It's really crazy that some lens designs have been so good since the '70s.... Cameras keep improving slowly and lenses, in my inexperienced opinion, capped out a long time ago.
you educated me my friend (still got me Mk 2 AND me 50d) Diamond cams matey) Got me mark 3 as well (with a bad L lens) (Old skool lenses Like RE auto topcor on me mk3 (cant do that) I did).. Hey all I did was take the right pic at the right time.. Thankyou matey for educating me. Have a good week (RB26-DETT)... Obviously I am a mechanic.. Fed up skinning me knucles everyday for nothing so now I'm going to think smart. Hey I've got the original Takumar f"2 10 blade and me Jupiter is so sharp I traumatise the subject (I cant do pores) Anywayway just wanted to thank you for a good vid. Peteeboy Irish : )
The local High school has all the senior photos from every class since the 1930's. You can tell when it went from film to digital in the early 2000's. The quality didn't get back to the film quality level till about 2010.
But it all depends how you define quality. Is it contrast, the maximum print size you can achieve, dynamic range? One thing where digital has been better almost since the beginning is reproducibility. Try taking and developing the same picture multiple times on film. There is no way. Surely it's possible to some extent, otherwise there would be no movies shot on color film.
@barelyillegal I never liked the grain of most high ISO films so much. Although the colorful noise on CCD sensors wasn't so pleasant either. Now I can crank up to like 12K and it still looks better than ISO 200 was 20 years ago :D
I remember Canon EOS 5d Mark II to be the first good DSLR in 2010 or so. I definitely wanted one and use it with Zeiss "Zebras" 35, 50 and 135mm. I still own the conversion ring, but now I am very much invested into Olympus gear. What started to happen in early 2000s was that fotolabs were using scans and prints, so the quality of film process degraded due to this. it took me five more years to get a digital camera I really liked to use. And it was Olympus OMD EM10.
Preemptive comment before watching: I love your message that discourages gear chasing and camera fanboyism. Ultimately I think people worry too much about cameras and it can be destructive. Your message of saying that there hasn’t been much improvement over the years encourages people (including me) to stop worrying about their old cameras and worry about what actually matters: creating.
@@hbp_ Not 20 years but maybe 5 or 6 years. I diverged from professional photography in 2014. I’ve been reluctant to get back into it because my camera is a GH3 and I felt like my gear was inferior. But last month I said eff it and started making pictures again with great results.
For me mirrorless brings greater use ability, useful built in tools, and more headroom for editing, also easier to use with manual lenses. I always buy the sweet spot camera in the range one without the headline grabbing specs that you never need, then use it until it fails.
@4:33 The shutter for the view finder, was on newer cameras actually just replace with a rubber cover sitting on the strap (you find it on alle canon straps) that you can slide on the rails where the eyepiece is attached once you've removed that. The purpose is to avoid false light in daylight long exposure shots with strong neutral density filters.
The shutter blind in older SLRs is there to prevent light coming through the viewfinder from affecting the light meter. It’s for when you have the camera on a tripod and use any auto exposure mode and take the photo without your eye to the viewfinder. Not an issue if you set up the shot using manual mode with your eye to the viewfinder. Canon used to supply a separate cover that I think was part of the strap that would slide over the viewfinder in models without a built-in blind.
Yeah my little 200d has a rubber cover on the strap, to be honest after recently starting to use nd filters and reading about this I've found it makes absolutely no difference on or off when shooting in live view. And because i never knew about it prior to getting filters i also tested it whilst shooting without any as i had always done for landscapes, and still found no difference and nor was there when not shooting in live view.
I did correctly guess the 1Ds II shots. I do own one, and using a B+W c-pol really makes this body shine. I’m used to the punchy colors and lack of contrast, but if you really want both, the 1Ds III is the way to go.
Very informative. I would love to see how a 5D classic would compare. Obviously not a candidate for your studio work at 12.5MP but would love to see how it performed on color and rendition. I have huge respect for the designers of early digital cameras. They were truly innovators and probably had a great time constantly improving the technology and the features.
@@AntonioCravo Very interesting. What cameras have you compared? I've heard the 6D (classic?) Is also pretty nice for colours compared to most. I do have the 5D classic also. I was tempted to go for an old 1ds for the pro body, but a 5dsr in a few years feels like it would be a steal for landscape photography that I still like to do on 6x9cm film.
@@mikafoxx2717 being honest… the 5D classic, hardly finds a match… beauuutiful images come out that “black magnesium box”. There is one thing I miss… the EF mount is kinky with regards to adapt FD glass. I’m using m43 only because of FDs. I find that the 5DSR is the only one closest to the 5D.. the others are just nice, of course the head behind the camera does it all… but the 5D really has a life of it’s own
@@AntonioCravo I think the 1ds mk ii is the same gen sensor and electronics as 5D, but 16 megapixels, it's gonna have a similar rendering. The 6d has its own great and similar look. The Nikon D700 is renowned for its colors. So there's at least a few legends of color. I'd say my 10.2mp CCD pentax k10d is also excellent with colours, possibly even better.
@@mikafoxx2717 hi… I’m not convinced it’s all about sensors… it seems to me is more about light metering… off course I’m curious about other perspectives and gear… and I’d say the best photographs could’ve been shot with about any other gear regardless the brands… but honestly… a 5D shot is mesmorizing. I have very nice photos shot with other gear none of it makes me stop in time like the 5D light… I’d say the 5D family has its own pedigree. But the 5D … huuum, delicious. Also to say, I’m a man of “stills” I’m not interested in video features and crazy buffering etc… I could go for a Leica, and I might… but I don’t believe it will have the throne
I really appreciate that you point out that high megapixel and high bit depth is a necessity for post-production work as opposed to "what you can print". So many print reviews seem to be coming from a (in my opinion) amateur perspective of trying to prove you can print a 16 MP image (or similar) and showing that it "works". When you said that clients will want to "punch in" as a "last minute creative idea" my ears perked up. That kind of thing sounds exactly like all my interactions with almost any customer. It also sounds like the kind of thing where if you say "no" and someone else can say "yes" you'll find you start losing long term customers because you're affecting their creative requirements. It's really interesting hearing these little tidbits of professional wisdom that bring out the subtleties of why manufacturers didn't just stick with a 24 MP sensor and call it a day. These 50+ MP sensors exist because professional product photography uses them and for good reasons. For those thinking I'm "chasing the gear dragon" please bear in mind, I do wildlife photography on a used Canon 7D mark II DSLR with a 20 MP sensor. I just find it interesting that for certain scenarios, certain specifications matter a lot. It's vital to figure out what you really need and stay focused on acquiring only that and spending the rest of your time honing your craft.
Fantastic content. Please consider adding the camera model designations in the video title, so that your video would come up in utube search. I bought the original 1Ds mark 1 two years ago and was so enamored by that camera range that I added the m2 and m3 to my collection recently. Your video would come in handy to widen the practical horizons.
fantastic video, It's great to finally hear someone talking sense. love the side by side images - I can't tell the difference between them. I own and use both these cameras - you did fail to mention the batteries - no one wants to go back to "Nickel Cadmium"
Great video! These comparisons are fascinating and would love to do one for Canon and Nikon's first and last DSLR's. It's just the latest ones are too expensive to do that on a whim. I do have the first Nikon and Canon proper DSLRs (D1 & D30 from 1999/2000), so I'm half way there :D. It does feel like DSLRs haven't come all that far in 21 years (that's Nikon D1 - D6 period). Some say that mirrorless don't add much over DSLRs, but they have already added far more tangible benefits for me than DSLRs ever did. I love going back to old digital cameras to make me appreciate what I have now, but that is true for even the latest DSLRs to be honest and this video hammers that home to me. I started writing a list of mirrorless benefits just for the EVF, up to 20 so far. The cover for the viewfinder is to stop light leaking btw, only really comes into play with long exposures. I think Nikon have always done that on their pro DSLRs and I got some nasty results without it. You can cover it with a cloth, but it's nice to have it built in. There's another benefit to mirrorless.
I am loving that your main camera is from 2015 and that you're testing something from 11 years earlier than that. I am not a pro, and have no desire to be. I have a now-ancient Sony a99-ii and it's really nice, but I still take pics with a prehistoric Minolta 5D I bought in 2006. The main reason why is that I found that the in-body black-and-white modes are quite incredible in the 5D. It also forces limitations by knowing I'll only be shooting B&W and only at some minor contrast tweaks in-body, so have to focus on the lighting and shadow. But in all honesty it's 6MP output I've been able to print out at 8x10 and can just start to tell it was digital (which actually baffles me). Everyone can now cringe at "in-body eww, shoot raw", but I'm not a pro and don't want to go through all that trouble. I was surprised by the side-by-side of the two. At one point you mention that resolution scale-down of the 50MP may have contributed to the lower sharpness (quickly and in passing), which I will agree. It's a far jump from 50MP->16, if that was how you scaled, and only so much pixel color averaging can happen as you loose pixels in the resize. That was a pretty decent resize function to get it to the end result. I can see your comment on requiring 50MP for shots requiring enlargment/cropping. When I got the a99-ii, that was mainly the reason: to be able to crop down to 20MP to reframe; basically a "super-zoom cheat" or "macrozoom cheat". But really, "useabilitinesses"? Love it! You are my kind of wordsmith.
Great videos! I also use a Milvus 100/2 on my 5DSR. Absolutely a marriage made in heaven! While a fabulous studio kit I’ve used the 5DSR on concert shoots (not with Milvus) and it’s a killer. Set to max ISO 6400, wide open aperture, and adjust shutter speed. No one ever notices noise, just excitement.
