[PaulfromTexas]

i currently have a K20D with kit lens and a canon D60 (not 60D) with the ef 50mm 1.8 lens.

now before i even get into what the topic is....i know that lenses have a large impact on the quality of your photos. i know that the kit lens is not a great lens and there are much better ones out there.

i most likely will be upgrading my lenses before i step up in camera bodies.

however when that time comes, if im going to spend money on a new body its going to be FF.

now my question (to those who know) is if a FF sensor with 12 MP (canon 5d) will have an overall better quality than that of what i have now, which is the K20D at 14 MP. from what i understand the fact that the sensor is much larger will make up for the difference, but will it step me forward in overall image quality or will it stay about the same? i am someone who likes to make poster sized prints.

[Chex]

Yes the 5D (Mark II) is a FAR better camera than your K20D, it's also bigger and heavier and not as well sealed... That being said, the K-5 is on par in some area's, better in some, and not quite as good in others as the 5D Mark II.. depends what your shooting and wanting from your gear. If your shooting low light action sports and indoor events, the 5D Mark II's sensor is slightly better than the K-5's. The K-5 is probably better for almost anything else, coupled with the decent Weather sealed 18-55mm kit lens and your fairly well suited... Pick up a 50mm 1.4 or a the Sigma 30mm 1.4 and your set for low light shooting as well. a K-5 w/ kit len + either of the f1.4 lenses will probably still be less $$ than a 5D Mark II.

[Ash]

The 5D MkII will be superior, however the original 5D will not be appreciatively better at first glance of the results. What the main difference will be is in its viewfinder, autofocusing and general responsiveness. The K20D has a fine sensor at low ISO, and performs solidly within those limits. Lenses will make the biggest difference in your results, not necessarily the camera body.

[Emacs]

i currently have a K20D with kit lens and a canon D60 (not 60D) with the ef 50mm 1.8 lens.

now before i even get into what the topic is....i know that lenses have a large impact on the quality of your photos. i know that the kit lens is not a great lens and there are much better ones out there.

i most likely will be upgrading my lenses before i step up in camera bodies.

however when that time comes, if im going to spend money on a new body its going to be FF.

now my question (to those who know) is if a FF sensor with 12 MP (canon 5d) will have an overall better quality than that of what i have now, which is the K20D at 14 MP. from what i understand the fact that the sensor is much larger will make up for the difference, but will it step me forward in overall image quality or will it stay about the same? i am someone who likes to make poster sized prints.

The IQ will be much better with 5D, of course. Just take a look at that: http://www.pixel-peeper.com/cameras/?camera=19&p=1

[Rondec]

Are you looking at the 5D or the 5D Mk II? The 5D would be better than the K20, but fall behind nearly any currently sold APS-C camera with regard to dynamic range/high iso. As Ash says, 5D Mk II would be a significant improvement over your existing gear (although sensor is getting old and is due for an update).

[PaulfromTexas]

im looking at the 5d mk nothing lol. im just debating on weather or not it would be worth buying the 5d or if i should just wait and get the mk2. i of course would rather have the mk2 however at this point in my life i really dont have much extra cash at the end of each month. and what i do have usually goes toward my better half.

just trying to find out if the improvments would be major or minor.

in a perfect world id have a 645D but i dont see that ever happening

[twitch]

If you prefer shooting wide and fast, and don't mind the extra bulk, then buy the 5D. But if you're a normal to tele shooter then FF doesn't make much sense IMHO.

[ll_coffee_lP]

I don't own a K20D, or a 5D (I, or II), however I currently have a D700 (FF 12mp), and a D300s (APS-C 12mp).

The FF sensor in the D700 is VASTLY superior to the D300s. Both cameras are very similar in most ways (size, AF, batteries, etc.), but the sensor output in RAW is where the D700 really shines. When using LR3 I can manipulate the D700 RAW files by the full 4.00 EV in either +/- exposure and pull up usable data. When using the D300s files I'm limited to about +/- 2.00.

The larger viewfinder is awesome as well. Using a APS-C camera now is like looking down a hallway at what you are shooting.

c[_]

[dexmus]

I have a Canon 5D (the original one) and I have had k-5.

5D is going to be noticeably better than k20 in ALL areas. Even at low ISO - 100, you will see much cleaner files with 5D. Focus will be much better. Very accurate if you use the center point. No question that an upgrade from k20 to 5D is significant improvement in quality in all areas.

Between 5D and the k-5, 5D is still better at high ISO(and low ISO) noise. You can see that in DxO mark comparison, and I can confirm from personal experience. The viewfinder in 5D is great - as is with any FF camera. You will not like APS-C sized viewfinder at all after using that. But k-5 trounces 5D when it comes to DR. K-5 files are much more forgiving in post-processing recovery.

Bottomline is this - If you want to go FF, and you have 1000$ - 5D is the best bang for buck - and there is no other competitor.
If you have 2000$, then a Nikon D700 and 5DII both are good options - and the decision depends on no. of other factors such as - focus speed, lenses selection, nikon look vs canon look, etc etc. I had D700 earlier. For a budget of 2000$, D700 is possibly the best camera available. It is a pure joy to use and focus.


cheers,

abhi

[bkpix]

Speaking as someone who has owned and shot with both cameras, the old 5D will give you noticeably better files than your K20D for large (20x30) prints. Image quality is more similar at lower ISOs and at print sizes of 12x18 and smaller.

The 5D is much less pleasant to shoot with than the K20D. Creaky body, poor viewfinder info, mediocre AF.

To complicate your decision, you should consider an original 1Ds, which can be bought for less money than the 5D. The image quality at low ISO is stunning, and it's a fully pro-spec camera, to boot. The downsize is that it weighs as much as a Volkswagen, has a screen that's even worse than the 5D's and uses up batteries faster. But the images are to die for, and I still shoot a lot of landscapes and portraits with a 1Ds next to my K-5.

[PaulfromTexas]

heck yea man, i never really looked into the older 1 series. didn't realize that they were so cheap now. im usually not someone to be persuaded into something so easily but that is now the next camera i am after. and it at a much more reachable price


thank you everyone for all of your insight. really helped me out.

[bkpix]

Paul,

One thing I forgot to mention about the 1Ds is that it's very slow in operation: Files take a noticeable time to write to the card when you're shooting RAW. Not a big drawback for landscape or most portraits, but it's there.

Another possibility to look at is the (1.3 crop) 1D Mark II, for about the same price. Faster, not quite as stunning image quality.