Canon 5D MK I 'classic' - owners thread

macvisual said:
Hi there, love these images. I'm pretty sure I've been here also in the past, let me guess......situated about 20 miles from Dubrovnik, a bombed out hotel close to the sea if I'm right..?

Regards;
Peter
Scotland
Click to expand...

Hi Peter.

Almost. :).
It was a fascinating building, a huge fancy restaurante built in the 60's in a fantastic area called Monsanto (a municipal protected forest park, the largest green patch - with almost 1000ha - in the city). It that raises 205m above the sea level and has an incredible view over... Lisboa, Portugal. :D
So, almost. :)

I'm glad you like the photos.

Cheers :)
Luis
 
minnnt said:
What you could do it take an exposure for the sky and one for the interior then blend them in PP if you wanted to hold the sky. (y)
Click to expand...

Hi David,

Thank you for your tip.

Yes, I could have done that, but I'm not a big fan of HDR. If it's just a slight HDR, I may like it, but... normally it doesn't sound natural to me. :/


Cheers :)
Luis
 
PitaDaVespa said:
It may not seem, but I tried to retain the highlights as much as possible, mainly in the sky. I even used a polarizer in order to better achieve this. But I wanted to capture and show as much detail as possible of the interior (or whatever remains) of the building (like the ceiling, for instance) and that lend me to completely blow the highlights in the sky.
I enjoyed the ambience it gave to the photos, though.

Would a better camera helped regarding this?
Newer cameras have better DR, right?


Thanks ;)
Luis
Click to expand...

Ah, ok :D I honestly thought you'd made an artistic decision to blow the highlights as many seem to like these days.


PitaDaVespa said:
Hi David,

Thank you for your tip.

Yes, I could have done that, but I'm not a big fan of HDR. If it's just a slight HDR, I may like it, but... normally it doesn't sound natural to me. :/


Cheers :)
Luis
Click to expand...

I don't like HDR either and I can't remember ever seeing it done well but I don't think blending shots is necessarily HDR. Assuming that you can't expose for the highlights and push just a fraction more and boost the shadows post capture whilst avoiding excessive noise and nasties you could think about exposing for the inside and then for the outside and blend the shots in layers or whatever your software calls it.

Or you could just start to like the look you've captured here :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Ah, ok :D I honestly thought you'd made an artistic decision to blow the highlights as many seem to like these days.


I don't like HDR either and I can't remember ever seeing it done well but I don't think blending shots is necessarily HDR. Assuming that you can't expose for the highlights and push just a fraction more and boost the shadows post capture whilst avoiding excessive noise and nasties you could think about exposing for the inside and then for the outside and blend the shots in layers or whatever your software calls it.

Or you could just start to like the look you've captured here :D
Click to expand...

I guess you can say it was an artist decision, yes.
And, also, I really like the look of these photos. :)

"(...) exposing for the inside and then for the outside and blend the shots (...)" - isn't that, more or less, what an HDR is?


Thanks,
Luis
 
minnnt said:
Not all 'HDR' has to be psychedelic. 'Bracketing' is very common these days amongst landscape togs.
Click to expand...

I understand. I don't like the psychedelic effect you refer.
A subtle bracketing may do it better for me, but I don't use to do it.


Cheers,
Luis
 
Last edited:
PitaDaVespa said:
I guess you can say it was an artist decision, yes.
And, also, I really like the look of these photos. :)

"(...) exposing for the inside and then for the outside and blend the shots (...)" - isn't that, more or less, what an HDR is?


Thanks,
Luis
Click to expand...

If it gives the same look as the more offensive HDR shots that infest the world these days then yes but I don't see why combining bracketed shots should necessarily give an overly HDR look and offend either me or the op.

Maybe it's me... but I don't particularly like the large parts of the image blown look, plenty of people do judging from what's on the net but it's not a look I generally like. If you do then fill your boots :D but from what the op's said in this thread my original thought that he'd meant to blow the highlights was wrong. What to do about it is another question.
 
Last edited:
Hi Alan,

My main language is not English (I'm Portuguese), so I may not always fully understand what you guys write and I'm not always capable of writing exactly what I want to say. And that may generate some confusion sometimes. But... in this case, I am the OP, right? :)
 
PitaDaVespa said:
Hi Alan,

My main language is not English (I'm Portuguese), so I may not always fully understand what you guys write and I'm not always capable of writing exactly what I want to say. And that may generate some confusion sometimes. But... in this case, I am the OP, right? :)
Click to expand...
Sorry yes! :D OP = Original Poster! :D
 
:D

I'll try to blend some of the photos and see if I like better the result.
Thank you for your valeud opinion.

Cheers ;)
Luis
 
I bought one a few months ago, it is mint in my view and I love it. Yes it is dated, the screen is poor, low light performance is limited and the AF system is not great, but in decent conditions the results are beautiful.
 
minnnt said:
It won't be, just like the Nikon wasn't... :whistle:
Click to expand...
The D700 is an amazing body and I really liked the results. The thing that got to me was the menu layout and it's wealth of settings. The amount of switches and knobs on the rear didn't help much either.

What I loved about the 5D Classic, was the simplistic layout. The menu was dull and streamline, just the way I liked it ;)

So far it seems like the mkII might be the same, just with a better screen...
 
I have a 40D and the 5D. As much as I love the 40D, the 5D is better in almost everything.
I could sell both and buy a 5Dii, but I just can't seem to do it.
I just feel this old, outdated machine gives me so much image quality and so much pleasure that I can't imagine selling it.

