m starting to think about making the 5d happen and I had just a few questions about the transition from the 30d
Some people consider the camera to be "clunky" or less wieldy
is this just because of its frame rate? (which I dont need)
I held the camera once and it doesnt feel heavier than my camera or any more clumsy (actually felt pretty much the same other than a nicer shutter release)
is the autofocus slower or something like that?

Am I going to be bombarded with a whole host of issues relating to corner sharpness, vignetting etc? (never had problem with film, but I dont pixel peep with film)

is autofocus more accurate in low light or tighter in on the boxes?
I am especially bothered by the 30ds autofocus, which is accurate once I had it fixed (originally terrible back-focus) but it has huge focus boxes and often grabs what I dont want it to and it starts to get innacurate in light EV 7 (also is this normal? i dont remember it being that bad) ie f/2.8 1/15 iso 100

Is there a serious advantage with iso 50 in terms of picture quality?

Do most folks still hold onto the cropper?
I know this one has to do with personal preference and I dont shoot sports like I said but I want to know if anyone has thouht along these lines and then wanted the older camera back

Do most folks find 24mm to be wide enough? (I know, same as above, and I do think its wide enough but stuff changes)
also what are some good options for wide other than the obvious? (and expensive) 16-35mm

can we predict the 5d to phase out, be a poor investment, or else drop in price soon?

Anything else to be aware of?

Wheres the best deal on the 5d?

Im upgrading mostly because I like the focal lengths of my lenses on 35mm and I want to switch from film to digital when I get the urge easily and hopefully not have to carry around a specialty wide angle lens that often

Ideally Id sell my 30d and my Tokina to raise half of the price

Not sure I can answer all your questions since I never owned the 30D. When I looked I looked at everything from Nikon/Canon/Sony...

I decided on the 5D because of the full frame sensor and the quality of the lenses and the pictures the shop allowed me to take with the camera before I bought the camera.

The 5D from memory is a 100g heavier - the L lenses are heavier than the non L's. I bought the L's for the 5D to ensure quality.

I have the 24-70 F2.8 L USM and the 100-400 F4.5-5.6 L IS USM and at the moment not considering a wider angle. Mos of my photography is land/seascapes, Nature and still life.

All my photos are rarely cropped from the full 35mm frame so look on my web site for some of the latest photos which are taken with the 5D. I use !SO 100-1600 and the level of noise is acceptable at 1600 which staggered me.

Auto focus is pin sharp fast and accurate - not found an instance where it caught me out yet not even low light - but that depends on your definition of low light.

I assume your aware that you can get the Sigma 10-20mm which is for the 30D which won't fit the 5D and neither will any of the EF-S lenses if you have any of them.

The only lens I am considering getting is the 50mm which I loved on my 35mm film camera which I still use from time to time.

As for clunky - well I never found it to be clunky and if asked if I would buy it again then my answer would be definately. There are rumours that the 5D will be replaced in the future but don't know when.

I love the 5D it does everything I want and possibly more than I need. However, it doesn't do a decent espresso - hopefully that's in the replacement due out soon :lol:

Battery life is excellent.

Roger

Some people consider the camera to be "clunky" or less wieldy
is this just because of its frame rate? (which I dont need)
I held the camera once and it doesnt feel heavier than my camera or any more clumsy (actually felt pretty much the same other than a nicer shutter release)
is the autofocus slower or something like that?

It handles like a 10D which is high praise indeed. The autofocus is excellent especially with L lenses. It's possible to accidentaly knock the LHS mode dial but other than that it handles beautifully.

Am I going to be bombarded with a whole host of issues relating to corner sharpness, vignetting etc? (never had problem with film, but I dont pixel peep with film)

I have seen very mild vingetting with certain lenses. Usually poor ones. nothing that ACR can't fix as you develope the RAW. Have no probs with 16-35mm or 17-40mm or 24-70mm or 70-200mm or any primes I have.

Is autofocus more accurate in low light or tighter in on the boxes?
I am especially bothered by the 30ds autofocus, which is accurate once I had it fixed (originally terrible back-focus) but it has huge focus boxes and often grabs what I dont want it to and it starts to get innacurate in light EV 7 (also is this normal? i dont remember it being that bad) ie f/2.8 1/15 iso 100

Depends on the lens often. It's usually excellent. The bigger lens aperture the better it gets. By f/1.4 it can almost focus in the dark. So no it's excellent in low light.

