How good is the original 5D?

[mark_stephan2]

<p>A buddy of mine who happens to own a camera store recently purchased a 5D mkII and is selling his 5D and 50D. I took a look at 5D and the 24-105. I can't afford the body and lens together but if the body is offered seperately I could probably get it for $600 or a little less. The problem is, I'm a Nikon shooter but wouldn't mind owning a full frame Canon. I'd probably get the 50 f/1.8 to get started inexpensively. What do you Canon shooters think of this body? How would it compare against my D700? How good is it at higher iso's?</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>It's a good camera, but if you are pixel peeper it won't hold up to current generation cameras. However if you just look at the printed images, you'll probably be quite happy with it.</p>

<p>Highest native ISO is 1600, with expansion to 3200. Your D700 will probably have maybe a stop less noise and somewhat higher dynamic range at any given ISO.</p>

<p>The going rate for a used 5D is $500-$600.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>What do you Canon shooters think of this body?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is not weathersealed. There was one recall on the parts holding the mirror assembly. Check to see if the camera was repaired by Canon under warranty. The mode dial does not have a locking button. So, the dial can easily be turned accidentally.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How would it compare against my D700?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The D700 was introduced in July 2008 and the 5D was introduced in August 2005. So, as a former 5D owner since June 2006 and never having owned or used the D700, it would be unfair for me to comment. But, on paper, the D700 appears to be the better camera.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>How good is it at higher iso's?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It's good up to ISO 800. Depending on the lens used, you may see banding in the shadow areas.</p>

 

[tom_elessar]

<p>I'm surprised used 5Ds are still going for so much. I'd prefer a new APS-C camera for the obvious reasons, most notably video, and could only really imagine wanting a 5D for depth-of-field or to use wide-angle lenses for specific purposes (like interiors).</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>The Bad: The white balance is kind of spotty; attracts dust; it is rather slow I keep mine on continuous shooting; no pop-up flash; the LCD playback is inaccurate; in bright sunlight the LCD playback is a waste of time; limited ISO range; lack of features; expensive brand new.</p>

<p>The Good: AF is fast and accurate; simplicity you wont miss pictures trying to figure out what button does this or that; pretty rugged; great picture quality even under high ISO; Full Frame DOF advantage.</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I recently sold my 5D for the 5DII and am very pleased with the upgrade. The 5D was a landmark camera and will still produce excellent results. Its drawbacks for me were :<br>

the small screen which was difficult to read in almost any sunlight.<br>

the tendency of the sensor to get dirt smudges <br>

the relatively low ISO range compared with a more modern camera.</p>

[HarryBaker]

<p>I've used a 5D since they first appeared. At that time the image quality was widely praised and of course it hasn't changed, though IQs on more modern cameras are better. The 5D still produces good files. Like Colin, I think it suffers from small ISO range and it's a bit noisy at the higher ISO. But I still use it for real wideangle and because I have a lot of Canon lenses! I must confess to carrying around the new Fuji X100 or X Pro 1 both of which have stunning IQ and very little noise, (even at 25600 ISO in the case of the X Pro 1)! The Canon 50/1.8 is brilliant for its price and one of my favourite lenses.</p>

[philip_wilson]

IQ is good so long as you stay at lower ISO, shoot RAW and don't plan printing too big. At low ISO in RAW I doubt if you

will see any difference between the 5D and D700. As well as the issues detailed above the menu system is rather poor

(compared to the modern Canon bodies), the AF is not that great and build is not perfect (generally good but with a few

issues like the card door)

[h._p.]

I like my 5D and don't agree with any of

the criticsms above. I do, however

guarantee that your mileage will vary.

 

So many cameras, so little time...

[picturesque]

<p>The problem is, I'm a Nikon shooter but wouldn't mind owning a full frame Canon.</p>

<p>Why, and for what kind of photography? I still use my 5D for weddings--have absolutely no problems with focus, dynamic range, making large prints, or high ISO. Just know the limitations and work around them. I just bought a 5D III, but find no lack in my original 5D that I can't handle.</p>

<p>Compared to a D700, though you will find it lacking. As someone above said, there is a 3 year difference in technology.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Surely the only rationale for a Nikon user to want a Canon FF is if you get a great deal to compensate for the obvious inefficiencies. From what Bob says what you have on offer isn't a great deal- its the going price.</p>

<p>I have a 5D- still carry it everywhere I go as backup but haven't used it for a while now. The points made above about ISO inflexibility/highISO performance; a tendency to pick up sensor dust, poor LCD screen are all fair comment from where I sit. Its a camera that's a decent performer but has been overtaken. </p>

[photog630]

<p>I can't say as I feel limited by my original 5D's capabilities at all. A few weeks ago, I shot this portrait in very low light at 800 ISO, f/3.5, @1/30th using a 50mm f/1.8.<br>

I had it enlarged to a 20"X30" print, and my client loved it. Granted, it's all subjective, but I noticed very minimal "grain" and what I feel is excellent clarity.<br>

