even though the 5dc is old...

bobbyz wrote in post #15714421
How good is the AF on 6d with outer points in that near darkness.?

I don't know. I prefer to know my tool and use it accordingly rather than wallow in its weaknesses. My Fujifilm X100's points are all equal.

Re: the ISO: 3200 on the 6d is clean. I thought the 5dc's 1600 was iffy at best.

I added a 5D to my collection in December, 2012. The things I like about it most are, in this order:

1.) Better DOF control. Still getting used to this one.
2.) Less noise, and less annoying noise. At least a stop better than my 60D.
3.) I can shoot at f/16 with no diffraction. At f/22 it is barely noticeable. APS-c can't touch that.

Some common complaints about the 5D that do NOT bother me:

1.) The AF system. I shoot my grandson (3 1/2) and indoor sports, no problems.
2.) The menu system. Use it for 2 days. You get used to it.
3.) Live view? Never used it on my T1i or 60D. Or any of my film bodies.

The 5D is a great camera. Like any other piece of equipment, you have to use it within its limitations. The AF system on this camera is just fine if you stick to center-point only. I shoot indoor volleyball and basket ball with a 85 1.8 and 70-200 2.8. Fast glass, and shooting from side court where the action parallels the film plane works really well. The burst rate, 3fps, is a bit pointless. That just makes me work at timing my shots better. The added bonus? I've got a bunch fewer lousy shots to sort through.

I paid $650 for a nice 5D with grip and 3 batteries. The most likely failure point is the shutter. That is true of any DSLR. If it goes, I pay $300 to fix it and I've still got a camera that outperforms any Rebel on the market. And I'll have $950 in a camera that can keep up with the 5D3 and 6D, as far as image quality goes. Burst rate and ISO availability are another story. I use my 5D more than my 60D theses days. Get one, you'll love it.

Gabriella_Ashton wrote in post #15714518
I don't know. I prefer to know my tool and use it accordingly rather than wallow in its weaknesses. My Fujifilm X100's points are all equal.

Re: the ISO: 3200 on the 6d is clean. I thought the 5dc's 1600 was iffy at best.

I guess perspective is everything. Coming from a 60D, which I still have, I think ISO 1600 and 3200 on the 5D simply blow the 60D out of the water. The noise at those settings on the 5D is nothing compared to the 60D.

I ran a comparison back to back and found the opposite (nearly identical at 1600 and 5D worse at 3200). I used the same picture parameters vs picture styles, and same WB value on both, and used DPP to produce the JPGs.

Would you mind shooting both side by side at those ISOs with the same lens and exposure settings? Use a zoom lens, and lengthen your focal length on the 5D to frame the scene nearly identically as it is on the 7D at the shorter FL, this way you end up with the same basic number of pixels on target. This will help with the 100% crops.

Best to use something colorful, I have used legos and crayons, it helps identify the weakest color channels of each body.

I did that with the 28-135. The 60D at 85mm and the 5D at 135mm. Same camera settings in manual mode on each one. I thought I posted that on POTN somewhere, but can't find a "Posts I Started" thingy. I will repeat.

One thing I did NOT do was upsize the 5D or downsize the 60D. I zoomed each to 100% and liked the 5D a lot better. Not only was there less noise, it was less blotchy.

As I said, I will repeat the test. Please see my gear list and post some testing parameters, if you like. I am not a professional tester, or professional photographer for that matter. You may want to choose: lenses, lighting, focus distance, camera settings or whatever. Perhaps I have been fooling myself. This will be interesting.

I will see if I can find your post using my nifty search methodology.

If so I will post it here.

EDIT: I see all the different replies, but no comparison pics. Also, remember that I use DPP, which honors the in-camera settings that Canon engineered into each body for NR. Each camera has a unique NR profile by ISO, and they all vary. I figure that Canon knows best how to set this up, and if we ignore those settings by using 3rd party raw tools, then of course we are going to get very different results.

Taking a 5D image and a 60D image through DPP at the same exposure should result in files very different than using LR, etc.

For an example of what I am talking about, here is a 7D vs 5D2 NR map that Canon has defined internally to each body by ISO and NR value. Interestingly, you can see how in many cases, the 5D2 has more aggressive values for Luminescent and less aggressive values on Chroma vs the 7D and are nearly identical at 12,800.

I never had a chance to map my 1D4 or my 5D to this same chart, it would make for an interesting review.

Noise isn't eveything IMHO.

