canon 5d I vs K5 autofocus.

boosted03gti · 04-25-2011, 06:59 AM

so i would really like to switch to a FF system just for the added DR and clean high iso. Im currently debating whether i should try out a canon 5d just to get my feet wet and save some money. they can be had for around 1000 bucks. i dont own any canon glass at the moment but have researched cost and have caculated what i would need to invest. primarly, i would use the camera mostly for portraits, candids (which is why i want fast autofocus.), some sports (nothing extreme, just some cars racing around and kids playing basketball etc.) and landscapes.

I know the 5d is old by comparison to the k5 and that the high iso quality at 3200 is probably not as good as the k5 but, for future upgrades, i feel that investing with canon would be better in the long run.

so onto my question, anyone use both the 5d and k5? how is the autofocus between the two?

tia
jorge

Last edited by boosted03gti; 04-25-2011 at 07:12 AM. Reason: spelling

fejker · 04-25-2011, 01:54 PM

A friend of mine uses a 5D (first gen) and when he tried my K-7, he said: "I wish my 5D would focus like this."

He then elaborated that the only useful focusing point on the Canon is the center one and the other points are far worse than the ones on the K-7 (I imagine the K-5 would do even better here). He also said that the two wide focusing points are totally useless.

If you're mostly doing portraits and landscape, then I think this is not so much of a problem and the 5D is superior here. But considering sport shooting, I'd pick the K-5 instead.

Think about the lenses you'll need for the Canon ... and think L glass, otherwise you'll be disappointed.

Rory · 04-25-2011, 06:27 PM

I would tend to agree with everything already said. Unless you go with 1D series in FF with Canon, you'll be disappointed with their AF.

Urkeldaedalus · 04-26-2011, 10:40 AM

From everything I've read, the K-5 is likely better in AF than the Canon 5D, especially in sports situations, and it also has a higher FPS rate if I'm not mistaken. Besides the benefit of using FF for image quality, the K-5 I think is the overall better camera.

On the other hand, I've used the Canon 5D during a wedding and the AF seemed fine especially since I kept it on center point AF for the majority of the time. It also produced some very nice images for me, so if you're not shooting sports much it might be worth it for you.

I would expect the successor to the 5D Mark II to have much improved AF, so if you're buying for the distant future that's something to consider.

fejker · 04-26-2011, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus

I would expect the successor to the 5D Mark II to have much improved AF, so if you're buying for the distant future that's something to consider.

He probably doesn't want to spend 2k+ € on a new body, that's why he's considering the first 5D.

Urkeldaedalus · 04-26-2011, 10:45 AM

Originally posted by fejker

He probably doesn't want to spend 2k+ € on a new body, that's why he's considering the first 5D.

Understood, but from his explanation I was thinking he was considering the 5D more as a way to buy into the Canon system, so another camera purchase would be coming somewhere down the road. Maybe a long time later, but at some point

fejker · 04-26-2011, 10:53 AM

Sure, lenses stay, the body is renewed in a few years.

Big G · 04-29-2011, 02:09 AM

I wouldn't be buying a 5D or 5D Mk2 if you had concerns about autofocus, they're both 'old' cameras and showing their age. The 5D Mk2 has only one cross type sensor (the centre one) and only 9 AF points in total. The K-5 has 11 points of which 9 are cross type (someone please correct me if I have that wrong), so the K-5's AF system is newer and more sophisticated than the 5D and it's newer sibling the 5D Mk2. Portraits and landscapes would be fine, but anything fast moving (sports or wildlife) then I would be more confident with a K-5.

Unless you were really keen to get into a full-frame Canon system, you'd be taking quite a step back (imo) going for a 5D over a K-5. Great as the 5D is, it just doens't make much sense to me other than investing in full-frame glass now, then replacing the 5D with a 5D Mk3 whenever it gets released.

Samsungian · 04-30-2011, 06:03 AM - **1 Like**

Comparing Canon 5D tech from 2005 to Pentax K-5 tech from 2010 is interesting.

Pentax "Best" SDM is nothing like Canon USM or Nikon AF-S.

One day Pentax will offer faster autofocusing lenses.

Or maybe Hoya will instead concentrate their efforts on making more colored cameras and more non weather sealed Limited lenses with their slower 1980's screw drive autofocus.

