Full format - professional quality - low price (now) - BOMB PART

I photograph more than ambitious for three years. At that time I zugelgt my Canon 550D, with massive Zubehört, lenses etc. I've always had squinted at the full frame Canon, money for which I had, however, never. Why? Because I had (at the time of the 5D Mark II starting up to 1DX) oriented me always newest model. I'm a design student, with (among others) emphasis on photography. I am therefore both in the course of my studies, as well as private, frequently come into contact with old analog cameras. More and more I was thrilled the small format full-frame, and I wanted to start working with it digitally. Only it seemed to me the price of a Mark III although not necessarily in the price-performance ratio is too high, but for my budget and my needs (video function and ISO up God knows how much).
By chance, I have heard in a light workshop at the university then two students talk about how a well-known photographer of the area, is still working with one of the first digital full frame cameras.
It was then that my interest in old, in this case, the 5D was awakened.
It was not easy at all to find reviews or reports of this old lady on the Internet. Too overwhelmed the network is now IIern of Mark and IIIern.
But when I had finally informed me rich, I decided to try. Full Format Full Format is I said to myself, and just hoped not to be disappointed.

The was also so!

The shots are brilliant sharp, the viewfinder is a dream (if it has also compared to a Mark III 'only' about 96% coverage. The device is great in the hand. The colors in the digital laboratory are simply stunning. Noise performance to ISO 1000 is a dream, then - until 3200 - the very pleasant acceptance range.

I do not want praise for hours here - even if I could do that easily.

I would like to just the person who wants to get into the low professional league, the pave-off. It's worth it truly.

I've ordered me to only a fixed focal length (50 mm 1.4 Canon), clearly are fixed focal lengths superior to zoom lenses in nearly all respects, and hey, a little movement does not harm the photographic culture and their heritage in terms of traditionalism of fixed focal lengths. (Clear in some applications nearly impossible, but not in my: Still life, Portrait, some reportage, landscape, architecture)
There are, of course, the odd glass happen, for example, a 28er and a 85er 2.8 1.8 (currently on the wishlist).
But for quality reasons, I would not use more zoom lenses for my purposes.

Well, now more than just a very short paragraph has become a fast-to-read Parole praise from them all yet; but you can definitely begin to describe such an amazing device shortly.

And who is based in the fact that the device is 9 years old and only one 6tel a new Mark III costs, and therefore yes 'can be as good' not at all. Forget one not, the 'bells and whistles' of a new Mark III does not make good photos, but the photographer makes good photos.
Sure you can use that for each camera as Pro, but - I repeat:

FULL format is full frame. 9 years ago professionals have (more or less) worked with it. Now they do it partly still. And the photos in magazines were 9 years ago better than today? I do not think so.

So, clearly buy recommendation!

I hope I therefore also help an ending full-frame upgraders to a great decision as I felt when I read the reviews here. At this point, thanks to my previous reviewers ...

Many Greetings,

Andari

PS. Here are some comparative figures for the Mark III and the weighting of those in my decision-making power. Could perhaps one or other help:

Resolution:
22.3 MP vs. 12.8 MP, to say there is not much: More megapixels means primarily, larger format in the final stage, ie in print.

I asked myself: Is this really significant? So 12.8 MP I can in any case still a poster of 150 x 100 cm print, in almost 100 dpi (which is enough for a poster in this size at the correct pressure method). With 300 dpi (the highest sharpness requirement for photo printing) then I get just under a Din A3 printed page.
So to me it was enough - think is most users go so.
In addition, it can not hurt if the pixel density is not too high. I think that can, if only in theory (I do not know), only be good for the image quality.

ISO:

102,400 vs. 3200. Also clear. Work with less light, with larger aperture / exposure times smaller. But honestly? Who would like to develop an image at ISO 102,400.

Clear, up to ISO 6400 or even 12,800 you may wish to go, because - and this is indeed true in the Mark III - even then there is a high freedom from noise. And that's probably the only reason why I was hesitant at the old 5D. So one way or another high ISO would be sometimes quite nice. But since I already work with fast lenses and a very steady hand have, I content myself with 3200 - id ranges rule whatsoever. (Bin it could not be otherwise used in analogue photography. There is, there is no more than a maximum of ISO 1600, and then only if you 'pushes' the movie.)

Live View function:
Available vs. Unavailable. Can I also do not have much to say. Those who have learned analog, it knows otherwise, it will never use. I myself found it indeed always a nice feature, but nothing more. Clear it often does the composition good, and facilitates many a crooked camera position. And also for 100 percent view of the image it is very convenient for a 96% viewfinder. But as I said, is not necessary.

Viewfinder:
100% vs. 96%. That's when you want to have the final image in the viewfinder is equal, and not a small edge longer, a bit annoying because you must therefore appreciate something that could still come on it and what is not. This is a bit unfortunate, but also make you develop a feeling, and can pinch wegcroppen little edge yes in postproduction.

Video feature:
Available vs. Unavailable. No Comment. Am not a filmmaker. I do not need video capability. Who wants to film here has five minutes valuable life energy wasted on reading this review. Because this is the old 5D not in question.

Those were the only substantial (at least for me) points that could have been mentioned in the direct comparison with the youngest brother.
Things such as faster continuous shooting are absolutely in my application Jacke wie Hose. Although several AF points are also really great, but also no more than a support. Improvements like easier operation menu by things like MyMenu etc. are virtually no mention of photographic point of view.

In short again: Rein spoke of the image quality, there is - and I've heard both by many professional photographers, and even noticed by comparing images - no difference.

So want to do all the easy without 'frills' stunning images, to professional photographers:
Beat it! Get them in good used condition! Pay attention that it has not too many allowances, if at all possible, (although reading the 5D's damn hard without Canon Service).
And I personally can not imagine that someone can have the folly and such a cool part is not exploiting to the bitter end! :)

In this sense,
again:

Many greetings and thanks for your attention,

Andari