Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review Discussion [Archive] - The-Digital-Picture.com Community

View Full Version : Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review Discussion

Bryan Carnathan

01-09-2009, 03:36 PM

Discuss the Canon EOS 5D Mark II Review ("http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx) - tell us what you think of the Canon EOS 5D Mark II DSLR.

Stefan Stuart Fletcher

01-09-2009, 05:53 PM

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Thanks Bryan (again) for setting up this thread.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Firstly, I upgraded from a 40D. Why? I felt I was ready for a FF and the 5D mk1 was small, slow and too retro for me. The price differential in Greece was small enough to pay more for more with the mk2. Comparisons relate to the 40D *only*.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]What I like:
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]IQ is seriously much better all across the board, from landscapes to macros (I suppose the extra ISO reach might come in handy one day, but not today)
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Build is serious, solid
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Ease of use: the LCD is a joy, as is the bigger, brighter viewfinder
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Ergonomics: rear is simplified, but the menu is so much easier, but live view button at last makes that useless print button useful, and multi-directional knob convenient. Otherwise, little or no difference compared to the 40D.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]What I don’t like:
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Humungous files (does anyone really need 21 Mb files?)
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Slower fps than the 40D
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Obviously, telephoto lenses lose the 1.6 x advantage
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Not compatible with Photoshop CS3 or anything else (spring another thousand and you get CS4 which is, but that’s another story. Lightroom 2 is compatible)
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Immaterial:
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]The CA setting – is anyone ready and willing to buy this camera going to use this?
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]HDMI video – ok, so what?
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Black dot / sRAW1 banding issues – corrected with the firmware update
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast"]<span style="font-family: Symbol; mso-fareast-font-family: Symbol; mso-bidi-font-family: Symbol;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small;"]·<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] <span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Presence on xxD / absence on XD of built-in flash
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]I regularly print A3+, where the original 5D’s low pixel count would suffer, so any 5D mk2 would have been must if I was going to stay with Canon (pretty much of a sure thing given my lens investment). Am I happy with my purchase? Of course! Could it have been better? Again, of course! I think time (and sales stats) will prove the 5D mk2 to be slightly disappointing, if only because our expectations were so high. I image Canon engineers thought about what to add but were overruled by the marketers, so we got the inevitable (and unnecessary, IMO) pixel boost, but HDMI video? This camera replaces a machine that catered to semi-pro, serious amateur and pro shooters. Are these same people really interested in video? I would have preferred better AF and metering for my money, or least any extra image processor to speed it up.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]In relative terms, the mk2 release price was lower than the mk1’s – and that’s a good thing. I’m happy I kept my 40D. The the 5D mk2 is not a breakthrough, it’s an extension.
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 10pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]Canon seems to be pursuing the same strategy as car makers: use the expensive models to innovate, pay for innovations with the cheap ones sold in bulk and innovate incrementally. Take a look at the auto market today. Need I say more?

rossmurphy

01-09-2009, 08:22 PM

I think the Mk II is a great upgrade, one thing I like a lot is the auto iso when shooting wildlife, see fox ("http://rossmurphy.zenfolio.com/p426237458/h3889f6bd#h3889f6bd), this camera does better than the Mk I at lower iso ranges like 400-800 where I like to shoot wildlife. The resolution is great for my main work which is landscape. Yes I wish it had 1D auto focus, but thats about all, all around I could not be happier with this camera and look forward to getting a lot of use out of it as my main camera for landscape work.

Ross Murphy ("http://rossmurphy.zenfolio.com/)

greggf

01-10-2009, 01:25 AM

Upgraded from a used 5D, and I absolutely love this camera. The live view alone coupled with the rear LCD is nothing short of phenomenal!!! That combo with my 70-200 f4IS is incredible. Had a 16x24 blown up with that combo from Sraw1, and it still looks better than same size print from my old 5D. Sure, I really won't use the video(maybe), but it's still there, and in the future, there will be accessories for the video. Lens peripheral illumination, and microadjustment are pretty huge...being able to set each lens individually, makes everything work that much better together.

Daniel Browning

01-10-2009, 02:30 AM

Great review, Bryan!

I'm really happy with my 5d2, I think it's the best camera out there for my needs. However, there are quite a few things that I would like Canon to improve in the 5d2. I'll limit myself to discussing only the things that could all be fixed in firmware.

