Canon 5D MkI with bad LCD display, what to do?

[Spotmatic]

I have my 5D MkI for a few months now, but I'm getting really fed up with the back LCD display. It has a yellow color cast and it is absolutely not contrasty at all. One can even say that the picture is sepia colored. Heck, even my old *ist DS from 2004 has a better display! Even the most lively of subjects look dead on that screen, and that's not a joke.

Changing the LCD's brightness does not change anything, other than that it goes from bad to worse.

The photos are good though, but it really is irritating.

Does anyone know if this is a common problem with the 5D? Was/is there a replacement program from Canon? Mine is more than 2 years old now, so I'm sure it does not have warranty anymore.

[rawhead]

Yup, same here. One of the first things I noticed when I got my 5D. Makes all photos, even good ones, look like utter crap. When I shoot with my K20D, it's a relief because I can *actually* gauge the quality of the shot in the field. With the 5D, nope.

Guess it's kinda like the good ol' film days. Get the settings right, compose, shoot, and pray you did everything right

[Orio]

[F16SUNSHINE]

Hi Peter
Both of myy cameras are like this.
The R D1 has a really crappy display as well.
Of course the IQ of the output is great as it is for the 5D.

I do as Orio has described as well.
Set the display to mono and use the histogram (for the RD1).
Your photos are always fantastic. I don't think chimping is needed when you have such skill

[Spotmatic]

Canon should give me the MkII for free

Actually I already use the histogram when I take the 5D with me (highlight warning). Point is... Canon should be *the* DSLR brand, no? So I expected the screen to be top-notch. It's a little daunting when you have just taken your best shot in months, only to discover it looks like crap on the display. This is not what I expected from my first Canon.

My K20D is the other way around: crappy photos look perfect on that little 2,7" display

[Orio]

[F16SUNSHINE]

[martinsmith99]

[Spotmatic]

Thanks for all your interesting insights! I always thought that 2004/2005 LCD displays were quite good (after all the small one in my Pentax *ist DS is good too) but maybe I'm indeed expecting too much.

Oh well, I guess I will get used to it.

[Orio]

The year of build has a meaning, for Canon.
My 300D (older than the 5D) had the same poor display.
The 400D (newer than the 5D) had a display with perfect colours, and so are all the cameras after the 400D.
So surely Canon improved their display in the period between the 5D and the 400D.
I have no idea about the other companies but Canon isn't necessarily the best and first always, so it's surely possible that other makers had better displays before the time Canon improved theirs.

[eeyore_nl]

[F16SUNSHINE]

[GrahamNR17]

We seemed to managed not knowing how the photos came out for over 100 years. Is it really such a big issue?

I am not being sarcastic, I genuinely want to know. Ok, having the facility to see if the shot was ok is nice, but it's not a deal-breaker, surely?

My perfect camera:

A SMALL SLR with full-frame, pentaprism, and NO SCREEN! A small slot for SD cards in the side. That's all. SMALL, compact, just like film cameras.

I've got used to waiting for results, even if marketing departments disagree

[Orio]

[lahnet]

Guess I am lucky, I have no problems with LCD display on my 5D.
Maybe Canon has chanced it from series number xx. Mine is DS126091 / 1731205739.

[kds315*]

[Attila]

[Contra]

This info is in the review of the 5D on KenRockwell.com:

"My Canon 5D, bought around November 2006 when Canon was giving a $600 rebate and with a serial number beginning with 1, has the worst, dimmest and most off-color LCD I've ever used, just like the 30D. I hear that the latest 5Ds, as of at least December 2007, have an improved LCD, with serial numbers beginning with 2. I sure hope so! Yay!"

Anyboy who can confirm this?

[gill]

I agree with Spotmatic remarks. I picked up with Sr.# 1731203964 in mint condition after reading positive reviews of professionals/amateurs on the net. I did wait for months to locate Sr.#2xxxxx or 3 but unfortunately my brainstorm/addiction forced me to get this one. In lieu of that departed my favourite 400D and K100d. Few days back while using Tomioka 55 1.2 (not focused to infinity) mirror fallen. No authorize center here so glued by a local technician. Two days back while attaching to TV its LCD gone now on deep sleep. I picked it just to use all my manual lenses but my dream of F/F shattered with one click. As to dependability, durability and build is concern, Orio's remarks are right about Nikon. I will locate someone to take abroad for replacement of LCD. IMHO profession/hobby of photography is of innocent people and thus they are easily looted. I have observed it has one of the worst mirror assembly/LCD. Keeping Nikon F4, F90, EOS1N only for digital back if ever introduced like Mamiya RB/RZ backs.

[ludoo]

[ManualFocus-G]

Mine has a 2xxxxxxx serial number and appears fine. It's still poor compared to later cameras though and you can't really guage sharpness too well because of the low resoluition. I don't mind though as the IQ of the final images is superb!

[hexi]

Since about one month, i disabled preview on lcd, so problem is solved ! much better this way : )

[gill]

Thanks Hexi. How i can disable the LCD when not displaying? Should keep in my bag unuse for more than thirty days removing battery/card?

[hexi]

You're welcome.

If you're using Canon, it's in the menu > review time , set it to off. This way you won't be tempted to look at your pix right away after taking them, plus battery life "shall" improve.

[scsambrook]

If you really want to see a crappy screen display, forget Canon and try the Leica M8 (and probably the M9 as well). The big plus point is that it's so bad you never, ever, waste the battery looking at what you've just taken. And - of course - Leica owners are sohhh savvy with their technique that they simply don't need to check the histogram...