Canon 5d Low Light Performance

Suzy McKnockers

Suzy McKnockers

Messages
477
Name
Jason
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All

Im looking at using a canon 5d for shooting a gig this weekend however pretty much all the reviews i can find are on the Mkii and Mkiii.

The low light performance in my Nikon d5200 is pretty pants to be fair so I'm expecting it to be much better and on top of that the 5d is full frame..

Anyone used a 5d to shoot gigs?

cheers
 
The original 5D? Not gigs, but I've used one for very low light shooting and whilst the image quality is ok the problem is being limited to ISO 3200.
 
And ISO 3200 is pretty noisy. Be prepared to do noise reduction on all of your images if you want "clean" ones.
I shot classical music concerts with one for 6 years (at least)
The modern cameras (Canon 70D and Olympus E-M5MarkII (Micro 4/3)) run rings around it in the high ISO department.
 
Last edited:
Why not try out a few shots while your at home ? So long as your not obsessed with noiseless images I think you might be pleasantly surprised with the results I know I was :)
 
I have read a fair bit about what they refer to now as the 5Dc "classic" I was offered one just after I had purchased my Nikon D3 and 14-24mm ! for a less than a 1/4 of what I had just laid out :(
I couldn't resist shooting half a dozen frames with the 5Dc and was impressed with what I got at the time.
There is a thread on here that's well worth checking out.:)
 
Yup, a good thread with some pictures I took at 3200 when fishing at night which look good to me and I didn't find 3200 to be really noisy at all.

Interesting thoughts on comparison to MFT earlier by Richard. I have a GX7 which shouldn't be too far from the E-M5 and IMO the 5D holds up very well. I suppose noise isn't the whole story and if it isn't I'd say that I'd struggle to see a clear victory there for MFT.
 
Last edited:
What the improved higher ISO performance did for me with the concert shootng was that f2.8 was now viable. Previously 90% of my shots were at f2 so I was using fast primes (35mm through to 135mm) on multiple bodies (40D and 5D).
I looked at purchasing a Canon 70-200 f2.8 IS L lens for my 70D, however they are pretty heavy (I am always shooting hand held) at the concerts.

Olympus make a 40-150 f2.8 (80-300 FOV in 35mm terms) which had good revrews so I decided to go the mirrorless route. (the 40-150 + an Olympus body was just a little bit more $$$ than the Canon 70-200 lens).
I liked the combination so much that I purchased a second Olympus body along with an Olympus 12-40 f2.8 lens (24-80 FOV in 35mm terms)
For the concert shoots it is a very versatile, easily managable, combination and the Olympus bodies are image stabilised..
The Canon 70D, with a couple of fast primes is now just a backup camera on these shoots.

For other shoots, especially when tracking fast mooving objects is needed, the Canon gear is my first choice.. However I am using the Olympus gear more and more for my personal stuuff.
 
Last edited:
Suzy McKnockers said:
Thanks all, I've just picked the camera up from a friend and it's actually a 5d mk ii
Click to expand...

Sounds like you have already made a step up in camera another excellent piece of kit !
 
cheers guys - just had a quick 10 minutes with the 5dmkii - pretty straight forward to be honest the bit that really is bugging me (which ill get use to over the next couple of days) is the zoom... it goes the wrong way ha ha ha
 
I recently shot with a model backlit and the focusing was having trouble.

I also did s fashion show (dark - only the catwalk was lit) and that worked ok.

If theres enough light the 5D is capable of taking good photos.
 
there is a world of difference between the 5D (classic) and the MkII.
A's well as a huge price differential....

Pair it up with a decent fast lens and it should be more than capable.
 
Suzy McKnockers said:
Hi All

Im looking at using a canon 5d for shooting a gig this weekend however pretty much all the reviews i can find are on the Mkii and Mkiii.

The low light performance in my Nikon d5200 is pretty pants to be fair so I'm expecting it to be much better and on top of that the 5d is full frame..

Anyone used a 5d to shoot gigs?

cheers
Click to expand...
Well dxomark shows the 5d to have a near identical score to the Nikon 5200 for noise performance so if you think the Nikon is pants you'll think the canon is too.
 
5d ii was used for many many concerts back in the day you will be fine it hasn't got a bad camera because new ones have come out ;-)
 
Brazo said:
Well dxomark shows the 5d to have a near identical score to the Nikon 5200 for noise performance so if you think the Nikon is pants you'll think the canon is too.
Click to expand...

Eugh, forget dxonark aha

Just make sure you get the exposure pretty much bang on, not much room for adjusting exposure with the 5d/5d2 at high ISO without it becoming noisy
 
domart said:
Eugh, forget dxonark aha

Just make sure you get the exposure pretty much bang on, not much room for adjusting exposure with the 5d/5d2 at high ISO without it becoming noisy
Click to expand...

Or any Canon for that matter... (except the 6D?) This is where Nikon really shines. The sensor performance is incredible. You can make a really bad balls up actually look quite decent. That's why i have one. :D
 
if I had the money I would buy a 5D MKII again.

its better in all aspects and it tethers.
 
minnnt said:
Or any Canon for that matter... (except the 6D?) This is where Nikon really shines. The sensor performance is incredible. You can make a really bad balls up actually look quite decent. That's why i have one. :D
Click to expand...
My Sony bodies are so much better then my 5d3 when it comes to noise and dynamic range, the 5d is simply out classed, but even so some of my best work was shot with the 5d3, so if you are careful it is still a brilliant camera

Back on topic- for the 5d mk1 you're gonna need some fast lenses, 1.4 ideally. But there's no way to micro adjust the focus, and the screen is pretty bad so you won't even be able to tell if it's in focus
I'd consider the 1diii
 
domart said:
My Sony bodies are so much better then my 5d3 when it comes to noise and dynamic range, the 5d is simply out classed, but even so some of my best work was shot with the 5d3, so if you are careful it is still a brilliant camera

Back on topic- for the 5d mk1 you're gonna need some fast lenses, 1.4 ideally. But there's no way to micro adjust the focus, and the screen is pretty bad so you won't even be able to tell if it's in focus
I'd consider the 1diii
Click to expand...

If you're careful? Its a brilliant camera full stop :) If you have to be super careful not to get noisy images, you're doing something wrong!

That said, for super clean and detailed high ISO images, Canon wise the 6d is the current best performer.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
If you're careful? Its a brilliant camera full stop :) If you have to be super careful not to get noisy images, you're doing something wrong!

That said, for super clean and detailed high ISO images, Canon wise the 6d is the current best performer.
Click to expand...
Hmm, if you ever shoot something like the a7rii or Nikon d810 you'll be surprised how much better the newer sensors are. I shot brilliant work with a 5d, 5d2 and 5d3, but now I shoot Sony and I am constantly blown away at how I can just shoot and pull back highlights, push up shadows and generally manipulate images however I please. You have no idea how many images I shot with the 5d where I had to chose between underexposing to retain highlights or allowing the highlights to blow out but getting proper exposure on the subject, so yes, I agree with what I Said, you do need to be careful
 
Although new camera works better than old camera isn't exactly a ground breaking statement

If you have the means I would advice holding out for a 6d though, or at least a mk2
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top