Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Barely worth it!

[Daniel Browning]

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.

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.

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.

[Ken Schwarz]

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!

[KarelDonk]

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%.

[Gian Luca]

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

[Steve Spencer]

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

[KarelDonk]

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.

[Todd Reichman]

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.

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

[Steve Spencer]

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]

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.

[Steve Spencer]

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