Great review of Canon EOS 5D Mark II

Nikolai

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5DIIreview.shtml

And I must add: matches my own (even if much more limited) experience 100% :deal

Qarik

Nikolai wrote:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5DIIreview.shtml

And I must add: matches my own (even if much more limited) experience 100%

I read the whole thing and I don't even shoot canon

kdog

Qarik wrote:

I read the whole thing and I don't even shoot canon

Yet.

Nikolai

kdog wrote:

Yet.

pathfinder

Interesting review, and like Nikolai, I find it largely in accord with my opinion.

I really, really wish Canon would update the 100-400 L with a newer version with much better resolution - more like the Nikon 200-400 VR.

Moogle Pepper

pathfinder wrote:

Interesting review, and like Nikolai, I find it largely in accord with my opinion.

I really, really wish Canon would update the 100-400 L with a newer version with much better resolution - more like the Nikon 200-400 VR.

They mentioned that Canon needs to upgrade a bunch of lenses to accommodate these new beasts they have, e.g., 24-70. I am in agreement, even though my wallet disagrees. I thought the review was really good.

People should be happy with whatever gear they choose and the 5D2 is making me a very happy man!

Richard

pathfinder wrote:

Interesting review, and like Nikolai, I find it largely in accord with my opinion.

I really, really wish Canon would update the 100-400 L with a newer version with much better resolution - more like the Nikon 200-400 VR.

I'm hoping to get a new body this fall and I'm debating between a 50D and the 5DII. I make lots of use of my 70-200 f/4 and frequently use a 1.4x TC, so going full frame would probably also involve getting something longer. The 100-400 seems like the obvious choice. I have never actually used one, but I haven't been overly impressed with the IQ of the images I have seen posted.

Nikolai

I agree with Path and Moogle about the much needed lens upgrade. Something like 24-70L/2.8 *IS* USM and 200-400L/*4.0* IS USM would fill that need perfectly

Moogle Pepper

Of all the entire review that stood out to me, was about the much needed lens upgrades. So hopefully they come!

heatherfeather

Nikolai wrote:

I agree with Path and Moogle about the much needed lens upgrade. Something like 24-70L/2.8 *IS* USM and 200-400L/*4.0* IS USM would fill that need perfectly

Yes! That is the exact reason why I was thinking of switching down to the 50D... the lenses! Hmmmm. I think you should let Canon know what we want, because I am in love with my 5D other than that teensy issue.

kdog

pathfinder wrote:

I really, really wish Canon would update the 100-400 L with a newer version with much better resolution - more like the Nikon 200-400 VR.

Yeah, that would be quite an update -- going from a 3 lb $1500 lens, to a 7 lb $6,000 lens. :wow

I still think I have a good copy of the 100-400, so I guess I'll have to repeat the 100-400 to 400 F5.6 comparo that I did on my old 20D to see how they now compare on my new 5DMII. (Oops, did I just say that? )

Moogle Pepper

kdog wrote:

Yeah, that would be quite an update -- going from a 3 lb $1500 lens, to a 7 lb $6,000 lens. :wow

Now that is gonna hurt!!

Nikolai

kdog wrote:

Yeah, that would be quite an update -- going from a 3 lb $1500 lens, to a 7 lb $6,000 lens. :wow

I still think I have a good copy of the 100-400, so I guess I'll have to repeat the 100-400 to 400 F5.6 comparo that I did on my old 20D to see how they now compare on my new 5DMII. (Oops, did I just say that? )

As you could see from my most recent moon shot, effectively you'll get a smaller moon picture from 21Mp 5D2 than from the 15M.1p 50D with it's 1.6 crop factor (which kinda yelds 24Mp if extrapolated to FF). So for seleno/astrophotography (where the targets are not gonna fill the FF sensor anyway) 50D would prolly be my body of choice...

NeilL

Very interesting read, thanks Nik.

As I said at the time of their release, I felt that the characteristics of the 5DII and also the 50D were uneven : awesome sensors, but inadequate AF, among other things. I also felt that too much in camera data manipulation was creeping in and being forced on us, like an anesthesia, blunting our experience of the raw coupling of optics and electronics.

