even though the 5dc is old...

5Dc is an amazing camera. Simple, no frills... Sure.. But the IQ and rendering is simply beautiful. I would love to get one as a backup.

ceriltheblade wrote in post #15713433
this is a seminal camera and the second hand market has a couple at really good prices.
one of the benefits of the FF 5dc that i was interested in was its lesser diffraction abilities (esp for macro) but also to get a taste of the 5d goodness.

have people here gone "backwards" to the 5dc? regretted it?
the only thing i can think about that would be missed is the higher iso performance and the lack of view by the LCD....
and if the used camera is "healthy"

anything else?

in that department i'd take the 5d over any canon cropper . in fact the 5dc is better at iso 1600 than the 1ds mark III. the 5d has exceptionally good IQ. the viewfinder is a dust magnet and the camera is laggy so not the best for movement.

Sirrith wrote in post #15716181
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.

I used my old Olympus OM Varimagni Finder (angle finder), which just slips on the viewfinder in place of the rubber eyecup. It's exactly what I did with my OM cameras... did you think no-one took such shots with film cameras? I believe it was a standard fitting and some other brands e.g. Minolta and Pentax also fit the 5D.

(Canon make an angle finder which, unlike the Varimagni, also fits the 1-series, but it can be hard to track down.)

Anyway, in the absence of an articulated LCD or carrying a hand mirror live view is only half a solution to shooting near to the ground.

melcat wrote in post #15716420
I used my old Olympus OM Varimagni Finder (angle finder), which just slips on the viewfinder in place of the rubber eyecup. It's exactly what I did with my OM cameras... did you think no-one took such shots with film cameras? I believe it was a standard fitting and some other brands e.g. Minolta and Pentax also fit the 5D.

Did I say no one took such shots with film cameras?

I said it is easier with LV.

It is bloody annoying when people try to read something you did not even hint at into your posts.

well, i think y'all are pretty much "for" the 5dc in such a case....
and there are those who are even enthusiastic about it over the 7d, too!

well, now the price is really reasonable - if not bordering on just amazing
so i might make the jump and try out the FF goodness..... later on considing future generations...
and the RAWs will be smaller!

thanks all for those great comparison shots. although I guess I kind of worry about the MA - but I guess I can get the camera adjusted in the shop for the prices that exist nowadays

though I guess I must ask - would there be a benefit to get the mark II (which used markets in my area have it at about X3 the price of the 5dc)

ceriltheblade wrote in post #15717042
well, i think y'all are pretty much "for" the 5dc in such a case....
and there are those who are even enthusiastic about it over the 7d, too!

well, now the price is really reasonable - if not bordering on just amazing
so i might make the jump and try out the FF goodness..... later on considing future generations...
and the RAWs will be smaller!

thanks all for those great comparison shots. although I guess I kind of worry about the MA - but I guess I can get the camera adjusted in the shop for the prices that exist nowadays

though I guess I must ask - would there be a benefit to get the mark II (which used markets in my area have it at about X3 the price of the 5dc)

ceril -- i'd get the 6d before the 5d II. i think the 6d is a camera that you could be happy with for quite some time

h4ppydaze wrote in post #15715404

My 5D/7D quick comparisons show not as much difference between them as this, but I find the 5D better. And JPEGs from the camera are certainly cleaner from the 5D.

I use the 7D for reach though, and upsizing the 5D image to that of my typical cropped 7D image would show the 7D absolutely destroying the 5D.

You can't do a true comparison between them though - the 7D demands a sharper lens and will need (and generally receive) more sharpening, and as a result the noise will therefore often end up looking worse.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15714905
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.

I really don't think that DPP brings the best out of the camera. LR handles everything so much better. Even with NR turned off, images imported from 5DII in LR look much cleaner than DPP. I was really amazed actually.
So no, I certainly don't think Canon knows best.

Besides, why do you presume that 3rd parties just ignore differences in cameras? From what I see, LR seems to understand 5DII so much better than DPP does.

For me, comparing DPP with LR, is like comparing an outdated Rebel with 5DIII.

Anthon wrote in post #15717201
I really don't think that DPP brings the best out of the camera. LR handles everything so much better. Even with NR turned off, images imported from 5DII in LR look much cleaner than DPP. I was really amazed actually.
So no, I certainly don't think Canon knows best.

Besides, why do you presume that 3rd parties just ignore differences in cameras? From what I see, LR seems to understand 5DII so much better than DPP does.

For me, comparing DPP with LR, is like comparing an outdated Rebel with 5DIII.

You are missing my point entirely. Canon has certain NR values buried in the camera by ISO level and NR setting. They didn't just arbitrarily set those for fun, roll a die, etc. They know specifically what they want to get out of the raw data captured by the sensor. DPP honors this, LR doesn't. This means you, the user, has to decide each and every time what the best way to remove that noise is. If you don't, you are either using some sort of LR or Adobe default value, or you may just choose a value as part of your processing. In any case, if you do this, you are ignoring what the Canon engineers have determined to be the best settings for what they want out of their own product, and your own final result may not look better.

