What would be the difference between the 550D and the 5D

DeVore

I have a 550D and I'm quite happy with it. Its maybe not as sharp as I see other peoples' photos but that could the the 1.8/55mm I use or it could be whats behind it thats at fault


Now, the option arises to upgrade to a second hand 5D and I suddenly have an attack of Gear Acquisition Syndrome...

Help me convince myself I need this (or convince me I dont, either way!).

What would be the reasons for upgrading to the 5D, or are their any beyond "ooh new toy!!!!".

EyeBlinks

Upgrade, you'll never look back.

Full frame a different ball game altogether. I had a 5D and was more than happy with it. Only reason I sold it was much better high iso on the mark 2 version, which I use a lot. Imagine that would not be a good reason for most photographers. Otherwise I would have kept it.

Photo quality is superb, but it will highlight any deficiences in cheaper lenses.

pixbyjohn

You will probably have to buy new EF lens for it too. Unless you already have some full frame EF lens. Just another consideration when moving from crop to full frame with Canon.

DeVore

I have the default lens that came with the 550D (18-55mm) which I guess is EFS, an F1.8/50mm (nifty fifty) which I think fits the 5D and the 17-85mm which is marked EFS so I guess probably no good.

I wouldnt be too concerned as I would probably plan to keep the 550D for landscape and "postcard" shots and use the 5D for portrait stuff where I am hoping to see the value of the full framedness (would that be reasonable to expect?)

I'd say the 5D would be more suited to landscape as it's field of view is naturally wider (it being full frame and your other camera being a 1.6 crop, pretty much means that whatever focal length you put on a 5D, the same lens will give an effective focal length of 1.6 that on a crop sensor. ie; a 16mm lens on a 5D and a 10mm lens on a 550D are the same).


I was on the verge of going full frame when I bought my 7D. It was either going to be a 7D or a 5DII. There are the odd times when I kind of wish I went full frame, but those times are so few and far between, and the 7D has served me so extremely well, that I don't think I'd ever justify it.


On top of that, you also have 5D1's second hand at silly prices (I believe that €600+ is a bit much for a camera so old, especially when the 20D, for example, is around €200 and is around the same age).

I think full frame is an elitism thing. Like shooting film or buying an Ipad. While there are a lot of people that have a genuine appreciation for what they're using, a lot of people just seem to use it so they can say that they use it.


I put a lot of careful consideration into my 5DII VS 7D debate, and I am glad I went with the 7D. In saying that, I wouldn't mind having a 5D1 to slap in my backpack the odd time, but when I think I could get three or four 20Ds for the same price, I start to think maybe it's not the most sensible decision in the world (though I'll probably still buy one down the line, just to add to my bag of tricks).

pete4130

Deleted User wrote: »

I'd say the 5D would be more suited to landscape as it's field of view is naturally wider (it being full frame and your other camera being a 1.6 crop, pretty much means that whatever focal length you put on a 5D, the same lens will give an effective focal length of 1.6 that on a crop sensor. ie; a 16mm lens on a 5D and a 10mm lens on a 550D are the same).

Being a larger format it also has a more shallow depth of field over a crop sensor so it give you more creative freedom over a crop sensor. It's great for all types of photography. Landscape & Portraiture.

Deleted User wrote: »

On top of that, you also have 5D1's second hand at silly prices (I believe that €600+ is a bit much for a camera so old, especially when the 20D, for example, is around €200 and is around the same age).

The 5D is a pro built full frame camera, with an alloy body, 100% (if not 100%, almost 100%) viewfinder thats brighter, a tougher body, great high ISO for its age, bigger LCD's, probably a bigger screen, easier to use controls and dials.

The 20D is a mid level prosumer camera with a flimsier body, smaller, darker viewfinder, not as good at higher ISO's.

There is no demand for 20D's anymore. There is still demand for 5D's hence the price tag.

3x 20D's won't keep up with a 5D. Simple.

