I owned them both at the same time but never made a measured comparison of the two. According to DXO, the 5D2 is almost a stop better, 11.9 EVs to 11.1 EVs.
Old 5D RAW was good but I can squeeze a stop or so more out of my 5D2. Haven't noticed any problems with banding but I try to expose RAW to the right and leave off the HL enhancing and similar modes.
Something I wonder is why some crop sensors do better than full framed cameras. Canon and Nikon price their fullframes so high, they should be MUCH better, no?
JesseShotland wrote:
Something I wonder is why some crop sensors do better than full framed cameras. Canon and Nikon price their fullframes so high, they should be MUCH better, no?
High ISO noise, detail retention, and RAW PP latitude mean anything to you?
I own both. They are different. Not sure I consider one better than the other. The 5D II seems somewhat less amenable to pushing the highlights around in post, but, on the other hand, seems to need highlight adjustment less.
BUT (and I consider this huge) different lenses seem to affect dynamic range more than the camera bodies do. If I shoot for instance at f/5.6 with the Canon 50 f/1.4 and the Zeiss 50 MP f/2.0, the Zeiss usually produces a wider histogram. Sometimes the Canon lens will not fill the histogram, while the Zeiss is knocking values off both ends on the same image. And the great part is that on the 5D II, Photoshop's RAW fill light function brings Zeiss shadow values back in range beautifully. That has somewhat changed the way I shoot, from exposing notably to the right previously, to trying just to fill the highlight side of the histogram on the right, and bringing the shadows up in post. Still experimenting, because I just got my Zeiss lenses, but that is what I am doing now.
Long story short: when you are looking at dynamic range, pay at least as much attention to your lenses as to your camera body.
I have both and have shot tens of thousands of frames on both. I usually have both with me when I shoot. If I had the slightest idea that the 5D was better in any way than the 5D2 I would use the 5D as my primary and use the 5D2 as backup. Heck, I'd sell the 5D2 and buy a second 5D and have two of a kind.
But the 5D is not better than the 5D2. In some aspects the differences are marginal or insignificant. In others they are significant. (Obviously, the 5D2 has features that the 5D lacks.)
There is this odd thing that happens with cameras (and certain other non-photographic things, too) where some will always swear that the old thing is better than the new thing. On a few very rare occasions, some terrible flaw with the new thing might make this the case, but in the vast majority of cases these folks are just wrong.
(You'll see it with cars. With certain computers. With phonograph players. And on. And on. And on. Actually this reminds me of a line a bicycle racing friend of mine uses now that he is older: "The older I get, the faster I used to be.")
Bottom line. The 5D is a fine camera. But, in every way that is important the 5D2 is at least the equal of or better than the 5D.
Dan
By the way, I guarantee you that after the 5D3, or whatever comes next, is released we'll have people here swearing up and down that it isn't nearly as good as the 'good old 5D2.' Mark my words...
By the way, I guarantee you that after the 5D3, or whatever comes next, is released we'll have people here swearing up and down that it isn't nearly as good as the 'good old 5D2.' Mark my words...
