5D not Pro?

Interesting to see that the 5D is not in the 'Pro' forum.

CPS classify it as a eligible body (ie professional).

CPS classify the 10D as a pro body, in other words when you have spent that much on a body they are happy to let you into the club.

The 5D has a great chip but the focus is anything but pro standard, the build is lacking any pro features, etc, etc.

Sorry, Jon, 5D, while being a great camera, does not qualify to be a true pro. As Ben said, not enough pro features (lack of weather sealing, AF is not fast enough, etc.)
This does NOT mean you can't take truly awesome shots with it.
Porshe 911 is a great sport car, but it's not F1 breed...
Just MHO, of course...

First Jon, 5D fails misererably by Canons most strict standard for a Pro Body, it is does not weigh enough and does not cause spinal fractures!

Otherwise the images are embarassingly great with beautiful skin colors.

Still, for rapid focus, one goes with a 1D series. Facts of life!

Choose the heavy brick or a missed goal kick!

For landscape or portraits it is fabulous. However, for all the reasons mentioned, it is not in the lethal weapon class and is therefore not a Pro class camera!

Asher

Asher, have you tried the 5D with grip? Weighs just a tiny drop under what my 1Ds used to weigh. Ticked me off actually as I thought that I would be gaining a weight advantage when infact I got another brick and a less ergonomic one to boot!

Jon, this has been one of the occasionally raging debates on the gear forums. I maintain that the Pro/Non-Pro debate is just BS, mainly owners of other than 1D bodies trying to elevate their self esteme. A 30D is a great camera, having one and needing to feel more "pro" is a mental health issue, not a technology one!

I've always recommended that the 5D should be placed in a 30D forum because the controls are almost identical between them. The principles of photography are pretty much the same for all of us but the ways that cameras work are often different between the various brands and their different lines. I've laughted at 5D owners on dpreview's forum asking where that assist button is so they can use two focus point settings or where the SD card goes. The 5D and the 1-Series just don't work the same regarding buttons, menus and features.

I shoot both a 1D Mark II N and a 5D for my business. As a sports shooter I usually need to shoot the 1D2N. It's focus ability, flexibility, focus ability, comfort, focus ability and feature set put it miles above the 5D. Did I mention that the 5D's servo focus ability is only sort of OK if the subject isn't moving much?

But the truth is I'd rather shoot the 5D. Its pictures just look better to me. It's great with a 70-200 2.8 IS lens. I can acually preview and/or delete images without two hands flying all over the camera body. And it makes a really great "camera" sound

I really appreciate Canon putting an expensive sensor in an affordable body to create a FF camera that I could afford.

To tell the truth,

I think the G series Canon digicams are almost as good for 8x10 images. I consider my 5D is a supercharged G5. I use it with great freedom and I feel more relaxed. with the 1DII I'm in a totally different frame of mind, although I've used either camera in both situations.

Asher

Asher Kelman said:

To tell the truth,

I think the G series Canon digicams are almost as good for 8x10 images. I consider my 5D is a supercharged G5. I use it with great freedom and I feel more relaxed. with the 1DII I'm in a totally different frame of mind, although I've used either camera in both situations.

Asher

Click to expand...

I find your comments quite strange. First the comparison of the G5 and 5D only holds in that they each have a '5' in their names. There is no quality comparison, even at 4x6.

I wouldn't venture to guess what drives your "frame of mind" between the 5D and 1DII...only you can answer that. I agree with Jack, that they both have advantages and which is best depends on what you are doing and the quality of the image which you want.

John

John_Schwaller said:

I find your comments quite strange. First the comparison of the G5 and 5D only holds in that they each have a '5' in their names. There is no quality comparison, even at 4x6.

I wouldn't venture to guess what drives your "frame of mind" between the 5D and 1DII...only you can answer that. I agree with Jack, that they both have advantages and which is best depends on what you are doing and the quality of the image which you want.

John

Click to expand...

John,

My sense of humor! In a relaxed party the feel of the light G5 is the same as the 5D and does not intrude on the social mood as one is not physically working. The pictures of the social, are not formal and function perfectly well for the purpose. The quality of the 8x10 is pretty good. Of course the 5D is way better!


Asher

Asher Kelman said:

John,

My sense of humor! In a relaxed party the feel of the light G5 is the same as the 5D and does not intrude on the social mood as one is not physically working. The pictures of the social, are not formal and function perfectly well for the purpose. The quality of the 8x10 is pretty good. Of course the 5D is way better!


Asher

Click to expand...

You're humor is still lost on me. I would not call a 5D with 24-105 inobtrusive. Add a 580EX and...well...

The G5 is a nice little camera. So is my S70, which I take if I just want a simple snapshot of friends at a restaurant. I have taken some pretty good shots with it, but even in jest I would not compare them in ANYWAY.

Frankly...and don't take this wrong because I am sure you are a real nice guy....but your comment really has shades of an "elitist" putdown of the 5D.

John

John_Schwaller said:

You're humor is still lost on me. I would not call a 5D with 24-105 inobtrusive. Add a 580EX and...well...

