Will a 5D give me inferior pictures

It's a lousy camera. Don't buy one. Honestly. Your pictures will be vastly reduced in quality. (Take backups too - it might even pickle the ones you've already taken, out of spite.)

http://www.usa.canon.com/

Yes. Poor image quality is why so many wedding pros use the 5D. Why waste a good camera on weddings.

On a slightly (and only slightly - I still think it's a silly question) more sensible note, you may lose some by capturing image at the edge of the lens's design, the 5D has larger pixels than the 40D so it tests the lens less.

Honestly - there so much else that is going to determine the quality of your pictures, pixel peeping at the edge of the frame is about the last thing you should worry about.

"Will a 5D give me inferior pictures"
NO

Is the 40D enough for wedding?
... Yeah.
I don't thing there is (really) bad tools, but only misuse of the tools.

I don't think there is a general answer to this. There are several effects that one should inspect separately.

Center sharpness: Albeit crop cameras use the "sweet spot" of a lens, they are also (usually) more demaning in resolution (singe pixel density is higher on crop cameras) than fullframe cameras.

Corner sharpness: Since the corners on fullframe are further out of the center than they are on crop sensors, this might (or might not) become a visible difference. (It depends on the ratios of the pixel densities and on how much corner sharpness is worse than center sharpness.

Vignetting: Obviously, fullframe suffers more than crop 1.6

Barrel/Pincushion distortion: Also, fullframe will suffer more than crop 1.6

But even if you compare the results of your 24-105 on both cameras, you are still comparing a different range of field-of-view now.

"Got a 40D but always thought of full frame. I've read that APS-C sensors take advantage of the sweet spot of "full- frame" lenses due to their reduced image circle. In the event that I acquire a 5D am I to expect inferior results with Canon's 24-105mm and 28-135mm lenses and my 50mm & 85mm primes as apposed to these lenses on a 40D. Thanks."

The "sweet spot" business is, in my experience, pretty much bogus. It is one of those things that is repeated as a fact but rarely checked by those who repeat it.

When I moved from crop sensor bodies to FF bodies there was no degradation in IQ and, in fact, in most cases there was an improvement.

However, if you think that switching formats will automatically create some _significant_ change in the quality of your photographs, there is a decent chance that you'll be disappointed - it isn't quite that simple. Depending upon what and how you shoot the 40D OR the 5D could be the better camera.

Dan

I went from a 40D to a 5D and now I dont use my 40D

I'm disappointed Mr Atkins. I've never found a good lens that I could use for wide-angle landscape and portaiture with my crop cameras. One of the tempting things for me about a 5D is the thought of a 24-105 on it. I've tried various lenses (like 17-85 USM and a host of others) on my 300D/350D/20D/30D/40D as I upgraded cameras but was always disappointed with their sharpness and contrast. The 17-55mm is an option but I'm not going to pay almost $1000 for a non-L dustsucking trombone.

Anesh, there isn't really as much of a "sweet spot" effect as most people think. Lenses are optimized across their intended image circles with compromises here and there, so as to deliver the best overall quality throughout the image, based somewhat subjectively on the judgment of the engineers. So when you consider a full frame lens that is optimized for a full frame image circle, the details in the middle are perhaps not as sharp as those from a crop frame lens (comparing like quality -- consumer EF to consumer EFS, that is). However, when you consider that the format is much larger, there is certainly more image content in the full frame image, and the overall detail is greater, by virtue of the fact there is more image.

More specific to your question, your full frame lenses will render more overall detail on a full frame camera. There are other considerations such as maximum resolving power of the lens vs. the sensor. However, you will capture more detail with the 5D, period. You will also have a much wider field of view from a given lens. You will indeed notice that the margins of each image are not quite as sharp as the center, but you've got some good optics. That issue shouldn't be very objectionable.

IMO, the most compelling reasons to upgrade from crop to FF are greater field of view (with the lenses available) and higher light gathering (lower noise) properties. You'll also get greater overall detail, but really not by much.

Anesh - I think you got Mr. Atkins wrong. Many times - his name is spelled as Bob "Read-btw-lines" Atkens.