That little thing that covers the view finder to keep bleeding light out was replaced by the little rubber piece the comes on your Canon camera straps that you remove the eye piece and slide it on to the viewfinder, I use it when I'm doing long exposure
There seems to be something magical about colour rendition, that the sensors on these older cameras like the EOS 1DS MarkII and the Nikon D700 do, and modern sensors just can't emulate.
I spotted the 1Ds Mk2 because of the old Canon colors. My old 400D and 40D has the same kind of color rendition. The built in cover for the light leaks are in the later 1D series cameras as well. 5D series and some other cheaper models got a rubber piece that you can mount on the camera strap and use to cover the viewfinder if needed. I kinda like the 1D cameras handling when I got used to it. Same layout as my 1V film camera, my favorite Canon camera of all time.
Interesting conversation the only thing I can add to this conversation is about tethering if I’m shooting a catalogue with a client on set We start with tethering to check composition image and color as it’s very important to match garments to what we see on the Monitor, saves time in post, but when I am shooting other projects I generally find I don’t have that issue, I shoot like I did with film and just shoot, and only look at the images on the back of the camera for lighting adjustments, and get my assistance to move the lights which is whole other story! My work is people and fashion so I have my go to setups, (lighting) when on location shooting playmates I like to use my ring light and available daylight!
I think the difference your seeing with editing the the files is the IDS Mark II only has 12 bit color conversion vs the 14 bit color from the 5dsr, making the files better for post production. I’ve never used one but the 16bit files from Phase One etc must take this advantage even further. Thanks for the video mate, great content as always.
i have both cameras... i agree. I wish the 5ds sensor was in the tank built 1ds bodies though... Also i have a 1ds mark iii which is better than the mark ii but not as good as the 5ds.
@@mikepenney5726 I’m surprised they didn’t put that 50mp sensor in a 1DS body. I would like to get a 1DS mark iii, they are fairly cheap now and have the same 14bit files like newer cameras. I completely agree with Scott on this subject, I’ve been using a 5d mk2 for paid work since new 2010, and I’ve never found the image quality lacking in any way, only things lacking are my skills or creativity!
First camera I ever used was a hand-me-down Nikon d70, with a whopping 6MP. Using that camera in 2016 felt antiquated at the time, but sometimes I look back in my archives at some of the shots I got on it... Quite frankly, I was wrong to write it off as having poor image quality. I use Fujifilm for professional work now (product photography mostly) as well as a Leica M5 in my down time (Yes, the 'ugly' one), and I recently picked up a Canon 5D Classic to revisit the experience of using a heavy DSLR. I was quite surprised at how well the images came out of the camera. It's so nice to be able to look through a viewfinder without having to turn the camera on! The colours are especially pleasing to work with and the subtle grain is the best-looking grain on any digital sensor I've used. If I could point out a trend within professional camera technology, it would seem that great image quality on digital sensors peaked in 2004-2005, and now manufacturers mainly focus on quality-of-life features. What else is there to improve? Great video!
Many of the older cameras are certainly usable even today.. but you will find some limitations and frustrations. It's just like how a laptop from 13 years ago will let you get your work done, or how an 8 year old streaming device will still stream content to your TV.. the big difference are the little quality-of-life improvements in them. And with the updates over the years to DSLRs, it's certainly opened up quite a lot more areas of shooting. I have some older Canon DSLRs and shooting at ISO 1600 is essentially unusable. 800 is pushing it. Images become insanely noisy and you lose so much dynamic range compared to a more normal ISO. Nowadays I can shoot at over 100k ISO and still get usable shots in the end. Focusing on a DSLR was very hit-or-miss due to front- or back-focusing issues. Shooting with a Sigma 105mm f1.4? I wouldn't really trust the focus on an older body like that, but with a mirrorless that has constant eye-focus? totally different story. Built in IBIS to give you a slower shutter speed when needed.. a tilting LED screen that lets you shoot from ground-level without actually laying on the ground? Or shoot from above your head without bringing out a ladder? super nice! And then just the ability to shoot at 20+ FPS when you DO need that, or having a minimal buffer to catch up (versus some of my older bodies which might cap at 5-6 photos and then prevent me from shooting for 10 seconds while it catches up). For studio work? Not a big deal.. but any events or action shots? Having that high ISO for when you're shooting an indoor event and need a fast shutter speed in low light? The older cameras worked great back then, and they still work now, but there are so many little quality of life improvements that have really opened up new areas of photography that would have been very difficult to get into back in the day, if not impossible.
To me the big advantage of mirrorless is actually the lenses it seems to open the door for. If, in 2010, you'd told someone that Canon were making a 28-70 f2.0 and a 24-105 f2.8, they'd have laughed at you. Same for the Tamron 35-150 f2 - 2.8, or the Sigma 14mm f1.4, the Lumix 100mm macro that's no bigger than a 50 f1.8 and doesn't move on focus or breathe... it's insane. For studio, I know it doesn't make that much difference, but for weddings and handheld photography, these kinds of lenses are amazing.
I haven’t checked the other comments, meaning I’ll try not to be just “rice again”… but I’d suggest your u try the 5DSR at MRAW… The 5DSR at lower resolutions is the most wonderful thing and the closest to the 5D classic. JPEG or RAW on the 5DSR at medium RAW are just beautiful and have crazy edit flexibility, much better than full resolution. A champion.
Very very interesting. It would be an interesting series if other creators tried doing the same for their field. For example wedding, landscape or wildlife photography.
A very interesting topic. I think it's about building a system that works for whatever type of photography you like/do, be it recreational or client driven. Mirrorless opened up a huge back catalog of lenses and that's a good thing 👍 I'm now able to shoot the same lenses across 35mm film, 35mm digital and mirrorless digital at a sensible (for me) 24 megapixels. 120 medium format is a different consideration and really has to bring something to the party that is unique. For me that's Hasselblad's 500 series with lenses such as 30mm CFI, wide rectilinear lenses and Marco lenses. However. If you crop, why bother with 6x6 medium format at all? A great and thought provoking topic and I hope you explore it with a few more videos 👍
You prove that gear and specs don't matter as much as what marketing and the reviews say. Of course, that statement is limited by the needs and specific conditions of each photographer and each type of photography, but at its core, it shows that situations where it is indispensible to have the latest and greatest (or rather, to update to those latest and greatest, because the gear you show was pretty much the latest and greatest of Canon at the time they came out) are pretty scarce, or at least, much more scarce than marketing would lead one to believe. Love your content, hope you'll continue with many other great videos!
The problem is that still photography as you found out pretty much peaked at the end of the DSLR Era. Mirrorless has always been more about video. There is little to achieve in the stills market which is why the only thing they push is burst rates for action photography. The big thing in mirrorless was and should be size for still photographers, size of the camera and size of the image. If you know how to take a proper image IN CAMERA there really isn't any need for most of the whiz bang advancements. Unless of course your niche is action shots at night of black cats in coal mines.
Mirrorless isn't just about body size - human hands didn't shrink suddenly 10 years ago! Getting rid of the clacky mirror opened up a lot of computational advances to be more easily used. To my mind the biggest advantage of SLR was no battery drain for viewing - but the advances in technology have rendered that as a minor issue.
Completely agree with all of your points. I know it’s not your thing but would love to see you do a video of a walk around camera, Mirrorless vs Slr. Like the only reason I’d go Mirrorless is for weight and size etc.
"They're The Same Picture." -meme I bought a semi-damaged canon powershot s90 and the personality the camera has is amazing to my eyes. The lens is a bit crooked so it has a blur on the left side and if I want a sharper picture I have to press a bit on the lens. However the slight of focus is probably my favourite feature.
I started my career as a 'professional' photographer in the early 90's. I used a Pentax K1000 then Nikon 8008s and eventually a Nikon F100... and a Hassleblad and a Sinar. The build quality of older film cameras was just outrageous. I used a Canon for my first digital SLR (not sure which one) and it just felt like a toy in comparison. However, the Canon took great photos and weighed very little. I bought Nikon (D750) for digital when I dipped back into professional photography 9 or so years ago and it was heavy.. but reliable and the images were very nice. However, I'm back to Canon now because the weight is so much less but more importantly the focus speed. For my age, fitness, time available, etc. the Canon R8 and R10 suit my needs for nature photography and portraits. I have 2 kits and they work extremely well for what I want to do. One day I'll get the R6 mkii but for now, this system does what I need the tool to do. The Nikon couldn't focus anywhere close to the speed of the new Canon. I tested the new Z-mount Nikon and it was better than the F-mount stuff but not close to the Canon or Sony. Sony is probably the best/fastest focus in my experience but I don't get on well with the menus/options.. Same for Nikon. When the tool to take photos gets in the way, it takes a lot of the fun away. Getting the Canon R/mirrorless system has re-invigorated my enthusiasm to shoot again... and that's all that really matters. If a 20-yr-old SLR focused the same way as the new Canon's or Sony's, I'd own them. But they do not...
My 2004 "Pro-Sumer" Bridge camera Minolta A2 8.2 megapixel ESLR. Still using it in 2023. Yes it's nothing compared to what you are showing here. But it still is my favorite camera. With the battery grip it really looks and performs nice. Minolta 28 - 200mm GT lens that is matched to the sensor ( 2/3") CCD. You could say it was a mirrorless camera because it uses an EVF. Trash it if you want, but it will be with me until it Dies!
The Pentax K-1 series FF bodies come with a OVF piece of plastic that you can insert to prevent light leaking for use when doing long exposures. I wish it was built into the body. But absolutely critical on sunny days for landscape photography.
I've been watching a lot of your videos. You're different than the other photographers on CZcams because you speak honestly (I believe) about the job. I've also seen your website and a lot of your work and while I know photography is your job and you might treat it that way, you're still an artist. You won't convince me that the images you've put up on your website were just jobs you did. They mean something to you. I don't think you could develop that style if it was just a job. I would love to see you show us more about what you're doing and what your inspiration is, and I believe you would see a lot more views if you did. Maybe CZcams would start paying more for you. I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this comment. I watched about five or six of your videos yesterday and couldn't remember which one made the most sense for this comment.