Deleted User wrote: »

I think full frame is an elitism thing. Like shooting film or buying an Ipad. While there are a lot of people that have a genuine appreciation for what they're using, a lot of people just seem to use it so they can say that they use it.

If you haven't used full frame or film much/at all, then how can you have an appreciation or understanding of it. Reading that comes across as pure stupidity KKV. I'll chuckle when you finally do get a full frame camera (and you will) and remark on how good it is.

Full frame can fit more pixels onto a sensor at the same density as a crop sensor, meaning greater resolution. In the same sense that medium format captures the same image on a larger medium giving it a greater resolution over 35mm format. It's hard to argue with the facts. I hardly think wanting better image quality is an elitist thing?

Deleted User wrote: »

I put a lot of careful consideration into my 5DII VS 7D debate, and I am glad I went with the 7D. In saying that, I wouldn't mind having a 5D1 to slap in my backpack the odd time, but when I think I could get three or four 20Ds for the same price, I start to think maybe it's not the most sensible decision in the world (though I'll probably still buy one down the line, just to add to my bag of tricks).

And 3x 20D's in your backpack is a more sensible choice?


The truth is, digital cameras started with smaller sensors because they were easier and cheaper to manufacture and sell on at a reasonable cost. Full frame has become affordable now and crop sensor cameras are now the cheaper alternatives to the more capable full frame cameras.

Crop sensor cameras are still in demand as they require cheaper lenses, are smaller, better for telephoto capabilities and appeal to people like yourself who are new to photography.

I know lots of people who have moved from crop sensor to full frame but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone switching from full frame to a crop sensor for everyday use.

Adrian.Sadlier

As I am a Nikon shooter you may wish to completely ignore the following

The 5D, whilst having a full frame sensor is much older technically and has inferior ISO performance and inferior resolution than the 550D. Yes, the photosites on the 5D sensor are bigger, my guess is that the 550D probably had less distance between the photosites than does the 5D, thereby capturing more light.

Yes, the 5D is better built and longer lasting but unless you are a pro or a very serious amateur you will probably move it on for another upgrade long before either camera dies.

Could I suggest another path. Get a better lens. Kit lenses, whille cheap and versatile, the IQ is generally a lot inferior than an L lens. You will have to change them anyway to use a 5D.

Buy a better lens and try it on your 550D before considering a 5D - you may be very surpised at the results. And start saving for a 5DII - now that would be a big improvement on the 550D - as long as you don't shoot sports (I heard that the autofocus isn't as hot as that on Nikon cameras or even other Canon cameras).

pete4130

pete4130 wrote: »

The 5D is a pro built full frame camera, with an alloy body, 100% (if not 100%, almost 100%) viewfinder thats brighter, a tougher body, great high ISO for its age, bigger LCD's, probably a bigger screen, easier to use controls and dials.

The 20D is a mid level prosumer camera with a flimsier body, smaller, darker viewfinder, not as good at higher ISO's.

There is no demand for 20D's anymore. There is still demand for 5D's hence the price tag.

3x 20D's won't keep up with a 5D. Simple.



If you haven't used full frame or film much/at all, then how can you have an appreciation or understanding of it. Reading that comes across as pure stupidity KKV. I'll chuckle when you finally do get a full frame camera (and you will) and remark on how good it is.

Full frame can fit more pixels onto a sensor at the same density as a crop sensor, meaning greater resolution. In the same sense that medium format captures the same image on a larger medium giving it a greater resolution over 35mm format. It's hard to argue with the facts. I hardly think wanting better image quality is an elitist thing?






And 3x 20D's in your backpack is a more sensible choice?


The truth is, digital cameras started with smaller sensors because they were easier and cheaper to manufacture and sell on at a reasonable cost. Full frame has become affordable now and crop sensor cameras are now the cheaper alternatives to the more capable full frame cameras.

Crop sensor cameras are still in demand as they require cheaper lenses, are smaller, better for telephoto capabilities and appeal to people like yourself who are new to photography.

