5d mk1 vs newer aps-c

[Palmer Segner]

I don't really keep up with newer digital cameras but I know that the og 5d is getting pretty old now. So my question is how much better is the image quality/dynamic range/ etc from a 5d compared to something like a t2i? (or is the t2i/whatever actually better now?) I don't care about ergonomics, video, or ridiculously high iso's. Just image quality, dynamic range, and color from low to mid range iso's.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I still use my 5D a lot. While it doesn't have the high-iso capability of the latest stuff (I also shoot a 1DMkIV and have the T2i), the image quality is outstanding. IMHO, within it's ISO capability, the 5D images are better than the T2i. The FF sensor just seems to have an advantage, despite its age.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I don't really keep up with newer digital cameras but I know that the og 5d is getting pretty old now. So my question is how much better is the image quality/dynamic range/ etc from a 5d compared to something like a t2i? (or is the t2i/whatever actually better now?) I don't care about ergonomics, video, or ridiculously high iso's. Just image quality, dynamic range, and color from low to mid range iso's.

The 5D remains a very good camera. It's high iso capability amazed us all a few years ago and it's only in comparison to what's current that it may lack. The image quality at 'normal for me' isos is excellent.

I had a 1Ds3 in parallel for a while and that gave better quality, but it was really about the way it drew (I thinkn it was the resolution more than anything). I had a bit of tension because I do care about ergonomics and the 1Ds3 was big and heavy, but the 5D felt quite slow in comparison. A lot to do with mirror black out. The 5D is quite leisurely, but that aside I'd recommend it wholeheartedly. It's particularly nice with a 1.4/50 hanging off the front.

Mike

 

[kuzano]

Biggest issue on buying a 5D

Biggest issue on buying a 5D

The good news is that if you are very careful (very particular and very anal) on the purchase of a 5D, you can buy a nice one, shoot it for three months and make back 90-95 % of your purchase price.

NICE 5D's have been stabilized at $900 to $1000 (body only) for actually a couple of years, and should hold there for some time.

Now the bad news.... Almost none of the sellers out there really know the shutter count. I bought a very nice 5D, plus the expanded battery grip, with all the boxes and original documentation, last summer, for $900. It had been used professionally by a journalist/newsman.

He told me the shutter had perhaps 35K to 40K actuations. He also told me the sensor needed cleaning. Since I was not prepared to take my first lesson on sensor cleaning on this camera, I sent it in to Canon, and they charged me $30 to clean the sensor. (A local camera repair tech wanted $90- -
outrageous).

Since I knew the canon cameras do not have an on board shutter actuation count feature, I asked Canon Service to report the shutter count to me. Normally, you must send your Canon to Canon and get a readout on shutter actuations. That routinely costs $40, which they did not charge because of the sensor cleaning.

It came back showing 84,000 shutter actuations!!!! Wow!!

So, it looks like most sellers are just throwing figures out there. I've seen a couple advertised where the sellers have the shutter count report from Canon. Also supposedly there is some software on the internet that can read the count, but I downloaded it and it DID NOT work for me.

Lastly, if I answered your original question as you posed it, I would say the 5D I bought made a real 5d believer out of me. I was very concerned about the shutter count as the camera is rated at 100,000 shutter actuations.

So, even though it performed flawlessly for the time I used it, I boxed it up and sold it for $50 less than I paid for it after using it for 3 months. (I fully reported the shutter count and provided the service document for the shutter clean and count) Had I paid rent to try out a camera, it would have cost more than that.

I plan to buy another 5D when I can actually find one that is closer to 30K-40K actuations, and as clean as the one I had.

So in the meantime, I am back to shooting my Fujifilm S5Pro with 284,000 shutter actuations... Fuji partnered with Nikon and used the Nikon D200 body on that one, and the Fuji sensor and digital guts.

So, I encourage you to try the 5D, before spending far more money for other options. There was a certain very nice IQ to it that I attribute to the Full Frame sensor and FF lens I used.

I'm just telling you... watch out for misrepresented OR unknown guesses at the shutter count, and be prepared to clean the sensor. There is no "shake" software for the sensor dust like some camera systems. I felt very good about sending it to Canon and it was only at Canon about a week.

Oh yes, and I did purchase a T2i kit and used it with the FF lens I had on the 5D. THE 5D KICKED THE T2I'S ASS!!!!

I lost $100 owning the T2i for three months. Again, cheaper than rent, but I'm a helluva salesman.

 

[gavinlg]

Well - I own a 5d mkI and an x100 - which is considered to have one of the best APS-C sensors at the moment.

The 5d is better in IQ overall. They're similar in high ISO performance - x100 maybe has a slight lead, but 5d has better colors, deeper tones, more '3d' like rendering. Put it down to the full frame sensor.

 

[lynnb]

I have a 5D and T2i (called a 550D here). I've had them since new and use both regularly.

Subjectively the IQ on my 5D is better than the T2i at ISOs up to about 1600, in my experience. This is based on looking at prints made with both cameras. Probably that's due to the 5D's larger pixel pitch. Also, 5D files are much more malleable in PP than T2i files - that's a good indicator the 5D has better DR.

The T2i is not as bad in comparison as I expected. I thought its S/N performance would have been poorer due to the smaller pixel pitch. But it's a newer generation than the 5D and Canon obviously improved the S/N performance on APS-C.

The T2i is the camera I go to for ISO 1600+. Files are much cleaner at higher ISO. I also reach for the T2i when I need to take advantage of the crop factor and higher pixel density to use telephoto lenses.