I have first version 5D and its autofocus with USM glass is speedy fast, faster than my Pentax K20D and screw drive lenses though the frame rate is about the same.

Beyond the better specifications found in Pentax K-5, one should research the imaging systems available today.

Pentax needs Sigma and Tamron to add to their lens system while Canon and Nikon don't.

I have zero regrets buying into Canon three years ago. All Canon USM lenses I bought new re-sell for more than I paid new.
And Pentax K20D remains a really nice camera. I have zero regrets buying K20D too.

However, when I buy new lenses thesedays they are not from Hoya or Pentax or Sigma or Tamron.

Pentax offers no USM or AF-S lenses.......

Its 2011, not 1988. 23 years have passed and there's still no ring motor glass available from Pentax...

Originally posted by boosted03gti

so i would really like to switch to a FF system just for the added DR and clean high iso. Im currently debating whether i should try out a canon 5d just to get my feet wet and save some money. they can be had for around 1000 bucks. i dont own any canon glass at the moment but have researched cost and have caculated what i would need to invest. primarly, i would use the camera mostly for portraits, candids (which is why i want fast autofocus.), some sports (nothing extreme, just some cars racing around and kids playing basketball etc.) and landscapes.

I know the 5d is old by comparison to the k5 and that the high iso quality at 3200 is probably not as good as the k5 but, for future upgrades, i feel that investing with canon would be better in the long run.

so onto my question, anyone use both the 5d and k5? how is the autofocus between the two?

tia
jorge

fejker · 04-30-2011, 06:47 AM

Originally posted by Samsungian

Comparing Canon 5D tech from 2005 to Pentax K-5 tech from 2010 is interesting.

Pentax SDM is nothing like Canon USM or Nikon AF-S.

One day Pentax will offer faster autofocusing lenses.

Or maybe Hoya will instead concentrate efforts on making more colored cameras and more non weather sealed Limited lenses with their slower 1980's screw drive autofocus.

I have first version 5D and its autofocus with USM glass is speedy fast, faster than my Pentax K20D and screw drive lenses though the frame rate is about the same.

Beyond the better specifications found in Pentax K-5, one should research the imaging systems available today.

Pentax needs Sigma and Tamron to add to their lens system while Canon and Nikon don't.

I have zero regrets buying into Canon three years ago. All Canon USM lenses I bought new re-sell for more than I paid new.
And Pentax K20D remains a really nice camera. I have Zero regrets buying it.

However, when I buy new lenses thesedays it isn't from Hoya or Pentax.

Pentax offers no USM or AF-S lenses.

Its 2011, not 1988. 23 years have passed and there's still no ring motor glass available from Pentax...

Have you tried focusing with a focusing point that is not the center one on your Canon in dim light? No USM can help you if your focusing sensor sucks.

I agree, USM is great, but the prices of Canon glass are not so great.

You mentioned that your Canon glass sels for more now ... well, it's the same with Pentax glass. If I sold my glass now I'd have more money then all my glass was worth three years ago. And I think the same goes for Nikon too.

I don't agree that Pentax needs Sigma and Tamron to add to it's lens system ... I only have Pentax lenses and don't miss a thing.

Canon and Nikon are great, if you have enough money to buy high quality glass that makes use of that full frame sensor. If you really need FF and can justify it's price, then it's a good investment - otherwise it's just a huge waste of money.

In the end it doesn't really matter what you shoot with as long as you or the customer is happy with the results.

aleonx3 · 04-30-2011, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by fejker

Think about the lenses you'll need for the Canon ... and think L glass, otherwise you'll be disappointed.

Not all L glasses are created equal, some are better than others. I would not go to the long zooms and slower ones.

boosted03gti · 04-30-2011, 08:18 AM

thanks for the advice everyone. i do want to eventually go full frame for the added dr and better low light af. i will wait for a while to see what happens when both nikon and canon drop their new models and determine if the added upgrades are worth the extra cost or just get a 5d II or d700. im sure the prices will drop when the new models come out. maybe ill get a k5 for now to hold me over till then. i plan on have a pentax secondary system and a nikon/canon ff primary. having a k5 as backup or when smaller equipment is called for isnt a bad idea/investment.

thanks

Urkeldaedalus · 04-30-2011, 11:57 AM

Another option for you Boosted would be to get the Canon 7D and start collecting the full frame canon lenses. Then you can pick up a 5D Mark II when the new full frame camera comes out.