I could see the image screen fine, and the few times that there has been dust on the sensor, I just cleaned it....twice, since 2006. <img src="<a%20href="http:/www.flickr.com/photos/68328485@N08/8136308914/"%20title="IMG_8031r2%20by%20dlohmann,%20on%20Flickr"><img%20src="http:/farm9.staticflickr.com/8465/8136308914_4177cc7845_b.jpg"%20width="1024"%20height="683"%20alt="IMG_8031r2"></a>" alt="" /></p><div></div>

[JDMvW]

<p>It is somewhat of a dust magnet, so caution in changing lenses is advised. It has no video, and it may or may not be a good camera for rapidly moving sports photography (I wouldn't know from personal experience)</p>

<p>Otherwise, very few people, even professionals, really, really NEED more than 12 MP. I have printed to 16"x20" with more than acceptable results, I think. I'm also, you should know, an old high-speed slide film shooter, so the noise even at ISO 3200 seemed good to me compared to the grain we used to routinely accept as the price for speed.</p>

<p>When the price of the 5Dmkii dropped considerably after the announcement of the 5Dmkiii, I did upgrade, and my daughter is now using the 5D classic for professional work out in Vancouver. But I would have been happy continuing to shoot with the original. The best feature of the mk ii is its sensor-cleaning as far as I'm concerned since it makes me more comfortable in changing lenses.</p>

<p>For the current price of the 5D classic body, I think everyone should have one. <br>

I'm now trying to decide what to get for an APS-C format, and may have settled on a 50D as a good compromise between price and utility.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>I'm now trying to decide what to get for an APS-C format, and may have settled on a 50D as a good compromise between price and utility.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>JDM, I have a 5DII and 50D, and am very happy with the combination. They have almost identical control and menu layouts, so it's easy to switch back and forth between them. I tend to use my 50D while walking about, and my 5DII indoors and in more challenging lighting conditions.</p>

<p>The only complaint I have with the 50D is its less-than-stellar dynamic range, which in all fairness is a limitation with many DSLR's.</p>

[angkordave]

<p>The 5d was great when new; but is so dated now. The 5d2 (and 5d3) are such a big improvement IQ and resolution-wise that buying a 5d1 does not make much sense. The 24-105 is not that great a lens either in some ways; (Nikon do better in that range). The 24-105 does have high resolution which would be wasted in a 5D mk 1.<br>

<br /> Switching from Nikon to Canon is not a wise move anyway. I did so 6 months ago from D300s based set up to 5D mk 2. it was an expensive process and I was surprised to find the DR of a 5D mk 2 was no better than my D300s and is inferior for shadow noise. This applies even more when compared to the D700.<br>

Resolution of the 5D2 is far better than I had hoped and the video and audio is stellar which was one of the main reasons for the change.<br>

<br /> If stills only was most important; a D600 or D800 would have suited me better.<br /> So in conclusion you won't see any benefit in a 5D mk1 at all, so don't waste your money on it.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>The 5D is certainly dated now, and there is no denying that newer cameras have much more comprehensive feature sets, as well as things like a big LCD display. Frankly though, it is still capable of producing absolutely stunning imagery, even at relatively high ISOs. I found that even at ISO3200, it was capable of producing images with very controlled noise characteristics (ie. easy to correct in post). The 'banding' some complain about is not an issue that I personally ever experienced - even at ISO1600/3200, but then I tended to expose a little high (by habit) when shooting at high ISOs. The 'banding' issue seems to have popped up in the last couple of years, but wasn't a big source of complaints when the 5D was widely used by professionals (at least not that I ever heard about).<br>

I have to say, there is certainly no 'compelling' rational advantage over your d700, which (I always felt) seemed to demonstrate what you could do with a 5D sensor + 'modern' NR, and processor (at the time ;-) ). I expect (having never shot w/ a d700) that all the strengths of the 5D are embodied in your d700 plus some.</p>

<p>I would do it if I were you in a heartbeat if you've ever felt a compelling reason to explore the 'dark side' ;-)</p>

 

[drpath]

<p>The 5D doesn't do video, live view, auto iso, and its auto white balance sucks. AF is accurate enough, but not especially fast. It's a dust magnet, and it doesn't match the dynamic range or shadow noise of the best current cameras. It's not the best camera for street or event shooting. But for any kind of planned shot, such as portrait or landscape, for any print size less than 20x30, you will probably never be able to exceed its image quality. Those big pixels are very kind to lenses. For a crop body Canon shooter with FF capable lenses, it's a great way to go wider. For a Nikon owner, it's more problematic. If you do buy, I think I'd go for a 35mm f2 or 24mm f2.8. Both offer better IQ and build for only little more money, and a wider FOV.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Remarkably, my 5D still shoots the same quality of photos as when I bought it. Unlike many, I've found I can still print 5D images very, very large with great quality. I suppose others can only make 4"x6" prints after the ravages of time, but I can't account for what's happened to their cameras.</p>

<p>The LCD isn't huge and brilliant, but I don't need a brilliant LCD. Just give me a histogram and I'll be fine.</p>

<p>ISO -- Well, I do wish I had more ISO headroom, and that will eventually drive me to a 5DII. However, if you usually work with good light (and/or flash), that doesn't really matter much.</p>

