Canon 5D review (where is it?)

[LensCrazy]

John.... I am ready. THis is my next big buy! I need all the info and comparsions you got.

[livin4lax09]

why is this in sports?

[JSPhoto]

Bigger question....why a 5D? It isn't very good for sports. OK, it has a full frame sensor, but that is all it has, and at a very steep price for one tiny difference. You could get the MKII N for a slightly higher price and get tons more performance.

I do not think anyone has done a review here yet on the 5D...which reminds me, I need to do one on the 1D MKII N ooopppsss.

JS

[livin4lax09]

slow FPS rate too, if I'm not mistaken. No built in vertical grip either.

[LensCrazy]

I dont know how i posted this in here??? John can you move it to DSLR please. I you did mention the review is comming out.

JS this is my next step up from my xt.... As far as i know its alot better than the rebel but not sure. Am i better off going with something else. Within the same or less price range?

I was also told i should just use the XT for what i am shooting due to its 1.6x sensor.

[JSPhoto]

I dont know how i posted this in here??? John can you move it to DSLR please. I you did mention the review is comming out.

JS this is my next step up from my xt.... As far as i know its alot better than the rebel but not sure. Am i better off going with something else. Within the same or less price range?

I was also told i should just use the XT for what i am shooting due to its 1.6x sensor.

LensCrazy,
Your kind of in a catch 22, you shoot sports and non sports subjects. For the sports you need the faster body, and the only choices you have are the 10D, 20D, 1D. But if you are considering the 5D for your other shooting I'd consider the 1D MKII N as it is 300-400 more than the 5D. It has a 1.3 crop factor, doesn't sound like much but it is huge. The difference in quality between the 1D orginal and the MKII N is huge. I think overall you'd be happier having a body that can take the use and abuse, which the 5d cannot. It isn't sealed the same and is subject to dust and moisture that the 1D MKII N isn't.

Just my opinon, the 5D doesn't impress me wwhen compared to the 1D series. FF or not.

JS

[Photo-John]

Ha! I'm gonna leave this here now

The 5D review is almost ready. I didn't write it but I played with the camera for a couple of days while I made the studio tests and made product shots. The studio tests are already live: http://gallery.photographyreview.com...r=&catdrop=527

As for whether the EOS 5D is appropriate for sports, I think it is. Speed isn't everything. I have a 1D but most of my published photos actually get shot with the EOS 10D, which is much slower than the 5D. And I know lots and lots of guys shooting and selling with the 20D. The 1D Mark II might be faster, but it's not necessarily altogether better. And if you want to shoot landscapes or sports that feature landscape (like mountain bike photos), then I think the 5D is probably better. Full frame has strengths and weaknesses. My point is, I think you guys are a little too quick to say that the 5D isn't qualified as a sports camera. How often do you actually need 5 fps or even 3 fps? Some might argue that if you're always shooting bursts, you're shooting sloppy.

So there!

[JSPhoto]

Photo John,

When I shoot at some races I will shoot away because there is always action, like this coming Thursday and Friday at Ft Wayne. Also, certain "incidents" such as a car flipping require speed. I don't need it all the time, but when I do I want a camera thats ready to respond. The 5D cannot come close to the 1D or MKII in speed, or build. Even when shooting indoors you sometimes have to go through downpours.
There are places I would never take a 5D as well, such as indoor pool, and in the winter I shoot swimming, I certainly wouldn't want a 5D there, cold, hot, cold...not good for any camera, but worse for unsealed units.

JS

[Photo-John]

Remember that I have a 1D and a 10D. For lots of sports stuff the 5D will be just as good as the 1D cameras. I do agree that for crashes it's very, very nice to have a fast capture rate. And 3 frames per second isn't really fast enough for any kind of good sports sequence. You need at least 5 fps.