(I'll even fix them myself if anyone ever cracks Canon's firmware like they did for all the PowerShots.)

Stop warping the histograms by 1-3 stops (i.e. use raw instead of jpeg).
Stop deleting up to 5 stops of highlights from the RAW data (i.e. allow ISO to be metadata).

Stop clipping highlights in raw files taken at f/2.8 or less just to compensate for sensor AOR.
Stop ignoring masked-off pixels: use them for something, such as removing variable pattern noise.
Stop crippling the Auto ISO for the very purpose that it is most useful: manual mode.
Stop hiding important features such as the dead pixel remapper and shutter count.

Stop wasting huge amounts of storage on ludicrous compression like sRAW.
Stop overriding the photographer's exposure settings just because it's in video.
Stop limiting video to 12 minutes; start a new file at 4 GB.
Stop pumping the audio gain up and down constantly: let the operator set it.
Stop forcing the use of the most incompatible framerate (30p) in the world.

Daniel Browning

01-10-2009, 02:30 AM

atticusdsf

01-10-2009, 02:56 AM

i'm in the middle of a project using the live view video capture.. i'm still thumbing through the settings.. but i did find a way that would allow me to override the automatic aperture setting. i was ratheraggravatedbecause i wanted a shallower DOF.. so i messed around with the settings until it let me set one.. so unless i'm mistaken, there is a way. i'll look further into it tonight.

Daniel Browning

01-10-2009, 04:36 AM

Perhaps you were in "exposure simulation" mode. That mode lets you set the aperture, shutter, and ISO manually, and even lets you hit "exposure lock". But as soon as you hit "record", it throws all of that out the window and comes up with it's own settings. No photographer would stand for that in stills mode, of course, but that's what it does for video.

The camera tries very hard to follow the 1/focal length handholding rule in video mode. If you use a zoom, it will literally change the shutter speed as you zoom, even if the exposure is "locked". This is funny, because that might be exactly what a photographer would try to do if they knew nothing about video (as Bryan points out in his review).

What's *really* funny about all this is that it works great if you use *non-Canon* lenses. Nikon, specifically, has the widest variety of lenses that work well in Canon's video mode, because they have manual aperture control and do not communicate focal length to the camera (so it will not try to use the 1/shutter rule).

Canon's "automatic" video has forced us to purchase Nikon lenses, no matter how badly we want to use Canon.

atticusdsf

01-10-2009, 05:05 AM

yeah, i'm using "exposure simulation".. but it doesn't seem to throw my aperture setting out the window.. i'm conducting a variety of tests as we speak and it seems to work just fine.. i will say i *did* experience what you mentioned in regards to the camera "throwing the settings out the window" when i was any other mode. this one seems to work for me, though..

anyways.. even if there are real issues, they would almost certainly have to be software-based.. so theoretically they could improve things through firmware. let's hope that occurs.

Daniel Browning

01-10-2009, 05:21 AM

i'm using "exposure simulation".. but it doesn't seem to throw my aperture setting out the window

You might be tricked by the fact that what it displays and what it actually does are two totally different things (unfortunately).

Try this simple test: point at a bright light (something that would use f/32, 1/125, ISO 100). Then set your aperture manually to wide open (screen should be mostly white, since you're many stops overexposed). Start recording and you will see the aperture diaphragm close down. (The camera also goes up to 1/1000, despite what the manual says, so it will probably change shutter too).

dougthebiker

01-10-2009, 10:53 AM

How does the 5DII perform for sports? Does anybody have any quantified data on the % of out-of-perfect-focus shots you get in a football or soccer game?

And how does that compare to the % OOPF of a 1DIII or a 50D?

Thanks for the help. I'm trying to decide what body to buy next. I can live with the relatively slower frame rate of the 5DII, but I'd want a "close to" 1DIII autofocus performance to make up for that. I'm not wild about the IQ of the 1DIII and I understand the OOPF of the 50D is pretty weak for sports.

