Best older model Canon full frame

[manbat]

My interests lean mostly towards large format 4x5 photography, but I also shoot quite a bit with my digital equipment. However, when I shoot with my digital gear I use my large collection of vintage prime lenses that are so easy to adapt to canon bodies and so much fun to use. Given the limitations with vintage lenses, I can never really exercise many of the most powerful capabilities of my digital bodies which today are only crop sensor canons. But I do want to get the full capability out of my old glass and need to step up to a full frame canon to do so. Considering the limitations, it really is not worth it to me to spend the money for a current, or near current, model FF canon when I will not be able to leverage many of the functions that justify the cost. So I'd like to find a used older model canon FF.

Which of the prior canon FF models would be worth considering and which would not? Primary requirements are image capture and image quality.

 

[Dave442]

You could certainly give it a try with the original 5D, they are cheap enough now in the used market (might be the cheapest FF digital camera around).

ps: my sister also does mostly large format, but goes to her old D700 and mf Nikon glass when she wants some digital stuff.

 

[Derrel]

Yeah, the iriginal 5D. But--do be prepared to,possibly, have the mirror literally FALL OFF of the frame that holds it. The mirrors were just simply GLUED ON...no clasps, no retaining mechanism, nothing, just adhesive. Canon can repair this. MY very OWN bought-brand-new-not-used-hard 2006-era 5D had the mirror fall off on the fourth shot of a July, 2016 summertime Steampunk Disney shoot...right on the start of Cinderealla's session. Damn, I was peeved. This issue came up four, five years back,and was well-publicized on the web. I should have sent my 5D in to Canon back then!

The 5D is/was a decent imager. Sensor is GOOD from Base ISO to 1250 ISO...fairly level perfrormance across the ISO range. 12.8 million pixels. NOT a "strong" camera or AF module, but for $450-$550 US, it's a nice rig, AND it is Canon, so it will adapt to a lot of legancy lenses.

 

[manbat]

Thanks for the reply's. Its always great to hear about other large format practitioners that are out there in the world, especially those who also have an appreciation for old glass.

Sounds like the 5D is an option, although I'm surprised to hear about the mirror. This was one of their professional models and you would think those issues would be in the past. Other than image quality, are there any really great improvements that, given my situation/requirements, would make any of the follow-on upgrades (mark ii, for example) worth considering?

 

[Derrel]

5D was a cheap EOS Elan type body, resurrected...a $389 camera with digital subsystems attached. WEAK AF system. It was designed at a time when FF was CANON-only, no Nikon, no Sony, and the 1D was still in the $7995 pric erange, and this was a $3,495 camera when new. Yet...the mirror was simply GLUED onto the mirror frame...Canon. Sigh.

5D-II, similar, a slightly better AF system, yet still...a weak AF module, in the same $389-class EOS Elan body...

Honestly, I think for low-cost and image quality, the orignal 5D is still the best option. The thing is, the flange to film distance of Canon makes at least seven legacy 35mm lens systems focus to infinity without glass in the adapters...so...I dunno. CANON has the best legacy prime utility, except for the much more expensive SONY FF models. So...in the good, but inexpensive race, Canon digital FF is king, in my mind.

 

[TCampbell]

Since the 5D IV is now released, the 5D III's have come down in price and this has pushed the price of a used 5D II down even further... it's now possible to get a 5D II pretty cheap (less than $800). I just sold mine for $750 with the Canon grip.

The 5D II and the 6D are very comparable with the 5D II having a better physical "build" (weather sealing, etc.) that the 6D lacks. But the camera resolution and ISO performance, while not identical, are similar. The AF system on the 6D is improved a bit... the 6D can focus down to -3 EV (very few cameras can auto-focus in such little light). But as the 6D is still "current" (rumors for a 6D II suggest it wont happen in the 1st half of 2017... so maybe toward the 2nd half of the year) means the 6D is still selling for near it's original $1700 price tag (body only) and even used 6D's are holding their value well.

Meanwhile... since the 5D II (which, while not identical to a 6D performance, is similar ... they're not far apart) is two generations behind the current shipping product... it's used price tag has dropped considerably.

The 5D II basically got the same focus system as the original 5D and the 50D. This was practically a scandal and 5D II owners were upset that the latest camera saw no improvement to the AF system ... meanwhile the 7D was released with a 19 point AF system with all 19 points being "cross type" points.

