The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Canon 5D Mark II

woodyspedden

New member
Well it is now clear why Canon waited so long to announce the 5D replacement. They wanted to sell as many of the 1DsMkIII prior to the announcement and given the features of the new 5D MkII sales would really have slumped. (Much like what I believe happened with the D3 once the D700 was announced)

Woody
 

robmac

Well-known member
The gaps would be reduced simply due to the higher MP (vs 5D). That said, gapless or not, it will make a nice (large) portrait or landscape body.

In short, if you like(d) the 5D and found it did the job, the 5DII gives you a nice higher MP upgrade at minimal (absolute) cost vs the 1Ds3, though I suspect there will be (as one would expect) a high-ISO hit (vs the Mk1).





Jack - I'm disappointed by the 4fps too (although it won't stop me from buying this camera!).

The 50D (which also uses the Digic IV) does 15.1MP at 6.3 fps. That's 95.13 MP/sec. The Nikon D700 does 60.5 MP/sec without the grip (12.1 x 5fps) or 96.8 MP/sec with the grip (12.1 x 8).

By comparison, the 5DII only does 82.3 MP/sec (21.1 x 3.9), using the same processor as that on the 50D. I really wish Canon had been able to squeeze another 1.5 - 2.0 fps out of the 5DII, so it could also serve as a sports camera.

The way it is, I'll probably also have to own a 1D series (probably the 1D2) for sports work, and the more complete weather-proofing.

The 5DII will serve well as a landscape shooting, and portrait camera, for those of us who can't afford a MFDB :)

Mike
 

Mike Hatam

Senior Subscriber Member
The gaps would be reduced simply due to the higher MP (vs 5D). That said, gapless or not, it will make a nice (large) portrait or landscape body.

In short, if you like(d) the 5D and found it did the job, the 5DII gives you a nice higher MP upgrade at minimal (absolute) cost vs the 1Ds3, though I suspect there will be (as one would expect) a high-ISO hit (vs the Mk1).
Robert - I don't think there will be a high-ISO hit verses the original 5D. In fact, the new 5DII is claimed to have signicantly better high ISO performance, by 1 - 1.5 stops.

Keep in mind, it's been 3 years since the release of the origianl 5D. Canon has advanced their circuitry, micro-lenses, and sensor technologies, significantly in that time.

Mike
 

Terry

New member
Amin,
There seem to be conflicting reports on the AF. Looks like it is actually the same as the 5D. 9 points with only the center being cross.


Well I'm impressed!

When the 5D was released, they made sure it had less resolution and equal nominal ISO to the 1Ds II, which preceded it by a full year. Now the 5D II comes predictably 1 year after the 1Ds III, matches that camera on resolution and ups the ante on ISO.

Moisture/dust seals are improved from the 5D, all AF points are now cross type, and many of us don't need better weather resistance or AF than that. Then they improved the viewfinder coverage to 98%, threw in 1080P movie mode and made it $300 less than the least expensive full frame competitors.

The specified shutter lag and VF blackout time are a bit disappointing, but overall I think Canon's done quite well here.
 
A

asabet

Guest
Interesting read
It is interesting, but anyone could have said that stuff. They reference a Canon employee but don't specify his or her position. It could have been someone working in the Canon New Jersey mail room :).
 

LJL

New member
This all seems a bit amusing, and puzzling at the same time. For the past several years folks were still lusting after more mega pixels, but started to enjoy the merits of what the 5D had to offer with respect to image quality. Does not seem like much may have been lost in the update, but quite a bit was added to the older version, and at a much, much more attractive price.

I am not a fan boy or anything of the sort, but the specs on this updated version do not look all that bad. Let's be honest folks, even if they had gone to gapless pixels, more cross AF points, higher frame rates, and all those things folks are bemoaning, I do think that there would still be a rather large group of "glass half empty" folks complaining about what was missing. Could Canon have tweaked more things? Probably. But what they have is a fairly significant improvement in some areas, and probably enough to compete quite nicely with anything else out there now.