I know lots of people who have moved from crop sensor to full frame but I don't think I've ever heard of anyone switching from full frame to a crop sensor for everyday use.

Another condescending Pete post :rolleyes:

As I've said on here before, I've used a 5DII plenty of times. Admittedly, it wasn't my own camera, but the 7D beats it, in my opinion. I don't believe the difference between 1.6 crop and full frame is that noticeable outside of technical/studio/graph testing.

In real-world shooting, I don't think there's much of a difference. 7D also gives me the option of using EF and EF-S lenses, should I choose to, so I view that as a bonus too. I also appreciate the added 'reach' that a 1.6 crop gives me as I generally use zoom lenses and for a lot of stuff I cover I'm trying to get close to things but I'm at a distance (Railings, Garda cordons, etc.).

pete4130

Adrian.Sadlier wrote: »

As I am a Nikon shooter you may wish to completely ignore the following

The 5D, whilst having a full frame sensor is much older technically and has inferior ISO performance and inferior resolution than the 550D. Yes, the photosites on the 5D sensor are bigger, my guess is that the 550D probably had less distance between the photosites than does the 5D, thereby capturing more light.

Having photosites closer together creates a higher signal/noise ration, where the photosites interfer with each other more or disturb each other more. This is why older cameras with new technology don't have as many MP as more newer cameras. Increases in technology has helped make handling this signal/noise ratio greater with high ISO capabilities.
Another way to look at it. Imagine the same density of photosites the 550D has but on a full frame sensor. It means higher resolution/higher MP count. Meaning a larger light capturing medium is superior.

Adrian.Sadlier wrote: »

Yes, the 5D is better built and longer lasting but unless you are a pro or a very serious amateur you will probably move it on for another upgrade long before either camera dies.

The 5D is still a very capable and workable camera in a professional environment. It coped well for years and still copes well today. Being able to shoot at 6400 ISO or higher is great. How often is that necessary for the majority of shooting that the majority of people do? Some gig photographers might need it and sports shooters

Adrian.Sadlier wrote: »

Could I suggest another path. Get a better lens. Kit lenses, whille cheap and versatile, the IQ is generally a lot inferior than an L lens. You will have to change them anyway to use a 5D.

Buy a better lens and try it on your 550D before considering a 5D - you may be very surpised at the results. And start saving for a 5DII - now that would be a big improvement on the 550D - as long as you don't shoot sports (I heard that the autofocus isn't as hot as that on Nikon cameras or even other Canon cameras).

Crop sensor lenses have smaller image circles and when you upgrade to a full frame, which you will eventually you'll have to upgrade to full frame glass. Crop sensor glass is cheaper to make, easier to sell to the masses so its in demand. Everybody wants he 24-70 2.8 but its a bit awkward on a crop sensor. People adapt and spend on a 17-40 or 16-35 which almost covers the same range. Then when they upgrade they have an amazing wide angle lens which for most people would have a more limited use than a 24-70 2.8.
My point is eventually people will upgrade to full frame sensors, either through cheap 5D's or 5D2's when they become cheaper.

I've got a D3 thats about 5 years old now. I still go out, use and work that 5 year old technology with its meagre 12.?MP. It still gets me paid from the magazines I work for. Yeah, the D3X & D4 is a better camera but at bout $9000 won't get me paid anymore and it would be a lot of hard work to make that money back before I was in profit again. My D3 has paid for itself time and time again.

OP, if you want full frame, get a €600 5D. If you aren't happy with it, sell it on for €550 or €600. You won't lose anything really.

Going a bit elitist old skool with some film examples, you can see the difference in image quality between 110 format (13mmx17mm) and medium format (6cmx6cm). They all use the same light capturing medium of film. The larger the format, the better the image quality.

- 110 format




Medium format

pete4130

Anyway OP. Buy what you think you want and what you'd enjoy shooting on.