Mr Chad

01-10-2009, 12:42 PM

(Video on the 5D II)

I just wanted to add for those running Apples. I'm using a 15.4" MacBook Pro (2007) with a 2.2gHz Core Duo and only 2GB of ram. I'm able to view and run video from the 5D II without any issues (in Full HD settings on the camera). I have not yet however, attempted to edit those same files in any large way. But they do play just fine as .MOV files on a year old or so entry level MacBook Pro. I was really surprised I was able to do this.

I believe Canon says a 2.6gHz is recommended for Apples. Apple's computers tend to be fairly fixed in their configurations, so this may be of use to anyone running an Apple as a data point for running video. I thought this might be useful to some, since Brian mentions his experience with Dell laptops in the review.

Oren

01-10-2009, 03:28 PM

As far as I know, you don't need a strong computer at all to play HD movies... not only that, but you can probably play them with a pretty old/weak computer.

I really don't know what Bryan was referring to, and his statement really got me confused - since as far as I know, pretty much any computer can play an HD movie - let alone a 2.5GHz Core 2 Duo with 4GB RAM.

It's not like a game where there is a sophisticated rendering work for the computer and graphic card or like an editing tool which makes intensive and complicated computations as far as I know.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

peter buehner

01-10-2009, 03:35 PM

I don't own the 5D II but I use a 1D III and 40D regularly. I don't think the 5D is where you should look for sports. As mentioned in the review, the shutter lag, slower focus, limited AF points, and slower shutter speed, are all deal breakers.

The 40D is ok

The 1D mark III is simply fantastic. You get what you pay for.

If sports is only going to be a part-time thing and the rest portrait, studio, or landscape...well then I think the 5D II would vault to near the top of the pack.

good luck,

Peter

tlinn

01-10-2009, 04:08 PM

Bryan,

Thanks for the great 5D Mark II review. You mentioned the Rode Stereo Video Mic and implied that it was relatively small. Would it be possible to post an image of the SVM on a 5D2? I know this mic is highly regarded but from the images I've seen -- all on camcorders -- it doesn't look that small. I'd love to get an idea of it's size relative to the 5D2 body.

Thanks.

tlinn

01-10-2009, 05:05 PM

Stop warping the histograms by 1-3 stops (i.e. use raw instead of jpeg).

I wonder if it would be more accurate to complain that the histogram doesn't reflect 14bit data when shooting raw? You can't really display the linear RAW data on a histogram and make sense of it because it has to be run through a tone curve. The inaccuracy of the histogram results from the additional headroom that results from 14bit data that is not accounted for in the supplied histogram, along with the fact that the tone curve you use to "develop" the RAW data will be different than the one the camera uses to create the histogram. This is why the histogram changes when you change picture styles, even though picture styles don't affect RAW data (i.e., the camera is using a different tone curve to "develop" the histogram from the RAW data depending on the selected picture style).

Stop deleting up to 5 stops of highlights from the RAW data (i.e. allow ISO to be metadata).

Perhaps I'm just not getting what you are trying to say here. Canon is not throwing away 5 stops of highlights, although I can envision a scenerio where one could conclude this based on how one might imagine the ISO function of a DSLR works. A sensor has only one actual sensitivity. Put another way, eachpixel on a sensor captures so many electrons during a capture.For any given shutter speed and aperture there is no way to make it capture more or fewer of them.Any ISO above the base ISO is simplythe result of increasing the gain, amplifying the actual signal (and noise).

For the"L" and "H" settings,the increased sensitivity isn't even the result of an amplication. It is a basically a software manipulation. In the case of images shot in one of the H modes, they are basically ISO 6400 shots with a metadata notation (in the case of RAW files); likewise, L shots are ISO 100 shots with a metadata notation.

Of course, you may have a completely different rationale for making this claimto which I would simply suggest that no company is going to delete 5 stops of highlight data if thereis an easy way to avoid doing so. Dynamic range is becoming the new grail in the DSLR world and everyone (except Fuji) is stuck in roughly the same place. If Canon was too stupid to take advantage of a way to squeeze five additional stops (!) out of their sensors, someone else would.

Stop clipping highlights in raw files taken at f/2.8 or less just to compensate for sensor AOR.

I'd be interested in a more detailed exposition of this point. I've never read this claim and I'm not sure what you mean by "sensor AOR".

Stop ignoring masked-off pixels: use them for something, such as removing variable pattern noise.

Interesting idea.

