While I very much like my 5D it was bought to satisfy some very specific
criteria related to wedding and other event photography. It provides
acceptable image quality at very high ISO for venues where flash can't
be used. But flash is used as the main light probably 80% of the time
and at ISO 400 where the 5D provides nearly noiseless performance. It's
also used with (very heavy) constant aperture 2.8 lenses which allow the
5D to focus very fast and very reliably and the constant aperture
assures no change in aperture as the lens is zoomed. That's important
when all exposure is set manually. It's also important for daylight
fill flash (most of the remaining 20% of shots) that the 5D's sync speed
goes to 1/200th which can be augmented in bright sun by dropping the ISO
down to 50.
But it doesn't have built-in IS (unnecessary with flash), live view, an
articulating view screen, weather seals and probably many other things I
can't think of at the moment. Most certainly it won't mount your DZ
lenses or your FL-50 (but I'd sell that TTL stuff anyhow :-)). By the
time you get through swapping out all your Oly gear for Canon
equivalents you'll have rather thoroughly emptied your wallet.
I don't think we know what the E-3 image quality is or will be but it's
pretty certain that the E-3 will not match the 5D in the extremes. On
the other hand, how many 20x30's do you intend to make? I'm sure the
quality of an 8x10 or 11x14 E-3 image shot at ISO 100, 200 or maybe even
400 will probably be indistinguishable from a similar 5D shot.
There are probably near competitors to the DZ 7-14 (such as Moose's
recommended $300 Tamron 17-35 which I may buy myself) and you can save a
lot of money by buying non-Canon glass. But the 17-35 doesn't really
need image stabilization like the longer lenses. If you want IS on your
long lenses on a Canon body then Canon is almost the only game in town
and you will pay dearly for the privilege. The equivalent IS Canon lens
to your 50-200 is the 100-400/4.5-5.6L IS which is 1-1/3 stops slower
and about 2/3 more expensive than the DZ. Moose will say you can avoid
the IS by raising the ISO a couple of clicks but that is a less
compelling position with a newer camera promising improved ISO and
anti-shake performance... assuming it delivers.
You also have to consider that the 5D is getting rather long in the
tooth in Canon digital years. The replacement can't be far away and I
suspect that it will look a lot like a 40D with a bigger sensor and, of
course, a bigger price.
Yes, the Canon is your only other choice for putting the OM Zuikos on a
digital body but I wouldn't allow that to sway me from anything. Given
what you've already got in hand I think moving to a 5D is really a tough
sell. The only real justification I see is that you absolutely have to
have the highest image quality available and at high ISO. You'll pay a
lot of money for the privilege and give up a lot of other very nice and
very useful features.
Chuck Norcutt
Dan Mitchell wrote:
> So it's soon bonus time of year at work, and this time around I'm due
> for two lots of bonus at once (as the last one got postponed because I
> was off work on parental leave [1]).
>
> Unsurprisingly, I'm looking towards camera stuff, but this time around
> it's enough that I have more options than usual, so much so that I don't
> know (heresy, yes) if it's necessarily Oly that I should be going with.
> (sorry if the rest of this seems a bit stream-of-consciousness..)
>
> There's various SLR manufacturers out there; given I want to keep on
> using at least some of my OM lenses (the macro ones in particular), my
> options for bodies are Olympus or Canon. (right? or am I missing another
> alternative here?).
>
> Currently, I've got E-1, E-330, 11-22,14-54,50-200,FL-50, and a bunch
> of OM-era stuff.
>
> Option 1: E-3, 7-14, and maybe 12-60. That leaves me with an overall
> 14-400 range, and a (reportedly) nice snappy 'default' lens. (and
> possibly a 14-54/11-22 to sell on, or use on backup bodies).
>
> Option 2: 5D + what? I want something wider than the 11-22 -- with a
> FF body, there's more options, but even after all the discussions here
> I'm not clear which lenses are worthwhile. (heck, if I just wanted wide,
> I've got a 17/3.5 Vivitar lens I could put on the 5D with appropriate
> adapter -- but I don't want something that's too fuzzy in the corners,
> so I think I'm spending something fairly significant)
>
> Looking on e*ay, 290173491876 (for example) gets me 5D + two fairly
> generic lenses for not a lot more than an E-3 body would cost me, but
> those aren't particularly interesting lenses. 140172340157 has a better
> lens, but is getting a fair bit more expensive. I don't have any idea
> what I'm looking at to get something equivalent to the 50-200, either.
>
>
> Looking at the various pros and cons of the two:
>
> E-3 -- live view, flip out screen, weathersealed, I have existing
> (good) lenses+flash. 5fps -vs- 3fps for 5D. Builtin IS, so I don't need
> to buy expensive lenses to get that. Sensor cleaner.
>
> 5D -- full frame sensor so I'd get more width out of my existing OM
> lenses, better(?) overall image quality, better(?) high ISO.
>
>
> Looking at the samples here:
> http://www.dcview.com/article/newreadarticle.asp?last=/article/newreadarticle.asp&id=5705
> (use name yws, pw 123456)
> the images from the E-3 seems to be just fine; high ISO (image 154)
> isn't spectacular, but noiseware cleans it up very nicely, so I don't
> know if it's the sensor or just lack of postprocessing. (fair enough,
> I'm sure the sensor isn't as noisefree as the 5D's sensor, it's 1/4 the
> size..)
>
>
> Anyway.
>
>
> Things I don't care about too much: size/weight. If I want a small
> camera, I'll pocket the teensy Canon p+s I have, and the two above are
> close enough to one another for now.
>
> Weathersealedness is not critical, but not nothing either -- I'm not
> often out in the rain, but I _will_ be out in the snow, and I really
> appreciate being able to put a camera down on a snowy surface for a
> moment without worrying.
>
> Faster frame rate is, again, not a critical selling point, I don't do
> lots of sports shooting -- but I do more than none.
>
> Live view + flip out screen are very nice; I really like those on the
> E-330, especially for taking baby photos. I don't know that it's more
> useful having it flip out than the E-330's flippyness, mind you. (I
> guess you can also take shots sideways, which may well start to become a
> necessity for sneaking up on Oliver now he knows what a camera is..).
>
>
> Any more things I'm not thinking of here? Anyone care to chime in here?
>
> thanks,
>
> -- dan
>
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|