Canon 5D (classic / original / mk I)

[Derrel]

Here's a screen cap I just made, comparing three "low-end Full-Frame cameras", from Canon and Nikon. When introduced, each of these was its manufacturer's entry-level FF model.

 

[jaomul]

Here's a screen cap I just made, comparing three "low-end Full-Frame cameras", from Canon and Nikon. When introduced, each of these was its manufacturer's entry-level FF model.

View attachment 50647

I don't doubt the newer cameras are better, and the nikon specs for the sensor they use is outperforming the canon etc, but I often wonder how true to real life the numbers are when taking photos. The 5d on the chart above looks very poor in comparison to the other 2. I am fairly sure a good photographer would yield similar results in anything but extremely high ISO shots. Maybe not?

 

[gsgary]

I take no notice of those charts, shooting in the real world is what matters

 

[Steve5D]

Yeah, charts mean nothing to me. I am, and more importantly my client is, happy with the results the 5D produces.

There's a guy who goes to the Rolex 24 at Daytona every year. He shoots race photos and then prints them out and sells them on site. The photos are fantastic, and his booth is always teeming with buyers, cash in hand.

He shoots with an old Digital Rebel...

 

[Derrel]

I take no notice of those charts, shooting in the real world is what matters

Yeah...in the real world my 5D classic blows highlight detail to hell, whereas my D3x retains about 3 stops more detail and has better highlight recovery, plus has much higher-acutance files.

The difference is between getting silhouettes in the sun, and actually having workable files in the same lighting condition. In landscape shooting, in single-file shooting, or any indoor or outdoor shooting where the action needs to be captured in one,single frame, the D3x's newer better sensor blows away the 5D classic. And the D600 sensor is even better than the sensor in the D3x, since its about four years newer.

The 5D classic was good, in its day, but it's pretty easy to make much better images with a newer-sensor camera. If all you have is an old camera, it might seem pretty good, until you try something that's significantly newer and better. But whatever...the fanboys will yell and scream about how good an outdated camera is, but hey, there's another three full EV of DR they're losing every time they hit the release button.

 

[gsgary]

And costs how many times extra ? and most would not want to carry all day

 

[Steve5D]

But whatever...the fanboys will yell and scream about how good an outdated camera is, but hey, there's another three full EV of DR they're losing every time they hit the release button.

Do you run out and buy a new car every year, simply because the introduction of a new model year makes your current car obsolete?

You've just made the argument that the gear is what matters, and not the photographer. Nice work.

I guess I could obsess over the levels of dynamic range obtained by this sensor over that sensor, and then try to impress people on the internet with little charts I found on the web, but the reality is that it doesn't matter. What matters is that my clients are over-the-moon happy with the results I'm providing. They're more than happy to sign the checks.

I paid $1,100.00 for my 5D with a grip. Is the D3X better? Well, for $6,700.00, it damn well better be. But comparing the two is stupid. It would be like comparing a Ford Cobra to a Ferrari. Both will get you where you want to go in a hurry, but will it really matter once you get there?

People who denigrate certain cameras, and those who use them, are usually simply trying to justify the huge sum of money they paid for their gear which produces not only merely marginally better results, but results that only someone who's disturbingly obsessed with individual camera performance will ever notice. These people have some need to impress others with their gear. I'd prefer to impress clients with photos, and I do it with a 5D.

Every.

Single.

Day.

I've never had a client comment on the dynamic range of a photo. Ever. It's never, ever happened.

Anyone who thinks that older gear isn't up to the task is someone whose opinion can be readily dismissed. The 5D is a fine rig which will produce impressive results that clients will be quite pleased with. Anyone who states otherwise is clueless...

 

[Derrel]

Gear does matter. I bet you play a cheap guitar,right? Probably something in the $259 range, right? Something from Sears, right? Or an old student guitar? I am laughing at your feeble arguments.


I'm not "denigrating" the Canon 5D. I own one. I shot it from 2007 to 2012. It always was a low-cost Canon EOS Elan film body design, which was adapted to a digital sensor. It was and always will be, built on a $389 camera body. With a slow mirror action, the mirror that used to FALL OFF of the mirror carriage in hot climates. It had slow throughput of 3 frames per second. Slow mirror return. It always was built with the Canon 30D's crop-body, 9-point AF focusing mechanism. It always was, and always will be, color-blind, with poor light metering in tricky situations, EASILY fooled in marine saltwater scenes, where its inability to measure color against reflectance will cause it to over-expose shadowed scenes to the point of unusability. I know all this. I shot a 5D for YEARS. It let me down numerous times when I tried to use it outside its scope.