Stop crippling the Auto ISO for the very purpose that it is most useful: manual mode.

Amen. Amen. AMEN! WTF, Canon?

Stop hiding important features such as the dead pixel remapper and shutter count.

Doesn't this seem obvious? Olympus was offering pixel remapping on their digicams already in '04.

Stop wasting huge amounts of storage on ludicrous compression like sRAW.

I won't use this mode either but many folks will -- including alot of pro wedding photogs.

Stop overriding the photographer's exposure settings just because it's in video.

What gets me is that, from what I can tell, the photog's settings are also overridden for stills taken during video capture. I'm not completely convinced that this is simply a case of Canon withholding features (like a real auto-ISO) to segment the market.

Stop limiting video to 12 minutes; start a new file at 4 GB.
Stop pumping the audio gain up and down constantly: let the operator set it.
Stop forcing the use of the most incompatible framerate (30p) in the world.

This is a commonly-raised objection but it is misleading. For users in the United States, 30p is fully compatible with the ATSC high def standard and playable on all high def TV's and any computer monitor. It can also very easily be downsized to standard def NTSC 60i or converted to 24P HDTV.

The real issue is the cinematic look you get with 24p. This isn't a compatibility issue as much as an aesthetic one and for folks wishing to insert 5D2 footage into a film with other 24p footage it can be an issue insomuch as the look of the video will be different. On the other hand, 30p has 25% more frames than 24p which will help reduce strobing when folks pan while shooting video. I would be willing to wager that this is a bigger benefit for most 5D2 users than the cinematic look of 24p.

Most people will be VERY pleased with 30p. Of course, ideally you should be able to choose.

ultima16888

01-10-2009, 07:36 PM

someone's angry. =P i was under the impression that sRaw is not a compression but simply a down sized raw file (less megapixel)

Daniel Browning

01-10-2009, 07:43 PM

Thank you for the response. I enjoy the discussion and I am happy to go into more detail about the points I mentioned above.

You can't really display the linear RAW data on a histogram and make sense of it because it has to be run through a tone curve.

You're right about a linear histogram: it would be pretty useless. Maybe someone would appreciate it for a closer look at the exact distribution of the brightest 2-3 stops. I would not use a linear histogram. To simulate human vision, the histogram must have a gamma (or tone curve, as you said) of some sort.

I wonder if it would be more accurate to complain that the histogram doesn't reflect 14bit data when shooting raw? The inaccuracy of the histogram results from the additional headroom that results from 14bit data that is not accounted for in the supplied histogram,

I believe you are mistaken. The inaccuracy of the histogram results from the fact that it goes through many processing steps as part of creating the JPEG, each step altering the histogram. These alterations would have the same negative affects even if the camera and histogram were both the same bit depth.

My understanding is that the bit depth does not relate to the histogram
except that it limits the maximum resolution (precision of the x axis),
and even 8 bits is more than enough resolution for my purposes. That
is, after the maximum 14-bit value (16383) is mapped to the maximum
8-bit value in the histogram (255), that provides enough levels to
describe how bright something is for me.

White balance seems to be the biggest offender. A custom white balance under tungsten light, for example, can increase the blue channel by over two stops and decrease the red channel by one stop. So the histogram may show red is not clipping, when in fact it is clipped by one stop.

Other steps include the picture style (tone curve, white balance, contrast, saturation, colors, etc.) and color space conversion (aRGB, sRGB).

The only workaround I know of, for now, is to try and reverse as much of the processing as possible with in-camera settings and a special custom white balance:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1037&message=26905476

That ruins the utility of the preview, metadata, etc., but for me, getting an accurate histogram is worth the price of all that (so I can get the perfect exposure and maximum dynamic range).

along with the fact that the tone curve you use to "develop" the RAW data will be different than the one the camera uses to create the histogram. This is why the histogram changes when you change picture styles, even though picture styles don't affect RAW data (i.e., the camera is using a different tone curve to "develop" the histogram from the RAW data depending on the selected picture style).

Agreed.

A sensor has only one actual sensitivity. Put another way, each pixel on a sensor captures so many electrons during a capture. For any given shutter speed and aperture there is no way to make it capture more or fewer of them. Any ISO above the base ISO is simply the result of increasing the gain, amplifying the actual signal (and noise).

