Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,153

    Question Undecided between 50D vs 5D (Large prints req.)

    15.1mp (1.6x), with a Diffraction of f7.6

    Compared to

    12.8mp (1.0x), with a Diffraction of f13.2

    For landscapes -
    Its nice to pull out more detail in depth with f13 compared to f7.6, but at the same time, i would think the 2.3mp would add up when printing large.

    Lets define large by 24"x36" just for the sake of this discussion.

    Im posting this mostly because i do not have alot of experience printing large so im not sure which to go for.

    The two main questions being asked, are :

    1- Does a Full Frame compared to a Cropped Frame, print better in large, even with less megapixels?

    2- Does this apply to landscapes when factoring in the diffraction limit ?

    Im doing alot of different photos at the moment, landscapes, modelling, macros, but i do plan on printing big. From what i've seen so far, the IQ is slightly better on the 5D then the 50D, but im not sure if this would apply at large prints, would the 50D's more pixels catch it up in terms of IQ ? (I do not plan on going past iso 400/800 on either cameras.)

    I would team up either cameras with a 17-40L, 50f1.8, and the 18-55IS on the 50D for handheld shots. Sadly my budget does not let me even consider the 5D MII.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    how many 24x36's do you really think you'll be printing ? my guess is not many, (if any at all). more to the point, how do you figure you can print that large shooting with a shitty kit lens and a 50/1.8 ? you got it all backwards. my vote is neither of those options, get a 40d and better glass.

    EDIT: nevermind, i just checked out your other threads. you're not buying anything anytime soon. have fun daydreaming. lol
    Last edited by Rooz; 11-19-2008 at 01:29 AM.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,153
    Yeah, im not good at making up my mind. I do have a deadline of the New Year to get whatever i end up with, be it 50D, used 5D or whatever.

    Well, i really wish to upgrade because im getting requests for large prints for my pictures, and when i first started i was using a old nikon 35mm manual camera. A fullframe sensor would be neat to return to but not that necessary, i suppose.

    Do i plan on printing alot of them ? No. Maybe 2 to 3 a month, i've gotten a request for one much larger as well, but that was rather exceptional.

    Do i value the option to print at that size? Yes.

    The lenses are the best i can get within my budget, and hey, they are damn good for the price. Any lens better then what i currently have would cost me too much, even if i pair up the 40D, and while i value the 40D, i would rather get the 50D/5D and better lenses later, then the 40D with a better lens now, and have to get the 50D/5D later. Thats just me though.

    I might not be experienced enough to push my lenses to the edge of their capabilitys and require better ones, but that doesn't mean i wouldn't purchase my camera with the idea that i will one day switch to better lenses.

    edit: i also just noticed you completely ignored the 17-40L lens... XD
    Last edited by Csae; 11-19-2008 at 01:58 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,874
    Well, there is an equivalent depth of field too, so 7.6*1.6 = 12.2, so the depth of field is actually about the same between them at the "diffraction limit."

    But diffraction would be the least of my concerns. Unless you are mounting The Best Lens Ever diffraction wouldn't be noticable over lens problems until at least f/11 on the 50D anyhow. Probably not then either. And even then, would it be noticeable?
    Last edited by raven15; 11-19-2008 at 02:10 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    848
    I'd go with the 5D

    the 50D ain't that special imo.
    Quote Originally Posted by Rooz View Post
    hands up who hates delobbo !!!!!!
    DeviantArt Gallery

    Flickr

    Canon 450D + Twin Kit Lens + 50mm 1.4
    It doesn't have to be awkward Will

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    hmmm, ok. just starting out...originally looking at an xsi, want to take spectacular, commercial quality prints with $100 glass, getting 2-3 requests a month for 24x36 images.

    yeah ok i dont smell anything...i believe you. good luck.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Livin in a redneck paradise
    Posts
    1,874
    Oh yeah, and I second the 5D. I just saw real* output on a computer screen from one of those a few weeks ago, and was very impressed. You would need the 17-40mm lens for it though. That is an ideal range for landscapes (not so much 27-64mm equivalent on a 50D), and should be decent quality.



    *I don't believe the internet

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,153
    Alright so, the 350D is Rebel XT, not the XSi, which is actually a couple upgrades higher then me.

    17-40 is one of Canon's L lenses and is pretty awesome, at 700$ with current rebate.