I never had the experience of film development, but my goodness the concept of doing all the manipulation of the raw data directly by hand and eye, with the opportunity to make choices and decisions, you alone, at every step, is so very attractive these days when the terms 'photography-photographer' increasingly mean the act of buying the gear, and the holder of the gear, and that's the be-all and end-all of the involvement.

Course I exaggerate as usual. And of course those who had to make a living out of slogging in their smelly little darkroom factories would probably shout me down! Right, too!

But I certainly think that Nick Devlin makes a valuable point when he says what is needed for more astonishing images and photographer fulfilment is better hardware and not trickier (automatic) software.

pathfinder

kdog wrote:

Yeah, that would be quite an update -- going from a 3 lb $1500 lens, to a 7 lb $6,000 lens. :wow

I still think I have a good copy of the 100-400, so I guess I'll have to repeat the 100-400 to 400 F5.6 comparo that I did on my old 20D to see how they now compare on my new 5DMII. (Oops, did I just say that? )

Joel, I don't shoot black lenses, so I an unaware of the price tag of the 200-400VR. I did not know there was that large a difference in the two lenses. I should have suspected, though, as the extra stop of speed of the Nikon lens never comes cheap in long glass. The Canon 400 f4 DO IS is not quite $6k, but it is close.

One 200-400 VR is cheaper than a 100-400 and a 400 f4 prime

Art Scott

NeilL wrote:

I never had the experience of film development, but my goodness the concept of doing all the manipulation of the raw data directly by hand and eye, with the opportunity to make choices and decisions, you alone, at every step, is so very attractive these days when the terms 'photography-photographer' increasingly mean the act of buying the gear, and the holder of the gear, and that's the be-all and end-all of the involvement.

Course I exaggerate as usual. And of course those who had to make a living out of slogging in their smelly little darkroom factories would probably shout me down!

Naw not going to shout at ya......cause most of us was shooting too much to spend the time we really wanted to in the wet darkroom.......I did a total of 2 weddings and 4 portraits in my 4x5 darkroom.....by then I found a "Pro" had them proof and then did final prints....I did require all proofs to be actual finished product so that if it was of quality I wanted i could use it as is instead of reprinting the whole she-bang......

Hi-Jack over....back to your regularly scheduled cannon programmning:D

it was a good review even tho I am going nikon for my next family of cameras.

NeilL

Art Scott wrote:

Naw not going to shout at ya......cause most of us was shooting too much to spend the time we really wanted to in the wet darkroom.......I did a total of 2 weddings and 4 portraits in my 4x5 darkroom.....by then I found a "Pro" had them proof and then did final prints....I did require all proofs to be actual finished product so that if it was of quality I wanted i could use it as is instead of reprinting the whole she-bang.......

Hi Art, thanks, always nice to get a slice history as it was made!

Art Scott wrote:

I am going nikon for my next family of cameras.

Yeah, Nikon put really strong magnets in those last models!:Dthumb

jdryan3

Richard wrote:

I'm hoping to get a new body this fall and I'm debating between a 50D and the 5DII. I make lots of use of my 70-200 f/4 and frequently use a 1.4x TC, so going full frame would probably also involve getting something longer.

After much hand wringing, I went for the 300 f/4 IS. Fast and sharp on both the 5D MkI and the 50D. Plus small enough to take into pro hockey games. And I like the sliding hood. But when shooting sports, the slowest handheld isn't 1/300 sec. Since it is effectively 480mm on a crop, I can confirm 1/500 is safer, 1/600 even better, which limits low light situations (indoor) with no flash, plus a definite need to boost the ISO.

kdog wrote:

...my new 5DMII. (Oops, did I just say that? )

All the better to shoot high res desert images

BTW - Does the wife know yet? :confused

kdog

jdryan3 wrote:

All the better to shoot high res desert images

BTW - Does the wife know yet? :confused

Hey, gotta keep up with my Fab-Four buds!

Yeah, wife's cool. She's been fearing a massive gear upgrade for some while now. I think she's surprised it took me that long. I have a really good wife.

Cheers,
-joel

Nikolai

kdog wrote:

Hey, gotta keep up with my Fab-Four buds!

Yeah, wife's cool. She's been fearing a massive gear upgrade for some while now. I think she's surprised it took me that long. I have a really good wife.

