Canon 5D still a viable camera?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ajf
  • Start date Start date

ajf

ajf

ajf

Soldato
Joined
30 Oct 2006
Posts
3,053
Location
Worcestershire, UK
Recently updated my 350d to a 600d and am happy with it, but am getting itchy fingers for a full frame camera having seen the results here. Particularly depth of field effects.

Debating on a used 5D (original) and maybe a 50mm and/or 85mm fixed lens.

What are your thoughts?
Is the 5D still a decent camera against modern equipment, even the APS-C 600D?

Would mainly be used for static shots, nutmhow does the AF cope with rapid tracking?

Thanks
Andrew
 
Good sensor, ancient AF, although usable, just when compared to modern day AF, it doesn't fare well.

It has a old LCD, LCD has moved on a lot in the last 6/7 years.

It's a nice camera, make lovely files, if you know it's limitation you can get great images from it.
 
For static shots, definitely. For rapid tracking, its very hit and miss. The 5D mk ii has the same autofocus and I find when trying to take shots of birds it can miss around half of them regardless of skill. When you learn to use the autofocus though and know its strengths and weaknesses, you do find ways around them.

Example = The centre focal point is by far the sharpest of the 9 available so many people, including myself, focus on something using single point focus via the middle point, then recompose the shot to suit a better framed composition. Its a reaaaaally old technique but still works great in the digital age. Obviously for moving targets, you have no chance of doing this without insane amounts of luck (it is possible, done a few photos myself but they are literally 50% luck 50% skill at best)
 
I've still got mine and used it for the first time in a while 2 weeks ago - still got a soft spot for it. The files have got a certain quality to them. Sure it's got it's weaknesses but given the what they can be had for, it's a great camera to use while saving for a 5D3.
 
Unless I'm mistaken, doesn't the 600D have the same AF system as the 5D and 5D2? So the only operating difference he'd see would be improved handling but a worse screen, surely?
 
Thanks for the comments. The AF isn't a major issue anyway as I said for the intended use, although interesting comment by Ksanti. If that is correct then it should be OK as found the 600D has been fine for tracking so far.

Regards recomposing, pretty much do that with all static images already. Never really got the hang of flipping around the various focal points all the time :p

Assuming the comments about LCD/screen relate to the viewing screen on the back and not the sensor? If so again not a huge issue. Until 2 months ago I was using my 350D which I think had a very similar screena dn it did the job on the occasions I really needed to check an image.

Must say the larger one on the 600D has been useful though!

Think I might look around and see what prices I can get one for. Tempted to spend just a bit more and get one from mpbphotographic as at least there is a small warranty period.
 
James J said:
For static shots, definitely. For rapid tracking, its very hit and miss. The 5D mk ii has the same autofocus and I find when trying to take shots of birds it can miss around half of them regardless of skill. When you learn to use the autofocus though and know its strengths and weaknesses, you do find ways around them.

Example = The centre focal point is by far the sharpest of the 9 available so many people, including myself, focus on something using single point focus via the middle point, then recompose the shot to suit a better framed composition. Its a reaaaaally old technique but still works great in the digital age. Obviously for moving targets, you have no chance of doing this without insane amounts of luck (it is possible, done a few photos myself but they are literally 50% luck 50% skill at best)
Click to expand...


If you have a narrow DoF then focus & recompose will screw you over if the lens suffers any field curvature, which just so happens is very common in fast lenses. F&R is not really a viable technique.




The 5DMKI makes a great camera for static scenes though.
 
D.P. said:
If you have a narrow DoF then focus & recompose will screw you over if the lens suffers any field curvature, which just so happens is very common in fast lenses. F&R is not really a viable technique.




The 5DMKI makes a great camera for static scenes though.
Click to expand...

True but along as we aren't talking f1.4 and below at 85 and below and less than F2.8 at 100 and above, its not a that much of an issue. I rarely miss focus due to DOF when recomposing a shot even with my 150mm F2.8 macro lens, which at 1:1 has a DOF which is about 2mm thick. Great thing about static objects is you can take your time to perfect the shot. Moving objects is the direct opposite to that.
 
The joystick on the 5D will have you selecting focus points much more often. I really miss it when I go back to the 500D.
 
James J said:
True but along as we aren't talking f1.4 and below at 85 and below and less than F2.8 at 100 and above, its not a that much of an issue. I rarely miss focus due to DOF when recomposing a shot even with my 150mm F2.8 macro lens, which at 1:1 has a DOF which is about 2mm thick. Great thing about static objects is you can take your time to perfect the shot. Moving objects is the direct opposite to that.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand the problem of field curvature.
Field curvature issues are not some small few mm error in focusing or camera movement, there issues are much more pervasive. You don't need a DoF anywhere near that thin to have an issue. Due to field curvature the focus distance at the lens edges may be several meters different to the center of the lens!

