Is the 5D Technologically Outdated ?

[photog630]

<p>Jon Tonai;<br>

Yep, you're right, it was actually in the Spring of 2006 that I bought my 5D. I had to get into digital photography because I was being asked to shoot digital for freelance jobs, and as a graphic designer, I wanted the extra photography work on the side. After that, I also used my 5D to facilitate landing a new full-time job at a commercial photography studio-- for shooting offsite work like portraits, the images from the 5D were much better than thoses from our Nikon D200, and I was much more comfortable shooting with the Canon due to layout/menus, ergonomics, etc.</p>

[john tonai]

<p>Dan,<br>

The funny thing (especially in a thread of this nature) was that despite our fears of the 5D being outdated so soon, it took almost 3 years for Canon to come out with the current version and that it was evolutionary than revolutionary.</p>

[seragram]

<p>It is old tech but it is a very good old tech. If you are a photographer or artist that care about your end results there is no reason 5D should not work for you. If your hardware is more important then get a new camera every year or two. Canon need all the help they can get in this tough economic times.<br>

I got an used 5D last year too. And am very happy with it will use it till it dies. By the way its 12 MB files fit into my work flow very nicely. I do not think I would like to wrestle with bigger files. Too time consuming.<br>

Sergio</p><div></div>

[bieg]

<p>I own both the 5DMk1 and the 5DMk2. Images from both cameras are stunning. Where the Mk2 excels is low noise high ISO shots. For "run and gun" shots you can leave the ISO set to Auto and just shoot. I am STUNNED by how good the and clean it can shoot at 3200. For people who still swear by film I would like to see the grain on their images that they have pushed to high ISOs. Either of these cameras will have less noise/grain than film at high ISOs IMHO but the Mk2 takes it to another level. <br>

Here is an example of the Mk1 and Mk2 in action. The exterior flight shots were taken with the Mk1 all the rest were taken with the Mk2 (many at 3200) set to Auto ISO. No flash was used anywhere.<br>

http://gallery.me.com/stevenbiegler#100088&view=grid&bgcolor=black&sel=98</p>

<p>The quality of both bodies are excellent the Mk2 just gives you more options to get shots you would not try with the Mk1.</p>

[zafar1]

<p>I know I will be chastised for saying this, but Mk II actually displays a little noise at low ISO in flat tone areas which gets easily amplified in PP steps (e.g. increasing exposure, saturation, etc..). In its defense though, the downsized images from Mk II (i.e. downsized to the same size as Mk I) appear a little sharper and noise can be controlled by careful exposure (expose to the right).</p>

<p>I personally tried mk II for two weeks and didn't find a need to abandon 5D. I can be as careless with exposure on 5D and still get the cleanest images with more DR. I know that DXO says otherwise, but I did not see more DR in Mk II.</p>

<p>Mk II is a little snappier, and has a much better LCD, but I will wait for a model which has movable LCD screen so I can take full advantage of live view.</p>

[peter_j2]

<p><strong>Zafar: </strong>I have 3 5D's. One is not as sharp and clean as the other two. So, not all 5D's will be equal in IQ.</p>

[daniel flather]

<p>Sell me your 5D for $600; use that to fund your new camera purchase, problem solved.</p>

[jon_kobeck1]

<p>"For people who still swear by film I would like to see the grain on their images that they have pushed to high ISOs."<br>

Steven, I use film for my Black and White work now. Digital capture just does not even come close to real film, not yet anyway. B&W T MAx in my old $120.00 Olympus XA will blow away the 5D, its sad but true. I tried digital with B&W conversion in photoshop, its just not the same.<br>

But for color, well, thats a whole different ball of wax. </p>

[bieg]

<p>Jon,</p>

<p>Show me a 3200 ISO T Max Image.</p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>My recommendation - Keep the camera for at least 3 years.</p>

<p>The 5D Mark II is out, has some nice features, increased resolution, etc. But it has the same issues with focus speed as the original 5D. The 5D is a GREAT camera. Can you live without the new bells and whistles on the 5D Mark II - very likely.</p>