The G5 is a nice little camera. So is my S70, which I take if I just want a simple snapshot of friends at a restaurant. I have taken some pretty good shots with it, but even in jest I would not compare them in ANYWAY.

Frankly...and don't take this wrong because I am sure you are a real nice guy....but your comment really has shades of an "elitist" putdown of the 5D.

John

Click to expand...

John,

I retract my comparison! I have no truck with general formalities. You're right! We care about our work tools especially if they are great. Flippancy can offend. That, we don't want here, especially as a community.

It's the idea and the delivery of the final image that counts.

Asher

I strongly believe the 5D is a pro camera in a prosumer body, with some limitations.

The AF system and weathersealing are worse than on the 1 series, but when looking PURE at image quality I think/believe and strongly that the 5D is at the moment the best DSLR out there.

In the end however the photographer makes the pictures, and some pros can do it with a lomo

In photography, as well as everything else, there are different levels of equipment builds. Generally a pro build is one that can take the hazards of use in a hostle environment day in and day out. From that point of view the 5D is not a pro body because of the seals issue. This does not mean it is a bad or entry level camera - just not a roll in the trenches type of body.

I love my 5D and will have it for a long time to come.

Richard

Well... I am really bemused by the comments posted in this thread.
The 5D is in my honest opinion, a pro body.
Now... before you hit me with seals and build quality, not every pro rolls in the trenches and/or needs 8fps, the 5D is marketed squarely at wedding, studio, and landscape, photographers, areas of photography which doesn’t need the robustness of the 1 series; add to that the well heeled advanced amateur, and you can’t loose
Canon IMHO hit the jackpot with this camera, the 5D produces outstanding quality images, which some pro’s put above the 1DsII. All that in a package, which not only weights less than its big brother, but also cost a fair bit less.
However, I do agree it does not belong in the 1D series forum, for reasons already stated here (different layout of controls et all)
Regards
Ivan

Ivan, though the image quality may be of pro quality, what defines 'pro' in 35mm terms is pro build and performance. Otherwise an EOS 3000 would be as pro as the 1V just because the image was the same.

I would agree that in other arenas of photography 'pro' might well be defined differently. Medium Format is a case in point. Hasselblads are not weather sealed, cannot shoot at even 3fps and most of them have no AF points nevermind 45! No one says that they are not a pro tool however. I think the term pro for a camera is defined by its genre.

I'll tell you what does really annoy me with the 5D. We know that focus recompose does not work from about 50mm and f5.6 and faster. So we have to use an off center focusing point. However the off center points on the 5D are slow, inaccurate and hunt in low light. Therefore the AF system is not useable in low light if you need accurate AF when shooting fast. That is enough to tell me that this camera is not 'pro', it can't be relied on to accurately get the shot in a pro shooting enviroment.

Ben Rubinstein said:

I'll tell you what does really annoy me with the 5D. We know that focus recompose does not work from about 50mm and f5.6 and faster. So we have to use an off center focusing point. However the off center points on the 5D are slow, inaccurate and hunt in low light. Therefore the AF system is not useable in low light if you need accurate AF when shooting fast. That is enough to tell me that this camera is not 'pro', it can't be relied on to accurately get the shot in a pro shooting enviroment.

Click to expand...

Many times I give up the extra pixels and look for the speed and ability to lock on focus. It is wonderful for portraits, but if the shoot is for fluid work with a model, then I find the 1DII serves me better.

What I mostly love about the 5D is for urban and country landscape. There I can get the benefit of my best WA lenses and not lose with the 1.3 factor!

Asher

I'm switching from the Mk II to the 5D.. Tomorrow!
I'll definitely miss its pro features, but I want a lighter body. The added resolution isn't bad either

Where is that 3D Canon..

The 5D, IMO, is absolute, most assuredly, indisputedly a "pro" camera.

Why? Because its output is pro-level. The IQ is superb, and 12.8 MP's is accepted for publication almost everywhere. It is a professional quality image producer.

It is also used for professional purposes by a large number of indisputable pros.

Is the ultimate tool for all applications? No. (Neither is the 1DsMII)

Are there features of other Canon cameras which are superior? Yes.

Doesn't matter a whit.

Ben Rubinstein said:

... We know that focus recompose does not work from about 50mm and f5.6 and faster. ...

Click to expand...

Ben, could you elaborate on that please? I've not read that much on the 5D and am curious about this.

I started having serious problems with a calibrated 5D and 24-70L lens set to 50mm when taking full length or 2/3 length portraits. The camera was backfocusing by a foot or more at f5.6 something I'd never seen before sending the combo of for calibration. I sent it back 5 times to CPS and each time they sent it back saying that it focused perfectly.

Problem turned out that I was focus recomposing as I had always done with the center point which is the fastest and most accurate. However the amount of recompose needed with that focal length and that type of picture (vertical, focus on eye recompose) meant that the camera would front focus badly. Because of the added distance or less recompose needed when shooting at 70mm the problem was not apparent, it is at 50mm where all the things come together to give nasty front focus.

I have no doubt that my lens originally back focused and my technique had been getting the focus 'right' by accident!

