Canon 5D 1 vs 5D 2

[antonroland]

Hello All

So those of us familiar with the Classic 5D1 will know what I mean when I talk about that 5D Classic something…

To what extent did the 5D2 inherit this or not at all?

Cheers!

 

[troutfisher]

From memory I did not notice a great difference in the images from the two
From my point the biggest and most appreciated difference was live view, it made using a TSE lens in tilt mode while not a doddle at least a lot easier.

 

[antonroland]

From memory I did not notice a great difference in the images from the two
From my point the biggest and most appreciated difference was live view, it made using a TSE lens in tilt mode while not a doddle at least a lot easier.

Do you still have both and, if possible, could you share 2 comparative images?

The absolutely only thing which makes me consider a Mk 2 over another Mk1 is the 20Mp which enables me to print slightly larger BUT if the Mk2 does not have that Mk1 something it will be another Mk1 for me…

 

[Dale.]

I've never owned or used either, but the 5D series is reknowned for image quality, I don't think you'd be disappointed with either. Personally, I'd go for the newer sensor with more MP, for printing and cropability.

Or treat yourself to both.

 

[antonroland]

I've never owned or used either, but the 5D series is reknowned for image quality, I don't think you'd be disappointed with either. Personally, I'd go for the newer sensor with more MP, for printing and cropability.

Or treat yourself to both.

Both seems likely but I am just not sure if the Mk2 features are REALLY enough to outweigh a 2nd Classic…time will tell…

 

[reheat module]

I leapt into the 5D2 from a 40D, so no 'direct' comparator (FF etc), but simply - Wow.
I was shooting at ISO 6400 before considering reaching for a flashgun.
Very happy.

 

[troutfisher]

Do you still have both and, if possible, could you share 2 comparative images?

The absolutely only thing which makes me consider a Mk 2 over another Mk1 is the 20Mp which enables me to print slightly larger BUT if the Mk2 does not have that Mk1 something it will be another Mk1 for me…

I don't have either now but I will have a trawl and see what I can find.
I certainly have Mk2 pix but I am not sure about the Mk1

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

Both seems likely but I am just not sure if the Mk2 features are REALLY enough to outweigh a 2nd Classic…time will tell…

I haven't tried the 5D II but I ran a pair of 5D bodies alongside a 1Ds II (16.5MP) for a while. The greater pixel count of the 1Ds II didn't really translate to anything obviously better in the final images.



From the 5D...


1Ds II...

 

[antonroland]

I believe, and probably VERY subjectively that the 1DsII almost has that 5D Classic “something” but that it is a good bit sharper in the IQ department and not purely because of the marginal increase in Mp…

Both brilliant cameras and they have served me very well.

The smaller 5D1 is a good bit more comfortable for longer hikes though…

Oh man I believe I am overstating the obvious here…I will probably (VERY LIKELY) end up buying another 5D1…and possibly another…

I simply love the lines and look too, something in which the 5D2 fails miserably in my taste…

 

[Joeturner11]

I haven't tried the 5D II but I ran a pair of 5D bodies alongside a 1Ds II (16.5MP) for a while. The greater pixel count of the 1Ds II didn't really translate to anything obviously better in the final images.

View attachment 346487

From the 5D...
View attachment 346488

1Ds II...
View attachment 346490

Loved the 1Ds II owned for many years, great camera with a now terrible battery if only it ran something that lasted, lovely bit of kit still still regret flogging it in a way!

 

[Craikeybaby]

I bought a 5D Classic as a "temporary stop gap" body in 2010, and kept it until 2018, you are right, there is definitely something special about the files they produce.

 

[woof woof]

I had earlier Canon DSLR's, 300D, 10D, 20D and 5D. I liked all in turn for different reasons but even back then I had issues with them too and sorry but in hindsight I don't see any magic or impossible to define specialness in any of them now including the 5D, not when compared to more recent kit. For good light shooting with no dr worries they're ok but you're limited to relatively low ISO's and dr by todays standards and if you protect the highlights and boost the shadows at any iso the limitations of the earlier tech are there to be seen. At the time I liked the 5D and Sigma 50mm f1.4 combination (apart from the bulk and weight) image quality and I thought I'd never need better kit but these days I'd take any of my more recent mft kit over a 5D let alone my A7.

