KarelDonk:
No problem. I think it also depends on what criteria you use to rate inferior. I'm not fully happy using my 40D to track on-coming subjects with Ai Servo, my 30D was even worse yet. But at the same events my buddy could put his 5D in the same corner on a big tele, and track an on-coming subject and nail the shot more often them me on my 40D. My other pal with a 40D found the same to be true, shooting beside my buddy. (Maybe my 5D buddy has more skill?)
I'd argue the current xxD 9 pt AF is faster, but less accurate at times - it does lack the 6 hidden AF points, which being a center point AF user I'm really growing to like them. So from my experience, how would you rate inferior? One-shot AF in low light, or Ai Servo twelve noon. I definitely find the 5D II better then the AF of my prior 30D in all aspects, and merely different from the 40D in others.
Finding a 5D II on the shelf in Chicago is still like looking for hens teeth to my knowledge, so unless that changes soon I don't look for a big price drop. Especially given how affordable the 1D mk3 is looking right now for those that need the speed.
this thread is getting annoying.
i definitely agree with karel says about the 50d. based on bryan's own review i gleaned that it was a piece of crap. the 5d2, however.. i love mine. i've been shooting on a 40d for the past year.. it was my first experience with any type of pro camera. it's been a really solid piece of gear.. reliable, easy to use, and it takes good photos.. but i really hope to begin to get a photography career off the ground this coming year, so i wanted something full-frame that could yield a pro resolution without sacrificing image quality like a over-full crop sensor would.
i received my 5d2 last week, just in time for christmas photos.. i love it. the first thing that struck me, being someone who hasn't been exposed to premium cameras before, is that it feels and functions almost exactly like my 40d (only more solid and rugged). which is good-- i feel right at home. the slower frame rate is the only sacrifice i feel that i've made, but even then, i didn't use the full speed that often on my 40d anyways (the only time i can think of was a seahawks game).
the real excitement came once i got back to my macbook and popped the card into my reader. the photos were absolutely stunning. not a single complaint whatsoever.. professional quality. even zoomed in 100%, the photos topped the quality of my 40d, even when the ISO setting was higher.
couldn't be any more pleased.
I have a 40D, and it may be faster than the 5dMkII at attaining focus, does that make it better? Maybe the accurracy is more important, and maybe the 5DMkII is slower so it can be more accurate. As you say it is more critical for 21MP. I have one of the first Sony 1080i prosumer video cameras, the AF on that thing was very slow, and I am sure it was related to the fact that their lower end models AF while much faster, couldn't be as accurate.
I can't really comment on how the AF performs though, since I don't have the camera. Hopefully someday.
Everything that Canon does is a marketting decision. They are a public company, and that is what they need to do. While I would like a full frame 15MP sensor with noiseless 12800 ISO, it doesn't seem like that would help Canon sell a lot of 85mm 1.2Ls. I could just buy the 1.8 version, heck the AF is even faster on that lens. As high ISO in cameras gets better, the need for fast glass goes down. As sensors get more megapixels, the need for better glass does go up. So If I am Canon, I keep noise where its at or a little better, and I push the MP to get it to the point where people need to buy better glass for their cameras.
You used a bike metaphor, so I will go there also. Its not a bike without pedals though, its a bike with 18 gears instead of 21. Can you get a bike with 21 gears? Yes, but does it really make all that big a difference? Not enough for me to get worked up over.
Tom
i have that same camcorder.. i know exactly what you mean!
..anyways, the AF is by no means appalling.. when i chose this camera, i heard it was the same system that was in the 5d, any many pro photographers that i respect have used the 5d as their primary camera for many years, and have been quite successful with it. if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.
the other thing people aren't considering.. some of these things may be improved through firmware updates. it's rare in today's day and age that a 1.0 product works as you'd hope it would.