So now I'm using the focus points and grinding my teeth at how innaccurate, slow and badly placed they are in the 5D!

Thanks for explaining Ben. But is this unique to the 5D? Why wouldn't, for instance, a 1DsMkII behave exactly the same way? It sounds like a limitation of the focus-recompose technique, not a camera problem.

KrisCarnmarker said:

Thanks for explaining Ben. But is this unique to the 5D? Why wouldn't, for instance, a 1DsMkII behave exactly the same way? It sounds like a limitation of the focus-recompose technique, not a camera problem.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is pretty well described in this article http://visual-vacations.com/Photography/focus-recompose_sucks.htm

I have no idea why Ben never experienced the problem before.

Actually on 2nd thought, if Ben was on a cropped camera before the 5D, that may explain it. A 50mm on a 1.6 crop would have an FOV more like a 80mm, which means, for the same framing, the distance would be greater than when using on a 5D.

John

Thanks John. I was aware of the limitations of the focus-recompose technique, but Ben's post suggested (to me anyway) that this was some 5D fault or something. Glad that was cleared up

With the Leica R9 which is a very elite (by cost) film camera with the digital back, there is, of course no auto focus. However manual focus is very easy and accurate.

This level of simplicity should be possible on Canon cameras too. Why is it so hard to focus my 1DII and 5D manually!

Still to measure light with the Leica R9 one has to do light measurement with the central focus point, lock that value in by depressing the shutter a little and then recompose. With this Leica, there is very little problem in focusing as the viewfinder is so exceptionally bright. The glass is also crisp and high contrast. If Canon had the option of such high quality manual focus with the ease of the Leica, then focus recompose would not be such an issue with auto focus! since one might choose to use manual focus in low light instead.

Asher

There are a few MF only Canon lens that are being used by a number of us--the 24, 45 and 90 T/S lens. I found the 24 a bit difficult to MF, but the 45 is much less so. I should add this is with the 5D. I did actually use the 45 with a 1.4x converter on a 1.6x body and found it more difficult--but possible. Of course for fast moving subjects this is surely less than ideal LOL. The T/S are lenses for slower work when using the tilt/swing in particular--at least for me, but I do often use the 45 as just an MF prime and find it is not much problem using MF with the 5D. For much shallower DOF, it gets dicier--esp. with older eyes.

Diane

Hi Ben

Perhaps you can zoom up, lock focus, then zoom back, recompose? I think that is possible with a 24-70.

Asher Kelman said:

With the Leica R9 which is a very elite (by cost) film camera with the digital back, there is, of course no auto focus. However manual focus is very easy and accurate.

This level of simplicity should be possible on Canon cameras too.

Then focus recompose would not be such an issue with auto focus!

Asher

Click to expand...

I'm confused, Asher. How does MF vs. AF change the laws of physics? If, in the article example I posted above, how would manually focusing on the =eyes vs. AF, and then recompose be different?

John

KrisCarnmarker said:

Thanks John. I was aware of the limitations of the focus-recompose technique, but Ben's post suggested (to me anyway) that this was some 5D fault or something. Glad that was cleared up

Click to expand...

Sorry, Kris. I assumed you did based on your post. I was just posting the article for reference and then it hit me that the 5D might have been the "problem" due to the shortening of the distance due to the cange in FOV.

John

John,

You may sleep safely! Physics has not changed. I simply had left an orphan fragment!

You commented on


With the Leica R9 which is a very elite (by cost) film camera with the digital back, there is, of course no auto focus. However manual focus is very easy and accurate.

This level of simplicity should be possible on Canon cameras too.

Then focus recompose would not be such an issue with auto focus!


My point is that if Canon had a very good manual focus, like the R9 we might not need to resort to the focus-recompose routine with Canon's autofocus.

However, I decided that I needed to do some careful tests under conditions where my 70-200 would be challenged and then see if I could focus directly with the R9. So I deleted that last paragraph but in error, left, Then focus recompose would not be such an issue with auto focus!, an orphan fragment!

My point is that Canon should be improving the optics. Now that I've seen Leica, I know better is possible. I'm just starting to go through my Leica images, but for sure, looking through the R9 viewfinder was a whole new experience for me.

I am too early in my efforts to say more than that. Still, right now, I'm impressed enough to want to get R9 for more testing.

Asher

Diane Fields said:

There are a few MF only Canon lens that are being used by a number of us--the 24, 45 and 90 T/S lens. I found the 24 a bit difficult to MF, but the 45 is much less so. I should add this is with the 5D. I did actually use the 45 with a 1.4x converter on a 1.6x body and found it more difficult--but possible. Of course for fast moving subjects this is surely less than ideal LOL. The T/S are lenses for slower work when using the tilt/swing in particular--at least for me, but I do often use the 45 as just an MF prime and find it is not much problem using MF with the 5D. For much shallower DOF, it gets dicier--esp. with older eyes.

Diane

Click to expand...

Ah, Asher--you added a bit more--which makes my reply pretty irrelevant. I agree--if Canon's viewfinders were brighter, it would make MF much easier--in all light. Too late to edit my own post so replied instead.

Diane