<p>Dust -- The 5D has a bad reputation as a dust magnet, but I don't find it's any worse than any other camera that lacks auto-cleaning.</p>

<p>Otherwise the camera is very intuitive and tough. I like mine quite a lot.</p>

[paul_dulaney1]

<p>I am often amused by critics on this forum when I think of how far we've come and yet how demanding we still are. Sometimes it seems we must all have the newest and best or we simply can't function. I'm sure a professional photographer needs to keep relatively modern equipment to be competitive in his/her work but I don't think most pros need to be as demanding as many critics on this forum. I have been an amateur since the early 70's, when I happily carried around with a Yahsica TLR and a light meter all over the place. I didn't go digital until 2008, and I still shoot almost as much film as digital. I have a 5D and I can attest this is a fanstastic camera capable of doing much more justice than I can give it. It is a great value in the used market, IMHO. As a musician, I've often said it matters much more who is playing the instrument than what brand or model of instrument is being played. I've have subscribed to Pop Photo since the 70's and still enjoy looking back at the old mags. I don't recall ever thinking the photographers who featured their work in those old magazines were handicapped in any way. </p>

[angkordave]

<p>I don't think that any of the photographers posting here would suggest you cannot get a good photo with a 5D Mk 1. The camera is only a tool and what matters is the ability of the photographer to use it.<br>

The OP was asking how good it was in comparison to a Nikon D700 or similar? Its more a case of what represents value for money in the wider sense; not whether it can take good pictures; which I know it can do very well.</p>

[w_t1]

<p>It's a 5D.</p>

<p>It is one of the cameras, along with my 1d2, and F-1s that I will use until it no longer functions.</p>

[seragram]

<p>%D exelent IQ I have printed up to 16x24 prints and some of my picture have been wraped on a box ban very large size and they look great.<br>

But if you allready have Nikon D700 I would spend the $600 on Nikon stuff.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I had 3 x original 5Ds which I swapped out to 2 x 5DMK2s a couple a years ago.<br>

When editing at full res the differences are obvious, but on the screen or in small prints I can't really see it. Many of my favorite shots were taken with the 5D.<br>

The 5DMK2 is a nicer tool to use though IMO.</p>

[david_wu6]

<p>I can afford any 1D, but still use 5D until it needs a repair, as an amateur.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>In picture-making terms, the 5D was and is an excellent camera. Before there was a 5D2, many of us were producing fine quality prints in relatively large sizes from this camera - and it retains the same capabilities it had when the newer cameras were not available. If you generally don't print above, say, about 16" x 24", you will be hard pressed to see the difference between this camera and its 21 MP and 22 MP successors. (The difference <em>can</em> be barely seen in some cases if you know what to look for and you inspect side-by-side and very closely. But in the real world, not so much.)</p>

<p>The newer cameras do have some real advantages that may or may not be as important to you as the cost issue. Yes, they have more photo sites and, therefore, the potential for greater resolution if you shoot and post-process very carefully. (If you are a handheld shooter... this is not likely all that significant.) The newer cameras introduced a dust reduction system that is effective and which greatly reduces the need to manually clean the sensor. The 5D was a bit notorious for attracting sensor dust. I eventually learned to keep it under control, but I had to clean the thing quite a bit more often than I have to clean the 5D2. The addition of "live view" has had a great effect on many of us who shoot from the tripod - I virtually always use it when I shoot landscape and similar subjects. (More about the advantages of live view here: <a href="http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2009/07/06/why-i-like-live-view-on-my-canon-eos-5d-mark-ii">Why I like DLSR Live View Shooting</a>) And, of course, the newer cameras will do video.</p>

<p>When it comes to the three "flavors" of 5D and considering which one you should get, I parse it out like this:</p>

<ul>

<li>The 5D is still a fine camera and will produce plenty of image quality for almost all folks considering such a camera. The newer models have added features that have real value, however. I recommend the 5D for those who are certain that they need full frame but who cost constrained and would otherwise not be able to get such a camera. </li>

<li>The 5D2 is, for most photographers, the current sweet spot - with some exceptions. The image quality from the 5D2 is essentially indistinguishable from that of the 5D3. While it has somewhat slower burst mode and an AF system that is competent but not as advanced as that of the 5D2, most people won't notice these things. If you are a landscape, architecture, and similar photographer you can get top-notch image quality from this camera at a lower price point.</li>

<li>The 5D3 has improved on the 5D2 in real ways, though each photographer will have to determine whether or not those improvements are relevant to his/her photography and whether or not they are worth the steep cost - currently almost double - increment over the 5D2. For those who want to somewhat expand the range of things that such a camera can shoot with confidence, the 5D3 is a bit better of an all-around camera.</li>

</ul>

<p>In terms of the increment of improvement from model to model, the 5D to 5D2 change was the largest: from 12 to 21MP, added video, improved high ISO performance, dust reduction system, live view, etc. The improvements from 5D2 to 5D3 are real, but not nearly as significant.</p>

<p>Dan</p>