Hello,
Anyone have both of these cams at the same time?
I read that there seems to be a preference for the 5DC colors over the 5D2.
Anyone have any direct comparison photos showing the differences?
Cannot post processing make each the same?
There are some who say the 5DC has more film like qualities, but I think that is personal preference. As for the colors, I really have never found a huge difference in the two, maybe the Mk II may have a bit more contrast than the 5DC but nothing that you will notice unless trying to find it.
I do find the 5DC files easier to work with, they can take a beating if need to. Although the Mk II is no slouch.
I own both and usually have both with me when I shoot. If the 5D actually produced better image quality than the 5D2 I would use it as my primary camera, but I don't.
In every way that matters, the 5D2 is at least equal to and in many cases and improvement upon the 5D.
I still work with both 5D and 5D2 RAW files and find colors to be basically the same. Besides, you can adjust WB, tint, saturation, etc., to taste before converting to TIFF, so any small differences are a moot point. Both cameras produce great IQ but I prefer the 5D2.
As for "film like quality," I don't see that at all. Both cameras produce much better IQ than I ever got with 135 film. When I think of film--and I shot it for decades--I think of gritty texture, grainy skies and strange colors. Both 5D cameras produce a smoother silk texture and are virtually grainless prints even at 24x26.
The "film-like quality" business baffles me. Back in the day when digital was a poor second in image quality terms, this might have been regarded as a positive thing. Today, while film and digital may be different in certain ways that may or may not matter in ones work, I would not want my digital camera to produce "film-like images" any more than I would want a film system to produce "digital-like images" - I just want it to produce the best image quality that it can.
In general, once someone starts claiming that something is better because of its "film-like qualities," "outstanding drawing" quality, "colors and contrast," or other magical qualities... my hyperbole meter usually turns pegs... ;-)
I'd love to have my 5d2 images exhibit the same smooth tonal gradations that I got from medium format film, both b&w and colour. Unfortunately, digital is different than film...that is why I shoot both.
buggz2k wrote:
Hello,
Anyone have both of these cams at the same time?
I read that there seems to be a preference for the 5DC colors over the 5D2.
Anyone have any direct comparison photos showing the differences?
Cannot post processing make each the same?
I can't remember where I've seen the spectral response of the color filters that they put on the top of the 5D vs the 5DII. The density of the 5D's filter is greater than the 5dII's and should, in some circumstances, have slightly better color fidelity. Check out some of theSuede's posts on color filter for some help here.
The lower density of the 5DII's color filter does help it at higher iso's, though. Owning only a 5D and using a really excellent set of custom color profiles, I can state I love the colors I get out of ACR in comparison with other programs. The 5dII owners above seem happy with their colors.
The 5D takes more beating in post processing and specially in highlights and ¨shadow noise¨.
Resume: if the picture is well taken the 5DII is the best, if not they are about the same thanks to 5DII resolution. LR3 makes you forget the 5DII noise.
5D2 files are more contrasty than the 5D's. I also think the 5D2 renders Caucasian skin tones reddish. Something I haven't seen in 5D files. I counter this with LR's calibration tabs.
Every camera requires somewhat different post processing techniques. For example, sharpening settings that work for a 8 MP camera will not be ideal for a 21 MP camera. Every camera will have subtly different color response characteristics due to a variety of causes (hardware and software). Because two things are different it does not necessarily follow that one is better than the other, much less that the older/newer version is a priori better.
I believe that a great percentage of the "old is better than the new" notions can be traced to:
- greater familiarity with the old.
- workflow idealized for the old.
- unwilling to adapt workflow to newer gear.
- belief that "classic" is better than new.
- hope that the less expensive is actually better.
Both cameras are excellent and both can produce really fine results. With the exception of the higher MP count and better higher ISO performance, along with some functional differences such as dust reduction and live view, the differences in image quality produced by the two cameras are often trivial to invisible.
gdanmitchell wrote:
The "film-like quality" business baffles me. Back in the day when digital was a poor second in image quality terms, this might have been regarded as a positive thing. Today, while film and digital may be different in certain ways that may or may not matter in ones work, I would not want my digital camera to produce "film-like images" any more than I would want a film system to produce "digital-like images" - I just want it to produce the best image quality that it can.
In general, once someone starts claiming that something is better because of its "film-like qualities," "outstanding drawing" quality, "colors and contrast," or other magical qualities... my hyperbole meter usually turns pegs... ;-)
Not meaning to start yet another film versus digital ruckus but generally those currently in love with that "film like quality" are those who really never used film.
For those of us who actually did shoot film our memories are of crappy low light performance, dust spots, grain, dust spots, unreliable labs, dust spots, lost color conversion filters, dust spots, and finding room in our fridges to store the stuff.
As to 5D versus 5D2 color .. you can post process both files to look however you want, including exactly like one another .. so there is really not much to discuss there.
I think there was definitely a time in digital photography that the images looked unnatural - over or under sharpened, noisy...call it stale. So when we got a couple of generations in to digital technology and the images started looking really good (because we understood better how to process them, as well as because the technology itself improved), we started to get the 'film like' adjective as a positive.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
Not meaning to start yet another film versus digital ruckus but generally those currently in love with that "film like quality" are those who really never used film.
For those of us who actually did shoot film our memories are of crappy low light performance, dust spots, grain, dust spots, unreliable labs, dust spots, lost color conversion filters, dust spots, and finding room in our fridges to store the stuff.As to 5D versus 5D2 color .. you can post process both files to look however you want, including exactly like one another .. so there is really not much to discuss there....Show more →
Rather than including everyone into your view of film...maybe you should just say it is your recollection. I still shoot film, medium format and just got a 4x5, and quite enjoy the experience, and the results are stunning.
5dc has a larger pixel pitch than the 5d2. I think this is a reason why 5dc's file can take heavy PP without showing significant integrity degradation.
However I believe 95% of photowork, you will not see the difference b/t the two cameras.
But 21mp is so nice to crop with. hehehehehe....