Is there a serious advantage with iso 50 in terms of picture quality?

No it's pretty much like ISO 100. However it has a great advantage in water shots and simmilar when you want long exposure. In short it's useful not a gimmick but not from the angle of image quality.

Do most folks still hold onto the cropper?

I know this one has to do with personal preference and I dont shoot sports like I said but I want to know if anyone has thouht along these lines and then wanted the older camera back

I use a x1.3 cropper at weddings also on the long lenses. Just a taste thing.

Do most folks find 24mm to be wide enough? (I know, same as above, and I do think its wide enough but stuff changes)
also what are some good options for wide other than the obvious? (and expensive) 16-35mm

I find 24mm plenty wide enough but also use the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II. If you don't need the extra stop then the 17-40mm is a great lens on this camera. Very dramatic effects in landscape and arcitectural images. 16-35mm is better at colour rendition, sharpness and distortion control but not $1000 better lol!

can we predict the 5d to phase out, be a poor investment, or else drop in price soon?
It's the first digital SLR that is as good as I need one to be. Image quality is beautiful so I wouldn't worry if it's replaced. It's good enough for 99% or work.


Im upgrading mostly because I like the focal lengths of my lenses on 35mm and I want to switch from film to digital when I get the urge easily and hopefully not have to carry around a specialty wide angle lens that often

It is noticable that lenses feel right at full frame that where awkward on a crop camera.

Hope that covers it!
D

Some people consider the camera to be "clunky" or less wieldy
is this just because of its frame rate? (which I dont need)
I think the 5D is just generally chunkier and larger, which may lead to it feeling a bit less solid compared to the more compact, tighter 30D. It also is designed a bit more like the pro bodies, rather than the compressed angular 30D.


I held the camera once and it doesnt feel heavier than my camera or any more clumsy (actually felt pretty much the same other than a nicer shutter release)
is the autofocus slower or something like that?

From what I've seen, the 5D has a better AF system, iirc. It reportedly does pretty well for what it would be used for.

Am I going to be bombarded with a whole host of issues relating to corner sharpness, vignetting etc? (never had problem with film, but I dont pixel peep with film)
Depends on the lenses you have. it's quite possible. Film was different than digital in two ways. First, light striking the film at angles far off perpendicular would still activate the film grains. On digital, however, the light wells around the photosites can only capture light coming in near to perpendicular. Therefore, wide angle lenses not designed with this in mind tend to have mild to severe vignetting on FF digital, possible issues with corner sharpness etc.
You might also notice more chromatic aberrations than you did with film with your wide angles, or than you did with your 30D.

is autofocus more accurate in low light or tighter in on the boxes?
I am especially bothered by the 30ds autofocus, which is accurate once I had it fixed (originally terrible back-focus) but it has huge focus boxes and often grabs what I dont want it to and it starts to get innacurate in light EV 7 (also is this normal? i dont remember it being that bad) ie f/2.8 1/15 iso 100
I do believe its AF is better, and in my experience Canon tends to be pretty precise on the boxes so its possible your old focusing screen was misaligned? The 5D does have non-selectable assist points around the center point for AF tracking, though.
I don't think the 30D should have had problems in that light..

Is there a serious advantage with iso 50 in terms of picture quality? you asked about Picture Quality- so in terms of general Image Quality, there is absolutely NO advantage to ISO 50, in fact it may be a bit noisier than ISO 100. ISO 100 is the native ISO of the sensor so in implementing ISO 50 they have to do some other things.
Artistically, though, its still ISO 50. And it's not like it's got bad image quality, it's just going to be no better than ISO 100, and probably just a tiny bit worse.

Do most folks still hold onto the cropper?
I know this one has to do with personal preference and I dont shoot sports like I said but I want to know if anyone has thouht along these lines and then wanted the older camera back
I'd say a lot of people hold on to them for a while and then turn around and sell them. I see 30D for sale posts all the time on other sites and the #1 reason I see is "I upgraded to a 5D and i'm not using the 30D anymore."
I think most people who hold on long term are those who a) had an ef-s lens that was worth keeping b) shoot sports or action or c) are big telephoto shooters and wanted the reach for birds etc.

