Nikon D90 to Canon 5D

technics100

technics100

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,989
Name
Adam
Edit My Images
Yes
Hmm, were to start.. I'm basically thinking that I would like to go full frame. I currently have a D90 which a decent set of lenses. I'm not really going to be able to afford Nikon FF, so was contempolating switching to a Canon 5D classic.. I generally take pictures of my family, not a lot else.. maybe some car related things - autotests etc.. I also following some blogs and they all use 5D MKii's... This seems to be the way forward for portraits & weddings. This is my current setup.. D90, Tamron 17-50mm f2.8, Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 and a 50mm f1.4 AF-S, also have a SB-800 and a jessops flash.. I also play about wit wireless triggers and have a westcott apollo softbox.. so would liek to still do this with my new setup.

I was thinking of selling up and switching.. I would probably get a 5D, some fast primes and canon speedight. I just bought a GF1 with 14-42mm so have a handy good zoom when required..

I think the D90 and 5D are roughly the same spec.. does the canon have a higher dynamic range and does it produce better portraits? Also what is the ISO like on the 5D? does FF produce better images due to sensor size?
 
Last edited:
I'm going to try and save you some money here. Given your subject material where are you finding the D90 limiting?

Sure, there are reasons to go full frame. There's the higher ISO capability generally associated with full frame - although this really only applies to models of the same generation with a similar resolution, plus the ability to isolate your subject more for a given aperture.

The question is really what do you want to achieve that the crop frame D90 doesn't allow you to?

When combined with some decent glass the D90 is certainly no slouch.
 
to use a ff camera effectivly you will have to by the lens to macth and there not cheap, the d90 is a very capable camera . you will also have to buy lenses to match the camera.

just ask yourself a few questions

1) what will ff give me
2) is it worth doing it
 
For what you're using the camera for I wouldn't bother switching to fullframe. Such a switch would require a significant investment in new glass that would stretch far beyond the cost of the body itself.

Unless you are finding something limiting with the D90 I'd keep hold of it and save yourself the cost and hassle. If you want improved image quality and low light performance consider an upgrade to the D7000 - a much cheaper move!





.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why do you need the FF? The main advantages are better dynamic range and better high ISO. A move to a D7000 would be much cheaper/wiser and give you quite a bit benefit on those two areas.

I would have thought that given your subject matter a move on the other way (m4/3) makes more sense than moving a to a bigger sensor.
 
The answer would more or less depend on the type of portrait work that you do. Under strict studio conditions, and low ISO I believe there is little advantage in upgrading. All you'd really gain would be a big nice viewfinder making it easier to compose and frame.
As you move up to higher ISO's FF will become increasingly better compared to similar crop cameras. There would be less noise, and more details preserved. I shoot 1Ds II, which is older than 5D, but is still one of the better cameras out the there, and clearly cleaner that most crop models. To make the most of it though, a recent pro software such as Lightroom 3 is really needed. If you prefer shooting with thin DOF, a move to FF will certainly help you. 85mm f/1.8 (1.2 if you have disposable income), 70-200/2.8 and 50/1.4 or 35/1.4 can make a killer set. However don't forget the importance of AF - out of focus clean shot is useless! - and this is why 1Ds II or soon to become cheaper D700 are more attractive than 5D.
 
technics100 said:
I was thinking of selling up and switching.. I would probably get a 5D, some fast primes and canon speedight. I just bought a GF1 with 14-42mm so have a handy good zoom when required..

I think the D90 and 5D are roughly the same spec.. does the canon have a higher dynamic range and does it produce better portraits? Also what is the ISO like on the 5D? does FF produce better images due to sensor size?
Click to expand...

I've been using a 20D and recently bought both MTF and a 5D and I have to say that differences are... minimal... IMVHO... and mostly limited to higher ISO noise and response to noise reduction.

Maybe my expectations were a little high but I was expecting great things from the 5D especially at higher ISO's but what I got was a bit of a shock and I found that images at higher ISO can show a lot of noise, possibly within spitting distance of the noise produced by my 20D but in fairness the 5D shots do look a little better after noise reduction. Compared to MFT (GF1 and G1) I think that my 20D and 5D both produce images with better IQ as the ISO rises but at low to mid ISO really, honestly, and without looking very very closely, I can't easily tell the difference between shots taken with any of these cameras.

So, I'd urge anyone thinking of upgrading for better IQ to think very carefully as IMVHO and experience all you get is more bells and whistles, more mp and maybe... just maybe... a stop or two better ISO performance (if you're lucky) which you could possibly get through better technique and better noise reduction software.

On the subject of DoF, my pet subject, you don't need full frame to get shallow DoF if you don't mind simply altering your composition / framing.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
.....So, I'd urge anyone thinking of upgrading for better IQ to think very carefully as IMVHO and experience all you get is more bells and whistles, more mp and maybe... just maybe... a stop or two better ISO performance (if you're lucky) which you could possibly get through better technique and better noise reduction software.....
Click to expand...

I suspect that if I took an image with my 7D and 15-85 and then the same image with a 5D or 5D MkII and 24-105 I wouldn't be able to see much if any difference between them, unless perhaps I went pixel peeping. :shrug:

Perhaps people rave about the benefits of full frame because once they have spent all that money on the gear and then can't see much improvement in the images produced they're too embarassed to admit that they've just wasted a chunk of money. I may be wrong of course. :thinking:
 
i bought a 5d about 2 weeks ago and i absolutely love it! but in your case i would stay with nikon and save for a d700 if you really want to go full frame. the high iso capabilities and af system will be far better than the 5d's, you'll have to replace your zoom lenses but better that than having to replace everything.

if you were closer to derry you could have had a play with my 5d to see how you get on with it but the 70 odd miles is a stretch to far lol.
 
Ha, I have just sold a D7000 as I need some money out of my gear. It just seems that every wedding / portrait tog is using fast primes with a 5D MKII..

The main reason for thinkning of changing was for the tones & range that the canons seem to give.. is this true or just a good tog?

I was thinking my current kit would sell at about £1300 so would invest that again in Canon gear.. Prob a 5D with a 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 and a speedlite..

I think I am just a camera tart and should stick with what I have.. I was shooting my 3 year old today with my 50mm 1.4 AF-s and got some great shots..

MUST STOP BEING A TART!!!!!

thanks for all the useful comments..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top