Canon EOS 5D - Dark Angel in Digital Photography

by

  GoldenHammer

A Long Story It has been a long wish since my first professional body Nikon D1x to have it shoot in low light (the acceptable sensitivity level is iso400), and it ended up running with wide open aperture, the result is not really up to my expectation. I have been seeking my next advanced camera for ever best image quality, in particular, in terms of pulling out excellent details and delivering great image quality under lower light environment, it will also serve me mainly for landscape and portrait work. I have been waiting for a while with hope that there will be one out soon that meets all my expectations (no surprise, it always fails, and I skipped the Nikon D2 series). But with the recent higher-pixel, higher-iso and FF (Full Frame refers to the use of the full film gate at maximum width and height for 35 mm film cameras) revolution in digital cameras, I finally have my shortlist - Canon 1Ds Mark III, Canon 5D and Nikon D3. After some months of investigation, it comes up into a score chart (5 is the highest mark). Please be reminded that, the ranking here is totally a subjective perception, make your own judge and take your own risk if you take this serious in decision making. Image quality: 5D=4.5, IDsM3=4, D3=4 Features: 5D=3, IDsM3=4, D3=5 Portability: 5D=4, IDsM3=3.5, D3=3.5 Ease of use: 5D=3.5, IDsM3=4, D3=4 Construction: 5D=4, IDsM3=4.5, D3=4.5 Value for money: 5D=4, IDsM3=3, D3=4 Overall: 5D=23, IDsM3=23, D3=25 Falling in Love And now you know what, I picked the Canon 5D, is that strange? How come it was not the latest camera at the status-of-the-art technologies like Nikon D3 (for its amazing performance capturing light in darkness and shooting like machine gun to freeze actions?) and why not the 21MP ever high pixel FF digital camera Canon 1Ds Mark III? Yes, I like all of them, I would want all cameras with me, but it turns out that I only fall in love with the Canon 5D. If I just followed the score chart, I would have had the Nikon D3, which in fact is a reasonable choice, since I already have a nice set of Nikkor prime lenses (10.5/2.8 fisheye, 18/2.8, 28/1.4, 45/2.8, 85/1.4, 200/4 & 300/4). The D3 should produce some very nice result with them in low light environment. But that is not a simple case, I find the Canon 5D has an edge over all others in terms of "gentle & smooth", it delivers an output most favorite to my eyes, in fact, it is a please to see the smoothness, not to mention with exceptional details delivered, the 5D is very good both in the landscape and portrait applications. Yes, a very subjective perception? And I am not sure if that could be quantified in a technical expression, but I am confident that I see something inside that makes the 5D unique. Perhaps that is the reason we are different and *STILL* in a world of wonder?! 5D is far from being my "perfect" camera, it has 2-years behind in features (I would want the auto-iso in Av & Tv and M modes, and live view is going to help for some work requires precise manual focus) and in a relatively lower performance in operations. I have asked myself if I should keep waiting again for something new? ...... not this time, though Canon may eventually release something like 5D Mark II, it will be in a completely new design with a new sensor, that is totally another story. Second Thought Being a rational man with a mind set seeking value and optimization, I always take a second thought, D3 is about double the cost of the 5D, the additional costs goes to a better built body packing with a rich set of features and exceptional high performance in terms of frame rates. Unfortunately, they are not critical to me, I rarely shoot sports and moving subjects. While D3 is able to pull out usable result in 2-3 more stops (in which it goes to extra high shutter speed to freeze actions) over 5D at higher iso, it is more relevant to a matter of the built-in noise reduction feature. 