opinions on the canon 5d

[Stephen]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

Are you salivating at the prospect of one yet Josh

[Patrick]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

Are you salivating at the prospect of one yet Josh

[Ian]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

That was in fact precisely my primary reservation prior to buying the 5D! To me it seemed that Canon had simpy dropped a f/f sensor into a 20D body and whacked the price up cynically to draw interest from those who thought that f/f was some kind of holy grail.

In fact, the 5D isn't simply a 20D with a larger sensor at all. For a start it's more solidly constructed and feels significantly more substantial to handle and use than a 20D, and it feels all but identical to a 1D when the optional grip is fitted. Secondly, while it lacks the focusing sophistication of the 1D-series bodies, it benefits from additional "invisible" focus points over and above the 20D which help it to follow-focus onto moving or advancing objects far rmore convincingly than the 20D.

First of all, Canon wouldn't, even theoretically, be being cynical at all - they have to price the 5D as it is because of the huge cost of the sensor. It's twice as complicated to manufacture as the 1D Mark II sensor and they can only make around half the number of sensors from one silicon wafer and a higher percentage will fail Q/A, too. This is nothing to do with the resolution of the chip, but the sheer size of it.

I had understood that the physical construction of the 5D and 20D/30D was fairly similar, but I could be wrong, off the top of my head, on that. But I'm pretty sure it's not a weather-sealed body like the 1D family. Of course it's larger and so feels more chunky - so that may be the tangible difference.

Three or so years ago 3fps was class-leading for non-press spec digital SLRs and my Nikon D1x could shoot at 3fps, although I never actually needed it to. Obviously if todays buyers need something quicker in the 5D's price bracket, they can go for the 1D Mk2n, but for many 3fps is more than enough for most applications.

I used to think that 3fps was more than adequate, but once you have used 5fps and 8fps the advantage under certain conditions is very useful - I have failed to capture the right momentary expression I saw through the viewfinder when photographing people at 3fps - 5fps or 8fps would have helped, undoubtedly.

You're obviously extremely pleased with your 5D and I accept that totally. I suppose we're debating fine points of detail here rather than fundamental issues, but I've also spoken to 1Ds Mark II users who are mildly frustrated with the corner shading and resolution fall-off they have to work around. It's possible that the bigger pixels of the 5D make the sensor more forgiving - it's an interesting point.

I'm intrigued that the 5D should have noticeably superior image quality compared to the 1D Mark IIn as they have virtually the same sensor pixel pitch. In theory, there shouldn't be much difference at all. I haven't fully tested either camera, so this is all theory. Often there are unattributable differences in quality despite similar technical specifications, so it's another intriguing point that I hope to find time to investigate further

Ian

[Stephen]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

In the New Year when on one of our jaunts we'll have to take a photo of the same scene same lens, same settings etc and let you have a copy of the Raw files. It'll be interesting to have your opinion

[Ian]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

I'd be up for that, Stephen

Ian

[Josh Bear]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

Stephen and patrick are both right.

I want one now But also want to wait for the announcements in the new year. At the moment caution is winning by a small head, I will wait till 1st of March.

Looking at Bearface's and Stephens lens list's I am not too far of the mark.

Best regards and thanks for the interesting viewpoints.

Josh

[Bearface]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

First of all, Canon wouldn't, even theoretically, be being cynical at all - they have to price the 5D as it is because of the huge cost of the sensor. It's twice as complicated to manufacture as the 1D Mark II sensor and they can only make around half the number of sensors from one silicon wafer and a higher percentage will fail Q/A, too. This is nothing to do with the resolution of the chip, but the sheer size of it.

I'd have to bow to your superior knowledge about the relative price of sensor manufacture, but I still think that the 5D is expensive compared to the 1D Mk2n and indeed the 30D. For me personally it actually represented great value, but in real terms I still feel that it's expensive.

I had understood that the physical construction of the 5D and 20D/30D was fairly similar, but I could be wrong, off the top of my head, on that. But I'm pretty sure it's not a weather-sealed body like the 1D family. Of course it's larger and so feels more chunky - so that may be the tangible difference.

Well if I handle my 1D Mk2 and then go back to the 5D it feels fairly similar, but in truth one can see that more has gone into the construction of the 1D Mk2. The 5D is definitely more substantial-feeling than the 20D and it's certainly weightier too - regardless of whether or not either version is fitted with a grip or not. Phil Askey made the same observations in his review of the 5D. Weather proofing? Well the 5D doesn't have it, but I've worked outdoors on many wet days and no consequences have been suffered. Sure, it the heavens opened I'd probably stop shooting and put the gear away, but then I'd do the same if I was using my 1D MkII...

I used to think that 3fps was more than adequate, but once you have used 5fps and 8fps the advantage under certain conditions is very useful - I have failed to capture the right momentary expression I saw through the viewfinder when photographing people at 3fps - 5fps or 8fps would have helped, undoubtedly.

This kind of thing is obviously entirely subjective, as I've never used continuous shutter in all the time I've worked as a photographer. However as I said earlier, for some people only the speed of the 1D Mk2n (or indeed the 5fps of the 30D) will suffice.

You're obviously extremely pleased with your 5D and I accept that totally. I suppose we're debating fine points of detail here rather than fundamental issues, but I've also spoken to 1Ds Mark II users who are mildly frustrated with the corner shading and resolution fall-off they have to work around. It's possible that the bigger pixels of the 5D make the sensor more forgiving - it's an interesting point.

