Is anyone still using the 5D?

<p>It seems like everyone is using the Mark II now, but I'm still using the 5D as I don't find the video capability to be so useful to me. I don't have tons of money, and my 5D works perfectly for my professional purposes, so I've kept it.<br>

I'm curious, are there any other photographers out there still using the 5D. And if you're going to be using the body for only still photography, is the Mark II really <em>that </em>much better than the 5D?<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>I used a 5D along with 5D mark II until very recently. Apart from the increased resolution the 5D Mk II has a few advantages that may or may not matter to you - better AF with fast lenses, better AF in low light with all lenses, better high ISO performance (although this can be mitigated to some degree by noise reduction software), somewhat faster continuous shooting, time to review, card write etc.. If you're working in good light, at moderate apertures and without a big hurry (for example, in a studio setting), the original 5D should be more than enough.</p>

<p>The 5D was a great camera and I've kept mine to act as a second body/backup. However the fact of Live View on the 5Dii is a simply huge advantage for me. The extra pixels, which mean that I can reduce rather than increase the resolution to meet my stock agencies' file size demands and crop to square with only minimal up-rezzing are likewise huge for me. I was having problems making acceptable 50MB square 8 bit files from the 5D. The sensor cleaning facility is saving me simply hours of cloning a year vs the 5D. Finally the ability to use 1600 ISO with usable quality is important for me. I think that there's a big difference, but I have some very nice images made with the 5D. </p>

<p>The 5D is still a terrific camera. I would continue using it until the 5D Mark III?, or whatever the next generation will be called, comes out.</p>

<p>I still use my 5D. It's not as good as the 5D MkII, but since I own it, it's around $2300 cheaper!</p>

<p>The 5D MkII is better in almost every way. Higher resolution, better higher ISO performance, better AF, Live View, video, more bells and whistles etc. However if you don't need any of those features, then the original 5D is just fine.</p>

<p>My 5D still gives excellent images and still allows me to use unique full frame lenses like a circular fisheye plus it gives me shallower DOF when using fast primes. I also use it when writing reviews of full frame lenses to look at edge and corner image quality. However for most of my day-to-day shooting, I reach for my 7D.</p>

<p>I'm still using my 5D that I bought shortly before the 5D2 was announced. It's a great camera. I use a 30D as backup/second camera, they make a great pair because the button and menu layouts are almost totally identical.</p>

<p>I've been pondering a move to the 5D2. When I bought the 5D, I resolved to keep it at least three years - but I've now done that.</p>

<p>Still using my 5D. A fine camera.</p>

<p>From a pure still image capture device the 5D is very good. To the point that I really don't see the need for a 5d2. I started shooting with film, so I don't chimp all the time. In fact I have now switched off auto review feature. In terms of AF, there are no difference as they both use the same AF system. Some say the 5d2 is markedly better but have not seen any empirical differences.<br>

The features that both the 5d/5d2 lacks like great AF and remote flash commander is now being compensated by my 7D. Both are slow compared to the 7D. I feel that I have a good coverage for my type of photography. For portraits, the 5dc delivers. For fast movers, the 7D comes out. And with the 7D I get extra reach.<br>

The only real quality that I want from the 5d2 is its 21MP. I do alot of large album spreads and the 12.8MP is just adequate as long as I don't crop too much.<br>

I'll wait for the 5d3. But for now the 5dc satisfies.</p>

<p>From the point when DSLR first became available, the 5D was the one I was waiting for, I'm not in any hurry to change it. There are possible reasons for getting another, but they're not pressing.</p>

<p>Tina, I love my 5D original and I also find the pixel peeping image quality superior to my 7D. </p>

<p>My stock photo agency also likes my 5D, as the images from it are rarely rejected for noise. Images from my 7D are <em>often </em>rejected for noise. </p>

I still have a 5D. It serves my purposes and supports my L lenses. I use it a lot, actually. Maybe a 5D II when the successor comes out. It probably won't make my photography any better just a little more versatile. The 5D is a good, solid feeling camera.