I also tend to think (maybe wishful) that it is not completely over yet. I would not be surprised to hear about yet another Canon DSLR before the end of the year. They will have to address the "pro level" offering, as the 5DMkII can now eclipse their flagship model for some things. Do not know anything, but would not be surprised to see the 50D sensor tech installed into a 1DsMkIV at 40MP or more, decent high ISO, rest of the stuff at least the same or better than now, and possibly at a lower price point also. The gap between the 5DMkII offering and the 1DsMkIII is closer on some things, but startling on the price point, so Canon may be pressuring themselves into something really beyond most folk's imagination, or offering an upgraded model 1-series at a much more reasonable price.

For a very large group of buyers, the new 5DMkII is going to be very attractive, hit enough marks, and bring folks back around to reconsidering Canon. If folks are complaining about marketing driving things over technology, they are missing the point of business, even for giants like Canon. Were Canon to put all of the best tech they have into a model to "blow the competition away", (as they did early on), what do they gain if they also have to charge $8000 or more for that model? This 5DMkII has enough of everything for the largest mid-upper end buyers, including some serious HD video.

I just do not quite get what all the "DPR-like" or "FM-like" bitching and moaning is about this camera. I blows the socks off of its predecessor. It is significantly cheaper. It meets or exceeds almost everything else on the market right now, and there is still the possibility for an even better "flagship" model. If the 5DMkII does not get you there, wait for the next 1-series and pay that price, or go to MF and pay an even bigger price.

LJ
 

bradhusick

Active member
Do we all agree that 5D files are among the best 35mm ones out there even up to ISO 1600?

If so, then the 5D Mark II will be even better at a lower price. Ignore the technology and jargon. Does it make really good files? I think so. Let's see when the tests come in, but I suspect they will be very tasty.

Now let's all get back to shooting where we should spend most of our time :)
 

Chuck Jones

Subscriber Member
Guys, I've got to come down with LJ on this one, but I do hear what you are saying. There aren't even decent test frames posted yet on this camera, and not a single actual shooting experience reported, and already it has been judged to be deficient by many. I'd caution all of you to be skeptical of anything you read off of a spec sheet, and let the proof of the pudding reside solely in the actual physical shooting & examination of the resultant files. Canon aren't dumb all of the time, there is a substantial improvement in almost every area in this present offering over the camera it replaces. Enough to warrant a close examination myself, which is something that no other Canon of recent vintage has tempted me to do.

And you know the thing that they did change that gives me interest? The creative possibilities of using that 1080p video stream, and intermixing high quality stills into the flow. Go price a full frame CMOS sensor HD video camera, and get an eye full if you think this camera is expensive. I have. Many thousands of dollars more. Few of us have already seen a glimpse of the future, and my brothers, it is all about the convergence of still and video. Seen any of the new LED billboards yet? You will. I'd guess within two years, the old paper & plaster "signs" will all be gone here in the USA. Replaced with moving images, both rotating stills and actual video capture. What this means for professional photographers astute enough to grasp the implications, a huge windfall of new work with very few presently able to do it. The signs are all there, and I for one, am all over it. Save for one thing.... the cost of the camera. The only other full 35mm frame HD 1080p capture device I have found is the RED. And it is cheap at only $18,000 out the door. Without a stinking lens! Those can run more than the body, much more in fact. At $2,700, this camera is an absolute steal, provided of course that the actual image quality is up to the claims on the spec sheet. Let us also not forget what kind of magic mounting the now relatively inexpensive Leica R glass collection onto the front of a 1080p video capture device could reveal.

But then, all of you "glass half empty" types that have yet to even drink the actual water should sit right there in your easy chairs in front of your computer, while the rest of us get the chance to jump on this train fast, before it leaves the station. Just my opinion, and I certainly do respect your right to have a different one. But I am certainly going to be one of the first in line to test this new Canon, and if it is anywhere near as good as the specs say it should be, I will be leaving the store with it in hand, and thanking Canon greatly for saving me so many thousands of hard earned dollars!
 
