Will I enjoy the Canon 5d as a film shooter? Watching a few videos and looking at sample images it seems okay. I like the more limited dynamic range and the warm colors and the fact that it's got an optical viewfinder and it's not bogged down with a bunch of menu options. I just can't keep up with the cost of film right now. Doing some rough math, a roll of film costs me about $25 to shoot (including buying the roll, shipping the roll to the lab and then development. (I do all my own scanning)). But at $25 a roll, I could buy a 5d for about 9 rolls of developed film. Can any of you post your favorite 5d shots you've taken so I can get a better idea of what I'm getting before I press the buy button?
As a film shooter you probably won't be disappointed by the image quality and the general datedness of it, however you're taking a risk with a nearly 20 year old piece of mechanical equipment. Also a 5D II is a significant upgrade and not that much more expensive.
>>4373570>Also a 5D II is a significant upgradeIn what ways? I've also heard though that a lot of what people like about the camera also didn't survive into the mk2. >however you're taking a risk with a nearly 20 year old piece of mechanical equipmentI'm not really that worried about it if I'm honest all my current cameras are older than that (except my scanning camera) and I don't have issues.
>>4373572>I've also heard though that a lot of what people like about the camera also didn't survive into the mk2.Nobody thought that at the time, everyone loved the 5D2 with the exception of the AF. The center point is fine, but Nikon was putting high pt count, pro AF in competing bodies. Which led to the 5D3 finally having top tier AF.5D is fine for experiencing an old DSLR, but if you're not specifically tied to that model (nostalgia) then the 5Dii and 6D give the same experience with significant improvements (res; high ISO; ergonomics; UI; speed).
>>4373572>In what ways?A better performing significantly higher resolution sensor, higher res larger screen with live view (you might feel like you won't care coming from film, but it is nice to have), better battery life, and I imagine things like the menus, loading and scrolling through images, and possibly AF are better due to the newer processor.>I've also heard though that a lot of what people like about the camera also didn't survive into the mk2.I can't see anything obvious that they'd have to complain about.>I'm not really that worried about it if I'm honest all my current cameras are older than that (except my scanning camera) and I don't have issues.Yeah, digital cameras see a lot more use than film ones especially the pro level bodies.
>>4373558>it's got an optical viewfinderKeep in mind the vast majority of DSLR OVFs are less detailed and smaller than in film cameras, you won't be able to pinpoint focus with a f1.8>>4373589>A better performing significantly higher resolution sensorThe only problem with the mkII was the lack of good colour compared to the first one, and that's something most Canon shooters say to the point of boredom.>I can't see anything obvious that they'd have to complain about.lol
>>4373590No one at the time said this. It's news to me that anyone today now thinks the 5D has better color.
>>4373592>It's news to meIt still is a meme, supposedly the CFA filter program is quite different from the latter cameras as it still was from an era with emphasis on low ISO shooting rather than making it flexible in higher ISO, kinda like the D700Supposedly, i don't know the full story but some people still swear by it, kinda how some people use the D700 or the D200 as a backup camera for the artsy moments.
>>4373558The photos on the Flickr group for this camera look really natural and nice.Far better than the modern mirrorless groups, I have no idea how things went so backwards?
>>4373597It's flickr, not a gear test, you're not seeing anything to do with the camera and everything to do with generational tastes in shooting and editingLater generations prefer more vibrant colors and funky framing due to growing up on the iphone camera. Older generations compose like the hudson river school and go for muted colors. This is also reflected in default color profiles for cameras year to year. Default colors got a lot more punchy as milennials started buying.
>>4373602Why are the default colours so much more punchy in old DSLRs and muted with a colour cast on MILCs then? Technology is contradicting your statement.