DPP has alot of settings you can play with now, and is quite a bit more powerful than it once was. Every time Canon changes their JPG engine in-camera, they also update DPP to match. Methinks you don't give it enough credit, I actually own LR3, and have used it for a period of time, but DPP works better for my workflow, and my results seem to come out quite well.

Now if LR would actually have a mode to honor the raw settings from the camera, at least the NR values, then I would change my story. I don't care about picture style/picture parameters, I will always set those to something that pleases me afterwards, but having the NR more automated, using whatever I selected in camera, when I import the raw, is important to my workflow. I take care of the noise first and foremost, then work on the rest of the image.

But then again, what do I know? I could be doing this all wrong.

I have tried a few shots comparing 5D to 60D. I am not getting any differences you would notice on a down-sized-for-POTN photo. I used the same lens, 28-135, at different FL to compensate for the crop factor, manual mode, custom WB, ambient incandescent light, ISO 3200, SOOC large jpg. I have one that covers everything from pure white to pure black, and the shots just are not that different. The whites look pretty good in both. The blacks look a lot better from the 5D. In the mid-range solid color areas there is a difference in the type of noise. The 60D is a lot blotchier, and has some small black spots that the 5D does not. All in all, I could work with either of these and clean them up significantly. Even my meager PP skills could make these shots close enough that I couldn't tell which was which.

If someone wants to lay of the specifics of a comparison shot, I am game. I honestly believe I shot a comparison before, of wine bottles on the counter top, and the 5D was clearly better. This time I don't draw the same conclusion. They were much closer than I expected. Anyone want to suggest a set-up to get the most out of this comparison?

Both bodies missed custom WB by a mile. I shot the flat white ceiling under the same lights illuminating this wall art. The wall is actually a light harvest gold.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #15717295
You are missing my point entirely. Canon has certain NR values buried in the camera by ISO level and NR setting. They didn't just arbitrarily set those for fun, roll a die, etc. They know specifically what they want to get out of the raw data captured by the sensor. DPP honors this, LR doesn't. This means you, the user, has to decide each and every time what the best way to remove that noise is. If you don't, you are either using some sort of LR or Adobe default value, or you may just choose a value as part of your processing. In any case, if you do this, you are ignoring what the Canon engineers have determined to be the best settings for what they want out of their own product, and your own final result may not look better.

DPP has alot of settings you can play with now, and is quite a bit more powerful than it once was. Every time Canon changes their JPG engine in-camera, they also update DPP to match. Methinks you don't give it enough credit, I actually own LR3, and have used it for a period of time, but DPP works better for my workflow, and my results seem to come out quite well.

Now if LR would actually have a mode to honor the raw settings from the camera, at least the NR values, then I would change my story. I don't care about picture style/picture parameters, I will always set those to something that pleases me afterwards, but having the NR more automated, using whatever I selected in camera, when I import the raw, is important to my workflow. I take care of the noise first and foremost, then work on the rest of the image.

But then again, what do I know? I could be doing this all wrong.

DPP is a free product you get with every Canon camera and is designed for quick RAW adjustment/export, while Light Room is a dedicated software, for advanced usage.

Maybe my DPP isn't updated for 5DII (even though it clearly recognizes it), but it just doesn't compare to LR4 - especially when I went to 5DII, really helps getting even more IQ out of it.
LR4 just gives me better results, and I don't really care about how they actually do it - nice to know, but it's the result that counts.

Anthon wrote in post #15717884
DPP is a free product you get with every Canon camera and is designed for quick RAW adjustment/export, while Light Room is a dedicated software, for advanced usage.

Maybe my DPP isn't updated for 5DII (even though it clearly recognizes it), but it just doesn't compare to LR4 - especially when I went to 5DII, really helps getting even more IQ out of it.
LR4 just gives me better results, and I don't really care about how they actually do it - nice to know, but it's the result that counts.

What version are you running? The latest I believe is 3.12.52. As mentioned, Lightroom and ARC are really good and very flexible, but in many cases, DPP does a better job. It's hard to put your finger on it but the images look smoother with better color rendition. I still do use ARC most of the time but thats because I tend to apply no noise processing or use it very selectively.

Anthon wrote in post #15717884
DPP is a free product you get with every Canon camera and is designed for quick RAW adjustment/export, while Light Room is a dedicated software, for advanced usage.

Maybe my DPP isn't updated for 5DII (even though it clearly recognizes it), but it just doesn't compare to LR4 - especially when I went to 5DII, really helps getting even more IQ out of it.
LR4 just gives me better results, and I don't really care about how they actually do it - nice to know, but it's the result that counts.

DPP is updated as often as Canon changes their raw or their JPG camera engines, because those are part of the DPP underpinnings. It is a full-blown raw developer and even has a mass update explorer tool that replaced the old zoombrowser. It certainly is not a quick raw adjustment/export tool, simply because it just isn't that quick.

I know each product you mention well, I have LR, CS5, and DPP.