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

Really depends on what your needs are. Since you already have a 5Dc, I am assuming you don't need an improved fps or focus tracking as that would not have been why you bought the original 5dc. For me, who shoots landscapes with a 5DII, the big improvements are:

1. More pixels. Yes, they help a lot when printing big...over 24".
2. Auto sensor cleaning. Shooting with the 5dc where dust is an issues was a big pain in the ass when coming back with a lot of dust bunnies. Never have this problem with the 5DII.
3. Sensor calibration. When using autofocus, this provides me optimum results. Needed for printing big.
4. Live view. God's send for critical focus...especially for manual focus lenses.

For parties or events, the video is fabulous and the high ISO capabilies is 2nd to none.

The above make the 5DII upgrade very much worth it for me.

Actually, the ISO performance isn't all that different. A qoute from the team at dpreview:

Sharpness: (http://www.dpreview.co​m …neos5dmarkii/pa​ge33.asp):
On a pixel level, the original 5D is still slightly better than the Mark II, but this is to be expected as the original 5D had a very weak anti aliasing filter.

High ISO (http://www.dpreview.co​m …neos5dmarkii/pa​ge38.asp):
It is also notable how well the original 5D holds up in this test. All the way up to ISO 3200 the 5D and 5D Mark II are about equal in terms of fine detail retained and noise on a per pixel basis.

The big difference in IQ is the extra megapixels. Looking through the viewfinder feels almost the same except you see ISO.

But it's a well worthy upgrade. I find the performance of AI Servo with my 135L a bit better and more reliable.

The reality is that the per pixel sharpness is pretty much meaningless. Using the above logic and dismissing the AA filter for now, less densely packed pixels will almost always give you better per pixel sharpness.

As far as noise.... if you compare the proportionally larger 5DII image to the 5D image, it will be about the same, so they say (I never did the comparison). Printing both images at the same size will require either the 5DII image to be resampled down (removing the effects of noise) or enlarging the 5D image (accentuating the noise). So, again, in the real worls, the 5DII is better when it comes to noise handling.

bohdank wrote in post #11685440
The reality is that the per pixel sharpness is pretty much meaningless. Using the above logic and dismissing the AA filter for now, less densely packed pixels will almost always give you better per pixel sharpness.

As far as noise.... if you compare the proportionally larger 5DII image to the 5D image, it will be about the same, so they say (I never did the comparison). Printing both images at the same size will require either the 5DII image to be resampled down (removing the effects of noise) or enlarging the 5D image (accentuating the noise). So, again, in the real worls, the 5DII is better when it comes to noise handling.

As I said:

superboy77 wrote in post #11685315
The big difference in IQ is the extra megapixels.

Three things I'd grossly underestimated before actually using the 5D2:

Autofocusing micro-adjust. That showed me how good the 5D autofocus actually is.

Live View. It may have been mostly a gimmick before, but with the 5D2 it proves to be my viewing tool of choice any time I can put the camera on a stand or tripod...so much so that put the camera on a stand or tripod whenever possible.

Exposure Simulation in Live View. This just works like a charm. You see it, you get it.

EL_PIC wrote in post #11684764
Because I still have the same thoughts as I did when I bought the 5D.
In other words ...
When I went from 20D to 5D in '07 that was great - esp for wide angle vacation shots.
But to go from 5D to 5D MK II is way too mild for upgrade.
I will wait for the 5D MKIII with an improved AF or the elusive and desired 3D.
The FFDSLR and APS-C w/ L zooms is only for vacation and sexy girl fun !!
You might be confusing MFDSLR with DSLR.
They are very different and although both are cameras w some overlap ...
MFDSLR w primes only is for high heeled advertising clients and very large displays.

I will admit I do not know who EL_PIC is. I read both websites, and there isn't anything there to identify the individual in question conclusively.

I further realize that there is some degree of language barrier issue in his/her posts.

But I can't believe that he's getting a 100% pass on declaring that nothing less than Medium Format is required for all shooting apart from "vacation and sexy girl fun !!"

The day you can shoot at 400+mm with servo-focus on a MF rig, give me a call. Until then, the 35mm format will continue to have a place.


That said, if the OP is REALLY downsizing 4-to-1 on his 5D classic, then I can't see any gain moving to the 5D2. Most of the ISO advantage is going to be swamped by the fact that he can currently crush in noise reduction and the loss of detail will be covered during his resize.

Yes, there will still be some overall improvement in high-ISO, but I have to wonder how much it will really matter if the final image sizes are all less than 1000 pixels on the long edge.


For me, comparing the 1D3 to the 5D2, the additional detail in the 5D2 is STUNNING! But if you don't need that detail? Save the money or invest in a nice hunk of glass that will span MANY bodies, right?

RDKirk wrote in post #11685654
Exposure Simulation in Live View. This just works like a charm. You see it, you get it.

Interesting. I like that idea. Thanks for pointing it out to me. Another tick for the 5D2.

dave

Everything's been said above:

*More pixels: despite what the pixel naysayers claim, they *are* useful. It's a great asset for me to be able to crop more while still getting a HQ image. Things like sport or wildlife will be much easier to capture well even if you can't get as close as you wish.

*High ISO, 1600 is perfect even without noise reduction. 3200 is the same in most situations. And 6400 is extremely good with some cleaning up if needed. I sometimes have to shoot horses in action in an indoor arena and the mkII gives me shots my old 5DC couldn't take.

*Video: never say you don't need it before having tried it. It's a great feature. Image quality is outstanding. It makes for great memories.

*Battery life: much improved on the mkII. A nice bonus for people like me who don't like carrying spares all the time

*Liveview and HQ screen: they seem like gimmicks until you actually start working with them and come to rely on them a lot.

The 5D is not a must have for everyone (especially if you already have the excellent 5DC) but if budget is no object, I don't see any reason not to upgrade. This rendering difference people talk about between the 5DC and the mkII is really nothing you can't reproduce by adjusting your settings on the mkII if you prefered the "softer" look of the 5DC's images (I really don't know how to describe this very subtle difference accurately so softer will have to do). I have 0 regrets about my upgrade. Best move I made since buying the amazing 135L.