5d mk1 vs newer aps-c

[rbelyell]

Yeah see there's a bit of a caveat with my point of view - I shoot raw with the x100 most of the time, and in RAW processed with LR4 the x100 is actually about the same as the 5d in terms of noise performance. JPEG files are better, but you lose control over color and contrast in comparison to the raw. The latter is more important to me...

yeah, thats what 'they' say, but i really dont see that loss of control from raw to jpeg. maybe my purposes are simply not as demanding as some others; i'm not a 'pro' or even close. the only difference in control i see that vaults raw over jpeg in x100 is white balance. in provia, i find, again for my mundane purposes, the most realistic color ive ever seen, so i never found any need to change it. but i have, minimally, changed contrast on jpegs to my satisfaction, without degrading image in any particularly noticeable way. i use raw only in low/weird lighting for possible WB correction later on, but even there ive changed WB on jpegs with fine result.

 

[PatrickONeill]

last year my 20D died on me and I was left with the 5D vs. APS-C camera. it was either a 5D mkI or a 60D

I went with the 5D and never looked back. it works well for me, I don't shoot high action sports or need to print bigger than A2. the shutter lag is a bit pronounced, and slower FPS compared to even my 20D. However; in daily use, I don't notice its "slugish" quirks.

 

[al1966]

I must be odd I had a 5d did one project with it and sold it with all the lenses, I got a good offer on the body and made a profit. It just did not thrill me like the old Fuji S3 I stupidly sold. Any how I replaced the kit with a Nikon d5000 with 35mm and 18-135mm and used the spare to get a couple of film cameras and a short break. Maybe I did not have such a good copy or something but I am quite happy to use a D90 (the D5000 was pinched) for my digital uses. If you have good Nikon lenses buy a Nikon, same with Pentax or Minolta/Sony, of course if you have good Canon Glass then compare one to whatever the equivalent Aps price wise is.

 

[Lilserenity]

Just started using a D90. Having come from pulling every trick out of the bag to get usable ISO 800 colour on film even, the D90's low light performance is fantastic.

Yes pixel peepers there's noise at ISO 3200, but would it show in a moderate sized print like 8x10", it certainly wouldn't distract me.

I think APS sized sensors have come in the past 2-3 years, the D7000 is better still but you're then talking more money than a 5D.

But I wouldn't dismiss what modern APS-C (Canon 60D/7D, Nikon D90/D5100) can do!

ISO 1000, if there's noise, it doesn't bother me. (Admittedly this is a crop but even so.)


Click to make a bit bigger

Not bad. Still got a massive learning curve though, although Lightroom has always been a great help to me whether it's film scans or now digital (I'm still shooting film, but probably as time goes by, mostly black and white film with the odd Fuji Superia/Kodak Ektar burst.)

That said, the 5D is a cracking camera, I have a friend who has used one more or less from when it was launched in 2005/6 (?) and the stuff he cranks out...I can see why he doesn't give two hoots about the latest and greatest whilst his 5D soldiers on!

Vicky

 

[sojournerphoto]

http://www.dpreview.com has a direct comparison between them, with photos, in their review of the 5D mk II. The 5D II files looked to have SLIGHTLY more resolution. Not enough to see in normal work (it was visible at 100% magnification on screen only)

Thanks Chris, academic interest only, but interesting to read.

Mike

 

[sojournerphoto]

Interesting...

Does anyone use a 5d with Nikon ai lenses and adaptor?

I used a Zeiss Nikon mount 2/35 Distagon on my Canons and it was fine. Biggest issue is manual stop down - ok on a tripod, but a pain handheld at anything smaller than about f5.6.

I also use a Zeiss Contax 2.8/28 in the same way.

These are 1Ds3 handheld at iso3200 with the Zeiss manual focus

and these are on a tripod at lower iso

Mike