Old full frame camera

stickytape

stickytape

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,523
Edit My Images
Yes
Good morning all,

So in my perusal, I've decided that I would like a full fram camera. I've been on a little shopping spree over the past months and ended up with some old DSLRa / canon 350D and a Nikon D50 (in addition to the bridge FZ1000)

I'm not wedd d to either system - happy to keep these as they were bought fi a song anyway. However I am undecided about which system. I am happy with the menu and control layout or either, ultimate quality is important to me though. A colleague has a Nikon D700 and I have been very impressed with the sharpness of the images - appears absolutely phenomenal. If we disregard the speed issue (AF and Frames per second) is the original 5D up to the same? Both are a similar era but less positive is said about the 5D.

Advice appreciated!
 
I have a d700 and a d600 and I like the dynamic range of the d700 better! It's lovely
 
D700 has a good rep, where I've heard more comments along the lines of "is a 5D going to be OK?". What about lenses - do you have anything decent (this will be what decides whether your pictures are sharp or not, regardless of body) or will you have to obtain FF glass too?
 
Lens I am not massively sold on, but I do vaguely prefer the canon lens - the 100-400 and 24-105 are stellar; I'm just hoping the 5D will do.. or I'd have to save and go for the 5D 2..
 
stickytape said:
Lens I am not massively sold on, but I do vaguely prefer the canon lens - the 100-400 and 24-105 are stellar; I'm just hoping the 5D will do.. or I'd have to save and go for the 5D 2..
Click to expand...

Having had both the lenses and cameras to which you refer the lenses you will not go wrong with, personally unless you get the 5D for peanuts I would save up a bit and get the 5D2, the difference is chalk and cheese and live view on the 5D2 is worth its weight in gold
 
I get the 5D 2 is better than the 5D - but in a direct competition, would the 5D hold its own against a D700? This is my main query as there is a considerable price difference between the two, but I'm preferring the canon lens. I am not fussed about ergonomics as I enjoy both of them, on those terms.
 
D700 will out perform the 5D in many aspects in my opinion, unless you like Canon layout. The 5D2 is more on pal with D700.
 
Doesn't the D700 have a built in flash? That alone would sway me as IMO it's better to have one just in case you need it.
 
woof woof said:
Doesn't the D700 have a built in flash? That alone would sway me as IMO it's better to have one just in case you need it.
Click to expand...

Yes it does
 
It does have a build in flash, altho I never use it when I had the D700.
 
It sounds to me like you're after a better performing camera body, and lenses don't matter at this stage. Having handled neither camera (so I can't talk from experience) it seems to me that the D700 is much better than the 5D, and you'd have to spend more to match performance using a Canon body. Therefore IF you want to use those Canon lenses then you need to bite the bullet & buy the 5D2.
 
badboy1984 said:
It does have a build in flash, altho I never use it when I had the D700.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I have to put my expensive camera down because it hasn't got a flash and pick up something much cheaper which does to take a shot that the expensive camera can't because it hasn't got a flash and whenever I do that I'm annoyed. Having a flash and using it just once is better than not having one and wanting it.
 
woof woof said:
Sometimes I have to put my expensive camera down because it hasn't got a flash and pick up something much cheaper which does to take a shot that the expensive camera can't because it hasn't got a flash and whenever I do that I'm annoyed. Having a flash and using it just once is better than not having one and wanting it.
Click to expand...
I'm the opposite, when I have a camera with an onboard flash I never use it. Of the 6 cameras in regular use here, I'd have to check which ones have an internal flash.

On board flash is generally the ugliest light available, I can't think why I'd want to point that at a person. I think if the choice was 'built in flash or no picture' then 'no picture' is the preferred option. But with modern cameras that's not realistic, it's just a case of finding some light (but picking up a speedlight to bounce is surely as easy as picking up a different camera)
 
Phil V said:
I'm the opposite, when I have a camera with an onboard flash I never use it. Of the 6 cameras in regular use here, I'd have to check which ones have an internal flash.

On board flash is generally the ugliest light available, I can't think why I'd want to point that at a person. I think if the choice was 'built in flash or no picture' then 'no picture' is the preferred option. But with modern cameras that's not realistic, it's just a case of finding some light (but picking up a speedlight to bounce is surely as easy as picking up a different camera)
Click to expand...

Interesting - that's really how I feel about mobile phone cameras for photography (as opposed to just creating a record for information). I've used onboard flash just once, for some snaps at a party where there wasn't enough ambient light even at 6400 & f1.4, but there was enough to combine the 2 for a usable record.
 