Def exhausted fighting the fight about buying the bleeding edge. Even testing the GFX 100s recently I could not justify the price for the slightly expanded feature set for what I do. Always glad to save a buck (or thousands) on only what we need
I believe newer cameras will bring comfort and usability more than features. Maybe 16bit in a 35mm sensor but mostly technology to make shooting quicker and easier, like faster tethering and more usable live view (with better ISOs to do that). But I think we're at the limit in resolution and image quality.
It's interesting to hear your views, similar to mine since I was an advertising photographer for 25 years. I began with film and view cameras to digital. My first full frame digital was the Canon 1Ds ll. I had the Nikon digital in 1999. Thanks for the review, it's always good to hear. I think as far as new gear, it's the amateur photographers that buy all the new stuff, we have to look at return on investment and make sure our work quality is there.
I’d love you to compare a phase one camera with both the Fuji GFX 100 II and also the Hasleblad X2D please. Just to see if the smaller sensors can match the Ph1 details...BTW although you may not need a mirrorless camera in your studio, I am now wedded to the features of a mirrorless viewfinder...zoom in to check focus, focus peaking, focus box colour changes when in focus, live histogram, genuine WYSIWYG. Lots of newer cameras also do pixel shift high resolution shots which can emulate huge files from average sensors. Yes my GAS is going strong (especially while the news is so depressing).
My first DSLR from 2006 was an image quality compromise for a gain in convenience, I even recognized that at the time. My next body from 2012 was amazing. I still use it for studio work. I've upgraded since then, but it was purely for convenience. I wanted the fancy new features, video capabilities, AF, low light performance, etc. At base ISO it's the same image quality as my last one.
The 1 d series all have an eye piece blackout. All the way to current 1DX Mark 3. But I believe you are right, it is something left over from the film era that Cannon just continued.
Great video! I'd love to see you test lower mp cameras against higher res for prints, just say like A2 size, and see what they fare up. Thanks for the vids, cheers. -Jay
I have never used Cannon ( except a S110 and S120 point and shoot- very good I might add ) My Nikon D3 from 2007 is the oldest I have used that would still work today. I had to retire recently due to health problems but I had a D3 for anything that moved fast. I used a D800 in my studio. The D3 had the EP closer as well. It was also a solid piece of camera body that would shoot 1000's of images per battery charge. I did not do any commercial work so probably only the D800 would have been useful for that. I used Nikon mainly because I could shoot 4:5 aspect in camera which made printing 8x10 and 16x20 easier with no cropping usually needed. I was able to use tethered on both. Different USB ends but still can be tethered.
My highest resolution camera is a 1940's 4x5 camera. Nothing electronic on it, it is just a flexible box with a lens on one end and a sheet of film on the other. So, in some sense, resolution has gone backwards in the last 70 years (even more so with 8x10 and larger). Of course with large format, the film cost is not insignificant, but it is still a minor portion of the total cost of a photographic shoot. I think with your Canon 1D Mark II, if you shot just portraits, it is probably every bit as good as the 5DS, since there will be very little (if any) need to crop. I like to shoot wildlife, and hence the 50MP comes in handy for cropping on the 5DS. The main advantage of the modern cameras is usability, but the older cameras (up to a point) are good enough. Even medium format film cameras have great resolution. But the usability is not as good, and you won't know if you got the shot until development and printing is finished. As you say, it depends a lot on the domain. Sports photographers and birders need higher shutter speeds and higher frame rates. So far, I have not made the jump to mirrorless (though I have some toy mirrorless cameras like a Canon M3 and a Sony A5100). I won't jump until I see a real, significant advantage. I doubt it will happen this year.
There are plenty of cameras with a viewfinder shutter (4:50) with a viewfinder shutter;; most are top models like the Canon 1D Mark IV. It might throw off the exposure value of long exposures or leak light on the sensor. Great vid, as always. Mirrorless gives us the ability to see the image as it will look in the picture. You want B&W? the EVF can show it to you as you shoot; is it too dark, the EVF will show you the product with your flash the way you have dialed it in. Also, there is digital zooming, higher Dynamic Range in current sensors that they did not have back in 2003. But tbh, a camera from 2015 for studio is as good as a current mirrorless.
On the split image focus screen: I doubt any of the digital EOS cameras came with that by default. But they are easy to add to basically every full frame EOS DSLR, I got a split image screen for my 5D, 5DII and even my older EOS 1n. And you'll need this for working with any of the f1.2 prime lenses since they all are subject to front- and back focus issues which cannot be fixed in camera with many of the older EOS DSLRs, so the only way to precisely focus them is via auto-focus center point and overriding the focus by manual focus to correct missed focus.
Pretty much what I expected. I have studio shots from a 2002 Canon D60 that still look great, and with great color. That 6 megapixel camera sells nowadays for $40 or so. The files aren't as amenable to strong adjustments, but other than resolution and enhancement limitations, the image quality hasn't changed much in 20 years--at base ISO. Newer cameras can offer lots of OTHER advantages, but you're absolutely right; the new stuff isn't "better" for your purposes; low-ISO image quality is close to identical if the initial exposure is close to correct.
Your observations in this test are identical to what I have seen in the Nikon world. FWIW, I picked your camera by image in each example before you revealed it. Back in 07 and 08, Nikon released the D3, D300, D700 family, first CMOS cameras, I own the first two and will look for a D700 shortly. Their build quality is outstanding in comparison to my still current D850. The early generation cameras have an amazing colour output as displayed by your Canon while the current D850 it almost too accurate. Like you, I primarily shoot studio but have been know to walk around town and out in the bush with my gear. The current D850 has insane resolution for cropping and accurately captures purple tones far better than the early cameras. I think this is due to where that sits in the RGB triangle and the older bodies just didn't quite massage that corner. If I am going to go for a walk with a camera, its always going to be one of the old bodies and some good glass, the 850 stays in the studio. One other thing these old tanks really loved is having colours pushed in camera along with giving very pleasing results by setting WB "incorrectly", as in set to cloudy when its a bright day. Black and white output from the old bodies is orders of magnitude better then the 850 as well, just with less pixels and less scope to edit as you pointed out. You bring up an interesting point about whats next and will anything from here benefit us, my conclusion is probably not. I will with time get a backup 850 but will definitely seek out some of the older models. All the fancy bling adds nothing to my particular workflow and I have 40 years of lens manufacture to choose from on the used market, the Nikon F mount. I sure wish they offered a split screen like Canon did though.
Scott about the cover for the eyepiece every camera from canon got it :D its on the factory strap little rubber "thingy" :) You take out the eyecup from the camera and you cover the eyepiece with that rubber thing on the strap for the long exposures :D not everybody knows that :) in 1ds m2 its just more premium solution for the problem with the switch :D
Btw I had no problems finding out what camera produced what image but it doesnt have anything to do with the image quality :D I just remember that old canon cameras have warmer and more red'ish color science but thats the only thing why I was able to tell
I shoot real estate interiors and i used to use a 5Dmk2 and the best thing i did was get rid of it! Its DR wasnt the best and it would often render banding in the shadows which was problematic and it had a fixed screen which eventually runined my lower back trying to see it. Add to that Canons unwillingness to support me as a new pro photographer because I d8dnt own enough 1D bodies and L lenses. So i switched to Nikon d750 and never looked back. Nikon went out of their way to look after me as a pro with a limited budget and never judged me like anon did! Since then ive owned several nikons and currently shoot with a Z72 and a Z9 and for my line of work they are both invaluable. The Z9 has enough benefits for me that outweigh the initial cost and for me its a forever camera. I admire the penny pinching and i do it myself within reason but i think it has definite limits for many photographers. For me i couldve purchased a D850 which is the pinnacle nikon DSLR but i went into mirrorless because the new lenses they were making were juat better in almost every way so i decided to invest in my future and in gear that would be supported going forward. Is that a fair rendering of the other side of the argument?
Split screen with microprism matte is not standard for this camera. I suppose standard focusing screen ( Ec-C III Original Laser-Matte) was replaced with this split screen (Ec-B).
This is yet another amazing video, with my favourite camera the 1dxsmkii. Would you consider changing the title to include something like 1ds mkii vs the 5dsr ?
My wish list for mirrorless: since the old DSLR lenses are destined for the landfill (eventually), just abandon the 35mm sensor. Set the "Medium format" sized sensor as the standard, give us a physically larger camera, and since the view finder isn't optical, just get rid of it, and maximize the size of the LCD. A 3" x 2" LCD (or bigger) sure would be nice...to hell with it....just give me a large format digital camera so I can go back to using a loupe to focus my compositions.
For what I do mirrorless brings an interesting set of tools not available as such on DSLRs. However, that doesn't mean I've ditched my DSLR, on the contrary.
Its why I bought a A$400 D700 with only 12k clicks on it. and a NEW 50mm f1.8 D lens for A$140. For my work, I shoot fashion and glamour. It's all about the skin tones and colours and the way the older design lens renders the files. As one famous photographer said of a new Sony kit for $5000, its a great photocopier. The biggest my images would be printed is A3 and thats double page spread.
Well done. The photographer that matters so much more than the gear. Oh and you can't really compare the rendering of the LED lights under your sofa. Such LED light strips typically pulse Red/Green/Blue LEDs. The color rendition in the image will depend on when and for how long the shutter remained open. I suspect that if you repeat the experiment, taking multiple images with the same camera, you'd get different hues of blue and purple.