Rory · 04-30-2011, 09:12 PM

Originally posted by boosted03gti

thanks for the advice everyone. i do want to eventually go full frame for the added dr and better low light af. i will wait for a while to see what happens when both nikon and canon drop their new models and determine if the added upgrades are worth the extra cost or just get a 5d II or d700. im sure the prices will drop when the new models come out. maybe ill get a k5 for now to hold me over till then. i plan on have a pentax secondary system and a nikon/canon ff primary. having a k5 as backup or when smaller equipment is called for isnt a bad idea/investment.

thanks

Hope you enjoy waiting if that's your plan.

Big G · 05-01-2011, 03:25 AM

Originally posted by fejker

I don't agree that Pentax needs Sigma and Tamron to add to it's lens system ... I only have Pentax lenses and don't miss a thing.

I have to disagree here.

There are no options to buy brang new lenses over 300mm for the Pentax system which will not satisfy wildlife or sports / action photographers. You need to turn to Sigma for over 300mm.

Even with Canon and Nikon, Sigma fill some gaps that those respective manufacturers don't cover. Sigma have recently announced their new 12-24mm II with a slashproof design for full frame, rectilinear corrected ultra wide angle.

Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 II DG HSM -DigitalRev

Canon offers no equivalent lens.

04-25-2011, 06:59 AM	#1
boosted03gti Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: tampa, fl Photos: Gallery Posts: 237	canon 5d I vs K5 autofocus. so i would really like to switch to a FF system just for the added DR and clean high iso. Im currently debating whether i should try out a canon 5d just to get my feet wet and save some money. they can be had for around 1000 bucks. i dont own any canon glass at the moment but have researched cost and have caculated what i would need to invest. primarly, i would use the camera mostly for portraits, candids (which is why i want fast autofocus.), some sports (nothing extreme, just some cars racing around and kids playing basketball etc.) and landscapes. I know the 5d is old by comparison to the k5 and that the high iso quality at 3200 is probably not as good as the k5 but, for future upgrades, i feel that investing with canon would be better in the long run. so onto my question, anyone use both the 5d and k5? how is the autofocus between the two? tia jorge Last edited by boosted03gti; 04-25-2011 at 07:12 AM. Reason: spelling

04-30-2011, 06:03 AM - 1 Like	#9
Samsungian Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 1,337	Pentax offers no USM or AF-S lenses Comparing Canon 5D tech from 2005 to Pentax K-5 tech from 2010 is interesting. Pentax "Best" SDM is nothing like Canon USM or Nikon AF-S. One day Pentax will offer faster autofocusing lenses. Or maybe Hoya will instead concentrate their efforts on making more colored cameras and more non weather sealed Limited lenses with their slower 1980's screw drive autofocus. I have first version 5D and its autofocus with USM glass is speedy fast, faster than my Pentax K20D and screw drive lenses though the frame rate is about the same. Beyond the better specifications found in Pentax K-5, one should research the imaging systems available today. Pentax needs Sigma and Tamron to add to their lens system while Canon and Nikon don't. I have zero regrets buying into Canon three years ago. All Canon USM lenses I bought new re-sell for more than I paid new. And Pentax K20D remains a really nice camera. I have zero regrets buying K20D too. However, when I buy new lenses thesedays they are not from Hoya or Pentax or Sigma or Tamron. Pentax offers no USM or AF-S lenses....... Its 2011, not 1988. 23 years have passed and there's still no ring motor glass available from Pentax... Originally posted by boosted03gti so i would really like to switch to a FF system just for the added DR and clean high iso. Im currently debating whether i should try out a canon 5d just to get my feet wet and save some money. they can be had for around 1000 bucks. i dont own any canon glass at the moment but have researched cost and have caculated what i would need to invest. primarly, i would use the camera mostly for portraits, candids (which is why i want fast autofocus.), some sports (nothing extreme, just some cars racing around and kids playing basketball etc.) and landscapes. I know the 5d is old by comparison to the k5 and that the high iso quality at 3200 is probably not as good as the k5 but, for future upgrades, i feel that investing with canon would be better in the long run. so onto my question, anyone use both the 5d and k5? how is the autofocus between the two? tia jorge Last edited by Samsungian; 04-30-2011 at 06:40 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Switching to Canon 5D, advice needed on adapting Pentax lenses on canon camera	hangu	Photographic Technique	4	08-19-2010 09:09 PM
Non-Canon zoom lens on Canon DSLR, what's up?	GerryL	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	21	06-26-2010 07:23 PM
Help! Autofocus switch stuck on AF.S and will not autofocus!	pauldiebel	Pentax DSLR Discussion	3	09-19-2009 08:59 PM
For Sale - Sold: FS: Autofocus film cameras and autofocus lenses	Not Registered	Sold Items	15	03-17-2008 07:08 AM
In-Body autofocus vs In-Lens autofocus	Gooshin	Pentax DSLR Discussion	7	02-05-2008 11:10 AM

