Some may argue that these two shouldn't even be compared. Different sensor sizes, very different size and weight, but I use both regularly so I was curious.
I've done similar comparisons in the past, but I tried to make this one as "fair" as possible, knowing that comparing cameras with different sensor sizes is always fraught with issues.
I used my Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 on both bodies, both at f/8 (I don't think diffraction should be that big of an issue at f/8 on the NEX).
I shot at 35mm on both (changing my position). I used MF for both and I took 3 shots with each, using the sharpest image. Shot RAW, converted in LR.
As consistent with other comparisons that I've done in the past the 5D retains better detail. Also, although this test doesn't show it, I still prefer the noise performance of the 5D over the 5N.
This is not a knock on the 5N - Its an amazing camera, especially given its size and its capabilities with MF glass. I think the differences are simply due to sensor size. I can't wait for a FF mirrorless to hit the market.
I hope you don't mind, but I tried playing around with just the white balance, saturation and tint on a segment of your two photos, to see how they compare.
The contrast on the 5n shot is maybe slightly lower, which is not surprising given the much higher demand placed on the lens by the high pixel density of the 5n. Overall I really don't see much difference.
What adapter did you use on the 5n for the EOS mount? If itīs the Fotodiox one with the iris, itīs said to degrade somewhat the image due to the iris being behind the lens elements...(for some optical law of physics I dontīt really understand...)
Hi Michael. Your comp shots are interesting. Did you try printing some crops to see what the difference would be for reasonable sized prints? It's hard to tell from the posted samples. The Sony image looks better than I thought it would.
I bought a NEX 5N late this summer. The 5D2 stayed home. The NEX forced me to get some nice alt-lenses and just since a week I've been doing some FF shooting again.
What has struck me is how good that 3+ year old camera is. Both in handling and IQ. Just the responsiveness when pressing a button, or checking focus through a couple of images just taken. Ie simple things too. Things that can - but not always - be a drag with the NEX 5N.
Dont get me wrong, I have been enjoying the 5N and its excellent sensor for many months now, and I have no intention to sell it. But it cant replace the 5D2, not only when it comes to what an FF sensor provides (DOF, IQ, high ISO), but also in efficiency in handling. For a while it looked like I only take on the 5D2 when it came to fast wideangle primes (a deep hole in the NEX system including alt-lenses as I see it), but after having shot for a week rediscovering the 5D2 I realize that its virtues are much more broad.
I'll be eagerly waiting for the next Canon brick and hope it comes with a tilt-screen.
I hope you don't mind, but I tried playing around with just the white balance, saturation and tint on a segment of your two photos, to see how they compare.
..
bpark42 wrote:
The contrast on the 5n shot is maybe slightly lower, which is not surprising given the much higher demand placed on the lens by the high pixel density of the 5n. Overall I really don't see much difference.
Thanks for sharing.
The 5N does really well, but if you look at the branches on the left the 5D simply resolves more detail.
mco_970 wrote:
Hi Michael. Your comp shots are interesting. Did you try printing some crops to see what the difference would be for reasonable sized prints? It's hard to tell from the posted samples. The Sony image looks better than I thought it would.
I suspect that only in large prints or with significant cropping would the differences be noticeable.
I had a chance to test shoot with my friend's SONY 5N and it was simply amazing. Very responsive and color out of the camera is generally very accurate. Except teh ting that I don't like to shoot mainly using the LCD screen, this little camera is very very capable.
And now I am seriously consider to buy myself a mirrorless for daily carry around.
wfrank wrote:
I bought a NEX 5N late this summer. The 5D2 stayed home. The NEX forced me to get some nice alt-lenses and just since a week I've been doing some FF shooting again.
What has struck me is how good that 3+ year old camera is. Both in handling and IQ. Just the responsiveness when pressing a button, or checking focus through a couple of images just taken. Ie simple things too. Things that can - but not always - be a drag with the NEX 5N.
Dont get me wrong, I have been enjoying the 5N and its excellent sensor for many months now, and I have no intention to sell it. But it cant replace the 5D2, not only when it comes to what an FF sensor provides (DOF, IQ, high ISO), but also in efficiency in handling. For a while it looked like I only take on the 5D2 when it came to fast wideangle primes (a deep hole in the NEX system including alt-lenses as I see it), but after having shot for a week rediscovering the 5D2 I realize that its virtues are much more broad.
I'll be eagerly waiting for the next Canon brick and hope it comes with a tilt-screen....Show more →
That's just it - its the full frame sensor. I sold my 5d2 a while back and was only shooting with my 550d until I got the NEX, which led me into shooting more with alternative glass, which led me to buying the 6 year old 5d.