I was surprised to see the better colour rendition on the 1Ds II. The sharpness is probably the stronger high pass filter on the 1Ds II at a guess. Dynamic range should be close, since the pixel size for 16mp allows for better DR than that on a 50mp DSLR. Sure, sensel tech will help somewhat, but I highly doubt that it can make up for the pixel size differential between the 2 cameras. You could still tether the 1Ds II with an older laptop running say a 32 bit version of windows Vista and an older version of say, C1 Pro, where the laptop also has a physical Firewire port. You could still easily get your images off the camera and if you were really desparate to have the latest and greatest processing software, once you have the images off the tethering computer, you could transfer them to another more modern computer with the latest versions of C1 pro and Lightroom CC etc. The main driver for DSLRs over the past near 20 years has been the megapixel pissing contest war. Improvements in camera UI have been welcome, and there have been some newer featuers on newer cameras that are helpful to photographers that are lacking in the older 1st generation DSLrs. I still have my 4mp CCD 1D. You'll be prising it from my cold dead hands. IQ from that CCD sensor is unequalled from any modern Canon camera imho, although the current flagship R3 does come close imho. I found the 8mp 1D Mark IIn (which I foolishly sold my 1D for back in 2007) to have inferior IQ to the original 1D. I have never been happy with CMOS IQ until the R3 (having also used a Canon D60, 60D and 7D II). And, I am not referring to high ISO noise when I say "IQ". I know of several pro photographers who say the very same thing as I do - that the 4mp CCD sensor of the 1D was superior.
The AF in more or less modern mirrorless (like my canon eos r, 2018 model) I have to say that is way better than any SLR or DSLR AF. Not for every situation, ofc, but the general balance is that is faster, better and easier to use. I'm curious about R3 with the eye selection system.
The 5DsR will go to 12800 ISO. In studio I have shot upto 400 ( thank you light eating optical snoot) and upto ISO 6400 for wedding work. It's fine for each use case IMO. Before I went 5DsR I almost moved to 1Ds Mark III bodies which for me were tank versions of the 5DII with better AF anD 2 card slots. Glad I went 5DsR personally. Whilst mirrorless is the future I have no desire spend money to switch, don't really consider it much of an upgrade for the ££ I woold need to spend so not happening.
My only pro level cameras are old cameras, mostly film, but I also have a Canon EOS 5 Classic as they are now referred to. As far as modern DSLR cameras go, my best is the Canon EOS 90D. It definitely has a lot of limitations and is not at all a professional level camera. However, I used it on New Years Eve almost 1½ years ago to shoot long exposure fireworks shots. Shooting from a balcony, I had to keep the tripod relatively low to be able to get the upwards angle without getting the balcony above us in my frame. Looking through the viewfinder was impossible on the narrow balcony, so the articulating rear screen was invaluable in that situation. From the various reviews I have watched and read, I would expect high ISO performance and dynamic range to be areas, where DSLR cameras have improved a lot over the years. Looking at enthusiast and beginner level cameras, that is probably a lot more pronounced than in the top tier professional cameras. But the biggest differences can be seen in digital photography in general - not necessarily in DSLR cameras.
Well sitting on the shelf behind me I have a pair of 1998 Canon EOS DCS520's (alas not working batteries) & a pair Canon 5D Mark iii's. Only 14 years separates the 2 cameras, but the respective performances are on a different planet..
Great video!!! Seriously bravo! Very helpful indeed. I have a 1Ds Mkiii and the colors are just amazing to me. The images are just great. I can still shoot tethered too. Build quality is outstanding and it fits my big hands. It is my number 2 camera mostly. Because, I also have a 5D mkIV. My findings are similar not quite as sharp overall but it is faster. The files are fantastic and are much more maleable in Lightroom. For my work I oferten need more low light so more ISO sensitivity is good. The 5DIV feels great in the hand I use the battery grip. The colors are certainly slightly different. With the 1Ds MkIii more realistic yet a bit more vibrant. Moving forwards I don’t know if the R3 or R5 are truly “better” right now.
Nikon d850 is so much more pleasure to use compared to d700 🤪 Leica Monochrom is like walking on heaven )) Marketing works nice on me. Hopefully my passion for new gear has run dry and I think most of us go thru this period... some go in circles haha
I honestly don't think there's much left in the 35mm sensor when it comes to resolution. Bit depth maybe, but not much left in it. I think we will see more advancements in the ability to correct files in post sure, but everything else will stay the same or similar from here. I'm sure medium format will see much larger advances as time goes on and as the technology becomes "cheaper". Mirrorless I think will help other forms of photography. The studio photographer however will only end up going back to what they like to use and the equipment they know will get the job done.
If I understood correctly, you used different lenses for the shots with each body. Lens affects the color a lot so if you want a fair comparison between bodies, you need to use the same lens. I tried it with my Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses and it seems that Zeiss saturates blues and Voigtländer saturates warmer colors more than the other. It was visible in the RGB histograms and just by looking at the images.
@@TinHouseStudioUK My mistake. Good comparison. Color science of digital bodies have been changing over the years at least for Sony mirrorless. I don’t know if it’s going towards accuracy or towards something that the loudest people on SOME are asking for. Tony Northrup made a blind test maybe one or two years ago about the color science of different camera brands and the results were intresting.
@tinhousestudiouk On the off chance no one else mentioned this before me…. Modern DSLRs actually do still have that viewfinder blackout feature! It’s done differently now… ever notice that weird square rubber thing on the camera strap that comes with your DSLR? Pop off the removable rubber eye cup on your camera and slide the rubber thing on and voila! (I know this is at least true on all the canon canon dslrs ive owned over the years 5D MK II, III, IV, 6D, 7D…) 👍
I have a Canon 1D MkII N. The D version, not the Ds, so APS-H sensor (1.3x). Fast shutter (or at least it WAS fast in its time) but only 8.2MP. To your question about the split screen.. at least the 1D-non-s version does not have the split screen as a standard. It was also curious to see that the 1Ds can take pictures at 800 or 1600 ISO and they still look nice; when I have taken photos with the 1D-non-s at ISO800... let us say the photos looked like a paella :D
Just found your channel and enjoy your video style. However, looking at 14:53 in the filmstriip the right side shows no dev. adjustments made so no WB adj.
Can you make a vid about the split screen focus? Would love to see how it works. would be a super addition because i miss 99,9% of the time when i use manual focus. Can't realy see it on my A7R5.
Colours definitely better on the 1d for me. I saw another comparison video between a 5dmk ii or iii and an Eos R, and the 5d had better colour too. Maybe Canon are losing their colour 'science' over time as they progress in other areas?
- split screen focus assistant - never saw that on any DSLR, but I know that there were options to mod your camera to have one. I would guess its modded (maybe some owner of unmodified 1D II can confirm?) - curtain on viewfinder - all my DSLRs have one, they activate when switched to life view (button on Nikon camera or switch on Sony) - build quality - Its not really fair to compare 1D with 5D, thats not 23 years progress, thats different class of camera - quality - well, 1D have better colours yes, 5D have noticably better dynamic range and color depth, just color calibration isnt as good. You edit them post when shooting professionally anyway so maybe because of that color accuracy went out of the focus of manufacturers... There was actually progress in quality back then those 20-10years ago, but if you look at sensor tests (DXOMark tests) there is no real progress in image quality in last 10 years other than Sony catched up with Nikon on dynamic range (but only after going mirrorless)... And there are increases in resolution. Althought I think concidering details and file size around 45MPx for fullframe is a sweetspot, which is also around for some 8 years. Other than that I'd say progress in general (not just DSLR) is all just faster better autofocus especially for moving targets and faster shooting (if you arent doing sport or wildlife its important otherwise not so much) and more video (completely meh)... And then all the assists for manual focus with EVF, thats actually great progress on SLT/mirrorless camera.
You mentioned not being able to tether your old camera, I bet you can tether it still if you bought a capture card for a desktop computer. Those are magical. 😂. I forget which one most people like, but there are some youtube videos on that.
Come and join our friendly Facebook community facebook.com/groups/1893064874281393
It's really crazy that some lens designs have been so good since the '70s.... Cameras keep improving slowly and lenses, in my inexperienced opinion, capped out a long time ago.
you educated me my friend (still got me Mk 2 AND me 50d) Diamond cams matey) Got me mark 3 as well (with a bad L lens) (Old skool lenses Like RE auto topcor on me mk3 (cant do that) I did).. Hey all I did was take the right pic at the right time.. Thankyou matey for educating me. Have a good week (RB26-DETT)... Obviously I am a mechanic.. Fed up skinning me knucles everyday for nothing so now I'm going to think smart. Hey I've got the original Takumar f"2 10 blade and me Jupiter is so sharp I traumatise the subject (I cant do pores) Anywayway just wanted to thank you for a good vid. Peteeboy Irish : )
The local High school has all the senior photos from every class since the 1930's. You can tell when it went from film to digital in the early 2000's. The quality didn't get back to the film quality level till about 2010.
But it all depends how you define quality. Is it contrast, the maximum print size you can achieve, dynamic range? One thing where digital has been better almost since the beginning is reproducibility. Try taking and developing the same picture multiple times on film. There is no way. Surely it's possible to some extent, otherwise there would be no movies shot on color film.
@barelyillegal also on high ISO? I wouldn't agree about colors but that's subjective.
Now let’s go the other way. Same tests but 5DSR vs R5.
50MP slug fest!
@barelyillegal I never liked the grain of most high ISO films so much. Although the colorful noise on CCD sensors wasn't so pleasant either. Now I can crank up to like 12K and it still looks better than ISO 200 was 20 years ago :D
I remember Canon EOS 5d Mark II to be the first good DSLR in 2010 or so. I definitely wanted one and use it with Zeiss "Zebras" 35, 50 and 135mm. I still own the conversion ring, but now I am very much invested into Olympus gear.
