Printable View
This is probably this forum's first controversial post. I wrote a little about the new 5D Mark II on the link below. I'm interested to know your opinions. Most people seem to like the 5D2. Are they blind to the issues, ignoring them,or am I smoking crack?
http://www.kareldonk.com/karel/2008/12/22/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-barely-worth-it
I've been using mine for about a month and couldn't behappierwith it.
FWIW, I've shot well over 1000 frames in all sorts of conditions, and I've yet to have a black dot ruin even a single photo. If I was an astrophotographer, maybe I'd be more concerned, but it's a complete non-issue for me.
I myself do not appreciate people who use someone else's forum to promote there own blogs.
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.
Karel and I had a chat about this post as I was uncomfortable with it. Karel is a Canon user - and is intent on making Canon give us better gear. I'll give it a try - give your thoughts.
I know I haven't finished the overdue 5D II review, buy my personal opinion to this point is that this is a great camera. It's not perfect, but the image quality is excellent - and it doesn't cost $8k. I think it is a great upgrade from the 5D or any of the xxD or xxxD bodies. Sports shooters may want to move to the 1D series bodies.
I'd still prefer to see a movement away from such on objective critiques, I would rather see a very well laid out and constructive request or story of ones own experience rather than just all out bashing.
Noted David.
I've had my 5D Mk II for just under 3 weeks and I am truly impressed with the improved image quality and low light performance compared with the 5D. This is a GREAT camera and I've only begun to start using all the other nice features.
As for the AF, I think it's better with the new Digic IV but I won't know until summer. The 5D use to have problems focusing on fast moving objects in the foreground when there is an irregular background. This is probably a job for the 1D3 but all the same, the 5D gave satisfactory results.
I'm aware of the issues, but for my purposes the 5d2 is still the best option available. I need fast, wide lenses for the angle of view and depth of field that I want, and I want as much light gathering power and sensitivity as I can get with a low read noise in underexposure.Quote:
Originally Posted by KarelDonk
I would have switched to Nikon 18 months ago because of their superior autofocus and higher sensitivity of the sensor. But Nikon lacks a 24mm f/1.4, clips black in RAW above the mean read noise signal, does long-exposure noise reduction in RAW (that can't be disabled), and the 35mm f/1.4 does not even autofocus. Plus, the camera throws the mirror for every exposure in live view, which causes lots of vibration in a mount. It also lacks "electronic first curtain", which reduces vibration from the focal plane shutter (not mirror) significantly. Therefore it is suboptimal for my purposes.
I also looked at the A900 very closely, but the lack of liveview is a dealbreaker.
I agree that the 5d2 autofocus is not as good as equivalently priced AF from Nikon, and it would be nice if Canon tries to compete in that area in the future. I'm displeased with several issues on the 5d2. The limitation of HTP for ISO over 3200, the lack of true raw RGB histograms, no Auto ISO in manual, a variety of problems in the video feature, and the horizontal variable pattern noise are the ones that come to mind most readily.
Having discussed some of these things with Karel already, I will just summarize the areas where we disagree. One is the idea that the 5d2 would have had better S/N (signal to noise ratio) and dynamic range if it had fewer megapixels (e.g. 12 MP). I think that noise scales with resolution, so that for a given sensor size, a camera with higher resolution can always reproduce the same image (same noise) as a camera with lower resolution. Emil Martinec demonstrates in this post:
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/...t&p=241562
Karel, I understand that your point of view is that "more megapixels are for doing larger prints with better quality", so you think that it's not enough to provide the same quality (e.g. noise at high ISO) at the same print size, but the higher-resolution camera must also provide the same (or better) quality in a larger print. I don't think that's a fair or useful standard for the comparison of cameras, and that it's better to evaluate based on the degree of flexibility that a camera offers. The 5d2 has flexibility to be used at full resolution, even in high ISO, where it will show a lot of noise, or it can be resampled to low resolution (e.g. 12 MP) and it will show less noise, so it provides all the benefits of a 12 MP camera, but the option, for those that desire it, to use much higher resolutions.
I am really enjoying my 5d2 a lot, despite its shortcomings.
