I like the 5D files better as well when I used both side by side. Other than in resolution and high ISO performance, the 5D just has a more balanced looking file, with amazing sharpness and also very realistic and convincing colors.
I find 5D and 5DII files have different strengths and weaknesses, but are ultimately equal in IQ (save the diff in rez). So sometimes I prefer the 5D file over the 5DII and vice versa. The 5DII is a little more prone to show pattern artifacts when shadows are pushed but has a stop more of useful high ISO (3200). Like the 50D, the 5DII isn't as tolerant of underexposure as its predecessor.
However, I like the 5DII as a camera much more. It's a lot more nimble/responsive and has a truly useful LCD.
brainiac wrote:
If you read someone suggesting that 5D files are somehow a match for 5D2 files, be sure to find out what their comparison method is. Some people tend to look at files at 100% on screen. 100% comparison on screen grossly favours the 5D since it is far less enlarged. I am not suggesting Daan's opinion was formed that way, but other people's might have been.
The 5D2 provides significantly better images than the mk1, by a margin which would justify the cost of the upgrade alone. The additional features of the 5D2 make upgrading a sound move if you use a camera a lot and can afford it....Show more →
That's why I look at the 5D2 files at 61% when comparing to my old 5D files. I found the best solution to viewing 5D2 files at nearly full resolution was to get multiple 30" computer display screens.
Breitling65 wrote:
It is all because of mix gear owners are mostly negative here in posts, but I am at right place - Canon forum and Canon only owner and technically don't care about other brands.
Huh?
Even if this comment made sense to me (which it doesn't) I reread Daan's post and there wasn't a mention of any other brands. That came from you, not him. He simply answered the OP's question by comparing his experience with the 5D to the 5DMkII. You might not agree with his perception but to criticize him for a comment you made seems more than a bit odd.
orangefirefish wrote:
I like the 5D files better as well when I used both side by side. Other than in resolution and high ISO performance, the 5D just has a more balanced looking file, with amazing sharpness and also very realistic and convincing colors.
+1, I feel the same way on 5D1 files - it is much cleaner files at low iso.
Even if this comment made sense to me (which it doesn't) I reread Daan's post and there wasn't a mention of any other brands. That came from you, not him. He simply answered the OP's question by comparing his experience with the 5D to the 5DMkII. You might not agree with his perception but to criticize him for a comment you made seems more than a bit odd.
I don't think he needs your advocacy and your help, that was not something against of him but just some observations of other posts. So, wrong "huh" I guess? BTW I am OP
Daan's opinion was based on the fact - i don't see anything wrong about it to share his pov - it would be value for other who wants the best for his/her upgrade. i tend to agree with Daan's pov in portrait application.
Breitling65 wrote:
I don't think he needs your advocacy and your help, that was not something against of him but just some observations of other posts. So, wrong "huh" I guess? BTW I am OP
No, not the wrong "Huh". I still don't have the slightest idea what you mean by your comment "It is all because of mix gear owners are mostly negative here in posts, but I am at right place - Canon forum and Canon only owner and technically don't care about other brands." Reread it and I think you will see that it is poorly phrased, appears to make unsubstantiated assumptions and seems to draws an erroneous conclusion. Perhaps rewording it would clarify what you meant.
So far, so good with the 5DII, which I've only had for a short while. I was lured into buying it for the dust-reduction system, and it must be admitted, greed for more megapixels. The detail is there in case larger prints are wanted or crops need to be enlarged. So I agree with Dan. But, I also agree with Daan. I really appreciate the II but there is that quality, the atmospherics you got with those big-bucket pixels in the 5D One that may not be there now. Also, though the II is the tool for landscapes, the One is probably the better choice for portraits.
I think I may have been silly in selling my 5D now. I always found the IQ superb and in 2.5 years of ownership only had to use NR a handful of times, it was so clean. The only downsides of the 5D are the glacial 3fps and the crappy rear LCD, easily the worst of any Canon I've owned.
I was all set to just buy a 5D II, but now I'm not so sure. Yes there are plenty of advantages, but other than the hi res lcd, I'd much rather have a 1Ds III. However, not really looking to spend 2x as much on a 2 yo camera.
I'd love to see a 16-17MP 7D, with most 5D II features, except 6fps, no video, 50D/5D II hybrid AF, better VF (ala Sony a900), improved contrast detect AF for LV.
On 50D, all outer sensors are cross; no cross on the 5D outer sensors.
5D AI servo has 6 invisible assist points; 50D has none. Really both are quite different.
RobertLynn wrote:
I thought the 5D2 and 50D had the same AF?
Only in-so-far as they have the 9 visible AF points ina diamond pattern. The 50D has all 9 points as x-type to f/5.6, with centre point high precision at f/2.8 or faster. The 5D/5D II have in addition 6 invisible helper points around the centre point, that may be enabled in AI servo only. The only only x-type sensor is the centre point and it is also high precision at f/2.8 or faster.
The outer points on the 40D/50D are much better than on the 5D/5D II as they are all x-type.
Why Canon could not have used the 50D system on the 5D II is strange IMO.
BTW I am OP 