I don't mean to be too negative and to each their own and good luck to anyone buying a 5D/50DII but I thought posting my own experiences might add a little balance as I do think that thought is needed before going all misty eyed and spending money on this sort of older kit.

 

[Steelo]

From personal experience if going backwards, I would go back to a 6d over a 5dc, 2 or 3 having used them all side by side...I don't get 'the magic' and whilst nostalgia drives a lot of things, camera gear isn't one to be nostalgic over for me personally, to the point I'd choose a Sony A6000 over any of the above. Horses for courses though and personal choices can't be decided on by others

 

[Peter Drought]

Not much difference at low ISO. High ISO did show a fair improvement however. Dynamic range also seemed to be a bit better, although whether that was a difference in the files or due to the screen being better on the mk2 not sure.

 

[antonroland]

Not much difference at low ISO. High ISO did show a fair improvement however. Dynamic range also seemed to be a bit better, although whether that was a difference in the files or due to the screen being better on the mk2 not sure.

5D2 screen is amazing by comparison…only worse rear screen I know of is the 1DsMkII…and probably all others of the era…

 

[LongLensPhotography]

12mp is severely limiting. It's a non starter now. Same as a cripple MK2 when you can get much better MK3 for similar money

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

12mp is severely limiting.

Only if you think it is.

Plenty of pictures taken on 6MP cameras were and still are adequate for my needs - the 12.8 MP of an original 5D is more than adequate. It's what the image shows that matters, not how many dots it's made of...

 

[Dave Canon]

My first DSLR was a 20D which I still have converted to Infrared now. I was not prepared to move on from the 20D until Canon made a significant improvement. At that time I did not consider the 5D spec was good enough so waited until the 5D2 which was a significant step forward. When the 5D3 came out, I did not consider it worth upgrading but did get the 5D4 when it came out and have still got it. I would certainly consider the 5D4 to meet all my needs except weight which is why I now have a Sony ML. However, I have kept the 5D4 and will use it occasionally (mainly studio shoots). It is not just the number of pixels which is relevant but also the dynamic range. While the pixel count for the 5D2 might have been just adequate if you did not crop, I found the much greater number of pixels in the 5D4 very advantageous when cropping. The focus performance of the earlier 5D's was not good but the 5D4 was very good. It is in this aspect that my Sony ML is even better (important if you take birds in flight or sport). The dynamic range of the 5D2 was around 11 stops not enough for a sunny landscape but the 5D4 is almost 14 stops as is my new Sony. I did not think of the 5D as the Classic but the 5D2 but then we all have a soft spot for the one we bought. For the OP, I recommend that you buy a smaller lighter ML camera which we out perform the 5D in every way.

Dave

 

[antonroland]

I had earlier Canon DSLR's, 300D, 10D, 20D and 5D. I liked all in turn for different reasons but even back then I had issues with them too and sorry but in hindsight I don't see any magic or impossible to define specialness in any of them now including the 5D, not when compared to more recent kit. For good light shooting with no dr worries they're ok but you're limited to relatively low ISO's and dr by todays standards and if you protect the highlights and boost the shadows at any iso the limitations of the earlier tech are there to be seen. At the time I liked the 5D and Sigma 50mm f1.4 combination (apart from the bulk and weight) image quality and I thought I'd never need better kit but these days I'd take any of my more recent mft kit over a 5D let alone my A7.

I don't mean to be too negative and to each their own and good luck to anyone buying a 5D/50DII but I thought posting my own experiences might add a little balance as I do think that thought is needed before going all misty eyed and spending money on this sort of older kit.

Sounds a bit more opinion than experience...

 

[antonroland]

From personal experience if going backwards, I would go back to a 6d over a 5dc, 2 or 3 having used them all side by side...I don't get 'the magic' and whilst nostalgia drives a lot of things, camera gear isn't one to be nostalgic over for me personally, to the point I'd choose a Sony A6000 over any of the above. Horses for courses though and personal choices can't be decided on by others

I would not consider it going backwards to revisit something that works. I considered the 6D but dropped the idea when I discovered that they have plastic bodies...even if only the top plate...