<p>I still use a 5D as a second camera with my MarkII, and I even use my 30D from time to time. I do still remember the first photos from the MarkII I edited, and the resolution and IQ difference between the two cameras really is pretty stunning, but the original is still an incredibly capable camera. There are a couple minor interface things they changed between the two cameras, which makes using the 5D as a second camer a little annoying, namely the switch of the command dial controlling ISO on the 5D and drive on the MarkII, or vice versa.<br>

In the end it comes down to your needs-you say the 5D works for your needs, so I think that is your answer. There isn't any reason to rush out and buy the latest and greatest if what you have is working for you.</p>

<p>Still using a 5D professionally to shoot weddings. I'm not buying a 5DII. Waiting for the 5DIII.</p>

<p>I kept my 5D as a second/backup body. It was a fine camera when I got it and it is just as fine today. :-) </p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Yup. Not shooting a lot with anything, but that old beater 5D of mine's doing fine.</p>

You will find lots of professional photographers

still shoot with the Canon 5D. The Canon 5D is a classic. I have shot with both Canon 5D MKI and Canon 5DMKII they are both awesome full frame digital cameras. Sure the Canon 5D MKII has more resolution for larger prints such as magazines and film speed but IMO the original Canon 5D is more than enough for most assignments. A classic camera can last a lifetime.

I hope to outlive my 5D with a long margin but at the moment it's my main camera. I'll see what the MK-III brings but I'm in

no hurry to replace the camera. BTW it's brilliant marketing from the camera companies. Back in the old film days we

started taking pictures with a new camera not wondering too much about newer models since these would use the same

film and lenses, giving us the same quality of pictures. Nowadays everyone seems to worry whether a new model is

behind the horizon, even while unpacking the newly bought camera. Not wondering whether the features of the next

camera are really needed. I'd call that brilliant marketing from the side of the manufacturers.

<p>Mine does not have an accurate autofocus and that's my major complaint. Otherwise, I don't think anything can beat the IQ of the 5D (I don't print large) other than MF backs!</p>

<p>I went from a 40D to the original 5D, and have not looked back since. I love the 5D for so many reasons. I don't see a need to get a MK II, unless you really need the high ISO, and increase in mega pixels. I definitely do not need the video feature, although it may n=be nice to have for trips. Having said this, I will stick with my 5D until it dies!</p>

<p>I'm still using my 5D, on an almost daily basis, even though it's effectively been rebuilt twice.<br>

I plan to get a 5D Mk 2 in the new year, but my 5-year-old Mk 1 will continue in service.<br>

This week I had some work published that had been shot with the 5D, so I think it's still an excellent piece of kit.</p>

<p>Luckily, a camera does not seize to function the minute a new one is announced! :)</p>

 

I totally agree with Peter. Beside that the most top end dslr in nikon series is 12 mp.

Though mk2 has slot of gadget but if vedio is not an issue then 5 d is more than enough

<p>My 5D stays in the studio and my 30D stays on the motorcycle. Both still work great and do what I need.</p>

<p>ps.. They are both paid for..</p>

<p>I use my 5D1 and commercially. The 2 is certainly a "better" camera but not better enough for me in terms of AF. Yes, I miss liveview and the sensor cleaning of my 40D but the results of the 5D are different class for me. If/when a mk 3 appears, I'll be looking for better Af, LV and sensor cleaning. Video doesn't interest me as my Galaxy S2 is more than good enough for the odd occasion I'm interested. To be honest, my passion is still photography and I prefer tools for purpose. That's not to denigrate the Mk2 because, although I've not used one, I trust people here in what they've said. Instead, I've concentrated on building "surround" kit and, more importantly, technique.</p>

<p>I too still use two original 5Ds professionally. The only thing I wish it had was auto ISO with a range from 100-1600. This would be life-changing and a fantastic feature to have! Now if Canon could just provide a nice Firmware update! LOL! I wouldn't have to upgrade to anything else, not even the MkII. I lived by auto ISO when I shot a 50D as it was one less thing to think/tinker with while shooting a wedding, or whatever else. Other than this personal quirk, I love my original 5Ds. </p>