long exposure 5D vs 5D2

Hi

It is my first post in your community but you seems to be interested enough in camera possibilities to maybe have an answer to my question.

I actually use a 5D (1) for long exposure and lights in movement.
the camera stick the bulb mode and I have (nearly) no other use of this canon.

have a canon background and really happy with this FF DSLR.

print from 60x90 to 80x120 cm (23x35 to 31x37 inches) are good (but i didn't make a close comparation side by side with another digital camera)

even I didn't have any failure with the 5D I asking my self if the 5D2 can be better for my work.

video/high iso ability are not really usefull for me

the 5D2 "improvement" can be for my use :

• live view (all the shoot are on tripod in dark area, easier to focus - manual lenses)
• electronic dust removal (expensive gadget)
• 21 mpxl !, but it is the question

--> will the images be better and will it be noticable on prints

I read in the forum about the "banding" in shadows with the 5D2 low iso, the pixel size

also the dynamic range between canon and nikon (but will not switch from canon for numeric work before MF is affordable)

question is:

I use iso 100 (why not 200 with hightlight compensation), exposure from 2 to 10 mn.
a lot of contrast (search jadikan in google for last year exemples)

5D or 5D2 will give the best result in printing 60x90 cm ? 80x120 cm ?
(23x35 to 31x37 inches)
the question is focus in term of long exposure noise, the hot pixels are commons

I had already had a look to the camera file comparaison but they always use a short exposure time.

If someone have an idea, have alreday done this type of long exposure test or have the 2 cameras, please drop a line.

lightly

Live View is a huge improvement - especially for low light photography.

You have LiveView AF where you can zoom in x10 and guarantee focus

AND you have LiveView real-time histogram for accurate exposure every time

These two features alone make the 5D2 worth buying IMHO

For long exposures, of the type you mentioned, 5D2 has proved to be excellent - providing low noise images, with no obvious stuck pixels.

The 'banding' issue is primarily people incorrectly exposing their images, and trying to fix them later in PP. Or trying to do HDR from single frames.

Correct exposure yields clean images - even on long exposure shots.

I am very happy using my 5D2 for this type of work - samples below:





















--
http://www.dodkin.com
[email protected]
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad

Are you " jadikan"? Those are awesome images, really creative. I can only imagine the time spent getting everything right.

--
http://jackandkelly.zenfolio.com/

zzzanzzzibar said:

the 5D2 "improvement" can be for my use :

• live view (all the shoot are on tripod in dark area, easier to focus - manual lenses)
• electronic dust removal (expensive gadget)
• 21 mpxl !, but it is the question

--> will the images be better and will it be noticable on prints

I read in the forum about the "banding" in shadows with the 5D2 low iso, the pixel size

also the dynamic range between canon and nikon (but will not switch from canon for numeric work before MF is affordable)

question is:

I use iso 100 (why not 200 with hightlight compensation), exposure from 2 to 10 mn.
a lot of contrast (search jadikan in google for last year exemples)

5D or 5D2 will give the best result in printing 60x90 cm ? 80x120 cm ?
(23x35 to 31x37 inches)
the question is focus in term of long exposure noise, the hot pixels are commons

Click to expand...

I have used the 5D and the 5D2 to do quite a bit of night photography. ( http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/v/HumanWorld/NightPhotography/ ) Like you, I most often work at low ISO and relatively small aperture with the camera on a tripod, and like you my target output is large prints.

I typically carry both cameras with me (yes, I still have the 5D) when I do night photography, and I have never encountered a situation in which I would choose the 5D over the 5D2. In other words, I'm convinced that it is "better" - though how much better might be your question.

While I typically shoot at ISO 100, I can push this a bit more with the 5D2 than with the 5D. In certain situations I want a shorter exposure time and I'll shoot the 5D2 at 200 or 400 for night photography. In my experience, on the 5D2 the performance at ISO 200 is essentially indistinguishable from that at 100, and 400 is very good. (When exposure times are as long as we are contemplating here, doubling or quadrupling the ISO can make a big difference.)

The dust reduction feature in the 5D2 is real and it is effective. When I got the camera I originally feared that it might be a gimmick, but that is not the case. The 5D is a notorious dust magnet, but the situation is much different with the 5D2.

Live view is, for me at least, tremendously useful for night photography. You know how difficult it can be to find good focus in the near dark, but with live view and its exposure simulation feature you can often manage to manually focus in situations where AF won't work and guessing might otherwise have to suffice.

As far as print size goes, the 5D2 can go a bit larger - as long as everything else affecting sharpness/resolution is handled very carefully. That said, in my opinion, the print sizes you are talking about push the outer envelope of what I generally think full-frame DSLRs are capable of. I'm confident in the ability of the 5D2 to create images that produce with very good quality at 20" x 30" dimensions. However, going beyond that - because of the nature of FF DSLR images - becomes a subjective question. It might work in a number of cases, depending upon your expectations - or you might feel that the the fine detail is not quite what you want. This is not related to night photography specifically, and would be the same even with, say, landscapes.

