GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

All other things being equal, if you crop the ff image, you lose resolution.

WAL

I would look at the 5D 11 if price is a concern. I don't see that the 5D 111 will be a big increase in picture quality over the 5D 11.

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

Great commentary guys - could not have stated it better myself. Bottom line:

#1: A full frame sensor on the 5D 2 or 3 will give a better picture equally - no diff in the image between them, but better than lesser Canons. The 5D2 is half price for the same performance - less expensive of the bells and whistles of the 3. The movie mode in the 2 is better. The ISO range, auto focus, and layout in the 3 is better. Personally I think the new Sony Alpha A99 blows the 5D3 out of the water and that is where I am going next - no question.

#2: You MUST get good glass. The difference is huge. If you want to see a comparison between Canon glass and Zeiss glass that will blow your socks off go here. ( http://www.fstopacademy.com/blog/what-difference-does-a-lens-make/ ). You may never buy Canon glass again - so be warned! It will piss some people off because they revere their Canon glass - but this is a serious wake up call - but you will instantly see that GLASS DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE - HUGE! Puh-leeeeeese invest in glass before the camera. And invest in the right camera system to make sure the glass fits. Speaking from experience, I had the Contax camera / Zeiss glass system and used it for years. When Contax bowed out, I had a bunch of manual Zeiss primes. By using adapters, I married them to the 5D and the results are outstanding.

With the Sony move pending, I can re-adapt each one to the Sony camera. I also have a Tamron 17mm wide angle SP series - supposedly their best. It is junk. Paper weight. When you have an incredible opportunity for a once in a lifetime shot, you want it to be the best possible. The best boketh, clarity, resolution, lack of CA's, clean flare, great MTF numbers, great contrast, clean pure image. These optics may be dear. But they
worth every penny. That is where you plant your money - not the camera body. Choose full frame and go from there.

#3: Develop good photography skills. It is not the camera but who is in front of and behind the camera that makes the difference. Karsh, Adams proved that big time as well as the likes of Steven Speilburg, Milos Foreman (Amadeus) and Zemekis (Forrest Gump).

Thus endeth the lesson from all of us.

Cheers,
Take 5

cdavis7820 Loc: Akron Ohio

Thanks for everyones input. Looks like I have some homework to do before I make a decision.

This site is great!

ole sarg Loc: south florida

If you want a new camera and can afford it buy it.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I did not say anything about photos becoming great if you have a better camera. I did not say anything about "Crap" equipment. I did say good photographers could take good pictures with any camera under the right conditions. I did say that good photographers can take beter or even great pictures with better equipment. Sorry I did not express my self better. Anyway the long and short of it is that FF cameras will take better pictures than crop frame cameras. Each photographer needs to decide weither it is enought better to put up with the extra price and size. - Dave

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

What is there to think about. Buy one if you want one and have the money. The economy could use as much stimulation as possible. I'm told that the sensor in the 50D wasn't an improvement over the 40D anyway, so why not buy a new body with an improved sensor. It's one of the best on the market today.

Jer Loc: Mesa, Arizona

In-spite of people saying it's not the camera but the photographer, please understand that a camera is a tool. Does that tool meet you needs. A pinhole camera isn't going to allow you to take sports photos under the lights. But a pinhole can take great artistic or unique photos under the right conditions.
I own 5d's because of their low light and a couple of other features. If I wasn't doing press photography I would be happy with a Rebel or similar camera. Same goes for lens. If I'm just taking snapshots to be printed 4X6, then I don't need L series lens.

Decide where you want to go in photography and find the right "tool" to meet you needs if you current camera doesn't fit the bill.

Daryl New Loc: Wellington,New Zealand

Wato use same quote,Festina Lente,Cheers

Grammieb1 Loc: New Orleans

A 5D shines with wide angle & good glass. The 5D original is only 12 megapixels, but still takes great stills & portrait shots, the 5D lll is great for every kind of shot. From my personal experience, a 5D lll would be better in any situation that didn't require a lot of reach. I have a 5Dlll & 7D & use the 5D lll for everything except distant wildlife. No matter what any one tells you, if you can't fill up half of the frame with your subject, a crop is an advantage. This subject has been discussed to death on many different forums & even the die hardship ended up agreeing that this is true. It all depends on what you shoot. I love natural light & shallow dof & that is why I prefer FF. Bab

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

There's one other thing I want to say. I agree with others that imply that it's the photographer, not the camera that takes great images. A great artist can and will use anything at their disposal as a tool and produce art. But not all of us are that artistic. Like a carpenter. Some are good carpenters, some are great. But whether or not you are good or great, they will all agree that using the best tools on the market are very important. A good/great mechanic uses Mac tools. It might not make the mechanic into an artist, but with great tools it will save time when a tool fails, or when an inferior tool takes longer to get the job done. The same thing applies to camera equipment. The Pro body Canons have shutters tested to 300k clicks. Bodies are made of lightweight durable metal. The sensors are much better at higher ISO and the processors are more accurate and faster for focusing. If you just take snap shots, maybe spending a lot of money on camera equipment isn't what you need. But if you've been shooting a 50D on a regular basis since the camera was new, it's time for an upgrade. Keep the 50D as a backup.

DavidT Loc: Maryland

Definitely go for the Mk III rather than the Mk II. You will not regret it and you won't outgrow the Mk III for many years. Also, the Mk III corrects lens distortion and chromatic aberration for some lenses like your 28-135 while the Mk II does not. It's almost like getting the performance of an L lens from an older, inexpensive lens.

scootersurfs Loc: Buckeye, Az

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Take 5 Cinema Loc: Canoe BC

Nothing beats original quality glass. You can't correct for lens aberations by replacing blues or reds that are fringing. What are you going to replace it with - a guess of what might be there? I have a hard time buying into that. Sure, if you want to blow $2000 extra on a Mark 3 when a Mk 2 is pretty darned good, and not get good glass, that is false economy. Get the glass first - always, always get good glass. You can't correct junk that was recorded. Watch the video I posted earlier on. You will see the Zeiss blew the Canons out of the water. There WAS NO COMPARISON. You can't correct that.

And if you are going to spend big bucks on a body AFTER you have got your proper glass (think $5-10k), then spend it wisely - the Sony A99 is simply better than the Canon Mk3 in almost every way - and I am a Canon 5DMk2 user - so there is no bias here. Many Pros are heading over to the Sony camp and for good reason. Sony is now aligned with Zeiss. And Minolta (they own now). Their optics are very very good - that is where it starts - not the camera. Not the camera.

Cheers,
Take 5

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Sony A99
Looked it up out of curiousity:
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/sony-alpha-slt-a99

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/891513-REG/Sony_slta99v_SLT_A99V_Digital_Camera_Body.html

Finally has a standard hotshoe!