Reading mode: Light Dark

5D MK I owners

Go to last post
D

drwho9437

Senior Member
Messages
2,043
Reaction score
127
Location
US
Hello all you mark I owners. I am thinking about getting a MK I used. My reasons for doing so are to obtain a larger viewfinder and to have shallower DOF available to me in lenses close to "normal".

The items which cause hesitation are:
I generally like the control interface via LCD that is on the 400D I have.
The lack of anti-dust (is dust really that much of an issue on the 5D?).
Weight

The viewer could be improved significantly by just changing to the xxD line. I've looked through a MKII and a 50D. (Though I would probably get a 40D used).

I don't think the technical quality of my photos would improve dramatically just perhaps the fun of taking them using FF (other than cases below F4).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbryce/
 
Well. I tell you.

I had Nikon D2H,Canon 20D, 50D....just recently bought FF -Used 5D I - and I can't be happier!
FF is the way to go, 50D I will only keep for macro ( I'm not in sport or BIF)
The IQ is way better, ISO.. viewfinder...
It doesn't have a great LCD, or MA...but I can live with it..no problem...
Weight...is ok for me too.
Go to the store and take a look on 5DII is about the same weight...I think.

Dust protection, didn't have it on 20D...cleaned this only twice, If sensor get dusty will clean it...or remove the dust spots in PS.

you will lose some , but you will gain much more. Buy it, do not wait. I just regret that I didn't buy FF - 5D II - last year (instead bought 50D)...now I decided to keep my 50D...( could sell it to afford 5DII)...and wait for 5DIII/3D whatever the name of next FF in small body will be....
About the fun....YES it is a great fun shooting with FF!!!!
5D rocks!
drwho9437 said:
Hello all you mark I owners. I am thinking about getting a MK I used. My reasons for doing so are to obtain a larger viewfinder and to have shallower DOF available to me in lenses close to "normal".

The items which cause hesitation are:
I generally like the control interface via LCD that is on the 400D I have.
The lack of anti-dust (is dust really that much of an issue on the 5D?).
Weight

The viewer could be improved significantly by just changing to the xxD line. I've looked through a MKII and a 50D. (Though I would probably get a 40D used).

I don't think the technical quality of my photos would improve dramatically just perhaps the fun of taking them using FF (other than cases below F4).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbryce/
Click to expand...
--
In an ocean of absurdity, fins still are needed ;)
Regards,
Andy
http://www.pbase.com/sobax
 
Dust can be a problem on any digital camera with interchangable lenses (even those with the sensor shake) but even in the scary old days before vibrating sensors, Canon tended to do a little better than Nikon by nature of the CMOS sensor not having as much of a charge as the CCDs used in Nikon's cameras. Just don't leave the camera around without a lens or body cap on it, try to remember to turn the camera off before changing the lens (not sure exactly if this helps, but I like to pretend it does), and when possible try to change lenses with the lens facing down, as dust tends to fall rather than float up and you'll be less likely to get dust in the mirror box (which would eventually end up on the sensor.)

The view finder is bigger and brighter, and that's one of the things I love most about it.

The shallow depth of field can be very useful, if you have (or later pick up) an 85 f/1.8 or 100 f/2 lens, you'll love what it can do to the background of portraits.

Keep in mind that you won't be able to use any EF-S lenses on the 5D, and any full frame lenses you've been using on the 400D are going to seem a bit wider, so if you like to shoot telephoto, you may need to invest in a longer lens.

I really love the 5D, it's a great camera, but the 40D is also a good alternative with a slight compromise in the viewfinder and DOF. I wouldn't say either one is a bad choice.
--
~Kurt
 
I hope you enjoy it. I had one for a short time when they first came out and traded it for a 1Dmk2N if you can handle the limitations it's a fairly decent camera. You are paying for a FF sensor without the bells and whistles (Speed, decent Focus, Build etc...) A lot will depend upon your style of shooting some people seem to like FF and seem to hold that above all else....
drwho9437 said:
Hello all you mark I owners. I am thinking about getting a MK I used. My reasons for doing so are to obtain a larger viewfinder and to have shallower DOF available to me in lenses close to "normal".

The items which cause hesitation are:
I generally like the control interface via LCD that is on the 400D I have.
The lack of anti-dust (is dust really that much of an issue on the 5D?).
Weight

The viewer could be improved significantly by just changing to the xxD line. I've looked through a MKII and a 50D. (Though I would probably get a 40D used).

