getting rid of full frame for better glass and film?

[eslevy89]

Hi guys. I'm new on these forums and I desperately seek your advice!

I've been shooting on a DSLR since February and I have just started a two year photography course at college. I just upgraded from a Canon 500D to a 5D (not the mkii) and I thought I would be happy. However, I find the ergonomics of the 5D don't suit me at all. It is very wide, heavy and makes my hand ache when I am outdoors and constantly changing the shutter and aperture settings to suit the exposure. It takes beautiful pictures with my plasticky 50mm 1.8 attached, but the poor LCD and width of the camera really get in the way for me.

I don't want fancy techno gadgets attached to my slrs - that's why I was happy purchasing the 5D. However the LCD really affects my enjoyment of the camera for some reason. I just want a camera that I can take with me anywhere, use for college assignments and do pro work to make some cash on the side. I have some money to spend, but I don't want to spend it on something that will be outdated in a couple of years. With the 5D, getting some supplementary glass will really take a chunk out of my budget. So, as I was getting tired with reading about all the specs and numbers and comparisons with DSLR bodies, I began thinking about swapping my 5D and picking up a cheaper body (a nikon D90 maybe?) and spending the rest of my cash on really good glass (if I did this I would have about 700GBP to spend on lenses). I have little invested in canon so swapping around doesn't bother me. I'm also really interested in film photography, and would love to learn the theory side of photography on a beautiful little TLR or a nikon f-series rangefinder (to compliment the D90) and get a polaroid for lighting and aperture experimentation. I picked up a D90 in my local camera store and loved the way it just slipped into my hand, it really felt like something I could carry around all day and enjoy taking pictures on, but the shop assistants told me it's getting outdated and if I want good image quality, I should go for the new D7000 or the D300 for better autofocus and sensor power.

So basically any advice on the matter would be a great help. Would I really be compromising on image quality if I swapped to the D90 or similar? Even combined with good glass? Thinking about my development as I photographer and my need for a camera that will stand up to vigorous student/pro use.

I probably sound ridiculous contemplating swapping the 5D for a D90. Should I just be happy with what I have? Will I really miss the full frame or will good glass compensate for this? I figured it was great optics that made Berenice Abbott and Ansel Adams stand out in early 20th century, but correct me if I'm wrong.

I would really appreciate any help in the matter

Thanks again guys

Emma

p.s. Here's my flickr photostream so you can get an idea of the kind of photography I've done so far. It needs updating with new pics but I haven't had the time yet.

Flickr: EmmaLevyImages' Photostream

 

[Overread]

Why the D90 and not shift to say a rebel or something like a 40D/50D? At least then you retain the similar canon interface that you are more used to and can keep your existing (albeit limited) glass. Swapping systems just for size would seem a little foolhardy and I'd caution against getting into a rut where you're always shifting from system to system/camera to camera - chasing the technical only won't make a better photographer (though it seems you are already aware of this ).

The important thing to understand first, from a technical and creative point is the effect of differing sensor/film sizes and how it will affect the lenses you use and the types of photos you can take. The angle of view between fullframe and crop sensor is very noticeable. At a base level fullframe can render more out-of-focus background more easily than crop sensor can; not to say that crops can't, but that its easier and more "creamy" with 35mm. In addition you can hit some boundaries when working indoors with things like portraits, because the crop sensor crops out the middle of the photo your lenses "feel" like they are a longer focal length, pushing you to use a shorter focal length to get similar photos. However you can only go down so far before the field curvature of wider angle lenses starts to distort photos (eg a 35mm lens might give a similar angle of view on a crop sensor as a 50mm will on fullframe, but you'll get more curvature with the 35mm - which means parts closer to the lens get more enlarged than those further away - some software can correct for this, but its something to keep in mind).
Further to consider - many of the greats like Ansel Adams would use big films - medium and large formate to get kinds of photos that 35mm just couldn't do.



In the end the key part is that you end up with a system that allows you to comfortably re-create the vision you want to artistically. Furthermore a good crop sensor DSLR with good glass can do mostly any subject that a fullframe setup can do - landscape, wildlife, portraits, studio, weddings - heck the current top line Canon DSLR is a 1.3crop (regular crop sensor are 1.6crop).
I'd say if you're at college you might well have access to loaned gear from them or at least from fellow students - give other cameras a try outside of the marketing room that is a shop - get a feel of how they work - how they feel and how they work artistically as well a technically.