What started to happen in early 2000s was that fotolabs were using scans and prints, so the quality of film process degraded due to this. it took me five more years to get a digital camera I really liked to use. And it was Olympus OMD EM10.
Preemptive comment before watching: I love your message that discourages gear chasing and camera fanboyism. Ultimately I think people worry too much about cameras and it can be destructive. Your message of saying that there hasn’t been much improvement over the years encourages people (including me) to stop worrying about their old cameras and worry about what actually matters: creating.
Think it this way: did people just sit on their hands 20 years ago because they didn't have the gear?
@@hbp_ Not 20 years but maybe 5 or 6 years. I diverged from professional photography in 2014. I’ve been reluctant to get back into it because my camera is a GH3 and I felt like my gear was inferior. But last month I said eff it and started making pictures again with great results.
That's... Dude already had seriously high end equipment. It's more like he spent so much that there isn't anywhere where to improve.
@@MJ-uk6lu you’re very mistaken…he’s using a canon 5dsr which you can buy used for 1000 dollars…
@@Anityamedia To most people that's already a lot of money and that's a nice DLSR still.
For me mirrorless brings greater use ability, useful built in tools, and more headroom for editing, also easier to use with manual lenses. I always buy the sweet spot camera in the range one without the headline grabbing specs that you never need, then use it until it fails.
@4:33 The shutter for the view finder, was on newer cameras actually just replace with a rubber cover sitting on the strap (you find it on alle canon straps) that you can slide on the rails where the eyepiece is attached once you've removed that. The purpose is to avoid false light in daylight long exposure shots with strong neutral density filters.
The shutter blind in older SLRs is there to prevent light coming through the viewfinder from affecting the light meter. It’s for when you have the camera on a tripod and use any auto exposure mode and take the photo without your eye to the viewfinder. Not an issue if you set up the shot using manual mode with your eye to the viewfinder. Canon used to supply a separate cover that I think was part of the strap that would slide over the viewfinder in models without a built-in blind.
Yeah my little 200d has a rubber cover on the strap, to be honest after recently starting to use nd filters and reading about this I've found it makes absolutely no difference on or off when shooting in live view. And because i never knew about it prior to getting filters i also tested it whilst shooting without any as i had always done for landscapes, and still found no difference and nor was there when not shooting in live view.
I did correctly guess the 1Ds II shots. I do own one, and using a B+W c-pol really makes this body shine. I’m used to the punchy colors and lack of contrast, but if you really want both, the 1Ds III is the way to go.
Very informative. I would love to see how a 5D classic would compare. Obviously not a candidate for your studio work at 12.5MP but would love to see how it performed on color and rendition. I have huge respect for the designers of early digital cameras. They were truly innovators and probably had a great time constantly improving the technology and the features.
I have both the classic and the 5 DSR. There is no camera in this world that comes closer to the 5D than the 5DSR. Both deliver mesmorising images
@@AntonioCravo Very interesting. What cameras have you compared? I've heard the 6D (classic?) Is also pretty nice for colours compared to most. I do have the 5D classic also. I was tempted to go for an old 1ds for the pro body, but a 5dsr in a few years feels like it would be a steal for landscape photography that I still like to do on 6x9cm film.
@@mikafoxx2717 being honest… the 5D classic, hardly finds a match… beauuutiful images come out that “black magnesium box”. There is one thing I miss… the EF mount is kinky with regards to adapt FD glass. I’m using m43 only because of FDs. I find that the 5DSR is the only one closest to the 5D.. the others are just nice, of course the head behind the camera does it all… but the 5D really has a life of it’s own
@@AntonioCravo I think the 1ds mk ii is the same gen sensor and electronics as 5D, but 16 megapixels, it's gonna have a similar rendering. The 6d has its own great and similar look. The Nikon D700 is renowned for its colors. So there's at least a few legends of color. I'd say my 10.2mp CCD pentax k10d is also excellent with colours, possibly even better.
@@mikafoxx2717 hi… I’m not convinced it’s all about sensors… it seems to me is more about light metering… off course I’m curious about other perspectives and gear… and I’d say the best photographs could’ve been shot with about any other gear regardless the brands… but honestly… a 5D shot is mesmorizing.
I have very nice photos shot with other gear none of it makes me stop in time like the 5D light… I’d say the 5D family has its own pedigree. But the 5D … huuum, delicious.
Also to say, I’m a man of “stills” I’m not interested in video features and crazy buffering etc… I could go for a Leica, and I might… but I don’t believe it will have the throne
Great video… blown away by the performance of the 1D. Hand is rapidly sliding towards eBay!
I really appreciate that you point out that high megapixel and high bit depth is a necessity for post-production work as opposed to "what you can print". So many print reviews seem to be coming from a (in my opinion) amateur perspective of trying to prove you can print a 16 MP image (or similar) and showing that it "works".
When you said that clients will want to "punch in" as a "last minute creative idea" my ears perked up. That kind of thing sounds exactly like all my interactions with almost any customer. It also sounds like the kind of thing where if you say "no" and someone else can say "yes" you'll find you start losing long term customers because you're affecting their creative requirements. It's really interesting hearing these little tidbits of professional wisdom that bring out the subtleties of why manufacturers didn't just stick with a 24 MP sensor and call it a day. These 50+ MP sensors exist because professional product photography uses them and for good reasons.
For those thinking I'm "chasing the gear dragon" please bear in mind, I do wildlife photography on a used Canon 7D mark II DSLR with a 20 MP sensor. I just find it interesting that for certain scenarios, certain specifications matter a lot. It's vital to figure out what you really need and stay focused on acquiring only that and spending the rest of your time honing your craft.
Fantastic content. Please consider adding the camera model designations in the video title, so that your video would come up in utube search. I bought the original 1Ds mark 1 two years ago and was so enamored by that camera range that I added the m2 and m3 to my collection recently. Your video would come in handy to widen the practical horizons.
fantastic video, It's great to finally hear someone talking sense. love the side by side images - I can't tell the difference between them. I own and use both these cameras - you did fail to mention the batteries - no one wants to go back to "Nickel Cadmium"
Great video! These comparisons are fascinating and would love to do one for Canon and Nikon's first and last DSLR's. It's just the latest ones are too expensive to do that on a whim. I do have the first Nikon and Canon proper DSLRs (D1 & D30 from 1999/2000), so I'm half way there :D. It does feel like DSLRs haven't come all that far in 21 years (that's Nikon D1 - D6 period). Some say that mirrorless don't add much over DSLRs, but they have already added far more tangible benefits for me than DSLRs ever did. I love going back to old digital cameras to make me appreciate what I have now, but that is true for even the latest DSLRs to be honest and this video hammers that home to me. I started writing a list of mirrorless benefits just for the EVF, up to 20 so far.
The cover for the viewfinder is to stop light leaking btw, only really comes into play with long exposures. I think Nikon have always done that on their pro DSLRs and I got some nasty results without it. You can cover it with a cloth, but it's nice to have it built in. There's another benefit to mirrorless.
I am loving that your main camera is from 2015 and that you're testing something from 11 years earlier than that. I am not a pro, and have no desire to be. I have a now-ancient Sony a99-ii and it's really nice, but I still take pics with a prehistoric Minolta 5D I bought in 2006. The main reason why is that I found that the in-body black-and-white modes are quite incredible in the 5D. It also forces limitations by knowing I'll only be shooting B&W and only at some minor contrast tweaks in-body, so have to focus on the lighting and shadow. But in all honesty it's 6MP output I've been able to print out at 8x10 and can just start to tell it was digital (which actually baffles me). Everyone can now cringe at "in-body eww, shoot raw", but I'm not a pro and don't want to go through all that trouble.
I was surprised by the side-by-side of the two. At one point you mention that resolution scale-down of the 50MP may have contributed to the lower sharpness (quickly and in passing), which I will agree. It's a far jump from 50MP->16, if that was how you scaled, and only so much pixel color averaging can happen as you loose pixels in the resize. That was a pretty decent resize function to get it to the end result.
I can see your comment on requiring 50MP for shots requiring enlargment/cropping. When I got the a99-ii, that was mainly the reason: to be able to crop down to 20MP to reframe; basically a "super-zoom cheat" or "macrozoom cheat".
But really, "useabilitinesses"? Love it! You are my kind of wordsmith.
Thank you for taking the time and having the patience to do this and to properly teach this. I owe you a beer!
The split screen focusing is a must have. Same with the eyepiece shutter for when doing long exposure infrared photography during daylight hours.
Great videos! I also use a Milvus 100/2 on my 5DSR. Absolutely a marriage made in heaven! While a fabulous studio kit I’ve used the 5DSR on concert shoots (not with Milvus) and it’s a killer. Set to max ISO 6400, wide open aperture, and adjust shutter speed. No one ever notices noise, just excitement.
That little thing that covers the view finder to keep bleeding light out was replaced by the little rubber piece the comes on your Canon camera straps that you remove the eye piece and slide it on to the viewfinder, I use it when I'm doing long exposure
There seems to be something magical about colour rendition, that the sensors on these older cameras like the EOS 1DS MarkII and the Nikon D700 do, and modern sensors just can't emulate.
I spotted the 1Ds Mk2 because of the old Canon colors. My old 400D and 40D has the same kind of color rendition.
The built in cover for the light leaks are in the later 1D series cameras as well. 5D series and some other cheaper models got a rubber piece that you can mount on the camera strap and use to cover the viewfinder if needed.
I kinda like the 1D cameras handling when I got used to it. Same layout as my 1V film camera, my favorite Canon camera of all time.
