Canon 5D: The REAL Beginning of the End?

[RayPA]

I've no clue how close Nikon is to a Full Frame Sensor, but that would be my preference too.

Like Ralph, I'm interested in the speed of shooting with a DSLR. I see that the 5D isn't targeting the sports photography market (?), that was a let down. I understand that it is fast (low shutter lag time, quick startup) but the fps is low(er). That was a bummer for me, because I shoot a lot of soccer matches, and kid's sports.

I'll shoot film for as long as it's available. I love film, my Leicas, my lenses, but as far as taking the step toward a really good prosumer DSLR, this is what I've been holding back for. I'm not rushing out to get one, but I'll be watching closely from here on out. My interested is more than piqued.


🙂

 

[kaiyen]

I have to admit that I'm not sure if I've just bought the hype, but I am just fine if Nikon sticks with its DX-sized sensors. I put a 12-24 on there and I have a nice, wide lens with remarkably low distortion and I'm pretty happy.

In my opinion, what I've been waiting for is the D200. And it's here. So everything from now on should meet my needs.

allan

 

[FrankS]

When I can no longer buy film for my cameras, then I will stop taking pictures. But that's just me.

(Oh, and welcome back, George! 🙂 )

 

[amateriat]

Plain and simple: Does the full-frame 35mm sensor make a difference? Is it a strong enough lure to pull you away from film. Please "discuss amongst yourself," out loud, of course.

Short and semi-sweet: these "advanced" full-frame sensors, for the moment at least, reside exclusively within SLRs. And SLRs, for about 95% of my work, are in my past, not my future, for a number of reasons, both practical and slightly esoteric.


- Barrett

 

[wintoid]

I came to film from the world of digital SLRs. I'm struggling to get some of the flavour of film into my digital shots. In the end, I'm resigned to using both.

 

[photogdave]

It took shooting a wedding on a 20D for me to realize that:
A) For that kind of work digital looks great.
B) Although I like the ultimate control over my images, shooting film and working with a good lab is faster and less of a headache.
C) A 17mm may "look" like a 28mm with the crop factor, it still distorts like a 17mm. You have to watch your framing!
If I did this kind of work on a regular basis I would get rid of my Nikon kit and get a 5D, no question!
BTW Leica R lenses on the 5D = sooo nice!

 

[jonasv]

why do you need fullframe other than the hype?

have you actually seen the output from a D2x, D200, 1D or S3? I would take any of those over a fullframe body, even for wide-angles - aps-c sensors are great, finally no more mad vignetting!

Sure they are great cameras but saying that no other DSLRs come close to matching the output of a 5D is laughable.

 

[Socke]

Plain and simple: Does the full-frame 35mm sensor make a difference? Is it a strong enough lure to pull you away from film. Please "discuss amongst yourself," out loud, of course. 🙂


🙂

I've used my film SLRs once in two years but use the "old" Canon d60 at least twice a week.

I'm seriously considering the 5D for next years carnaval in Salvador, Brazil. Not for the 12 MPixel which I don't need, but for the better viewfinder and the fact that a 24-70 is the only lens I'd need.

BUT, have you hold one in your hand? It' BIG !

So it will not drag me away from my Contax Gs at all.

 

[darkkavenger]

AFAIK I am satisfied with shooting film and I feel no particular lure for digital cameras. A colleague owns a 20D and I agree with him that it is a very nice camera per se, but I don't feel any interest in using a digital.

However, if photography would ever become something more than just a passion, I might reconsider my opinion.. but that will not drag me away from my film cameras 🙂

 

[hinius]

Yes, the full-frame makes a difference compared to smaller sensor cameras. You're dealing with several noticeably advantages:

- You can use small fast primes again at the correct focal length. This is such a wonderfully cool thing; there's nothing like going back to a small 35/2 or 28/1.8. You just can't do that with a Canon 20/30D or a Nikon D200.