I borrowed a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and using the any kind of focus and recompose, even with the lens at 17mm and f/4.0 there were massive focus errors due to field curvature, still visible even at f/5.6 and only really resolved at f/8 when the DoF was huge. The Canon and Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses display similar issues, even at 17mm and f4.0 or so you need to be very careful. One of the reason I choose a 16-85mm f3.5-5.6, since it has far less field curvature than the faster primes.
 
D.P. said:
I don't think you understand the problem of field curvature.
Field curvature issues are not some small few mm error in focusing or camera movement, there issues are much more pervasive. You don't need a DoF anywhere near that thin to have an issue. Due to field curvature the focus distance at the lens edges may be several meters different to the center of the lens!

I borrowed a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 and using the any kind of focus and recompose, even with the lens at 17mm and f/4.0 there were massive focus errors due to field curvature, still visible even at f/5.6 and only really resolved at f/8 when the DoF was huge. The Canon and Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 lenses display similar issues, even at 17mm and f4.0 or so you need to be very careful. One of the reason I choose a 16-85mm f3.5-5.6, since it has far less field curvature than the faster primes.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of this but this is primarily noticed in the wide aperture lenses, none of which I own, shoot with or want lol.
 
ajf said:
Assuming the comments about LCD/screen relate to the viewing screen on the back and not the sensor? If so again not a huge issue. Until 2 months ago I was using my 350D which I think had a very similar screena dn it did the job on the occasions I really needed to check an image.
Click to expand...

Correct, just the screen. But you learn to work with the histogram for exposure and checking focus - well you can tell if it's wildly out of focus :) It is a bit of pain for shallow DOF but not impossible.

I've happily used it with 85mm 1.8 and 135mm F2 wide open. You do have to be careful with focus and recompose - typically I've just avoided doing the recompose and then crop in post (but I appreciate you can't always do that).

The fact I shoot mostly primes was the reason I went to the 1Ds2 (which is kinda like a 5D with much better AF) but I don't think I'll sell my 5D. Makes a nice backup
 
Love my 5D mk1, it's not the quietest camera (mirror slap etc) but the files it produces are still awesome. It's a brilliant tank of a camera, a modern classic.

Out of the 85 and 50, I'd mate it up with the 50 for a great combo. Probably the Sigma 50mm 1.4 as long as it's a good copy.
 
I was chatting to a pro photographer we had in to take some corporate photo's yesterday about this. He generally uses the 5dii as his main whilst having a 5di as a backup camera. He said he's thinking of switching back to the 5di for a bit because of something to do with the way the images look....I forget his exact words but he seemed to be implying there's some kind of processing or similar that goes off to give the images something a bit different to that of other cameras?

Does this ring true with those that still use it? Can you explain what it is?
 
If he's shooting jpg it may be the picture style the camera is applying but otherwise I'd say there's more scope with the mk2 as it has more dynamic range. This may look to him like the files are a little more flat looking with the mk2 perhaps, if he's not in to the processing side of things. It's hard to say really without knowing exactly what it is he preferes about the pictures.
 
Last edited:
I know he shoots in raw and does do the processing stuff too so I'm not sure?

I guess either way, 5D would be nice providing you can fund the lenses to make the most of the sensor?
 
Do you think there is a minimum range of lenses you should look at if you had a body like this assuming you don't have the deep pockets for L glass lol

I guess as an example, any idea how my Canon 28mm 1.8 and Canon 50mm 1.4 would fair on such a body? I don't know if this is correct but I kind of see them as sort of mid range type lenses that are better than a lot of cheaper stuff but no where near as good as L glass
 
cokecan72 said:
I was chatting to a pro photographer we had in to take some corporate photo's yesterday about this. He generally uses the 5dii as his main whilst having a 5di as a backup camera. He said he's thinking of switching back to the 5di for a bit because of something to do with the way the images look....I forget his exact words but he seemed to be implying there's some kind of processing or similar that goes off to give the images something a bit different to that of other cameras?

Does this ring true with those that still use it? Can you explain what it is?
Click to expand...

I shoot with a 5D2 and a 5D1 at weddings and I can't tell the difference between the shots when processing (with the exception of high ISO shots).

cokecan72 said:
Do you think there is a minimum range of lenses you should look at if you had a body like this assuming you don't have the deep pockets for L glass lol

I guess as an example, any idea how my Canon 28mm 1.8 and Canon 50mm 1.4 would fair on such a body? I don't know if this is correct but I kind of see them as sort of mid range type lenses that are better than a lot of cheaper stuff but no where near as good as L glass
Click to expand...

I've not used one, but the Canon 50 1.4 seems to get very good reviews and would work very well on a 5D body.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom