I miss old Canon cameras dreamy/creamy look

OP, do you have any directly comparative shots which you can post for us to look at? (Crop in and post those crops, rather than trying to fit data for entire photo into 1600x1600 image that can be posted on POTN)

jay125 wrote in post #19465768
I've owned 3 5D Mark 1's, and still own one. I bought my first years ago, and was never using it, caught up in the "magic" I felt the 5DIII offered. I found the Mark 1 lacking, so I sold it, and regretted it not long after. I found another and used it for awhile, but again, I had too many bodies, and the Mark 1 was not being used, and I sold it to a friend. Fast forward a few years, and I picked up my third copy, and I find it is currently my most used camera because of the images and the interaction with the camera required to obtain them. Some say they are film quality or dreamy and retro. I'm not sure how to describe them, but I do know the images are rarely disappointing as long as I'm paying attention and I like that I'm required to work with-in the limits of a camera that doesn't take the photo for you.

Thanks, Iam glad not being the only one

Wilt wrote in post #19465956
OP, do you have any directly comparative shots which you can post for us to look at? (Crop in and post those crops, rather than trying to fit data for entire photo into 1600x1600 image that can be posted on POTN)

Unfortunately i don't have comparative shots side by side. I have lot of shots from various places, using different lenses and lighting conditions.

Then post some representative shots that illustrate what you see in the 5D image, that you do not see in the other camera.

ok, i randomly picked two photos taken with 5d and 5dmk iii (same lens, different time and place), lighting is different, but thats not the point. all photos from 5d just looks so much more pleasant to look at, even when 5d mk iii is technically better.

both are raw photos unedited, just converted to srgb jpg.

5d : https://temp.lukaskras​a.com/5dvs5dmkiii/_MG_​2509.jpg

5d mk iii : https://temp.lukaskras​a.com/5dvs5dmkiii/5D3_​6623.jpg

The 5DIII shot is backlit, with strong highlight areas in the foreground and backlighting in the hair. How about a different shot with lighting situation more similar (frontal) to the 5D shot?

palad1n wrote in post #19465953
I tried R5 and latest Sony camera recently. Everytime i open unedited RAW photo and it's from 5d or 1ds mkii, there is much higher percentage of photos I like unedited from the first glance. Even when using same lenses when using R5, 5DmkIII and 1Dsmark II, photos are more smooth and less oversharpened and noise pattern is more pleasing to my eyes on 1dsmkii than on 5dmark iii or newer cameras i tried. Everything looks too digital i would say. Maybe it's the lower resoution, which makes it look nicer on the screen or that it requires less resolving power from lens itself. Don't know.

i honestly don' t find clinical sharpness decisive factor for nicer image quality. Same applies for noise.
Also i think less noise on low light does not make anything magically nicer when there is no lighting

What raw editors are you using?

Adobe Camera Raw + Photoshop

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19465773
Perhaps it is the lack of any kind of AA filter, so details pop a bit more. That is the only advantage the 5D brings. Color, WB, saturation, and bokeh would otherwise be the same on any body, as long as you take the time to set those up accordingly and use the same lenses.

I also had a 5D (a few actually), and never really found cases where the images just looked better than newer bodies, as long as I make sure I equalized settings, etc. We won't mention higher ISO issues with the 5D, as compared to today's tech.

And you can use any newer camera in purely manual mode with no help from the camera. You can even set up single center point AF if you would like, even with helper points, which is the only way the 5D really worked with any kind of reliability in AF.

The 5D can't be beat though if you want a capable very low cost FF offering from Canon!

This. The user is required to pay more attention to exposure settings, such as the the ISO restrictions compared to newer bodies. I can't say the photo's are for me dreamy/creamy, but IMO, they do have a certain something that I've always enjoyed. And the low cost for the quality of both the body and the images which can come of it are hard to beat. I've always shot in manual mode, but more recently have started experimenting with Av and Tv to see what I've been missing

.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19465626
There has to be a more objective difference that you can call out than dreamy or creamy… Thinner DOF? picture style settings? White balance? Etc

.
I am glad you said this.

EVERYTHING can be quantified and/or precisely articulated, if one works hard enough to do so. . Good communication often means doing hard work and taking the things that we feel and coming up with the words that most accurately describe them and explain why they make us feel a particular way.

.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19465626
I suspect if you run an R6 or 5D4 with the same settings, lens and perspective as shots from the older cameras, there would be zero difference in the overall image.