<p>At the end of 3 years, THEN go out and check what the latest batch of cameras have in the ways of features / functions. Then make your decision.</p>

<p>Myself, I bought one of the first 5D's, have had it for about 3 years. I loved it, recently I purchased a Z3200 24" printer and decided to get the Mark II simply for the higher resolution for 24x36" prints. If I hadn't gotten the printer, I likely would have kept the 5D.</p>

<p>One last thought. If you do decide to sell the 5D today, I've seen them on Ebay for about 1000 used. However, if you wait for 3 years, who knows what you'll get for it.</p>

[seragram]

<p><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=857315">Tudor ApMadoc</a> you say<br>

One last thought. If you do decide to sell the 5D today, I've seen them on Ebay for about 1000 used. However, if you wait for 3 years, who knows what you'll get for it.<br>

In three years MKII will cust less too.<br>

Hey 5D is 5 year old tech and competition still can't beat it at that price range. Enough said.</p>

[philippartridge]

<p>The street price gives you some idea; these still go for good money. The 5D was a landmark camera, perhaps the DSLR with the most relevance 3 years after release...and the one that gave Nikon marketing serious heartburn. Many serious folks loved the IQ from the big pixels and even attribute a special look to it. If you do not print large, and/or shoot mostly humans/dogs/flowers etc., it still delivers in spades, IMO. And it is well complemented by Canon's lens range, much better than that of Nikon.<br>

If you want to spice up your life, get some adaptors and try out some alternative lenses from Contax/Yashica (Zeiss!), Leica, Olympus, Pentax, Nikon, Voigtlander, etc.<br>

The high Mp cameras will become de rigeur quite quickly, but you need excellent technique to realise the resolution advantage - meaning you have to/should: use a tripod, use high MTF lenses (not many qualify), watch your aperture range to avoid diffraction, use a cable release, attend more to lens degradation effects, use RAW, and so on. The big Mp cameras are best used for landscape work with big prints (over 13x19) in mind, where they can realise all that potential IQ.</p>

[rashedahmed]

<p>How many of us do REALLY need a 21 mega pix Canon 1Ds M III ? I have seen many amatures bought that body because they love to have it (of course thay have money to burn). It is also true that most of the ordinery people cannot verify the mega pix difference between 5D and 5D MII image quality. <br>

</p>

 

[markonestudios]

The two things that stopped me buying a 5D last year (money notwithstanding ;-)) were

<br>1. The announcement of the 5DMark II and

<br>2. The seemingly coincidental fact that I started getting more calls for commercial photography work involving large prints (20x30 range) and requiring 'true' wide-angle.

<p>I knew that my (current and ever-faithful) 400D would be stretched, and also that I need a 2-DSLR system for weddings, preferrably in crop & full-frame (currently my backup is a film EOS). I decided to delay my gratification and aim for the 5D2. I also figure that I won't need to purchase another DSLR for several years hence, so for me it provides me with future-proofing. Im not really a latest-and-greatest sort of guy, but I do want the best tool for my work.

<p>Had they not announced the 5D2 when they did, I would have gone straight for a refurb 5D1 and spent the extra cash on some optics. I have tried out both the 5D1 (couple of years ago) and the 5D2 (a month ago) and they are both superlative tools. Don't get drawn into marketing hype. There's a pretty good reason why the 5D1 has sold so well with 'pros' and 'quasi pros' alike, over the years it has been produced. As I said, if not for the combination of circumstances, I would have one of my own in hand now...

[mjc photographic images]

<p>I am still using my 20D<br>

Here is an image I shot a few weeks ago</p>

<p><img src="http://www.dphotographer.co.uk/users/7393/thm1024/_mg_4633.jpg" alt="" width="842" height="590" /></p>

<p>Don't get me wrong I would love a FF 5D mkll but to me there is nothing wrong with this 4 year old technology</p>