Canon EOS 5D vs. Canon EOS 20D — Full-Frame vs. APS-C sensors

Wow, 5D looks bad relative to the 20D... good thing Nikon didn't jump to full frame :)

Hi Bob,

Thanks for this test and your invaluable contribution to photo.net.

I complely agree with you about the method 4 but as far as I can see you did not apply it fully. Your pictures of the 5D and the 20D do not have the same size. It seems to me that the distance ratio was not 1.6 but more. I feel that if the distance ratio were 1.6 (10 feet for the 5D and 16 feets for the 20D as you said for illustration) the image details of the 20D would be as good as (or even better) than the image details of the 5D.

Lets just make a simple calculation of resolving power. The resolving power R (in l/mm) of the lens and the camera is

1/R = 1/R_lens + 1/R_camera

so you get

R(camera + lens) = R_lense * R_camera/(R_lense * R_camera)

We can also guess that

R_5D = 120 l/mm (since R_5D*36mm*R_5D*24mm = 13MP)

R_20 = 150 l/mm (since R_20D*22.5mm*R_20D*15mm = 8MP)

so you see that R(5D + 50mm 1.8) < R(20D + 50mm 1.8)

just the opposit of your conclusions.

Am I getting something wrong here?

Cheers.

There's absolutely no justification for assuming that anything like:

1/r = 1/r(sensor) + 1/r(lens)

Anything based on that premise is just speculation.

It's pretty much true that digital resolution is mostly sensor dependant unless you have the lens stopped down so far (say f16 for APS-C) that diffraction dominates.

Resolution is also a poor criterion for image quality since what realy counts is the MTF at the critical viewing spatial frequency. What counts most in sharpness for viewing 8x10 or 11 x14 prints from a couple of feet is the system MTF between about 5 cycles/mm and 25 cycles/mm. Larger sensors have an advantage here since they are working on a higher part of the lens' MTF curve.

See http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/mtf/mtf1.html

See also http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/digital/size_matters.html

It is interesting to note that on both cameras it is really hard to shoot a quality real world image which is ruined by vignetting/light fall off. (Not counting putting the wrong filters on, etc..)

Shooting white sheets under studio conditions really exaggerates the issue IME. Different light setups in the real world make it much harder to see.

This test would indicate that the 50/1.8 lens is a problem even on the 20D, in reality it works fine @ f/1.8 on both APS & 35mm for appropriate uses, and even if your favorite type of shooting is white sheets stopping down to f/2 or f/2.8 drastically reduces the fall off.

ISTR the only image I have shot which actually showed fall-off in the real world on my 5D was a hand held shot @ f/1.4 at dusk. It was underexposed and poorly focused because it was handheld, so the fall-off was interesting but not real meaningful. The correct thing to do was shoot on a tripod to solve the exposure issue, which eliminated the fall off.

Thanks for sharing this.. very interesting. Another good comparison between FF and a higher pixel count DX sensor was done by Bjorn. NOTE ALL: please ignore the camera brands in the test and look at the sensor size and image results. http://www.naturfotograf.com/D2X_rev06.html#top_page

"Clearly, I think, you can see that the full frame sensor of the EOS 5D shows more detail than the APS-C sensor of the EOS 20D." ------it's not so clear to me. In fact, it looks in many cases that the APS-C sensor is sharper than the full frame. i.e., Center resolution Test 4.

I may be being thick here but having used the 20D and now shooting extensively with the 5D, these tests, (not including the corner vignetting issue), all seem to be showing that the 5D has more resolution than the 20D, which is something we know. There is far less here to do with crop vs FF, the only way to fairly test that would be with two cameras of equal resolution would it not?

If you see these results I can't justify the price difference. Allthough the 5D is relatively affordable it is still much more expensive than a 20D (and with similar build quality). (you can buy a few 20D's for 1 5D). The picture quality is only slightly better in the best cases.

After reading the article, I think another conclusion would be that an investment in a 5D doesn't stop at the body. It must include an upgrade to the best glass to take advantage of the sensors size and quality. Should Canon release a FF sensor with the same density of pixels that the APS-C sensor has, we might see the unrivalled and undisputed quality "jump" we are all expecting. However, again, the quality bottle-neck will rest with the lenses.

Perhaps, this is a silly question but, I wonder about the dynamic range of the sensor/lens combinations. Are they the same ? Is this irrelevant Bob?

