Canon 5D or 5D Mk2?

[flosseR]

ok some idiot lent me his 5d mark 2 kit (24-105L lens) for a while and I was just blown away from the image quality that that combination delivered.

I wanted to upgrade my kit to full frame early next year but i am a Nikon user.

So I borrowed the kit agian, used it in comparison with a borrowed d700 and still loved it better (the D700 had the 24-70 f2.8 lens i think).

So my mind is made, i will get a Canon and L glass next.

Now the question I am a bit cash short since the plan was to get a D700 no replace my entire kit .

I can get a Canon 5D with only 6000 pictures taken and Canon checked for about 1000 euros where the new 5d mark 2 will cost me nearly double that without a lens.

I was thinking of taking the 5d and then get at least one good L lens (the 24-105 ) but I have not used a 5D so I am wondering if it produces images just as nice and if the Video mode and double the megapixels is worth the cash for a MK2.
If I get a MK2 I will have to live with the 50mm 1.8 for some time before I can get L glass


Any advice?

Cheers already,

//F

 

[Grimace]

I have owned both and don't see a noticeable difference in quality at all. There is no video on the MkI but that doesn't seem to conflict with your needs.

In 10 years, the original 5D will still be a phenomenal camera. So long as everything is working, I'd snap it up!

 

[Edge100]

I did a portrait session this past weekend with just a 5D and a 24-70 f/2.8L. I had used a 5D once or twice before that, but never for a paying session (I shoot a 1DMkII normally).

My impressions:

- Fantastic IQ; the noise characteristics are just terrific, and there is a very film-like quality to the images; this was especially noticable in cropped images. By comparison, my 1DmkII doesn't crop quite as nicely (it also has nearly 5 miliion fewer pixels)

- Full frame is the way to go; it's hard to describe the feeling of shooting in full frame. The viewfinder is brighter, and everything seems just "right".

- the 24-70L is outstanding; seriously...it's the most prime-like zoom I've ever shot with.

On the downside, coming from a 1-series body, I did not like the fact that the 5D is not a shooting-default camera. On the 1DmkII, if you're chimping an image and then press the shutter or focus button (I have my AF button assigned to the rear of the camera), the camera is ready to shoot. On the 5D, however, you have to exit image review mode and only then are you ready to shoot. It took a while to get used to that; not a deal-breaker, for sure, but that's one of the little things that makes a 1D-series body so nice to use.

I've never shot with the 5DmkII, so no input there. If I were in your shoes, I would have no hestiation in going with the classic 5D; it's an outstanding camera that will last you a long, long time. If I didn't need video (I don't) and I didn't need to make billboard-sized prints (I don't), the 5D would definitely be on my must-have list (and it is!)

Attached are a few samples from the weekend's session with the 5D

 

[mdwsta4]

having been a canon user for years and a current owner of a 5D2, i would ask what you shoot. coming from a newer body like the D700, if you shoot high ISO and expect no noise, the original 5D won't do that in the same way the 5D2 will.

and that's my only argument. both cameras are phenomenal. i don't need the number of MP on the 5D2 (have shot in sRAW1 more than once at a decreased 10 or 12MP), and while the video feature is really really nice, i don't have the time or knowledge to edit and put together a video that's worthwhile. my main reason for stepping up to the 5D2 was how well it handles higher ISO's. other than that, i'm perfectly happy with the original.

for lenses, if you want to save some scrap, check out sigma's 50 f1.4. the lens will blow you away in terms of IQ, bokeh, and speed. i have multiple zoom lenses that range from 17mm on the wide end to 200 on the long end, but find my day to day lens is the 50. it can shoot under any lighting conditions and is a perfect focal length (IMO).

good luck with your choice!

 

[flosseR]

Hi, thanks for all your input.
I shoot pretty much across the board. A little landscape, a little travel. I like to shoot kids and some portraits and I do shoot Macro.

