Upgrade or Refresh ???

[klynam]

I shoot about 70% portraiture, 15% interior architecture, 15% table-top product. With a little money coming in from recent assignments, I'm facing the question of upgrade-or-refresh with my camera equipment.

To date, I've had exactly one request for a print over 16x20 size. So for me, upgrading isn't about megapixels, it's about better low-light shooting capabilities (higher camera ISO, faster lenses, etc.) Also, I have flashes and other stuff all taken care of. I'm only considering cameras and lenses right now.

Here's where I'm at...

5Dmk1 - pre-owned, had for 3 years, can't shoot faster than 1/2000th (never has)
40D - pre-owned, works fine
17-40L / f4 - pre-owned, works fine
70-200L / f4-IS - pre-owned, works fine
85mm / f1.8 - pre-owned, works fine
50mm / f1.8 - pre-owned, works fine
Sigma 24-70 / f2.8 - pre-owned, edge softness on the 5D, better on the 40D

If I had my 'druthers, I'd sell the 5D / 24-70 / 70-200 and replace with...

5DmkII
Canon 70-200L / f2.8-IS
Canon 24-70L / f2.8-IS

But that will set me back around $2.5K (which would be a big financial stretch.)

Or, I could repair the 5D and replace the Sig 24-70 with a Canon 24-70 for under $1K. This gets me better reliability (5D) and image quality (Can 24-70) but does nothing for my goal of better low-light capabilities.

As for ROI, it will probably take 6mo-12mo for me to break even on a $2.5K upgrade and probably 3mo for a $1K refresh.

Interested in your thoughts...

[toverman]

My answer will be more questions.

How low do you need to go as far as low-light shooting? What about adding lights to whatever you already have?

I'm frugal, so I'd go for a refresh first. The cool thing is, you don't necessarily have to do it all at once. If you believe a camera body is the thing, either repair it or get another 5D I. But if your thing is portraiture, do you often shoot above 1/2000th? And what about adding other primes rather than zooms (like a 35 and 135 to complement your 85)? Or stick with what you have ... what don't you like about your 70-200 f/4 IS? Is faster necessary for portraits? Sell whatever you don't get much use out of and build as you can.

Oh, and I don't t believe the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 has IS. There! I already saved you $300 that it would cost to have a lens like that with IS.

[mmuhlenkamp]

I say refresh, maybe repair the 5DI and sell the 40D and get funds for a 7D? A fair bit cheaper than the 5D mark II but good lowlight performance.

[klynam]

Originally Posted by toverman

How low do you need to go as far as low-light shooting? What about adding lights to whatever you already have?

I'm frugal, so I'd go for a refresh first. The cool thing is, you don't necessarily have to do it all at once. If you believe a camera body is the thing, either repair it or get another 5D I. But if your thing is portraiture, do you often shoot above 1/2000th? And what about adding other primes rather than zooms (like a 35 and 135 to complement your 85)? Or stick with what you have ... what don't you like about your 70-200 f/4 IS? Is faster necessary for portraits? Sell whatever you don't get much use out of and build as you can.

Oh, and I don't t believe the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 has IS. There! I already saved you $300 that it would cost to have a lens like that with IS.

OOOhhhhhh yeah...I'm thinking of the 24-105 w/ IS but that's f4 so going the wrong direction (unless I have great ISO in camera.)

Primes are great - love em - but I'm just a sucker for zoom versatility.

As for how much ISO I want, that's easy: MORE!!!

Seriously though, I prefer shooting f4-f8 at 1/200th minimum (just my personal preference.) To do that indoors with ambient lighting (weddings, etc.) I need ISO-12,800 or higher. Seems like the 5DmkII can pull that off with good results after noise cleanup in post. The f2.8 and/or IS lenses give me a little more room if necessary.

On a related note: I'm very happy the megapixel race has slowed down (for the most part) and the new battleground is high-ISO sensitivity.

[Tom]

Seriously though, I prefer shooting f4-f8 at 1/200th minimum (just my personal preference.) To do that indoors with ambient lighting (weddings, etc.) I need ISO-12,800 or higher.

Weddings made 0% of your business on there. Go wider and reduce the ISO. I would never shoot a wedding at 12,800 with my 5D2. I'd be loathe to shoot 6400.

What is broken on the 5D other than not doing better than 1/2000th - which I wouldn't consider very limiting. If you are lighting stuff or shooting dark, you aren't getting anywhere near 1/2000 anyway.


Upgrade your lenses.

[ldelacruz]

I don't think I can use shots above 3200 with my 5D II. If you are in low light where you need 12,800 your image is going to be useless. You probably need to invest in lights, gels and a tripod.