Cheers John

This is a very strange comparison: An "old" 8 MP aps-size sensor camera agaist a newly developed 13 MP "full size" camera. If the later wasn?t better it would be a catastroph for Canon! The 20D does pretty well I think. It would have been more intelligent though, if you want to analyse difference between APS-size and "full frame", to choose a APS camera with the same amount of pixels as the 5D......... And which would that be?

Comparing a D2X against the 5D, both at 5D so there is no noise issue, would have been a closer 'Fullframe vs. APS-C sensors' comparison would it not? Though then again you run into the difference between lenses, etc.

Well great... Now I want a Full Frame Nikon even more...

Good read as usual, but something did not sound quite right:

"2 - The second way is using a zoom lens and equalize the field of view. So if you set the zoom to 70mm for the EOS 5D you would set it to 112mm for the EOS 20D. However you'd also be testing the image quality at two different focal length settings."

Sadly, there's still a lot of religious believe in the advantage of the APS-C format and obsession in resolution and corner performance. At the same time, people upgrading to cameras such as a D2X run into problems getting sharp pictures out of their cameras because

1. the resolution is so high,
2. the glass and/or sensor is not fast enough to provide fast enough shutter speeds,
3. improper handholding technique is used,
4. no or insufficient tripods are used or
5. there is no other image stibilisation device.

I ask myself how hundreds of thousands of photographers could take pictures in the 35mm film days if corner quality/light falloff was such a major obstacle back then. I guess they used a device called aperture to help themselves deal with that problem back then. Or they didn't take a lot of pictures of brick walls or empty skies. As for the myth of corners being especially problematic on digital FF because of light rays not hitting at a near perpendicular angle - I don't buy this Nikon/Olympus marketing baloney. Just look at the 18-70 DX lens. Full open it shows severe vignetting and corner blur/CA in the same way that lets say the 28-105/3.5-4.5 Nikkor did back in film days. In contrary - there is software like DxO, that can make corner performance on digital FF better than it ever was on film. Saying "We throw away more than 50% of your lenses image real estate and take away lots of your fast primes (e.g. 28/1.4) magic because we can't make FF sensors at a reasonable price. But hey - our lenses are useless in the corners anyway!" sounds very much like "It's not a bug, it's a feature" to me. And please let us not forget that an APS-C sensor with the same resolution as a FF sensor is 1.5x more demanding on (center) resolution of the lens.

The argument that the very best lenses have to be chosen for full frame to show full advantage is rather questionable IMO. As soon as one puts subject separation via selective focussing above corner performance and takes noise levels into account it becomes obvious, that "full frame glass" is even cheaper than equivalent "APS-C glass" at comparable FoV. Just compare the prices of a 24-105/4 L IS with a 17-55/2.8 DX, a 50/1.8 with a 35/1.4, a 85/1.4 with 135/2.0 or a 17-40/4L with a 12-24/4 DX (the latter should be a 2.8 lens to make this valid). And for lenses used on FF sensors like 24/1.4, 28/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 24(28)-70/2.8 or 16(17)-35/2.8 there are simply no equivalents in terms of selective focussing and low light noise levels at the same FoV in the APS-C world. I really wouldn't want to be someone having spent a fortune on these lenses and having used them on 35mm film just to realise that these devices are not allowed to do what they where intended for on an APS-C sensor.

I hated that cropped sensor stuff when it was invented because FF sensors where too expensive back then, and I still hate being bound to it with the brand I use (yes there is a 35mm F mount digital camera, but how usable is that in the real world?). But maybe people like me are the minority of non-pixel-peepers.

BTW, of course it can be said that being able to use lenses the way they where intended to be used, selective focussing and low noise are the only three reasons for FF sensors. But I think they are far more important than a nominal 22% linear resolution increase as in case of the 5D vs. 20D. I really wonder why this hasn't been mentioned in the above review.

"BTW, of course it can be said that being able to use lenses the way they where intended to be used, selective focussing and low noise are the only three reasons for FF sensors. But I think they are far more important than a nominal 22% linear resolution increase as in case of the 5D vs. 20D"

Ok,...., for pro's,..., quite frankly IMHO, those of us who do not see noise control as a major issue,(with software control)..for amatures/consumers the 5D makes little sense,..., I believe what the review suggests is that while pro's can justify the 5D body given the resolution, the lens issue/crop factor debacle, and the low sensor noise, We self professed garden variety non-income based amatures have a more dificult time justifying the cost.

