Great video. I'm in awe of non-native English speakers who can explain complex subjects in English and manage to translate the nuances as well. Thank you for passing on your knowledge.
This is a good listen mostly because i have been thinking the same thing for a good while now, im happy to hear someone confirm what i was thinking and that im not just going mad 😅
Well done Janos, You are spot on about over amplification and over sharpening in new cameras. I got captivated by the Foveon sensor and its ability to render and distort like film does. It would be great if manufacturers offered a default setting straight off the sensor itself.
My favourite cameras have 12 (Nikon D700), 16 (Nikon Df) and 18 megapixels (Leica M9 and Monochrom). If you need more, change to another lens and frame differently. Unless you're making wall-size prints, of which practically none of us do. I see little advantage in using 60 megapixel sensors in regular use.
I know this is an old video, as someone who has most of the old canon DSLR, just want to say, it's easy to fix the 20d shutter button. All you need is to squirt isopropyl alcohol in the battery compartment next to shutter button and press it in and out to clean contacts, make sure to keep it upside down till all alcohol evaporates repeat it it doesn't work first time, worked on two of my canons.
Good video. I still own three Canon 5D Classic bodies. They are tanks. They were also designed to have the kind of allure necessary for professional photographers to make the jump from film to digital--this was an epic period in photography. I left behind my medium format film gear and 35mm cameras and went digital. It was hard to do (I was trained in 1980). The 5D is so film like that sometimes you can't tell the difference between 5D work and film photography. What an accomplishment! And isn't this the point? Film is film and Canon managed to imitate it perfectly with a digital camera. Don't get me wrong. I'm now a Sony full-frame mirrorless user. But the 5D will never be matched for what it can still do effortlessly. And this continues to inspire me. Also, I have matched my 5D with a Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens: this is a way to bring the 5D classic to a new level, perhaps a pinnacle for that camera body. The L-series lens series is remarkable. However, the Sigma Art lens has re-strengthened the 5D platform--at least for me.
Thank you for your superb feedback! My feeling with the Sigma ART 35mm F1.4 lens is exactly the same as yours with the 50mm ART. These Sigma ART lenses truly take the 5D to a new level. I still have the film-like quality, but coupled with (in comparison) amazing low light ability and fantastic sharpness and focus. I do not have the 50mm ART, only the 35mm, thank you for the recommendation!
I feel in someway a sensor is a sensor and the processor is a processor. Meaning new processing on an old sensor can give new life to an old camera. Maybe 6 months back I purchased a fine looking Nikon D200. A beautiful well built camera and I think there is something to the claim CCD sensors have a different look. I am using a trial version of DXO Pro Raw to process the raw images and I am very impressed as to what new processing can do for a dated camera. When comparing the straight raw to the DXO image I am mostly blown away and one shot @ ISO 1600 which is past where you want to push this old camera is clean as a whistle with full detail. I cannot duplicate this using Lightroom or ACR. My point is there is a lot of potential in these old cameras without spending thousands on a new one. Thanks for the video. 👍
I've been using DXO PhotoLab for about 5 years & I agree it produces much better quality images than Lightroom. I went back to my 15 year D200 photos & processed them in PhotoLab. It brought improvements with some of the high ISO images. Well worth the changeover...
I missed a FF camera for a long time. Bought a 6D with a very low shutter count + extra battery + 50 1.8 for 300usd here in Norway. Love the files from that camera. Focus is fast(for me) - battery lasts forever - fantastic colors - good DR and IQ. Peanuts money for a lot of camera. Deal of the century.
That's a fantastic find! Also, likely better choice than the 5D classic, as it has much better low light capability, its sensor is as good as most modern sensors. (Modern sensors seem better because of the xtreme oversharpening and processing...) I tend to keep second guessing myself that I also should have bought the 6D instead...
Yep, Classic 5D mark 1 is still a nice camera today. Not for established pros, but for amateurs and nostalgia. It still feels good in hands, the image quality is still good enough for a lot of cases, especially if you have a good lens for the task. For somebody that gets into photography, it can be a great investment. Because it's less featured and simpler than modern cameras, you can progress faster, just because you get good photos when you do it right and you get punished when your technique is bad. You cannot crop massively, you cannot push the raw postprocessing like crazy, you cannot go ISO 6400 or even 3200 just in case, so you'll be learning to do things properly right from the start as you get immediate feedback for your mistakes. If you can get a 5D, 6D or Nikon D700 in perfect working condition together with a 50mm 1.8 for let's say $200-$300 as your first real camera being on a budget, you cannot go wrong. You can resell it if you don't like and lose nothing but chances are that you'll fall in love with photography.