I am leaning now towards the 5D and some good glass....and after the initial purchase with a "all round" lens the 100mm L Macro lens has definitely caught my eye

 

[stagi]

The image quality is very similar between the 2, the main difference is video. If you don't need video I would save some money and go with the 5d

 

[terriyaki]

On the downside, coming from a 1-series body, I did not like the fact that the 5D is not a shooting-default camera. On the 1DmkII, if you're chimping an image and then press the shutter or focus button (I have my AF button assigned to the rear of the camera), the camera is ready to shoot. On the 5D, however, you have to exit image review mode and only then are you ready to shoot. It took a while to get used to that; not a deal-breaker, for sure, but that's one of the little things that makes a 1D-series body so nice to use.5D

I'm not quite sure what was wrong with the 5D you were using but I'm able to do this with my 5D.

 

[luminosity]

Edge, if you think the Canon 24-70L is prime-like, try a Nikon 24-70/2.8. Assuming you have a great copy, it will stun you.

Canon has to get a reworked 24-70 out the door to match it, and it looks like they may next year.

 

[Grimace]

I'm not quite sure what was wrong with the 5D you were using but I'm able to do this with my 5D.

Agreed, I never had that issue either. If I am reviewing photos, the moment I press the shutter down even half way, it stops the review and goes into shooting mode.

 

[Edge100]

Agreed, I never had that issue either. If I am reviewing photos, the moment I press the shutter down even half way, it stops the review and goes into shooting mode.

Perhaps this has to do with the fact that I have moved AF to the back of the camera (and away from the shutter). My first press is ALWAYS the AF button, not the shutter.

If this is the case, then I stand corrected. Nevertheless, on my 1DmkII, pressing the AF button is enough to come out of review mode.

Actually, I hope it was just a custom function or something; this was one of my central criticisms of the 5D anyway.

 

[Edge100]

Edge, if you think the Canon 24-70L is prime-like, try a Nikon 24-70/2.8. Assuming you have a great copy, it will stun you.

Canon has to get a reworked 24-70 out the door to match it, and it looks like they may next year.

Yeah, there has got to be a new 24-70 coming down the pipe from Canon, I agree. I have seen the Nikon copy and, yes, you're quite right; it's a great lens.

Nevertheless, the current Canon 24-70 is good enough, in my opinion, that the convenience it affords far outweighs any loss of IQ vs. a prime (not to mention the cost of owning good L primes in those focal ranges).

 

[Kebabselector]

Perhaps this has to do with the fact that I have moved AF to the back of the camera (and away from the shutter). My first press is ALWAYS the AF button, not the shutter.

Custom option 18/1 sets the LCD disp -> Return to shoot with Shutter and *

As for the 24-70, well i'm tempted to sell my 24-105 f/4 L to fund one (might get shot of my 100mm Macro as it's hardly used - that said no doubt I get some product stuff to shoot once I shift it!)

 

[Obsidian6]

Having been a user of the original 5D since it's launch and now a user of the 5DmkII, I think you would be hard pressed to find a better value than the original 5D, it is just a great great camera.

I also agree that the 24-70L is a fantastic lens, however it does suffer from sample variation. I had one copy for 4 years that I always thought was pretty good, but I wound up selling it, only to rebuy another copy not too long after. This second copy is SO much better, I was greatly surprised.

Now, all of this being said, a lot of us canon users long for a camera that can truly compete with the D700, a compact full-frame body with pro-AF is something canon still has not made. The ever-rumored 3D is supposed to be this camera, but I highly doubt it will ever surface.

Depending on which lenses you currently own with nikon I think it would still be worth looking into the D700.

If you are dead-set on switching camps to Canon, then yes the 5D classic is a great deal, and you can use the extra money to fund some decent lenses.

On the topic of lenses, while the L series glass is awesome, and is always worth getting, don't completely write-off the Non-L lenses, there are quite a few of them that really are Gems! Not to mention they won't cost you even close to half as much as the comparable L series lens.

It all really boils down to what your budget is....

 

[wheezy]

Perhaps this has to do with the fact that I have moved AF to the back of the camera (and away from the shutter). My first press is ALWAYS the AF button, not the shutter.

If this is the case, then I stand corrected. Nevertheless, on my 1DmkII, pressing the AF button is enough to come out of review mode.

Actually, I hope it was just a custom function or something; this was one of my central criticisms of the 5D anyway.

