Original 5D vs new crop camera

[jamie_robertson2]

<blockquote>

<p>horses for causes.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>"courses"</p>

[igord]

5D is a plastic camera inside so if you buy it used you never know

when it is going to stop working.

[drpath]

<p>Either is capable of great IQ. The 5D doesn't do live view, auto iso, movies, or RAW+JPG. Its auto white balance sucks. For an old film guy like me, it's the perfect digital camera. For Today's Photographic Youth, I think it might be pretty frustrating. </p>

[mjferron]

<p>"I have a 7D. I wouldn't have a 5D if it was a gift."</p>

<p>Really?</p>

[charcoal_happy]

<blockquote>

<p>The 5D is usable up to ISO 1600...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's pretty high.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The newer cameras also have a much better play-back screen than the one on the 5D, plus faster shutter speeds, better AF, Live View, Auto sensor cleaning etc.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All those things are mechanical, not optical. I'm more interested in dof control, low light capability, granulation, sharpness, color separation and dynamic range.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want fast burst mode shooting, the 5D is not what you want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither is a 60D or anything in the same or lower price range.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, if you want superb image quality mostly in the ISO 100 to 800 range...</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />Yes indeed!</p>

<p>When shopping for a used camera, <strong>how do you check the shutter's lifespan</strong>? How much does it cost to replace a worn shutter?</p>

[charcoal_happy]

<blockquote>

<p>Charcoal, in <a rel="nofollow" href="00Zp9a">another thread</a> you said <em>"I do own a digital full frame body with some lovely L glass"</em>. Is your question whether to sell that body and trade for a smaller-sensored body?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, the question is whether a new generation crop camera outperforms an older generation full frame <em>optically, not mechanically.</em></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Neither has any optics at all (except of course for the VF). In either case the optical quality<em> of the lenses</em> will matter, probably far more than the camera body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Last time I tried some gear, the 50mm 1.8 on a full frame body outperformed an L lens on a crop body.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Generally full frame cameras are better suited for wideangle photography, like architecture and landscapes, and crop bodies are better suited for telephoto photography, like sports and wildlife.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My photography is both wide and tele. Which body is better if you can only have one camera, a new 60D or a used 5D?</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>This thread is getting sort of funny. OK, here you go, spoon-fed to you:</p>

<p>DoF control: The 5D wins. Any full frame camera wins over any crop camera. It's explained in the useless article I wrote.</p>

<p>Optics: Camera bodies do not have optics, other than the viewfinder. The 5D's viewfinder wins. This was explained in one of the responses you quote.</p>

<p>Sharpness: Depends mostly on the lens. Explained in the useless article.</p>

<p>Low light capability and dynamic range: Depends somewhat on generation, but also on photosite size and well depth. Explained in the usless article.</p>

<p>Color separation: I have no idea what you mean by this.</p>

<p>Granulation: (noise?) Read the useless article.</p>

<p>Of course the 5D is also bigger in most respects, so that's obviously better, right?.</p>

<p>FAIW, lots of claims are made about the image quality superiority of recent generations over earlier generations, but in practice, I haven't seen it. There is clearly advancement in low light capabilities, the user interfaces have improved, and processing has gotten faster. Other than that, the cameras seem much the same to me. Even my ancient 10D took a pretty nice image. The IQ differences, if any, are more related to noise reduction algorithms, which are somewhat irrelevant to photographers who work with raw images.</p>

<p>My thoughts about specific models: The 5D is a VERY nice camera. I love mine. I have no desire to buy a 7D and am very happy with my 40D for my APS-C needs. I will probably be upgrading to a 5DII for its higher ISO capabilities in the intermediate future. (If Charcoal is smart, Charcoal might ask him/herself, "Hmmmm... Why does Sarah use both a full frame AND an APS-C camera... and also even a compact G11?" Anwers are in the useless article.)</p>

<p>If you are particular about image quality, your best investment is in glass. If you want versatility, your best investment is in a larger format. If you want good pictures, start by educating yourself. Good photographs are only 10% about the equipment and 90% about knowing how to use it.</p>

[craig_meddaugh]

<p>As to your questions regarding shutter count, there are a couple of utilities out there to do so. All are provided by the user community and none are what I would call actively maintained, but some googling should get you what you need. </p>

<p>As for how long a shutter should last, we really don't know. Canon publishes some figures, but as there are dozens of way to express expected failure time (and Canon's figures are all suspiciously round), we really don't know what they mean, much less if they are even real. Based on what I have seen, shutters either fail pretty early on in their lifetime or keep working for years. And if you have to get one replaced, depending on your body (and what else is wrong with your camera, as Canon and most reputable services places will only service your body if they can fix <strong>everything</strong>), you should budget $250ish.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>When it comes to using telephoto lens in focal length challenged situations (like wildlife) the 7D offers superior detail and high-ISO performance compared to the 5D, if that's the kind of answer you want. Matched with the right lenses, the 7D will be every bit as good as the 5D1 at scenics.</p>

<p>You said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Last time I tried some gear, the 50mm 1.8 on a full frame body outperformed an L lens on a crop body.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Even today that's NOT TRUE in general. It could be true, but depending on the application. Even the 5D2 doesn't match the 7D's detail in focal length challenged situations. Once again, no one camera is "the best" at all applications. You have to decide how you're going to use your camera and then make a decision. There will likely be compromise with some issues that you deem less important for you.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I have a 5D and a 7D. If I had to give one up, the 7D would go.