I love spending time with my old dslr’s (5d classic 40d, 7d). My modern gear made me lazy and uncreative. At a point I even realized the quality of my photography suffered. I didn’t care about the lightning anymore, just cranked up the iso.I almost ditched photography. Then I went back to my old gear and all of a sudden the magic was back. I love the mechanical sensations and the whole process, even the work arounds are part of fun. The 5d has a great characterful sensor. I have the impression the large Pixels somehow makes the bokeh look nicer.
0:58 The 20D is the CROP SENSOR ancestor of the 5D. Not the FULL FRAME ancestor. I own two 5D Mk I and I use them for my everyday´s photography. Years ago I worked with them as a weddings photographer. Recently I bought a 6D Mk I and I enjoy it also very much. Anyway I can say that the 5D is a magic camera that teaches you so much as a photographer but produces beautiful images as a reward. Maybe one of the best sensors ever made by Canon. Greetings.
Thank you! That was what I wanted to convey as well, since the 5D was the first full frame sensor of Canon, there cannot be a full frame ancestor for it. How do you find the 6D mk I inc comparison of the 5D mk I ? I am very curious of how the auto focusing is on one compared to the other.
@@ShutterNChill Night and day difference. Canon 6d can focus in very low and low contrast light. even better than 5d mark III it is said. The canon 6d is great value. Same handling as 5dc virtually and better image quality than the 5d III. Only two things 5d III is better at is moire and video for that reason (and the headphone jack) as well as the number of auto focus points.
Nice. Also have a 5D. You must see the 5D as the last analogue camera (with a digital film) About the ISO: In the days of the analogue film you only had to do it with the film ISO (ASA) that was inside. Now everyone wants to shoot night photos out of the hand by turning the ISO up. I think that's not how it works. It is possible to shoot nights with 200 ISO also. Just like the old days and using a tripod.
The D750 is a camera that is on my "bucket list"... I hope to own one one day :). The D750 photos I have seen have so beautiful texture, tone and rendering.
My first DSLR was a 6.3mp Canon 10D and the A3 prints from it were beautiful, I'm sure it could print a lot larger. Agree with your comments, the art of photography is being lost to the art of must having the latest equipment.
The 5D mk II is a superb camera, my photographer friend is still adamant about it. She says she will never upgrade... she also has a Sony mirrorless that she often uses for fun, but never for her professional work.
In 2006 i bought the 5d and used it til 2012. My problem with the 5d was the tremendous banding, when i pushed the shadows in Lightroom. First i switched to Olympus, then to Sony - i would never go back to the 5d mk1.
That might have been a defect with that 5D. I do not see banding with mine, even when I push the exposure to the maximum 3EV. I have heard people with the 5D mk III report severe banding, but that should not happen with the classic or mk II.
Jonas, I can't stop commenting because I heard in your words something that I had been thinking and that I had as a feeling: new camera photos now come with RAW pre-cooked, and I think they also add sharpness, it's like someone has already edited the photo. I say only from what I see in videos since I do not have this type of cameras and at the moment I do not think I will have them.I had a Sony camera with high resolution but I sold it because I saw that it did something with the skies, it was definitely not the sky I had seen. So I have a camera very similar to the 5D but in Nikon, the D700.Anyway, I think we have to be grateful that if it weren't for these ultra-modern mirrorless cameras, with high resolution and an extraterrestrial dynamic range, the classic cameras would not be at a gift price.
You are mirroring my thoughts! The best feature of modern high priced cameras is that they drive the price of DSLRs down to affordability. The D700 takes amazing photos, I always notice how well it renders the skies, especially with high mountains. Sometimes with my baby mirrorless M50 some photos come out all right and I am happy with the results, but I had to turn off lens correction for that. (The auto lens correction features make the sharpening look absolutely awful.) In any way, I much prefer the experience with the 5D... the only time I find the modern mirrorless useful is when I do not have time to compose the shot, and need to take shots of people with speed at social events. The modern eye tracking of the mirrorless makes it easy to catch any moment. I really love that with the new generation the focusing challenge is gone, everything is always in focus. With DSLR there's always shots where the focus was slightly missed or quite missed, as for the early Canons the only usable autofocus point is the center point. I heard Nikons have so much more useful autofocus points... However, I have learned that for those events a cellphone is a faster and easier choice, that takes always good enough quality for a cellphone screen sized photo, just take care not to download it to a computer LOL.
Luckily I have 2 canon camera's I love both 50d & 5d Classic, I use both daily, not interested in the mirrorless, and mega pixel counts, I love the images I get out of both my camera's
I love taking wallpaper type of shoots (besides else), and I decided to go for 26MP Fujifilm X-S20. My target is to cover at least 5K screens, which would be 14,7MP if sensor had aspect 16:9 ratio. That means, at least 17.5MP are needed for 3:2 ratio sensor with width of at least 5120 pixels. I believe 5K screen will be mainstream soon. I'm already using 4K on a 27" work screen. And, 5K will probably be the (physical) limit for the level of detail, that human eye with normal vision can resolve when looking at 27" screen size from normal sitting distance. I'm glad Fujifilm didn't bump X-S20 to 40MP, because I don't and (probably) won't need that resolution, and it makes files much bigger (storage) and increases load on processor (battery life, buffer, performance, heating,...).