Old 5dc with 35L

But to be honest, some folks don't like portraits where the absolute only thing in focus is a person's eyeballs and not much else. It just depends on your taste. I have some crop shots where only parts of the kids faces are in really sharp focus too, but I have started to change my methods a bit now (due in large part to what others here on POTN have discussed and posted). However, if I have to decrease the aperture a bit on the 5D to increase the DOF, then I am possibly getting a sharper image by virtue I am no longer shooting wide open. So there is still an advantage to the FF in that case.

Those are great shots, more due to the expressions for me anyways! He's like "what? again? really?".

I have a few, not as well lit as yours though.

5dc look is something hard to replicate. Trust me try one and you will see it.

TeamSpeed:

Wow! You get a lot more technical with this stuff than I do. I usually use LR4.3 and adjust each frame to taste. I have DPP, but don't use it much since acquiring LR. I guess PP could make a huge difference in the outcome of my noise test. Is there a way I can post the raw shots for everyone to process as they see fit? I think the comparison I did was just looking at the raw shots in LR, but I can't remember. It doesn't seem fair to individually process the shots, then say one is better than the other. OTOH, should each be processed specifically to reduce noise and may the best shot win? I am not sure how to go about this. I am also not sure it matters. After 3 months, I still like the high-ISO from the 5D better than from the 60D. But that may be a testament to the way I shoot, rather than each camera's abilities. I am getting a headache.

TSchrief wrote in post #15715094
TeamSpeed:

Wow! You get a lot more technical with this stuff than I do. I usually use LR4.3 and adjust each frame to taste. I have DPP, but don't use it much since acquiring LR. I guess PP could make a huge difference in the outcome of my noise test. Is there a way I can post the raw shots for everyone to process as they see fit? I think the comparison I did was just looking at the raw shots in LR, but I can't remember. It doesn't seem fair to individually process the shots, then say one is better than the other. OTOH, should each be processed specifically to reduce noise and may the best shot win? I am not sure how to go about this. I am also not sure it matters. After 3 months, I still like the high-ISO from the 5D better than from the 60D. But that may be a testament to the way I shoot, rather than each camera's abilities. I am getting a headache.

There are a few services where you can drop large files and share links to those files, like wetransfer, etc.

It sounds like you looked at pure raw data, one to the other. What I would be looking at is how Canon has set up the processing of the raw images based on their own in-house engineering results so that the images come out pleasing, one format vs another. I think this makes a more appropriate comparison, because it is all part of Canon's engineering of the package as a whole, sensor, digic processor, processing of image due to internal parameters, etc.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15714862
I ran a comparison back to back and found the opposite (nearly identical at 1600 and 5D worse at 3200). I used the same picture parameters vs picture styles, and same WB value on both, and used DPP to produce the JPGs.

Would you mind shooting both side by side at those ISOs with the same lens and exposure settings? Use a zoom lens, and lengthen your focal length on the 5D to frame the scene nearly identically as it is on the 7D at the shorter FL, this way you end up with the same basic number of pixels on target. This will help with the 100% crops.

Best to use something colorful, I have used legos and crayons, it helps identify the weakest color channels of each body.

That was a great comparison and your methodology seems to be on point... But the results really confused me. From my experience the 5Dc does much better than the 7D sensor, and I've seen comparisons that verify my feelings from real world shooting. I think your comparison is the only one that gives the edge to the 7D...

And what was the workflow of these 2 images? DPP or not DPP? When I do comparisons, I use all of Canon's supplied tools, the camera and the software that they engineer to work best with their own raw format.

bobbyz wrote in post #15714417
Landscapes I assume you guy shooting at f8/f16, so what is the issue if camera has no LV.

You are correct about the aperture. However, when on a tripod not at eye level, using the viewfinder can be a pain and very inconvenient. For example, if I'm shooting and the camera is 10cm off the ground, there is no way I can look through the viewfinder unless I am a contortionist or I lie down on the ground, which is not always possible, practical, nor desirable. It is so much easier and more comfortable for your back and neck to just turn on the big LCD at the back and compose everything using that. In reality LV is similar to waist-level finders on older cameras, but easier to use (no reversed image).
Exposure simulation is also nice for long exposures.
Using LV when fiddling with filters is also much easier than with the viewfinder, as you have a bigger image to work with so the effects of the filter can be seen more clearly.
Also, using LV, I can zoom in to 10x and move around the scene to make sure everything I want in focus is actually in perfect focus, without having to rely on the useless distance scale on modern lenses or taking out a DOF calculator and fiddling with that.

Of course! I have no problem with that.

I had a 7D and 60D and decided I really wanted to try a full frame camera and really didn't need the speed of the 7D and only used about 1/4 of it's functions so I traded it for a 5D and couldn't be happier. My experience with the noise levels is just like the one above. My 5D is much better than my 7D ever was and as everyone else has pointed out there is just something about the 5D images that are amazing.