- Depth of field. Depth of field is back to the way it should be. This means smoother transitions and a more film-like tonality compared to the reduced-sensor cameras. I didn't think this was a big deal when I first bought the camera, but boy it really is. The images definitely look different compared to my old 20D.

- Viewfinder. Compared to those pathetically pathetic viewfinders you find in say, the Nikon D70, Canon 350D or any of the Olympus cameras, you're back to using a big viewfinder. Sure, it's not a Zeiss Ikon, but it's definitely more than servicable.

- Noise. The camera has awesome control of noise; better anything that Nikon have at and over ISO 800. ISO 3200 is quite practical with a minimum of processing.

If you're going to be shooting at 17-24mm at f2.8/4, yes vignetting is going to be evident. But there are several tools that clean it up easily, if you find it a problem. I use PTLens.

Keep shooting film, by all means. As everyone has said, it's not an either/or proposition. I do appreciate the exposure flexibility and most importantly, the lack of time wasted developing, scanning and spotting my negatives, but I'm not giving up my film RFs. But mastering RAW development and Photoshop are going to be quite essential to get the best out of the 5D, so if that scares you, well, it's your loss really 🙂

 

[Azinko]

The 5D is not really for 'camera enthusiasts' it's really for people who are serious image makers who care about getting the best results they can but who can't really go as far as the 1Ds for reasons of cost.

Many very good photographers are changing to 5D from 'aps' DSLR's.....here are just 2...

www.cambridgeincolour.com

http://www.durhamtownship.com/portfolio/

 

[Sonnar Brian]

> BUT, have you hold one in your hand? It' BIG !

Ha. As my daughter says, "It's a teeny little camera". That is when you compare it with my Full-frame camera.

http://dslrexchange.com/forums/showthread.php?t=193

And I do like the full-frame aspect of it, grab it a lot more than the D1.

Between my three DSLR's, I've got almost 6Megapixels.

 

[rovnguy]

I like to work and play with all my toys. I shoot digital with a Canon G3 and 20D. I shoot film with A whole slew of vintage RF cameras, Olympus and Canon. I shoot half frame with Olympus, Canon and Yashica. I love the challenge my Minox B brings to the arena. Many times I scan the negatives and go digital from that point on. Then again I love to develop my own Tri-X and Pan-F and print in my makeshift darkroom. The only thing I don't care for is all the hype generated by the manufacturers and their goons.

 

[taffer]

I'm only going DSLR when Seagull finally puts in the market that manual focus MD mount DSLR they announced on April's 1st...

😀

Now seriously. A digital back for the F2, a fully mechanical one 😉

 

[JohnL]

I have a 5D for almost two months now. One of the lenses I use on it is the Sigma 12-24mm zoom. This is a rectilinear lens, not a fisheye. Granted it's biggish. There is a slight amount of vignetting. Not a significant problem. A small 12mm lens like the CV (the only other FF 35mm 12mm there is AFAIK) would probably not fare so well because of the low-angle incidence at the edges. The image quality of the 5D is at least as good as 645, very close to 6x7 IMHO. However, I'm sure a reasonaly sized 24mm could be made to perform decently on a FF digital sensor on a rangefinder body.

 

[Solinar]

The end of the beginning.....

The end of the beginning.....

IMHO, the Canon 5D represents the end of the beginning. However nice the camera is, the beast is larger than what I'm used to and not within the budget of this photohobbyist. Still, two thumbs up to Canon for bringing down the price of full-frame digital to a lower level.

One thing I'd like to add. The APS format isn't as bad as some claim. Realistically, it will provide wonderful 8x10 prints from an ISO 800 exposure and even an larger enlargement from a ISO 200 exposure. The cameras are more compact and there is less light fall off in the corners than when shooting at the wide angle end of a zoom due to the less than full frame APS sensor.

 

[Solinar]

A couple of minor quibbles with APS DSLR......

A couple of minor quibbles with APS DSLR......

I still shoot medium format film. One thing that I've noticed with the current crop of APS DSLR's is their field of view, (FOV), with a 35mm focal length lens is similar to the FOV I get with a 105mm lens on one my antediluvian 6x9 medium format cameras.