5D is quite usable at iso3200 (and if by accident it under exposured by 2 stops, I may still have something that retains most details rather than completely missed a shot, some assessment claims that 5D is about a third of a stop more sensitive than indicated, and that means iso4000 when shoot at the specification iso3200, see also Canon EOS 5D at iso12800 (16000?!) and Canon EOS 5D at iso3200 which is which?), with RAW processing and more advanced external noise reduction tools, that is not a real big gap if I don't shoot sports/ action under indoor environment. And how critical is that 21MP from the 1Ds Mark III to me? If I need extra large print size for my landscape work, I would make something amazing by stitching in processing tools. At this price level (D3=5Dx2, 1Ds Mark III=5Dx4), I would prefer to have the 5D body and some more decent Canon EF L lenses. I also acquired the optional battery grip that makes 5D the only FF body available in a more portable advantage over D3 and 1Ds Mark III. On the other hand, I already have a 1.6x Canon 40D (see also Canon EOS 40D for Serious & Everyday Work) serving as a everyday work horse at better portability, the FF Canon 5D will set this into a very good combo, they can share the decent EF L lenses (and just discovered that the 5D is using same type of battery and charger for 40D), and I would enjoy the advantages from both worlds. *** I would suggest the 5D is the best FF camera out there for enthusiast while D3 and 1Ds Mark III means effectiveness & productivities (and that means money) will be a necessary solution to high demanding professionals. *** Engagement Well, Canon 5D, I caught my dark angel! Is it up to my expectation? Yes and no. I ended up to have my 5D kit (24-105/4 lens), 2nd battery, the battery grip and a 8GB flash memory. It is a nice touch recall my feel with pro body, nice handling (I find the 5D kit with the battery grip in very good balance) ... but what a relatively much slower machine than my 40D in general operations, downloading my very first pictures to PC is longer than expected (it is a pain when downloading images in a fullly loaded 8G CF from the 5D to PC). Fortunately, the center AF point is working effectively up to my expectation with 24-105/4 in most case under low light, not that much behind 40D. Immediately discovered the advantages and disadvantages of FF body, clarity image, but now I have to get used to bad corners. My sensor and viewfinder are absolutely clear, see if it would start to collect dusts in the very soon future (though I am a very careful person). And I was wondering for a while on the hot pixels (2 big & 7 small identified), but they are not actually visible generally by iso800 at 1 second exposure. By iso3200 at 1/10s, it can hardly tell there is a hot one, this makes the iso3200 a true usable setup (well, I am not going to call for a replacement, guess this is about the 5D quality standard from Canon?). I am mastering it better whenever I make one more shot from 5D, I confirmed myself to have 5D serves me as mainstay in landscape and event work and 40D as backup and whenever I need longer. While I find the kit lens 24-105/4 is capable of covering most everyday work (ok, I decided to have the Speedlite 580EX II too), I need some wider and higher speed lenses for creativities in landscape and low light works. I may go to a 14/2.8 II (that will be something amazing in ultra wide when it filled with a proper composition) and 24/1.4 (in a "two eyes" prospect that makes handheld & dynamic work style possible in low light), they are enablers for spectacular, not from the camera & lens, but the vision of photographers. I finally go with a 16-35/2.8 II lens instead of two primes after some careful inspection and refined requirement. Firstly, it comes with my most favorite focal length ranges, that is a compromised solution - versatile and high speed for landscape as well as event work in low light environment. Secondly, 16-35/2.8 II is a new design lens optimized for latest Canon FF body, it has consistent performance across apertures. In fact, Canon made this lens to work at wide focal length and wide open aperture, I am surprised by its output at 16mm f/2.8. Lastly, 16-35/2.8 II has very nice blur background effect that worths its price for some creative and lower available light work. And now I just made the basic setup in two combos, they cover most my applications, the main stream go to wide side in 5D + 16-35/2.8 II and 40D + 24-105/4 for general and long side work. ... to be continued. Samples from 5D with 16-35/2.8 II This is a very first shot at 16mm f/2.8, it already delivers very nice result wide open. It resolves much details in both close and distance shots with nice colors and contrast favorite to my eyes. Stop down comes with better corners sharpness but that looks marginal to me, at f/2.8, it produces less CA distortion than other