The new 5DII does have the rear AF-ON button just like the 1D bodies, they did bring that over. Although, I'm not in the habit of using it really. I think it takes some getting used to.

 

[Edge100]

Custom option 18/1 sets the LCD disp -> Return to shoot with Shutter and *

So it does! I just tried it. Great to know!

My one complaint with the 5D has now vanished.

 

[Edge100]

The new 5DII does have the rear AF-ON button just like the 1D bodies, they did bring that over. Although, I'm not in the habit of using it really. I think it takes some getting used to.

I have AF assigned to the * button, and I couldn't live with it any other way.

 

[Kebabselector]

I have AF assigned to the * button, and I couldn't live with it any other way.

Indeed, took a while to get used to it. But as you said I couldn't live with it any other way now.

 

[epicwelshman]

Is switching systems really that necessary?

How much have you invested into Nikon so far?

 

[akdj]

"I have owned both and don't see a noticeable difference in quality at all."

Really, Grimace? No noticeable difference in quality, yet you spent the extra grand to upgrade (and hence sell your original 5d at a loss?)...Intriguing, again,

Not trying to split hairs and I respect you as a photographer and an offerer of good advice on the forum....but I must respectively disagree with you. The 5D was a revolutionary camera, IMO...Full Frame to the masses with incredible IQ....and while the 5d2 was "only" an evolutionary camera, following the lead of the 5d....the differences are HUGE!!!! Not only in overall IQ (IMHO), but all of the little idiosyncrasies that make UP the Image quality. Whether it be high ISO ability, more megapixels (AND less noise across the range), Auto Focus (while improvement is negligible, it is an improvement), the dynamic range was increased even WITH the addition of more megapixels, even the LCD screen and VF are better for viewing/judging/focus check, etc.....I truly believe the 5d2 is a BIG step up in IQ...by virtue of getting better IQ (Better control and User configuration and ease to get the optimum shot)...if that makes sense

I agree, the OP has not mentioned the need or even, the desire, to enjoy video...although, I might add...others have felt the same until they tried (and spent 15 minutes with an iMovie tudor video)...

Other, unrelated improvements are many!!! I think the 5d2 is a major improvement in functionality, low light shooting and overall IQ...over the Classic 5d (I owned two and just sold my second to help fund a 7d purchase, perfect compliment to the 5d2).

Just food for thought, and certainly YMMV. I just feel that we are still in the heart of the 5d2 cycle...it's being fully supported and still updated via firmware. Still plenty of potential to unlock and tons of pixels at FF with the ability to crop and still grab a magnificent print.

Diggin my 5d2...not that the 5d isn't a great camera. It is. Again, I feel for it's time...it was revolutionary. While not entirely the case with the 5d2 (although with the addition of FF sensor video and the ability to use "low cost" L glass for that 35mm "Film Shot"....the same may be argued for the latter), it is a big jump in all things related to "Digital Photography"

Again....IMHO.

J

 

[Grimace]

"I have owned both and don't see a noticeable difference in quality at all."

Really, Grimace? No noticeable difference in quality, yet you spent the extra grand to upgrade (and hence sell your original 5d at a loss?)...Intriguing, again,

Not trying to split hairs and I respect you as a photographer and an offerer of good advice on the forum....but I must respectively disagree with you. The 5D was a revolutionary camera, IMO...Full Frame to the masses with incredible IQ....and while the 5d2 was "only" an evolutionary camera, following the lead of the 5d....the differences are HUGE!!!! Not only in overall IQ (IMHO), but all of the little idiosyncrasies that make UP the Image quality. Whether it be high ISO ability, more megapixels (AND less noise across the range), Auto Focus (while improvement is negligible, it is an improvement), the dynamic range was increased even WITH the addition of more megapixels, even the LCD screen and VF are better for viewing/judging/focus check, etc.....I truly believe the 5d2 is a BIG step up in IQ...by virtue of getting better IQ (Better control and User configuration and ease to get the optimum shot)...if that makes sense

I didn't upgrade from the 5D to the 5D mkII. My order was 5D --> 1Ds Mark III, then more recently adding a 5D mark II when it came out as a second body (I wanted to toy with video so I didn't get a used/new 5D as a backup.) Aside from resolution, I don't see a generational leap in image quality on the mark II. The original 5D is on par with the 1Ds mark III and the 5DII - but that is just my opinion.