I think that's a great idea. The 5K screens are amazing, and I think there are no gains to increase resolution beyond that. They will soon become the standard displays, and be affordable.
A simple comment about you said about depth being lost the higher the megapixel/resolution. Yes everything looks sharp with high megapixel/resolution...however to me it is like everthing sits on one flat plain in front of you with a one dimensional look...flat,boring,one dimensional,too clinical,lacking character. But something not as sharp due to lower megapixel/resolution, seems to have depth or increased dimension-ality,character,appeal. Over baked is a good term to describe the unappealing and too perfectly resolved quality of high megapixel,high iso cameras.
You said it so well! When I noticed that flat, one dimensional looks, since then I am always so put off by those modern images. It makes them look kind of computer generated, not authentic....
@11:56 Yes, I personally agree with that statement; but 'they', the croppers, will say that it gives them more opportunities - this I would call the chance to cheat!
I am always stunned by how good the images look like after I download them to the computer. I've learned one lesson though: it is quite faithful, meaning that if what I see looks great, it will also look great in the photo. If the light is bad, inadequate, then the photo will be boring. Great light - great photo. Poor light - poor photo.
They have been comparing it to 20D, 30D and 40D. There are videos on all of them... actually, looking deeper into the matter, and using the 10D, the images are closest between the 10D and the 5D. Same pixel pitch and color science, and weak AA filters - 20D through 40D have stronger AA filters than the 10D/5D, and they have progressively smaller pixel pitch, resulting in loss of 3D pop. The 20D is a lot more practical to use than the 10D, and the 30D/40D because of their much larger screens and more modern functionalities are just more practical.... so, it depends on what space we pick, as looking at different aspects different cameras have more in common with the 5D. Development-wise, 10D was the ancestor, and the 20D and the 5D were developed from it in parallel, at the same time. So, 5D and 20D are the brothers and sisters in time...
I own both 20D and 5D, and based on the color / tones on the raw files I can't tell which camera was used to take photos. That's pretty close to establish that for practical reason the 20D is a crop sensor equivalent to the 5D. Not exclusily, by any means, as you point out correctly there's other Canons that are pretty close as well. Or, could be that they are even closer in the color science, but as I have not owned those cameras I cannot comment on that more in detail, as DxOMark measurements on color science are very limited on the 20D. Their available sensor measurements suggest though that the 20D might be slightly closer to the 5D than the 30D sensor.
i don't think that larger pixels/lower pixel density in itself implies better low light sensitivity. e.g. one of your cameras, the 20d, has large pixels (8mp on a crop sensor) but performs quite poorly in low light. EDIT: perhaps i am misunderstanding you. what i mean to say is that bigger pixels does not necessarily mean better performance at high ISO (but this may not be what you are meaning when you refer to low light performance).
I did mean that bigger pixels give the potential for better low light sensitivity when sensor technology is equal. It's physics: more light collected by a bigger pixel, just like a larger lens collecting more light than a small lens. The 20D / 5D comparison is an excellent example to illustrate this, as even though the 5D has more pixels, but its sensor size is so much bigger that the pixels of the 20D are significantly smaller than the pixels of the 20D. My experience correlates with this, the 5D is significantly better in low light than the 20D. Also, they are perhaps the closest in sensor technology as well, this is perhaps the best pixel size comparison as we are looking at equal technologies. When looking at modern cameras, the difference in sensor technology makes such comparisons not possible. When looking at similar models from same manufacturer from the same era, you will always notice that the sensor with bigger pixels has much better low light capability. This can be seen with a lot of Nikon and Sony gear. Or, even with Canon, the low MP count R3 just eats the high MP count R5 for breakfast for low light capability. (Even the smaller brother R6 is better in low light / high ISO than the R5).
@@ShutterNChill thnx for reply, including info contained therein. unfortunately i was unduly wordy in my post but i suppose it was because i was unclear as to the definitional parameters of your proclamation that larger pixels mean greater light sensitivity. your added caveat: 'sensor technology being equal' helps me to better understand your meaning. thanks again.
I concur, taking shots of animals, for example is extremely hard with the 5D and is almost purely up to luck to get a good shot. The auto tracking of mirrorless is a total "game changer" for moving subjects, and that's why I am looking into mirrorless for that purpose. However, I have to add though that a superb lens makes tremendous difference for moving subjects for the 5D. Something like the nifty fifty (or other bottom-line Canon lenses) focus just way too slow to catch any moving subject, and even when they do, the focus is not right-on, will be blurry unless one uses a high F stop. The Sigma ART focuses fast enough that I can capture (gingerly) moving subjects, but only with the center AF point and there is no time to focus and recompose.... so that is pretty limited as far as getting the composition I want.