I think part of the frustration, as it is with all of these discussions,is that we should all probably just go out and take more picutres, and perfect a wonderful craft,...., but this is also a forum for technology and it's appropriate use and merits.

I suppose I could buy a 5D and mate it with a Phoenix/Cosina 28-105mm f/2.8-3.8 & exclusively shoot at f8.

Bottom line 20D is a prousmer product, a 5d is a back-up body to a EOS series 1. Different people use them.

It's obvious that larger sensors make creating sharp images with good tonality much easier. This is nothing new. The only problem is that it's expensive, and manufacturers are reluctant to bring out products which lose money. Kodak made really nice and relatively inexpensive back for 645 cameras. Gone, not profitable enough. Contax and Kodak made FF 35 mm DSLRs - gone, not profitable enough. Canon is the only one that can make money out of reasonably priced FF DSLRs. The next step up from the 5D is such a big step in cost that you really need to _need_ it to pay for it.

So that is the situation: only one company sees larger-than APS sensors as profitable below four-figure prices. If you need one, buy it from them, it's as simple as that.

People who think small sensors are sufficient are just ignoring the fact that needs in art are highly individual and there are many people for whom these sensors are not sufficient. Are we enough to generate a big enough market for larger sensors? It doesn't seem to be the case. We can always pay $40000 for a nice Phase One back, you know, if DX is not enough. Stop complaining and buy the product which matches your needs.

It would have been more intelligent though, if you want to analyze difference between APS-size and "full frame", to choose a APS camera with the same amount of pixels as the 5D......... And which would that be?

Please, you provide me with the cameras, and I'll do the tests. Better still, you do the tests, write the article and I'll be more than happy to publish it here.

If Nikon send me a D2x and a lens or two I'd be happy to test it against a Canon EOS 5D - if you can also persuade Canon to send me a 5D with similar lenses at the same time.

I think a 20D vs. 5D comparison is much more useful (and practical) for the majority of readers. Personally I don't care how good the D2x is because I'm not switching to Nikon! I'd assume Nikon users feel the same way and they wouldn't be switching to a 5D even if it were "better".

If you're trying to decide whether to buy a 5D or D2x, you're in the minority I'm afraid.

Thanks for this review; no big surprises, I think, but useful comparisons. I think a key factor was hit by a previous commenter who said the FF sensor in the 5D lets you use lenses as they were intended. For example, for portraiture I want around 100mm for individuals and 50mm for groups. It's hard to do this in prime lenses with a 1.6 crop factor, so I use a 24-70 zoom. Also the justification for FF becomes stronger for landscape or other photographers who like to shoot lots of wide angle.

For landscapes FF doesn't seem appropriate, just check the corners of Canon's own example taken with the 5D+17-40 well stopped down. A 12-24 + D2X seems the way to go for that, or a medium/large format system

Just compare the prices of a 24-105/4 L IS with a 17-55/2.8 DX, a 50/1.8 with a 35/1.4, a 85/1.4 with 135/2.0 or a 17-40/4L with a 12-24/4 DX (the latter should be a 2.8 lens to make this valid). And for lenses used on FF sensors like 24/1.4, 28/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 24(28)-70/2.8 or 16(17)-35/2.8 there are simply no equivalents.. - Martin Datzinger

That's quite a bit demagogy. I mean hand picking the examples that favour your point of view and omitting others. How about 50mm/1.4 on aps vs 85mm/1.4 on ff? 200/2.8 vs 300/2.8? 300/4 vs 400/4? 18-200 VR vs 28-300 IS? On telephoto and zoom side (range) aps format has the advantage, on the wide angle there are more options for full frame, but there is also the corner issues, even Canon's own sample demonstrates this fact. If you check the Canon 1dsMk2 (FF) and Nikon D2x (aps) comparision at www.dpreview.com you can see there are corner issues even in moderate focal lenghts like 70mm which show up as more color fringing.

By the way even your hand picked examples are misleading, 85/1.4 lens doesn't become a 135/2 lens on aps format, it still is 1.4; 17-40/4L vs 12-24/4 is a valid one though you say latter should be 2.8 for a valid comparision (!); and you compare 24-105/4 with 17-55/2.8 which are of different apertures.