I don't think the technical quality of my photos would improve dramatically just perhaps the fun of taking them using FF (other than cases below F4).
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbryce/
Click to expand...
--
Cal

Put a Canon to your head, You deserve it....

http://funshots.smugmug.com/
 
If you can pick up a low-use, good example of a 5D MK I go for it. I used one for seveal years before moving over completely to Nikon and had to sell it. But it remaons for me one of the best cameras ever made with stunning/natural image quality. It was also easy to use and I never had a problem focusing in low light for indoor concerts. If you can find a near mint one, go for it.
Tony
 
The 5D was my first SLR ever and i loved the camera. It easily took amazing quality images, however i wasnt completely aware of the FF advantage until I had to rent a camera while my shutter was in for repair. All the shop had was a 40D so i took it, and despite being a new camera, the "bells and whistles" seemed like tacky garbage disguising the fact that the sensor on this thing could not keep up with the 5D in any way. Even the larger LCD screen on the back is quite awful, and the colours seem sorta pastel-ish or fluorescent on the 40D. Now im aware that this camera wasnt meant to keep up with the 5D, thats just my bitterness speaking.

The 2 things that were useful on the 40D not included in the 5D, Live view, used it a couple times, can see why someone would want to use it, but not all the time. Also the dust removal. I have owned the 5D for 3 years now, and dust isnt a problem, but you do have to clean the sensor often, and usually post process specks of dust out of photos. I didnt have to do any of this once with the 40D.

I honestly cant wait to get my 5D back, even though it's a dinosaur now, it certainly is good enough for me. I suggest you pick one up and enjoy it.

Josh

--
http://www.JagFotoz.com

 
Canon changed the LCD in July 2006, because the earlier ones had a greenish cast and weren't very bright. The cameras that start with 0 and 1 have the old LCD, but the ones that start with 2 and 3 have the newer one.

I went with FF for a reason that nobody (surpisingly) mentions, yet I think is far more important for landscape photography than depth of field. On my Rebel, I have to put on a 12mm lens to get the same view as a 20mm lens on FF. What that ultra wide angle lens does is THROW the mountains and scenery FAR AWAY. Correcting it in post defeats the purpose of wide angle, because you have to crop the corrected (tilted) image.

I'm shocked nobody every mentions this, but I think it's the real reason to go full frame (at least if you are into lanscapes).

cheers,
Chris
 
The apparent distance ought to be the same at 1.6 x the focal length I would have thought. How exactly would you judge distance in a 2D projection other than relative size? Relative size must simply be a function on the diagonal angular field which should be the same at 1.6x, so I'm not sure my experience bears out what you are saying.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbryce/
 
Isn't all that much a function of the camera sensor as the processing of the data. If they calibrated the thing right for the color array the put on it it is all down to the default settings of the cameras, I'm sure the default for the 5D is more natural.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbryce/
 
Sorry, I was tired when I wrote (and have the flu). It's only when you are forced to walk (change the distance between the subject and the camera) to get something in frame of a cropped camera that it impacts the shot (vs. getting the same frame in a full frame camera at a shorter distance obviously). Otherwise, yes you just change the lens and the crop sensor is just a crop even if it is a different lens.

Here's a discussion about the Serial Numbers and the LCD:
http://photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00OB2R

take care,
chris
 
and haven't looked back once. In addition, I got rid of my 50D, once I had the 5D in my hands, and have had no lust for the new 5DmkII either. In other words, this camera makes me very happy, and more then suits my photographic needs.

Yeah, the original 5D is based on older technology, and doesn't have all of the fancy functions that newer Canon's do, but I don't mind that at all. It helps keep me focusd on what's most important - my images.

Good luck with your decision!! ;)

B
 
drwho9437 said:
The lack of anti-dust (is dust really that much of an issue on the 5D?).
Click to expand...
Tossed it around all over Europe and the US (+part of Africa) in all kinds of conditions, didn't cause any real trouble in the 3 years I have been using mine; only had to clean it twice (try not to have to do it in very humid conditions, because of more chance for drying streaks).
drwho9437 said:
Weight
Click to expand...
Shouldn't be a problem if you're already considering a 40D or 50D (only 70gr lighter than the 5D)
drwho9437 said:
The viewer could be improved significantly by just changing to the xxD line. I've looked through a MKII and a 50D. (Though I would probably get a 40D used).
Click to expand...
If you're talking of the 5D viewer, you're never going back to crop viewers unless you have to; this is due to the use of pentamirror construction in the xxD series instead of pentaprismof the xD series. Seems like the 7D is the first APS-C to have a prism, and good VF by consequence.
drwho9437 said:
I don't think the technical quality of my photos would improve dramatically just perhaps the fun of taking them using FF (other than cases below F4).
Click to expand...
Just my opinion, but I think they will, looking at your flickr pages. You're going to be pushed by the 5D to better use the more discriminating DoF of the 5D, even at apertures you would consider "safe" at this moment with the 400D/XTi.