[ronocnikral]

with 30% of business being done on a tripod and the other 70% being done with lights/flashes, i don't understand the value of IS.

i would "refresh." i love our 5ds and see very little need to upgrade to a better body.

i've been asleep at the wheel, i learned canon is offering the 24-70 in IS now. oh well, i'm not going to buy it anyways.

[klynam]

I thought the 5DmkII was great at high-ISO. I recently shot as second on a wedding using my 5D and the lead had me shoot at ISO-1600. The venue was VERY dark and I felt all of my shots (without flash assist) had way too much noise, but he said they were fine. (And he definitely knows his stuff.) When I compare my ISO-1600 shots with those found online from a 5DmkII at 6400 and 12800, they look pretty comparable. So I thought the 5DmkII would be okay. (Guess I need to find a straight-up ISO comparison of the 5DmkI and 5DmkII online.)

Back to my equipment...

I'm liking the tone of the rec's so far :-)

Frankly the 1/2000th limitation on the 5D is an absolute non-issue for me - other than it indicates something isn't quite right which is always in the back of my head. As for lights, tripod, etc. - I have all that covered with a Metz strobist setup and full hive of Alien Bees.

So unless we have any objectors, it looks like the 5D goes to Canon for service and I'll be posting a couple of lenses for sale on TPF soon...

[Tom]

I thought the 5DmkII was great at high-ISO.

It is. It is phenomenal. I'm still not giving clients pics at 12,800 ASA.

How much grain is in the pic also depends on nailing the exposure. A lot of use error involved.


Another thing to think about:
What focal length do you use mainly for portraits?
What about interiors?
Table top?

A 50mm 1.2L would be killer on a 5D for table top or portraits.
For interiors, a Tokina 11-16mm 2.8 can be used on the 5D without vignetting at 14-16mm - and a 14mm 2.8 on full frame for $600 is an insanely awesome option.

[ronocnikral]

does less grain help you sell more? our experience is...no. we don't get any complaints about grain. at least in today's day and age, it is sill accepted that if you want an event shot at low light with no flashes, grain is coming.

i would skip the canon 50/1.2L. Go straight to the sigma 50/1.4.

[Matt_G]

i learned canon is offering the 24-70 in IS now.

where did you learn that?

[klynam]

I've given this a lot of thought and want to drill down a little more...

As mentioned, virtually everything I shoot is outdoor with scrims/reflectors/fill-flash, or indoors with studio strobes. Assisting on the wedding a few weeks ago (in an extremely low light chapel with no flash allowed) revealed limitations in my equipment I had never encountered. And although weddings made up 0% of my business (i.e. income) last year, I am moving that direction. My first wedding is scheduled for June this year and the ceremony is in another VERY dark facility with no flash allowed. Factoring all that in, it seemed moving to wider aperture (faster) lenses and higher ISO sensitivity would help me in every way (reliability, flexibility, capability, image quality, etc.) while refreshing my existing equipment would help in terms of reliability, but little else.

Refreshing the 5D and moving from the 40D to the 7D is an option I hadn't considered and would do (most of) what I want and save around $500. Though as sure as the sun rises, I know if I do that the next camera out will have usable ISO up to 25,6K...

As for lenses, I've had no problem with architecture and table-top work with my existing lenses. So I hadn't even considered upgrading the 50mm or 17-40L, although the Tokina sounds pretty good.

So I'm back on the fence now...

Maybe I just need to get out and go shoot for a while...

[Tom]

The first thing you need to do is to set a budget of what you would like to spend.
The next thing you need to do it figure out how your gear is limiting you.

And when a bride and groom are in a dark chapel, you need to set their expectations that the pictures may not look how they envision them due to the circumstances. Black and white also helps hide the grain.

But if what you are shooting isn't limited by your gear, don't buy any more. Wait until you can financially justify it.

[ldelacruz]

That changes things. If you are wanting to shoot weddings in low light then the 5D MKII with a 24-105 would be a good upgrade. You already have the other lenses.

[ronocnikral]

Originally Posted by Matt_G

where did you learn that?

my friend fred told me. i'm off my rocker. maybe i started a rumor. sorry...thanks for getting me back on path.

as far as low light goes. we do it all the time and pump out grainy images. such is life. they want a low light wedding, we tell them at the consult that we will be limited. if they're grainy or not, they still want to buy a dvd of the images and do enlargements themselves. my opinion is, and you may think i'm off my rocker again, whether an image is taken with a 5d or 5d mkii, the average wedding client won't know the difference. therefore, it will have no difference or very little impact on your reprint sales in the medium to long term. making the true ROI always negative. jmo.

edit: not that i wouldn't love to have a 5d mkii. but i prefer the cash...