04-25-2011, 01:54 PM	#2
fejker Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 258	A friend of mine uses a 5D (first gen) and when he tried my K-7, he said: "I wish my 5D would focus like this." He then elaborated that the only useful focusing point on the Canon is the center one and the other points are far worse than the ones on the K-7 (I imagine the K-5 would do even better here). He also said that the two wide focusing points are totally useless. If you're mostly doing portraits and landscape, then I think this is not so much of a problem and the 5D is superior here. But considering sport shooting, I'd pick the K-5 instead. Think about the lenses you'll need for the Canon ... and think L glass, otherwise you'll be disappointed.

04-25-2011, 06:27 PM	#3
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	I would tend to agree with everything already said. Unless you go with 1D series in FF with Canon, you'll be disappointed with their AF.

04-26-2011, 10:40 AM	#4
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	From everything I've read, the K-5 is likely better in AF than the Canon 5D, especially in sports situations, and it also has a higher FPS rate if I'm not mistaken. Besides the benefit of using FF for image quality, the K-5 I think is the overall better camera. On the other hand, I've used the Canon 5D during a wedding and the AF seemed fine especially since I kept it on center point AF for the majority of the time. It also produced some very nice images for me, so if you're not shooting sports much it might be worth it for you. I would expect the successor to the 5D Mark II to have much improved AF, so if you're buying for the distant future that's something to consider.

04-26-2011, 10:42 AM	#5
fejker Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 258	Originally posted by Urkeldaedalus I would expect the successor to the 5D Mark II to have much improved AF, so if you're buying for the distant future that's something to consider. He probably doesn't want to spend 2k+ € on a new body, that's why he's considering the first 5D.

04-26-2011, 10:45 AM	#6
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	Originally posted by fejker He probably doesn't want to spend 2k+ € on a new body, that's why he's considering the first 5D. Understood, but from his explanation I was thinking he was considering the 5D more as a way to buy into the Canon system, so another camera purchase would be coming somewhere down the road. Maybe a long time later, but at some point

04-26-2011, 10:53 AM	#7
fejker Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 258	Sure, lenses stay, the body is renewed in a few years.

04-29-2011, 02:09 AM	#8
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	I wouldn't be buying a 5D or 5D Mk2 if you had concerns about autofocus, they're both 'old' cameras and showing their age. The 5D Mk2 has only one cross type sensor (the centre one) and only 9 AF points in total. The K-5 has 11 points of which 9 are cross type (someone please correct me if I have that wrong), so the K-5's AF system is newer and more sophisticated than the 5D and it's newer sibling the 5D Mk2. Portraits and landscapes would be fine, but anything fast moving (sports or wildlife) then I would be more confident with a K-5. Unless you were really keen to get into a full-frame Canon system, you'd be taking quite a step back (imo) going for a 5D over a K-5. Great as the 5D is, it just doens't make much sense to me other than investing in full-frame glass now, then replacing the 5D with a 5D Mk3 whenever it gets released.

