B&W portrait, E-1

Hi All

first time poster, so go easy on me .

I'm seriously considering getting a 5D, mostly for low-light work (candid portraits etc) and landscapes. This fills a gap I currently have with my Olympus E-1 - which really doesn't cope with low-light scenes, and is likely to be improved upon for landscapes purely on the pixel count.

I'm quite happy to run two systems this way - in some ways it seems to make perfect sense to me (the E-1 50-200mm is small, fast and good quality). Anyway, one thing I love about the E-1 is its build quality. Not being able to try out the 5D before purchase, what are your views on its construction? I've done some "googling" and found the following links useful:

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=377972&an=0&page=1#377972

and

http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,3059.0.html

I would appreciate any further insight into this.

Thanks

Jane

I wish it was possible to edit posts after the fact...

janehubbard said:

Hi All

first time poster, so go easy on me .

I'm seriously considering getting a 5D, mostly for low-light work
(candid portraits etc) and landscapes. This fills a gap I currently
have with my Olympus E-1 - which really doesn't cope with low-light
scenes, and is likely to be improved upon for landscapes purely on
the pixel count.

I'm quite happy to run two systems this way - in some ways it seems
to make perfect sense to me (the E-1 50-200mm is small, fast and
good quality). Anyway, one thing I love about the E-1 is its build
quality. Not being able to try out the 5D before purchase, what are
your views on its construction? I've done some "googling" and found
the following links useful:

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=377972&an=0&page=1#377972

and

http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,3059.0.html

I would appreciate any further insight into this.

Thanks

Jane

Click to expand...

I went from an E10 to a Canon D60, then to Canon 10D, then to Canon 1D mkII and have recently gotten the 5D. (My wife has a 20D.) Before digital I used a variety of consumer oriented 35mm film cameras (without weather sealing). I've never had any camera film or digital, quit working on me because of dust or moisture. Most cameras are actually built pretty well. (Obviously, YMMV)

Whether a camera is robust enough for your uses -- depends on your uses. If I were a PJ or Sports photographer I'd want a 1-series camera which, if you haven't held one, has about the same density and heft as couple of bricks strapped together. Most photographers are not PJ or Sports photographers and tend to take very good care of their equipment.

I had no problem taking my D60 or 10D out in light, constant rain to make photographs and I wouldn't hesitate to take my 5D out in light, constant rain. I wouldn't want to drop it in salt water and retreive it an hour later -- it's a common sense sort of thing.

Bottom line, I think the 5D is built as well as, or better than any camera I've owned -- short of the 1D mkII.

If the 5D meets your needs in all other respects, I wouldn't let the build put you off.

Ken

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

janehubbard said:

Hi All

first time poster, so go easy on me .

I'm seriously considering getting a 5D, mostly for low-light work
(candid portraits etc) and landscapes. This fills a gap I currently
have with my Olympus E-1 - which really doesn't cope with low-light
scenes, and is likely to be improved upon for landscapes purely on
the pixel count.

I'm quite happy to run two systems this way - in some ways it seems
to make perfect sense to me (the E-1 50-200mm is small, fast and
good quality). Anyway, one thing I love about the E-1 is its build
quality. Not being able to try out the 5D before purchase, what are
your views on its construction? I've done some "googling" and found
the following links useful:

http://forums.robgalbraith.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=377972&an=0&page=1#377972

and

http://www.photocamel.com/index.php/topic,3059.0.html

I would appreciate any further insight into this.

Thanks

Jane

Click to expand...

--
http://www.ksgraphicart.com

Hi Jane:

I used an Olympus E-1 for a year and a half. I'm currently working primarily with a Canon 5D.

The E-1 is more solidly built, and the environmental seals are more confidence inspiring. I tend to be protective of my equipment, so I can't say how significant these differences actually are in the real world. The E-1 has interlocks on some rotary controls, such as the mode dial, while the 5D does not. The E-1 shutter is quieter (probably the quietest among DSLRs).

The 5D uses more plastic, including most of the mirror box. Where Olympus does use plastic, it generally feels more substantial. The CF compartment door is just one example -- it is heavier and has a locking device on the E-1, while the 5D's is a flimsier and looser snap in/out device. I believe the Olympus shutter is rated for 150,000 cycles, while the 5D shutter is rated for 100,000 cycles. The 5D viewfinder is noticeably larger than the rather constricted one on the E-1 and the Canon's autofocus system is notably more sophisticated.

The E-1 ergonomics are generally better for medium/larger hands, while the 5D better suits slightly smaller hands. You can probably adjust quickly to the controls on either camera, but the arrangement is fairly different.

That said, the build quality of the 5D is still good. Having used Canon equipment (as well as Nikon, Leica, Olympus and many others for quite a few years), unless you get a rare defective sample, the 5D should prove to be quite reliable.

Mechanical qualities aside, the digital/electronic portion of the 5D (including the imaging sensor) is more advanced overall. The 5D is considerably more noise free at higher ISO ratings, and produces noticeably more detail in large print/viewing sizes. The out of camera JPG tonal and color palette is quite different between the two cameras. Canon has a number of preset and customizable color/tone choices called "Picture Styles". The default "Standard" picture style is rather over-saturated and unnatural looking to my eyes. Many of us prefer the "Faithful" or "Neutral" picture styles, or better yet, shooting in RAW and post-processing. However, even with RAW, the basic character of color and tone is different between the two cameras.

I personally prefer Olympus' colors to all others, except the skintones on Fuji's S2. This might be due to the fact Olympus' color palette reminds me of Kodachrome II (the film I shot in my earliest photography days) -- deeply saturated and slightly warm.