Big Nikon fan on how bad the 5D is. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d.htm

Anesh,

I think you believe too much of the nonsense posted on the internet, the sweat spot stuff, the 17-55 being a "dust sucking trombone". Too many people seem to think " Well, I read it on the internet, it must be true!" Not. Most of these so called truths are no more than rumors posted in various forums, picked up by people insecure about their purchase, gear,abilities etc.and repeated as fact, after a while, by others who have no personal experience in the matter. In this country we have a saying about opinions, they're like some other things every body has.

If you want the straight scoop on gear, go to sites where pros test and write reviews accordingly. Bob's site, The Digital Picture, Photozone, places like that. Most of the stuff concerning lens and body faults is just scuttlebut repeated by people who are just repeating what they read somewhere else. Good luck.

Well perhaps, but if the images are rubbish, then it would be your fault and not the camera's.

We have been shooting film for decades. Lenses haven't changed for the worse, if anything they have improved. Laws of Physics still play a part in photography and always will. That doesn't mean you'll get worse images! That is pure nonsense, really. No other way of putting it Even contemplating such an argument reveals a lack of understanding of a variety of issues and above all, practical, hands-on experience..

You buy the tools you NEED, not the ones promoted by baseless internet drivel.

After 18 months, I have yet to experience the dust-sucking behavior of the 17-55 forum geeks so love to lament.

As an owner of both the 40D an d 5D I can make one observation: 5D IQ is better than the 40D. The images are smoother, less noisy in large prints (& on my Cinema Display) and have a 3D quality. Is it a night 'n day diff? No, but I can tell them apart immediately. Probably the most telling characteristic is noise. The 5D suppresses it better and is much more tolerant of underexposure. With this said, both are great cameras, more alike than different, and the most important factor in image quality is the owner/operator. The actual camera used is of minor consequence.

Anesh... I think you would like the 5D full frame angle of view with the 24-105 and the improved low light performance of the bigger sensors. I use the 24-105 for general use and the faster 24-70 for flash photography. The only caveat is light fall off on wide angle lenses at wide open aperture. Despite this I find myself gravitating to the 35mm 1.4 at iso 400 for available light as opposed to flash. Occasionally this may require processing with photoshop for "vignetting," but the "natural" images can be striking.

Full frame lenses are obviously designed for full frame cameras on center. Large image circle lenses _are_ useful when using cameras with swings and tilts such as view cameras. I suspect that using an optimal f-stop and a tripod will extract more performance from a lens than confining sensors to the "sweet spot" of a lens.

Most lenses do have a sweet spot in the middle, but that doesn't mean everything outside of the sweet spot is crap. Usually the extreme corners have slightly less details and slightly more CA but only if you look too closely. In 99.9% of the cases, with correct framing in actual real life images, you will never see the degradation on corners.

With full-frame you DO get the middle portion as well as the sides, the whole picture as the lens was designed to show. If you need the middle portion only, you can always crop out the image on your computer. 40D or other crop sensors cameras don't do any magic. They just throw away the perfectly usable portions of the image outside of the middle frame, and this is done for the sake of economy (keep the sensor size small), not for the sake of quality.

Check out Full frame photos on pixel-peeper in full glory and have fun finding out crappy edges.
Pixel-Peer (Full size 5D images)

"Got a 40D but always thought of full frame."

Why?

I found the 5D *did* show corner anomilies of my Canon 24-105 that would have gone unnoticed on a crop body. Sent the lens into Canon and it's more-or-less resolved. I still prefer my 24-70 on this body tho, the 24-105 mostly sits in the bad lens box. I really like my Canon 50mm f1.4 on the 5D, great combo. Sometime I might splurge for the Canon 35mm f1.4.

Steve - Another good technological term is coined >>sweat spot<< - much more descriptive than "sweet spot"

Keep up the good work, guys and gals.

The only pictures that you take that turn out inferior will be from using the camera incorrectly. There may be some differences in how you set a 40D as compared to the 5D but both are capable of producing only the very best images. The rest is up to you.

Lou

Hey Ross, I love my 40d, you want to give me yours?

. . . ."Will a 5D give me inferior pictures."