Agreed. Excellent description.

For the "L" and "H" settings, the increased sensitivity isn't even the result of an amplication. It is a basically a software manipulation. In the case of images shot in one of the H modes, they are basically ISO 6400 shots with a metadata notation (in the case of RAW files);

I *wished* that's how it worked!

Unfortunately, what they are actually doing is applying the digital push in the camera before the raw file is written. The Canon 10D was the only one that did it the right way, with metadata, as you describe. All the others since, including the 5d2, throw away the highlights for no reason.

The highest analog amplification in the 5D2 is 3200. (6400 is digital, even though it's not an "Expansion" ISO.) That means ISO 25,600 is a three stop digital push, with three stops of deleted headroom. The reason I said 5 stops is that I often prefer to use ISO 800 over 3200, because the read noise is not much higher in ISO 800, and I'm happy to trade a little read noise for *two* whole stops of additional head room (more total dynamic range, even though the noise floor is a little higher).

If Canon let the photographer choose to set analog ISO and metadata ISO separately, then one could use a metadata ISO of 25600 (analog 800), giving five stops more highlights than the current ISO 25600. That's why I said "Stop deleting up to 5 stops of highlights from the RAW data (i.e. allow ISO to be metadata)."

likewise, L shots are ISO 100 shots with a metadata notation.

You are correct about that. HTP is also similar to what I'm asking for, but it only allows one stop, and it's not enabled for all ISO settings.

no company is going to delete 5 stops of highlight data if there is an easy way to avoid doing so.

Yet they are. I think the reason is three-fold:

1. Customers accept all sorts of compromises at high ISO, even ones that are completely unnecessary (like this). Many photographers never even use high ISO.

2. Some customers and raw processing programs might get confused by the metadata. They break compatibility withevery new camera anyway, so I can't fathom why this would be an issue.

3. Canon had ISO metadata in the 10D, but removed it. Maybe there is a beaurocratic issue, such as edict from Managament/Marketing that is preventing the software engineers from doing the obviously correct thing.

If Canon was too stupid to take advantage of a way to squeeze five additional stops (!) out of their sensors, someone else would.

Other manufacturers are doing just that: MFDB and many digicams implement ISO as metadata. Of course, they have terrible high ISO read noise, so they don't even *need* the feature like Canon does.

* Stop clipping highlights in raw files taken at f/2.8 or less just to compensate for sensor AOR.

I'd be interested in a more detailed exposition of this point. I've never read this claim and I'm not sure what you mean by "sensor AOR".

I was being laconic; I meant "Angle of Response". Canon does a digital "push" at wide f/stops to compensate for lower sensor response to light from oblique angles (due to the microlenses).

The actual affect is pretty small (less than 1/3 stop), but it's the principle of the thing: leave the raw file alone. I haven't actually tested the 5d2 yet to see if it does this manipulation, but you can read about where it's done in the 30D here:

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~par24/rawhistogram/CanonRawScaling/CanonRawScaling.html

* Stop wasting huge amounts of storage on ludicrous compression like sRAW.

I won't use this mode either but many folks will -- including alot of pro wedding photogs.

I highly desire a smaller file size and I would use it a lot if Canon built a *good* option. Instead, we have sRAW, with nasty aliasing artifacts and much lower resolution.

What is the purpose of sRAW? To reduce file size.

How does it achieve this? By throwing away resolution.

It's like a plane with 21 passengers and a cargo hold full of garbage. When the plane is too heavy, Canon immediately resorts to throwing passengers out of the plane, while keeping all the garbage.

That's why sRAW is the laughing stock of file formats. In the 50D, half of the sRAW2 filesize is wasted on two embedded jpegs, and the rest only contains a quarter of the resolution.

First of all, there's a simple nonlinear bit-depth compression they could do, like Nikon. The difference is invisible to the human eye, but that alone saves a tremendous amount of disk space.

Next, they could make the embedded jpegs optional, at the cost of making reviews a little slower. (I don't use the embedded jpegs anyway since Canon also doesn't bother providing truly raw RGB histograms).

