to 5D or not (mark) 2 5D
posted by nick
all apologies to gizmodad and his excellent post mulling over the merits of upgrading to the next coming of the iphone (a dilemma i share with him), but i had to borrow and paraphrase his post-title for my own purposes. if you know any of us, you know we’re always burning on the next gadget purchase/upgrade. while brother steve’s crosshairs are fixed on the 3rd gen iphone, i’ve begun to lust for camera bodies. i started out with dslr photography a year ago with a canon rebel xti. it’s been a great introduction to the hobby, and i’m happy with the results. however, the more i’ve used it, the more i can sense its limitations.
front and center is its iso performance. its iso range includes 100, 200, 400, 800, and 1600. the more i’ve shot, the less useable i consider iso 800 and 1600. why is this important? handheld, low-light shooting. the higher the iso value, the more noise the camera’s sensor introduces into a photo. though one could successfully use any of the lower iso values in low light, it typically requires a tripod, which i’m personally not interested in. because of this, i find myself essentially petrified to shoot in low-light settings. and why am i so scared of noise? see for yourself in a 100% crop of the image above taken at 1600 iso. notice the noise, a.k.a. graininess.
the rebel xti is a consumer-grade camera. seasoned pros would prefer not to shoot professional sessions with it. if i want to attain the hobbyist “next level” of going pro, can i really be taken seriously shooting with an xti? sure, it sounds like photography snootiness, and maybe most casual observers don’t see a problem and wouldn’t care which camera they’re shot with, which is all true. however, if you run into a client or a peer who is experienced in photography, i imagine they’d be able to tell you’re using less-than-pro equipment and could tell your low-light photos are taken with inferior noise-canceling hardware. so, i’ve been debating how necessary it is for me to upgrade, and when i do, should i go with the canon 5D or 5D mark II.
the 5D (left) and 5D Mark II (right), courtesy trustedreviews.com
i admire the photography of pros who use the 5D. i’m fairly certain jessica claire and bonnie tsang both use (or used) the 5D with magnificent results. and when the 5DM2 (henceforth, M2 = Mark II) was on the horizon, i figured i could use the new cam’s hype to score a 5D cheaper because who really needs 1080p video on their dslr? well, tien and steve quickly destroyed my line of logic by each purchasing their own 5DM2′s and making me kermit-the-frog green with envy. seeing their results, i modified my plan to wait it out until i harnessed enough money to bypass the $2,000 5D for the $3,000 5DM2. however, i’ve recently given it more thought and have begun to lean back toward my original plan.
reading some conversations on the excellent photography message boards at opensourcephoto.com, i’m beginning to believe that it would be well worth it to buy a used 5D for roughly $1,200 and bide my time before i go full-blown 5DM2. the reasoning tends to be that the 21 megapixels on the 5DM2 is a bit of overkill, the autofocus is not significantly better than the 5D, and once i’m ready to go 5DM2, i could keep the 5D as a great backup body. and considering a used 5D can be had at almost a third of the price of its “son”, it sounds like a very reasonable option right now when i’m not quite yet in the world of paid photography.
any concurring or differing opinions? let me know in the comments. i’m sure mrs. hapa17 is rolling her eyes at the thought of spending “only” $1,200 on yet another camera upgrade.