If I had to pick from 6D or 5D2 I would most likely go 5D2...

 

[antonroland]

12mp is severely limiting.

Why? Are heavy crops essential to you or do you make aliving from billboard-size prints?

 

[antonroland]

My first DSLR was a 20D which I still have converted to Infrared now. I was not prepared to move on from the 20D until Canon made a significant improvement. At that time I did not consider the 5D spec was good enough so waited until the 5D2 which was a significant step forward. When the 5D3 came out, I did not consider it worth upgrading but did get the 5D4 when it came out and have still got it. I would certainly consider the 5D4 to meet all my needs except weight which is why I now have a Sony ML. However, I have kept the 5D4 and will use it occasionally (mainly studio shoots). It is not just the number of pixels which is relevant but also the dynamic range. While the pixel count for the 5D2 might have been just adequate if you did not crop, I found the much greater number of pixels in the 5D4 very advantageous when cropping. The focus performance of the earlier 5D's was not good but the 5D4 was very good. It is in this aspect that my Sony ML is even better (important if you take birds in flight or sport). The dynamic range of the 5D2 was around 11 stops not enough for a sunny landscape but the 5D4 is almost 14 stops as is my new Sony. I did not think of the 5D as the Classic but the 5D2 but then we all have a soft spot for the one we bought. For the OP, I recommend that you buy a smaller lighter ML camera which we out perform the 5D in every way.

Dave

Cheers!

Sadly, the first bit where we don't agree is that you feel the 5D1 was not a worthwhile improvement over the 20D...Well, not good enough to make you spend the money at the time.

Sadly, and despite having a very competent little Sony compact, the brand is thankfully lost on me. The 5D1 IS my light camera and as for outperforming...well, that is mostly a matter of opinion

P.S.

I just saw that my footer / signature is a bit dated...off fixing that because if my Fuji system could not keep up with my 5D1 I seriously doubt anything from Sony can...

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I recommend that you buy a smaller lighter ML camera which we out perform the 5D in every way.

I guess this is going to descend into "format wars" like the sheet film versus roll film arguments of the 1940s or the roll film versus 35mm disputes of the 1960s and 70s.

Still, it was ever thus. At one time, the Classicists wanted to strangle the Impressionists and everyone hated the Expressionists. At the end of the day there are those who like pictures and those who would rather take them apart down to the molecular level, to see why other people like them!

Me? I just like to share what I've seen with others but that's a bit common for some.

I'll just be gettin' me coat...

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Why? Are heavy crops essential to you or do you make aliving from billboard-size prints?

I do actually. Both. Shame you can't do either

 

[fujilover]

both quite bad, would save for a MK 3 any day even if it means cutting peoples grass on the weekend lol

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

I do actually. Both. Shame you can't do either

I did 6 foot prints from Tri-X shot in a Nikon, at the end of the 'sixties. The client paid on time too!

 

[antonroland]

I guess this is going to descend into "format wars" like the sheet film versus roll film arguments of the 1940s or the roll film versus 35mm disputes of the 1960s and 70s.

Nahh, no need for that…

And here’s why…

The only reason I really created this post is to get some opinions from those who could help me with opinions as to whether the 5D2 images have that “something” found in 5D1 images.

Sure, there are many “improvements” of the 2 over the 1…the biggest one of which for me would be the quality of the rear screen.

A VERY unimportant “improvement” (to me) would be the 20+ Mp sensor…but that is probably inevitable in an upgraded model.

All the rest…video etc…is a waste of time to me but I could probably live with the focus magnification assuming the 2 had it…my Mk3 did…

On a VERY subjective tangent I find the lines and looks of the Mk2 rather hideous by comparison…OK, we are talking cameras, not cars…

Still, I have a very long and very fond connection with the Mk1 and I probably will end up buying at least another 1 as long as they serve my needs…and they do.

Still, it was ever thus. At one time, the Classicists wanted to strangle the Impressionists and everyone hated the Expressionists. At the end of the day there are those who like pictures and those who would rather take them apart down to the molecular level, to see why other people like them!

That molecular level thing used to be me.I eventually saw the light, thank goodness. Now I am just a gear slut who has too many toys to pick from any day of the week…

Me? I just like to share what I've seen with others but that's a bit common for some.