After exchanging some emails with Bryan, I was able to explain to him the purpose of my “anti-Canon” posts and he has agreed to restore my original post back on the forum. Basically I told him I am a Canon user and that the purpose of all this is not just to bash Canon, but to make it absolutely clear we’re not very satisfied with how things are going right now and to stimulate Canon to improve in the future. If that happens, it will benefit all of us. It is important to be critical of Canon, otherwise those of us who have invested in Canon gear will be forced to look for alternatives in the future.
If anyone has a 5D M2 that they don't want, I will gladly take it off their hands with no complaints. I guess I am just a nice guy like that. :)
I think the 5dmk2 is absolutely flipping awesome. I loved the 5d and this model improves in every way. Plus it serves a very important need for me - simplicity. I tested out a 1dsmk3 a few weeks ago. No doubt someone really, truly NEEDS all the functionality of the 1-series camera but it just ain't me. There was too much stuff on that camera that got in the way of taking great photos. I do earn my entire living from photography and I photograph entirely on-location and I find the 5d line to be great - you can put it in Manual and it produces a huge, gorgeous file and I only need to worry about a few buttons. What more can I ask for - oh, and its cheaper than the mark1 was!
Really, I understand that everyone is different and we all like different things in our equipment. But are most pros really thinking about switching to whatever brand provides .02% better performance every month or so? Canon has always produced great stuff and whatever Nikon or Sony puts out doesn't change that. Certainly, folks can and should do what they like but I for one am blown away by the 5dmk2 and have no intereste or compelling reason to worry about what the other (admittedly great) companies are doing. I'd rather worry about growing my business!
If the d700, d3, 1dsmk3 and 5dmk2 all cost the same amount I'd personally go for the 5dmk2.
- trr
I read your blog. I, too, lament the quality issues around the black dots and banding, but am confident enough that Canon will fix them that I put in my order for the 5d2 early this week.
That said, I think you're worries about resolution and noise are misplaced. As Daniel points out in his response, it's the combination of resolution and noise that are important, not one or the other in isolation. You get a lot more flexibility with high resolution as an option. With the 5d2 you have so much resolution that you don't even need to rotate the camera to shoot 10 MP verticals! That's amazing and something I look forward to coming from the 30D. I frequently crop to 4:3 or square format. Having more resolution gives me more canvas.
When you compare the 5D and 5D2, you need to compare at the same resolution, not at 100%. That's comparing apples and oranges. If you compare the up-rezed and down-rezed images, you see that the 5D2 is better than the 5D by almost a full stop. Since the 5D put the bar so high, it's amazing to me that Canon could achieve so much.
I'll worry about Canon if they start giving us less for more. They've been giving us more for less for a long time now, although Nikon has been catching up fast and can finally match Canon but not at anything close to this price. If I were starting all over I'd still go with Canon for the lens selection if nothing else. Plus, there is no The-Digital-Picture for Nikon!
I will say in agreement of Karel's blog post that the 50D is a pretty clearly uninspiring camera and pretty unrevolutionary in the most negative way.
- trr
Todd Reichman:
I would like to know if the AF of the 5D2 is affecting you negatively at all. How do you use it? Only center point? In what shooting conditions? What kind of shoots? What is your opinion on the example of the fashion shooter and wedding shooter who got a lot of out of focus shots with the 5D2?
I respectfully disagree. For just 25% higher cost than the 40D you get a much nicer LCD, 50% more resolution, less read noise, slightly higher sensitivity (thanks to gapless microlenses), and other improvements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Todd Reichman
It has received a lot of unfair criticism due to the misunderstanding of how noise scales with resolution, such as DPReview's incorrect conclusions about noise based on fallacious measurement methodology such as 100% crops and ACR. RAW comparisons at equal output sizes show that the 50D has all the resolution that is expected from a 50% increase as well as noise that's comparable to 40D at every equal resolution. For example:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=30412083
If only every Canon camera had as many improvements as the 50D.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarelDonk
For my shoots, the 1d Mark III provided much better AF than the 5d2.