Last edited:

Ben Rubinstein

Active member
We don't need to hold it in our hands to know that the AF is exactly the same as that in the 5D's we've been shooting for 3 years. A single useable AF sensor slow at focusing lenses slower than f4. No one is dissing the IQ, it's the choice of a very diffraction limited uber megapixel sensor rather than features and IQ ala Nikon.

I think it boils down to what you need, if you need 21 megapixels at that price then eat your heart out. If you need 12 minute video clips, great. There is still nothing to compare to the D700 in the canon lineup and that does bother a whole heck of a lot of photographers who need a certain level of IQ with pro features but don't want to have to unecessarily pay 1 series money for it and are mostly locked into the system because of lens and accessory investments.

I don't need more than 13 megapixels most of the time and very rarely at non diffraction limited f-stops, if they had put the 50D's AF system in then together with the enviromental sealing and the occasional need for megapixels I would have been pushed off the edge and upgraded my 5D's. With the same AF system, I'm sticking with what I've got, I've coped with it for the past 3 years I'll continue to cope without having to spend a fortune to upgrade for marginal and unjustifiable (from a business POV) benefits.

The camera is only better than its competition if you consider the megapixel count to be the deciding factor. Given that we had hoped the megapixel war to be over and the concentration to be of features - it's only better in one feature (worse in every other) and that far from being the most important one anymore. In the UK it is being released at exactly the same price as the original 5D was and $1200 more than the D700, $600 more than the Sony even.
 
Last edited:

dseelig

Member
Until we see a camera we really do not know what we are talking about. The autofocus with a new processing engine changes everything digic 1v . Me I own two 1d mk 111 and a 1ds mk111 which I use for concerts and landscapes and magazine work as well as my leica m8 . I am not seriousily bummed because I know the 1ds is a faster working camera then the 5d shutter lag and frames per second are important to me. But I do want a light weight canon again . 50 d or 5d we will see. David
 

Mike Hatam

Senior Subscriber Member
Ben - I keep seeing you refer to the 21MP sensor in the 5DII as "diffraction limited". I'm not sure how or why you are coming to that conclusion.

Since diffraction is an effect of the lens / aperture, and not the sensor, I assume that you are referring to the notion that you can't capture more detail at higher pixels, so the extra pixels are wasted. Is that true?

If that's your claim, then I strongly disagree. I owned and shot the 1DsIII for many months, and with the right glass, it certainly outresolves the 16MP 1DsII and the 13MP 5D. Based on your theory (if I understand you correctly), the 5DII and 1DsIII would be equally impacted by diffraction. Simply put, diffraction is simply not a significant issue at 21MP.

From the studies I've read, and the research available online, most of those "in the know" believe that diffraction won't become a relevant issue until around 40+MP on a full-frame sensor, again depending on the lens/aperture used.

Mike


We don't need to hold it in our hands to know that the AF is exactly the same as that in the 5D's we've been shooting for 3 years. A single useable AF sensor slow at focusing lenses slower than f4. No one is dissing the IQ, it's the choice of a very diffraction limited uber megapixel sensor rather than features and IQ ala Nikon.

I think it boils down to what you need, if you need 21 megapixels at that price then eat your heart out. If you need 12 minute video clips, great. There is still nothing to compare to the D700 in the canon lineup and that does bother a whole heck of a lot of photographers who need a certain level of IQ with pro features but don't want to have to unecessarily pay 1 series money for it and are mostly locked into the system because of lens and accessory investments.

I don't need more than 13 megapixels most of the time and very rarely at non diffraction limited f-stops, if they had put the 50D's AF system in then together with the enviromental sealing and the occasional need for megapixels I would have been pushed off the edge and upgraded my 5D's. With the same AF system, I'm sticking with what I've got, I've coped with it for the past 3 years I'll continue to cope without having to spend a fortune to upgrade for marginal and unjustifiable (from a business POV) benefits.

The camera is only better than its competition if you consider the megapixel count to be the deciding factor. Given that we had hoped the megapixel war to be over and the concentration to be of features - it's only better in one feature (worse in every other) and that far from being the most important one anymore. In the UK it is being released at exactly the same price as the original 5D was and $1200 more than the D700, $600 more than the Sony even.
 
Top