 

[cgipson1]

I agree with what Overread said! Try to find different bodies to try.. and determine which one you really like, before making a decision. I am a Nikon user (d7000).. and love their bodies. I just purchase a D90 for my girlfriend, and it seems like an excellent body.. and she does like the weight / size. But as far as switching systems? Try as many as you can first!

 

[tirediron]

In addition to Overread's excellent points, I'll add a couple of thoughts of my own: First, you mention professional shooting on the side. These days, clients do NOT want negatives, they want digital files, so if you're shooting film, you now have to get get your negatives scanned, (after sending them away for processing that is), and professional scanning means a drum scanner, which is both costly (I pay $12 per 645 neg) and usually takes time.

You also mention using Polaroid for test shots. Good luck with that... Polaroid packs are rare and expensive. The days of going through a half-dozen packs on one shoot are longggggg gone. In short, unless it's a very specialized application, I really don't think using film for professional work is practical any more. For personal work? It's great - there's nothing I find more relaxing than taking out my Mamiya and spending an afternoon going through a couple of rolls of 120.

If you really dislike the ergonomics of the Canon, than try the Nikon or Sony offerings.

 

[Derrel]

Get a Nikon. It will have better (better-placed controls like DOF preview, Func Button,AF area assignment AKA 4-way controller, consistent shutter and aperture controls on their OWN, dedicated controls, not constantly shifting control with function like Canon,etc) ergonomics than the Canon 5D, which I shoot as my "main" or "serious" camera. The 5D has a really,really,really crappy LCD screen on the back, that is true; poor color, low resolution, and by current standards, quite small. The Canon 5D is an excellent sensor stuck in to a $389 EOS Elan body...the sub-system of the 5D are very weak...weak AF module, weak light metering system, slow advance, slow mirror lag,etc...). As far as a camera to replace a 5D, the Nikon D700 kicks its ass; the D90 is a faster-handling camera as well, with better features than the 5D...however, the SENSOR and the FULL-FRAME image size are what make the 5D the camera that it is. I honestly think your ideas of film, and of Polaroid cameras, are very far off-base. FIlm is dead. Polaroid is dead. Polaroid for exposure checking???? Huh???? This is not 1985...a digital camera can check the exposure in seconds, better than a Polaroid ever could. Polaroid film is now basically almost unavailable.

The thing about the 5D that you own, and that I have been shooting for a few years now, is that it is a SLOW camera, in many ways...its handling is like that the $389 EOS Elan on which it is mostly based...it is an "economy body" with a very good sensor; the "enthusiast" cameras like the Nikon D90, and now the Nikon D7000, or the professionally-oriented D700, are ALL "faster",and are more highly-featured cameras. The 5D is designed for an expert shooter who wants image quality, affordably, and who is willing to put up with the limitations of a stripped-down camera. It's kind of like a Ford F150 pick-up...as a young, female college photography student, you really might like a smaller, faster-handling, more-automated camera with better light metering...something like a Nikon D90 or D7000, yes, those are designed more for people in your range within the photography community. I used to sell photo/video goods; I have set up hundreds and hundreds of people with both P&S and SLR outfits; different customers view different outfits in different ways; customers often disagree about exactly WHAT the SELLING POINTS of the SAME equipment happen to be. Many very serious users shoot the 5D series cameras (both the original and the Mark II); the image quality is excellent, but the cameras as machines are not sexy, not compact, and are simply not in the same "league" or "class" as some of the newer, smaller, "enthusiast" cameras designed for hobbyists or dedicated amateurs. The 5D series was designed as a low-cost FF Camera that would not cannibalize the sales of $7,000 Canon full-frame, professional bodies; it is a beginner-level film-era body design that has been re-purposed and fitted with a FF sensor. That feature set does not appeal to many people these days, and especially to beginning photo students. Soooo, be aware that many will defend the 5D, or urge you to stay with Canon because THEY shoot Canon. Buy whatever you like. I shoot Canon and Nikon. I have a ton of gear. Each system is different, in many critical ways. right now, today, I would say buy a Nikon D7000, not a D90, although D90's are available quite affordably. As a former camera salesman, and as a two-system shooter, I can look at my own equipment or that of other people and evaluate it honestly, with knowledge of the "other side" from first-hand experience, as well as from the point of vioew of somebody whose job used to depend on being able to help people select and buy the RIGHT equipment for THEMSELVES.