    50mm 1.8 is the cheapest at about 125$ but works remarkably well.

    18-55 IS is a fuckup on canon's part because as a kit lens its actually awesome and comes with IS. This didn't even come with my camera, i had to go and get it used. And if i need something with a low shutter speed this does the job, if not i would just use the 17-40. However this lens would not even be compatible with the 5D, so i wouldn't have access to it at all on the 5D. And i like my IS.

    While there is personal opinions on these Lenses, i have researched them before and im pretty happy with them, i never said i wanted to take spectacular commercial quality prints, i just asked which of the two cameras would make better large prints.

    My background in photography is several years old, and has a long break in it. My background in Digital Photography is erm, about a year. Was looking at the Xsi or the Xt for learning the differences, thats done, now i want a real baby : P. The only reason im even sharing info is because i rather like your pictures so i would actually value your opinion.

    So, thats out of the way, back to my question please but this time, since you've clearly shown bleak knowledge in canon equipement, Ask yourself would a Nikon with more Mps but a cropped sensor be as good to print with as a fullframe one with less Mps for large prints.

    Edit: Thanks guys, thats 2 for the 5D
    Last edited by Csae; 11-19-2008 at 03:27 AM.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    19
    I don't know if I was doing mainly landscapes I would lean towards a full frame camera just so I can get those wider breath taking shots with excellent quality. Especially for larger prints. So my vote owuld be the 5D

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    God's Country - Australia
    Posts
    10,424
    Quote Originally Posted by Csae View Post
    Alright so, the 350D is Rebel XT, not the XSi, which is actually a couple upgrades higher then me.

    17-40 is one of Canon's L lenses and is pretty awesome, at 700$ with current rebate.

    50mm 1.8 is the cheapest at about 125$ but works remarkably well.

    18-55 IS is a fuckup on canon's part because as a kit lens its actually awesome and comes with IS. This didn't even come with my camera, i had to go and get it used. And if i need something with a low shutter speed this does the job, if not i would just use the 17-40. However this lens would not even be compatible with the 5D, so i wouldn't have access to it at all on the 5D. And i like my IS.

    While there is personal opinions on these Lenses, i have researched them before and im pretty happy with them, i never said i wanted to take spectacular commercial quality prints, i just asked which of the two cameras would make better large prints.

    My background in photography is several years old, and has a long break in it. My background in Digital Photography is erm, about a year. Was looking at the Xsi or the Xt for learning the differences, thats done, now i want a real baby : P. The only reason im even sharing info is because i rather like your pictures so i would actually value your opinion.

    So, thats out of the way, back to my question please but this time, since you've clearly shown bleak knowledge in canon equipement, Ask yourself would a Nikon with more Mps but a cropped sensor be as good to print with as a fullframe one with less Mps for large prints.

    Edit: Thanks guys, thats 2 for the 5D
    i already gave you my opinion, you just dont like the answer lol. get a 40d with better glass.

    if you're trying to print 24x36 you will need them to be commerical quality otherwise its gonna come up as one big mess and your customer wont be happy. there are blemishes and lens flaws that you will never notice on say an 8x12 that will be very visible on a print blown up to that size. you dont get that quality from a kit lens or a 50/1.8.

    let me add this...
    a 40d with top notch glass will cream a 50d with crap glass. period.

    imo the 5d is too old and not good enuf to spend the money on. you recognise the probability of havingto spend a bit more later on so why on earth dont you get the great glass now and the better body later ?

    if i were you i'd pick up a cheap body like a 40d and get the best possible glass i could get my hands on. then in a years time when the 5d mkII comes down in price you can oick that up cheaper. i think you have your priorities completely back to front. GLASS matters.

    prints that size will also need MP and the 5dMkII shines for landscapes and portraits which demand high detail in large print sizes. regarding your comment about nikon cameras. for the purposes you outined, (mega large prints of still life), then you cant beat the resolving power of a 5dMkII or even a sony a900. so there is no nikon camera suitable for you at this stage. the decision is completely yours but your logic right now is flawed.
    Last edited by Rooz; 11-19-2008 at 01:39 PM.
    D800e l V3 l AW1 l 16-35 l 35 l 50 l 85 l 105 l EM1 l 7.5 l 12-40 l 14 l 17 l 25 l 45 l 60 l 75
    flickr

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •