Canon 5d mark I - quality?
Aug 13, 2016 20:34:02 #
MCoomber
Loc: Hamilton ontario
Hi there, haven't posted for a while. I am looking to look for a full frame camera and see quite a few for between $500 and $600 Cdn. Just wondered what your thoughts are on it. He will not be doing much indoor shots and no high speed such as sports. Any comments? Thanks in advance. Ps. Also found a 24-105 f4 L lens for $650 Cdn.
Aug 13, 2016 20:49:03 #
They are a good camera (I own one) a the 24-105 f4 L makes for a great general purpose lens. The only downside is the 24-105 has a tendency to fail much too early - mine failed at around 17,000 pics.
The newer bodies, even the crop ones, do run rings around them, in some respects. I own a Canon 70D and Olympus OMD-M5 M5 II bodies.
The newer bodies, even the crop ones, do run rings around them, in some respects. I own a Canon 70D and Olympus OMD-M5 M5 II bodies.
Aug 13, 2016 20:51:32 #
DPReview.com (now an Amazon affiliate) very likely published a review of the original 5D when it was first released. See also CNET.com for possible reviews. For pricing info re Canon bodies and lenses, I'd suggest KEH as one of the most active sources re used gear. Prices on eBay are likely to be all over the map, and, in my opinion, less reliable.
Aug 13, 2016 21:08:10 #
MCoomber wrote:
Hi there, haven't posted for a while. I am looking to look for a full frame camera and see quite a few for between $500 and $600 Cdn. Just wondered what your thoughts are on it. He will not be doing much indoor shots and no high speed such as sports. Any comments? Thanks in advance. Ps. Also found a 24-105 f4 L lens for $650 Cdn.
Quality high, tech old and out of date but it will take good pictures for what it is. (12.8mp 3 generation old AF system etc)
Aug 13, 2016 21:39:41 #
To paraphrase Robert: The original 5D changed the full-frame game, but the game has changed a few times since then ...
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx
Aug 14, 2016 05:53:48 #
The original 5D (now informally called "classic") still is a great image maker; some say better than the later models due to less pixel sites on the chip. I think folks get too hung up on having lots of megapixels and the latest bells and whistles. If you make your living shooting images and the difference between eating and not eating is 6 frames per second and 36mp, then by all means...spend the cash on the latest and greatest but if you are an amateur and you will print 11 x 14 or less in size (or even just post online) then 12mp is plenty and will look great.
Personally, I love the 5D classic and If I were getting a Canon FF camera, that's what I'd get.
Personally, I love the 5D classic and If I were getting a Canon FF camera, that's what I'd get.
Aug 14, 2016 07:54:56 #
I used to lust for one of those, in it's day it was the cat's meow. Wedding photographers flocked to it. As long as you're not requiring high ISO's, high speed sports or huge prints, it will do an admirable job.
They did have mirrors come loose on some of them, might be something to ask about. For less than a grand you could probably find a Mk II.
They did have mirrors come loose on some of them, might be something to ask about. For less than a grand you could probably find a Mk II.
Aug 14, 2016 08:11:14 #
Here's one in excellent condition on the flea-bay for $369.00 with 2 batteries and a CF card included.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-5D-12-8-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Body-Only/191942427981?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Canon-EOS-5D-12-8-MP-Digital-SLR-Camera-Black-Body-Only/191942427981?
Aug 14, 2016 11:00:04 #
The 5D takes great images, but, as you know, it is not an action camera. Here is a shot that I took, with either the 28-135 or the 24-105 which shows the detail and dynamic range of the sensor. If you get one, you will enjoy it. The 24-105 and the 70-200 IS/2.8 lenses are two of my favorite lenses. Enjoy.
Aug 14, 2016 13:26:55 #
I enjoyed my Canon 5D. Have considered getting another since they can be had routinely for about $400 for the body.
However, I tasted Full Frame with my 5D. Great images, reliable. Sold mine with 89,000 shutter count. Had the sensor cleaned by Canon in Irvine Ca.
I resolved my desire for Full Frame, the size and weight, and the expense of the lenses needed to use FF. I realize newer FF camera's have more bells and whistles. However the 5D proved to me the lack of necessity for Full Frame camera's. Have not desired one since.