After that they could compress bit-depth on a scale of exposure. You don't need 14 bits to record a scene at ISO 12800. Six or maybe 7 bits would be enough to encode the entire signal down to the noise floor. For every stop that exposure is decreased, the noise floor gets higher. The bit depth should be decreased to match the noise level. This compression wouldn't help or affect base ISO shots at all, but would make a huge difference for high ISO shots.

On the subject of bitdepth itself, the noise in the camera at base ISO isn't even clean enough to require 14 bits. 13 bits is more than enough to encode the entire range of signals as well as a half-stop of noise, and maybe even 12 would suffice.

Now that's four things that reduce filesize without *any* affect on the resulting image. Still has full resolution, RAW, etc. My calculations show that for a high ISO shot, file sizes would be at least 1/4th what they are now. That's 6 MB for the 5d2. I'd much rather have that then the half-resolution 15 MB files Canon has now.

But why stop there? There is an entire world of compression they could apply to the image with imperceptible affect on image quality. Advanced compression technology exists to reduce file size in ways that are visually lossless to the eye. At the very least, the "lossy" effect will be much smaller than just dumping entire pixels like sRAW. Unlike the methods I've already discussed, many of these methods, I'm sure, require some CPU power in the camera.

If the camera is too weak to do any sort of medium-to-advanced compression (and it probably is), then sRAW would be an acceptable compromise. But not until all the better ideas, the least of which are outlined above, which do not require any camera CPU power, are already implemented.

Most people will be VERY pleased with 30p. Of course, ideally you should be able to choose.

Agreed.

tlinn

01-10-2009, 08:00 PM

I appreciate your taking the time to expand upon your orginal comments and respond to mine, Daniel. You make some good points. I appreciate the references as well. Looks like I have some reading to do this afternoon!

dougthebiker

01-10-2009, 09:09 PM

Thanks for the feedback. I got to try a 5DII this afternoon with the 70-200L IS USM and had three of the neighborhood kids run straight toward me from about 50 yards away a few times.

Exactly 50% of the shots were OOPF!

Do you get better than that with a 40D or 50D? I thought the 5dII had the same autofocus as those two.

tlinn

01-10-2009, 10:27 PM

Canon's Chuck Westfall claims that the 5D2 has a better AF system than the 50D/40D but it is not the same and lacks the multiple cross sensors across the frame. I haven't used the xxD series so I can't comment on tracking performance.

I have seen comparisons on the www.dpreview.com forums between the 1D series autofocus and the 5D2. The 5D2 fared exactly how you described: less than stellar to be sure.

Daniel Browning

01-10-2009, 10:42 PM

i was under the impression that sRaw is not a compression but simply a down sized raw file (less megapixel)

You're right. Most people don't think of downsizing as a form of compression. I called it that to highlight the true purpose of sRAW: smaller file sizes (or "compressed" file sizes). I just happen to think that the method Canon chose to reduce file sizes (throwing away good information) was a very poor one.

Ken Schwarz

01-11-2009, 09:08 AM

Great review, Bryan! Thorough and well-written, as usual.

Let me add or emphasize a couple of points that strike me coming from a 30D. I've had the 5D2 for less than a week, so these are first impressions.

Resolution is so high that I can salvage boring pictures through cropping and rotation more effectively than ever before. Why, I can even shoot verticals of equivalent resolution of the 30D without rotating the camera. How great is that? I never really felt that resolution was lacking in the 30D for the kind of printing I do (max. 12x18), but this is the main benefit in practice of having more for me today.

The menus are much better. I liked the "jump" action of the 30D menus--I learned the feel and could move about pretty fast. For example, a function I use frequently is "format" which I need when returning a used card to the camera for a fresh shoot. That's jump, jump, twist on the 30D, right? On the 5D2, the format function can be put into my custom menu. I don't even need to do that because it's usually the last function that I use on its page, so when I turn to the page, I just need to press the "set" button to get it. Little things mean a lot.

Oh, another simple thing that means a lot. Formatting is really fast now, even on a big CF card. On the 30D it would take more than a few seconds, and too often I would be in a big hurry at that moment.

Liveview is fantastic. (I know that this is not new with the 5D2, but it's new to me.) I can use manual focus lenses from yesteryear now and, at least on a tripod, focus with utter confidence. It's perfect for macro and makes the angle-finder pretty much obsolete. Tethered shooting works great, too.

