5Dc to 5D2 upgrade: What am I really getting?

Still contemplating this upgrade. Usual question when people as about upgrades is 'what is your camera NOT giving you?' My 5Dc works great.

I don't need video; images are usually sized down to about 25% of raw file image pixel count anyway; don't need live-view.

What benefits would an upgrade to the 5D2 offer me? Not trying to talk myself OUT of an upgrade and would like to hear from those who did to help me understand.

thanks.

dave

high ISO.

i have heard that some of the local wedding photogs sold their 5d ii's and went back to the 5d. it was stated that they liked the IQ better out of the original.

i dunno, it's all hearsay.

Also comtemplating "upgrading" from 5D to 5D II, is IQ really different between them ? I like to hear from those who made the jump please...

It sounds like you don't print, so the extra cropability (more pixels) does not buy you much. I don't know if you regularly shoot at ISO 3200 but if you do, it's worth the upgrade just for that, imo, but maybe for you it wouldn't matter much if you are resampling down as much as you are. Resampling down hides a lot of noise.

Other than Liveview, which you don't care about, larger back LCD, the 5D one is pure crap even though I only used it for reading the histogram(s), the sensor cleaning... my 5D sent more time needing cleaning than being clean. Fortunately I don't shoot a lot stopped down so it was not a big deal, to me. Micro adjustment. I didn;t seem to have a problem on the 5D, that doesn't have MA. Other than that, nothing of any real importance, imo.

So, it seems that there isn't much reason, if any, for you to upgrade.

You get almost twice the megapixels, which Canon makes us believe is quite necessary!

bohdank wrote in post #11679382
It sounds like you don't print, so the extra cropability (more pixels) does not buy you much. I don't know if you regularly shoot at ISO 3200 but if you do, it's worth the upgrade just for that, imo, but maybe for you it wouldn't matter much if you are resampling down as much as you are. Resampling down hides a lot of noise.

Other than Liveview, which you don't care about, larger back LCD, the 5D one is pure crap even though I only used it for reading the histogram(s), the sensor cleaning... my 5D sent more time needing cleaning than being clean. Fortunately I don't shoot a lot stopped down so it was not a big deal, to me. Micro adjustment. I didn;t seem to have a problem on the 5D, that doesn't have MA. Other than that, nothing of any real importance, imo.

So, it seems that there isn't much reason, if any, for you to upgrade.

Bohdan:

You're too funny! I know much of that was tongue-in-cheek. Maybe I don't know what I don't know!

You definitely pointed out a couple of things: No sensor cleaning, the horrible LCD (glad the shots look better on the computer!) and the MA feature.

I do print both 5D and 7D files. But they have to be resized and reduced for printing. Also getting better at not cropping so much, either.

Thanks for pointing out the 'upgrades' of the 5D2.

dave

bigcountry wrote in post #11678755
high ISO.

i have heard that some of the local wedding photogs sold their 5d ii's and went back to the 5d. it was stated that they liked the IQ better out of the original.

i dunno, it's all hearsay.

Not contemplating using high ISO regularly. Most of what I'll be doing is portrait and senior (HS) work with the camera. So you're right, the high ISO capabilities aren't really a necessity for me, I guess.

dave

I upgraded from my 2 5Dcs to 2 5DIIs and I'm pleasantly surprised at how well I like the 5DIIs. THe incredible low light performance is what really stands out for me ands in the type of work i do you can usually never have to many MPs. The micro adjust is really cool also. Having a larger LCD means really noting to me but having a larger one certainly doesn't hurt when looking at viewing the histogram. I didn't think that I would be as happy with the upgrade as I am.

Katalyst wrote in post #11679395
You get almost twice the megapixels, which Canon makes us believe is quite necessary!

Yep they do continue to use this marketing scam despite several years of declining market share. Makes you wonder ...

FWIW - I waited for the 5D MK II and after the pre release of features and specs decided to buy the 5D C. To me the 5D MK II is like a disease and its good when it skips a generation. I might do a 5D MKIII or a 3D if Canon listens to its customer need.

Canon needs to focus on customers need and Quality Control rather than more MP and small insignificant new features else they will become the new #3 or #4 in sales {Canon MK III or MK IV that is}.
But truthfully there are a ton of Morons out there and they will buy anything - Canon knows that well. That’s why they milk the MK XXX on cameras, lenses, IS.
Perhaps Canon Customers should be smarter …

When working with graphic designers and art directors the more MPs the merrier. I've had to shoot things for wall size displays and billboards and you can never have to much and even then most still need to upsized in Genuine Fractals.

I still use both 5dc and 5dmk2. The 5dmk2 will be a drastic IQ difference at high ISO. I'm even contemplating on buying another one and putting my 5dc as a backup. I'd gladly let dust collect on my 1dmk3 for portrait work.

Micro adjust will be your best friend. Once you look at the files from a 5dmk2 you will see a more digital crisp photo than your 5dc. Sounds odd but you will see a different file from the 5dc.

I would like more elaboration considering the comment came from someone with a 60mb MF back.

AlanU wrote in post #11679713
I still use both 5dc and 5dmk2. The 5dmk2 will be a drastic IQ difference at high ISO. I'm even contemplating on buying another one and putting my 5dc as a backup. I'd gladly let dust collect on my 1dmk3 for portrait work.

Micro adjust will be your best friend. Once you look at the files from a 5dmk2 you will see a more digital crisp photo than your 5dc. Sounds odd but you will see a different file from the 5dc.

I had Canon send me one for a couple weeks and my first impression wasn't all the great but having worked in some very low light situations the low light performance is really much better than the old 5D which is very good. Well heres a shot I did last Sunday evening at a corporate function at 6400 ISO. No noise reduction on the face but a little ninja on hte background.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

The extra mp's let me crop more when I can't get close enough to the subject, MA, far better lcd, sensor cleaning, an extra stop (my walk about was 800 ISO with the 5Dc and is 1600 ISO with the 5D2), quick control menu by using the toggle. My only regret is selling my 5Dc instead of my 50D (I thought I may need the extra reach of the crop).

bohdank wrote in post #11679728
I would like more elaboration considering the comment came from someone with a 60mb MF back.

Well I don't own the P65+ 60mp back (have rented one), but do still shoot 8x10 and scan with a Heidelberg Tango drum scanner, which in my opinion and others like Rodney Lough Jr. still gives a better file for large detailed landscape prints (unless stitching of course) I bought the 5D classic right when it first came out with the hopes I could get 16x20 prints that matched the IQ of my 4x5 drum scans.Well that didn't happen and I sold it, my 20D, and most of my Canon lenses, and continued shooting solely 4x5 and 8x10 sheet film.

Then last spring I rented then bought the 5DmkII and am finally able to make 16x20 prints that can hang next to my 4x5 prints.The extra mega pixels worked.The big live view screen on the back of the mkII lets me compose and focus the way I am use to with my view cameras (sans the upside down image) On the classic I could barely read the lcd screen without donning reading glasses, and I never have enjoyed composing and focusing through a view finder on any 35mm camera in the past.This feature alone for me was worth it.

On the down side I was able to push the shadows much more on the classic than my mkII, you really have to be careful here because the pattern noise can get ugly in this regard.My classic was a nice camera and first foray into the larger sensors, but my mkII is now letting me shoot stuff with the convenience of digital and a quality similar to 4x5 in medium size prints.I'd say if the funds are available get the mkII, use it for a year while the mkIII comes out, gets its firmware upgrades, and the price settles, then latter you can sell the II and use the money to upgrade if you feel its needed.

Two Cents by Chris