NO! With the cheapest camera, you can create an superior image, and with a most expensive camera, you can create an inferior image. . . . . And that's applicable to the lens too. . . . You picture or images depending on you knowledge, experience and know-how, to take pictures, handling your camera, and processing. And also, you artistic talent to compose and properly work on a subject. It is not the camera/lens creating a superior image, it is YOU. Period.

Dear Anesh,

If you want the 5D to give you inferior pictures, it's easy to set it to do that. But why not trying that with your 40D, it will certainly give you inferior pictures too.

No, honestly, choose the right tool for the kind of pictures you make and then the quality fully depends on YOU. If you can answer the question "why full frame?", you know what to do.

I enjoy my 5D for most of my pics and my 30D for the super-tele (800 mm or more, compared to FF)

"I went from a 40D to a 5D and now I dont use my 40D" Ross Murphy. So do I.

There is more to full frame than the strict math. For whatever physical reason they provide smoother images with better detail than same MP count crop bodies.

The 24-105 will show more vignetting ( at wide apertures) on the 5D than the 40D.

However, this is no reason not to buy a 5D or a 24-105.

That Ken Rockwell site is full of laughable comments. Case in point: "if your subject holds still and you aren't shooting in the rain, the 5D easily can exceed the technical quality of anything from Nikon"

I use my 5D in single shot mode (not burst) and it's incredibly responsive. I used it exclusively for street shooting during a recent weekend workshop in NYC. I never had a problem with it being "sluggish" with moving subjects and rapidly changing scenes. I nailed several decisive moments.

Take Ken Rockwell with a grain of salt, but take his pictures seriously:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/trips/2007-10-395/images/22/IMG_6496-original.JPG

This is one that he took with the 16-35 2.8 II at the wide end.--using the 5D.

Are the corners sharp enough for you? I have the 5D and love it. Full-frame is generally better at wide angle, cropped sensors can be better for telephoto work. There is no single camera that is best for all applications.

Me? I love full frame, but I also would like to get something to replace my XTi for shooting telephoto. (I got rid of the XTi, but it was really quite good. Resolution tests indicate that it does about as well as the 40D, although the 40D has other features.)

What would I recommend? Get the 5D for wide angle and most everything else--except for extreme telephoto, and then get yourself an XTi or its replacement. Total? Right now, you could get both of them for about $2500, bodies only. Buy no EF-S lenses, so that the glass you buy could be used on either.

Knock over a convenience store if you have to. . . . Both cameras (5D adn XTi) are going at almost discount rates right now, and used in tandem you could cover pretty much everything you would want to shoot.

--Lannie

But here is one I took a coupe of years ago with the Kodak 14n using a $300 Nikon 24mm f/2.8 (not the $1500 Canon 16-35 f/2.8).

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6002245&size=lg

There are a lot of good camera-lens combinations that can get you the results you want.

--Lannie

Here is the original from which the above was cropped, resized of course:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5989742&size=lg

These are made with Nikon lenses. I get good results with both brands and with cropped sensor and full frame. Shoot what you want, but get good glass.

I shoot Canon now, for what it's worth.

--Lannie

Finally, here is one that I shot with the 5D and the 70-200 f/2.8 IS:

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5744613&size=lg

They all look good to me.

I'll shut up now.

--Lannie

Here's my simple answer. By taking advantage of the sweet spot a 1.6 crop camera might give more even quality across the frame. Due to its larger format size the 5D should in most cases give better picture quality, including in the corners, unless the corners of a lens really suck compared to the center.

None of this should matter unless you are printing big, eg bigger than A4. By far the most important factor is your skill.

That Ken Rockwell site is full of laughable comments. Case in point: "if your subject holds still and you aren't shooting in the rain, the 5D easily can exceed the technical quality of anything from Nikon"
I use my 5D in single shot mode (not burst) and it's incredibly responsive. I used it exclusively for street shooting during a recent weekend workshop in NYC. I never had a problem with it being "sluggish" with moving subjects and rapidly changing scenes. I nailed several decisive moments.

The metering and focusing on 5D are as fast or faster then the best camera out there (notwithstanding 1D series and EOS-3, and D3 on Nikon side).

