My 5D vs. 5D mkii quick test

guitarkid · Apr 11, 2009

Original 5D vs. new 5D mkii. i just got the mkii yesterday and i'm going back and forth with the purchase. to tell you the truth, i am thinking of sending it back. the 5D is such a sweet cam that there really isn't much difference to me with the quality! AND.... indoors, in the evening, at iso 1000 F4, 1/30 roughly, the 5D performs flawlessly! barely any noise....none really.... at about 2500 iso F4, 1/30, the mkii gives the same quality but a tiny bit of noise. this is upsetting! i wondered if canon just made it so the NEW 2500 iso is the OLD 1000 iso!!! don't get me wrong, the mkii is a great cam but if you have the 5D, it's not necessary...maybe that's just me. someone please prove me wrong. the video is a nice thing to have on the cam but i won't use it that much. what i hate about the video, is that to use it you need to activate live view, so you can see on the screen what you're filming. when live view is activated, there is a very quiet motor noise which of course is picked up by the mic! EXCELLENT! anyway, here are some pics i took..... some mkii and some original 5D.... i have to go back and forth because i can't tell what is what at times. NO FLASH WAS USED AT ALL! roughly same settings between the 2 cams.... iso 2500 vs. iso 1000 on 5D.
mkii

mkii

original 5D

The last 2 are original 5D. when i zoomed way in on the RAWs during editing, i saw a little more noise on the mkii. maybe i'm too picky, i don't know, but for the money i was expecting insane light and day.
Steve

inTempus · Apr 11, 2009

I've never owned the 5D, but I do own a 5DMk2 and I can shoot all the way up to ISO 6400 with very little noise.

Most benchmarks I've seen show the 5DMk2 out performing the 5D by a wide margin. Example:

Sw1tchFX · Apr 12, 2009

From the people who I know who own the 5D mkII, they own it for these reasons:

-They normally shoot with a 1Ds MkIII, but don't want to spend a $5000 premium for just build.

-It's 21 megapixels with video

They upgraded from the original 5D because of this:

-LCD screen (I agree, it sucks, it's green, it's the worst LCD i've seen in a digital camera, let alone one that cost $3000 new)

-megapixels 13 vs 21

-can shoot above ISO 3200.

Other then that, the two cameras have the same AF system, shoot at pretty much the same rate, have the same weak feeling shutter, similar color depth, same handling, it's not a huge upgrade.

If I owned a 5D, and didn't mind the LCD and didn't need video, there's no way i'd get a 5DII, I agree that the upgrade just isn't vastly significant, especially when shooting at ISO 1600 and below.

inTempus · Apr 12, 2009

Sw1tchFX said:
Other then that, the two cameras have the same AF system, shoot at pretty much the same rate, have the same weak feeling shutter, similar color depth, same handling, it's not a huge upgrade.

If I owned a 5D, and didn't mind the LCD and didn't need video, there's no way i'd get a 5DII, I agree that the upgrade just isn't vastly significant, especially when shooting at ISO 1600 and below.

I would agree with that. The 5DMk2 upgrade is about the same in scope as the 40D to 50D upgrade. Nice improvements for sure, but nothing earth shattering. If you're looking for substantial improvements in IQ, like being able to instantly tell which camera took what picture... it's not going to happen.

The one feature I've found to be exceptionally useful is the micro-adjustment feature. My 24-70 lens requires one click of back focus adjustment on all of my bodies.

guitarkid · Apr 12, 2009

thanks guys, Sw1tchFX, you said it best! i agree completely. iso 6400 isn't bad. there is a little noise but once it's exported to hi rez jpg, you won't see much of it. i won't shoot above 1600 iso most of the time. the one thing i am starting to like is the 1920x1080p video. this came in handy this morning getting a clip of our son. i don't have to put the cam down and get the video camera from across the room, power it on, miss the shot. it is an added bonus and i have to figure out if that is worth it. also, i'm not doing huge prints so the 21mp is not really required.
Steve

inTempus · Apr 12, 2009

guitarkid said:
thanks guys, Sw1tchFX, you said it best! i agree completely. iso 6400 isn't bad. there is a little noise but once it's exported to hi rez jpg, you won't see much of it. i won't shoot above 1600 iso most of the time. the one thing i am starting to like is the 1920x1080p video. this came in handy this morning getting a clip of our son. i don't have to put the cam down and get the video camera from across the room, power it on, miss the shot. it is an added bonus and i have to figure out if that is worth it. also, i'm not doing huge prints so the 21mp is not really required.
Steve

Have you considered selling the 5D? Would that soften the blow? Or do you just prefer the IQ of the 5D and you're still not all that impressed with the 5DMk2 (aside from the video)?

guitarkid · Apr 13, 2009

tharmsen, actually i have never considered selling the 5D at all, just returning the mkii....weird huh? and you're right, to me, it's like having the same cam with video. maybe it's me, but the 5D looks a little warmer as well, almost more film-like. i can see it in the two 5D shots i posted here...bottom 2. what i do like about the mkii is the sensor cleaner and the lcd screen but that's not enough. i was kinda hoping for a big jump like a 40D to 5D or something like that. oh well.

inTempus · Apr 13, 2009

Well, look on the bright side. With the money you get back from the return of the 5DMk2 you can buy some really nice new lenses.

guitarkid · Apr 13, 2009

yeah, maybe one. i'm going to do a final test tonight, shooting same subjects and i will post results here if anyone is interested. i think in the end, the writing is on the wall....ugh.