Do most folks find 24mm to be wide enough? (I know, same as above, and I do think its wide enough but stuff changes)
also what are some good options for wide other than the obvious? (and expensive) 16-35mm

A lot of people do, but it depends on you and on the lens involved :)

Right now for what I shoot 24mm is about enough on my 1V HS (film) and it's not bad on my 1DmkIII. But I know that soon enough I'll want wider. Lots of people end up wanting wider- major reason for FF. You have tons of options open wider than 24mm. Depending on your budget, their quality can vary :)

I'll start with the 2.8L's
Naturally just about the best would be the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM (ø82), but it's extremely expensive. The old 16-35/2.8L USM (ø77) can be had used in great condition for under $1000, but it was replaced for some very good reasons, including from what I've heard vignetting, corner sharpness, maximum aperture softness, not so sharp at 16mm, and chromatic aberrations, so steer clear of it unless you really need 2.8.

Going lower you could find yourself the predecessor of that 16-35, the 17-35mm f/2.8L USM. That lens is significantly worse than the 16-35. Avoid.
There is also the 20-35/2.8L non-USM which preceded the 17-35, but it's very old.

BUT Never Fear! :thumbsup:
Canon has a fantastic wide angle lens wider than 24mm, zoom, L, and I think it's even weather sealed (if you add a filter for sealing, not that it matters as the 5D isn't), has a reputation for being better than the 16-35/2.8L and rivals the mark II in all respects....

The 17-40mm f/4L USM is simply great! smaller, lighter, and about 1/3 of the 16-35's price, it's a dream come true. I've got one on my lenses to buy list!

Wider than that, there's not much out there. Canon does have a 14mm prime but it's similarly priced to the 16-35 and isn't known for being a great choice.

Now there is this one lens....its zoom range only goes to 24mm....but the other end doesn't stop at 70 or 105 or anything. It goes to 12mm! And it covers full frame!

The Sigma EX 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 DG HSM is a bit mroe expensive than the 17-40, it's slower, can't take screw on filters (only rear gels), but it is as wide as you'll get now on FF digital. If you get a good sample quality can be outstanding! It's getting a bit of a following among a group of 1.3x and FF shooters...

can we predict the 5d to phase out, be a poor investment, or else drop in price soon?

A camera that's in production, or any digital for that matter, is not to be considered an investment- they can and do depreciate fast. Once you get past a certain point in a camera's post release cycle, prices can drop to half of retail or less. The better the image quality or the more compelling the feature set, the higher resale value though, and the 5D does have a great reputation for both. Thing is there won't be so few on the market that the prices will get really high. By the time all the old stock is cleared out at low prices, it'll affect the resale price. The biggest feature of the 5D that will keep resale prices high (unless Canon brings FF to a lower retail price point again) is of course FF and high ISO.

The 5D is coming up on possible replacement time, but first Canon is likely to update the 30D and the 5D update will either be concurrent with or after the release of the 1Ds mark III.

Im upgrading mostly because I like the focal lengths of my lenses on 35mm and I want to switch from film to digital when I get the urge easily and hopefully not have to carry around a specialty wide angle lens that often

Ideally Id sell my 30d and my Tokina to raise half of the price
Get that 5D then! Pair it up only with great glass though or you'll be disappointed.

Most of 5D's chunkiness comes from the bigger pentaprism in the viewfinder. This is a good thing it gives a much brighter better view. Most cameras have small pentaprism to save money as they are very pricey.
D

spamme, about 4 months ago, I upgraded from my 350D to a 5D. Just love it. :D I have the 24-105 L IS lens and the 100-400 L IS with it and am saving up for th 16-35 L II. The quality of the images is fantastic. Yes it is a bit heavier than the 350D, but you quickly get used to it (at least I did). I kept the 350D as a backup because it really isn't worth much on resale since the 400D came out.

I have not had any trouble with - images are sharp and the feel of the heavier camera is great. I would say "go for it" - you will not be disappointed. :thumbsup:

Cheers,

WesternGuy

and am saving up for th 16-35 L II.

And that's money well spent I can assure you...

DEvianT, thanks for the comment about the 16-35. :D Do you have one? If so, how do you like it - it would appear from your comments that you think it is a great lens.

Cheers,

WesternGuy

P.S. spamme, didn't mean to hijack your thread, but this is the first feedback I have had on the 16-35...now back to the 5D