Ken is talking about the Auto ISO feature on Nikon D200 and later cameras. Canon has just come around to doing this and hasn't quite done as well as Nikon. This along with some other features (e.g. higher FPS), are really the thorn in 5D's side. However I miss those only occasionally but enjoy the image quality of 5D daily. So I will take the IQ over features any day.

I have been using the 20D with the Canon 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L for several years. I recently borrowed a brand new 5D and used it to shoot a friend's Christening party. Getting rid of the 1.6X factor made these lenses so much better I could not believe my eyes. The 70-200 in situations like this is a bit too powerful, frequently its a major problem and I get a lousy crop because I can't back up. The 24 of the 24-70 is not really a wide angle lens at all - again you can't shoot a bunch of people sitting at a wedding reception without backing up to the next table. This reminded of my film days when my 24 prime was a nice wide angle. I also got much better background separation with the 24-70 than I ever got before. I was a bit disappointed in the 24-70 on the 20D, I love it on the 5D like I should. On the 5D noise was much reduced, the brightness of the viewfinder helped me achieve a much higher hit rate with the 5D in a very dark reception hall. I shot 200 shots with each camera and so it was a good test. I had really wanted to wait for a 5D MKII but with the recent price cuts/rebates I did the deed - the new 5D came today. Only a few pieces of dust on the sensor but it is a great camera. I would like the electronics from the 40D but its the sensor that counts and this one rocks.

I'm not trying to hijack this thread but scanning it briefly I notice no one has brought up the topic of stitching multiple frames as a technique to increase file size and resolution.

I have shot medium and large format for years having pretty much given up 35mm about ten years ago. As airline hassles have made traveling with bags of film, bodies and lenses a real chore and age now precludes carrying a 60-70 pound backpack loaded with camping and camera gear, I turned to digital with an XT, then an XTi, and now a 40D.

I use the 40D for the majority of my present work along with a Fuji 617 for panoramic film work. But I learned early on a single digital frame from any of these cameras was not adequate for large gallery quality work. My solution was simple and it was taking multiple frames and stitching them. I display large prints side by side with images shot with a 4x5 with equivalent resolution.

It's a time consuming process to shoot multiple RAW frames, adjust them identically and then stitch them. And a hint, there are some better stitching programs than that in Photoshop. If you want to take the process to an entire new level, HDR process the frames and then stitch them. The results may amaze you.

I have stitched before and someone always moves and there is a seam problem and I am cutting and pasting from some other photo. Make sure to shoot manual or the camera will switch exposure, Manual focus also. I shot about 450 pictures on this one outing, nobody is gonna stitich that many together. Now that I have my 5D the 20D will be relegated to backup and sports use. The 1.6X crop is good for sports at 5 frames per second. Even better on a 40D. So it still has a place.

The 5d is very very old, the day after buying one the new model will emerge.(hurry canon) your prints SHOULD look no different, if done right.

The lens was designed to produce a full-frame image. If it had been designed for just the central 40% (1/1.6x1/1.6) of the frame, then it would have been built very differently. The central 40% would be far better in this case, because the difficult bit of lens design is not the paraxial area (the centre), but instead the periphery. If you want to use the lens to its best advantage, get a 5D. If you want to use the small sensor camera to its best advantage, buy a lens that was designed for it. As it is, you are wasting literally 60% of the glass, and an even greater proportion of the lens design expertise.

All this internet posted techno-crap is misleading and has little real world application. The 5D is a fine camera. I and many working pros, some of the best in the business, use it with great results. I would however wait for the next incarnation, possibly coming out this summer, the 5D Mk II. Why buy four year old technology when the more advanced version will be on the market shortly?

5D will give inferior photos to inferior photographers.

The reason to buy the current 5D, as opposed to waiting for the new version is price, the new version will be more advanced, yes, and probably cost 2X more. A choice of $$$.

I have owned and used the 5D for 2 years. It is a camera worthy of professional use with Canon's best lenses. Do a search on Photo.net for the best lenses for the 5D.

I've been getting great images out of my XTi, but I'll be buying a 5D II when it comes out. Horses for courses, as they say. Do some research and don't buy cheap lenses and you shouldn't have a problem getting good results from a 5D. Take a look at the equipment reviews here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

Sometimes a lens does come along that falls on its face on a FF. The 100-400 L leaps to mind. In any case, as someone mentioned above, a crop sensor is just cropping image circle for you. Why not capture it all and decide later?