With you there. I do sell the occasional print every now and again but nowhere near what I could live from…

I'll just be gettin' me coat...

View attachment 346679

 

[antonroland]

I do actually. Both. Shame you can't do either

Well, there you go, horses for courses!

I will eventually get the 5DsR when play money allows but when I need to make really large prints I will burn a roll of film and have it scanned decently.

Until then I am quite happy to print up to around 1m wide from a single exposure…or I can do a pano…my 5D1 is quite capable of producing 80+ Mp images…

 

[antonroland]

I did 6 foot prints from Tri-X shot in a Nikon, at the end of the 'sixties. The client paid on time too!

To this day nothing beats film treated properly…it would seem even 35mm…

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

12mp is severely limiting. It's a non starter now. Same as a cripple MK2 when you can get much better MK3 for similar money

Yeah but no but yeah but no..... wouldn't the Mk4 make more sense than the 3?

 

[Dave Canon]

To this day nothing beats film treated properly…it would seem even 35mm…

How do you measure this or is it just an artistic opinion. If you allow for variations in chemicals and darkroom editing film can do reasonably well but still has some severe limitations. However, when considering Digital, providing one can use raw and edit then there should be a huge advantage in dynamic range and lower noise. A scene of snow capped mountains in a sunny landscape has a dynamic range around 12 stops most digital cameras now can manage this but not film. A few years ago a well known photographer came to our club to lecture on his wild life photography and brought slides. While his wildlife knowledge was excellent, the quality of the images was rather poor. Many of our members had never seen slides before and were puzzled about the blocked up shadows in all of his images.

Dave

 

[tikkathreebarrel]

I bought a 5D1 as my introduction to full frame, having started somewhere 400D-ish and immediately fell base over apex. I upgraded a few years later to a new 5D2 which from day one has lived on a battery grip: that camera serves my DSLR needs.

Did I ever yearn to revert to "5D Classic"? no, I did not. I've been happy with the 5D2 ever since. I don't generate income, I don't make big prints in fact I rarely make prints, I'm completely a hobby photographer. My lens tastes are varied taking in L glass and legacy manual focus lenses.

There was a time when I felt the need for a higher frame rate and supplemented things with a 1D body which worked but I much preferred the 5D/full frame outputs.

Now though I sometimes think about adding a 5D4 but I seem unlikely to do anything about it.

 

[antonroland]

In theory it should, yes.

Newer should always be better. How much better and indeed better at all? That is a very interesting question…

 

[antonroland]

Well, simply going by the numbers a semi-decent upper end film scanner’s 8000dpi scan turns the humble 35mm neg into an 80+ Mp image.

But…

The operator of the scanner needs to know his stuff. This is becoming painfully clear to me now on my journey if rediscovering film and especially the 35mm format.

The capable machines are becoming more hard to find and capable operators even more so…

Back in the days of the 1 hour lab we were happy with a handful of jumbo prints remember? Well digital has changed all of that and for good reason.

As for your guy with the blocked shadows in his slides…it could have been one of many things or a combination of any number of things. It is a real pity you obviously can’t share any of that. Slide film exposure and development are very precise things with precious little latitude and some things only show up weeks, months or years later when it is too late to fix.

Bottom line, as much fun and as great as film is, we need to preserve the hardware and the skills because what we lose is gone forever.

P.S.

The more I learn from guys who really know, the more I see how little I actually knew…

 

[Dave Canon]

Well, simply going by the numbers a semi-decent upper end film scanner’s 8000dpi scan turns the humble 35mm neg into an 80+ Mp image.

But…

The operator of the scanner needs to know his stuff. This is becoming painfully clear to me now on my journey if rediscovering film and especially the 35mm format.

The capable machines are becoming more hard to find and capable operators even more so…

Back in the days of the 1 hour lab we were happy with a handful of jumbo prints remember? Well digital has changed all of that and for good reason.

As for your guy with the blocked shadows in his slides…it could have been one of many things or a combination of any number of things. It is a real pity you obviously can’t share any of that. Slide film exposure and development are very precise things with precious little latitude and some things only show up weeks, months or years later when it is too late to fix.