Lenses matter a lot, so if video isn't critical and the OP can save $1000 by going with the original 5D and instead get some great glass -- that to me is success. If money were no object, sure get the mark II, but if the end goal is getting new gear to take the best pics - the difference between the 5D cameras is not worth $1000 (or another lens.) But, that's my opinion!

 

[Ruahrc]

Is switching systems really that necessary?

How much have you invested into Nikon so far?

I would trend towards this statement too. If you intend to play "flavor of the month" what will you do when the D700x/D800/Dwhatever comes out and beats out the 5DMk2? The releases of the major camera manufacturers are staggered and if you constantly try to be on the cutting edge you'll just overspend and needlessly switch.

Also, given your stated photo interests, other than the landscape photography, is there really justification to go for a FF body at all? You always hear of people going for FF "because it must somehow be better" but when pressed fail to give justifiable specific reasons to own a FF body. It's your money though...

 

[FF_productions]

If you do switch over to Canon, the one thing I'll warn you about the 5D classic is that you have to clean the sensor manually, you can have it professionally cleaned but let me tell ya, it's a dust vacuum some times!

May I ask though why you aren't considering the D700? (you didn't go into details)

Is your Nikon Glass DX or FX compatible? IF they are all DX, may as well switch systems, but don't come cryin back to Nikon when they release the D700x next summer haha.

 

[epicwelshman]

I would trend towards this statement too. If you intend to play "flavor of the month" what will you do when the D700x/D800/Dwhatever comes out and beats out the 5DMk2? The releases of the major camera manufacturers are staggered and if you constantly try to be on the cutting edge you'll just overspend and needlessly switch.

Also, given your stated photo interests, other than the landscape photography, is there really justification to go for a FF body at all? You always hear of people going for FF "because it must somehow be better" but when pressed fail to give justifiable specific reasons to own a FF body. It's your money though...

There must have been some reason why you (the OP) chose Nikon in the first place. Chances are the reasons you chose Nikon are still relevant.

Switching systems is very expensive (as you're well aware) and there's really little point. Unless you're a seriously specialised shooter and NEED specific lenses (i.e., the Nikon 200-400mm f4 or the really nice Canon tilt-shift lenses) then YOU (the photographer) and quality glass will make more of a difference than a 5D vs. a D700.

 

[CrackedButter]

Is switching systems really that necessary?

How much have you invested into Nikon so far?

&

Hi, thanks for all your input.
I shoot pretty much across the board. A little landscape, a little travel. I like to shoot kids and some portraits and I do shoot Macro.

I am leaning now towards the 5D and some good glass....and after the initial purchase with a "all round" lens the 100mm L Macro lens has definitely caught my eye

You're basically a tourist then who'll never go further than flickr and maybe print some 4x6's?

You're never going to reach the limit of even using the Canon setup if you're being so fickle towards the already great Nikon gear you've acquired, something which a lot of people would commit genocide to own.

Yes I admit I'm being harsh, but I just don't understand how you will perceive any sort of differences between the two systems other than your bank balance, which you're entitled to spend on whatever you want. But I consider it a waste, its like buying an expensive pair of Nike trainers and using them for a week, and then wanting to buy the Reeboks when all you do is go for a leisurely run on a Sunday morning.

 

[flosseR]

Crackedbutter:
wow... your message was like a wake up call

Well let me explain the overall reasoning:
I went with nikon because simply the picture quality in the price range that I had when I bought the D90 was the best.
After I borrowed the 2 full frame cameras I was really amazed by the richness in color and contrast of the pictures that came out without doing any additional "post processing".
In terms of investment so far, I have to say this is the most compelling part against switching.
Why Canon? well as I said the D700 , while ISO was amazing the color richness was just not there which disappointed me.
I have FX lenses except the 17-70mm which is DX. in this case I am now selling the D90, grip and the 17-70mm in hopes to get the D700. While I am not "a tourist", I am also not a pro and there is always the feeling of "the grass is greener on the other side"

Thanks for all your input.

//FR