I do not have the 40D, but looking at the character of the 40D photos it is very much like the 20D with a bit of extra resolution. The 5D has a little edge with better texture, 3D depth (3D pop..) and more graceful noise at high ISO, but other than that these two are so similar. 40D being crop sensor it's harder to get as superb wide angle affordable lens. If you tend to shoot wide angle (like 35mm) then I'd recommend the 5D classic, if most of the time 50mm or higher, and you shoot in more light, than the 40D is about as good. If you have budget only for the 40D, go for it without a second thought. The built in flash actually helps with the low light, if it's indoors, I really miss it from the 5Dc. Although I have a speedlight, but that makes it super big and heavy.
@@ShutterNChill Yes it is a Kodak CCD sensor. I only got it a few days ago so haven't really had time to try it out, but the colours are truly so beautiful.
I have the E-500, 40D and the 5D. IMO the 40D is the least special of the three. Not bad or anything, but both the 5D and E-500 have 'something' the 40D doesn't. So you made a good choice!
Let's face it to this if your not going to make large prints you don't need high megapixel! For over the last 25 years only used Canon..Canon 1DX Markll .I don't like mirrorless at all! But I picked up 2 Nikon D800E's Now I disagree with you on one thing! The D800E 36 megapixel first thing I tryed from low 100 iso to iso 2500 I'm doing the best looking 20x30 prints ever! No noise problems at all! My Canon's over iso 1600 suck! My back ground over 53 years doing professional photography and 55 years in electronic technology industry. And you right the sensor in your older Canon uses a CCD witch will give you a much better film like look!
not sure what you are saying . so we are only talking in low light less pixels are getting more photons per pixel and we are not talking in good light where f stop will give more depth
I was not thinking about the depth of field. The DOF only defines what is in focus, and what is not. Wider DOF - wider depth will appear in focus, and the rest will be blurry. However, it has little to do with whether what is in focus will have excellent depth-perception or will it look flat. With high MP sensors what is in focus looks flat, the depth perception is most often missing or seriously compromised. With lower MP senors, I see consistently a much better depth perception. One of the YT channels provided his RAW files for Canon R6, R6 mk II, R, RP, and R5. Directly comparing the same subject shot with R5 (45MP) vs R6 (20MP), done at same DOF and same speed/ISO settings: the R5 portrait is of course sharper when you zoom in at the pixel level. However, when viewed as a whole (as a portrait, which was the intent of the photo), then the R6 renders the face with depth perception that gives it a flesh and blood feel. On the R5 everything looks flat. It looks more like a hi-rez poster compared to the 3D portrait-feel of the R6. Sadly, when comparing the same between the R6 mk II and the R6, the extra 4MP of the mk II is enough to erode this depth perception significantly - the R6 mk II portraits already look like flattened pancakes in comparison. Looking at my 12MP 5D mark I files, they have even better depth perception than the 20MP R6 RAW files I have downloaded. Martin Castein, and many other pro photographers are telling that 20MP is the full frame barrier, beyond that the integrity of the photo is compromised. I agree with them, and I think it comes down to the depth perception. There is physics behind it: going high MP count the pixel pitch becomes equivalent or smaller than the wavelength of the photon it captures - that is, the pixel is omparable or smaller than the light itself! We are down into the quantuum realm, and I suspect that quantuum interactions create artifacts that subtly alter the photograph. Well, it is more than just a suspicion. It is a fact, we can look at the quantuum slit experiments, photons behavior is altered when presented with quantuum-grids, or in another word, the high MP sensor.
Great video. I'm in awe of non-native English speakers who can explain complex subjects in English and manage to translate the nuances as well. Thank you for passing on your knowledge.
Thank you, your sharing is much appreciated. I'm glad to share! Janos
I've just sold my mirrorless cameras and brought a Canon 30D/50D and a 7D lower sensor count and very happy with a DSLR, great video thanks.
Just stumbled across this video and really enjoyed listening to your thoughts on these cameras. Everything was well said and dead on.
Thank you Skyler!
This is a good listen mostly because i have been thinking the same thing for a good while now, im happy to hear someone confirm what i was thinking and that im not just going mad 😅
Well done Janos, You are spot on about over amplification and over sharpening in new cameras. I got captivated by the Foveon sensor and its ability to render and distort like film does. It would be great if manufacturers offered a default setting straight off the sensor itself.
Thank you! I so much would love to have that in every camera!
My favourite cameras have 12 (Nikon D700), 16 (Nikon Df) and 18 megapixels (Leica M9 and Monochrom). If you need more, change to another lens and frame differently. Unless you're making wall-size prints, of which practically none of us do. I see little advantage in using 60 megapixel sensors in regular use.