Cheers,
-joel

.. what 5D2 was really designed for is shouting beautiful girls while having the beautiful desert landscapes as the background...
Guys, we need to lure ISO into C-camp...

lefturn99

LL Review
You always have to take into account the reviewer's viewpoint. The LL reviewer was more comparing the 5D2 to medium format digital backs than a 50D. Since it was posted on that website, that is appropriate. And maybe Canon does need to upgrade some glass.

But from the perspective of a 40D shooter, the 5D2 is a tremendous upgrade. I've had the 17-40 and 100-400 and went with the 24-105 and 70-200 f2.8 IS with the upgrade. I understand these aren't $3000+ lenses and with the exception of the 70-200, I can see flaws in the lenses if I zoom in to 100%. But who cares? I can take beautiful pictures that make me happy. Of the many thousands of pictures I've taken, only a handful have been printed larger than 11x14. At 11x14 (or 20x30 I suspect), these lense are excellent.

The viewpoint of the reviewer that high ISO damages the ability to PP the image is interesting and I'm not sure I disagree with him. But we are talking degrees here. If anyone buys this camera with the intention of taking 6400 ISO shots, printing at 40x60, and selling them in a gallery, disappointment awaits. One thing I've found about high ISO is that shots that really look ugly at 100% look wonderful at 8x10 or 11x14. What most reviewers (not the LL review) don't realize or wont admit is that 100% is different on a 21mp image than it is on a 12mp image.

The main take-away I got from the review (which I enjoyed) was "don't sell your Hassy or Phase One and get a 5D2". Fair enough.

Nikolai

lefturn99 wrote:

You always have to take into account the reviewer's viewpoint. The LL reviewer was more comparing the 5D2 to medium format digital backs than a 50D. Since it was posted on that website, that is appropriate. And maybe Canon does need to upgrade some glass.

But from the perspective of a 40D shooter, the 5D2 is a tremendous upgrade. I've had the 17-40 and 100-400 and went with the 24-105 and 70-200 f2.8 IS with the upgrade. I understand these aren't $3000+ lenses and with the exception of the 70-200, I can see flaws in the lenses if I zoom in to 100%. But who cares? I can take beautiful pictures that make me happy. Of the many thousands of pictures I've taken, only a handful have been printed larger than 11x14. At 11x14 (or 20x30 I suspect), these lense are excellent.

The viewpoint of the reviewer that high ISO damages the ability to PP the image is interesting and I'm not sure I disagree with him. But we are talking degrees here. If anyone buys this camera with the intention of taking 6400 ISO shots, printing at 40x60, and selling them in a gallery, disappointment awaits. One thing I've found about high ISO is that shots that really look ugly at 100% look wonderful at 8x10 or 11x14. What most reviewers (not the LL review) don't realize or wont admit is that 100% is different on a 21mp image than it is on a 12mp image.

The main take-away I got from the review (which I enjoyed) was "don't sell your Hassy or Phase One and get a 5D2". Fair enough.

Good points, LeftTurn:-)!

lefturn99

Nikolai wrote:

Good points, LeftTurn:-)!

Thanks. One good point the reviewer made is his note to Canon R&D to the effect that if you are going to build a camera that takes pictures in the dark, it should also focus in the dark. Hardly an original thought, but the first time I've seen it worded that way.

Nikolai

lefturn99 wrote:

Thanks. One good point the reviewer made is his note to Canon R&D to the effect that if you are going to build a camera that takes pictures in the dark, it should also focus in the dark. Hardly an original thought, but the first time I've seen it worded that way.

Amen to that!

Moogle Pepper

Unfortunately, the dial has a habit of getting accidentally turned when the camera is tossed over one’s shoulder, resulting in unintended and shot-wrecking mode changes. I don’t fully understand this, since the dial-tension feels just about right to the touch.

this happens to me so many times when shooting with different positions. I accidentally slip the mode from manual to Bulb or AV. It's pretty annoying when that happens.

Manfr3d

Can someone enlighten me why the reviews usually compare noise from different cameras without enlarging or shrinking images to the same dimensions first?

When I resize a 21MP file to the size of a 12MP image the noise looks much lower than when examined at 21MP.