I’m picking up a 6d mk1 tomorrow for $300 cad (215usd) body only. I’ve only ever shot film on minolta cams before so I’ll need to get new lenses. What do you guys recommend for the 6d? Preferably zoom lenses and the cheaper the better but whatever
>>4373594>Supposedly, i don't know the full story but some people still swear by it, kinda how some people use the D700 or the D200 as a backup camera for the artsy moments.I didn't believe the hype (and recently acquired them) on the D700 and D200, but I absolutely LOVE shooting with these. My mirrorless gets less and less use since I've gotten these 2. OP I would suggest to look into the D700 also.
>>4373722because you shoot sony, fuji, and nikon
>>4373740EF kit lens to get started, preferably one with IS. The EF 28-135 USM IS (and the film era 28-105 USM IS) would be fantastic and had for around $150-200. The EF telephotos kind of suck, like the EF 70-300 being ass, unless you go with an L lens which is doable but would cost more like $400-600. The EF 50mm f/1.8 STM would be nice just to fuck around with / have a prime, but not needed.
>>4373722Because old DSLRs they still expected a lot of people were shooting jpeg, because shooting raw was slow and memory cards were expensive, so they made the default settings what they thought people wanted to see. On newer cameras they assume everyone to be tweaking with the colors in post anyway, so they don't default to it in-camera anymore unless it's Fuji. Changing the color profile to "Vivid" is still just one menu away.
>>4373602>Later generations prefer more vibrant colors and funky framing due to growing up on the iphone camera. Older generations compose like the hudson river school and go for muted colors. This is also reflected in default color profiles for cameras year to year. Default colors got a lot more punchy as milennials started buying.I think there's been more than one cycle already of this already.>early DSLR CCD era: "natural" "film-like" colors>CMOS era of DSLR before MILC: full Ken Rockwell saturation>MILC era: I need flat colors on my video out of camera so I can color-grade it in after effects or whatever
>>4373791>MILC>Flat colorsFuji? Nikon Z turns white people red.Fuji is only flat looking because demosaicing xtrans requires a chroma smoothing step to eliminate its higher incidence of moire, but moire that is similar enough to chroma noise to be reduced at the mere cost of zombie-like colorsCanon is flat looking because canon is shit nowSony has weird canon-like color science now after the travesty that was a7ii and a7iii colors (ironically the original a7 and a7r had amazing colors that did not need changed)
>>4373793Oh, of coursePanasonicBasically log gamma by default in case you thought it was a cmaera
>>4373558>>4373570I can second what this anon said. I boight a 5D off ebay with the exact same intentions and thoights as you, me being a film shooter mainly. The 5D was great but it ended up having a mirror and shutter issue only a week in to using it. It was in extremely good condition too. Im not saying that this will happen to you, but its something tk be wary of with older digital slrs. I would recommend the 5D MkII or MkIII like the other anon said. I ended up returning that camera and got a Mk3 and have been loving it, no problems so far. If you do go for the classic, make sure the serial number does not start with 0 or 1, as they are prone to having the mirror fall out.
>>4373803So to be clear there was nothing wrong with the functionality or images from the camera. Yours just happen to break so now the 5d is not worth buying?
>>4373811They're priced appropriately for their capability, but by buying a 20 year old digital camera you're taking quite the risk and a newer model isn't much more.
Hi anon,You could also consider the Nikon D200 as an alternative. It's much better bang for the buck classic era dslr wise, plus you also get to use film era nikon lenses natively. Of course the 5D gets the upper hand in high iso and low light, and field of view.To be honest, I think nearly all early DSLRs have that special kind of quality to their images. I just feel that the 5D for what it is does not warrant the price tag it goes for these days.
>>4373878>a newer model isn't much more.Wrong.
>>4373558>Will an ancient DSLR give me as much of a crutch as film?>I'm afraid starting with a flawless capture will show my lack of skill and creativity >It's not the photographer, it's the gear!
