The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Should I get a 5D (I)?

woodworth

New member
Ah-ha yes, 12 million rather good pixels - no problems there but there are a few occasions where I need more. That said, 12Mp is perfectly adequate for most things.

Re-the screen, I completely agree with you and I also don't delete in camera unless the picture is absolutely and obviously miles out! I remember an old press boy who shot a picture of the then (pre-scandal) US President Bill Clinton kissing a girl in the crown who turned out to be Monica Lewinsky! I believe he made a mint! All the others had deleted, but he (like me) was bought up with film and I never throw a negative away!
 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
I now own a 5D3. However until a year ago I had been shooting weddings for 7 years with a a pair of 5D's. Have to admit I raised an eyebrow or two at some of the comments here. Yes the screen wasn't so great (but nowhere near as bad as some would have), it only had a single useable focus point (which in lower light is still quicker than the 5D3 or the 1Ds3 I used to own) and the high iso, although still great and better than the 7D for example, is not up to 5D3 standards. However. Iso 1600 was my iso set for half of every wedding, it really was that good. The feel and look of the files could only be bettered IMO by the 1Ds3 and those 12 huge megapixels have such a nice feel. With 12 megapixels you could focus recompose and get away with it (don't even think of trying on a 22 megapixel camera) and in general when you needed them to be, they sang so nicely, when you screwed up they were incredibly forgiving.

I picked up my remaining 5D today, haven't used it in a year. After the 5D3 it seemed so simple, light, small. All but two of the prints up in my house were taken with the 5D, I have an 18X12" of the image below which has to be seen to be believed, every single leaf perfectly resolved to the limit of your vision, you can come up as close as possible to it and the image never begins to fall apart. Nowadays everyone seems to want huge prints, I myself think that 18X12" is more than large enough and I prefer smaller, even much smaller but honestly, I've printed 24X16" prints from the 5D and they look incredible.

Respect for a great workhorse camera. I'd never have bought a 5D3 if my other 5D hadn't died of old age even after a shutter and mirror box transplant...

 

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
and if you stitch you can get far more megapixels of course. This one is 40 or so megapixels post stitch, post perspective correction and with tonality that cannot be matched by a single sensor with that many megapixels (IMO). When you stitch you pretty much create a huge sensor with all the goodness that implies.

 

woodworth

New member
I've just got my 5D III and I am delighted with the improvements over the original 5D. I was very happy with the original 5D and think that it is an excellent camera but the 5D III is just so much better.

So the 5D is now my back-up camera and the 5D III is the first choice. I don't think these comments should put off anyone getting an original 5D as they offer excellent value for money and are (with just a little post-production) superb full-frame cameras.

So, thanks to all the comments offered, these have smoother my way into the Canon system and so far I have no regrets at all.
 
Top