As for the myth of corners being especially problematic on digital FF because of light rays not hitting at a near perpendicular angle - I don't buy this Nikon/Olympus marketing baloney.

I do, because real world evidence support this and I can imagine why it happens, a light ray coming at an angle affects more pixels than one coming perpencilularly to the sensor, this is simple geometry, question is why this is more an issue with digital than film. I guess for three things, first film is quantized in smaller particles than pixels, second film grains are in random alignment and in multiple layers where pixels are strictly arranged in a pattern, third sensor capture is interpolated to form an image, that is, a pixel in the actual image is formed by the help of neighboring pixels, which means any bad data recorded in a pixel propagates to pixels nearby.

Digital capture with existing technology has its well known aberrations like stairstepping and moire compared to film, poor response to tilted light rays can be (and seems to be) one of them as well. Btw I am neither professional nor enthusiast on this matter and would appreciate opinions of optics or solid state electronics experts.

I mean hand picking the examples that favour your point of view and omitting others.

As I said I've compared lenses with the same eqivalent FoV, minimum DoF and allowing for comparable low light noise levels*. On that basis my comparison is valid. See: DOFMaster for a comparison of DoF. You will see that a lens with a 1.6 times shorter focal length needs (even more than) a 1 stop wider aperture to accomplish the same level of subject separation. At a distance of 3 meters, a 50/1.4 (EUR335 in Austria) full open gives 19 cm DoF on a 20D, a 85/1.8 (EUR366) gives 13cm full open on a 5D and is thus better in terms of image separation.

*) I am certainly aware that under the same conditions the Canon 20D generates about the same amount of noise as a 5D when the output of both is seen at 100%. However, printing images from both at the same size will make the 5D's noise less visible because noise frequency is raised. Or the other way around, stronger noise reduction can be applied while retaining the same amount of image details. In theory, sensor locations of twice the area give 3db or 1/2 stop better S/N ratio. See this paper at page 3.

DOF argument is a pretty weak one, because higher DOF of aps format can be advantegous depending on the situation you shoot, in my opinion having the more DOF at lower light is a greater advantage. If we extrapolate from what you say medium format must be cheaper than 35mm. Is it?

Higher DoF is always an option on 35mm via stopping down and cranking up ISO giving about the same practical results as what can be done with a smaller format. But with current lenses, limited DoF can't be created so easily on wide or normal FoV with formats smaller or bigger than 35mm. I guess a 24mm/1.4 DX Nikkor for EUR400 or 35mm/1.0 DX for EUR350 won't happen in near future, in the same way that there are no new 80/2.0 or 50/2.8 medium format lenses available at these price levels. Subject separation is the 35mm format's party piece. If one doesn't need it and noise at ISO 800 and above is irrelevant, APS-C, 4/3 or compact digicams are just fine and of course much cheaper and less bulk, too. Kind regards, Martin

Enough subject separation? D70, 85/1.4 AF-D

Martin, as your portfolio suggests you seem to be a dedicated portrait shooter and I conclude you therefore put so much emphasis on DOF but even for portraits so precise "DOF management" is an overkill, if you are after DOF manipulations (as Keith Carter does) forget it in 35mm, you should use a tilting camera (he uses a Hasselblad flexbody).

Low light shooting, handholding necessity and action stopping are other application areas for fast lenses and usually these have higher priorty than strict DOF control. If cranking up ISO was always a viable option then all fast lenses would go extinct in these application areas but they are not, similarly stopping down the lens AND cranking up iso for high DOF isn't always desirable.

Have you shot with a real fast lens (even in aps format) and managed to get things in focus at portrait distances? I have great difficulty doing that, it is almost impossible for me without AF.

50/1.4 full open on D70 at ISO 1600 with a single 100W lamp in the room. Cat and camera handheld, image cropped to 1/3 :)

Umit, thanks for pointing me towards Keith Carter. Tilt lenses would leave be both bonkers and bankrupt, I guess :)

Narrow DoF at facial portrait distances isn't what I am missing on my D70. My 85/1.8, even stopped down to 5.6 does plenty in this regard. I'm craving street photography with fast wideangles such as this. But hey, maybe I'm getting a used F100 body and B&W film equipment for that application.

Kind regards, Martin

Yaron Kidron said that on the 20D f/11 may be approaching diffraction limits, I thought that diffraction was a function of the lens aperture explicitly, and the sensor has no bearing on it at all? That's certainly what I'd expect from my schoolboy physics.