I always forget to mention that I wear glasses and I find the image in the view finder much better in the 5d than in "APS" digital SLR cameras, Canon or Nikon. And that helps me compose better casual pictures.

Reaction to Christina:

It's not only a cropping matter, because there is a point where the cropped image of a 5D has less detail than a smaller sensor with a higher pixel density getting the same view. That for me is the moment to take my 30D for the super-tele. In which case, I can't use the 5D and decide later.

I don't know about the lenses you own because I don't own them so can't comment. I got my 5D in February this year. I had considered the 40D too. With my lineup of "older" EF lenses (100mm f/2.8 macro, 24mm f/2.8 prime and 28-70mm f/2.8 L) the images are really good and has "3-d quality" to it as someone else mentioned. Images were tack sharp - sometimes scary sharp. I rented a 70-200mm f/4 L IS for a recent trip... again, the IQ was really sharp. I have no complaints about this camera or the quality of the output (assuming I didn't screw up).

Be aware that with a wide lens wide open (e.g. at 2.8) you're going to get some vignetting - it was obvious on my 24mm@2.8. I shoot raw and large jpg simultaneously (writing to 2GB Extreme III) and had no problems with the camera response time, but I only shoot in single shot mode. It does everything I need without all of the other extras that I don't need. My only other SLR camera is (still have it) the original EOS Elan (100). Even since I dipped my toes into the digital world with the PowerShot A95 I have been eyeing the 5D. I have not regrets, but it took me a while to save the money to spend on this body.

My reason for the 5D over the 40D, I want my existing lens to be exactly as they are rather than 100 being 160, especially with the macro. And because I'm use to that "format" from film and tend to shoot more on the wide end or macro. But ask yourself why you want FF before putting down $1600.

With the $300 rebate now and you want FF, a 5D body can be had for $1600 (Amazon it's $1900 before rebate, B&H it's $1900 with the rebate). I rather not wait for the 5DMkII which will be price well over $2000 (and who knows when it will arrive).

@ Peter Quaedvlieg

True. And for long lenses I completely agree, and will keep my XTi for just that reason. I spent some time lugging around a 400mm 2.8L and after I got the hang of it, I got some nice results. It did feel a bit like fitting a Saturn rocket to a bicycle, though...

I guess I should have mentioned that most of my work is done with my 16-35L, so getting back the whole frame is more important to me than what I'll get with long lenses. But as I said, I'll have both bodies to choose from.

Someone at Amazon.Com had this to say,

"I purchased this camera a little over a month ago. I have since sold it, and switched to using Nikon. I can no longer support Canon, and this saddens me, for I grew up using Canon since I was 8 years old. Here is why I gave this camera 2 stars:

- Full frame censor: I thought this was a good thing? It is, and it isn't. Simply put, even Canon's "L" lenses won't provide even light illumination on the censor. Vignetting is a serious problem for the 5D. Like to shoot wide open, say at f/2.8? Think again, because you'll wind up with soft and dark corners every time. Canon's own media rep Chuck Westfall discussed this problem rather briefly in the June 06 issue of PCPhoto magazine. If you won't sharp results with a full frame, you need to stop down, a lot. Swing and a miss for portrait shooters looking to shoot wide open. - Speed: 3 frames per second? Are you kidding me? This simply is not adequate for sports and action photographers. Many DSLR's offer 5 to 8 frames per second, so why 3? - Build: This thing doesn't feel any different than the Digital Rebel. For this price, it should feel solid and beefy. The camera isn't even weather sealed like its big brother the Canon 1Ds Mark II. The build isn't terrible, but it certainly isn't impressive. - Features: Where are they? The most needed features are buried deep in a menu. Don't worry though; Canon has included a "Direct Print" button on the camera. I couldn't believe this, what, is this thing a point and shoot suddenly? There are about 100 more important functions this button could have represented. If this is Canon's way of offering "a feature rich camera" as stated on their initial press release, then I am at a loss of what to say. - Performance: Color rendition is terrible. There is a noticeable cyan cast to most images. Auto focus is quick, but inaccurate. Only 65% or so of my images showed critical focus, which Canon told me was, "acceptable." This was the same result from many a lens.