With just the center point in good light with an f/2.8 lens and a high contrast target, the 5d2 is pretty fast and I get a good amount of keepers. I get poor results if I use a slow lens, non-center AF points, low light, or low-contrast target. In those circumstances I try to shoot burstmode and bracket focus with the 5d2. The 1d3 in the same circumstances excelled. (I did not tend to use the 1d3 in the ways that caused everyone else to have problems).
The kind of shoots where I use AF is event photography such as weddings. I think a 1D autofocus system works much better in those circumstances.
Ken Schwarz:
Daniel and I had a lenghty discussion on my blog about the resizing. I understand where he sees the benefit of resizing images and it works well for him.
But my point is this, you don't buy the higher MP cameras to make smaller images. You buy all that resolution so you can print larger with good quality, without having to upscale a small MP image. This is the primary benefit of more resolution, to print larger without quality loss, especially detail and sharpness. This is one of the benefits of medium format and those insanely highresolutions.
For this reason, 100% crops of the higher resolution sensor should look the same, or better, compared to the lower resolution sensor. Otherwise, if you expect to make bigger prints with the higher resolution files, you will be able to see the extra noise and lower quality of the image at the larger size.
Another example is when you crop. If the 21MP image has more noise per pixel than the 12MP image, when you crop the 21MP to a smaller size, you will end up with more noise compared to the 12MP image. If you would take a 12MP sample out of the 21MP image, comparing that with the other 12MP image, it would then be clear that the 12MP crop from the 21MP file contains more noise than the 12MP file.
For this reason, the 21MP image viewed at 100% should have the same amount of noise, or less, compared to the 12MP image viewed at 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Browning
Well what you describe there is some of why I have a problem with the 5D2. The focus system is very poor. Unless you want to use the center point all the time, but that is a problem for a lot of shooting situations. And what's even worse, is that not only are the outer AF points not very good and accurate, when you use them, the 5D2 can actually give you a focus confirmation when in fact, nothing is in focus. So you go on shooting thinking you got focus, and later you see that most of the shots are ruined because of the bad focus. This is quite frankly unacceptable for a pro user. I can't begin to image what I would do if I had this problem during a paid shoot and discover it later.
And then I say, you can have all the megapixels in the world in your camera, but with such an AF system, it wouldn't matter at all.
You know, while the 50D may not be revolutionary, it's certainly not a bad camera (and at the lower price these days, certainly worth a look). I love mine...and I paid the initial release price for it (and feel it's been worth every penny). It may not be a game-changer, but it's a solid piece of equipment in my opinion.
I photograph 100% weddings and I find the focusing spectacular. With the 5dmk1 I would use the off center points the vast majority of the time. I would only use the center point during the reception when flash + AF assist was necessary. I always select the center point before each shot and was generally happy with the results. With the mark2 I was able to use the off-center points even during the reception which was amazing. So I really can't complain at all - I'm thrilled with the focus. I do want to point out in the interest of full disclosure that I couldn't complain nearly as much about the 5d focus as I've seen out there. Also, I used a 1dsmk3 for a few weeks recently and I don't think its any better than the 5dmk2, at least for what I do.Quote:
Originally Posted by KarelDonk
I'm all weddings and engagements and all on-location. I do a fair amount of PJ work with some fashion-inspired posed stuff thrown in. The camera does everything exactly the way I want, center point, off-center points, One shot and AI. It just works. Granted, I'm a bit of a Canon apologist and I tend to privately feel that folks that complain about Canon's focus don't know what they're doing! I hate to admit that but I've thought it more than once. Its just that I've never had a problem with my several thousand (tens of thousands?) dollars worth of Canon gear that wasn't my fault. I'm not saying that to dengrate anyone, just want to give my opinion some perspective.
thanks
- trr
I have mine since 2 weeks updating from a 5d.
I microadjusted the focus on EF 70-200 f2.8 IS / 24-105 f4 IS /
Images are much better then 5d.
Changing set up directly from the screen is great.
For me it is worth the update
Todd Reichman:
If you don't mind just a few more questions. How is your workflow? Do you view your files at the pixel level?
The reason why I ask is because even when the AF system does not perform well, if you view the images with focus issues at a small size, or if you view small prints of those images, they may appear sharp and in focus. If you look at the example of the fashion shooter and wedding shooter I mentioned in my blog post, the images which were not in focus appear to be in focus when viewed at a small size.
