The Canon EOS 5D DSLR – A Classic in Today’s Digital Photography

Canon EOS 5D – 2005

Rewind your memory back to August 2005. Canon decided to create a new market segment in the full frame digital camera market by releasing the EOS 5D. At that time Canon was the exclusive producer of full frame 35mm digital cameras. Much to Nikon’s chagrin, the benefits of full frame digital had been realized by pro photographers and Canon’s monopoly on that segment put them in the driver’s seat.

The fact that Canon was in control of the FF market 2005 is actually quite interesting and warrants a sort of digital full frame history lesson. Canon did not debut the first digital full frame camera to the world. The honor of digital full frame numero uno (whew) goes to the late Contax Digital N camera. May God rest it’s digital soul.

Contax Digital N – First to the Full Frame Party

Contax was first to the FF market with the Contax Digital N. The Contax Digital N went on sale in 2002 and cost 6,500 USD. I would buy one today if it had 12 MP and was still for sale but I digress. The Digital N (I have to call it that because there was a plain jane Contax N film camera) employed the Phillip’s FTF3020-C CCD. Judging by the dimensions of the CCD this part was intended for FF. However, it first used in a medium format digital back, aka MFDB. The beautiful FF camera that Contax delivered perished in the marketplace just within a year and Contax ultimately went the same way. Contax’s demise also killed the Contax 645 that I love so dearly but I digress, yet again. Sorry…..

The Digital N could produce amazing files but it had a number of warts. The camera could suck a set of batteries dry in 50-100 shots. It also demanded that you shoot with consideration to the shadows and not the highlights. This method of exposure was opposite to it’s contemporaries. JPG files written directly from the camera had poor color fidelity but post-processed RAW files were excellent. To choose the Digital N’s RAW output over JPG output sounds logical but RAW mode introduced a caveat. When shooting RAW the photographer lost the ability to review the files on the rear LCD. I’m sure that caveat and the poor JPG output made this camera a less appealing alternative to film cameras and negative film’s tremendous latitude.

Canon EOS 1Ds – The Number 2 FF Camera

Canon followed Contax with the EOS 1Ds. The 1Ds was a fantastic camera with a 11.4 MP sensor, fantastic JPG output, good battery life and above average high ISO output. The asking price of 7,999 USD was substantial. I suspect that most pros recouped their investment of the 1Ds by the elimination of film purchases and the associated developing cost.

Kodak DCS Pro 14n -  To Many Caveats

Kodak followed Canon’s 1Ds with their DCS Pro 14n. The 14n spread 13.7 MP across the CCD frame (the CCD was supplied by FillFactory rather than Kodak, how strange) and had no AA filter (omission of an AA filter increases the chances of moire but increases acutance and micro detail). The 14n was essentially a Nikon F80 married to an integrated Kodak digital back. In this regard the 14n was similar to the Fujifilm S3 Pro.

On the surface the 14n appeared to be a bargain at 5,000 USD. If you set the camera to it’s base ISO of 80 and clicked a few frames with a standard lens you would be rewarded with super sharp frames, fantastic tonal transitions and low vignetting. Any ISO higher than 80 produced blotchy noise and wide angle lenses produced horrible vignetting. The 14N camera also exhibited a casting issue that manifested itself as a color shift around the periphery of the frame. The 14n did have an extraordinary feature that allowed you to take multiple frames automatically and stack them for super clean file output. While this feature was novelt it was tricky to use and sucked a battery dry in short order. At the end of the day the 14n and it’s successors are interesting engineering samples but not suitable for most serious photography.

Canon EOS 1Ds II – The Gold Standard

In 2004 Canon released the successor to their previous digital full frame. The 16.7 megapixel EOS 1Ds II essentially did everything the EOS 1Ds did but better. High ISO performance, DR, metering options and frame rate were all improved. Not only was the EOS 1Ds II a superior body in most respects (I will clarify the most part some other time) the body cost the same as its predecessor. This was a pretty amazing feat for Canon as well as a demonstration of Moore’s Law.

Canon EOS 5D – Back to the Future

Now fast forward, but not to far, to the year 2005 and the Canon EOS 5D. Every digital full frame camera before it was targeted at the professional market but the Canon EOS 5D was targeted at a sweet spot between the working pro and advanced amateur. The EOS 5D did not have the advanced auto-focus system, weather sealing, viewfinder, pixel density, etc of the EOS 1Ds cameras. To the EOS 5D’s credit it did feature lighter weight, weaker AA filter (a good thing for a lot of us), incredible high ISO performance, great viewfinder (not quite as great as the EOS-1Ds), fantastic color fidelity (although balanced a bit red for my taste) and an interchangeable view finder screen.