Watch out for fanboys who have a huge personal,emotional investment in their own brand of gear, and who cannot stand to hear the flaws or weaknesses of their pet brand brought up and discussed dispassionately; like for example, the absolute crap screen that the 5D has...it's pathetic...or the slow mirror lag of the 5D....press the button...or its terribly under-illuminated LED readouts that re almost useless during bright weather conditions...and so on. Buy what you want to buy for your own use and stage of development.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Derrel!!!! Where have you been? I can change my signature now.

 

[eslevy89]

Thanks everyone for your well informed and excellent advice! I went out shooting with the 5D right after I posted yesterday. I love the image quality but, again, the ergonomics...

The reason I focused on a D90 was because of the way it just slipped into my hand (the shop didn't have 40 or 50Ds so I will try them out at college). I have thought about the D7000 but I've heard a lot of people complaining about getting oil splattering on the sensor and having to get it cleaned every 3-4 months. Can any D7000 owners comment on this?

I just want to clarify my interest in polaroid. I definitely do not want to use it as an exposure meter. What I mean is I would like it purely for artistic, personal use. When I say "test" I mean testing artistic ideas using the kind of image the polaroid can produce. I just love the look and feel of them, but I wouldn't be using it all the time. Same for the film camera - it would be purely for personal use and artistic interest, and to really learn about the technicalities of photography without the camera doing all the work for me. For pro work (or paid work at least :greenpbl I would use my DSLR which is why I want something with good design and great images.

Watch out for fanboys who have a huge personal,emotional investment in their own brand of gear, and who cannot stand to hear the flaws or weaknesses of their pet brand brought up and discussed dispassionately; like for example, the absolute crap screen that the 5D has...it's pathetic...or the slow mirror lag of the 5D....press the button...or its terribly under-illuminated LED readouts that re almost useless during bright weather conditions...and so on. Buy what you want to buy for your own use and stage of development.

This is exactly what bothers me about the 5D. I press the shutter button, even on the quickest shutter speed, and... wait for it... there we go. Fantastic advice by the way. What kind of "serious" stuff do you shoot with the 5D?

The important thing to understand first, from a technical and creative point is the effect of differing sensor/film sizes and how it will affect the lenses you use and the types of photos you can take. The angle of view between fullframe and crop sensor is very noticeable. At a base level fullframe can render more out-of-focus background more easily than crop sensor can; not to say that crops can't, but that its easier and more "creamy" with 35mm. In addition you can hit some boundaries when working indoors with things like portraits, because the crop sensor crops out the middle of the photo your lenses "feel" like they are a longer focal length, pushing you to use a shorter focal length to get similar photos. However you can only go down so far before the field curvature of wider angle lenses starts to distort photos (eg a 35mm lens might give a similar angle of view on a crop sensor as a 50mm will on fullframe, but you'll get more curvature with the 35mm - which means parts closer to the lens get more enlarged than those further away - some software can correct for this, but its something to keep in mind).
Further to consider - many of the greats like Ansel Adams would use big films - medium and large formate to get kinds of photos that 35mm just couldn't do.

Fantastic advice, thanks so much. And the point about medium and large format cameras is very true and given me something else to think about...

And would a crop sensor really undermine my portraiture work? Or should I get a crop sensor (again) and then get the latest full frame when I'm ready and when I really need it? i.e. when I don't have lots of expensive equipment on hand that I can loan from the college...

Any any suggestions on the best kind of glass (canon or nikon) to go with a crop sensor like the 50D or D90? I love primes, the shallower the better, and I also like fast lenses that I can use for street photography and events.

Cheers everyone! Really appreciate the advice :lmao:

 

[investmenttechnology]

Derrel, your post is funny as hell

 

[penfolderoldo]

Yeah it's been a while Derrel - you been lounging on some sunny beach somewhere mate?:lmao: I do agree with what most of the guys suggest - the 5D has many many faults, and by current standards is left lagging. No commercial clients will touch negs now, so i'd maybe suggest keeping that for your photography course. On that vein, you can pic up a late end Canon film SLR for little money, and would allow you to use your existing (and if you stick with Canon, your future) glass. Try out the D90 and see how it feels, as every photographer's different, and it is a great camera.

 

[eslevy89]

Yeah it's been a while Derrel - you been lounging on some sunny beach somewhere mate?:lmao: I do agree with what most of the guys suggest - the 5D has many many faults, and by current standards is left lagging. No commercial clients will touch negs now, so i'd maybe suggest keeping that for your photography course. On that vein, you can pic up a late end Canon film SLR for little money, and would allow you to use your existing (and if you stick with Canon, your future) glass. Try out the D90 and see how it feels, as every photographer's different, and it is a great camera.