Interesting conversation the only thing I can add to this conversation is about tethering if I’m shooting a catalogue with a client on set We start with tethering to check composition image and color as it’s very important to match garments to what we see on the Monitor, saves time in post, but when I am shooting other projects I generally find I don’t have that issue, I shoot like I did with film and just shoot, and only look at the images on the back of the camera for lighting adjustments, and get my assistance to move the lights which is whole other story! My work is people and fashion so I have my go to setups, (lighting) when on location shooting playmates I like to use my ring light and available daylight!
I think the difference your seeing with editing the the files is the IDS Mark II only has 12 bit color conversion vs the 14 bit color from the 5dsr, making the files better for post production. I’ve never used one but the 16bit files from Phase One etc must take this advantage even further.
Thanks for the video mate, great content as always.
i have both cameras... i agree. I wish the 5ds sensor was in the tank built 1ds bodies though... Also i have a 1ds mark iii which is better than the mark ii but not as good as the 5ds.
@@mikepenney5726 I’m surprised they didn’t put that 50mp sensor in a 1DS body.
I would like to get a 1DS mark iii, they are fairly cheap now and have the same 14bit files like newer cameras.
I completely agree with Scott on this subject, I’ve been using a 5d mk2 for paid work since new 2010, and I’ve never found the image quality lacking in any way, only things lacking are my skills or creativity!
What a phenomenal video, the past few weeks you've became my hero/mentor
First camera I ever used was a hand-me-down Nikon d70, with a whopping 6MP. Using that camera in 2016 felt antiquated at the time, but sometimes I look back in my archives at some of the shots I got on it... Quite frankly, I was wrong to write it off as having poor image quality. I use Fujifilm for professional work now (product photography mostly) as well as a Leica M5 in my down time (Yes, the 'ugly' one), and I recently picked up a Canon 5D Classic to revisit the experience of using a heavy DSLR.
I was quite surprised at how well the images came out of the camera. It's so nice to be able to look through a viewfinder without having to turn the camera on! The colours are especially pleasing to work with and the subtle grain is the best-looking grain on any digital sensor I've used.
If I could point out a trend within professional camera technology, it would seem that great image quality on digital sensors peaked in 2004-2005, and now manufacturers mainly focus on quality-of-life features. What else is there to improve?
Great video!
I loved my old d70 and there are times when I wish I still had it. Simple and fun, and I sold a lot of stock images out of that camera.
Many of the older cameras are certainly usable even today.. but you will find some limitations and frustrations. It's just like how a laptop from 13 years ago will let you get your work done, or how an 8 year old streaming device will still stream content to your TV.. the big difference are the little quality-of-life improvements in them. And with the updates over the years to DSLRs, it's certainly opened up quite a lot more areas of shooting.
I have some older Canon DSLRs and shooting at ISO 1600 is essentially unusable. 800 is pushing it. Images become insanely noisy and you lose so much dynamic range compared to a more normal ISO. Nowadays I can shoot at over 100k ISO and still get usable shots in the end. Focusing on a DSLR was very hit-or-miss due to front- or back-focusing issues. Shooting with a Sigma 105mm f1.4? I wouldn't really trust the focus on an older body like that, but with a mirrorless that has constant eye-focus? totally different story. Built in IBIS to give you a slower shutter speed when needed.. a tilting LED screen that lets you shoot from ground-level without actually laying on the ground? Or shoot from above your head without bringing out a ladder? super nice! And then just the ability to shoot at 20+ FPS when you DO need that, or having a minimal buffer to catch up (versus some of my older bodies which might cap at 5-6 photos and then prevent me from shooting for 10 seconds while it catches up). For studio work? Not a big deal.. but any events or action shots? Having that high ISO for when you're shooting an indoor event and need a fast shutter speed in low light?
The older cameras worked great back then, and they still work now, but there are so many little quality of life improvements that have really opened up new areas of photography that would have been very difficult to get into back in the day, if not impossible.
To me the big advantage of mirrorless is actually the lenses it seems to open the door for. If, in 2010, you'd told someone that Canon were making a 28-70 f2.0 and a 24-105 f2.8, they'd have laughed at you. Same for the Tamron 35-150 f2 - 2.8, or the Sigma 14mm f1.4, the Lumix 100mm macro that's no bigger than a 50 f1.8 and doesn't move on focus or breathe... it's insane.
For studio, I know it doesn't make that much difference, but for weddings and handheld photography, these kinds of lenses are amazing.
The shutter blind was particularly important in long exposures where any light coming from the viewfinder would ruin the shot.
Great Vid, well done. I have noticed the build quality come down over the years.
I haven’t checked the other comments, meaning I’ll try not to be just “rice again”… but I’d suggest your u try the 5DSR at MRAW…
The 5DSR at lower resolutions is the most wonderful thing and the closest to the 5D classic.
JPEG or RAW on the 5DSR at medium RAW are just beautiful and have crazy edit flexibility, much better than full resolution.
A champion.
Very very interesting. It would be an interesting series if other creators tried doing the same for their field. For example wedding, landscape or wildlife photography.
A very interesting topic.
I think it's about building a system that works for whatever type of photography you like/do, be it recreational or client driven.
Mirrorless opened up a huge back catalog of lenses and that's a good thing 👍
I'm now able to shoot the same lenses across 35mm film, 35mm digital and mirrorless digital at a sensible (for me) 24 megapixels.
120 medium format is a different consideration and really has to bring something to the party that is unique. For me that's Hasselblad's 500 series with lenses such as 30mm CFI, wide rectilinear lenses and Marco lenses.
However. If you crop, why bother with 6x6 medium format at all?
A great and thought provoking topic and I hope you explore it with a few more videos 👍
5:03 canons have a viewfinder block out rubber on the neck strap. Took me years to figure out what it was for 😂
You prove that gear and specs don't matter as much as what marketing and the reviews say. Of course, that statement is limited by the needs and specific conditions of each photographer and each type of photography, but at its core, it shows that situations where it is indispensible to have the latest and greatest (or rather, to update to those latest and greatest, because the gear you show was pretty much the latest and greatest of Canon at the time they came out) are pretty scarce, or at least, much more scarce than marketing would lead one to believe.
Love your content, hope you'll continue with many other great videos!
The problem is that still photography as you found out pretty much peaked at the end of the DSLR Era. Mirrorless has always been more about video. There is little to achieve in the stills market which is why the only thing they push is burst rates for action photography. The big thing in mirrorless was and should be size for still photographers, size of the camera and size of the image. If you know how to take a proper image IN CAMERA there really isn't any need for most of the whiz bang advancements. Unless of course your niche is action shots at night of black cats in coal mines.
Mirrorless isn't just about body size - human hands didn't shrink suddenly 10 years ago! Getting rid of the clacky mirror opened up a lot of computational advances to be more easily used. To my mind the biggest advantage of SLR was no battery drain for viewing - but the advances in technology have rendered that as a minor issue.
Your honesty is a lone fish in a sea of gear pushers 😂😂😂
Those milvus lenses are so damn gorgeous in their design
Completely agree with all of your points. I know it’s not your thing but would love to see you do a video of a walk around camera, Mirrorless vs Slr. Like the only reason I’d go Mirrorless is for weight and size etc.
"They're The Same Picture." -meme
I bought a semi-damaged canon powershot s90 and the personality the camera has is amazing to my eyes. The lens is a bit crooked so it has a blur on the left side and if I want a sharper picture I have to press a bit on the lens. However the slight of focus is probably my favourite feature.
I started my career as a 'professional' photographer in the early 90's. I used a Pentax K1000 then Nikon 8008s and eventually a Nikon F100... and a Hassleblad and a Sinar. The build quality of older film cameras was just outrageous. I used a Canon for my first digital SLR (not sure which one) and it just felt like a toy in comparison. However, the Canon took great photos and weighed very little.
I bought Nikon (D750) for digital when I dipped back into professional photography 9 or so years ago and it was heavy.. but reliable and the images were very nice. However, I'm back to Canon now because the weight is so much less but more importantly the focus speed. For my age, fitness, time available, etc. the Canon R8 and R10 suit my needs for nature photography and portraits. I have 2 kits and they work extremely well for what I want to do. One day I'll get the R6 mkii but for now, this system does what I need the tool to do. The Nikon couldn't focus anywhere close to the speed of the new Canon. I tested the new Z-mount Nikon and it was better than the F-mount stuff but not close to the Canon or Sony. Sony is probably the best/fastest focus in my experience but I don't get on well with the menus/options.. Same for Nikon. When the tool to take photos gets in the way, it takes a lot of the fun away.
Getting the Canon R/mirrorless system has re-invigorated my enthusiasm to shoot again... and that's all that really matters. If a 20-yr-old SLR focused the same way as the new Canon's or Sony's, I'd own them. But they do not...
im using my 5dmkii as parts to repair other cameras that need to be fixed. I now photograph on 2 Canon R5 systems and been happy with it so far
My 2004 "Pro-Sumer" Bridge camera Minolta A2 8.2 megapixel ESLR. Still using it in 2023. Yes it's nothing compared to what you are showing here. But it still is my favorite camera. With the battery grip it really looks and performs nice. Minolta 28 - 200mm GT lens that is matched to the sensor ( 2/3") CCD. You could say it was a mirrorless camera because it uses an EVF. Trash it if you want, but it will be with me until it Dies!
The Pentax K-1 series FF bodies come with a OVF piece of plastic that you can insert to prevent light leaking for use when doing long exposures. I wish it was built into the body. But absolutely critical on sunny days for landscape photography.
I've been watching a lot of your videos. You're different than the other photographers on CZcams because you speak honestly (I believe) about the job. I've also seen your website and a lot of your work and while I know photography is your job and you might treat it that way, you're still an artist. You won't convince me that the images you've put up on your website were just jobs you did. They mean something to you. I don't think you could develop that style if it was just a job. I would love to see you show us more about what you're doing and what your inspiration is, and I believe you would see a lot more views if you did. Maybe CZcams would start paying more for you. I'm sorry if this is the wrong place for this comment. I watched about five or six of your videos yesterday and couldn't remember which one made the most sense for this comment.