Hi Karel,
You asked, "How is that for balance and nuance?" Well, IMO, it is a start but still way short of balanced and nuanced. At least you are now acknowledging that your opinions are opinions and not facts, but you still fall short in your evaluations of giving other's opinions space, legitimacy, and a fair hearing. You now acknowledge for example that using the center point and cropping is possible, but you quickly dismiss this point by saying you lose the 21MP resolution. But how much resolution do you lose by cropping? This could actually be figured out and then you could analyze how much of a problem this method would actually pose. I think such an analysis would show that this is not nearly as much of a problem as you suggest. I am pretty sure for example that cropping as far as would be required to get to the outermost cross type sensor on the D700 for example will leave you with more than 12 megapixels. So using the center point and cropping for composition might very well still leave you with a higher resolution shot with the 5D MKII than with the D700. You could do this comparison presenting real numbers and dealing with other issues such as changes in depth of field and noise. I would love to see such an analysis--maybe someone like Bryan will actually do this--but without such an analysis to simply dismiss this possibility in my view lacks objectivity.
You also raise the issue of focus and recompose, but again you quickly dismiss it as not really an option. Well, again IMO this lacks balance and nuance. Many photographers are very good with focus and recompose, can do it quickly (perhaps even quicker than changing AF points) and do not make errors. For them it is an option and a good one. Now not all photographers can use this technique well (I am one who is pretty bad at it), so a fair and nuanced evaluation of focus and recompose would simply say that focus and recompose would be a viable alternative for those who can use it well, but those who struggle with it won't have this available as a work around for the 5D MKII.
A balanced and nuanced evaluation would also return to the central question that started this thread: is the 5D MKII worth its $2,700 price tag? The answer would not be a simple yes, no, or barely. Rather it would depend on the way the photographer is going to use the camera. With regard to autofocus it might say, for example, that the camera could well be worth the money if the photographer is willing to use the center point and crop for composition or if the photographers is comfortable and competent at focus and recompose, but that if the photographer regularly used the outer focus points and need optimum functioning of these points then the camera is likely to disappoint. Much more would need to be said about the other features of the camera in a similar balanced and nuanced way, but I trust you are getting the point.
Best wishes,
Steve
Mr Chad:
Yes, 40D and 50D AI Servo is pretty bad. Even Galbraith said it just can't do the job at all.
I do however think that the 40D and 50D AF systems are faster and more accurate than the 5D2 in One-shot mode. Just based on the specs alone, it is only logical to conclude that, but I've read enough experiences for this as well.
Tom Alicoate:
The 5D2 is slower and less accurate compared to 40D/50D when you consider the outer AF points. That's not accetable in such an expensive pro body.
If there was a 15MP body with clean 12800 ISO, I'd pay good money for that, and I'd still get the 85mm f/1.2 L because that lens is simply incredible at f/1.2.
Steve Spencer:
I think that it's a fact that the 5D2 AF system is inferior to even the cheaper models out there, that it is slower and less accurate. There are enough experiences from others to prove this. Even just based on the specs, this is clear.
Based on those facts, my opinion is that it is a joke to include that kind of AF system in a high resolution camera where you would need a very good AF system to fully take advantage of 21MP. The AF system is very inadequate unless you stick to using center point alone. But this goes against one of the most basic rules in photography/art: the rule of thirds. Canon simply do not understand photography well enough, it appears to me.
Others may have their opinions on this and that again is fine by me.
With regards to cropping, I want to crop as less as possible. Otherwise you throw away a large part of 21MP. The whole point of 21MP is taking advantage of that resolution. With giving us this kind of resolution, Canon should also give us the tools to take good advantage of it, like a good AF system and AF points that are spread close enough to the rule of thirds grid.
Focus and recompose will not work, not for anyone, when using larger apertures. Try focus and recompose below f/2. Even smaller apertures are an issue depending on your subject. So this means that if you think you're going to be shooting wide open at a low light event and use focus recompose, you had better count on giving the client back their money and deal with a potential lawsuit.
