rabbitmountain wrote:
Oddly enough this kind of threads usually eventually contains a number of great images of people trying to show what a great sensor the 5D has. While in fact it's just that these photographers created some stunning images. Images that just as well could have been taken with a 5DmkII or 5DmkIII or 1DsmkIII and no-one could ever tell the difference.
Stay good,
Ralph
That's the whole point.
jasonpatrick wrote:
It's a bit curious to me to see several people in this thread restating their opinions over and over again...The very fact that different people would lean different ways ...
Jefferson shared:
... Doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results… or said a different way... Opinions are like assholes... Everybody has one...
Of course, the logical extension of this notion (at least as applied here) would suggest that no discussion of any thing that has been discussed before in these forums should come up again, and that no one should ever post anything more than once given the obvious fact that no one ever misunderstands or misconstrues what anyone writes the first time. ;-)
Yes. Everyone has one. An opinion, I mean.
By the way, the context of the well-known Einstein quote was not even close to that of a photography discussion forum, the occasional "mad" participant notwithstanding. And proposing that Einstein's point is equivalent to the other old saying about opinions and anal anatomy "said in a different way" suggests that one might not understand either or both of them - by which I mean the two "sayings," not opinions and anal anatomy. Though, come to think of it... ;-)
dhphoto wrote:
Does yours make coffee and take the kids to school as well?
Mine doesn't, but if the mk2 or mk3 did i would find the money in a heartbeat...
I'm siding with you on the high ISO performance. Objective measures of this have been done numerous times, an example being here - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2010-08-03-5d2-7d-5d-d300/ . The 5D betters the 7D at ISO3200, but it doesn't give what i would call "amazing quality" output. And the mk2 is also clearly better by some distance.
I do use ISO 3200 on my 5D, and i'm happy with what i get because i know that my only alternative is to get nothing. But the images *are* noisy, do lack dynamic range and the colours lack saturation and tonality. By any absolute measure, compared to the 5D at 800 ISO or less the ISO 3200 quality *is* fairly crap. Compared to other cameras at ISO 3200 i would say it does pretty well though.
dhphoto wrote:
You are so blinkered about this it's weird.
Does yours make coffee and take the kids to school as well?
The samples you posted show nothing about the high ISO of the 5D
I would have made the same remark if I had been cunning enough to come up with it. ISO3200 on the 5D is not crap. If anyone finds this to be so then I suggest better exposure technique.
15Bit wrote:
Mine doesn't, but if the mk2 or mk3 did i would find the money in a heartbeat...
I'm siding with you on the high ISO performance. Objective measures of this have been done numerous times, an example being here - http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/comparisons/2010-08-03-5d2-7d-5d-d300/ . The 5D betters the 7D at ISO3200, but it doesn't give what i would call "amazing quality" output. And the mk2 is also clearly better by some distance.
I do use ISO 3200 on my 5D, and i'm happy with what i get because i know that my only alternative is to get nothing. But the images *are* noisy, do lack dynamic range and the colours lack saturation and tonality. By any absolute measure, compared to the 5D at 800 ISO or less the ISO 3200 quality *is* fairly crap. Compared to other cameras at ISO 3200 i would say it does pretty well though....Show more →
The 5D gets defended like no other camera.
The mirror falls out, somehow it's not the camera's fault. The camera gets superceded by a model that is better in every way, the 5D2 is 'rubbish', 'unusable', 'terrible banding' (that I have still never seen). The 5D can commit murder and get off scot-free, it is the OJ of the dslr world. It's failures just don't matter to it's loyal following
Enjoy the 5D for what it is, a fine, ageing picture taking machine, but I still think my newer cameras are better, much better
dhphoto wrote:
The 5D gets defended like no other camera.
The mirror falls out, somehow it's not the camera's fault. The camera gets superceded by a model that is better in every way, the 5D2 is 'rubbish', 'unusable', 'terrible banding' (that I have still never seen). The 5D can commit murder and get off scot-free, it is the OJ of the dslr world. It's failures just don't matter to it's loyal following
Enjoy the 5D for what it is, a fine, ageing picture taking machine, but I still think my newer cameras are better, much better
I rest my case...
It’s the same arguments over and over again with the same results that are pertinent to the discourse at the time, day, month… about which body, lens, style…which ends with the conclusion that Einstein came to… However, being that I’m drawn to adversity… I do enjoy it and I ain’t gonna leave… at least not of my own free will…
In cases such as this I usually explain how I evaluate image quality to see if it meets my requirements:
1. The largest print I shoot for is a 2-page spread in a 12" wedding album. So that's 24" wide and 12" high. If you shoot larger, then the following doesn't apply.
2. I never look at pixel level when evaluating IQ
3. I take the RAW image, process it through Lightroom and if noise is an issue (which it is at ISO3200 on a 5D) I use Topaz DeNoise (can be run from within LR) to clean it.