Preference as to color is more subjective, but it would be hard to deny the wider dynamic range of the Canon. This also does allow more flexibility in post processing. The 5D has also has a very smooth and clean "look" while being very sharp with details.

Finally, as a mature professional 35 mm lens system, Canon has a much wider variety of optical choices, although Olympus' more limited effective equivalents are more compact and also perform quite well. Olympus does generally perform more evenly across the entire image area (this, including telecentric lens design, is one of the primary design goals of the 4/3s system), while the 35mm film sized sensor on the 5D can sometimes reveal softer edges, light fall off, and vignetting, at wider apertures on certain wide angles and wide angle zooms. To the extent it occurs, light fall off and vignetting (but not edge/corner softness) can usually be corrected in post-processing.

May I suggest that you wait until Nikon's D200 is released (reportedly in mid/late December, 2005)? A real-world comparison of the D200 with the 5D might be quite interesting to you.

Hope this helps.

Regards,

Tony

Jane I just noticed that you're also in New York.

I assume that means NYC (since you're a solicitor). If so, I would urge you to make a trip to B & H Photo. I'm almost certain they would have a sample Canon 5D for you to try.

Good luck with your decision.

Tony

It's a very robust-feeling camera. Nope, it's not up to the anvil standards of the 1 series (or the Nikon D1 or D2 series, for that matter), but clearly a cut above most if not all midrange dSLR's. I don't think you would feel it a step down from the E-1.

No weather seals, though. (Although IMO they're a somewhat overrated feature -- even unsealed cameras can survive a bit of rain.)

Petteri
--
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on photography: [ http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

Hi Petteri:

I've always enjoyed and respected your opinions on this forum. However, you really must try an E-1. It is a noticeably more robust and tactilely more refined camera than the 5D.

Regards,

Tony

...and I entirely agree about the ergonomics; it's one of the most refined cameras of any type that I tried. But he did as specifically about build, and while there were clearly differences, IMO they weren't very dramatic. Both feel like very robust, confidence-inspiring cameras.

Perhaps I'm less picky about this than some, though; I don't really "feel" much difference in build between the 5D and even the Leica I used to own. Once past a certain point, they all feel the same to me.

But yeah, you're definitely right about the ergonomics design. Olympus always did know how to do that.

Petteri
--
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on photography: [ http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

Petteri Sulonen said:

Perhaps I'm less picky about this than some, though; I don't really
"feel" much difference in build between the 5D and even the Leica I
used to own. Once past a certain point, they all feel the same to
me.

Click to expand...

Hi Petteri:

You surprise me : )

Your comments and observations are always nuanced and thoughtful and often deeply perceptive. I admit that the act of picture taking itself is almost as important to me as the final product, so the tactile (and even audible) experience of a well-made camera is appealing to me.

The 5D has some extraordinary virtues, most notably in image quality, but mechanical construction isn't one of them. It feels mass-produced and middle market. The E-1 build exceeds that by a comfortable margin. It's not just mass; it's the level of refinement, choice of materials, fit and finish, and attention to details.

Regards,

Tony

I do notice (and am bothered by) what I perceive to be a poorly-built camera: if it creaks or squeaks or there's slop or wobble or obvious manufacturing warts all over the place. For example, I didn't enjoy the Minolta D7i as much as I should have for this reason. The same for the Rollei AF-M 35 -- the lens cover in particular looked pretty cheap.

But, as I said, once past a certain point, I stop noticing. Build becomes "good enough" that it doesn't get in the way. The best-built camera I've owned was the Leica M6, and nice as it was, it failed to blow my mind.

Petteri
--
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on photography: [ http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

Hi Petteri:

I guess I'm pretty picky about cameras, lenses and bicycles....

If you run across a well-maintained Canon F-1 (original), I think you'll enjoy operating it. Without the ergonomic handgrip and shape of today's cameras, it will likely feel awkward initially. But, when you wind the film lever, adjust the shutter speed and aperture, and fire the shutter, it will reflect Canon's best craftsmanship, from the days when they were running hard to catch up to Nikon, and when bottom line profitability and cost-efficient engineering wasn't the primary driving force.

I've always felt that cameras and lenses can be works of art too : )

Regards,

Tony

Anthony Cheh said:

Hi Petteri:

I guess I'm pretty picky about cameras, lenses and bicycles....

Click to expand...

Me, just about bicycles.

Anthony Cheh said:

If you run across a well-maintained Canon F-1 (original), I think
you'll enjoy operating it. Without the ergonomic handgrip and
shape of today's cameras, it will likely feel awkward initially.
But, when you wind the film lever, adjust the shutter speed and
aperture, and fire the shutter, it will reflect Canon's best
craftsmanship, from the days when they were running hard to catch
up to Nikon, and when bottom line profitability and cost-efficient
engineering wasn't the primary driving force.

I've always felt that cameras and lenses can be works of art too : )

Click to expand...

I suppose they can. I've always enjoyed widgets for what I can do with them rather than for their own sake; a widget that lets me do more, do it more easily, or gets better results is preferable to one that doesn't.

Bikes are a bit different from cameras, though, since when you're cycling your whole body is connected to bike, and there's no real artifact produced -- cycling is all experience. Well, at least if you don't race (which I don't, and never have). Cycling on a really good bike that you've adapted to feels like having an extension to your body. But a camera is just a way of getting pictures in a box, and a camera that gets in the way the least is the best from my POV.

Petteri
--
My flickr page: [ http://www.flickr.com/photos/primejunta/ ]
Me on photography: [ http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/ ]
Me on politics: [ http://p-on-p.blogspot.com/ ]

Petteri:

Absolutely agree with you about bicycles : )

Regards,

Tony

--
Author of Absolute Sharpening Pro (R)
http://absolutesharpening.home.comcast.net