Jump to content

Original Canon 5D an Upgrade from Canon t2i?


corey_wilson

Recommended Posts

<p>So I've been using my canon t2i for the past 3 or so years (bought it used) but I'm looking to upgrade to full frame and I was wondering if the Canon 5D is an upgrade in anyway over the t2i or if i should just save up and buy a newer 5D or a 6D. I understand that the 5D is five years older than the t2i but I've heard that the original 5D is usable up to 1600 ISO and I refuse to push my t2i past 800 because at 1600 its completely unusable for what I need. I shoot mostly low light indoor events, and portraits.</p>

<p>Thanks for the advice!</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I used a 5D for a long time before upgrading to a 5Dii.<br>

Drawbacks of the 5D</p>

<ol>

<li>a sensor that is somewhat of a dust magnet, and is a little difficult to clean, compared to newer cameras</li>

<li>the higher ISOs are definitely less capable than newer cameras. If you find the t2i unacceptable at 1600, I doubt if you'd be happier with the 5D(i).</li>

</ol>

<p>on the other hand</p>

<ol>

<li>It is "full-frame". I do not consider this an "upgrade," but rather a change in format. No matter what 35mm-sensor camera you buy, I'd strongly recommend keeping an APS-C as well. Each has its place in a "kit".</li>

<li>I personally found the high-ISO settings acceptable, but then I shot GAF 500 and Hi-Speed Ektachrome slide film for years, and even pushed them. Talk about golf ball sized grain!</li>

</ol>

<p>I do love my 5Dii, which has enough pixels and whistles to satisfy my shooting needs (landscape and architecture mostly). I shoot it with another adequate-for-me 50D APS-C camera for more reach with teles.<br>

I'm not really planning to upgrade, although there is an undeniable 'bling'/bragging advantage to more than 50MP. ;)</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 6D is king for budget low light in Canonland. The 6D's ISO 12800 is better than ISO 1600 on the 5D! And the center AF point will actually lock in near cave light. I'm guessing the 6D is near it's run and it will be heavily discounted. Or wait for a refurb sale at CanonDirect. I'm seen the 6D below $1000 several times this past year.</p>

Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see.

- Robert Hunter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I have a 5DII, and find that images I shoot at 3200 ISO are pretty clean, provided they're well exposed. However, Puppy Face is undoubtedly right that the 6D is even better at high ISO's. But, since I don't typically shoot in very low light, the 5DII is more than adequate for my needs. (I wouldn't bother with the original 5D, for the reasons that JDM has mentioned.)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree that for the money you can't do better than a 6D for low light. I'm not sure you can save very much money going for a 5DII. I sold my 5DII and got the 6D a couple of years ago and never regretted it. Your lens selections will be slightly different with the full frame and may run your budget up significantly. Your T2i may make a really good backup camera body if you do events where you need redundancy in your equipment. Save your money for the 6D and a few good full frame low light lenses. Good luck! </p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I purchased my 6D for low light photography. It is usable up to around ISO 10,000, although I have made images that look good on my 27" monitor off ISO 20,000 raws. I would not bother with the 5D, amazing camera for its time, still good in the hands of those adept at sensor cleaning, but not much chop for low light.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I used a 40D for years. It's a bit newer than the 5D but the interface is very similar.<br>

You get used to mediocre high ISO performance..<br>

I have a 6D, then got a (dirt-cheap) 5D Mk 1 as backup. Guess what.. all those years with the 40D mean I feel more comfortable with the 5D. Sure the 6D has amazing high ISO. But I've gotten so used to topping out at ISO 1600 (actually never going over ISO 1250) that the 5D does the job just as well.<br>

Besides that's what flash is for. If it's too dark for a fast prime and ISO 1250, it's too dark for interesting photos.<br>

One thing I really hate about the 6D is that if you leave the GPS on, it will flatten the battery. The 40D (and 5D) can be left powered on for months and they go to sleep and don't drain their battery.<br>

So 90% of the time when I pick up the 6D, the battery's dead. While the 5D is alive.<br /> But then.. I use mostly fast primes (and the 16-35/4L IS) so I don't really use high ISO that much.<br>

Also. I guess I'm a glutton for punishment. Has anyone seen the new Leica full frame that doesn't even have an LCD screen? talk about going minimalist. I'd buy one if I could afford it. The 35 Summilux is amazingly small and amazingly good (the 35/1.4 Canon I'm using is a huge misshapen lump by comparison)</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>If it's too dark for a fast prime and ISO 1250, it's too dark for interesting photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Haha, that was my motto when I shot film back in the day. I spend a lot of time shooting in theaters and, believe me, a flash or tripod will get you tossed very quickly. ISO12800 is amazing on the 6D and with a wee bit of NR looks great:<br>

<img src="http://www.fraryguitar.com/act_dance_music_images/Liliu_0462sign.jpg" alt="" /></p>

Sometimes the light’s all shining on me. Other times I can barely see.

