50/1.4) size isn't really an issue. The 35 and 50L lenses are touted, and rightly so, but don't overlook a real jewel of the L line, the 135/2. That thing is a gem.
 
Thanks again for all the very helpful comments. Lots of good support for the 5D here. I saw a new salesman's sample 5D w/warranty sell on ebay today for about $1300. That's very tempting.
 
kevin m said:
A used 5d is a screaming bargain at the going rate of +/- $1k. In real world use, lens dust is more of a retouching problem than sensor dust, so unless you really need/want the video of the MkII, go with the MkI.

I keep thinking I need to "upgrade" until I look at my files. Instead, I'm getting a second body for my wedding work. With a prime lens mounted (I usually use the 28/1.8 or 50/1.4) size isn't really an issue. The 35 and 50L lenses are touted, and rightly so, but don't overlook a real jewel of the L line, the 135/2. That thing is a gem.
Click to expand...

I have the 28/1.8, 50/1.4, and 85/1.8. If I decided to get another prime lens now it would be the 135/2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom