Canon 5D

[unseen]

...edit...
I am not a pro in photography and am really in the infant stage.... but the idea of getting a 5D as compare to the 30D mainly based on my view that future cameras will be based on FF format - maybe I am wrong..... just didn't want to buy something that will obsolete after a few years. What do you think.
...edit...

Hmmmm makes me wonder how you ever get this strange notion.
Look at it this way, Nikon, Sony (the former KM), Olympus, Pentax etc are all shunning full frame. Nikon has pointedly introduced "top of the range" lense for the apsc sensor. Olympus will be sticking with their 2x crop until they change a mount, and Pentax is not likely to budge into full frame at all to keep their dSLRs cheap.
Not to mention, Canon makes most of its money form the budget dSLR side (300D/20D/350D/30D), I really doubt they'll abandon their money tree.
The day full frame cameras start to take over the world will be the day Nikon moves to full frame, or when Canon is willing to sell full-frame cameras at the cost of normal APSC sensor cameras. Nikon has indicated that they're unlikely to move to FF, so... the ball's in Canon's court now?
As for a few years down the road.. Are you sure you want to future proof technology? You must be joking right? Given the refresh rate of Canon dSLRs being once every year or so.. A few years down the road, let's just say 3 years.. your brand new 5D will most probably be outperformed by the canon budget dSLR on the market.
*points to the 2002 March $6000 D60 and say, 2005 March $1800 350D.
Since you don't have the NEED to have a FF dSLR right this very moment, I suggest you better spend money on some good lenses. Lenses get obselete less frequently. Of course, if you have the $$ to spend, why not?

 

[dEthANGeL]

Very true also.

But then from the looks of it, canon "might" - rumoured - abandon the 1.3x crop family of cameras altogether (or they might not?) ... as for all cameras going FF ... i highly doubt so since canon has already set a niche market for these DSLRs in the years to come (putting aside all other brands) ...

As for obsolescence ... it cannot be avoided when it comes to DSLRs. The megapixel race will never end. As for outperforming ... it depends on the individual, what the person wants to do with the camera.

And yes... lenses will never go obsolete, so its definitely worthwhile to invest in lenses as stressed many a time.

 

[Deadpoet]

There were times, up till recently, I was using my D60. Obsolete, it's getting there, but still a useful camera for the right occasion.

A friend wants to transition from PnS to DSLR, I can not think of a better camera just for her to start out with. I figure, it will still be dutifully churning out great pictures for the next couple of years.

We are so spoiled. Many people demand noiceless pictures at ISO 1600, demand 5 FPS performance, demand huge buffers, do not want to deal with light fall off at the edge of a wide angle lens, only want to shoot with the swet spot of the lens and not to have to considered lens distortion towards the edges ... just to name a few of our demands and espectations where it was normal parameters that all film users had to work aound not so long ago!

 

[madmacs]

Hmmmm makes me wonder how you ever get this strange notion.
Look at it this way, Nikon, Sony (the former KM), Olympus, Pentax etc are all shunning full frame. Nikon has pointedly introduced "top of the range" lense for the apsc sensor. Olympus will be sticking with their 2x crop until they change a mount, and Pentax is not likely to budge into full frame at all to keep their dSLRs cheap.

personally i feel these manufacturers "shun" FF only because they are not able to get economically viable FF sensors unlike canon who design and manufacture their own. hence they try to psycho end-users into believing that 1.5x or 2.0x crops is the way to go for digital. come on...why should users who have wide-enough lenses like 24mm not want to be able to use these same lenses on their digital slrs? if not for the 1.6x crop, i would not have needed to get the 17-40L.

 

[saperboy]

If you see yourself taking photography much further and not just a whim, then...

all I can say is that if you go for 5D you will never regret it.... but if you go for, say 20D or 30D, then in the back of your mind you might end up second-guessing, specially if you had the chance of trying out the 5D.

So if you have the budget for 5D, go for it. Shooting at high ISO is one of the thing I really liked.

 

[unseen]

personally i feel these manufacturers "shun" FF only because they are not able to get economically viable FF sensors unlike canon who design and manufacture their own. hence they try to psycho end-users into believing that 1.5x or 2.0x crops is the way to go for digital. come on...why should users who have wide-enough lenses like 24mm not want to be able to use these same lenses on their digital slrs? if not for the 1.6x crop, i would not have needed to get the 17-40L.

Yups I'd agree for the conomically viable part. That's why canon will lose out. As long as canon maintain a premium over APSC sensors, FF is not a factor on the dSLR market.
The other brands don't really need to psycho end-users. They just need to offer the APSC cameras cheaper, and people will buy.

When people upgrade from PnS to dSLR, they're likely to go to the cheaper solution. So what if 1000 pros buy canon's FF lineup? 3000000 consumers will buy the cheaper APSC nikon camera if there's no available option at the same price from canon. Where do you think more money is made?
When people start with a system, they aren't likely to change, thus upgrade path won't be a 1DSmk2 but a D2X. Where's more future money's to be made?
Budget dSLRs is the only way to ensure future income, if you think corporate scale wise.

*point to Fujifilm's S2pro and S3pro* Very capable sensor on them. Ever wondered why most newbies won't even consider it? er.. Simply because the body itself cost $3k+ at a point in time when you can get another dSLR at $1.8k? Now that it's only about $2k, still no one bother.. why? coz dSLRs are available at $800 - $1.7k?

This is called pricing themselves out of the market.

Canon won't be so stupid as to kill themselves. They won't even bother to squash rumours of all future cameras becoming FF, because the people who can't think for themselves will panic and buy all EF lenses. They don't lose a thing.

 

[unseen]

There were times, up till recently, I was using my D60. Obsolete, it's getting there, but still a useful camera for the right occasion.

A friend wants to transition from PnS to DSLR, I can not think of a better camera just for her to start out with. I figure, it will still be dutifully churning out great pictures for the next couple of years.

We are so spoiled. Many people demand noiceless pictures at ISO 1600, demand 5 FPS performance, demand huge buffers, do not want to deal with light fall off at the edge of a wide angle lens, only want to shoot with the swet spot of the lens and not to have to considered lens distortion towards the edges ... just to name a few of our demands and espectations where it was normal parameters that all film users had to work aound not so long ago!

I never said the D60 is not a capable camera. I'm saying that technology goes at a faster rate than most people can possibly imagine. Maybe I'm short sighted, future proofing technology is one of the dumbest thing I can ever imagine.

Threadstarter =>
That's why, best thing is to get what you can afford now, and shoot to your heart's content. Why worry about what you can't afford, because you can't afford it anyway. Just grab a camera and go out shoot, IF you are in photography for the joy of photography.
If you're just into equipment, you should note:
use a cheaper body and expensive lense, the layman will go wow, photographers won't say much.
use an expensive body and cheapo lense, the layman will go wow, many photographers will be laughing at you.

 

[weekh]

Go straight for the EOS 1Ds MK III. :bsmilie:

Just like to find out from some of the bros out there if you could share your experience with the 5D with me.

I am not a pro in photography and am really in the infant stage.... but the idea of getting a 5D as compare to the 30D mainly based on my view that future cameras will be based on FF format - maybe I am wrong..... just didn't want to buy something that will obsolete after a few years. What do you think.

I read that the 5D is really for the pro as it has a lot of manual control with no scene modes (whatever that meant) and does not have AF assist - thus making it more difficult to focus in low light condition etc. Of course, the camera takes excellant pic and has little noice with high ISO (1600)...

Just wondering if I could get some advice. Thanks.