Bottom line, as much fun and as great as film is, we need to preserve the hardware and the skills because what we lose is gone forever.

P.S.

The more I learn from guys who really know, the more I see how little I actually knew…

I suggest you need to read up on these topics. Just scanning at a high resolution does not create information if the resolution is not there to start with. One of the obvious reasons why large format is so much better than say 35mm. You also need to know the DMax of the scanner (yes it is dynamic range again). My Nikon scanner in the late 90's had a Dmax of 3.0 just not good enough and soon after most scanners has a Dmax of 4.0.

I was never happy with any prints from any lab and have always produced my own. I started with B&W film and prints and later added colour though never really satisfied with slides so printed from negative film (B&W and Colour) until the late 90's when I scanned the film and printed digitally. Since those days I have always owned a high quality photographic printer.

You seemed to miss the point with slides. Slides have a dynamic range of only 6-7 stops. If the scene you wish to capture is say 10 stops, it will not fit so photographers used to compromise and set the exposure to just avoid burnt out highlights. The result is that you are left with blocked up shadows. There would be little you could do to avoid this problem with nature photography. Some landscape photographers made use of Grad filters to reduce the DR of the scene and studios were fine as you had total control of the light and the contrast.

By preserving the hardware and skills is rather like retaining some steam engines on heritage railways which I am all for but, if I have to take a long journey across the country, I would prefer the speed and comfort of the modern railway. From what I understand the university photography courses still include film and darkrooms so it is preserved for now.

Dave

 

[antonroland]

I suggest you need to read up on these topics.

Doing exactly that and one better. I am shooting 35mm and getting it scanned and the same with 120 and 4x5. It is sadly quite costly in my neck of the woods and it involves shipping of my negs to other cities so it will not be a quick exercise. I also don’t have the luxury of 3 film retailers within 5 street blocks from my home…

Just scanning at a high resolution does not create information if the resolution is not there to start with.

Totally agreed…

One of the obvious reasons why large format is so much better than say 35mm.

No contest.

You also need to know the DMax of the scanner (yes it is dynamic range again). My Nikon scanner in the late 90's had a Dmax of 3.0 just not good enough and soon after most scanners has a Dmax of 4.0.

Currently reinventing the wheel testing all those aspects with 2 or 3 different professional outlets to see what I can live with. And with professional outlets I also mean some very experienced guys who thankfully mothballed and retained their drum scanners for the future…

I was never happy with any prints from any lab and have always produced my own. I started with B&W film and prints and later added colour though never really satisfied with slides so printed from negative film (B&W and Colour) until the late 90's when I scanned the film and printed digitally. Since those days I have always owned a high quality photographic printer.

Sadly my volumes are not big enough to justify the purchase and running cost of a decent large format printer but thankfully I have a pro printing company in my home town.

You seemed to miss the point with slides. Slides have a dynamic range of only 6-7 stops. If the scene you wish to capture is say 10 stops, it will not fit so photographers used to compromise and set the exposure to just avoid burnt out highlights. The result is that you are left with blocked up shadows.

It seems Lightroom has a solution but I will test it for myself before I get on my big soapbox…again, me trying to prove the world wrong…but hey, I’m no stranger to humble pie and I have an above-average capacity…

There would be little you could do to avoid this problem with nature photography. Some landscape photographers made use of Grad filters to reduce the DR of the scene and studios were fine as you had total control of the light and the contrast.

Or shoot digital…or shoot scenes within those DR boundaries?
Studio is just not my thing so that’s that bit off the table

By preserving the hardware and skills is rather like retaining some steam engines on heritage railways which I am all for but, if I have to take a long journey across the country, I would prefer the speed and comfort of the modern railway. From what I understand the university photography courses still include film and darkrooms so it is preserved for now.

What I was actually referring to was the number of high street guys down here in SA who trashed their (perfectly servicable!) high end drum scanners in the early days of digital. A good business decision at the time maybe but with the comeback of film shooting maybe not so great a decade or two down the road?

Dave

No worries Dave and thanks for your input! How would we (I) learn if not for conversations like these. Taking your comments on board will, at worst, expedite my journey to the next serving of humble pie and save me time and cost testing getting there.