I know this is an old video, as someone who has most of the old canon DSLR, just want to say, it's easy to fix the 20d shutter button. All you need is to squirt isopropyl alcohol in the battery compartment next to shutter button and press it in and out to clean contacts, make sure to keep it upside down till all alcohol evaporates repeat it it doesn't work first time, worked on two of my canons.
Good video. I still own three Canon 5D Classic bodies. They are tanks. They were also designed to have the kind of allure necessary for professional photographers to make the jump from film to digital--this was an epic period in photography. I left behind my medium format film gear and 35mm cameras and went digital. It was hard to do (I was trained in 1980). The 5D is so film like that sometimes you can't tell the difference between 5D work and film photography. What an accomplishment! And isn't this the point? Film is film and Canon managed to imitate it perfectly with a digital camera. Don't get me wrong. I'm now a Sony full-frame mirrorless user. But the 5D will never be matched for what it can still do effortlessly. And this continues to inspire me. Also, I have matched my 5D with a Sigma 50mm f1.4 Art lens: this is a way to bring the 5D classic to a new level, perhaps a pinnacle for that camera body. The L-series lens series is remarkable. However, the Sigma Art lens has re-strengthened the 5D platform--at least for me.
Thank you for your superb feedback! My feeling with the Sigma ART 35mm F1.4 lens is exactly the same as yours with the 50mm ART. These Sigma ART lenses truly take the 5D to a new level. I still have the film-like quality, but coupled with (in comparison) amazing low light ability and fantastic sharpness and focus. I do not have the 50mm ART, only the 35mm, thank you for the recommendation!
I feel in someway a sensor is a sensor and the processor is a processor. Meaning new processing on an old sensor can give new life to an old camera. Maybe 6 months back I purchased a fine looking Nikon D200. A beautiful well built camera and I think there is something to the claim CCD sensors have a different look. I am using a trial version of DXO Pro Raw to process the raw images and I am very impressed as to what new processing can do for a dated camera. When comparing the straight raw to the DXO image I am mostly blown away and one shot @ ISO 1600 which is past where you want to push this old camera is clean as a whistle with full detail. I cannot duplicate this using Lightroom or ACR. My point is there is a lot of potential in these old cameras without spending thousands on a new one. Thanks for the video. 👍
I've been using DXO PhotoLab for about 5 years & I agree it produces much better quality images than Lightroom. I went back to my 15 year D200 photos & processed them in PhotoLab. It brought improvements with some of the high ISO images. Well worth the changeover...
I missed a FF camera for a long time. Bought a 6D with a very low shutter count + extra battery + 50 1.8 for 300usd here in Norway.
Love the files from that camera. Focus is fast(for me) - battery lasts forever - fantastic colors - good DR and IQ.
Peanuts money for a lot of camera. Deal of the century.
That's a fantastic find! Also, likely better choice than the 5D classic, as it has much better low light capability, its sensor is as good as most modern sensors. (Modern sensors seem better because of the xtreme oversharpening and processing...) I tend to keep second guessing myself that I also should have bought the 6D instead...
Yep, Classic 5D mark 1 is still a nice camera today. Not for established pros, but for amateurs and nostalgia. It still feels good in hands, the image quality is still good enough for a lot of cases, especially if you have a good lens for the task. For somebody that gets into photography, it can be a great investment. Because it's less featured and simpler than modern cameras, you can progress faster, just because you get good photos when you do it right and you get punished when your technique is bad. You cannot crop massively, you cannot push the raw postprocessing like crazy, you cannot go ISO 6400 or even 3200 just in case, so you'll be learning to do things properly right from the start as you get immediate feedback for your mistakes. If you can get a 5D, 6D or Nikon D700 in perfect working condition together with a 50mm 1.8 for let's say $200-$300 as your first real camera being on a budget, you cannot go wrong. You can resell it if you don't like and lose nothing but chances are that you'll fall in love with photography.
A lot of pros use it. I'm one of them. The clients marvel at the colors and film like feeling
I love spending time with my old dslr’s (5d classic 40d, 7d). My modern gear made me lazy and uncreative. At a point I even realized the quality of my photography suffered. I didn’t care about the lightning anymore, just cranked up the iso.I almost ditched photography. Then I went back to my old gear and all of a sudden the magic was back. I love the mechanical sensations and the whole process, even the work arounds are part of fun. The 5d has a great characterful sensor. I have the impression the large Pixels somehow makes the bokeh look nicer.
0:58 The 20D is the CROP SENSOR ancestor of the 5D. Not the FULL FRAME ancestor. I own two 5D Mk I and I use them for my everyday´s photography. Years ago I worked with them as a weddings photographer. Recently I bought a 6D Mk I and I enjoy it also very much. Anyway I can say that the 5D is a magic camera that teaches you so much as a photographer but produces beautiful images as a reward. Maybe one of the best sensors ever made by Canon. Greetings.