Lens/body focus calibration: Big improvement, now all my fast primes are sharp wide-open. Hint: use tethered shooting to make these adjustments with maximum confidence.

Full-frame: Hooray, now I'm getting all that bokeh that I paid so much for. :-)

I was worried that the AF points would be clustered too close to the center of the frame, but it's not been a real problem. They're OK. AF speed and accuracy has been fine so far.

The ISO button is in a better position on the top of the camera for changing in the dark or while shooting. It's the one you need to remember, and now it's easier to remember. Seeing ISO in the viewfinder is great.

Battery life is indicated in detail. You can shoot down to the last drop with confidence. Good thing, too, since batteries are still hard to find.

Video works, and it works great. Sound quality with a little shoe-mounted mic (a cheapo Sony that is similar to the Rode you mention in your review) is surprisingly good. Results are dramatically better than with my old miniDV camcorder for both picture and sound. This is a whole new world to explore.

Finally, kit configurations are more efficient for light-weight travel. Single-lens kit: 5D2 + 24-105/4. Wow. That's much wider and longer than the 30D + 17-55/2.8, and thanks to improved ISO and full-frame, I won't miss that extra stop too much, I hope. Two-lens travel: 5D2 + 17-40/4 & 70-200/4. No equivalent with the 30D; to get this flexibility I needed the 10-22, 17-55, and 70-200. (I suppose you could use the 10-22 and 24-105 but I'd be changing lenses too frequently.) Three-lens travel: 5D2 + 17-40/4, 50/1.4, 70-200/4. Now we're up to 4 lenses with the 30D and my shoulder is getting very, very sore.

Gian Luca

01-11-2009, 05:19 PM

</o:p>

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]</o:p>

</o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]</o:p>
</o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraph"]<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]</o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt 36pt; text-indent: -18pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1;" class="MsoListParagraph"]<span style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin;"]<span style="mso-list: Ignore;"]<span style="font-size: small; font-family: Calibri;"]2)<span style="font: 7pt 'Times New Roman';"] </o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]</o:p>

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Using the 5D MK II with my previous lenses deliver better images than before (24-105 F 4 IS and 100-400 f 4.5-5.6 IS). I micro-adjusted the autofocus for my 3 lenses, and I find images to be more consistent.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]</o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]Live View is a great method to shoot, and the possibility to view and select your </o:p>

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]I read in the forum that there are complaints regarding the Autofocus and the Noise. I shoot the majority of my pictures at 100 ISO, and very seldom with an ISO above 400, so noise is not an issue for me.<o:p></o:p>
<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]<span style="font-size: small;"]<span style="font-family: Calibri;"]As far as the autofocus is concerned my subjects do not move very fast, and using the center point + Servo delivered excellent pictures for my moving subjects, for still ones I prefer to choose the point where I focus, so I use the center again.<o:p></o:p>

<p style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;" class="MsoNormal"]</o:p>

</o:p>
</o:p>

tlinn

01-11-2009, 05:38 PM

Liveview is fantastic. (I know that this is not new with the 5D2, but it's new to me.) I can use manual focus lenses from yesteryear now and, at least on a tripod, focus with utter confidence. It's perfect for macro and makes the angle-finder pretty much obsolete. Tethered shooting works great, too.

Ken, I wholeheartedly concur. Anyone who has tried to focus a 35 mm tilt/shift lens knows it's a frustration. Angle Finder C helps but it doesn't insure you'll end up with an optimally-focused image. Using live view on the 5D2's high-resolution LCD makes the process almost easy. Canon's tilt/shifts are my favorite lenses and, since moving to the 5D2, the images I'm getting from them have never looked better.

MichaelSchlussel

01-13-2009, 02:00 AM

Thanks for the great review.

Just wondering, will you be posting your experiences with the 1.07 firmware upgrade?

I am hesitating b/c I know that you can't go back to 1.06 and I want to know the negatives. (new DPP color issues (?)...)

Thanks,

- Michael

Bryan Carnathan

01-13-2009, 01:48 PM

Michael - I just posted a before/after comparison of the black dot issue (looks good) butI don't plan to do any more in-depth testing. I plan to usethe 5D IIa lot more - and I'll certainly report any additional noteworthy findings.

