{"id":3864,"date":"2012-09-08T23:42:33","date_gmt":"2012-09-09T06:42:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/grandmighty.com\/?p=3864"},"modified":"2012-09-08T23:53:20","modified_gmt":"2012-09-09T06:53:20","slug":"canon-eos-5d","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/grandmighty.com\/2012\/09\/canon-eos-5d\/","title":{"rendered":"Canon EOS 5D"},"content":{"rendered":"

Out of the blue, the idea to sell my Canon S95<\/a> popped into my head. So I sold it. The S95 served me well and was a great camera for its size. While it had good image quality, you could still tell that it was a point and shoot. With the rate of innovation these days, it won’t be long before cell phones are equipped with comparable cameras. I think in this respect, point and shoots will become redundant if they cannot provide enough differentiation. <\/p>\n

There is a movement nowadays towards more “serious” compact sized cameras, for example the Leica M9 and the Fuji X100. I originally intended on buying the latter to replace the S95, but in the end bought a half decade old Canon 5D Classic. I still can appreciate a pocket camera, but my primary focus is image quality. I don’t travel anymore these days, so I can handle toting around a brick sized camera.<\/p>\n

Of all the options out there, why a 5D? My choice can be better explained by first understanding the particularities of the DSLR world. When strictly staying with the digital medium, typically any entry-level DSLR can take the same type of pictures as a more intermediate level camera. When looking at pictures from these cameras on the computer, the differences will be virtually imperceptible. I’ve owned a Nikon D50, D90, and a Canon T2i in the past, my pictures only improved because I improved, not the camera.<\/p>\n

What DOES, supposedly, make a difference in image quality is going full frame. All my cameras have been crop sensors, so I wanted to realize the full frame advantage<\/a>. Similarly in the full frame department, I could have gone with a 5D Mark II or even a Mark III… but the pictures will be mostly identical on a computer screen. So why pay more? <\/p>\n

I don’t print photos. I don’t do action photography so FPS doesn’t matter to me. My preferred environment for photography is a controlled one, this renders many of the fancy gizmos and features I’d be paying for in a newer camera pointless. <\/p>\n

Sure, the camera has it’s flaws. The ergonomics are not great, the LCD is horrible, there is no Auto-ISO, the button placements could be better, it uses an old Compact Flash card, and file transfers are slow. The low resolution LCD is really the only major flaw, but certainly a handicap I can learn to live with. Especially given the price, these 5D’s are going for a steal in the used market. I bought mine for $630, a camera that once sold for $3,299. The seller also threw in a 50mm f\/1.8 II lens for $65 more. So this is a complete full frame camera, ready to go, for under $700… What else out there can even come close? <\/p>\n

$\"\"$ <\/a><\/p>\n

The real test will ultimately fall on the quality of pictures this camera can take. By virtue of me only owning a 50mm f\/1.8 lens on my past 3 DSLR’s, having the same lens again on the 5D makes for a good control variable. Going from crop sensors to a full frame with the 50mm truly does produce a picture with a different feel. See for yourself, most of the new pictures on the RX-7<\/a> will be coming from this camera. All I can say: there IS actually difference with full frames.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"