 

I have a 5DII and iPhone 4s. If I had one to give up, the 7D would go.

[sarah_fox]

<p>^^^ some nice results from that little 4s! :-)</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>No, the question is whether a new generation crop camera outperforms an older generation full frame optically, not mechanically.</em></p>

<p>Canon's 18 MP APS-C sensor is superior to their 12 MP FF sensor. This is a fact, not an opinion, proven by tests which can be replicated and were performed by reputable sites such as DPReview and Imaging Resource.</p>

<p>That said the two sensors are fairly close, and differences in print will only be noticed under certain combinations of subject matter and print size. Printing 24" landscapes? The 18 MP sensor is noticeably better. Printing 10" portraits? You will never see a difference.</p>

<p><em>I'm more interested in dof control, low light capability, granulation, sharpness, color separation and dynamic range.</em></p>

<p>The FF sensor will give you more shallow DoF with current lenses. The 18 MP sensor has superior low light capability. When viewed appropriately (i.e. both scaled to 12 MP or to 18 MP) the 18 MP sensor has superior noise characteristics. Sharpening is a variable heavily influenced by camera settings and/or post work. But even if we assume the same level of sharpening the 18 MP sensor will generally yield greater sharpness due to the resolution advantage. (When resolution is the same or close a FF sensor yields greater sharpness, but the difference in either case is within the range of software to eliminate.) The 18 MP sensor has slightly better DR. And regardless of what anyone claims, there are simply no human observable differences in color. Camera settings, post processing, lens biases, source light, printing technology, and even choice of paper all exceed sensor color differences by one or more orders of magnitude.</p>

[charcoal_happy]

<blockquote>

<p>Sharpness: Depends mostly on the lens. Explained in the useless article.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Depends also on photosite size imo.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Color separation: I have no idea what you mean by this.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ouch, you don't know what it is. A better terms is color differentiation.<br /> I googled it for you.<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm"> Scroll down here.</a></p>

<blockquote>

<p>Good photographs are only 10% about the equipment and 90% about knowing how to use it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then you are not a very good photographer because you participate in an equipment discussion. You must also be thinking we should all use eos 1000D !</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Even today that's NOT TRUE in general.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My eyes tell otherwise.<br /> I took the time to read the article posted above. Take a look under <a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm"><strong>You Can Use Cheap Lenses! </strong></a></p>

<p>I think a sensible conclusion is this: the image quality is dependent on the lowest common denominator, whether this is the camera or the lens. I don't believe great class on small sized sensors makes up for the camera's limitations. I've seen it with my own eyes and there's definitely less sharpness, less oomph. Otoh, cheap lenses on full frame bodies don't take advantage of the camera's full potential. So it comes down to which lenses I want to screw on: quality glass for the 5D and budget lenses for 60D and lower.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Ah, you're a Ken Rockwell disciple! [lightbulb goes off over head] This thread has now gotten even funnier.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Maybe this will help anonymous decide:</p>

<p>A match "made in heaven" = the 7D and the 85/1.8 lens. No doubt.<br>

The 7D is 5 years newer tech than the original 5D. Again, no doubt who wins here.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Charcoal, as it appears you have all the answers and know everything already.....maybe you could spare us your wit and avoid posting topics in which you apparently already have all the answers. It'll save us the time replying to someone who is looking more and more like a troll every minute.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>A real name would be nice too. :-)</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Well Charcoal, you've gotten about all the useful advice you're going to get. What have you decided?</p>

[mjferron]

<p>"Otoh, cheap lenses on full frame bodies don't take advantage of the camera's full potential."</p>

<p>Debatable. As a Nikon guy I'll tell you the once respected 24mm 2.8 D was considered a bit of a flop on crop sensors. D700 and D3 folks are talking it up again. Seems it likes those large 12mp, full frame pixels. And for cheap I picked up a Vivitar 28 2.8. An obscure lens that is absolutely blowing me away on my D200. Just a bit of color fringing at 2.8 and fine after. Corners from F4 on are great. What a little gem. My point is money isn't everything. Unfortunately for Canon folks it was made in an FD mount only.</p>

[ae_ingveld]

I have a 60d and a 5d classic. iq of th 5d is x2 better, like putting 2 aps-c sensors together :)

 

For mere fps the 60 is better and it has video....

[Dave Luttmann]

<p>Ae, can you post a comparison image from both the 60D and 5D (I've never heard of a 5D "Classic"...was it a special release?) and show us how the 5D is better? </p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p>Dave - I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for Ae to respond ;-)</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I've never heard of a 5D "Classic"...was it a special release?

 

I think most people understand that he is speaking of the original 5D, rather than the 5DII.

[mjferron]

<p>"I've never heard of a 5D "Classic"</p>

<p>It's often referred to as that.</p>

[Dave Luttmann]

Why refer to it as "Classic?".

There was no such model.

There's no 1Ds Classic, or 1D

Classic. Why change the name of

the camera?

 

Regardless, I'd like to see the

comparison shots.