....and the 6 year old 5d still beats my NEX, not only in terms of detail, but I'm still amazed at how much I can push shadows. I took this shot this afternoon with the 5d and CZJ 35 f/2.4.....
....back lit subject - I used fill light and the adjustment brush tool in LR as "fill light" to increase the exposure of my wife's face significantly and even when viewed 100% the noise is minuscule, whereas when I've done this with the 5N the noise increases much more quickly. The FF 5d images are simply more malleable.
The 5N is an amazing camera and the focus peaking is a revelation in manual focusing, but until there is a FF mirrorless I'm hanging onto my 5d.
Thanks for the comparisons. I agree that the edge in resolved detail goes to the 5D, but it's a small advantage IMO. I haven't done extensive noise comparison between the two cameras, but my gut feeling is that I prefer the noise handling below ISO 1600 on the 5D and at 1600, and 3200 on the 5N.
The 5N has one of the best modern APS-C sensors available in it, and the 6 year-old 5D is still relevant against it... or on the other side of the coin the 5N compares very well to one of the classic cameras of the digital age, the 5D. Either way you look at it I think both cameras are pretty remarkable.
The M9 is probably the best of both worlds.
I'm holding onto my 5D and 5N at least a further iteration of the 5N emerges with yet more tempting IQ and features, or better yet a new FF mirrorless.
Actually I would say that when it comes to the specific sport of lifting shadows, this is perhaps the area where the 5N sensor can excel over the 5D2. Sonys latest generation APS-C sensors (which e.g. are in the Nikon D7000 too) have a clear technical lead. Lifting a shadow 2-3 steps in a similar shot by 5D2 and 5N, the 5D2 would be more prone to produce super-ugly banding noise, something that the smaller 5N sensor scaresly reveal - if ever. Ugly noise yes, but even uglier sensor read-out banding no.
michael49 wrote:
The 5N does really well, but if you look at the branches on the left the 5D simply resolves more detail.
I think the differences remain fairly small, and my point was really that this comparison is likely displaying the limitations of the lens more so than any virtue of the aging 5d sensor (aside from its low pixel density.)
There are of course more variables than just the lens, such as the relative strengths of the AA filters and the processing workflow, but with a sufficiently capable lens I doubt there would be much difference at all in detail resolution.
The test was valid and certainly useful to you since it demonstrated that you can get more detail with that particular lens on the 5d. What does not follow is the generalized conclusion that the 5d is "better." I'm not picking on the 5d (or your tests), or defending the 5n for that matter. I am just trying to contribute to the discussion about the results and the conclusions that are being drawn for them.
Again, thank you for taking the time to post this. It is usually a fairly thankless task to do these kinds of tests.
For me, the ability to really use wide angles as they are supposed to be used - how easily you can find a 21mm than its equiv to crop - , a good OVF, and that amazing DoF control make the 2005 5D a winner for me.
I miss some things like ISO > 3200, movies, heck - even auto-cleaning sensor... but the NEX doesn't beat the 5Dc yet, for my taste/uses.
OTOH if I had to start a system (ONE system) now, it'd be NEX 5N, even it being ugly as it is.
YMMV, some people take OK pics from that meterless brick garbage called M3
wfrank wrote:
Actually I would say that when it comes to the specific sport of lifting shadows, this is perhaps the area where the 5N sensor can excel over the 5D2. Sonys latest generation APS-C sensors (which e.g. are in the Nikon D7000 too) have a clear technical lead. Lifting a shadow 2-3 steps in a similar shot by 5D2 and 5N, the 5D2 would be more prone to produce super-ugly banding noise, something that the smaller 5N sensor scaresly reveal - if ever. Ugly noise yes, but even uglier sensor read-out banding no.
Absoutely agree. I just got 5D2 and it's super high ISO low light IQ is really a shame in my opinon. In the shadow areas when shot at super high ISO( especially in 6400) in low light, horizontal noise brands are quite hard to avoid. I had a 7D and it did much better in this front.. basically never had horizontal branding in shadow area with 7D @ 6400.
And of course if you try to lift shadows in those super ISO shots taken by 5D2, you reveal more trouble banding noise which basically make the pictures unusable...
I am honestly disappointed with the low light Super Hi ISO performance with the 5D2. People said it has 1 stop advantage ahead of the 7D... well with the branding noise problem, I really think that claim might only hold up to ISO 3200.
Of course, on top of the IQ problem, the AF system on the 5D2 has a lot of room to catch up...
For now, I will use the 5D2 until the 5D3 is out and let's pray that the new sensor and the digc V chip will take care of the problem. Otherwise, I will seriously consider if I should jump ship to Nikon.