The problem will be noticible in large prints and when cropping.
I never liked the focus out of the center on the 5D. I did not find it consistent, so I preferred to use the center point.
With the 5D MKII I tried for on day to autofocus outside the center, but I was not happy with the result, so I came back to focus on the centerpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarelDonk
My workflow is fine? I view files at a reasonable level and I'd like to think that we have a commitment to only using technically sound images. We sell wall portraits from every session and have no problem with softness. Part of it comes down to the fact that viewing a 21mp files at very small levels is a bit hinky - more pixels means more sharpening required. When I first looked at the files close up I was a little dissappointed, but when I applied a reasonable level of sharpening (say, the same amount I typically used for 5dmark1 files) the resulting image was way sharper than the mark1.
So in short, to answer your question I feel that I am looking at the files properly, and they are great. Is it perhaps possible that I dont have this "problem" [:D]?
- trr
Todd Reichman:
I don't agree that more pixels = more sharpening required. If the image quality is really better compared to a smaller MP camera, then it should look as sharp, or sharper with more pixels. You might want to check if noise reduction inside the camera is not making your images look less detailed.
And a reasonable level might be reasonable for you, and as a result you may not have the "problem". But even here you see others agreeing with me about the poor AF. So I would think it also exists in your situation. I can however understand if you are not affected by it because you don't need all the resolution and might not notice the focus issues.
But for me, I can't take a picture of a model that will end up on a large poster or billboard, and have the model slightly out of focus. That same picture might look great as a small photo on someone's desk, but the issue would still be there.
I can also not even dream about submitting such a picture to a stock agency.
All I can say is that I am absolutely in support of you having and sharing your opinion even if I don't agree with it. I do find it a little off-putting (and hey, this is the internet so I might be reading into it) that you seem to indicating that my standards are low or that I don't know much about my camera or my photography. I'm quite convinced that neither I nor my 5dmk2s have a problem. In fact, I'm quite shocked by the increased sharpness and image quality over the 5dmk1. I regularly print 24x36 - 40x60 and deliver these to paying clients and I have no concerns about a lack of focus/sharpness.
I'm on record again - the quality of images that I an seeing out of the 5dmk2 is very impressive to me. Certainly, if you're disappointed I can't tell you that you're wrong.
And the image sharpness issue I was referring to before was from 1dsmk3 21mp files. They seemed to require sharpening more than the 5d. The files out of my 5dmk2 are far superior.
- trr
I love my new 5D Mark II. I'm coming from a 30D and it's a world of difference.
- Vince
Todd Reichman:
I'm not saying you have low standards, I'm just trying to find out why it is that you have no issues with the 5D2 AF system while others do. It is entirely possible that you use it in such a way where you are not affected by the issues. For example, people using only the center AF point are going to swear on their life that the 5D2 AF system is excellent. In the same way, if you shoot only during day time, you'd likely never encounter the black dots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarelDonk
Yup, some folks are complaining. The places that I frequent most folks seem pretty enamored with their 5dmk2s and the resulting files. I use the AF in great light, terrible light, availalbe light, created light, etc. I use off-center focus points almost exclusively now. I'm very happy with the performance without any reservation or hyperbole.
On the other side of the coin I'd wonder what people are doing that's keeping them from getting great images?
Just to add, while I can respect the fact that the black dot thing has been repeatable I didn't see any of that with bright highlights during my wedding reception last weekend. I didn't make a scientific test of it but I tried to see if it would happen under circumstances in the environment I was in and I coulnd't make it happen.
- trr
Hi Karel,
I think you missed the point with your question in this post. Some may like the 5D MKII not because they are blind to the "issues" you note, nor because they are ignoring them (and I trust you have been laying off the crack), but rather because they don't give the same significance to the issues that you do. I plan to get the camera in a couple of months and I don't care that it has basically the same autofocus that the first generation camera had. I plan to use the camera for landscapes as one of my primary uses and for that I don't even need autofocus at all. Black dots. To me this seems like a minor issue that rarely shows up, and seems likely to be easily fixed with a firmware upgrade. I think Bryan's assessment on his yet incomplete review seems pretty reasonable to me on this issue. It is clear to me that you wanted a D700 type camera developed by Canon. That is not the way they decided to go. Others like me are pretty happy with the camera they did developed as it will serve our needs pretty well. I think the camera will make a very nice landscape camera and will work well for other uses in which you have time to setup your shot. Further I think it makes a great compliment to a 1D series camera. I am hoping that Canon comes out with a 1D MKIV next year and that camera paired with a 5DMKII for me would work out terrificly.