Max@Home

01-18-2009, 08:16 AM

Hello Bryan Carnathan,

Thank you for your latest effort to educate us about the Canon EOS bodies.

One of the features that really separate your reviews from any other is the excellent 'mouseover' images, that give great insight to both ISO and sharpness comparisons, and relative sizes of the various bodies and lenses.

In that regard I have two questions/suggestions: in the reviews of the non-1 series bodies unavoidably somewhere the optional battery grips shows up, often with an image. One of the comments then often made is 'with the grip attached the size is very close to that of the 1-series bodies with integrated grip'

IMO it would be nice to show those sizes, either side-by-side or -preferrably- by a new 'mouseover', all with the same lens attached:

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.32/Canon_2D00_EOS_2D00_5D_2D00_Mark_2D00_II_2D00_with _2D00_EF_2D00_16_2D00_35mm_2D00_II_2D00_Lens.jpg

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.32/Canon_2D00_EOS_2D00_1D_2D00_Mark_2D00_III_2D00_wit h_2D00_EF_2D00_16_2D00_35mm_2D00_f_2D00_2.8_2D00_L _2D00_II_2D00_Lens.jpg

...for instance with these type of images... [:)]

Another 'mouseover' I think would be interesting is from the front of the camera, with a 50mmF1.4 attached (that being the 'center point' of the mouseover, the 'fixed value' so to speak), so we can learn how much 'body' is left to hold...

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.32/Canon_2D00_EOS_2D00_5D_2D00_Mark_2D00_II_2D00_with _2D00_50mm_2D00_f1.4_2D00_Lens.jpg

/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.22.32/Canon_2D00_EOS_2D00_1D_2D00_Mark_2D00_III_2D00_Dig ital_2D00_SLR_2D00_Camera_2D00_on_2D00_Black.jpg

...for instance like these...

...I realise that what I am asking is an awful lot of work, but again IMO it would really add another excellent comparison feature to the review(s) that other sites lack :)

...and as always, all the above is just *my* €0.02 worth of opinion and idea...

With my kindest regards and deepest respects,

L. 'Max' Tak

Max@Home

Moderator/Canon forum/PhotoCamel.com

CPS member

Bryan Carnathan

01-19-2009, 01:19 PM

Thanks for the suggestions! I'll keep those in mind going forward.

L33t

02-10-2009, 07:59 AM

Very good camera :)

Ehcalum

02-10-2009, 08:42 AM

We recently took our 5DII out for its maiden sports voyage this past weekend at a duathlon. Keep in mind that the 5D is not and never really was built for the sports shooter.

I find the AF slower than on a 1D and a 40D. When we shoot we live by AI Servo and primarly use center focus lock.

OOPF as related to just the AF performace is subjective. Runners are usually 90-95% in focus using any camera system we have. Bikes on the other hand are coming at you at speeds from 15-28 mph. For the past race, in BreezeBrowser, I nixed 4 completly horrible shots (bike moving too fast, focus hit the legs and not the face or helmet, etc) out of 280 frames. Of the remaining frames, probably 13% were sharp enough to be blown up but not optimal, think of a softfocus filter.

Over all the 1DIII and the 40D we've found have better af performance on moving objects over the 5D. Would we use the 5D again? We're going to give it a few more tries at events, but it'll probably be regulated to medal shots, candids and running events. The camera was bought for our wedding gigs, where it shines.

Our single biggest snitch: the redesigned and cant retrofit %^&*&#!!!! battery.

alexniedra

02-25-2009, 12:23 AM

Finally!

Finally someone who has taken the 5D MK II video capabilities for what they are - just HD video.

You wouldn't believe the amount of threads out there, people concerned that the whole game is now changing, that photographers (wedding photographers specifically) will now have to offer video services to remain competitive in the market. The problem here, is (and many have said this) that many good photographers will turn into bad videographers. Just search up "5D Mark II" on YouTube and find out by yourself. I'm amazed at how all of attempted-5D II videographers go ooo-ahh as Vince LaForet sends bright light sources out of focus in Reverie, and try it themselves, and again, and again, and again.

All in all, this camera seems absolutely amazing - excellent all around.

Digital Fury

06-10-2009, 07:05 AM

Thanks for the review, like all your reviews, it's very nice and quite helpful with both technical and "real life" comments – real references.