Ben, Large format shooters can shoot at f/45 without being diffraction limited. The smaller your emulsion, the "faster" diffraction limited you become.

The blurring due to diffraction is constant for a given aperture and lens FL. However, if you have a small sensor, you need to magnify the image more in post-processing and the effects of diffraction are also magnified.

The only reason large format photographers can shoot at f/45 and get good results is because 1) the lenses aren't very sharp at wider apertures so they're not diffraction limited at (say) f/5.6, 2) the area of film is large, hence post-exposure magnification is low.

OK, that makes perfect sense. Thanks for enlightening me.

I just wish someone with access to both a FF digital *and* film body would do two shots at the same focal length (say 28mm), the same f-stop, and with the same lens to once and for all answer the question: does FF digital produce more vignetting than film?

"...does FF digital produce more vignetting than film?

"Not to be dense or anything, but how would a 24X36 digital sensor produce any more vignetting than a 24X36 frame of film? "

Rays of light coming out from the lens reaching the side part of the sensor are not perfectly perpendicular to the sensor (simple geometrical optics). Some people claim that digital sensors are less sensitive to non perpendicular light rays than to perpendicular light rays (which happen in the center of the sensor). According to them this induces more vignetting on a 24x36 digital sensor than on a 24x36 film since film is not very sensitive to this effect.

I don't know who is right but it should no be very difficult to find out.

You can take a look at

http://www.cleanimages.com/DDBlog-ShouldNikonMakeA35mmSizedSensor.asp

and also look at this surrrealist thread

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Djmn

Cheers.

I conclude you therefore put so much emphasis on DOF but even for portraits so precise "DOF management" is an overkill, if you are after DOF manipulations

At least with FF you have some control with DOF vs APS where a you essentially have to guess because the pathetic viewfinders are so small and dimm.

You don't have to guess anything. With the D200 you can zoom to see what seems to be every pixel captured. So you can check on-site how sharp each part of the picture is just like with PS. And the viewfinder shows sharpness and depth of field quite well too.

Bob: I quite agree that your first method is the only one with a glimmer of validity, and in those examples whilst there is clearly a cleaner rendition of black from the 5D and thus an apparent increase in contrast, quite correctable in post-processing, the differences in resolution are quite minor and these crops are extreme to say the least. In the Method 4 had you properly set the zoom to begin with it should not have been necessary to upsize and interpolate those crops, so you've in fact introduced an unnecessary variable.

From the results of your testing one can clearly see that there is certainly not, to the rational mind, a performance advantage in the 5D commensurate with the doubling (considering now the price of the 30D)or trebling (eventual pricing of the 20D now that it's been obsoleted)of the cost. In fact to the consciencious photographer the vignetting and corner-performance at the limits of the full-frame image circle in un-cropped photographs far overshadow the minusucule resolution differences noticeable only at extraordinary magnification. Therefore it distills down once again to pure ego whether or not one chooses to turn a blind eye to the obvious fact that the law of diminishing returns is in full force here.

Terence, which lenses would give me the same control over DOF, usefulness for handheld shooting in low-light, and angle of coverage on a 20D or 30D as the 50/f1.4, 28/f1.8, and 20/f1.8 do on a 5D?

One could ask which lens on the 5D will give me the same angle of coverage with the same IS system and speed that I get with a 600/4L IS on an EOS 20D.

Well, you could mount a Nikon 800mm f/5.6 (you'll be probably shooting at max aperture anyway) with an adapter and use one stop higher ISO setting (if the sensor and lens technologies were equal, this would give roughly the same results).

Application, application, application, so many of the above posts assume pro's from shooting the APS format in long lenses, even medium applications. I have worked as a pro underwater photographer and digital formats drove me mad. My need for my workhorse 16mm fisheye, 14mmm 2.8 and 20mm fixed focal wides just doubled the size of my travel case, film and digital. Nikon owed pro underwater photography since start of Nikonos 60 years ago, digital changed that. Canon full frame products have caused big underwater shooters and housing manufactures to start making top end Canon housing products. Now Nikon loyalists are stuck with big bucks in Nikon lenses and wide's that just got a whole lot narrower. When it comes to underwater wide angle photography, APS bodies need to box in the same weight division as full frame sensors. I would like to see a test underwater with the 5D and Canon 14mm or 15mm against the D2X and only DX lens they have with the same angle of view in the APS format. Although I have been a Nikon guy since I started, I just had all my lenses and Kodak Pro 14n SLR stolen. I'm left with a D1X, F5, 2 F4's, F100, a pile of underwater housings and more Nikonos gear than most retal houses, I am selling everything thing I have left and starting again. My choices are D2X or D5, because of the full frame I'm switching to Canon after 20 happy years with Nikon. Apples to apples, application and output are everything.

test

BUY GLASS NOT CHIPS.

