How much is 0.8 stop, really?

[unpopular]

So I have been wanting to upgrade my a350 to a similar era mid-end camera, mostly for a larger viewfinder for some time. I had been looking at the a700 and the 40D/50D, but had found the original 5D is actually in my price range as well. According to snapsort, the 5D meets all of my requirements, reads a smidge more color than the a700, has beter noise performance and a MUCH larger viewfinder compared to the a700, even with a hair more coverage. However, this comes at the expense of 0.8 stop less dynamic range and ofcourse new lenses - though all I'd really need is a 50 and eventually a 28. I don't care much about AF (at all).

I never got used to the crop factor, even after several years of shooting with the a350. I'm inclined to go with the 5D, but the 0.8 stop loss worries me. Am I just being stubborn?

 

[amolitor]

Surely the 5D still has rather more dynamic range than you can shove onto a monitor or a piece of paper, though? I don't know the details, but I assume it's at least 12 bits or so.

So this just means you have less leeway for fixing exposure from the RAW, right?

 

[unpopular]

^^ no.

i'm not going down that path right now, but that's not really the point, even if it were true.

 

[amolitor]

What's not true? I find your response confusing.

 

[unpopular]

Eugh. Ok. Here comes the debate...

First of all, the maximum theoretical dynamic range permitted by the A/D converter is never attained, otherwise, dynamic range-wise, it wouldn't matter much between cameras, provided that bit depth is similar. This simply isn't true. So saying that because the 5D has 12-bit a/d depth does not mean that it has 12-bit/12-stop dynamic range. We all know that functionally noise gets in the way and varies functional dynamic range from body to body.

Second, higher dynamic range has the same value as HDR photography does. The difference is that it's much more manageable, and "tone mapping" can be done in the RAW processor. It has always been true that film captures more dynamic range than paper, that's not the issue. The issue is having the ability to fit that dynamic range onto the paper - in b/w terms, grading. With more dynamic range, you have more options of how that data will "fit" into the more limited 6-8 bits of dynamic range available in the print. If you simply took a 6-bit image, it would clip out prematurely. With a 12-bit image you can decide at what point it clips, i.e. deep shadow detail. Without this data available, there is no detail recorded in the first place.

Many people approach digital photography like slide film, trying to "get it right" in camera. This approach has it's merit (I don't view it that way), but it also creates a lot of confusion about digital imaging and processing and how it actually works. Simply because you cannot record print 12-bits of data does not mean that having that data available isn't useful.

 

[amolitor]

Not gonna bother with the debate. I just wanted to know if the damn thing had a 6 bit sensor or something. It does seem to be 12, and someone other than me can argue about whether that's enough.

If your usage really wants all the bit depth it can get, opt for the one with the extra bit. I don't know what that usage might be, but that's irrelevant. The original 5D doesn't seem to be all that, after skimming a review here and there.

 

[unpopular]

Hmm. Mind posting one of such reviews? The a700 was very well recieved, and I already own some lenses. These two samples show very little difference in sharpness aside from what you'd expect from resolution and DOF:

http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/SonyDSLRA700/Samples/Compared/Studio/a700_iso0200-raw-acr.jpg
http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS5D/Samples/Compared/Studio/5d_iso100_std.JPG

I am also waiting on the NEX-6.

 

[amolitor]

The common theme in them, really, is 'it's 2005, this thing is awesome!'. Complaints about 'only 3FPS shooting' appear. The thing IS only 12.8M pixels, and I assume low light sensitivity is pretty poor by modern standards. Maybe you don't care about those things, though? Basically it's an old camera, and the first generation one, in some sense?

Reviews are probably mostly meaningless in modern terms, but:

Canon EOS 5D
Canon EOS 5D Review: Digital Photography Review

popped out of a web search. The dpreview one surprised me, since that was where I went first and it didn't pop up when I looked for it in their review finder thingy. Maybe I used it wrong.

EDIT: You know, I might have given the impression that the reviews I saw were panning the thing. They were not, they mostly liked it, but reading them now in 2012 definitely gave the impression of a camera that's pretty poor by modern standards. Sorry if I was confusing.

 

[unpopular]

No. I don't care too much about megapixels, there hasn't been that much of an improvement in actual resolution given my price range here. Some certainly, but body and finder are much more important than a little bit of moirey resolution from a $600, 18mp crop sensor.

As for the age, going back to 2007 (a700) certainly does make me a bit squeemish, going further (5D) makes me downright nervous.

Here is the review of the 5D from 2005. As you know, these reviews are limited:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d

 

[o hey tyler]

Get a 5D mark 1. Coming from someone who actually uses one regularly and doesn't proclaim to be some authority on imaging via some blog link in my sig. It's a great camera and I often use it over the 5D2. Compare those in dynamic range. You won't miss the fraction of dynamic range, and the IQ is great.

 

[unpopular]

I knew I could trust you, tyler, for your honest unbiased opinion!

But seriously, that is helpful. With the dpreview test image so similar to the a700, I am inclined.

I was also thinking the dynamic range would one sided for some reason (probably b/w film). In reality that 0.8 stop difference is going to be likely split between hilights and shadows, and shadow noise will probably will less. The way I expose and the scenes I gravitate towered, I very rarely come anywhere near the limits of my a350. So I doubt very much that 0.8 stop less dynamic range is going to impact much.

 

[Derrel]

How much MONEY can you spend to get a really decent camera??? Nikon D3's have dropped below $2,000 used now, and that would be a LONG-TERM camera with killer High-ISO, big viewfinder, AND multi-aspect-ratio crops right in camera, with the push of a button, and a click of the thumb control wheel to shift between FF and 2.0x FOV crop, or one button press and two clicks to go FF, 4:5, 2.0x FOV aspect ratio.

I have shot the original 5D since it was new. It's a FANTASTIC 12.8 MP camera under studio flash illumination....looks absolutely wonderful. But my current shooting partner is using the EOS 60D,and it seems to have better DR than the 5D classic. I believe that the sensor in the 60D is better than that in the 7D, based on image files and images I have reviewed from both. Around here, 5D classics are retailing for $750 to $895 on the low end, and $1000 or so on the higher end of the price scale. I think the IQ of the 60D is a bit better than that of the 5D Classic; the extra 5MP seem to help with resolution, AND the sensor is MUCH newer.

I would be greatly tempted to hold off on a new camera and wait for the Nikon D600 announcement in August or September...

 

[unpopular]

The 5D is going for around $600-750 on ebay, If I sell my a350 and alpha lenses, this would be in my price range. Really, I need to be under $600, so I am a bit limited.

No matter, I am not looking into a long-term camera right now, at least not until my wife graduates - which is very soon. The big thing I'm wanting right now is a decent (I mean, good) finder, strong body and at least similar or better optical resolution and dynamic range as my a350.

 

[amolitor]

You gotta figure that those GIANT pixels on the 5D sensor have to give you some kind of win on the noise rejection down in the shadows, but the test shots on dpreview are probably gonna tell the tale more than some idiot on the internet speculating.

 

[unpopular]

yeah, and I am not seeing a whole hell of a lot of advantage. the a700 is a pretty low noise body, at least at the ISO's I use. One thing I am seeing is that weird pixely/moire you get on crop sensors with fine diagonal detail, but I am not sure that this matters a whole lot in the long run.

I'm so back and forth on this, I like the idea of full frame, but I am just not sure I want to go that route, especially if it means buying new lenses and adapters, with an 8 year old body. Then there is also the IS issue, which I have avoided even thinking about.