>>4373896>just feel that the 5D for what it is does not warrant the price tag it goes for these days.5d seems like a steal, is cheaper than a D700, which is the Nikon to compare it to as full frame
>>4373594>It still is a meme, supposedly the CFA filter program is quite different from the latter cameras as it still was from an era with emphasis on low ISO shooting rather than making it flexible in higher ISO, kinda like the D700A meme based on a misconception. More transparent CFAs improved color accuracy and tonality, they did not hurt it. As for Canon specifically, I still have a DSLR from that era (10D), and its results are remarkably close to the latest bodies when all other factors are accounted for (actual exposure, not reported exposure; white balance; profiling).In your posted sample there is clearly a real WB difference that can be easily corrected. A particular body may be more prone to certain WB or exposure choices, and that might impact the look ooc in a way someone likes, but it's not a CFA or sensor color accuracy issue.
>>4373900A 5D classic can be had for about £150, a 5D II will be around £250. Yes that's nearly 70% more but it's 70% of fuck all, or to put it in OP's terms about 5 rolls of film more.
>>4373965>but it's 70% of fuck allSend me that fuck all if you don't care about it then
>>4373974>average /p/fag is a poorfaglmao
>>4373975>enter poor gear thread>oh my god why is everyone so poor?
>>4373978>WEE WOO WEE WOO, CALL THE COPPERS THE BROWNS ARE HERE
>>4373987lol those won't show up even if the browns gangrape your niece, chav
>>4373558Hi,They have autofocus issues that are not easily resolved, as there is no focus micro adjustment in-camera. It must be done through hard to obtain PC software. The mark II is a good camera, the colours are similar, though not quite the same. From an objective standpoint it is the better camera of the two. Look at unedited pictures from both and compare which look better.I own many bodies of both of these cameras, and I still use the mark II professionally.Thanks,Ken.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Lightroom 7.5 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2024:09:24 01:39:26Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating500Lens Aperturef/8.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4374582I ended up finding a great deal on the 5d, so I picked it up. I have used a lot of "terrible autofocus" cameras in the past and been happy with them, my autofocus demands are pretty low. However, I don't particularly care what is used "professionally" I've never been impressed by the work of the vast majority of pros. But this photo is particularly nice. It's a great moment, but I also like the color and the noise texture is very pleasing. It makes me feel like I made the right choice.
>>4374584Hi, By autofocus issues I was speaking specifically about backfocusing/frontfocusing which can be quite troublesome. They typically aren't that common but when they are you would need a specialist to fix it. I have had one with that issue but it was caused by a previous owner trying to tamper with it, trying to make the outer points more accurate at the cost of the accuracy of the centre point.Regarding the picture, I think the noise is noticeable only because its about a 50% crop. The 5D's noise is good for it's age and so long as you aren't trying to pull shadows from the depths you probably won't have any issues. It's noise is also, and this is a matter of opinion, pretty pleasing and might not something that you'll want to remove necessarily.It's a great camera, I'm you'll enjoy it. It's built really well. You might need to get a new port cover off aliexpress or a similar site though as those rubbers rot. 3rd part batteries might also be worthwhile, I have some extended life chinesium ones from eBay and since the 5D has no live view it's not uncommon for me to a few months on a single charge of one battery. Thanks, Ken.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareDigital Photo ProfessionalImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution800 dpiVertical Resolution800 dpiImage Created2023:08:01 13:31:05Exposure Time1/800 secF-Numberf/5.6Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating1000Lens Aperturef/5.7Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length300.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2912Image Height4368RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4373558very viable with LR AI noise reduction. Without EXIF I wouldn't know what took this.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 13.0.2 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2024:10:18 19:42:37Exposure Time1/2500 secF-Numberf/2.8Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating1000Lens Aperturef/2.8Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeSpotFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length28.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
It's got limitations, but you just have to lean into them.[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 5D Mark IICamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Lightroom Classic 14.0.1 (Windows)Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2024:10:20 22:33:52Exposure Time1/200 secF-Numberf/1.4Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/1.4Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationUncalibratedRenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>>4373777>the EF 70-300 being ass, unless you go with an L lensThe MkII is good.
>>4373947>which is the Nikon to compare it to as full frameThe original has no equivalent given that it was available a generation before Nikon had full frame.
