Used 5D vs. 5D Mark II for new EOS user

[mark_pierlot]

I'm new to EOS, having shot with FD gear (F-1N, T90, most of the best glass) for the past several years. I have an

EOS-3, which I'm very happy with, but would like to pick up a DSLR. I'm not interested in a cropped frame body,

having always shot full frame. I have an opportunity to get a mint 5D with a vertical grip for CDN$1500; a 5D Mark II

(without grip) will cost me a least twice that, with tax. So my question is, how happy will I be with the IQ of the 5D,

given my experience with my F-1N, T90, and EOS-3? (I realize, of course, that none of you has my experience, but

some of you have comparable experience.)

[scott_ferris]

Hi Mark,

 

If you can work out a good digital work flow for yourself and look at it truly like a darkroom, but on a computer, then the images from a 5D will surpass your FD gear unless you only shot prime L glass, Velvia on a tripod with mirror lockup and a remote release. The 5D MkII adds some interesting features and improved IQ, especially at high ISO, the low light performance far out classes high speed films now. Only you can decide how much the newer camera is worth to you, I would pay $1,500 for self a cleaning sensor alone having spent too much time removing dust spots.

 

I still have my F-1N and 1VHS's and lots of Velvia.................

[sattler123]

Mark,

 

I am a 5D user and couldn't be happier with the camera. You will be thrilled! The image quality is outstanding and beats any film based 35mm system. I even compared my Mamiya 645 negatives scanned on a Nikon 9000ED with the glass carrier to the 5D output. I thought the 5D looked better and had more detail than the 645 negative. You can easily use ISO1600 on the 5D and still get excellent results - hardly any noise, esp. compared to high speed film. The dust removal function in the new 5DMKII is not enough reason to spend the money. The higher ISO capabilities, life view and HD movie mode might be interesting for some. Only you can decide if those are enough reasons for you to spend the extra money.

 

The Canon 5D is an outstanding camera - even today - you will love it!

[davidmccracken]

It is always best to buy the best you can afford. The 5D is excellent for the money... but I fear if

you buy it you will be wishing you had waited for the Mk II.

[scott_ferris]

Juergen,

 

For me it would be.

 

"The dust removal function in the new 5DMKII is not enough reason to spend the money".

 

That is one of the points I keep labouring in these threads, some features are worth an awful lot to some people and nothing to others. To save me the amount of time I have spend removing dust spots equates to well over $1,500, but I am not interested in Live View or a movie mode, indeed I don't want any "modes" other than Tv, Av, and M but even though I would never use P or a green square I wouldn't pay more to not have them if they are there anyway, but to some people they are very well worth having and a good reason to buy a particular model.

 

But we do agree that the 5D is an outstanding camera with potential for very good IQ and Mark need not worry about his move to digital from his manual focus film system which ever camera he decides to buy.

[dillan k]

I bought a 5D this summer, having owned an Elan 7 for a few years previous. I am very happy with the 5D, and I don't really feel like I will be missing $1500 worth of camera compared to the new MkII. For me, the difference is more like $1000, and I'm still pleased. The image quality of the 5D is excellent, and the controls feel very much like my Elan 7. I can only compare the images the 5D takes to the slides that I scanned, and I would say that the 5D produces higher quality images. I scanned my slides with a Minolta Scan Dual IV. I admit that I miss looking at slides on my light table, but the 5D's image quality is so good that I quickly push that aside. You're right to say that everyone's experience is different, but for me, the 5D was the right move and I have no regrets.

[len_kocurek]

I'm another happy 5D owner. But 5D v 5DMKII? Right now we mostly just have the specs on the new camera. No real life users have experience with it yet. If you can put off your purchase a little while and wait for some of the members here to actually get their hands on the MKII and report their experiences your decision might become a little easier.

[silvergull]

The MkII version of the 5D, I have read, has better body sealing and more robust construction. The 5D and the 10D - 50D

bodies as well as the 30d and 60d have bodies that are an extension of the Elan lineage. Your F-1N and T-90 are much more

solid cameras. Very different creatures.