The list goes on, but I'm getting a little depressed listing all these faults. Is there anything good about this camera? Certainly.

- Resolution: The 12 MPs is amazing. Image quality, in terms of resolution is stunning. Micro contrast and sharpness is second only to the big Mark II. You will not be disappointed if you are buying this camera for every last pixel. - Noise performance: There is none, almost. Shooting at ISO 1600 or 3200 is no problem with this camera. Noise levels at ISO 3200 look like that of a Nikon at ISO 400-800. This is a huge advantage of Canon's Full frame CMOS chip, as well as the resolution listed above. - Wide angle: There is no crop factor with a full frame censor. This might appeal to film users who want to maintain their lenses true focal length, or to those who shoot at or below the 28mm range. It doesn't mean you'll be impressed with the performance of your wide angle lenses on this camera, but that 15mm fisheye will stay a 15mm.

This camera is a hit or miss depending on who you are, and what type of photography you do. I've noticed landscape and macro photographers seem to love this camera, and for good reason. They tend to shoot smaller apertures, focus accuracy isn't a problem, and neither is frame rate. Portrait photographers can go either way, but probably won't like it that much; poor color and light fall-off at large apertures are two very serious stumbling blocks. As for the wildlife and sports photographers, that's a big no (most likely). Slow frame rate, poor focus abilities, mediocre build, and the lack of the crop factor (your 500mm isn't an 800mm any more like it was on the 20D) will surely disappoint most of these shooters.

In my final thoughts, if you are thinking of an upgrade from a 20D or a rebel, the answer is probably no, unless you shoot exclusively landscapes, or macro, or you need the resolution for larger prints. If you are buying your first digital SLR, than definitely no. This camera is simply not user friendly. If you are considering it because it's a "full frame," think again. Canon has an excellent marketing campaign, but for every advantage of full frame, there is a disadvantage as well. Don't let my review stop you though, go and decide for yourself. The camera might suit your needs perfectly, but I feel for the overall market and majority of users, this camera missed the mark, and thus my low rating. Canon's got some homework to do, and they better do it fast."

Anesh- I would not put any stock in some random comment from an anonymous doofus on Amazon. Listen to what pros have to say about the 5D. Yes, it's now over 2 years old (!), but it's still competitive with newer models, often superior for most uses, and at a lower price. Remember when a 2-year old 35mm SLR was still considered new?

I can't put mine down. I've used it for personal work, at an intense Steve McCurry workshop, and for photos published in local newspapers and magazines. It's the closest digital equivalent to my favorite film SLRs, but with much better image quality. In fact, the raw file size is often overkill.

Several National Geographic and Magnum photographers use it (a lot): Chris Anderson, Nick Nicols, and I think Bill Allard. If these guys are content with the camera, I'm certain you will be.

I will keep my 40D and test the 5D for myself. I just ordered a used 8+ one from B&H for $1599.

`Someone at Amazon.Com had this to say,

"I purchased this camera a little over a month ago. I have since sold it, and switched to using Nikon. I can no longer support Canon`

G`day, that would have to be the most childish thing I`ve read for a while, used canon since 8yo buys a body comparing with a 1 series sports body and upset enough to go over to Nik after 4 weeks use. This person is most likely doin the same now and goin to Sony. why blame the tool when you get the wrong one to start with. lack of experience and under standing comes to mind. I am waiting for the new version but see no wrong with the current one and it is well priced :) `

That guy on Amazon is utterly clueless. "Only 65% or so of my images showed critical focus": I've just shot over 700 frames at a wedding and there is just one that is not pin sharp (entirely my fault).

"Color rendition is terrible. There is a noticeable cyan cast to most images." That's because he doesn't know how to use it. The 5D colour is gorgeous if you know what you're doing. Absolutely stunning.

"For this price, it should feel solid and beefy." It is absolutely solid, it is just the battery door that's a bit feeble and that's why the whole thing feels less than solid.

And as for the speed and vignetting bits - talk over-hyped! I'd love to see what this idiot would be like with a medium format or large format film camera.