The depth of field for the 35mm focal length lens is pretty broad. That means, to me at least, that when shooting close in with a 35m focal length on a APS DSLR it is impossible to capture that vintage look 1930's look. The narrower depth of field of medium format for the same (FOV) reallly isolates the subject from the foreground and background in my opinion. The narrow DOF draws the viewer's attention to the intended subject. This is just a minor quibble I have with the APS format.

A second quibble I have a lot of the ink jet B&W prints I've been seeing from APS digital capture is they look like desaturated color prints. I don't know what is missing. Is it the grain? Exposure lattiitude? It's a different look is all I know.

Add the desaturatured color look to the DOF/FOV quibble and much of the recent ink jet B&W portraiture I've seen is lacking when compared to the old school of photography. It is still photography, but it is a different look.

Thanks for reading my boring early morning quibbles.

 

[JohnL]

Solinar,
Just a couple of observations ... I agree with nearly all that you say above.
The 5D is about the same size as most film SLRs. It's bigger, for example than the Rebel series, or the old Olympus OM series, but it's very little different from the 10D or 20D. It's a question of mm only. It's a lot smaller and lighter than the 1D series, unless you add a grip to it. The real bulk of modern AF SLRs is in the lenses. I could fit all four of my RF lenses inside my usual SLR walk-around lens with room to spare, in terms of volume alone! I could only get about 1-1/4 RF bodies inside the 5D!
I have made adequately saturated ink-jet prints from APS digitals. I think it's really just a question of camera settings (if you shoot JPGs) or post processing, if you shoot RAW.

 

[dazedgonebye]

A lot of the black and white you see from digital may actually BE desaturated color images. There is a lot more to making a good monochrome from digital than removing the color and many people are way behind the power curve on that one.

I still shoot medium format film. One thing that I've noticed with the current crop of APS DSLR's is their field of view, (FOV), with a 35mm focal length lens is similar to the FOV I get with a 105mm lens on one my antediluvian 6x9 medium format cameras.

The depth of field for the 35mm focal length lens is pretty broad. That means, to me at least, that when shooting close in with a 35m focal length on a APS DSLR it is impossible to capture that vintage look 1930's look. The narrower depth of field of medium format for the same (FOV) reallly isolates the subject from the foreground and background in my opinion. The narrow DOF draws the viewer's attention to the intended subject. This is just a minor quibble I have with the APS format.

A second quibble I have a lot of the ink jet B&W prints I've been seeing from APS digital capture is they look like desaturated color prints. I don't know what is missing. Is it the grain? Exposure lattiitude? It's a different look is all I know.

Add the desaturatured color look to the DOF/FOV quibble and much of the recent ink jet B&W portraiture I've seen is lacking when compared to the old school of photography. It is still photography, but it is a different look.

Thanks for reading my boring early morning quibbles.

 

[kbg32]

I was reading up on the Canon 5D late last night. The full-size 35mm sensor is here. As I read the reviews and the spec. sheets I began calculating in my head what I could sell to buy one (a late night flight of fancy).

Plain and simple: Does the full-frame 35mm sensor make a difference? Is it a strong enough lure to pull you away from film. Please "discuss amongst yourself," out loud, of course. 🙂


🙂

Ray,

In a word "yes". I've had the 5D for 5 months or so. It replaced my 20D which I really loved. I shoot a lot for stock and the 5D is one of the "approved" cameras for my agencies. The large sensor and megapixel count really do make a difference. If anyone tells you it doesn't, they are fooling themselves. This camera, like all, is only a tool to get what one needs. Nothing beats digital for low light work with no flash. Noise is virtually nonexistent, even at high ISOs, and what is there, Noise Ninja takes care of it. Yes, it is a big camera. It works, and it works just fine, thank you.

If you don't need it, don't get it. There is nothing to criticise. There are plenty of other fine dslrs out there, full frame chip or not.