In any case, I am sure that if you are pushing the upper boundaries of print size that the higher resolution of the 21MP body can make a difference.

I hesitate to start down the "noise banding" path because I know where that leads in these forums, unfortunately. You are going to hear from some rather vocal partisans that the 5D2 suffers from some awful defect that produces unacceptable "noise banding." My experience is quite different. While I can find occasional evidence of slight banding in low-exposure areas of smooth gradients or uniform color/luminosity when I boost shadow areas in post and when I go looking for it at 100% magnification on the computer screen , this has never - not once - affected a print made from this camera. I regard it as I regard many other slight artifacts that you might be able to spot at 100% magnification (very slight CA, issues with sharpening, etc.) but not in prints - as immaterial and insignificant. If I felt differently, I would replace the camera.

As for differences between Nikon and Canon... I wouldn't start down that road. Use whichever system you already have. People use both brands to make excellent night (and all other kinds of) photography, and it is impossible to tell which brand was used by looking at photographs. I'm certain that either brand is excellent. I shoot Canon, but if I found myself with similar Nikon gear I'm sure my photography would be no different.

The "hot pixel" issue used to be more critical than it is now. On my first cropped sensor DSLR more than a half dozen years ago, it was a serious concern. It is much less so on the 5D2. Even so, I virtually always do activate the Long Exposure Noise Reduction (LENR) feature when making exposures longer than a half minute or so, and I get very clean exposures without the tell-tale red, blue, or green hot pixels.

Hope that helps.

Dan



--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Google Plus: https://plus.google.com/u/0/102554407414282880001/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell

I am in full agreement with Mr. Mitchell, above. The 5D2 is an improved tool over the 5D in every way, and is significantly more capable.

One thing I have noticed is that on my 5D, as with my 350D/XT, on long exposures (over 5 minutes) there was a noticeable red bloom on one side of the frame - heat sink from the on-camera signal amplifier. With the 5D2, the bloom is absent, even in star trail exposures of up to an hour. Canon may have rearranged the camera internals, or they may have installed a better heat sink on the amplifier to eliminate the problem.

The red/blue 'noise' in long images with the 5D2 are quite visible on screen at above 50% view, but as mentioned by Mr. Mitchell, are easily removed/made moot by the long exposure noise reduction (black frame) method, either in camera or in post, on the computer.

I also do make prints, and the results from the 5D2 at all sizes are noticeably nicer than those of the 5D.

cheers,
S.
--
beam me up captain, there's no intelligent life down here!

many thanks all of you for your answers.

Chris Dodkin

• live view can be really usefull wil manual lenses... that I finally don't use so much in night photography
• What about "live view real time histogram"? does it calculate the histogram with the ambiant light ? (not possible to have a "live histogram" !)
• in your images, your exposure time looks not so long but I really like the result.

filmluvr

• Yes, I am the guy who produce those photographies.

are you sure to imagine the time to get every thing right ?
wait for the next series ;-)

gdanmitchell.
very detailled answer.

• nice to know that the 5D2 can realy manage noise at more than 100 iso. I remember one more than 5mn exposure at 160 isos with noise (no noise reduction)
• dust reduction is a great feature , i remedie that with LR.
• Live view. ok, I sometime dream of it ;-)
• Print size. I know I go a bit too large. I will probably stop at 23x35 for the next edition, good news that it can do it a bit better.
• Print size is the first reson that I start to work with a 4x5 inch view camera.

Some info make me I think that the result can be superior with a good scan (imacon) . what about you ?

• those hypothetical "noise banding" have no effect on prints, thanks for the infos.
• canon vs nikon debate also does not interest me so much
• I never use the long exposure noise reduction, too difficult to wait each time for my work. Do you confirm that if I use the dark frame solution (same iso/exposure etc) It will have the same result ?
• dig your discret star trail in your enclosed image.

ScottyNV

you are also partisan of the 5D2 and convice me that the dark frame technique is a lternate technique to the LENR.

thank you again, I now know why I will go to the new version.

more for use the new feature and have new possibilities than to have a real gap on my quality print (12 to 21Mpx , I had questions about the result )
and it will be "better" ;-)

lightly.

Live View AF

Works with AutoFocus lenses - allows extremely accurate focus with the ability to magnify the target focus area x10 to ensure it is sharp. Much better than standard AF. Can also be used to confirm manual focus is accurate.

Live Histogram

This feature overlays a histogram onto the live view, which shows real-time changes in the distribution of subject brightness and brightness range.

It's real time - live - extremely useful during composition and exposure set-up



So you know your exposure is exact before you take the shot - and can quickly dial-in exposure compensation etc

Glad you liked the 'long exposure' shots - only 30 sec exposures in my case!

Chris.

--
http://www.dodkin.com
[email protected]
Mac Pro/MacBook Pro/iPods/iPhones/iPad