Original 5D EI 6400

[kari v]

<p>New software really breathes life into "old" cameras. 5D has never been called noisy... until one day it was mentioned in this forum and I almost spilled my coffee.<br>

Good condition 5D bodies are readily available in the sub $1000 market and for low light and shallow DoF shooters a 35mm sensor gives the the possibility to shoot with fast wide primes, something that's still missing from the aps-c world.<br>

I hope this doesn't sound like a "you just can't afford mkII" rant. ;) The idea is to show that these bodies still offer some serious quality in low light. And of course normal ISO 100-400 range is totally comparable to the 12Mp Nikon D700, so if you don't need new bells and whistles, just a tool that works fine, then original 5D is still very much a current camera.</p>

<p>"Leo", RAW, ISO 1600 pushed two stops in Lightroom and noise reduction applied:</p><div></div>

[kari v]

<p>100% crop.<br /> In b&w you could ease on the NR and push even further with quite good amount of detail.<br>

I also find that pushing ISO 1600 for 3200 and 6400 results in a cleaner image than shooting at (H) 3200.</p><div></div>

[kari v]

<p>Leo in B&W, still EI 6400.</p>

<p>It occurs to me that there might be slight back focus and that the whole face isn't as sharp as it could be... oh well, Leo's hair is there as a good indication of retained sharpness and detail.</p><div></div>

[ejchem101]

<p>I completely agree here Kari. As an amateur photographer, the 5D just wows me. I know you were hoping this isn't a "I just can't afford a MK2 rant", however... I can't, my wife would literally kill me, and ... I have not once been let down by my MK1.</p>

<p>The thing I found since getting the 5D... is I take a LOT of pictures now!</p>

<p>ISO and noise is very well handled by the new software. Another example to add to yours.</p><div></div>

[john_a5]

<p>Much of the quality has to do with how much you blow it all up (even the MP of the camera when looking on the computer). If one were to use something like DxO, which is maybe the best noise reduction software I have seen (new Adobe products are much better than they were and now closer) it might be even better. The reality is that all these noise busting programs create other problems which can show up in smaller prints or maybe not until you go really big. The problems manifest themselves more in transitional areas and can create artificially hard edges--almost like banding. But the cameras can certainly make great images that could otherwise not be done without the software where they would be creating some more objectionable artifacts all over the image.</p>

<p>Anyway, that being said, we are somewhat spoiled by digital as the whole noise(grain) thing is so much better than what we saw with film even at lower iso and could never create the large prints we now can with standard film.</p>

[digitmstr]

<p>NO kidding, if you pushed a color film (or negative or positive) that much you'd end with mush...</p>

<p>I think the 5D remains as good today as it ever was and its pixels size vs sensor size and density seems to produce excellent results.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>The idea is to show that these bodies still offer some serious quality in low light.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />The EOS 5D used at ISO3200 and exposed about 3 stops Underexposure - to hold the Tv necessary: <a href="../photo/10442964&size=lg">http://www.photo.net/photo/10442964&size=lg</a></p>

<p>That is an extreme example.</p>

<p>There are many images shot with the 5D at ISO1600 and ISO3200 in my portfolio, this is another at ISO3200:</p>

<p>WW</p><div></div>

[kari v]

<p>Very good example, William. I pushed my sample up to 12800 and it still remained very usable, what wows me is that the results at 6400 are still so good even at 100%.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think the 5D remains as good today as it ever was and its pixels size vs sensor size and density seems to produce excellent results.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At lower ISOs it's extremely sharp at pixel level and seems rather "forgiving" to lenses compared to aps-c sensor cameras. A joy to edit those files compared to, say, 7D.</p>

[marco_palladino1]

<p>I suspect that some high ISO of modern dslr are just...marketing. Many have noticed that underexposed images then corrected in ACR seem to give the same results than modern high ISO. Possibly the modern cameras make the same and a simple firmware update could make the old 5d touch at least the 6400 with acceptable noise.<br>

Moreover the "old" cameras (20D, 5D, 1D2) seem to handle noise in the dark areas much better, mybe due to low pixel density (e.g. no banding). And FF files generally allow much more recovery from the darks.<br>

That at the end the 5d2 has probably only 1 stop advantage on the older sister...but is of course 21MP so it's a great upgrade, but iso only is not enough to make the jump.<br>

To think that a wise use of your equipment make you less dependant from that marketing pushing us to upgrade cameras every 2 years, this is at least a good input to spend our time on field instead of always watching the rumors for possible replacement to our equipments.<br>

I didn't hesitate to choose a 5 years old 1ds mk2 over a modern dslr, for the same reasons you showed here...no regreats! ;-)</p>