As for weather - I think cameras are more durable than anyone realizes. I've had all of my cameras and lenses out in the pouring rain before. Many times I've had to take everything out of the bag at night, take it all apart, towel it off, and then let it dry it out. I've had water coming out of my 28-135 IS lens for hours. 5 years later it is starting to have some zoom problems that I think are probably because of the water. But I've got my money's worth.

There's no doubt that the 1D Mark II N is the king of sports cameras. But it's not the case that it's the only camera to have. I just want to make that clear. Depending on what your main needs are, the 5D might be a better camera. Since I already have a 1D that's still making money for me, I'm more interested in the 5D right now than a 1D Mark II N. I've also had trouble with some publishers not wanting smaller file sizes. I'm thinking that a 5D might get me past their pro film attitudes. It's hard to argue with a 12.8 megapixel file.

[livin4lax09]

I think for a lot of sports its nice to have a fast frame rate. I took one sequence with my drebel of a quarterback being sacked, and in the two best parts of the sequence, he was turned away from the camera. he had done a spin on the way down. If I had 8 fps instead of my slow 2.5, I would have been able to easily catch his face when he spun towards me, instead of catching both the times when he was faced away. a faster frame rate has obvious advantages. Maybe not for some sports where the action is more predictable, but in team sports where anything can happen, its much better to have that 8 or 8.5 fps.

[JSPhoto]

.

As for weather - I think cameras are more durable than anyone realizes. I've had all of my cameras and lenses out in the pouring rain before. Many times I've had to take everything out of the bag at night, take it all apart, towel it off, and then let it dry it out. I've had water coming out of my 28-135 IS lens for hours. 5 years later it is starting to have some zoom problems that I think are probably because of the water. But I've got my money's worth.


I've also had trouble with some publishers not wanting smaller file sizes. I'm thinking that a 5D might get me past their pro film attitudes. It's hard to argue with a 12.8 megapixel file.

Photo John,

Ummm, one big drop of water hit a photogs 20D and it's toast! That doesn't sound to good to me, nor to him. He dried it off, turned it on and poof, no more camera. The water got in through the shutter button. It was cheaper for him to buy another camera. Needless to say he bought a 1D, wasn't going to have that happen again.

I have yet to have a publisher say the "old" 1D file was too small, even SI shooters are still using the old 1D, although most have changed over to the MKII or MKII N. I don't know any that are using the 5D for thier sports even for static shots.

JS

[Photo-John]

I have yet to have a publisher say the "old" 1D file was too small, even SI shooters are still using the old 1D, although most have changed over to the MKII or MKII N. I don't know any that are using the 5D for thier sports even for static shots.

There's one publisher that I really want to get to. They're completely prejudiced against digital. I think they're idiots and have told them so. But what can you do? I've wanted to break into that magazine for years. At this point it's more of an obsession than a business thing. There's not much money in it. But there would be more benefits from a 5D for me. You know I do a lot of product photography and most of my bike stuff includes a lot of landscape. Detail counts in landscape. So more pixels would be a big deal. Plus, I can't ride with a 1D. I tried once. It's too big, too heavy, and I really only need that frame rate for racing.

I hope you guys understand that I'm not telling you you're wrong. I just want to make it clear to people who can't afford a 1D that other cameras will work. You should see what pro photographers take out in the rain for mountain bike races. They take what they can afford. Sure, there are plenty of 1D Mark IIs. But most photographers have 20Ds - or worse. You make it happen with what you can afford.

[livin4lax09]

doesnt the 5d retail for more than the 1d does? I remember seeing that its pretty expensive. At least to me as a college student.

[JSPhoto]

doesnt the 5d retail for more than the 1d does? I remember seeing that its pretty expensive. At least to me as a college student.

Nope, around $600 to 300 less than the MKII N. But for that kind of money you'd expect to get a sealed body at the very least, and one reason I wouldn't waste my money on it. If I'm paying $3000+ for a body it WILL be sealed.

JS

[livin4lax09]

also no bp. only 600-300 less? when youre paying that kind of money, it seems like pocket change. I would rather go with the mkII, non N.