Shooting mirrorless, but even more shooting film. When I want to outdo FF, I shoot Mediurm Format and Large Format film.
The 5D was a good experience and did what I needed done, plus filled any future desire for Full Frame.
However, I tasted Full Frame with my 5D. Great images, reliable. Sold mine with 89,000 shutter count. Had the sensor cleaned by Canon in Irvine Ca.
I resolved my desire for Full Frame, the size and weight, and the expense of the lenses needed to use FF. I realize newer FF camera's have more bells and whistles. However the 5D proved to me the lack of necessity for Full Frame camera's. Have not desired one since.
Shooting mirrorless, but even more shooting film. When I want to outdo FF, I shoot Mediurm Format and Large Format film.
The 5D was a good experience and did what I needed done, plus filled any future desire for Full Frame.
Aug 14, 2016 13:49:16 #
amfoto1
Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA
I skipped the 5D "classic" mostly for one reason.... dust! It seems to be a bit of a magnet for it, I often have to shoot in relatively dusty conditions, and I was already doing a lot more sensor cleanings than I liked with my Canon 30D's. There also were some "issues" with AA filter coatings damaged by certain sensor cleaning solutions. I think those have since been resolved, but the coatings used on the 5D"C" might still be a bit delicate. It's something I'd look closely at, if I were considering a used one.
I bought the 5DII, which has a good, effective sensor self-cleaning feature (as do the APS-C models from the 40D onward). Yeah, I still need to clean them occasionally.... but far, far less often!
Another common problem with original 5D was the mirror coming loose. Originally it was just glued in place. Canon fixed a lot of them at no charge, adding some clips near the corners of the mirror to keep it securely in place. I think this was incorporated in later production of the camera, too. You can see the clips (Google if you want to see photos of this). It's something else I'd look for, if I were considering a 5D.
AFAIK, the 5D"C" has exactly the same AF system as my 5DII. Canon didn't seem to upgrade the AF at all, until the 5DIII. The "classic" and the II are not action/sports/AI servo cameras, by any means. They are too slow to acquire and not as good tracking movement as other models. Of the nine visible AF points, only the center one is the faster, more advanced "cross type". This was much like the 20D, 30D and Rebel models up through the T3i. 40D, T4i and later have all nine AF points "cross-type".
Actually the 5D"C" and 5DII have six additional "hidden" AF points... never visible in the viewfinder. These can be enabled as Expansion or Assist Points, but only work in AI Servo focus mode (i.e, not in One Shot mode). These additional points are tightly clustered around the center point, sort of making the entire spot metering circle into one big AF point. Two of these Expansion Points are "cross-type". The 5DIII's 61-point AF with up to 41 cross-type was a huge improvement (and long overdue!)
The 5D"C" and 5DII AF also is rated to -0.5EV or -1EV, which has been typical among all Canon DSLRs until recently. The 6D's 11-point AF is rated to -3EV (moonlight, essentially), with the center point only. The 5DIII's is almost as good with several central AF points. Using them alongside each other, I found the 5DII AF slightly more low-light capable than similarly rated APS-C cameras... emphasis on "slightly"! There were times when my 5DII would still be able to focus... albeit slowly... after my 30D's had given up and quit trying.
The 5D "classic" (2005) has a nearly 13MP sensor and an ISO range of 100-1600, expandable to 50 and 3200. The earlier 1Ds (2002) is 11MP and ISO 100-1250, expandable to ISO 50... while the 1Ds Mark II (2004) is 16.7MP with the same ISO range as 5D"C". And, for comparison the 21MP 5DII (2008) ISO range is 100-6400, expandable to 50 and 25600.... while the 21MP 1Ds III that was introduced a year earlier (2007) remained only 100-1600, expandable to 50-3200, same as the original 5D and 1DsII! The current 5DIII (2012) resolution barely increased at all, only to 22MP. But it's ISO range increased considerably to 100-25600, expandable to 50 and 102400! I leave it to you to judge what ISOs are actually usable, in any case.
The 5D"C" was pretty earth-shaking when it was first introduced, a few years after the 1Ds (the first Canon "full frame" model). Prior to the 5D"C", you had to spend around $8000 for a full frame camera! Then along came one for about $3000 US... not much more than a crop sensor camera at that time. Plus the 5D"C' was more compact, roughly the same size and weight as then-current APS-C models.
