Biggest downfall is terrible focusing, even center point I feel is lacking. Some say center point is great, I find it not to be that good. My 40d at center point is much better and outer points blow it out of the water.
Also lack of sensor cleaning is an issue, as I have to clean it often to avoid dust spots.
That said, IQ is EXCELLENT, high ISO performance is good, it makes excellent files.
troy12n wrote:
Biggest downfall is terrible focusing, even center point I feel is lacking. Some say center point is great, I find it not to be that good. My 40d at center point is much better and outer points blow it out of the water.
Also lack of sensor cleaning is an issue, as I have to clean it often to avoid dust spots.
That said, IQ is EXCELLENT, high ISO performance is good, it makes excellent files.
My experience regarding the AF system isn't that it is bad, exactly. In fact I've had great success shooting subjects including BIF, aircraft, and professional bicycle racing with both the 5D and the 5D2. The real issue, I think, is that this camera isn't optimized for super fast focus tracking and so forth, so if your photography is particularly demanding in those ways there are cameras that might be more appropriate for you.
I'm with you on the advantages of the sensor cleaning system in the 5D2 - it is a big improvement. And my experience with the 5D was that sensor dust was a pretty big issue. I came to terms with it, learned how to clean the darn thing every 3-4 weeks, and managed to make photographs with the camera... but the 5D2 is better by far in this regard.
In its era the 5D was a really wonderful camera for certain types of photography, and it still can perform beautifully.
Again, my bottom line is that a person who needs a full frame camera who cannot afford a 5D2 can do a really fine job with the 5D, but if one can afford the 5D2 they will find that the updated features are almost certainly worth the extra cost.
Beni -- the areas where LV shines is particularly with manual focusing, most especially with Alt lenses like Zeiss, Leica, Nikon, etc. Any time the visual lighting dims with night or dark filters, it is also a very welcome feature. Also, LV use with TS lenses is practically a requirement for 100% success.
That said, my "serious" cameras don't have LV. Not that I'm shunning it, just that I'm using older bodies such as 1Ds2 with its tiny screen and not even decent playback to check final focus. That equals a lot of praying, but it generally works out. The 60D is my latest technology "toy" and not only features LV, but also tilting screen -- plus video! Once a person gets used to these features, the other equipment seems like it is from the Flintstones Era.
Back in the day, whenever I'd shoot 4x5 or medium format, I'd always proof with Polaroid, which even though it was poor quality imaging, saved my bacon more than once and helped hone in on precision focus and composition. I know I wasn't the only one proofing assignments! LV is just a better, cheape,r proofing service, and it's foolish not to use it if you have your camera on a tripod.
garyvot wrote:
Your 5D is probably busted. Have you had Canon check it?
Yes, twice. The whole "unit is functioning within specifications".
Point blank I have not been able to get lock on targets in the exact same conditions that my 40d will lock on... maybe I have a dud, maybe not. But for the most part, it's IQ is why I keep it. If I did a lot of low light stuff, it would not leave my bag.
You might aswell buy m4/3 camera and save weight and money.
Jeez.. APS-C for landscapes is good "only if you are really short of money". Bigger sensor = better for landscapes. Or film..
Only downside of 5D for landscapes is, that its dustmagnet even if you dont change lens too much (and ofc at f16 it is visible..). Otherwise near perfect cheap landscape camera. I dont think AF is too important for landscapes, good lens with distance markings and DOF scale is usually enough (and theres plenty of alternative solutions to have focus really accurate even without LV).
Nice photos Tim, I would say that Canon 5D had really nice colors. And.. DxOmark says that color response of original 5D was better than 5DMK2 (tho, one bit of color information less). Quite close to 1Ds series (1DsMK2 and MK3 colors).
Thanks, funny you should mention DxOMark....all these were processed through DxO. Always thought the color was nice, just yearning for a little more dynamic range with waterfall shots, but I can get by.