Thank you! That was what I wanted to convey as well, since the 5D was the first full frame sensor of Canon, there cannot be a full frame ancestor for it. How do you find the 6D mk I inc comparison of the 5D mk I ? I am very curious of how the auto focusing is on one compared to the other.
@@ShutterNChill Night and day difference. Canon 6d can focus in very low and low contrast light. even better than 5d mark III it is said. The canon 6d is great value. Same handling as 5dc virtually and better image quality than the 5d III. Only two things 5d III is better at is moire and video for that reason (and the headphone jack) as well as the number of auto focus points.
Nice. Also have a 5D. You must see the 5D as the last analogue camera (with a digital film) About the ISO: In the days of the analogue film you only had to do it with the film ISO (ASA) that was inside. Now everyone wants to shoot night photos out of the hand by turning the ISO up. I think that's not how it works. It is possible to shoot nights with 200 ISO also. Just like the old days and using a tripod.
Wisdom of age. Im sure the younger folks think you drank too much coffee
My Nikon D750 noise, if u want to call it that, is very pleasing. And the photos it produces are nice.
The D750 is a camera that is on my "bucket list"... I hope to own one one day :). The D750 photos I have seen have so beautiful texture, tone and rendering.
My first DSLR was a 6.3mp Canon 10D and the A3 prints from it were beautiful, I'm sure it could print a lot larger. Agree with your comments, the art of photography is being lost to the art of must having the latest equipment.
Thank you Tim! I've had the 10D now for about 1 month, and I also find the 6MP more satisfactory than I thought I would.
Nice video! I did a little video on the 5D MK II not too long ago. Those older 5D's are pretty cheap and great cameras. Even now.
The 5D mk II is a superb camera, my photographer friend is still adamant about it. She says she will never upgrade... she also has a Sony mirrorless that she often uses for fun, but never for her professional work.
In 2006 i bought the 5d and used it til 2012. My problem with the 5d was the tremendous banding, when i pushed the shadows in Lightroom. First i switched to Olympus, then to Sony - i would never go back to the 5d mk1.
That might have been a defect with that 5D. I do not see banding with mine, even when I push the exposure to the maximum 3EV. I have heard people with the 5D mk III report severe banding, but that should not happen with the classic or mk II.
Jonas, I can't stop commenting because I heard in your words something that I had been thinking and that I had as a feeling: new camera photos now come with RAW pre-cooked, and I think they also add sharpness, it's like someone has already edited the photo. I say only from what I see in videos since I do not have this type of cameras and at the moment I do not think I will have them.I had a Sony camera with high resolution but I sold it because I saw that it did something with the skies, it was definitely not the sky I had seen. So I have a camera very similar to the 5D but in Nikon, the D700.Anyway, I think we have to be grateful that if it weren't for these ultra-modern mirrorless cameras, with high resolution and an extraterrestrial dynamic range, the classic cameras would not be at a gift price.
You are mirroring my thoughts! The best feature of modern high priced cameras is that they drive the price of DSLRs down to affordability.
The D700 takes amazing photos, I always notice how well it renders the skies, especially with high mountains.
Sometimes with my baby mirrorless M50 some photos come out all right and I am happy with the results, but I had to turn off lens correction for that. (The auto lens correction features make the sharpening look absolutely awful.)
In any way, I much prefer the experience with the 5D... the only time I find the modern mirrorless useful is when I do not have time to compose the shot, and need to take shots of people with speed at social events. The modern eye tracking of the mirrorless makes it easy to catch any moment. I really love that with the new generation the focusing challenge is gone, everything is always in focus. With DSLR there's always shots where the focus was slightly missed or quite missed, as for the early Canons the only usable autofocus point is the center point. I heard Nikons have so much more useful autofocus points...
However, I have learned that for those events a cellphone is a faster and easier choice, that takes always good enough quality for a cellphone screen sized photo, just take care not to download it to a computer LOL.
You always have some sort of settings in raw (5dc adds sharpness in raw as well. I always turn it down.
Luckily I have 2 canon camera's I love both 50d & 5d Classic, I use both daily, not interested in the mirrorless, and mega pixel counts, I love the images I get out of both my camera's
I love taking wallpaper type of shoots (besides else), and I decided to go for 26MP Fujifilm X-S20. My target is to cover at least 5K screens, which would be 14,7MP if sensor had aspect 16:9 ratio. That means, at least 17.5MP are needed for 3:2 ratio sensor with width of at least 5120 pixels. I believe 5K screen will be mainstream soon. I'm already using 4K on a 27" work screen. And, 5K will probably be the (physical) limit for the level of detail, that human eye with normal vision can resolve when looking at 27" screen size from normal sitting distance. I'm glad Fujifilm didn't bump X-S20 to 40MP, because I don't and (probably) won't need that resolution, and it makes files much bigger (storage) and increases load on processor (battery life, buffer, performance, heating,...).