Canon enjoyed being pretty much the only game in town with FF cameras from 2002 to 2008, when Nikon and Sony began offering them too. There were Kodak DCS models and Contax N concurrent with the earliest Canon, but these never saw anywhere near the market acceptance and sales volume of the Canon 1Ds- and 5D-series.
Continuous shooting speed with the 5D"C" is 3 frames per second, same as original 1Ds. The 1Ds II upped that to 4 fps (5DII is very close to the same).
The 5D"C" was one of the last 12-bit Canon (along with the 30D APS-C model). All later models are 14-bit, which makes for literally millions more colors and smoother tonality gradations in images. (Note: Post-processing software typically interpolates either 12-bit or 14-bit RAW into 16-bit. JPEGs done in-camera are 8-bit, regardless.)
P.S. If budget is really tight, look for a Canon EF 28-135mm IS USM lens instead. There's nothing really wrong with the 24-105mm... But the 28-135mm can pretty much do all the same just as well, for a lot less money. It's pretty easy to find 28-135 for $200 US or less, lightly used. The 24-105mm seems better built... However in real-world use they end up being about equally durable. Or, wait a few weeks... there is rumored to be a new 24-105 Mark II that will be announced with the new 5D Mark IV on or about August 25. If that's true, it's likely there will be a lot of original 24-105's come on the market and the prices will likely drop.
And, frankly, I seriously question most peoples' "need" for full frame. It just isn't necessary for most and comes with some limitations (such as requiring full frame capable lenses that tend to be larger, heavier and more expensive). Most folks would probably be better buying a crop sensor camera... which also gives them a larger choice of lenses, which also can be smaller, lighter and less expensive.
To really see much or any difference between crop and FF in the end results, you need to make really large prints... probably 16x20" or bigger. There also is some minor difference in Depth of Field control. And in general a full frame camera will produce less noise in images at higher ISOs. But, comparing an 11 year old FF camera costing $400-500 with a more modern crop camera costing about the same, the newer camera will not only be able to shoot at higher ISOs than possible on the old one, it also will probably match or beat it in image noise.
I bought the 5DII, which has a good, effective sensor self-cleaning feature (as do the APS-C models from the 40D onward). Yeah, I still need to clean them occasionally.... but far, far less often!
Another common problem with original 5D was the mirror coming loose. Originally it was just glued in place. Canon fixed a lot of them at no charge, adding some clips near the corners of the mirror to keep it securely in place. I think this was incorporated in later production of the camera, too. You can see the clips (Google if you want to see photos of this). It's something else I'd look for, if I were considering a 5D.
AFAIK, the 5D"C" has exactly the same AF system as my 5DII. Canon didn't seem to upgrade the AF at all, until the 5DIII. The "classic" and the II are not action/sports/AI servo cameras, by any means. They are too slow to acquire and not as good tracking movement as other models. Of the nine visible AF points, only the center one is the faster, more advanced "cross type". This was much like the 20D, 30D and Rebel models up through the T3i. 40D, T4i and later have all nine AF points "cross-type".
Actually the 5D"C" and 5DII have six additional "hidden" AF points... never visible in the viewfinder. These can be enabled as Expansion or Assist Points, but only work in AI Servo focus mode (i.e, not in One Shot mode). These additional points are tightly clustered around the center point, sort of making the entire spot metering circle into one big AF point. Two of these Expansion Points are "cross-type". The 5DIII's 61-point AF with up to 41 cross-type was a huge improvement (and long overdue!)
The 5D"C" and 5DII AF also is rated to -0.5EV or -1EV, which has been typical among all Canon DSLRs until recently. The 6D's 11-point AF is rated to -3EV (moonlight, essentially), with the center point only. The 5DIII's is almost as good with several central AF points. Using them alongside each other, I found the 5DII AF slightly more low-light capable than similarly rated APS-C cameras... emphasis on "slightly"! There were times when my 5DII would still be able to focus... albeit slowly... after my 30D's had given up and quit trying.