Def exhausted fighting the fight about buying the bleeding edge. Even testing the GFX 100s recently I could not justify the price for the slightly expanded feature set for what I do. Always glad to save a buck (or thousands) on only what we need
I believe newer cameras will bring comfort and usability more than features. Maybe 16bit in a 35mm sensor but mostly technology to make shooting quicker and easier, like faster tethering and more usable live view (with better ISOs to do that). But I think we're at the limit in resolution and image quality.
It's interesting to hear your views, similar to mine since I was an advertising photographer for 25 years. I began with film and view cameras to digital. My first full frame digital was the Canon 1Ds ll. I had the Nikon digital in 1999. Thanks for the review, it's always good to hear. I think as far as new gear, it's the amateur photographers that buy all the new stuff, we have to look at return on investment and make sure our work quality is there.
I love the older dslrs, especially the Pentax ones. But I'm also reaching for my Sony Alpha 7C more and more often because it's so small and light.
Great video, thank you. There is an eyepiece blind on my Nikon D700, use it for long exposures and pinhole pictures.
I’d love you to compare a phase one camera with both the Fuji GFX 100 II and also the Hasleblad X2D please. Just to see if the smaller sensors can match the Ph1 details...BTW although you may not need a mirrorless camera in your studio, I am now wedded to the features of a mirrorless viewfinder...zoom in to check focus, focus peaking, focus box colour changes when in focus, live histogram, genuine WYSIWYG. Lots of newer cameras also do pixel shift high resolution shots which can emulate huge files from average sensors. Yes my GAS is going strong (especially while the news is so depressing).
My first DSLR from 2006 was an image quality compromise for a gain in convenience, I even recognized that at the time.
My next body from 2012 was amazing. I still use it for studio work.
I've upgraded since then, but it was purely for convenience. I wanted the fancy new features, video capabilities, AF, low light performance, etc. At base ISO it's the same image quality as my last one.
The 5DS R is a beast, would very much like to see it against your 5D mark II though. Cheers.
Very interesting. Thanks very much.
The 1 d series all have an eye piece blackout. All the way to current 1DX Mark 3. But I believe you are right, it is something left over from the film era that Cannon just continued.
Great video! I'd love to see you test lower mp cameras against higher res for prints, just say like A2 size, and see what they fare up. Thanks for the vids, cheers. -Jay
The colour thing is literally a physics matter. The lower resolution a sensor of the same size is, the better the colour due to more light etc.
Ooh get you Scott, like a real CZcamsr! Actually, bloody enjoyed this video! 🙌
I have a Nikon D810. It has a viewfinder curtain to keep stray light from falling on the metering sensor. The D810 was released in 2014.
I have never used Cannon ( except a S110 and S120 point and shoot- very good I might add ) My Nikon D3 from 2007 is the oldest I have used that would still work today. I had to retire recently due to health problems but I had a D3 for anything that moved fast. I used a D800 in my studio. The D3 had the EP closer as well. It was also a solid piece of camera body that would shoot 1000's of images per battery charge. I did not do any commercial work so probably only the D800 would have been useful for that. I used Nikon mainly because I could shoot 4:5 aspect in camera which made printing 8x10 and 16x20 easier with no cropping usually needed.
I was able to use tethered on both. Different USB ends but still can be tethered.
Oddly i still cover the view prism with black tape on v long exposure
My highest resolution camera is a 1940's 4x5 camera. Nothing electronic on it, it is just a flexible box with a lens on one end and a sheet of film on the other. So, in some sense, resolution has gone backwards in the last 70 years (even more so with 8x10 and larger). Of course with large format, the film cost is not insignificant, but it is still a minor portion of the total cost of a photographic shoot. I think with your Canon 1D Mark II, if you shot just portraits, it is probably every bit as good as the 5DS, since there will be very little (if any) need to crop. I like to shoot wildlife, and hence the 50MP comes in handy for cropping on the 5DS. The main advantage of the modern cameras is usability, but the older cameras (up to a point) are good enough. Even medium format film cameras have great resolution. But the usability is not as good, and you won't know if you got the shot until development and printing is finished. As you say, it depends a lot on the domain. Sports photographers and birders need higher shutter speeds and higher frame rates. So far, I have not made the jump to mirrorless (though I have some toy mirrorless cameras like a Canon M3 and a Sony A5100). I won't jump until I see a real, significant advantage. I doubt it will happen this year.
There are plenty of cameras with a viewfinder shutter (4:50) with a viewfinder shutter;; most are top models like the Canon 1D Mark IV. It might throw off the exposure value of long exposures or leak light on the sensor. Great vid, as always.
Mirrorless gives us the ability to see the image as it will look in the picture. You want B&W? the EVF can show it to you as you shoot; is it too dark, the EVF will show you the product with your flash the way you have dialed it in. Also, there is digital zooming, higher Dynamic Range in current sensors that they did not have back in 2003. But tbh, a camera from 2015 for studio is as good as a current mirrorless.
My D850 has black out over the eye piece
On the split image focus screen: I doubt any of the digital EOS cameras came with that by default. But they are easy to add to basically every full frame EOS DSLR, I got a split image screen for my 5D, 5DII and even my older EOS 1n. And you'll need this for working with any of the f1.2 prime lenses since they all are subject to front- and back focus issues which cannot be fixed in camera with many of the older EOS DSLRs, so the only way to precisely focus them is via auto-focus center point and overriding the focus by manual focus to correct missed focus.
Pretty much what I expected. I have studio shots from a 2002 Canon D60 that still look great, and with great color. That 6 megapixel camera sells nowadays for $40 or so. The files aren't as amenable to strong adjustments, but other than resolution and enhancement limitations, the image quality hasn't changed much in 20 years--at base ISO.
Newer cameras can offer lots of OTHER advantages, but you're absolutely right; the new stuff isn't "better" for your purposes; low-ISO image quality is close to identical if the initial exposure is close to correct.
Your observations in this test are identical to what I have seen in the Nikon world. FWIW, I picked your camera by image in each example before you revealed it. Back in 07 and 08, Nikon released the D3, D300, D700 family, first CMOS cameras, I own the first two and will look for a D700 shortly. Their build quality is outstanding in comparison to my still current D850. The early generation cameras have an amazing colour output as displayed by your Canon while the current D850 it almost too accurate. Like you, I primarily shoot studio but have been know to walk around town and out in the bush with my gear. The current D850 has insane resolution for cropping and accurately captures purple tones far better than the early cameras. I think this is due to where that sits in the RGB triangle and the older bodies just didn't quite massage that corner.
If I am going to go for a walk with a camera, its always going to be one of the old bodies and some good glass, the 850 stays in the studio. One other thing these old tanks really loved is having colours pushed in camera along with giving very pleasing results by setting WB "incorrectly", as in set to cloudy when its a bright day. Black and white output from the old bodies is orders of magnitude better then the 850 as well, just with less pixels and less scope to edit as you pointed out.
You bring up an interesting point about whats next and will anything from here benefit us, my conclusion is probably not. I will with time get a backup 850 but will definitely seek out some of the older models. All the fancy bling adds nothing to my particular workflow and I have 40 years of lens manufacture to choose from on the used market, the Nikon F mount. I sure wish they offered a split screen like Canon did though.
When I look at Sony DSLRs, DSLTs and mirrorless bodies - I still see the remnants of Minolta's soul in there somewhere.
Scott about the cover for the eyepiece every camera from canon got it :D its on the factory strap little rubber "thingy" :) You take out the eyecup from the camera and you cover the eyepiece with that rubber thing on the strap for the long exposures :D not everybody knows that :) in 1ds m2 its just more premium solution for the problem with the switch :D
Btw I had no problems finding out what camera produced what image but it doesnt have anything to do with the image quality :D I just remember that old canon cameras have warmer and more red'ish color science but thats the only thing why I was able to tell
I shoot real estate interiors and i used to use a 5Dmk2 and the best thing i did was get rid of it! Its DR wasnt the best and it would often render banding in the shadows which was problematic and it had a fixed screen which eventually runined my lower back trying to see it. Add to that Canons unwillingness to support me as a new pro photographer because I d8dnt own enough 1D bodies and L lenses. So i switched to Nikon d750 and never looked back. Nikon went out of their way to look after me as a pro with a limited budget and never judged me like anon did! Since then ive owned several nikons and currently shoot with a Z72 and a Z9 and for my line of work they are both invaluable. The Z9 has enough benefits for me that outweigh the initial cost and for me its a forever camera. I admire the penny pinching and i do it myself within reason but i think it has definite limits for many photographers. For me i couldve purchased a D850 which is the pinnacle nikon DSLR but i went into mirrorless because the new lenses they were making were juat better in almost every way so i decided to invest in my future and in gear that would be supported going forward. Is that a fair rendering of the other side of the argument?
Split screen with microprism matte is not standard for this camera. I suppose standard focusing screen ( Ec-C III Original Laser-Matte) was replaced with this split screen (Ec-B).
This is yet another amazing video, with my favourite camera the 1dxsmkii. Would you consider changing the title to include something like 1ds mkii vs the 5dsr ?
It would be too specific to get any views sadly as it’s not a common thing people would be considering choosing between
My wish list for mirrorless: since the old DSLR lenses are destined for the landfill (eventually), just abandon the 35mm sensor. Set the "Medium format" sized sensor as the standard, give us a physically larger camera, and since the view finder isn't optical, just get rid of it, and maximize the size of the LCD. A 3" x 2" LCD (or bigger) sure would be nice...to hell with it....just give me a large format digital camera so I can go back to using a loupe to focus my compositions.
