Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Barely worth it!

[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

[Mr Chad]

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.

[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.

[KarelDonk]

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.

[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

[KarelDonk]

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.

[Todd Reichman]

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