- Robert Hunter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I've never used a 5D classic, but I currently use both a 5DIII and a 7D, and my main camera for years was a 50D. My own reaction is if low light is your thing, you will be happier if you buy a camera that handles low light better.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You get used to mediocre high ISO performance..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you will get used to it, but getting used to it doesn't mean getting comparably good images. You can't squeeze blood out of a stone. I find the 5DIII far better for low light than the other cameras I have used. From what I have read, it is not all that much different from the 5DII in this respect, and like Mark, if I am careful, I can usually get quite good images at 3200. I certainly could not do that with any of my other cameras. Everyone's priorities are different, but if I were in your shoes, I would forget about the 5D classic and buy something that handles low light better. If you don't need the bells and whistles of a 5DIII, the 6D would be a good choice, because it is much cheaper and handles low light even better.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I sold my 5D to get a 7D and immediately regretted it. So I bought a well used 5D to compliment the 7D and the two are just brilliant for me. Low light? Ah, then you will probably find the 5D needs very careful handling and a nice fast lens. Try one and you may fall in love with its other qualities. There is something about the images from these previous generation digital bodies that I really like. Some of my best photographs were taken with a 10D.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 5D sensor is very nice and you can do a lot with it. It does not compare to my 5D MKIII at low light and is now my backup (unused) camera right now :-( . Still, the moment I tried the full frame 5D compared to my 20D I loved it and ordered it the next day. Once you have lenses like the 24-70 2.8L and 70-200 2.8L you sorta have to go this route. Those lenses need full frame. The better AF and the higher ISO on the 5D3 really put it way ahead, but the 5DMK1 was still a great camera. Regarding updating the MK2 still has the same old AF system as the 5D1 and the 20D. The 5D3 was a quantum improvement. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I believe the 5D can still stack up to somewhat more modern reduced-frame bodies. End of the day, it's the cheapest entree into full frame. If you can live with the sluggish interface, mediocre LCD, mediocre high ISO (compared to a 6D/5D3) you will be happy. I am. (and I have a 6D)</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>May I suggest that you keep your t2i as it's always nice to have a crop and a full frame camera at your disposal. Concerning the purchase of a FF body, I have a 5D and a 6D. I agree that the 6D is the best bang for the buck camera you could buy. For low light photography, it's great. If you absolutely cannot afford a 6D, the prices are so low on the 5D, you could pick one up and give it a try.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I do not want to say anything against the 5D but while we are on the subject of low prices it is worth noting that the original 1Ds and many of the older 1D models (such as the Mark II) are also quite cheap to pick up these days. The 1D series are not quite full frame (they have a 1.3 crop factor) but are still a noticeable step up from the T2i. It depends on what you can find for sale and your personal preference.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The 5D (which I owned for several years) was and is a great tool for producing high quality imagery. I would say it's chief limitation was the ISO 3200 hard limit. IME, even at ISO3200, it produced usable good quality imagery, especially when combined with modern NR. At low-mid ISOs (unlike the 5D2,3, 6D etc), NR was simply not required as often there was no perceptible noise even in the RAWs @ 100%</p>

<p>Given that you can find 5D s for $400+, the comparison to a 6D or 5D2 is largely meaningless as a 6D/5D2 usually goes for $1000+. That said, both, while producing noisier RAWs at low to mid ISOs than the 5D, have enough of a MP advantage to be able to more effectively utilize NR - yielding JPEGs that are cleaner at high to ultra high ISOs. Of course the 6D's ability to focus on a black rock in a charcoal field while on the dark side of the moon may be a tangible advantage if you normally shoot in caves, or closed car trunks ;)</p>

<p>I can't honestly recommend the 1D s either. At all price points comparable to the 5d, the models available produce significantly inferior IQ output - even though the build and AF (and cost of accessories) is superior - and have a lower range of ISOs. </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...