 

If the MkII has a tougher construction you would most likely be more comfortable with the new camera. I expect to be. But,

whether that justifies the extra cost is your call.

 

Cheers, Jim

[mike_earussi1]

The Mk II would only be advantageous to you if you:

 

1. like to shoot in dim light

 

2. make big prints with lots of detail (21 vs 12 mp).

 

3. shoot in dusty or wet conditions

 

If you don't do any of these things then you probably won't notice much difference and should save your money.

[elliot1]

"how happy will I be with the IQ of the 5D?"

 

Extremely.

 

There are very few new cameras that match or beat the IQ of the 5D. It simply delivers outstanding detail and color. And has extremely accurate metering and autofocus. I doubt even the MKII will exceed the 5D's image quality up to ISO 1600.

 

The difference from 12+mp to 21mp is relatively small in terms of increased resolution. Unless you are printing posters, you likely will not see a difference and even then the difference will be minimal.

 

The one major drawback of the 5D is its monitor.

 

Sounds like you found a great deal. Think about the lens, lenses or accessories you can buy with the money you save on the body!

[eric merrill]

Mark:

 

I moved from a 1V-HS to the 5D over 2.5 years ago. The 5D is similar to the EOS 3, except without the

eye focus. I felt like I was taking a step down in terms of body construction, but I was willing to live with

that for getting a full frame digital. I wasn't willing to spend $8k on a 1Ds. :)

 

Just based on comparing the 3 to the 5D, I think you'll be happy.

 

That said, if it were myself, I would always be wondering how much better the 5D II is. If I were in your

position, I would wait for the 5D II. In essence, it will end up costing you the same.

 

How so, you ask? I'm going to assume a used 5D is going to be practically hard to give away in 3

years. Cost of ownership = $1500.

 

The D60 can be had today for $200. 6 years ago, it was $2000.

 

From what you've said, a 3 year old 5D has retained half of its price. It is worth $1500 now instead of

$3000. Assuming the 5D II's price will be similar, cost of ownership over 3 years will be $1500.

 

Granted, this is simplified because it doesn't take into account the interest you could earn over 3 years

with the extra $1500. So the 5D II would be a little more expensive to own for 3 years than the 5D. If

you can afford it, I would go with the 5D II. If you can't, the 5D will continue taking excellent pictures

even in another 3 years.

 

 

Eric

[mendel_leisk]

I'm a satisfied 5D owner. Still, in your shoes, I'd go for the new version, no contest: for the warranty, the inevitable

improvements small and big, the massive increase in resolution, bigger rear viewer, etc, etc.

 

FWIW, I think the "battery grips" are a waste of money: why *add* weight and complexity (things that can go wrong)

to a perfect package?

 

A couple of quibles I have with *both* versions:

 

1. The lack of built-in flash.

 

2. The too-close-to-center clustering of focus points.

 

If I can ramble a little:

 

Regarding the last point, up to now I've been a follower of focus-with-center-point-and-recompose technique, but I'm

just starting to get my head around what this can do due to the in-focus *plane". If your subject is destined to be in

the corner of the frame, but you temporarily rotate to have them centered, focus with the center point,and then rotate

once more to put them in the corner of the frame, you've put your carefully

focussed subject in front of the focus plane. With smaller apertures, more distance to

subject, and less rotation, it's not that bad, but still a factor.

 

With the 5D (I or II) the outermost focus points are only about half way between center of frame and edge, so you still

need to rotate a bit with a subject near the frame edge.

[diego_di_michele]

I am a 5D owner and in 35mm I still use A1 for film and on digital I have owned xt, xti, 20D, and have seen images from 30D, and 40D.

 

Now, 5D It's a camera that really shines among the others, it is so good in quality that I will not be selling it out as I did with A1. And maybe in a couple of years I'll be getting the mkii or even the next generation, and keep both. 5D will be my "cheap" camera, but since it can hold its own with IQ, I am not waiting for the mkii or other to fill me that gap. I would go for mkii for HD video, and the other features.

 

I must say that my prints are at most 16" x 24" with epson 3800 and 5D gets me there with superb quality.

 

Best regards,

diego.