Regarding AF, I got mine calibrated by Canon to all my fast lenses (28 1.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.8) and I couldn't be more happy with it's performance. Not always perfect with the 50 at 1.4, but almost. :)
And I'm not sure if the 5D would be an upgrade regarding AF accuracy...
In high ISO, I guess it would be.

But, for me, this body is a joy to use.
Really happy after all these years. :)
 
Since the 5Dc doesn't have micro focus adjustment, when I bought the lenses, all new, I took the to Canon, with the body, for them to calibrate focus. For free. :)
Usually (almost always) spot on with the 50 wide open and very rarely not spot on with the 28 and the 85. :)
 
For a first attempt at architecture I think you did a great Job imo.
I do like old and decaying buildings they are pieces of history that will disappear altogether one day :(
Its good that people like yourself get out there and record these abandoned buildings !
keep it up and I look forward to seeing more of your work in the future.
 
Archie747 said:
I bought one a few months ago, it is mint in my view and I love it. Yes it is dated, the screen is poor, low light performance is limited and the AF system is not great, but in decent conditions the results are beautiful.
Click to expand...

Sounds like most of my Fuji's :)
 
c22w1 said:
Is the 5D mk1 still worth buying? I've been offered one, body only for £150. Looks like a cheap way to try out the Canon full frame system.
Click to expand...

Yup, it's a good camera. Add a cheap as you can find 28, 35 or 50mm lens and be happy :D
 
c22w1 said:
OK thanks. Having a little read on here though I am a bit concerned about the mirror recall.
Click to expand...

I think the later serials didn't have this problem - or at least that's what I was led to believe.

I've owned a couple now and they are great cameras. I now have a 6D but really rated the 5D classic, especially at the lower ISO. Even 1600 didn't look that bad though to be fair.

Great image quality. If you're not worried about live view or things such as Auto ISO then they are a great buy into full frame. £150 is a pretty decent price too.
 
Ruffmeister said:
I think the later serials didn't have this problem - or at least that's what I was led to believe.

I've owned a couple now and they are great cameras. I now have a 6D but really rated the 5D classic, especially at the lower ISO. Even 1600 didn't look that bad though to be fair.

Great image quality. If you're not worried about live view or things such as Auto ISO then they are a great buy into full frame. £150 is a pretty decent price too.
Click to expand...
Serial is 0530204150 which I believe to be an early model?
 
c22w1 said:
Is the 5D mk1 still worth buying? I've been offered one, body only for £150. Looks like a cheap way to try out the Canon full frame system.
Click to expand...

YESSS!!!!!

That said, if you already own Canon lenses and if it is in good nick. I have seen some hammered ones on fleeBay...

I have had 2, not at the same time though, bought both second hand, sold them off to "upgrade". BIG mistake. They are amazing classic cameras. The last of the decent SLR's before this video stupidity.

Personally I am leaning heavily towards Fuji but not economically viable for me to jump now.

For the sake of having a 5D 1 I would keep my 50/1.4 or even a fantastic plastic f/1.8 50...No, it is not complete sacrilege...
 
Ruffmeister said:
I think the later serials didn't have this problem - or at least that's what I was led to believe.

I've owned a couple now and they are great cameras. I now have a 6D but really rated the 5D classic, especially at the lower ISO. Even 1600 didn't look that bad though to be fair.

Great image quality. If you're not worried about live view or things such as Auto ISO then they are a great buy into full frame. £150 is a pretty decent price too.
Click to expand...

At low ISO e.g. 100/200 would you say the IQ of the 6D is significantly better than the 5Dc? I don't think so but others think differently.
 
Archie747 said:
At low ISO e.g. 100/200 would you say the IQ of the 6D is significantly better than the 5Dc? I don't think so but others think differently.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I haven't pixel peeped to compare. Maybe marginally? On the face I would be happy with either at that kind of ISO. I'd produced some big prints a while back from the 5Dc and the quality was more than good enough at that kind of ISO.
I would have been more than happy keeping the 5Dc but the 6D IMO does feel a nice step up in feel and us and I have no regrets. I'd say the files were somewhat less plasticy out of the 5Dc in general (more organic if you like)
 
Ruffmeister said:
Nothing wrong with the 50mm 1.8. The STM version especially is really good :)
Click to expand...

I had the 50/1.8 (MkII?) and shot a few images when I had just received my 1st Mk1...the images were not half bad.

I did find the 1,8 neutral to even cool where my 1,4 50 is mostly warmish...definitely not neutral...

But, as for the question, if I had the pocket money now I would buy it at double the asking price regardless of potential issues...
 
c22w1 said:
I've been googling for ages now and can't find anything definate. The owner bought it from Harrison cameras in Sheffield and doesn't know if it's been done or not but says they have had no problems. It's in excellent condition and less than 10k on the shutter.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately I have not saved the link. From memory they fitted wider supports at the edges on the mirror.

I bought a 5Dc approx 18m ago in much the same condition you are looking at. (I didn't think the shutter count for a 5Dc was available)

The shutter has not been fixed. I had a quote for a repair and it was not substantial.

It is a great camera and for £150 it is a steal. If you don't want it, I will buy it.
 
Last edited:
I think you need to Google and see if you can find pictures of modified cameras as as far as I remember there was a piece that went diagonally across each corner, I could see them clearly on my camera but I can't see them in these pictures but looking on Google the mod looks more like your camera so I'm a bit confused... were there different ways of carrying out the mod...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top