canon 5D - mark I
- Started
- Last post
- 15 Responses
- forcetwelve
still worth buying one you think? i'm so keen for a full frame.
- Rand0
I'd get a d700, but I guess if you already have canon lenses
- Jnr_Madison0
Yes, very much worth it.
- ok_not_ok0
yep still worth it, it's like the mark II sans video.
- Tungsten0
http://www.keh.com has one for $1129. Totally worth it and still a great camera.
- forcetwelve0
i'm in australia. i'm looking out for second hand bodies.
- Nightshade0
I have this camera. It rocks- end of.
- bekannt0
i have too. yes . yes ... get also the battery grip...
- Rand0
you want the full frame for the low light capabality, mainly?
- version30
full frame sensor versus crop sensors...
this discussion boggles my mind. how could a crop factor possibly be seen as a good thing? you are losing natural vignette from lens aberration curvature, aperture, and light. these are natural occurrences in the realm of slr photography that lend to its aesthetic beauty. any camera that is not of a full frame sensor is not worthy of comparison to a full frame sensor camera regardless of the doo-dads and additional "features". This is photography, and an expensive manner of it at that, if you are multiplying by 1.6 to determine your lens lengths, how can this possibly be the correct approach?
- forcetwelve0
i just want my images not to be cropped.
- Rand0
not trying to argue, and I am certainly no expert, but isn't is possible cropped sensors aren't 100% bad in all cases, for instance in some cases with long lenses, you might want the crop, also you're using the sharpest and least distorted portion of a lens? also to get equivalent focal length on telephoto, you'd need to spend a lot more money
- raf0
I have one and I have no urgent plans to upgrade and if ever, it would be for Mark II's phenomenal high ISO rather than its video capabilities. I'd rather keep the old one as a second body then. It is an instant classic despite its shortcomings like slow continuous shutter and weak AF in low light (Mk2 inherited both).
When buying used, be sure to give the sensor a test, ie. shoot the sky or a light ceiling at a high aperture (15+) to see if there are any specks or scratches on the sensor. Download the image for test, don't trust the LCD.
I would also take the lens off, set time mode to B, press shutter and holding it pressed, look at the sensor to see if it has any blemishes.
- ArmandoEstrada0
Great camera, but your body should be an investment. that camera is 3+ years old. we are talking about tech that is at least 5 years old. I own both 5D and the Mark II. I would save my pennies and get the Mark II.
- slappy0
Just get the mkI. It takes marvelously clean images, its cheap for what you get. Sure the mkII is sweet but the mkI will still get you the images.
I have still been upgrading my lenses over upgrading to mkII, the mkI is still so good.
- version30
to those that replied to me above...
um, you realize you could crop a full frame to same effect, do you even get it?, pixel for pixel, the data is there, the difference is you are losing all the extra data around the cropped area, it only seems convenient because it's essentially gone into photoshop and cropped it for you right as you took the photo making it appear "zoomed'
crop sensors are trash, don't waste your money on them.
case in point... a buddy has the 30d with the 24 1.4L. the soft edges are more defined and blurred on my 5d and on the other side of the coin the wide frame of my 16-35 2.8L can not be used to any effect on his cropped sensor of the 30d. an ef-s lens of the 10-22 is necessary for comparable images but useless as a versatile lens as it will not fit on full frame cameras
- crop sensors are actually not crap. just different.Tungsten
- missing valuable information is crapversion3
- you're right, if you need some useful information let me know.Tungsten
- how are you missing valuable information if you know exactly what you shooterikjonsson