Finally, I don't think the 5D2 is worth $2700 simply because it gives you less in a lot of areas compared to other cheaper systems from both Canon and Nikon. The only thing it has is 21MP, which are crippled because of the poor AF system, and which have artifacting issues right now. Is 21MP alone worth the price? I guess that is for everyone else to decide on their own. But it's not for me.
I was very excited to sign up for inclusion in this community. I figured with all Canon shooters that we could get away from the endless comparisons of Nikon vs Canon. There is no point really when we have already commited to Canon. Sure people can movev on to Sony or Nikon, but there are other websites for them once they go. Let this one be for Canon. Let it be for people who want to make their experience with their Canon's better. I think Bryan's first reaction to remove this thread was correct. Its definitely not the kind of thing I came to this site for. Perhaps a politics or comparisons forum could be allowed for this type of thread here. That way people who want to get into this sort of thing can, but the rest of can ignore it. I for one am going to start ignoring this one.
Let's go take some photos.
The purpose of this discussion is to make my and everyone else's experience with Canon gear better in the future. Weaknesses need to be pointed out and discussed too, not just strengths. That's how you improve.
You claim, "I think that it's a fact that the 5D2 AF system is inferior to even the cheaper models out there, that it is slower and less accurate. There are enough experiences from others to prove this. Even just based on the specs, this is clear." IMO, you are once again claiming as fact matters that are in dispute. You are again failing to listen to other people's views and give them a fair hearing. It is this sort of intransigence and overwrought analysis that makes a discussion with you so difficult. As was pointed out a few post ago, there seem to be aspects of the 40D/50D AF that are better (particularly the outer focus points) and aspects of the 5D MKII autofocus that are better (particularly the center AF point with its six helper points in AI servo). It seems to me that which system is better depends on how you are going to use the camera and that one system is better in some situations and the other is better in others. But such an analysis would require a balanced and nuanced analysis, you don't seem to be comfortable with such analyses, so I am going to bow out of this discussion. It has already been too contentious in my view and my hope and thought was that this site was aiming for a different tone to the discussion. So far I am afraid I have already deviated too far from that higher standard.
I do listen to people's views and give them a fair hearing. That's why I have concluded that the 5D2 AF system is inferior. I have also admitted that for certain use, it might be good enough. Like for example using only center AF point, landscapes, etc. Still makes it inferior to the 40D/50D and certainly cameras like the D700 and even the D300 which are all cheaper.
Thanks everyone. In the interest of moving the forum on to new discussions, I am going to lock this thread now.
Roger Cicala: I won't get into is the Nikon D700 or Sony A900 better than the 5DII - while some folks will change brands for most the investment in lenses makes that a decision not made easily. But is it better than the 5D? I have to say yes - it has better resolving power and equivalent ISO performance. One thing that I don't see mentioned in all the strident comparisons is a huge but simple thing: Autofocus Microadjustment. If you haven't tried it on your own lenses, it alone is worth the upgrade whether you're talking 40D to 50D or 5D to 5dII. I hear people saying "I won't bother with that", but the people who actually take the time to calibrate their lenses to their camera seem to all find at least one or two of their lenses are markedly improved.
I won't get into is the Nikon D700 or Sony A900 better than the 5DII - while some folks will change brands for most the investment in lenses makes that a decision not made easily. But is it better than the 5D? I have to say yes - it has better resolving power and equivalent ISO performance.
One thing that I don't see mentioned in all the strident comparisons is a huge but simple thing: Autofocus Microadjustment. If you haven't tried it on your own lenses, it alone is worth the upgrade whether you're talking 40D to 50D or 5D to 5dII. I hear people saying "I won't bother with that", but the people who actually take the time to calibrate their lenses to their camera seem to all find at least one or two of their lenses are markedly improved.
Roger's comment regarding microadjustment is well-taken. He has a very good discussion about calibration on his lensrentals.com site. As he notes, within-allowable-specification deviations on lenses and camera bodies, especially when combined, can make perfectly functional equipment falsely seem a bit "off."