04-30-2011, 06:47 AM	#10
fejker Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Slovenia Photos: Gallery Posts: 258	Originally posted by Samsungian Comparing Canon 5D tech from 2005 to Pentax K-5 tech from 2010 is interesting. Pentax SDM is nothing like Canon USM or Nikon AF-S. One day Pentax will offer faster autofocusing lenses. Or maybe Hoya will instead concentrate efforts on making more colored cameras and more non weather sealed Limited lenses with their slower 1980's screw drive autofocus. I have first version 5D and its autofocus with USM glass is speedy fast, faster than my Pentax K20D and screw drive lenses though the frame rate is about the same. Beyond the better specifications found in Pentax K-5, one should research the imaging systems available today. Pentax needs Sigma and Tamron to add to their lens system while Canon and Nikon don't. I have zero regrets buying into Canon three years ago. All Canon USM lenses I bought new re-sell for more than I paid new. And Pentax K20D remains a really nice camera. I have Zero regrets buying it. However, when I buy new lenses thesedays it isn't from Hoya or Pentax. Pentax offers no USM or AF-S lenses. Its 2011, not 1988. 23 years have passed and there's still no ring motor glass available from Pentax... Have you tried focusing with a focusing point that is not the center one on your Canon in dim light? No USM can help you if your focusing sensor sucks. I agree, USM is great, but the prices of Canon glass are not so great. You mentioned that your Canon glass sels for more now ... well, it's the same with Pentax glass. If I sold my glass now I'd have more money then all my glass was worth three years ago. And I think the same goes for Nikon too. I don't agree that Pentax needs Sigma and Tamron to add to it's lens system ... I only have Pentax lenses and don't miss a thing. Canon and Nikon are great, if you have enough money to buy high quality glass that makes use of that full frame sensor. If you really need FF and can justify it's price, then it's a good investment - otherwise it's just a huge waste of money. In the end it doesn't really matter what you shoot with as long as you or the customer is happy with the results.

04-30-2011, 06:51 AM	#11
aleonx3 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Brampton, Ontario Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,996	Originally posted by fejker Think about the lenses you'll need for the Canon ... and think L glass, otherwise you'll be disappointed. Not all L glasses are created equal, some are better than others. I would not go to the long zooms and slower ones.

04-30-2011, 08:18 AM	#12
boosted03gti Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: tampa, fl Photos: Gallery Posts: 237 Original Poster	thanks for the advice everyone. i do want to eventually go full frame for the added dr and better low light af. i will wait for a while to see what happens when both nikon and canon drop their new models and determine if the added upgrades are worth the extra cost or just get a 5d II or d700. im sure the prices will drop when the new models come out. maybe ill get a k5 for now to hold me over till then. i plan on have a pentax secondary system and a nikon/canon ff primary. having a k5 as backup or when smaller equipment is called for isnt a bad idea/investment. thanks

04-30-2011, 11:57 AM	#13
Urkeldaedalus Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Iowa Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,369	Another option for you Boosted would be to get the Canon 7D and start collecting the full frame canon lenses. Then you can pick up a 5D Mark II when the new full frame camera comes out.

04-30-2011, 09:12 PM	#14
Rory Inactive Account Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: Chicago Photos: Gallery Posts: 672	Originally posted by boosted03gti thanks for the advice everyone. i do want to eventually go full frame for the added dr and better low light af. i will wait for a while to see what happens when both nikon and canon drop their new models and determine if the added upgrades are worth the extra cost or just get a 5d II or d700. im sure the prices will drop when the new models come out. maybe ill get a k5 for now to hold me over till then. i plan on have a pentax secondary system and a nikon/canon ff primary. having a k5 as backup or when smaller equipment is called for isnt a bad idea/investment. thanks Hope you enjoy waiting if that's your plan.

05-01-2011, 03:25 AM	#15
Big G Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 581	Originally posted by fejker I don't agree that Pentax needs Sigma and Tamron to add to it's lens system ... I only have Pentax lenses and don't miss a thing. I have to disagree here. There are no options to buy brang new lenses over 300mm for the Pentax system which will not satisfy wildlife or sports / action photographers. You need to turn to Sigma for over 300mm. Even with Canon and Nikon, Sigma fill some gaps that those respective manufacturers don't cover. Sigma have recently announced their new 12-24mm II with a slashproof design for full frame, rectilinear corrected ultra wide angle. Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 II DG HSM -DigitalRev Canon offers no equivalent lens.