For what I do mirrorless brings an interesting set of tools not available as such on DSLRs. However, that doesn't mean I've ditched my DSLR, on the contrary.
"The mosquito under the candle light." That is super niche, how can I make money shooting that genre? 😉
Its why I bought a A$400 D700 with only 12k clicks on it. and a NEW 50mm f1.8 D lens for A$140. For my work, I shoot fashion and glamour. It's all about the skin tones and colours and the way the older design lens renders the files. As one famous photographer said of a new Sony kit for $5000, its a great photocopier. The biggest my images would be printed is A3 and thats double page spread.
I like bigger pixles not more pixles, Why now do you feel you cant function without 50 , Great video as always thanks,
Well done. The photographer that matters so much more than the gear.
Oh and you can't really compare the rendering of the LED lights under your sofa. Such LED light strips typically pulse Red/Green/Blue LEDs. The color rendition in the image will depend on when and for how long the shutter remained open. I suspect that if you repeat the experiment, taking multiple images with the same camera, you'd get different hues of blue and purple.
I was surprised to see the better colour rendition on the 1Ds II. The sharpness is probably the stronger high pass filter on the 1Ds II at a guess. Dynamic range should be close, since the pixel size for 16mp allows for better DR than that on a 50mp DSLR. Sure, sensel tech will help somewhat, but I highly doubt that it can make up for the pixel size differential between the 2 cameras.
You could still tether the 1Ds II with an older laptop running say a 32 bit version of windows Vista and an older version of say, C1 Pro, where the laptop also has a physical Firewire port. You could still easily get your images off the camera and if you were really desparate to have the latest and greatest processing software, once you have the images off the tethering computer, you could transfer them to another more modern computer with the latest versions of C1 pro and Lightroom CC etc.
The main driver for DSLRs over the past near 20 years has been the megapixel pissing contest war. Improvements in camera UI have been welcome, and there have been some newer featuers on newer cameras that are helpful to photographers that are lacking in the older 1st generation DSLrs.
I still have my 4mp CCD 1D. You'll be prising it from my cold dead hands. IQ from that CCD sensor is unequalled from any modern Canon camera imho, although the current flagship R3 does come close imho. I found the 8mp 1D Mark IIn (which I foolishly sold my 1D for back in 2007) to have inferior IQ to the original 1D. I have never been happy with CMOS IQ until the R3 (having also used a Canon D60, 60D and 7D II). And, I am not referring to high ISO noise when I say "IQ". I know of several pro photographers who say the very same thing as I do - that the 4mp CCD sensor of the 1D was superior.
The AF in more or less modern mirrorless (like my canon eos r, 2018 model) I have to say that is way better than any SLR or DSLR AF. Not for every situation, ofc, but the general balance is that is faster, better and easier to use. I'm curious about R3 with the eye selection system.
The 5DsR will go to 12800 ISO. In studio I have shot upto 400 ( thank you light eating optical snoot) and upto ISO 6400 for wedding work. It's fine for each use case IMO.
Before I went 5DsR I almost moved to 1Ds Mark III bodies which for me were tank versions of the 5DII with better AF anD 2 card slots. Glad I went 5DsR personally.
Whilst mirrorless is the future I have no desire spend money to switch, don't really consider it much of an upgrade for the ££ I woold need to spend so not happening.
My only pro level cameras are old cameras, mostly film, but I also have a Canon EOS 5 Classic as they are now referred to. As far as modern DSLR cameras go, my best is the Canon EOS 90D. It definitely has a lot of limitations and is not at all a professional level camera. However, I used it on New Years Eve almost 1½ years ago to shoot long exposure fireworks shots. Shooting from a balcony, I had to keep the tripod relatively low to be able to get the upwards angle without getting the balcony above us in my frame. Looking through the viewfinder was impossible on the narrow balcony, so the articulating rear screen was invaluable in that situation.
From the various reviews I have watched and read, I would expect high ISO performance and dynamic range to be areas, where DSLR cameras have improved a lot over the years. Looking at enthusiast and beginner level cameras, that is probably a lot more pronounced than in the top tier professional cameras.
But the biggest differences can be seen in digital photography in general - not necessarily in DSLR cameras.
Interesting video.
Well sitting on the shelf behind me I have a pair of 1998 Canon EOS DCS520's (alas not working batteries) & a pair Canon 5D Mark iii's. Only 14 years separates the 2 cameras, but the respective performances are on a different planet..
My D500 has viewfinder cover, Nikon advertises it as being useful for astro-photography.
Great video!!! Seriously bravo! Very helpful indeed. I have a 1Ds Mkiii and the colors are just amazing to me. The images are just great. I can still shoot tethered too. Build quality is outstanding and it fits my big hands. It is my number 2 camera mostly. Because, I also have a 5D mkIV. My findings are similar not quite as sharp overall but it is faster. The files are fantastic and are much more maleable in Lightroom. For my work I oferten need more low light so more ISO sensitivity is good. The 5DIV feels great in the hand I use the battery grip. The colors are certainly slightly different. With the 1Ds MkIii more realistic yet a bit more vibrant. Moving forwards I don’t know if the R3 or R5 are truly “better” right now.
Nikon d850 is so much more pleasure to use compared to d700 🤪 Leica Monochrom is like walking on heaven )) Marketing works nice on me. Hopefully my passion for new gear has run dry and I think most of us go thru this period... some go in circles haha
Thank you, very informative!
I honestly don't think there's much left in the 35mm sensor when it comes to resolution. Bit depth maybe, but not much left in it. I think we will see more advancements in the ability to correct files in post sure, but everything else will stay the same or similar from here. I'm sure medium format will see much larger advances as time goes on and as the technology becomes "cheaper".
Mirrorless I think will help other forms of photography. The studio photographer however will only end up going back to what they like to use and the equipment they know will get the job done.
4:51 There's an eyepiece plug on the Canon camera strap.
light leak while shooting long exposures is a thing with mirrored cameras -both film and digital
If I understood correctly, you used different lenses for the shots with each body. Lens affects the color a lot so if you want a fair comparison between bodies, you need to use the same lens. I tried it with my Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses and it seems that Zeiss saturates blues and Voigtländer saturates warmer colors more than the other. It was visible in the RGB histograms and just by looking at the images.
Same lens for each shot
@@TinHouseStudioUK
My mistake. Good comparison. Color science of digital bodies have been changing over the years at least for Sony mirrorless. I don’t know if it’s going towards accuracy or towards something that the loudest people on SOME are asking for.
Tony Northrup made a blind test maybe one or two years ago about the color science of different camera brands and the results were intresting.
@tinhousestudiouk On the off chance no one else mentioned this before me…. Modern DSLRs actually do still have that viewfinder blackout feature! It’s done differently now… ever notice that weird square rubber thing on the camera strap that comes with your DSLR? Pop off the removable rubber eye cup on your camera and slide the rubber thing on and voila! (I know this is at least true on all the canon canon dslrs ive owned over the years 5D MK II, III, IV, 6D, 7D…) 👍
Yeah, those older cameras are still just as excellent as they were brand new!
I figured the 1d was going to have better colors.
If you don’t need high ISO capabilities it would be interesting to compare an R7 or even a fujifilm X-t5
I have a Canon 1D MkII N. The D version, not the Ds, so APS-H sensor (1.3x). Fast shutter (or at least it WAS fast in its time) but only 8.2MP. To your question about the split screen.. at least the 1D-non-s version does not have the split screen as a standard. It was also curious to see that the 1Ds can take pictures at 800 or 1600 ISO and they still look nice; when I have taken photos with the 1D-non-s at ISO800... let us say the photos looked like a paella :D
Such a shame apsc h died. Really good crop sensor size I felt
Just found your channel and enjoy your video style. However, looking at 14:53 in the filmstriip the right side shows no dev. adjustments made so no WB adj.
Adjustment was made before tiff conversion
Can you make a vid about the split screen focus? Would love to see how it works. would be a super addition because i miss 99,9% of the time when i use manual focus. Can't realy see it on my A7R5.
Possibly fast wireless tethering combined higher dynamic range.
Colours definitely better on the 1d for me. I saw another comparison video between a 5dmk ii or iii and an Eos R, and the 5d had better colour too. Maybe Canon are losing their colour 'science' over time as they progress in other areas?
- split screen focus assistant - never saw that on any DSLR, but I know that there were options to mod your camera to have one. I would guess its modded (maybe some owner of unmodified 1D II can confirm?)
- curtain on viewfinder - all my DSLRs have one, they activate when switched to life view (button on Nikon camera or switch on Sony)
- build quality - Its not really fair to compare 1D with 5D, thats not 23 years progress, thats different class of camera
- quality - well, 1D have better colours yes, 5D have noticably better dynamic range and color depth, just color calibration isnt as good. You edit them post when shooting professionally anyway so maybe because of that color accuracy went out of the focus of manufacturers...
There was actually progress in quality back then those 20-10years ago, but if you look at sensor tests (DXOMark tests) there is no real progress in image quality in last 10 years other than Sony catched up with Nikon on dynamic range (but only after going mirrorless)... And there are increases in resolution. Althought I think concidering details and file size around 45MPx for fullframe is a sweetspot, which is also around for some 8 years.
Other than that I'd say progress in general (not just DSLR) is all just faster better autofocus especially for moving targets and faster shooting (if you arent doing sport or wildlife its important otherwise not so much) and more video (completely meh)... And then all the assists for manual focus with EVF, thats actually great progress on SLT/mirrorless camera.
You mentioned not being able to tether your old camera, I bet you can tether it still if you bought a capture card for a desktop computer. Those are magical. 😂. I forget which one most people like, but there are some youtube videos on that.