Photosites – Size Matters

Why bring up a 4 year old Canon EOS 5D in the summer of 2009 when the Canon EOS 5D II was released not to long ago? For starters I am cheap. Well,,,, allow me to re-calibrate my words. I am frugal. I do splurge on things that I want to splurge on. 35mm digital full frame has limitations just like any other format. 12′ish megapixels for a digital full frame camera is a sweet spot of sorts. At this point many of Canon’s lenses start to run out of steam. This is especially true of Canon’s lenses in the corners. Nikon ran into the same problem with their D3, D3x and D700 cameras. However 12.8 MP is not quite enough to seriously punish lenses in the same way that a higher MP body would.

The size of a digital camera’s photo sites play an important role in the look and feel of the photo. A photo site size of 9 microns is as much of a sweet spot as the 12 MP number is (in regards to FF). In fact the two numbers are not unrelated. I will get into this on another day but it is NOT coincidence that the original EOS 5D lands on both of these numbers and produces files that contain that “5D look” or “5D magic”. Other cameras with similar pixel pitch also produce files that are reported to be favored for their visual fingerprint.

Canon EOS 5D – How Does it Stack up Today?

The EOS 5D succeeds in many areas. It is a nice rig to tote around. I needed a camera to shoot weddings as a “second shooter” with some dear friends. I picked up a really clean EOS 5D for 1300 USD. There is no other digital full frame around that is as cheap and offers the same caliber of performance. Nikon’s D700, as nice as it is in many ways, cost a little more than twice that. The Nikon D700 does offer many advantages, not the least of which is Nikon’s glass (sorry, I like many of their lenses better), but then it handicaps the whole deal with a stronger AA filter. A higher price and stronger AA filter produce a non-starter for me.

The Canon EOS 1Ds and Sony A900 are other FF cameras that I considered. The Canon 1Ds high ISO performance is inferior when compared to the 5D. High ISO performance is of paramount importance since this camera will need to do a LOT of work in less than great light (think receptions and churches). Had the 1Ds’s high ISO performance been comparable to the 5D I would have choose the Canon 1Ds for the superior body and outstanding auto-focus.

Sony A900 – A Fantastic Camera With a Lacking Lens Catalog

The Sony A900 is an outstanding body with top shelf glass but the pixel pitch is very small. Today’s sensors with small pixel pitch tend to be very noisy at higher ISOs. Some creative RAW processing could deal with the noise when needed but I need to keep my work-flow as simple as possible. Sony also has another challenge at this time.

Sony lacks a comprehensive lens catalog of top shelf prime lenses!

Sure Sony has the world class Carl Zeiss zoom lenses and I have no doubt that the Carl Zeiss zoom lenses kick Canon’s “L” lenses collective butts. However a pro-grade zoom lens only gets me as far as F2.8 and I need prime lenses for low light work. Don’t tell me in a whiny voice that “Sony has integrated stabilization“. Electronic stabilization is a story for another day. I’m all for using servos and accelerometers to improve hand-held photography but Sony’s IS system can not replace the need for fast prime lenses.

Now what was I saying? Oh, not only do I need primes to get that advantage I need FANTASTIC prime lenses. Sony does have the SMOKIN Carl Zeiss 135/1.8 “portrait” lens. However where is the Carl Zeiss auto-focus 50/1.4 or 50/1.2? Where is the wide angle 24/1.4 or 35/1.4 from good ole Carl? Even though I’m not investing in Canon’s “L” primes at this moment the option is there.

If you can get by with the A900’s average high ISO performance and current lens selection then by all means go for it. You should consider that Sony’s rumored A850 camera will be announced in a few days . The Sony A850 should be just the camera that the Dr. ordered to cure recession shocked FF shooters. We should see the Sony A850 hit the street for 1999.99 USD or less. The A850 will be a slightly handicapped A900 that should retain the world class viewfinder and the A900’s amazing color fidelity. If you need an affordable digital full frame camera today reward yourself with a used or refurbished Canon EOS 5D. The excellent resolution and comprehensive lens catalog offers just the ticket a frugal digital shooter needs.