smaller apertures, that is interesting and out of my expectation. Yet too busy to go a formal life run, this is a typical wide angle shot I would take at 16mm f/11, the result is quite satisfied to my eyes, what surprised me is that it suffered more CA distortion than f/2.8. My 16-35/2.8 II seems running optimal at 20mm f/5.6 in best sharpness and minimal distortion. It is reported that the 16-35/2.8 II is weak at 35mm, the following is a sample at 35mm f/5.6, still look pretty nice to me at the close shot. The corner looks a bit soft, but still in fair result. I managed to try how the 16-35/2.8 II is going to work indoor with available light. Well, that is what it justified for cost that much more over the 17-40/4. I tooked these shots at iso1600 in RAW, in general that is nice output with least processing required, but you can see how it affects the corners in daily work at f/2.8. Samples from 5D with 24-105/4 I am just too busy to have a formal drive run of my new 5D until the day I got 30 mins during the lunch time to take these shots. Look like I need a wider lens, 24mm is not wide enough for me. A very first picture I took in a shopping mall, on my way home just after the purchase of the 5D and kit lens. Amazing colors and details while I am a bit disappointed with the cornors. Yet, to go run my favourite night light photography, this is an interesting capture just after dinner, when I see through the windows, I found two men working in darkness at a height of 20m+ from the ground with no secure hook, they moved around the poster and pasted it into a flatten way against the buliding, spider man in dark night? And this is the woman very important in my life .... her first react with a nature smile just after I told that I am going to take a picture for her. Life run of my 5D kit combo for about a month, it is a very capable system ideal for travel and trip. These are samples taken during our visit to Ocean Park and a flower/ gardening exhibition, just with some minor adjustment in contrast and sharpness, in general the 5D and 24-105 delivers very nice result, specifically, still very nice wide open at f/4. Usable iso12800 (16000?!) I managed to shoot at iso3200 under a critical low light environment (f/4, 1/6 second) and under exposured the image by -2 & -1 stops, then pushed it up again in DPP (NR is on, no sharpness applied). It looks like that the -2 stop copy (iso12800?) still maintains most of details (for my eyes, that is about 1 stop better over my 40D). With a more advanced noise reduction program and additional processing effort, it seems also usable. Now judge it by your own eyes ..... here is some interesting result as shown below for comparison. Shoot at iso3200 100% center crop at iso3200 100% center crop at iso3200 -1 stop (push up 1 stop in DPP) 100% center crop at iso3200 -2 stop (push up 2 stop in DPP) Additional process by a noise reduction tools for 100% center crop at iso3200 -2 stop (push up 2 stop in DPP) iso3200, which is which? It is claimed that the 5D has no real iso3200, in the sense that iso3200 is actually a Canon "in-camera push up" implementation from iso1600. Then I am curious to learn what would give a better output: 1. iso3200 (in camera push up from iso1600) 2. iso1600 by pushing one stop up in RAW processor tools (Canon DPP in this case) If 2 is better (I tended to believe that is the case, as with a even more advanced RAW processor program used), that makes sense to keep off the specification iso3200, and let the RAW processor to push that up. There are two set of images, first set taken as at specification iso3200, another set taken at iso1600 with the exact aperture and shutter speed in manual mode (then push up 1 stop in DPP). Both sets were converted into jpeg with no noise reduction and sharpen applied. These samples are in their 100% crop size, without going to the EXIF, can you tell which is which? iso3200 or iso1600 push up copy? (You can get a quick answer by referring to the filenames in the URLs). And here is my subjective assessment - 1A gives more details and contrast over 1B, while the second set images are pretty close, I find 2A has more noise than 2B. What this means? At least it tells me that there is something difference - the iso1600 push copy looks a marginal better in these specific samples on web display, I am not sure how far it is going to affect the final print out. Now judge it by your own eyes ..... 1A 1B 2A 2B