So there's a whole story as to how this happened which I wont repeat as I don't know how much is accurate. But the point is, owners were unhappy and there was a lot of pressure on Canon that they'd better not make that mistake again (basically a pro body gets the same AF system that they were putting in entry-level Rebel bodies.)

Canon would later come out with the 1D X that had an amazing focus system (and this time they got it right) and then the 5D III came out with basically the same focus system as the 1D X (with one minor nuance in the way they link metering to focus points because the 1D X has far more metering zones than the 5D III). Canon had a LOT of pressure to get this one right... and they did get it right.

I have read complaints out the fact that the 5D II had a rather simplistic focus system ... and I think that somehow morphed into stories that the 5D II had a "defective" focus system (and I'd take issue with that since I owned a 5D II and I had no issues with it's accuracy... for as simple as it was, if I put an AF point on a subject and focused the camera it DID accurately focus the lens to that subject... every time.)

The bottom line is that the focus system on the 5D II isn't an advanced system... it's rather simple... but it works. I wouldn't recommend it for "action" or "sports" photography... but for non-action photography it works well.

 

[manbat]

Thanks you Gentlemen for all the great information and your time to relay it to me. Since I'm shooting only vintage prime lenses, other than focus confirmation in the camera after manually focusing the lens, there really is no advantage to an extremely capable AF system. Sounds like the point to take home is maybe I can watch for a good deal on the 5D II which may suffer in resale value because folks think its AF system is substandard.

Given the two options, 5D or 5D II, besides image size are there other advantages/disadvantages to consider given my intended use case? Did the 5D II suffer from the same mirror problem?

 

[Derrel]

I think they added some side-supports, rather than rely on the tiny 4 dots' worth of adhesive that held the 5D mirror on to the frame.

Search on Canon 5D mirrior falls off, and there are plenty of resources on how to fix it yourself. 5D (classic) mirror repair: Canon EOS-1D / 5D / 6D Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

 

[goodguy]

The cameras I would recommend would be either the Canon 5D II or Canon 6D
The point is not about their capabilities but about the sensors, both of these cameras has pretty good modern sensors with over 20MP
Used these cameras are very affordable.
Personally I would go for the 6D which has a very good low light performance sensor.

 

[Gary A.]

My most favorite Canon digital camera is the 1DsMKII. Wonderful, film-esque IQ, good IQ at elevated ISO, good AF all packed in an industructable body. I put the 1DsMKII up there with my Nikon F2 for performance and build quality.

 

[manbat]

So it sounds like I'm headed in the right direction with a 5D, 5D m ii, or 1DsMKII. The 6D, even used, is at that price level that I just can't justify for a purely manual vintage lens set up. I would say the 1D looks like a monster, but it's smaller than the LF equipment I carry.

Capabilities-wise, I'm wondering about functions like image storage time, ISO performance (as mentioned), buffering, metering pluses and minuses, image management functions, function interface, etc. Basically the usability and exposure capabilities that may point me to one model or another. You guys gotta keep in mind who you are dealing with here - LF film guy that does not own an AF or zoom lens. When I go shooting, I have a vintage manual prime lens for every possible focal length know to man to choose from and I'm often not carrying the exact one I need . Granted, I'm probably more hard-headed school than old school, but we all have our thing.

All info is greatly appreciated.

 

[Derrel]

So it sounds like I'm headed in the right direction with a 5D, 5D m ii, or 1DsMKII. The 6D, even used, is at that price level that I just can't justify for a purely manual vintage lens set up. I would say the 1D looks like a monster, but it's smaller than the LF equipment I carry.

Capabilities-wise, I'm wondering about functions like image storage time, ISO performance (as mentioned), buffering, metering pluses and minuses, image management functions, function interface, etc. Basically the usability and exposure capabilities that may point me to one model or another. You guys gotta keep in mind who you are dealing with here - LF film guy that does not own an AF or zoom lens. When I go shooting, I have a vintage manual prime lens for every possible focal length know to man to choose from and I'm often not carrying the exact one I need . Granted, I'm probably more hard-headed school than old school, but we all have our thing.

All info is greatly appreciated.

Okay....so...DxO Mark.com has the sensor ratings. To me, the total EV in what they call the "Landscape" rating is the biggest issue. Click on their separate measurements to see exapanded info, such as DR at various ISO levels. The 5D sensor was "excellent" for its era, but that was...12 years ago.