Great, simple advice. Your collection of cameras is enviable lol. You located in Edinburgh? Where about do you work? I'm Glasgow-based, and worked in a few wedding venues which is why I'm asking (Sorry I've just assumed you're a wedding photographer from your avatar - correct me if I'm wrong). Yeah my film interest will be pursued for college. My school has all the kit I need to develop prints (cheaply too) and to scan them into digital format.

Like I said the D90 fits like a glove. But I don't know if a sacrifice in image quality will be worth it, which was why I was wondering if glass will make all the difference. If I invest in glass for a cheaper crop sensor body then I can use it when I get a good full frame in a couple of years too, when I'm more ready for it (technically and financially).

Decisions, decisions...

 

[The_Traveler]

The reason I focused on a D90 was because of the way it just slipped into my hand (the shop didn't have 40 or 50Ds so I will try them out at college).

And would a crop sensor really undermine my portraiture work? Or should I get a crop sensor (again) and then get the latest full frame when I'm ready and when I really need it? i.e. when I don't have lots of expensive equipment on hand that I can loan from the college...

Ergonomics is all. Every line has enough good glass.
When I started with digital slrs, I started with what felt good to me - and it still does.

And no, the new crop sensors will make great portraits and, with just a tiny bit of sense, the DOF issue disappears. In every glass line, the 85 primes are essentially superb portrait machines; I own the 85 1.4 Nikkor and couldn't be happier with it.

Now someone will surely use your question as an excuse to show (off) his/her portraits; it never fails.

 

[penfolderoldo]

Yeah it's been a while Derrel - you been lounging on some sunny beach somewhere mate?:lmao: I do agree with what most of the guys suggest - the 5D has many many faults, and by current standards is left lagging. No commercial clients will touch negs now, so i'd maybe suggest keeping that for your photography course. On that vein, you can pic up a late end Canon film SLR for little money, and would allow you to use your existing (and if you stick with Canon, your future) glass. Try out the D90 and see how it feels, as every photographer's different, and it is a great camera.

Great, simple advice. Your collection of cameras is enviable lol. You located in Edinburgh? Where about do you work? I'm Glasgow-based, and worked in a few wedding venues which is why I'm asking (Sorry I've just assumed you're a wedding photographer from your avatar - correct me if I'm wrong). Yeah my film interest will be pursued for college. My school has all the kit I need to develop prints (cheaply too) and to scan them into digital format.

Like I said the D90 fits like a glove. But I don't know if a sacrifice in image quality will be worth it, which was why I was wondering if glass will make all the difference. If I invest in glass for a cheaper crop sensor body then I can use it when I get a good full frame in a couple of years too, when I'm more ready for it (technically and financially).

Decisions, decisions...

Actually the avatar's slightly misleading, i'm a press photographer, and the avatar was Zara Phillips' wedding in Edinburgh a couple of months ago, for the Sunday Times
I've used Canon gear all my days, but from what I hear the D90's a cracking piece of kit, as is the D7000, so that might be worth a look. Always get the best glass you can afford, that will make a far bigger difference to your photography than a supposedly 'better' body.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

I love my D90 and find it great for all I do, but I would have to think long and hard if I had the quality of full frame photos at my disposal! As mentioned, the 5D does produce fantastic image quality despite its flaws.

But I would go for the D90, if it means you can open your wallet to invest in better glass. Because as perfolderoldo said 'Glass is more important!'. You can get yourself a gorgeous Sigma 50 1.4, Nikon 35 1.8, Tamron 90 2.8 within that budget (I now want the 35 1.8, I have the other two and love them both passionately). If you wanted to push the budget quite a bit, you can get yourself a Sigma 85 1.4. Sounds like some exciting lens purchases lie ahead of you!

Which lenses are you thinking about?

 

[Breaux]

I recently went from full-frame (film) to the 1.5 "cropped" sensor with an old Nikon D200 ('cause I'm cheap). I get all the image quality I need with the smaller sensor and only 10MP. (But if I want mind-blowing detail, it's easy to take 4 or 6 or 8 images and stitch them.) And the newer models you mentioned will be many years improved over mine. As others have said, ergonomics and glass are the most important.

 

[ann]

I went from D100 to D700 and am very happy with the switch. However, I am familar with Nikon (using them for 60 years) and they feel right in my hand.

Do what makes you happy.

Good luck with the polaorid hunt as that is a dead in imho. I tested some of the Impossible Project film and it doesn't fit my artistic view. I sorely miss Polaroid products