Best wishes,
Steve
Steve Spencer:
I agree with you 100% about the 5D2 being perfect for landscapes. I said so on my blog as well. But the thing is, even Canon says that they are targettingwedding photographers and journalists with the 5D. And that, when you take into account the issues, is a complete joke.
Afriend of mine who uses Nikon asked me yesterday why I don't have a 5D2. Then he asked "Isn't that the D700 for Canon users?"
After I stopped laughing (and almost crying at the same time), I started to explain to him why the 5D2 is not the D700 of the Canon bodies.
A lot of people, including me, were hoping Canon would come with a 5D upgrade that would at least come close to the performance of the D700. Nikon has 2 cheap bodies for pro users. D300 and D700. Canon has none. Or at least, they pretend to have 2 as well but they're significantly inferior to the Nikon bodies.
And as for the crack, I may have to start using some of it soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KarelDonk
I shouldn't do this, but what the heck! I've used a d700 and a d3 and I find the 5dmk2 to be a superior camera for weddings. Granted the Nikon options are hardly bad cameras. They are all pretty awesome at this point and it kinda shocks me that we can all debate it so viscerally. I shoot weddings primarily in a candid fashion and I find the 5dmark2 to be darn near perfect. 21 MP totally clean high ISO for the family/bridal party/couple and 10mp super clean high ISO for everything else (with accurate AF!). Significantly inferior? I feel kinda bad for you if that's been your experience, and I don't mean that in an internet dismissive way either. I mean, I wouldn't shoot racing with a 5dmk2 but otherwise the thing is pretty snazzy and it only costs $2700 today and that'll keep dropping. That's amazing performance for relatively little money.
I'd love for Canon to "do better" but at the same time what exactly are we expecting the camera to do for us? The vast majority of the time mine does exactly what I tell it to.
Just want to apologize for continuing this argument. Karel's viewpoint is valid and this is too much argument for such a new forum. I don't want to be responsible for immediately turning this into dpreview. Thanks for the dicsussion and happy shooting fellas.
- trr
Well, there will be some pro landscape photographers who will be quite pleased with the 5D MKII. Also people who do stock photos would probably prefer it to the D700 as well--for that application the high resolution really matters. I agree that for many photojournalists they will prefer the features of the D700, that is unless they are required to shoot some video too. I think it is photojournalists who might in the end most appreciate the video. I also think a decent case can also be made for the 5D MKII as a wedding camera. Many wedding photogs were quite happy with the 5D for weddings and the 5D MKII does have some upgrades they may appreciate. A lot of what they prefer will be determined by the particular photogs style. Wedding photogs vary greatly in their shooting styles. Some seem quite happy with the 5D MKII as it fits their style well. Others no doubt would prefer the D700. I don't think you will see a clear preference in such a diverse group as wedding photogs.
Karel if you don't mind I will offer a critique of your critique of the 5D MKII. It seems a bit overwrought. Your personal dissatisfaction that Canon did not make the camera you hoped they would makeis quite palpableand this disappointment seems to lead you to extreme reactions that don't take other people's point of view and less extreme emotions into account. I for one would like to see a more dispassionate analysis.
Best wishes,
Steve
KarelDonk:
I read your blog and the many posts from others in the forum and your responses. I hope I can add some constructive perspective to the debate.
I have the feeling reading your post/blog that one main gripe is the AF performance of this camera (of many the many issues), so I'll try and give my take on that. I haven't been shooting an Autofocus SLR for long, but long enough that when I started digital wasn't big yet and most everyone shot 35mm film. Which frankly isn't that long ago - I can remember when my wedding photographer who became a great friend got his new Eos D60 to go with his D30's.