Canon EF mount however, accepts 7, or more, legacy 35mm lens systems with glass-free adapters. I expect the 1DsMKII is actully worse than the 5D-II.

Some 5D classic cameras have VERY WEAK LED readout in the finder, like MINE does....UN-READABLE in bright light,such as at the beach, where the 60D Canon has brilliant, high-viz readable LED in-finder display; this might be an issue. Top LCD is better than the in-finder LEDs on my 5D Classic.

m42 adapted lenses are nice if they have an auto/manual stop-down button. Beats "counting clicks" for every image. For tripod-mounted shooting, diaphragm control is irrelevant. I've used the 5D with many Nikons, Olympus OM 28mm/2.8; Asahi Super-Takumars in 55/1.8,135/3.5,and 200/4, plus m42 55/2.8 Vivitar Series1 macro, a thing of beauty! Have some m42 extension tubes as well...

The 5D is an okay platform. The 5D-II has more megapixels. But again...check DxO Mark to see if the 1Ds-II is actually a betetr sensor than in the 5D-II. These three Canons are all CF memory card cameras, as far as I know.

 

[Derrel]

You asked for info. here's some info.

Best Cameras under $45,200 | DxOMark

EOS 5D-Mark II: SEPT 2008. Overall sensor score 79; Color 23.7 EV; DR 11.9 EV: ISO rating 1815.
EOS 5D: AUGUST 2005: (#136) Overall sensor score 71: Color 22.9: DR 11.1 EV: ISO rating 1368.


FOR FX CAMERAS: Camera Database | DxOMark

AT the HIGH-performanc camera end, those cameras using the newer, better-technology, Sony-made sensors, you’re looking at 14.8, 14.6. 14.3, as opposed to the 11.1 EV of the 5D “Classic”, and 11.9 EV for the 5D-II.

It’s very common for Canon users to downplay the dynamic range the sensor can handle. But, the difference between a 10.9 EV Nikon, which I shot for a long time, and the 11.1 EV Canon 5D Classic which I shot from 2006 to 2012, is HUGE. As in HUGE. Moving to the D3x with 13.7 EV Dynamic Range was a massive improvement in camera, and in sensor, than the 5D Classic I shot from 2006 to 2012. After I bought the D3x, the Canon never got shot again until this summer, when the mirror fell off.

Is 11.1 EV as good as a 2014-era Sony A7r with 14.1 EV? You know that one stop is double; two stops is eight times the light; three stops is sixteen times the light.

Do you want to live with a three-stop impairment on every frame you shoot?

 

[bigal1000]

Still using mine with L lenses and it's works great for me. Still a good camera, but that's just my opinion.............

 

[dasmith232]

I'm also a LF-film shooter. I haven't had the same desire to retrofit anything to my Canon digital bodies, with one exception.

I picked up a Nikon PB-4 bellows, which is the only bellows that has tilt-shift capabilities. Then I adapted some enlarger lenses using M39- and M42-to-F mount adapters on the front of the bellows. This allows me to use longer focal lengths with up to 30-degrees of tilt for a fraction of the cost of Canon's longer TS-lenses (and only 8-degrees).

I know this is totally different that what you were asking, but it's a different take on legacy optics on a Canon body. By the way, you cannot effectively use enlarger lenses shorter than about 85mm due to the flange distance and the extension that the bellows causes. Given that you already shoot LF, you probably already understand why.

... Capabilities-wise, I'm wondering about functions like image storage time ...

I just had to laugh with this one... You mean image storage time compared to switching out film holders? You might be faster than me, but my time to switch out a film holder is still much slower than even the worst digital cameras...

... Is 11.1 EV as good as a 2014-era Sony A7r with 14.1 EV? You know that one stop is double; two stops is eight times the light; three stops is sixteen times the light. Do you want to live with a three-stop impairment on every frame you shoot?

Derrel, I don't disagree with what you're saying, but I think(?) you're switching away from a Canon recommendation. Yes, dynamic range is a huge thing. Someone coming from LF would likely be interested in landscape photography and dynamic range is a big deal. With a constrained DR sensor, it would be like going back to shooting transparency and only about 5 stops of range.

Sony sensors are certainly awesome. The pricing (I think?) keeps that option off the table for the OP.