It looks as if this thread may be out of steam, but I still want to add my two cents.

Most of the guts of digital camera body are printed circuits - microelectronic devices - and as such will be orders of magnitude more capable and less inexpensive in a few years. That is obviously not true for lenses.

For all but the very few of us who have many tens of thousands of doors to spend in camera equipment, an extra $1500 spent on an L-lens we don't yet own would add far more sharpness to our pictures than another 4 megapixels. The capabilities of a new lens might even add whole new opportunities to our photography, something that the 5D will certainly not do. I lust for the 180 mm f3.5 macro and the 85 mm f1.2.

It's also important to remember that megapixels are spread out over a square, ie a TWO dimensional, surface. Thus the improved resolution, even aside from the sophicated and interesting considerations of Bob Atkins, are not (12/8) = 1.5 times more sharp, but Square Root (12/8) or about 1.25 times more sharp. And this is what his tests really showed: the 12 megapixel sensor is noticeably, but not dramatically sharper. But what a price difference. Whew!

And now I'm going to be really radical: BODIES ARE DISPOSABLE, BUT GLASS LASTS.

In 5 years of microelectronic progress, I'm going to want a new body and I'll probably be able to convince my wife in 7-10 years. There was a Doonesbury cartoon a few years ago with Mike sitting at a new computer that was "so fast it makes my fillings hurt." In the last panel he sees a notice on the back, "Best if used by August 15."

Predictable obsolesence is especially acute with ALL of Canon's current bodies: they don't have any way of cleaning the sensor. All camera manufacturers are going to have to solve that one in the next 2-3 years to keep Olympus from stealing market share. And who can predict what new functionality will be in the cameras of 5-10 years from now. Autofocus seemed like the impossible dream 25 years ago

Okay, so if camera bodies are obsolete the moment you open the box, then "build quality", at least within the group of prosumer - pro cameras, doesn't seem relevent (unless you are a pro doing very rugged work). In fact, for most of us, whether or not we have the camera with us in the first place is going to be the biggest determinant of the "quality" of our photos. So why buy even the 20D? Why not the Rebel 350 XT? Same sensor. Two fewer focusing points. Fractionally slower continuous shooting modes. I don't know what all else. But it's not very significant while the difference in weight and size is immediately apparent when you heft the two cameras.

I bought the XT about 6 months ago and couldn't be happier. I upgraded the glass to the 17-85 mm f4-5.6 (Ok. Ok. I know this is still a mid-quality lens but it's fairly light and has higher optical quality and more versatility then the standard 18-55 mm). I have used it to take some pictures that make me very happy and I see some beautiful postings on photo.net made with the XT.

So, I think I'll want a new body every few years and and I'm not going to put big bucks there, but I do want the best lenses I can afford and plan on using them for a lifetime.

Olympus increasing its marketshare? IMO, Olympus will be lucky to survive.

was surprised to see that there were no comments about the no crop 35mm issue which has been a thorn in my side as i use a canon rebel from 2004- coming from someone who sells 8 by 10 and 16 by 20 prints i thought the 5d would be a definite favorite over xt.

anyone see a good reason to upgrade from my rebel to the new xt? or 5d?

i focus on nature mostly- macro, some landscape and just started some stock work

thanks!

rick

www.uniquetake.com

Interesting read, going on for a long time. :)
I mostly do portraits, now have a 350D (RebelXT?) and am looking at the 5D as an upgrade. Mostly because of crop size; I like small DoF's and this sensor combined with fast lenses would give me that, I would say.

Funny is that I often intentionally vignet my photographs. :) It just seems to add some more intimacy/abstraction to the picture.

What do you say; would the 5D give noticable small-DoF improvements compared to the (1.6 crop) 350D?

Dolphinity Photography