The Nikon D600 is a vastly better camera, for $1600 refurbished. I payed about $4,000 UNDER current, used street price for my D3x...meaning, I payed less for it than Canon 6D users are paying right now...but then, I'm a sharp buyer and a shrewd negotiator...

You can try an impress me with your heroic tales of the 5D, Steve5D (wow--got any ego tied up in the 5D, Steve5D), but I've given a very fair,honest, and experienced overview of the 5D's strengths and limitations. The 5D is a sluggish camera. I know...I shot my 5D regularly from 2007 to the spring of 2012. It's not my fault Steve5D that your photography doesn't regularly push the envelope enough that the 5D never limits your work.

 

[pixmedic]

its all gravy anyway. all of it. every single fancy schmancy digital camera feature.
all of this professional work was done LONG before digital cameras of any kind existed.
it was all shot on film. before autofocus. before nano-coating. before image stabilization. before ultra high ISO. before in camera noise reduction.
it was ALL done, weddings, portraits, sports, photojournalism... and clients paid for it, and were happy with it.

Tell me again why you cant shoot a wedding with a 5D?
im pretty sure back in 2006 there were plenty of people shooting weddings and other professional work with the 5D, and yet, I hear people ramble on about how you cant possibly get good results now unless you have the 5DIII...you cant possible shoot a wedding unless you can shoot ISO 6400...
Ridiculous I say. TONS of people shot weddings with the 5D in 2006 and had perfectly good results, so I see no valid reason why someone couldn't do so tomorrow as well.
(i realize this discussion was not about weddings, I was just generalizing an example)

If someone is only able to produce good results because they have the absolute latest technology helping them...then I guess they just have to buy that new gear every time something gets upgraded. Sure, there are other reasons to upgrade. convenience. things that may save you processing time...maybe you just WANT something newer...im not judging.
and there ARE definitely limitations to older equipment that is made easier with newer technology...
But to say that the canon 5D isn't a relevant option for shooting professional work is...well..ridiculous in my opinion.
I think its a great bang for the buck camera if you dont have $2k to spend.

EDIT: this post was not aimed at any particular person...just my general opinion that older gear is a perfectly feasible option even today.

 

[jaomul]

Internet arguements, heartfelt slagging. Who cares

To OP if still tuned in, the 5d is probably the very best fullframe camera you will get for 400 pounds. There are better options as pointed out if you have more to spend. Many like the 5d, some don't. It is a bargain though

 

[Steve5D]

Gear does matter. I bet you play a cheap guitar,right? Probably something in the $259 range, right? Something from Sears, right? Or an old student guitar? I am laughing at your feeble arguments.

Feeble?

Hardly, Hoss...

It let me down numerous times when I tried to use it outside its scope.

It didn't let you down at all. The failing was with you, not with the camera, in that you expected it to do something it was not able to do. 'Tis a poor craftsman who blames his tools.

Should I be surprised that's exactly what you just did?

You can try an impress me with your heroic tales of the 5D, Steve5D (wow--got any ego tied up in the 5D, Steve5D)

Actually, no, Kreskin. "Steve" was taken when I signed up.

No heroic tales, Derrel. You just don't like knowing that there are people out there making a good living; in some cases probably better than yours, with gear which is technologically not as advanced compared to what you use. You can ***** and piss and moan about the failings of the 5D all you want. None of it changes the fact that I'm getting paid, and getting paid well, and I'm using what you deem an inferior piece of equipment to do it...

but I've given a very fair,honest, and experienced overview of the 5D's strengths and limitations. The 5D is a sluggish camera. I know...I shot my 5D regularly from 2007 to the spring of 2012. It's not my fault Steve5D that your photography doesn't regularly push the envelope enough that the 5D never limits your work.

"Doesn't regularly push the envelope"? Is that something you can even quantify?

But, since you want to make such a big deal over "pushing the envelope", tell me, are the photos you link to "pushing the envelope"?

http://www.pbase.com/derrel/recent_tpf_uploads

Some of those are good, some are okay and some suck. Whatever they are, though, none seem to be "pushing" anything. A picture of a side view mirror? A photo of the inside of a biggie size drink at McDonald's? Yeah, no way those could've ever have been pulled off with a 5D.

Seriously, man, you gotta' be kiddin' me...

 

[gsgary]

Gear does matter. I bet you play a cheap guitar,right? Probably something in the $259 range, right? Something from Sears, right? Or an old student guitar? I am laughing at your feeble arguments.


