Jump to content

5D or 5D Mark II?


tina g.

Recommended Posts

I have a 20D and I really need to upgrade. I'm trying to decide between the 5D or 5D Mark II, but money is an issue.

 

The 5D Mark II looks great, especially with its ability to shoot video, but it's also much more expensive than the 5D. For those of you who

have bought the 5D Mark II do you think it's significantly better than the 5D? Is there a noticeable difference in your images? How's the

video and do you use it much?

 

Thanks in advance!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Tina, there's no question that the Mark II is better than the original 5D at high ISO's, and delivers a more image detail, but the latter is still a fabulous camera. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between images shot with these two bodies in normal light levels, especially if the images aren't massively enlarged.</p>

<p>So if cost is an issue, go with the original 5D. You won't be disappointed.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I slaved over this question for some time, waiting for a possible drop on the original 5D. I finally concluded that I didn't have a lot of interest in processing video, didn't need 24MB image files, and while the 5DMkII is obviously an astoundingly great camera, so is the 5D, and at a much better price in comparison. I'm very pleased with the 5D.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think all the above comments run along the same thread. I also debated the decision when the 5DII started to seem to slow in coming. I had made up my mind to get a mint condition used 5D, but once I saw the spec sheet on the MarkII, I decided I would 'future-proof' myself better by investing in that. I have also been doing a lot more commercial photography, printing at up to 20x30, so I could use a higher res than my Xti currently offers. I also like no-flash work when shooting weddings, so good high ISO performance is a major plus for me. Weather-sealing is another advantage as I sometimes have to shoot in inclement conditions.

<p>In conclusion, I'm saving up for a 5DII as I don't plan to buy another full-frame dSLR for many years hence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I wouldn't say there is significantly better color saturation, but definitely more image detail, especially if you want to make large prints. With old 5D at 240dpi you would get about a 12x18 print, with 5DII at 240dpi you get about 16x24 print. So if you want to make larger prints then 5DII will make a difference, but on smaller prints probably wouldn't notice much difference. But another thing is besides the video, the 5DII is much more in terms of features than 5D. Larger 3" high resolution LCD, menu is better, AF micro adjustment, dedicated AF button, 3 programmable sets of functions instead on 1, Live view, little better AF with 6 assist points in center. Only thing about old 5D I didn't like was it was basically a 30D camera with FF 12.8 sensor. But you have to decide if it is worth extra money, I just got my 5DII and it is my dream camera, which I won't need to upgrade for some time now. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>>> little better AF with 6 assist points in center.<br>

5D also has the same center assist points. </p>

<p>Also there are conflicting reports on overall AF performance of Mark II. Some say it is better than Mark I, others say it is worse.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I can't comment on the MarkI AF but the 5DII worked fine capturing ski racing with a 300F2.8 and 1.4x. It is not quite as good as a 1 series camera but I was surprised how well it did. 3.9fps is slow but still quite workable (remember the New F1 was only 5fps). After all of the negative messages on the 5DII AF I have been very impressed with it - it's only failing is very low light and even here it is pretty good. Ski racing is a difficult sport to shoot as the targt is generally moving at 85Kph+ and there are lots of static high contrast targets (Gates) to confuse the AF. Since the 5DII does this well I am not sure what all the fuss is about. A few more sensors at the edge of the frame might be nice but whn I need these I usually have time to focus and then compose. It may be that I have a good copy or (more likely) that the issues materialize using slow lenses without USM. Since all my lenses are USM and F2.8 or faster I have no way to test. Rather off the topic but if you do not need high ISO and video and can live with the smaller sensor and lack of cleaning then get the 5D.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The fuss is about it not being better than 5D mark I. 5D AF is also very good, specially for tracking (due to assist points).</p>

<p>However it (i.e. both new and old) fails to perform well in low-light and in low-contrast. Since there are a lot of people who shoot weddings and events with this camera, the low light AF becomes a big issue (compared to say D700 or A900).</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here is my 2 cents that we should go for 5D Mark II. At the old day, a good mechanic camera body can last for ever. But the D-SLR camera world simply echoes the PC computer trend. The latest and greatest model (and the electronic chipsets) makes the older version outdated quickly. I started my interest in D-SLR camera about a year ago. With the film camera experience at the past, decided to opt for a full frame body. While 1Ds’s cost was far more expensive than I can afford, the only choice was 5D at that time. The 5D was released more than a year by that time and when I looked at the specification of the 5D (e.g. during that time, even a Canon’s point and shot camera uses DIGIC III technology while 5D is still in DIGIC II ), I decided to wait and until now and I just got a 5D Mark II!</p>

<p>Look at those features:<br />- DIGIC 4 Image Processor<br />- 21.1 Mega Pixels<br />- 14-bit A/D conversion<br />- Wide range ISO setting<br />- Live view LCD monitor<br />- UDMA-compatible CF Card<br />(HD video in a heavy camera - D-SLR+lens seems not practical to me yet)</p>

<p>They may not be important to you now but 6 months down the road, you will regret not to have them and at that time it will be difficult to trade your 5D at good price.</p>

<p>Nowaday, D-SLR camera is really a commodity product. Lucky, good Lenses still can last for longer period.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have a 40D, and have been fostering the same debate ever since I found out about the MKII. Spend extra for the MKII's slick features, or pick up the MKI at a discount?</p>

<p>Although I am a debater, I am also a Craigslist troll, and I came across a sweet deal on a 5D (which I decided to jump on). My experience has been instantly enlightening, and I wish I had just bought a used 5D sooner, just for the pleasure of owning one.</p>

<p>As a previous poster stated, just get the 5D--You won't be disappointed. It's still a huge step up from your 20D, it's full frame, and it <em>will</em> have <em>some</em> resale value for another 6 months, at least. If you can work out the money thing between now and then, sell the 5D for whatever you can when you're ready and put it towards the MKII.</p>

<p>-Paul B. Davis</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>dxmark.com? The stats?</p>

<p>"dxmark.com" doesn't seem to exist, and "the stats" say... what? Higher res? Wider ISO range? Makes HD quality movies? Better batteries? Far, far, far better LCD screen? 98% viewfinder coverage? Live view?</p>

<p>Seriously man... At least make an effort.</p>

<p>-Paul B. Davis</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...