.
I agree for the most part, but with the exception that more of the fine detail will be rendered, because of higher pixel counts. . But of course whether or not one sees that extra detail will depend on the final output they are viewing it at. . On a 5K monitor such as many serious photographers use, the extra detail will usually be readily visible, but on a more "regular consumer" type of monitor, it may not show up at all unless one zooms in pretty far.

.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19465773
...I also had a 5D (a few actually), and never really found cases where the images just looked better than newer bodies, as long as I make sure I equalized settings, etc. We won't mention higher ISO issues with the 5D, as compared to today's tech.

And you can use any newer camera in purely manual mode with no help from the camera. You can even set up single center point AF if you would like, even with helper points, which is the only way the 5D really worked with any kind of reliability in AF.

The 5D can't be beat though if you want a capable very low cost FF offering from Canon!

I wonder if the perception is because at the time the 5Dc came out, there were no other FF cameras. I started with the original Rebel, the300d, upgraded to the XT when it came out and shortly after, added the 5Dc. I was astonished at how great the images looked but that's because i was comparing them to the XT and 300D. There was a look to the images, but it was more the FF look than anything specific with the sensor itself. When I upgraded to the 5DII, At that time I though that the 5DII images were far superior.

gjl711 wrote in post #19466220
I wonder if the perception is because at the time the 5Dc came out, there were no other FF cameras. I started with the original Rebel, the300d, upgraded to the XT when it came out and shortly after, added the 5Dc. I was astonished at how great the images looked but that's because i was comparing them to the XT and 300D. There was a look to the images, but it was more the FF look than anything specific with the sensor itself. When I upgraded to the 5DII, At that time I though that the 5DII images were far superior.

Oh I am quite sure nostalgia plays a big part for many when they go back to old images. Just the memories invoked from having such a capable FF in 2005 alone would make one look upon those images with a different view than more recent images from newer gear.

That happens ALOT in the car crowds, they always think about how "great" that old car like a 70s Chevelle or 60s Corvette were, and how they were more dreamy to drive than today's, but then if you actually ever get into those old cars, you find out the ride may be harsh (or soft), they don't handle at all, they are loud, and you go through gas like soda pop, you actually realize nostalgia is to blame.

I still wish I had my 2003 Z06 though, even in today's standards, it is an outstanding vehicle (despite the seats being awful and the shifter was terrible with soft forks that would deform under abuse).

Nostalgia is part of it I'm sure, but when the 5Dc did come out, it was a revolutionary camera. The look of the images was just better than the 300D, XT, 20D and 30D, it's peers at the time. The first time I shot with mine I remember that WOW!!! feeling. It's the camera that replaced film for me. Up to that time, if i wanted really good images, I shot film, but the 5D was every bit as good and better in many ways.

gjl711 wrote in post #19466232
Nostalgia is part of it I'm sure, but when the 5Dc did come out, it was a revolutionary camera. The look of the images was just better than the 300D, XT, 20D and 30D, it's peers at the time. The first time I shot with mine I remember that WOW!!! feeling. It's the camera that replaced film for me. Up to that time, if i wanted really good images, I shot film, but the 5D was every bit as good and better in many ways.

You just displayed the very concept of nostalgia... Remembering back or longing for when things impacted your life in a good way, whether real or perceived.

When people go back and look at their 5D images, they likely subconsciously think about the very things you mention, and that invokes an emotion viewing those images.

This is one of my favorite 5D images due to the content (and the result/bokeh/DOF) is good too, but I know certainly I could reproduce this with any of my other gear today. I will say that even today, the grain on the 5D at high ISO like this one at 3200 is still some of the most uniform I have seen. Somewhere along the way, the noise became a bit lopsided and "chunky" for several years/models of camera.

Maybe I'am just sensitive to nostalgia aspect more than to anything.
When i started with photography, i had so much time to learn and practice but no money for gear, i would trade it back anytime. Especially when I'am looking at my old photos, I was able to pull amazing pictures just from 5dc with basic lens.
Now i'am buying expensive gear just to shoot my garden fence and pixelpeeping it, haha.

palad1n wrote in post #19466365
...
Now i'am buying expensive gear just to shoot my garden fence and pixelpeeping it, haha.

This made me laugh.. I love testing equipment shooting meaningless targets. I just went through a whole episode looking for a more portable long lens kit. HERE.