I think that's a great idea. The 5K screens are amazing, and I think there are no gains to increase resolution beyond that. They will soon become the standard displays, and be affordable.
A simple comment about you said about depth being lost the higher the megapixel/resolution. Yes everything looks sharp with high megapixel/resolution...however to me it is like everthing sits on one flat plain in front of you with a one dimensional look...flat,boring,one dimensional,too clinical,lacking character. But something not as sharp due to lower megapixel/resolution, seems to have depth or increased dimension-ality,character,appeal. Over baked is a good term to describe the unappealing and too perfectly resolved quality of high megapixel,high iso cameras.
You said it so well! When I noticed that flat, one dimensional looks, since then I am always so put off by those modern images. It makes them look kind of computer generated, not authentic....
I found a 30D how you will describe it tbanks
@11:56 Yes, I personally agree with that statement; but 'they', the croppers, will say that it gives them more opportunities - this I would call the chance to cheat!
5D was best ever sensor wd b great in better body … screen larger etc
I am always stunned by how good the images look like after I download them to the computer. I've learned one lesson though: it is quite faithful, meaning that if what I see looks great, it will also look great in the photo. If the light is bad, inadequate, then the photo will be boring. Great light - great photo. Poor light - poor photo.
people compare the 5d to the 40d I thought ,not the 20d. I have a 20d
They have been comparing it to 20D, 30D and 40D. There are videos on all of them... actually, looking deeper into the matter, and using the 10D, the images are closest between the 10D and the 5D. Same pixel pitch and color science, and weak AA filters - 20D through 40D have stronger AA filters than the 10D/5D, and they have progressively smaller pixel pitch, resulting in loss of 3D pop. The 20D is a lot more practical to use than the 10D, and the 30D/40D because of their much larger screens and more modern functionalities are just more practical.... so, it depends on what space we pick, as looking at different aspects different cameras have more in common with the 5D. Development-wise, 10D was the ancestor, and the 20D and the 5D were developed from it in parallel, at the same time. So, 5D and 20D are the brothers and sisters in time...
@@ShutterNChill yes you are right
The 30d is the crop version of the 5D in terms of similar color science, not the 20d. Also the canon 1D mark II N.
I own both 20D and 5D, and based on the color / tones on the raw files I can't tell which camera was used to take photos. That's pretty close to establish that for practical reason the 20D is a crop sensor equivalent to the 5D. Not exclusily, by any means, as you point out correctly there's other Canons that are pretty close as well. Or, could be that they are even closer in the color science, but as I have not owned those cameras I cannot comment on that more in detail, as DxOMark measurements on color science are very limited on the 20D. Their available sensor measurements suggest though that the 20D might be slightly closer to the 5D than the 30D sensor.
i don't think that larger pixels/lower pixel density in itself implies better low light sensitivity.
e.g. one of your cameras, the 20d, has large pixels (8mp on a crop sensor) but performs quite poorly in low light.
EDIT: perhaps i am misunderstanding you.
what i mean to say is that bigger pixels does not necessarily mean better performance at high ISO (but this may not be what you are meaning when you refer to low light performance).
I did mean that bigger pixels give the potential for better low light sensitivity when sensor technology is equal. It's physics: more light collected by a bigger pixel, just like a larger lens collecting more light than a small lens. The 20D / 5D comparison is an excellent example to illustrate this, as even though the 5D has more pixels, but its sensor size is so much bigger that the pixels of the 20D are significantly smaller than the pixels of the 20D. My experience correlates with this, the 5D is significantly better in low light than the 20D. Also, they are perhaps the closest in sensor technology as well, this is perhaps the best pixel size comparison as we are looking at equal technologies. When looking at modern cameras, the difference in sensor technology makes such comparisons not possible. When looking at similar models from same manufacturer from the same era, you will always notice that the sensor with bigger pixels has much better low light capability. This can be seen with a lot of Nikon and Sony gear. Or, even with Canon, the low MP count R3 just eats the high MP count R5 for breakfast for low light capability. (Even the smaller brother R6 is better in low light / high ISO than the R5).
@@ShutterNChill thnx for reply, including info contained therein.
unfortunately i was unduly wordy in my post but i suppose it was because i was unclear as to the definitional parameters of your proclamation that larger pixels mean greater light sensitivity.
your added caveat:
'sensor technology being equal'
helps me to better understand your meaning.
thanks again.
Where's my 20D ? 😀
:) :)
Take this man seriously for he is wearing a sleeveless shirt.