My buddies and I shot Canon A2E's, Elan 7's and Eos 3's. I can't recall us every complaining about the AF on the Elan's vs. the Eos 3 which had at the time a new 45Pt system. Which was awesome, my buddy shot his brother playing soccer in high school with this rig and his then new 70-200/2.8L zoom. The rest of us drooled over the lens, but I was never awed by the Eos 3.
Now over the years I have owned a bunch of DSLR's buying a new model I think every time (Canon) launched one. Most recently I've been using a 30D and 40D side by side at American LeMans races through out the country as a spectator; but I did have pit access (& hard cards) with one of the teams during the races. I was shooting a 30D pair and thinking life was great, I was in heaven when I got my 40D over a year ago to finish out the season before last. I never could justify an Eos 1D for my "hobby" I guess.
My buddy would tag along sometimes shooting a 5D kit, which he uses extensively for weddings, HS sports, and portrait work for occasional clients. My other good buddy (the one with the Eos 3) also now owns a 40D for about the last year.
I would say my circle of friends are gear heads as much as photographers, so we do talk spec's and lenses and the normal jargon when we get together. We all waited for the 5D II to debut last fall as eager Canon enthusiasts. And I jumped on the pre-order list as soon as they opened - my buddies are waiting to demo mine when we get together next - we live in different parts of the US.
This past summer my buddy and me where attending a wedding technique seminar, during one of the breaks we got into a convesation with the instructor who is a photographer in Chicago for one of the larger firms doing mostly weddings and events. He being a Nikon user, and we being gear heads couldn't help but ask him how he was liking his D3 and D300 with 51AF pts. and machine gun response. I lamented how I wished my Canon's did 8 - 10 FPS. His reply was something of the order, that he found that much speed absurd for most needs and that outside of sports, he couldn't see anyone needing that for general use.
Which then got me thinking back to our films days of not that long ago - really, it wasn't that long ago. We didn't shoot 7FPS even when we could, film was too expensive we somehow made do with 4FPS, or single shot, and worked on our skill to nail it rather then spray and pray.
So outside of sports, who are these folks using all of these 45PTs and 8FPS in their daily shooting? As far as I know we didn't have 45pts or more until Canon a few years back, and we certainly didn't have AF systems this good. My first digital Rebel was better then most all of my 35mm cameras. And Nikon has had 51pts for all of 1 year now, not decades a year. So what did all the Nikon users do for eons? (Not everyone moved to Canon). I have some friends that are diehard Nikon users as well.
Now I will admit, my 5D II is not nearly as fast as my 40D in shutter response or AF speed it would appear, even using the center AF alone. But I'm not too worried because in Ai Servo mode I have found my buddies 5D to be more accurate at times then my 40D at races. And for the coming race season I still plan to shoot APS for the reach on my tele's. So six of one, half dozen the other I guess. And it does not lock as well in very low light as my 40D, but that said the files are a lot cleaner with less blown high lights from what I can tell when I bump the ISO. I also tend to shoot in much lower light now too given the clean files over the 40D. I also have found a great work around, I stick my ST-E2 on top of my 5D II. It's small, light weight and low light AF issues are a thing of the past. Someresponsibilityin the photo making process does fall on the photographer and not the camera.
So are the folks complaining about the 5D II really photographers or reviewers that love spec sheets? One of my good friend's that shoots Nikon likes to jab Nikon's recent success in my face often, but as I point out to him. If Nikon ever makes a camera that will work with the thousands of dollars of Canon Eos glass I own I'll be sure to try them out. Which is also funny because the only thing I ever hear him complain about is when will Nikon update the Nikkor prime line-up like Canon has. He shoots landscapes and would love to have access to Canon primes, but he isn't switching for many of the same reasons.
So I guess one other point no tech blog ever seems to point out. Outside of those pro's that can afford to dump glass systems yearly, who cares very much about the recent D700, 5D II, Sony a900 debate? Is there a large group of enthusiast buying f/2.8 "kit lenses" for their new $3000 SLR's? Looking within each system's camps, are these cameras not better then anything offered before in this price range?