In the end, go for the 5D, it will take your skills to a higher level and serve you for years.
 
drwho9437 said:
Hello all you mark I owners. I am thinking about getting a MK I used. My reasons for doing so are to obtain a larger viewfinder and to have shallower DOF available to me in lenses close to "normal".

The items which cause hesitation are:
I generally like the control interface via LCD that is on the 400D I have.
The lack of anti-dust (is dust really that much of an issue on the 5D?).
Click to expand...
Just clean the sensor on a regular basis, such as once a month, or before a big shoot/trip. No big deal with VD products.
drwho9437 said:
Weight
Click to expand...
I like the wt (helps with holding steady); I usually use it with the battery grip, it balances my heavy zooms. One day I'll get a prime for a light package though...
drwho9437 said:
The viewer could be improved significantly by just changing to the xxD line. I've looked through a MKII and a 50D. (Though I would probably get a 40D used).

I don't think the technical quality of my photos would improve dramatically just perhaps the fun of taking them using FF (other than cases below F4).
Click to expand...
You'll get the IQ "pop" compared to the crop sensors. Downside is that even for a low-light champ in its day, now it's dated. I get good IQ up through 1250, but find 1600 and 3200 (usually) too noisy (good enough for Halloween shots, however!).
 
No the 30D 40D and 50D and I think the 10D and 20D also have all had pentaprisms, the finder on the 5D is larger, but the high point might be worse for my glasses...

I actually have to move my eye to look into the corners.

You may be thinking of the xxxD series. the 300D and 400D which I have owned both have pentamirrors, and the others as well, the pentamirror in the 450/500D aren't as bad, but still not prism good.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbryce/
 
I will get a 5D MK I soon or I will wait for the 5D MK III and get a 5D MK II then :-).

The 5D MK II has a sensor that makes lenses start to really look bad, maybe they will come up with a better way to increase dynamic range or something that I will really want but if they continue down the current way of doing things there is nothing that I want the MK II does not have. The cost simply is too high. I don't really need anything but a still camera though and I get the feeling the way things are going is motion on top of stills now that MP are pretty much done.

I have little need for that...

I think in time I will also own a u4/3 camera, the new lenses announced are very important. The G1 was the closest thing to a body done correctly, but I'm waiting for the lens system to fill out. 9-18 or 7-14 (too expensive panasonic!) are the most important lenses in the system.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbryce/
 
5D Mark III could be a long time coming - the great buy of the moment is actually the Sony R1 - for $450 you get this fantastic Zeiss 24-120 lens that equals or bests the best of both Canon and Nikon - 10 megapix sensor is great too - only niggle it is slow to focus and fill cards. Still it's less than the cost of a 17-40L 4.0 !

--
NYCandre - http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycandre/
 
Get the 5D. Do it. Do it now. I promise you, once you've snapped your first images, you'll wonder why you've gone so long before buying one.

I have the 50D and bought a new 5D MK I in January. The 50D, with all its bells and whistels, is a fantastic camera. But the 5D is in a league of its own.

--
Insert obligatory quote here...

http://www.picsure.net
 
I've had a number of Canon DSLRs, started with a 300D, then a 30D, followed by a 50D. I recently got a S/H 5D (mk. 1) which has the following advantages over the 50D
  • Wide-angle primes are properly wide on the 5D
  • Larger, brighter viewfinder
  • Shallower DOF
  • Better image quality in low light
There are a number of things I miss though
  • rear LCD is smaller than the 50D
  • no Live View!
I don't think missing the "anti-dust" feature is an issue - I still have to properly clean my 50D sensor every couple of months. For me the main reason for getting the 5D was the ability to get proper use of wide angle, low light primes.

I've only had it a week or so, but have been pleased with my results so far. Especially impressed by it's performance at ISO 1250 - and it only cost around the same as my 50D did when it was new :-)

--
Check out my galleries (lots of macros) at :
http://www.pbase.com/cjed
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top