😱😎
Autofocus will be a problem through, only good for static subjects
I concur, taking shots of animals, for example is extremely hard with the 5D and is almost purely up to luck to get a good shot. The auto tracking of mirrorless is a total "game changer" for moving subjects, and that's why I am looking into mirrorless for that purpose. However, I have to add though that a superb lens makes tremendous difference for moving subjects for the 5D. Something like the nifty fifty (or other bottom-line Canon lenses) focus just way too slow to catch any moving subject, and even when they do, the focus is not right-on, will be blurry unless one uses a high F stop. The Sigma ART focuses fast enough that I can capture (gingerly) moving subjects, but only with the center AF point and there is no time to focus and recompose.... so that is pretty limited as far as getting the composition I want.
How do you think the 40D compare to the 5D?
I do not have the 40D, but looking at the character of the 40D photos it is very much like the 20D with a bit of extra resolution. The 5D has a little edge with better texture, 3D depth (3D pop..) and more graceful noise at high ISO, but other than that these two are so similar. 40D being crop sensor it's harder to get as superb wide angle affordable lens. If you tend to shoot wide angle (like 35mm) then I'd recommend the 5D classic, if most of the time 50mm or higher, and you shoot in more light, than the 40D is about as good. If you have budget only for the 40D, go for it without a second thought. The built in flash actually helps with the low light, if it's indoors, I really miss it from the 5Dc. Although I have a speedlight, but that makes it super big and heavy.
@@ShutterNChill thank you for your reply! I ended up buying an olympus e500 at a great price instead 🙂
@@camillaablom It has a CCD sensor! :) You will be very happy with that camera, I am curious how it handles.
@@ShutterNChill Yes it is a Kodak CCD sensor. I only got it a few days ago so haven't really had time to try it out, but the colours are truly so beautiful.
I have the E-500, 40D and the 5D. IMO the 40D is the least special of the three. Not bad or anything, but both the 5D and E-500 have 'something' the 40D doesn't. So you made a good choice!
Let's face it to this if your not going to make large prints you don't need high megapixel! For over the last 25 years only used Canon..Canon 1DX Markll .I don't like mirrorless at all! But I picked up 2 Nikon D800E's Now I disagree with you on one thing! The D800E 36 megapixel first thing I tryed from low 100 iso to iso 2500 I'm doing the best looking 20x30 prints ever! No noise problems at all! My Canon's over iso 1600 suck! My back ground over 53 years doing professional photography and 55 years in electronic technology industry. And you right the sensor in your older Canon uses a CCD witch will give you a much better film like look!
Your first name is my last name:)
Cheers brother!! :)
Jesse is a brother up north....:)
@@ShutterNChill
Indeed!! may hello's!!! :) @@ShutterNChill
Less Pixel, less processing 😅
not sure what you are saying . so we are only talking in low light less pixels are getting more photons per pixel and we are not talking in good light where f stop will give more depth
I was not thinking about the depth of field. The DOF only defines what is in focus, and what is not. Wider DOF - wider depth will appear in focus, and the rest will be blurry. However, it has little to do with whether what is in focus will have excellent depth-perception or will it look flat. With high MP sensors what is in focus looks flat, the depth perception is most often missing or seriously compromised. With lower MP senors, I see consistently a much better depth perception. One of the YT channels provided his RAW files for Canon R6, R6 mk II, R, RP, and R5. Directly comparing the same subject shot with R5 (45MP) vs R6 (20MP), done at same DOF and same speed/ISO settings: the R5 portrait is of course sharper when you zoom in at the pixel level. However, when viewed as a whole (as a portrait, which was the intent of the photo), then the R6 renders the face with depth perception that gives it a flesh and blood feel. On the R5 everything looks flat. It looks more like a hi-rez poster compared to the 3D portrait-feel of the R6. Sadly, when comparing the same between the R6 mk II and the R6, the extra 4MP of the mk II is enough to erode this depth perception significantly - the R6 mk II portraits already look like flattened pancakes in comparison.
Looking at my 12MP 5D mark I files, they have even better depth perception than the 20MP R6 RAW files I have downloaded. Martin Castein, and many other pro photographers are telling that 20MP is the full frame barrier, beyond that the integrity of the photo is compromised. I agree with them, and I think it comes down to the depth perception.
There is physics behind it: going high MP count the pixel pitch becomes equivalent or smaller than the wavelength of the photon it captures - that is, the pixel is omparable or smaller than the light itself! We are down into the quantuum realm, and I suspect that quantuum interactions create artifacts that subtly alter the photograph.
Well, it is more than just a suspicion. It is a fact, we can look at the quantuum slit experiments, photons behavior is altered when presented with quantuum-grids, or in another word, the high MP sensor.
@@ShutterNChillare you talking about 3D pop?
@@memcrew1 Yes. :)
All this talking about photos and not a single one shown.
Just a talking head.
The next video I'm planning will be all about showing my photos and going over them in detail. Will be comparing 5D to M50 mirrorless.