So is Canon off their rocker? My 5D II produces files better then any camera I have ever owned/used, period. Nikon's D700 is great, but it's still only 12MP - am I going to see a huge improvement over my 10.1 40D? Some of my Nikon buddies use D300's and not D700's just yet, because the price to upgrade isn't gaining them much for their money in file size (their words not mine). I could jump on the Sony boat, but unless I have a huge legacy of Minolta glass is it a viable Canon system killer?
I know that digital has totally changed the way I shoot, and that technologies pace will not likely slow down soon. But when did it become the responsibility of Canon to build the android camera that can do everything. I know that we can't pretend Canon is making DSLRs in a vacuum but I'm not sure they are turning our junk either. Do we care more about the gear winning spec sheet bragging rights or do we care about the end product of the camera. I for one think the 5D II delivers a lot, it's everything I expected for my coin.
Steve Spencer:
I don't find my reactions extreme but I understand if you do. I just gave my opinion and stand by it. I'm just not the type that will say something like "ok, this is wrong with the camera, this could be better, this just doesn't work well, but hey, overall great product! highly recommended!"
Certainly not when we're talking about critical functionality like AF and image quality.
Mr Chad:
Thanks for writing all that up. I don't think it is acceptable to pay $2700 for a body which contains an AF system that is inferior to a $850 body. Sorry, but that is just plain wrong. Especially when the competition is able to include a pro grade AF system in their prosumer (!)body that costs $1400. Very wrong.
I don't think the 5D2 is worth the $2700. I think the price is going to significantly go down very soon.
Hi Karel,
I didn't really say that your reactions were extreme. What I said was that they were emotionally laden (i.e., overwrought). IMO, there is a strong sense of just how disappointed you are in the camera in your analysis and this dominates your analysis. There also is a lack of nuance and an appreciation that the camera may fit other people's need in the way it doesn't fit your needs. A good example, of this is how in an earlier post you thought it was a joke that Canon thought the camera would work well for weddings. There is no recognition that it might work well for some styles of shooting weddings. Just a blanket judgment that clearly the D700 would be better.
Many people are at this website because they believe that Bryan provides balanced, thoughtful, nuanced, and objective analyses of Canon products. IMO, you style diverges quite considerably from Bryan's. I am sure you will stand by your opinions, but I wonder whether you still have room to learn from other's opinions and from a different style of doing reviews.
Best wishes,
Steve
Steve Spencer:
I won't deny that there is emotion in my reactions, and I won't deny that I am very disappointed in the 5D2. That's just very clear. I did mention that the camera might fit certain styles of shooting, such as landscapes.
But for weddings, I don't think the AF system is fast and accurate enough to be reliable in situations where you need it. I'm not the only one saying it. I can copy paste aposts from other forums here for you showing that. The AF system might work well enough for group shots and detail shots and things like that (even though even that might not be consistent unless you use center point). But not for everything. It would be very risky and chances are you might miss importantmoments. Especially when you get in low light situations.
And yes, my style is different from Bryan's. But like I said, I'm not going to admit to serious flaws in a camera only to say it's still excellent. Like that guy from the Online Photographer.
I thought I was going to let it go but I can't!! I was wondering about the title of this thread and really wanted to know if Karel thought the 5dmk2 was worth the price but just barely or whether he questioned the value altogether. The AF/price question in interesting. Karel believes that because you can get a "better" AF system in an $850 body or a "pro" AF system in a $1400 body that the 5d must necessarily include one for $2700. I'm forced to relate this in some ways to my experience as a business owner. I shoot weddings and I try to target the mid-to-high ends of my market. There are of course people willing to shoot weddings for unlimited time and digital files and albums included for $750-1250. Does that mean that I am obligated to include all that for say $4000? What if I charge $4000 without including all that stuff?
I like to think I provide a value and a quality that the less-expensive guys don't. Likewise I like to think that my 5dmark2 is a great value - I'd happily pay more for it. I like it because its a familiar, full frame, excellent performing (for me), simple camera that I can attach my favorite lenses to. The d700 might be gravy but I can't autofocus my 135 2.0 or 50 1.2 on it so the direct comparison is moot. Of course, I'd love it if Canon put every feature I desire in a $1000 camera, and I'm sure my clients would love it if I gave them top-package contents for entry-level prices but neither is going to happen.
- trr