I haven't ever set out to objectively measure DR with both cameras and make a comparison. These are just observations from using them. The 5D's lowest ISO is 50 while the T2i's lowest is 100. My gut feeling is the 5D has better DR at low ISO and the T2i has better DR at higher ISOs, because at higher ISOs the 5D's increased noise kills DR in the shadows.

The T2i does have a slight resolution advantage that is noticeable when making large prints containing fine detail. I did say slight - you have to look carefully. But that apart, I'd rather print 5D files.

I've never used a 5DII, but I've read a few comments from people who've used both that the 5D produces a more "film-like" result.

 

[sojournerphoto]

I've never used a 5DII, but I've read a few comments from people who've used both that the 5D produces a more "film-like" result.

That's interesting, because I felt that the 1Ds3 produced a more 'film like' output! The very high resolution and slightly higher per pixel noise were what I thought was the reason, but I could be wrong.

However, 5D remains a great body. The poster above is right, watch the shutter count though and be aware that mirrors sometimes fall off - canon will fix this though. I sold mine with less than 20k actuations.

Mike

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

That's interesting, because I felt that the 1Ds3 produced a more 'film like' output! The very high resolution and slightly higher per pixel noise were what I thought was the reason, but I could be wrong.

However, 5D remains a great body. The poster above is right, watch the shutter count though and be aware that mirrors sometimes fall off - canon will fix this though. I sold mine with less than 20k actuations.

Mike

I just bought a 5D mkII and I'm falling in love with it. The detail and tonality are great. Color is very film-like. My black and white conversions are not quite the same, but not in a bad way. They're sharper and have no grain so they don't have the same look as a scanned BW neg, but I'm getting nice tonality.

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

Quite coincidentally, a very similar question was asked recently over at Photo Net. Although the knowledge base of the members here at RFF is second to none, it may be worth perusing the responses there if you have not already done so?
Regards,
Brett

 

[emraphoto]

The 5d produces beautiful files. ISO 800 produces awesome, textured b+w conversions.

I have a pair of Sony a850's right now (maybe 450-500 more on used market) and the files out of those things are something you have to see to believe! Over the Internet is useless but one a2 print later and you will be astounded.

My main set is an a850 body with a super takumar 35 f2 and m42 mount adapter. The 850 has a manual focus screen installed with af confirm. Makes me squeal with delight when I use it.

All under $2,000.

 

[MCTuomey]

If you can stretch to the 5D II, depending on what you shoot and how large you print, you may find it beneficial to do so. More resolution, live view, tidier sensor, better LCD. But if not, like others have said, the 5D is worth the trip. Either camera takes alternative glass very well, although you can great results with relatively inexpensive Canon EF (non-L) autofocus lenses. The files are superb and take all kinds of processing very well, especially (for me) in Lightroom.

 

[rbelyell]

Well - I own a 5d mkI and an x100 - which is considered to have one of the best APS-C sensors at the moment.

The 5d is better in IQ overall. They're similar in high ISO performance - x100 maybe has a slight lead, but 5d has better colors, deeper tones, more '3d' like rendering. Put it down to the full frame sensor.

gavin that is so interesting to me, because i feel the opposite. i used a 5d for years with zeiss planar T's 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, among many other lenses. at iso up to 400 i agree with you, 5d/zeiss IQ is great and better than my recently acquired x100. by 800 i think things start to even out, its hard to pick a winner. at 16-3200, imo, the x100 kinda blows 5d/zeiss away. also, besides performance at 3200, the thing about the x100 that really bowled me over is the 3d look i get at almost any iso.

i had fully expected to feel as you did before i saw my first x100 file. just goes to show how subjective these issues really are...
tony

 

[segedi]

While having the shutter count wildly misrepresented by a seller is now treat, in my experience Canon drastically underrates the shutter life on their cameras. I had a 10D that was rated for only 50,000 and I put nearly 400,000 clicks on it without issue.

 

[gavinlg]

gavin that is so interesting to me, because i feel the opposite. i used a 5d for years with zeiss planar T's 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, among many other lenses. at iso up to 400 i agree with you, 5d/zeiss IQ is great and better than my recently acquired x100. by 800 i think things start to even out, its hard to pick a winner. at 16-3200, imo, the x100 kinda blows 5d/zeiss away. also, besides performance at 3200, the thing about the x100 that really bowled me over is the 3d look i get at almost any iso.

i had fully expected to feel as you did before i saw my first x100 file. just goes to show how subjective these issues really are...
tony

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...

 

[sojournerphoto]

And just to finish the day, I've just been offered a very nice, low lieage 1Ds3 if I want to get back into slrs...

Decisions.

 

[TennesseJones]

Interesting...

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

 

[scottyb70]

I had a 5D then I bought a 5dmarkII. I personally didn t like the 5dmark Ii, sold it and repurchased the 5d again. To me the images on the 5d look more realistic to me. The mark ii images look like a computer game.

 

[sojournerphoto]

Has anyone compared 5D2 and 1Ds3 images? I've seen a couple of suggestions that their not the same, but don't really know why that would be, given you'd expect the sensors to be at least related

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I had a 5D then I bought a 5dmarkII. I personally didn t like the 5dmark Ii, sold it and repurchased the 5d again. To me the images on the 5d look more realistic to me. The mark ii images look like a computer game.

A computer game?? If the images from any digital camera don't look realistic, its because you didn't process them right. Shoot raw, not JPG, that will help a lot. I think the JPEGs most cameras give look over sharpened, over noise-reduced. That might be why you think the 5DII images looked that way (I'm assuming the default JPG settings on the mark II are different than on the original).

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Has anyone compared 5D2 and 1Ds3 images? I've seen a couple of suggestions that their not the same, but don't really know why that would be, given you'd expect the sensors to be at least related

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)