[Leica] OT: Comparison b/n Canon EOS 5D and 5D Mark II

[henningw at archiphoto.com (Henning Wulff)]

I also use both, and find the MkII a fair bit better, including all 
the reasons Michiel  mentions. Also, I find Live View with its 
magnified view extremely useful for tripod work, and especially with 
tilt and shift lenses. Tilting a 17 or even 24mm lens is very hard to 
do accurately without live view. With live view it's even easier than 
on a 4x5 camera.

Vs. a 5D the MkII has two disadvantages: price and size of files. The 
MkII can sometimes produce 40Mb RAW files.



At 5:07 PM +0200 3/31/10, Michiel Fokkema wrote:
>Both are great cameras.
>i have them both and use them both.
>But the mark2 is my favorite. The LCD screen is much better. Iso performance
>is easily a stop better.
>The AF micro adjust makes my 70-200 tack sharp.
>But if you're not bothered by these improvements the 5D mark 1 is your
>friend.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Michiel Fokkema
>
>On 31 March 2010 17:01, Konstantin Mihov 
><konstantin.mihov at googlemail.com>wrote:
>
>>  I am a bit of off topic here but am curious between the difference in
>>  quality of the pictures of these two versions of the 5D - I understand 
>> that
>>  mark II has almost double the number of mega pixels, in addition to the 
>> HD
>>  video but what else makes the 5D II superior as a product? Does it have a
>>  better ISO performance (and by how much?) I've tried to find articles
>>  online
>>  but they tend to compare the 5D II with other current models and not with
>>  older versions.
>>
>>  I am tempted by second-hand 5D earlier generations (don't "need" the 
>> video
>>  function and the number of megapixels) and am trying to get informed.
>>
>>  Cheers,
>>  KM
>>  --

-- 

    *            Henning J. Wulff
   /|\      Wulff Photography & Design
  /###\   mailto:henningw at archiphoto.com
  |[ ]|     http://www.archiphoto.com