I'm not usually prone to hyperbole but the D700 trounces in the 5D in every single way other than in fitting Canon lenses.

5D2 is more on a par, it has higher MP and does video but worse AF (the D700 AF is still pretty much as good as it gets in the AF department) and the dynamic range isn't as good and it suffers banding if you push the shadows too much, the D700 is still good at these even by today's standards.

Given the choice between those three it would be the D700 every time.
 
stickytape said:
Good morning all,

So in my perusal, I've decided that I would like a full fram camera. I've been on a little shopping spree over the past months and ended up with some old DSLRa / canon 350D and a Nikon D50 (in addition to the bridge FZ1000)

I'm not wedd d to either system - happy to keep these as they were bought fi a song anyway. However I am undecided about which system. I am happy with the menu and control layout or either, ultimate quality is important to me though. A colleague has a Nikon D700 and I have been very impressed with the sharpness of the images - appears absolutely phenomenal. If we disregard the speed issue (AF and Frames per second) is the original 5D up to the same? Both are a similar era but less positive is said about the 5D.

Advice appreciated!
Click to expand...
Frankly it's rarely about the camera and more about the lens.

I used the 350D for 5 years when I first returned to photography and only moved on when I felt that I had progressed beyond it.

I first went to the 450D and then to the Canon 1Ds mk II.

During this time I had also slowly improved on my lenses of which the greatest value is the Canon 50mm f1.8 - incredibly sharp from f2,8 onwards.

Oddly in this last year I have also returned to small MP cameras - the 1D MK IIN and the 40D.

All are capable of excellent pictures - as is the 350D - with a good lens in place.

But the main ingredient in the photographic mix is YOU and the kind of pics you want to take.

Personally I would say whatever camera you choose leave enough money to buy a really good lens.
 
Any specific reason for wanting FX? I think most modern mid-range crop sensor dslrs will outshine the D700 [as great as it is] in terms of image quality, many will beat it for high ISO performance also. If it's more for the build quality and the wider field of view, then yeah, the D700 is still a great camera.
 
The 5D is 12mp, the D700 is also 12mp, but price wise, the 5D is generally cheaper than the D700: £250ish vs £350+.
The 5D2 at 21mp seems to sell for slightly higher prices to the D700, around £500+.

The D700 has more focus points than either 5D or 5D2, and also a higher burst rate. So if you're doing anything that needs speed, like wildlife, sports, aeroplanes, the D700 might be the way to go. But if you aren't so bothered about out and out speed, then either 5D will be good.

You don't say why you particularly want a full frame camera though. Having moved from crop to full frame, I definitely prefer the field of view and depth of field give by full frame.

One thing to note is that the 5D and 5D2 have a different layout of buttons to the crop sensor 350D, so it's not so easy as saying " I am happy with the menu and control layout..." because they will be different. The big usability difference is that the 5D/5D2 (and models above 40D/60D/etc) have a rear control dial, so you can have instant access to aperture and shutter speed at the same time.
I believe there is a similar usability difference with Nikons too.

What lenses do you have for Nikon and Canon?
Canon EFS (crop sensor) lenses will not work on a full frame Canon.
Nikon DX (crop sensor) lenses will work on full frame cameras but only in "DX mode", meaning the camera uses a smaller part of the sensor, so you lose the benefit of full frame, but at least you can use your lenses.
If you have any full frame lenses at the moment, that might be more likely to sway you one way or the other, but only if they are decent lenses. A cheap full frame lens from the film era may well work on a full frame DSLR, but it may well not be as good as a modern crop sensor kit lens.

For that £3-400, you could easily get a really good quality newer crop sensor camera that will be much better than the older ones you have, so the question is, why do you particularly want an older full frame camera?
 
petersmart said:
Frankly it's rarely about the camera and more about the lens.

I used the 350D for 5 years when I first returned to photography and only moved on when I felt that I had progressed beyond it.

I first went to the 450D and then to the Canon 1Ds mk II.

During this time I had also slowly improved on my lenses of which the greatest value is the Canon 50mm f1.8 - incredibly sharp from f2,8 onwards.

Oddly in this last year I have also returned to small MP cameras - the 1D MK IIN and the 40D.

All are capable of excellent pictures - as is the 350D - with a good lens in place.

But the main ingredient in the photographic mix is YOU and the kind of pics you want to take.

Personally I would say whatever camera you choose leave enough money to buy a really good lens.
Click to expand...