I'm not "denigrating" the Canon 5D. I own one. I shot it from 2007 to 2012. It always was a low-cost Canon EOS Elan film body design, which was adapted to a digital sensor. It was and always will be, built on a $389 camera body. With a slow mirror action, the mirror that used to FALL OFF of the mirror carriage in hot climates. It had slow throughput of 3 frames per second. Slow mirror return. It always was built with the Canon 30D's crop-body, 9-point AF focusing mechanism. It always was, and always will be, color-blind, with poor light metering in tricky situations, EASILY fooled in marine saltwater scenes, where its inability to measure color against reflectance will cause it to over-expose shadowed scenes to the point of unusability. I know all this. I shot a 5D for YEARS. It let me down numerous times when I tried to use it outside its scope.

The Nikon D600 is a vastly better camera, for $1600 refurbished. I payed about $4,000 UNDER current, used street price for my D3x...meaning, I payed less for it than Canon 6D users are paying right now...but then, I'm a sharp buyer and a shrewd negotiator...

You can try an impress me with your heroic tales of the 5D, Steve5D (wow--got any ego tied up in the 5D, Steve5D), but I've given a very fair,honest, and experienced overview of the 5D's strengths and limitations. The 5D is a sluggish camera. I know...I shot my 5D regularly from 2007 to the spring of 2012. It's not my fault Steve5D that your photography doesn't regularly push the envelope enough that the 5D never limits your work.

I have heard all this crap before, mine never does what you say because i tell it what the shutter speed will be and what aperture i want i don't need it to see colour i can do that, i didn't buy mine to shoot more than 3fps, it never limited my work becuse i know what to shoot with it, i only used it for sport when it was too dark to get good enough shots with my 1Dmk2's when i was shooting and printing on site

 

[Derrel]

You guys are amusing. I love Canon fanboys! And, well, there's a special class on the internet for Canon fanboys who name themselves after their CAMERA model ! "Steve5D". Wow...talk about getting caught up in the importance of one's camera.

LOL.

I made a lot of fine images with my 5D between 2007 and 2012. It was a good camera in its day. It was introduced back in 2005. But frankly, once I got a new-generation Nikon with a 24MP full-frame sensor and a professional focus,metering, and body control system, and a huge buffer and AMAZING battery life, the 5D went on the shelf because, quite frankly, the newer Nikon is simply sooooooooooooo much better a "shooter". It's just world's better than my Canon 5D. In every single respect.

Better. In. Every. Single. Respect. Period.

The 5D is a good value at 450 to 500 used. It is still what it always was. A $389 body, with a good, 13 MP 2005-era sensor. It represents the entry-level Canon FF of 2005 very well.

 

[Steve5D]

You guys are amusing. I love Canon fanboys! And, well, there's a special class on the internet for Canon fanboys who name themselves after their CAMERA model ! "Steve5D". Wow...talk about getting caught up in the importance of one's camera.

This obsession with my user name is unhealthy. It's funny, too.

Amuse me more...

I made a lot of fine images with my 5D between 2007 and 2012. It was a good camera in its day. It was introduced back in 2005. But frankly, once I got a new-generation Nikon with a 24MP full-frame sensor and a professional focus,metering, and body control system, and a huge buffer and AMAZING battery life, the 5D went on the shelf because, quite frankly, the newer Nikon is simply sooooooooooooo much better a "shooter". It's just world's better than my Canon 5D. In every single respect.

Yeah, I betcha' need all them bells and whistles, too, to capture the essence of the inside of a McDonald's drink...

Better. In. Every. Single. Respect. Period.

See, this shines a true light on the idiocy of the position you've taken.

No one has said that it's not a better camera. But it's stupid to recommend what you have when it's pretty clear that it's outside the budget. Do you suggest to people who are car shopping to buy a Bentley?

You have a need to feel good about yourself, and about the money you spent so you could take pictures of a kid eating breakfast (you know, "pushing the envelope"), that you need to constantly pronounce how good it is. I get that. But the 5D gets me paid, and it gets me paid nicely. In terms of "bang for the buck", it wins.

The 5D is a good value at 450 to 500 used. It is still what it always was. A $389 body, with a good, 13 MP 2005-era sensor. It represents the entry-level Canon FF of 2005 very well.

And it can't do "pushing the envelope" stuff, right? Well, Hell. Let's see some of the mind-blowing "pushing the envelope" stuff that you've done that could only have been created with your Nikon. Certainly you've examples.

We'll wait...