I've seen comments in forums about corner-shading, so people have definitely been affected by it. However what I'm saying is that it hasn't been an issue for me, so it makes me wonder how and when the problem is manifesting itself with these other individuals. Given the variety of work, styles, locations and conditions I've used the 5D in, you'd think that I'd have noticed a problem had there been one

I'm intrigued that the 5D should have noticeably superior image quality compared to the 1D Mark IIn as they have virtually the same sensor pixel pitch. In theory, there shouldn't be much difference at all. I haven't fully tested either camera, so this is all theory. Often there are unattributable differences in quality despite similar technical specifications, so it's another intriguing point that I hope to find time to investigate further

In this case it isn't unattributable - the 5D has a clear resolution advantage for a start. However on a pixel for pixel basis, I also believe that it enjoys a dynamic range advantage and that there is a noticable difference in terms of visible detail. In fairness, I already think the 1D Mk2 is incredibly good in any case (Stephen knows it's my favourite camera of all time...), I'm just making the observation that in my experience, you can tell the two cameras apart in terms of outright image quality.

I'd be quite happy to submit the RAW files of shots taken on both cameras at the same time and location, however the only possible outcome would be your subjective opinion based on what you could see on-screen, which might be tricky to determine and then quantify. However I'd be confident that with an A3 print produced of the same scene by both cameras and printed on the same machine (even if you cropped the 5D's to match the pixel dimensions of the 1D IIn's) there'd be a clear enough difference in detail etc for you to reach a conclusion.

[Ian]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

I'd be quite happy to submit the RAW files of shots taken on both cameras at the same time and location, however the only possible outcome would be your subjective opinion based on what you could see on-screen, which might be tricky to determine and then quantify. However I'd be confident that with an A3 print produced of the same scene by both cameras and printed on the same machine (even if you cropped the 5D's to match the pixel dimensions of the 1D IIn's) there'd be a clear enough difference in detail etc for you to reach a conclusion.

Sounds like a good idea for a future feature article

It would probably best if I got the cameras in from Canon and bench tested them under controlled conditions.

Ian

[Josh Bear]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

Stephen and Bearface do you find the 17-40mm just a little short on a FF camera?

Just interested as to why you have not invested in the 24-105mm? As you know I take a lot of landscape pcitures but also take a stack full of pictures on the kids. At the moment the 17-40 practically lives on my 20D

best regards

josh

[Ian]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

Stephen and Bearface do you find the 17-40mm just a little short on a FF camera?

Just interested as to why you have not invested in the 24-105mm? As you know I take a lot of landscape pcitures but also take a stack full of pictures on the kids. At the moment the 17-40 practically lives on my 20D

best regards

josh

Hi Josh,

40mm is just a little shorter than an old fashioned 50mm standard lens. A lot of people swear by 35mm as their standard lens focal length.

I use a 22-44 (equivalent) lens and it's very useful. That said, I do use my 28-108 (equivalent) the most. That probably hasn't helped answer your question though

Ian

[Josh Bear]

[Stephen]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

Stephen and Bearface do you find the 17-40mm just a little short on a FF camera?

Just interested as to why you have not invested in the 24-105mm? As you know I take a lot of landscape pcitures but also take a stack full of pictures on the kids. At the moment the 17-40 practically lives on my 20D

best regards

josh

Hi Josh, don't forget my 1D has a1.3x crop, so the 40mm end gives me a little extra reach. TBH though, my walkabout lens, the one that stays on most, is the 24-70mm f/2.8L a superb though heavy lens. I bought this before the 24-105 was released, and as I have the 105 end covered by a 70-200mm didn't think it worth the change. Not only this but the 24-70 will give a shallower depth of field when I need it, something that is not to be scoffed at.

It sounds to me though as you may have to do things in stages though and get what you can afford then add in the future.

[Bearface]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

Stephen and Bearface do you find the 17-40mm just a little short on a FF camera?

Just interested as to why you have not invested in the 24-105mm? As you know I take a lot of landscape pcitures but also take a stack full of pictures on the kids. At the moment the 17-40 practically lives on my 20D

Well I use the 17mm end to maximize what I can get in terms of landscapes and other scenes in which I feel the need to cram as much as possible in, but it's useful to be able to adjust it up to 40mm to crop certain scenes or bring them in a little closer.

However for getting in closer, I have the 70-200 f4L in addition to my prime lenses (50 and 85mm), both of which have an f1.8 maximum aperture. The 24-105mm f4L would probably be a useful lens on my 5D, but the lens I crave is the 50mm f1.2L. The rest can wait....

BTW, the 1D Mk II / Mk IIn models are not full-frame. They have a larger than usual sensor giving a 1.3x focal length multiplier (as opposed to the 1.5x or 1.6x of "regular" DSLRs). It is only the Canon 1Ds and 5D DSLRs which have the full-frame sensor.

[Danny Chau]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

Dear All,

I have been reading a lot of posts by owners of the canon 5d (various review sites) that talk about outstanding picture quality but I have been unable to really understand what they mean. Are the colours better? If so how? The detail I guess is better because of the the extra megapixels vs most SLRS (I am thinking about my 8 mp 20D here)

Does anyone have a 5d and if so what did you upgrade from and is the extra quality worth it?

Best Regards

Josh

Hi Josh,

One of the major difference between the full frame 5D and the smaller sensor 20D is the FF 5D can give extra shallow depth of field (especially with fast lenses) and extra pixels give a much smoother gradation hence enhanced quality. You can take shallow focus/depth images that non of the smaller sensor is ever capable of, it just simply law of physics. The images from the 5D can be either very sharp (right lens and aperture) or it can shoot very soft, dreamy, creamy images that very few digital SLR can do (except 1Ds MKII).
You should at least do a test drive and you soon see why 5D owners thinks the same way. Danny

[Josh Bear]

Re: opinions on the canon 5d

Thanks All.

Best Regards

Josh