Hello

Yes I totally agree with what you say. I have a canon 350D and have been very happy with this, considering. So yes, thank you for your advice, I will certainly check out the 50mm
 
Cagey75 said:
Any specific reason for wanting FX? I think most modern mid-range crop sensor dslrs will outshine the D700 [as great as it is] in terms of image quality, many will beat it for high ISO performance also. If it's more for the build quality and the wider field of view, then yeah, the D700 is still a great camera.
Click to expand...

For me, I just thought it would be a good upgrade choice - considering I've got a couple of crop sensor SLRs plus the crop sensor FZ1000. For high ISO performance (I favor wildlife photography, and nature) I deemed that a full frame SLR - an older model as I couldn't afford a new one - would be a nice compliment to my kit.
 
stickytape said:
For me, I just thought it would be a good upgrade choice - considering I've got a couple of crop sensor SLRs plus the crop sensor FZ1000. For high ISO performance (I favor wildlife photography, and nature) I deemed that a full frame SLR - an older model as I couldn't afford a new one - would be a nice compliment to my kit.
Click to expand...

And yes - the viewfinder as well. The viewfinder in the FZ1000 is unbelievable / it's absolutely fantastic.admitekdy it's an EVF but it's the best one I've ever seen. Whereas the crop sensor 350D and Nikon D50 I've got have abysmal viewfinders
 
stickytape said:
For me, I just thought it would be a good upgrade choice - considering I've got a couple of crop sensor SLRs plus the crop sensor FZ1000. For high ISO performance (I favor wildlife photography, and nature) I deemed that a full frame SLR - an older model as I couldn't afford a new one - would be a nice compliment to my kit.
Click to expand...
High iso on these older full frame cameras still isn't great beyond 3200.
Especially the 5D which is quite a bit older.
 
Thanks to DPReview's studio comparison tools, here's a comparison of ISOs:

First a comparison at 1600 ISO of the D700, 5D2, D7000 (crop) and 60D (crop) - the 5D mark 1 was not available on this comparison tool:
DPReview studio comparison 1

Second a comparison at 1600 ISO of the 5D, 5D2, D7000 (crop) and 700D (crop) - the D700 wasn't available on this other version of the comparison tool, but it does allow a low light comparison.
DPReview studio comparison 2
 
ABTog said:
Thanks to DPReview's studio comparison tools, here's a comparison of ISOs:

First a comparison at 1600 ISO of the D700, 5D2, D7000 (crop) and 60D (crop) - the 5D mark 1 was not available on this comparison tool:
DPReview studio comparison 1

Second a comparison at 1600 ISO of the 5D, 5D2, D7000 (crop) and 700D (crop) - the D700 wasn't available on this other version of the comparison tool, but it does allow a low light comparison.
DPReview studio comparison 2
Click to expand...


For me the D700 looks best at ISO1600 and by ISO6400 it is clearly still the best.
 
The only reason in my opinion to get an older model full frame is for the narrow depth of field in portraiture plus maybe for the ergonomics/ size. Modern APS-C dslrs are way ahead otherwise and there is no lack of good glass for the amateur. However if you are able to get one at a good price my recommendation would be for the D700 as my friend still misses his and he traded it in for a D800!
 
stickytape said:
And yes - the viewfinder as well. The viewfinder in the FZ1000 is unbelievable / it's absolutely fantastic.admitekdy it's an EVF but it's the best one I've ever seen. Whereas the crop sensor 350D and Nikon D50 I've got have abysmal viewfinders
Click to expand...

TBH I'd take EVF over OVF in a crop camera, though with FF the difference is much smaller, both having strengths and weaknesses.

However you mention wildlife photography, where the longest, fastest lenses affordable are often required. FF is at a disadvantage, with telephotos being the equivalent of 33% shorter compared to crop, even though you can crop down to the same field of view.
 
imo the 5d2 is a fantastic camera and it can still hold its own today...I think it was used to win world press picture of the day 2015/2016 (can't remember which one but was recentish!)

For me it's drawback is ISO performance. AF while limited to 9 points works pretty good.

I am currently on a 5d4, with its all singing all dancing Af and still just use centre point most of the time.

Other than that it's solid & dependable, modern cameras will of course beat it in just about every way but bang for buck the 5d2 is hard to beat
 
I have no experience with Nikon so can't offer any advice on those.

The 5D is a great camera that has a huge following because of a certain look from the files. The 5D Mark II whilst similar in layout and AF is a totally different camera file and IQ wise. It depends on what you want.

I love the 5D Mark II and will be adding a 3rd body to the kit soon. Don't really need much else in terms of resolution or image quality.Going FF will mean longer glass and or tele converters for wildlife/birds. The AF on the 5D II will get it done but it will miss at times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top