The 5D "classic" (2005) has a nearly 13MP sensor and an ISO range of 100-1600, expandable to 50 and 3200. The earlier 1Ds (2002) is 11MP and ISO 100-1250, expandable to ISO 50... while the 1Ds Mark II (2004) is 16.7MP with the same ISO range as 5D"C". And, for comparison the 21MP 5DII (2008) ISO range is 100-6400, expandable to 50 and 25600.... while the 21MP 1Ds III that was introduced a year earlier (2007) remained only 100-1600, expandable to 50-3200, same as the original 5D and 1DsII! The current 5DIII (2012) resolution barely increased at all, only to 22MP. But it's ISO range increased considerably to 100-25600, expandable to 50 and 102400! I leave it to you to judge what ISOs are actually usable, in any case.
The 5D"C" was pretty earth-shaking when it was first introduced, a few years after the 1Ds (the first Canon "full frame" model). Prior to the 5D"C", you had to spend around $8000 for a full frame camera! Then along came one for about $3000 US... not much more than a crop sensor camera at that time. Plus the 5D"C' was more compact, roughly the same size and weight as then-current APS-C models.
Canon enjoyed being pretty much the only game in town with FF cameras from 2002 to 2008, when Nikon and Sony began offering them too. There were Kodak DCS models and Contax N concurrent with the earliest Canon, but these never saw anywhere near the market acceptance and sales volume of the Canon 1Ds- and 5D-series.
Continuous shooting speed with the 5D"C" is 3 frames per second, same as original 1Ds. The 1Ds II upped that to 4 fps (5DII is very close to the same).
The 5D"C" was one of the last 12-bit Canon (along with the 30D APS-C model). All later models are 14-bit, which makes for literally millions more colors and smoother tonality gradations in images. (Note: Post-processing software typically interpolates either 12-bit or 14-bit RAW into 16-bit. JPEGs done in-camera are 8-bit, regardless.)
P.S. If budget is really tight, look for a Canon EF 28-135mm IS USM lens instead. There's nothing really wrong with the 24-105mm... But the 28-135mm can pretty much do all the same just as well, for a lot less money. It's pretty easy to find 28-135 for $200 US or less, lightly used. The 24-105mm seems better built... However in real-world use they end up being about equally durable. Or, wait a few weeks... there is rumored to be a new 24-105 Mark II that will be announced with the new 5D Mark IV on or about August 25. If that's true, it's likely there will be a lot of original 24-105's come on the market and the prices will likely drop.
And, frankly, I seriously question most peoples' "need" for full frame. It just isn't necessary for most and comes with some limitations (such as requiring full frame capable lenses that tend to be larger, heavier and more expensive). Most folks would probably be better buying a crop sensor camera... which also gives them a larger choice of lenses, which also can be smaller, lighter and less expensive.
To really see much or any difference between crop and FF in the end results, you need to make really large prints... probably 16x20" or bigger. There also is some minor difference in Depth of Field control. And in general a full frame camera will produce less noise in images at higher ISOs. But, comparing an 11 year old FF camera costing $400-500 with a more modern crop camera costing about the same, the newer camera will not only be able to shoot at higher ISOs than possible on the old one, it also will probably match or beat it in image noise.
Aug 14, 2016 19:25:09 #
sirlensalot
Loc: Arizona
I purchased one used about 4 years ago. I think it is a perfect wedding, portrait, and maybe landscape camera. The skin tones are almost magic. Above info is pretty much spot on. Not a good low-light camera, but fast lenses can help. Not a good camera for "action" shots. The one I bought had the mirror replaced by the factory. I am not sure they will still do it as Canon seems to have drawn much of the the support from the 5Dc.
I have not found dust to be a greater issue than any other DSLR, but that could change with one our famous dust storms. I have heard the dust issue before and suspect it is valid. I will continue to use it until it no longer works. I suspect you can find a decent one these days for $400 or less. For the use the OP stated, FF is where you want to be and this is a good model to start with IMO.
I have not found dust to be a greater issue than any other DSLR, but that could change with one our famous dust storms. I have heard the dust issue before and suspect it is valid. I will continue to use it until it no longer works. I suspect you can find a decent one these days for $400 or less. For the use the OP stated, FF is where you want to be and this is a good model to start with IMO.
Aug 14, 2016 21:06:42 #
I suggest that you look at, and have the knowledgeable salesperson, explain the difference between the Canon 5D and the Canon 5D Mark ii. The Mark ii had some enhancements that made me decide to go with it. They are both available used, and with the newer 5D models now being out, the price has dropped some.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.