4. I export the image using standard sharpening and format to 24" widest edge @200ppi, which is impossible with the 5D even uncropped. I leave it at an impressive 182ppi or 160 when cropped.
5. I open up the exported image on my 30" LCD monitor, showing roughly actual print size
6. I examine the image at the normal viewing distance for a 12" photo album, i.e. not scrutinize
7. If I see noise that bothers me, the image is not acceptable. If it doesn't bother me or just a tiny bit, then the client will never have a second look
This is a practical evaluation that determines if an image (and thus a camera) meets my personal needs. It has nothing to do with 100% viewing, pixels or general talk like "this camera is better than that one because it's newer - the old one is crap".
My 5D meets my requirements provided I practise good exposure technique. It may not meets yours, you may have a more critical eye than mine. I never get any complaints.
Another issue is focusing in dark conditions. I may sell the 5D and 5DmkII next year for a pair of 5DmkIII. The main reason (let's say 70%) is AF. 20% is silent shutter and the rest is better high ISO performance. I would be fine if they put the 5D sensor in the mkIII body and charge 1000 less for it. Would get it in a heart beat.
Of course the new camera will be better than the older one. Users on forums like this will go to pixel peeping extremes to make their point. What usually gets lost in these "this camera is better than that cheaper older camera" debates is what was the OP originally asking?
The OP sounds like a good fellow, nice dad etc. Reading his posts and in between the lines it really sounds like he is looking for a solid full frame machine that will give him nice results, scenics, portraits of seniors etc. It also sounds like there is a real budget he needs to work with. If money was no option then of course he (or others in the same boat) would simply buy the latest 5D Mk III or series I or whatever and be done with it. If someone asked me "which Canon full frame camera delivers the best bang for the dollar in my non pro arena" then I would naturally point them to a 5D classic.
In the end buying digital cameras is about setting one's budget, expectations, usage, and comfort with serious dollar depreciation when owning the latest technology...
Jefferson wrote:
My 5Dc just went outside to fire up the grill just after bring me a cold one and laying some steaks out for later...
Is it set to cook the steaks RAW?
PhotoMaximum wrote:
Of course the new camera will be better than the older one. Users on forums like this will go to pixel peeping extremes to make their point. What usually gets lost in these "this camera is better than that cheaper older camera" debates is what was the OP originally asking?
The OP sounds like a good fellow, nice dad etc. Reading his posts and in between the lines it really sounds like he is looking for a solid full frame machine that will give him nice results, scenics, portraits of seniors etc. It also sounds like there is a real budget he needs to work with. If money was no option then of course he (or others in the same boat) would simply buy the latest 5D Mk III or series I or whatever and be done with it. If someone asked me "which Canon full frame camera delivers the best bang for the dollar in my non pro arena" then I would naturally point them to a 5D classic.
In the end buying digital cameras is about setting one's budget, expectations, usage, and comfort with serious dollar depreciation when owning the latest technology......Show more →
The reminder, often needed five or so pages later, to keep in might what the OP actually asked is almost always a good one. You might want to read him a bit more carefully, too. Here it is:
Matt Ward wrote:
Currently I shoot a 7D and a 20D, I have always wanted to go FF. The prices on the 5Dc's are really attractive at this time. I tend to buy good equipment and try for the best image possible. I shoot family stuff, kids sports, macro for my own benefit and some senior portraits for something that actually pays a little money. I do not have a studio, most of my work is available light as I really enjoy the challenge.
With the above being said, is the 5Dc able to compete with the 7D in available light or would I be better off to give up FF this summer and save for a 5DII? I am purely looking for opinions, I am sure that there are many good ones and many other folks who shoot like I do.
My gear list is in my profile, most would be used with the FF as well. I know, very open ended question but I am really concerned about low light, no flash situations.
Thanks Matt ...Show more →
He actually is contemplating two, and maybe three options:
1. He wonders if the cheap 5D will be much better for his work than the 7D he currently has, specifically for "available light" photography. "... is the 5Dc able to compete with the 7D in available light..."?
2. He proposes the option of waiting and saving up a bit more money for a 5D2 and asks about that.
I think he has three options worth considering and I think, from reading his post, that he is perhaps a bit up in the air about them:
1. He has a perfectly functional 7D that seems to work pretty well for what he is currently shooting ("... family stuff, kids sports, macro... and some senior portraits...") since he mentions no problems in that regard.
2. He wonders if a 5D would be better than the 7D for his current work or not.
3. If a 5D would be better, he they wonders if it would make sense to rush forward on a 5D or save up a bit and get a 5D2 later. ("... would I be better off to give up FF this summer and save for a 5DII?")
I tried to reply specifically to this context in the past page or so, so I will not rehash my points or my reasoning here (look back if you are interested) except to say that my inclination is to recommend continuing to shoot with the 7D for now and saving for a 5D2 rather than getting a 5D right now.
