Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Barely worth it!

[EdN]

@Mr Chad and Todd Reichman


Well said and eloquently said (in your pre-9:00PM posts). I think it's clear from your expertise and experience and what I've seen so far in my new body that the 5D Mark II is a great camera. Certainly, it is not the perfect camera but it does everything I need and it does it much better than the original 5D. And, I paid less for it than for the 5D. As far as the "shortcomings", I haven't seen any that are show stoppers. If I pixel peep real hard, yes, I do see a few black dots but unless I make huge enlargements, no one will ever see them. I haven't noticed the fringes but that may not be something I will experience in how I use the camera. There is a lot of discussion that both these issues will be resolved with a firmware upgrade. As far as the AF goes, it certainly is no worse than the original 5D from my experience and I won'tbe able to test ituntil summer anyways.


What I have now is a great camera that is superior in all ways to the 5D. And as eloquently described by the above writers and others, there is a lot of satisfaction with the 5D Mark II. What Mr. Donk finds substandard in the 5D Mark II is not universal to all users. Perhaps certain users are "flying the edge of the envelope" of the 5D Mark II's capabilities and are encountering these issues. I don't believe these issues are the experience of the general community of 5D Mark II users.


This thread isn't constructive like the other ones in this forum. There are a lot of excellent cameras out there. If Mr. Donk doesn't like the 5D Mark II, he should go and buy something else and use his energy to take pictures with it and not to draw 5D Mark II users into a slagging contest.

[Steve Spencer]

Hi Karel,


IMO, it is your emotional reaction that is keeping your reviews from being balanced and nuanced. Take the wedding issue as an example. In your last post to me you said that you don't think the AF system is fast or accurate enough to be reliable. I don't doubt that that may be true for you and for the style of a number of wedding shooters (so I don't doubt you would find others who you could quote who share your views). I do doubt, however, that this is universally true for all wedding shooters. Todd is a good example of a wedding shooter who finds the AF of the 5D MKII more than adequate and I have seen a good number of other wedding shooters who share this view. Now the question is whether you will modify your strong view that the 5D MKII is a joke for shooting wedding and develop some nuance in your views--acknowledging that the AF may work well for some styles, but not for others--or whether you will simply and staunchly maintain your emotional reactions that the 5D MKII's is a joke as a wedding camera.


Best wishes,


Steve

[KarelDonk]

Todd Reichman:


I think that the 5D2 is worth it only if you really, seriously, need the 21MP and can live with its shortcomings at the same time, and have enough money lying around to pay $2700 for a body that can be used in a limited amount of situations (like landscapes for example), which means that for other types of shooting you would need another body. I think that's a waste. If you look at the D700, it is more general purpose. You could shoot anything with it.


Also, the 5D should not necessarily include everything the lower models have, but certainly not be crippled in AF functionality which is essential in any camera today. That would be like selling a bike without pedals, for an extreme example. To realize the full potential of the 21MP resolution, you need an AF system with critical accuracy. What Canon did with the 5D2, to include an AF system in a 21MP body that even the 40D beats, is just wrong.


Others expected Canon would put the AF system from the 1Ds mark III in the 5D2, like Nikon did with the D3/D700. I would have been somewhat satisfied with the 50D AF system in the 5D2. I'd be happy with something in between the 50D and 1Ds3 AF systems in the 5D2. But what Canon did was just below all expectations.

[KarelDonk]

Steve Spencer:


My opinion is that the 5D2 is not good enough for fast action and low light photography when you need AF to work, unless you can live with using only the center point. How is that for balance and nuance?


Ofcourse, if you use only center point, that means your subject will be in the middle most of the time and that results in boring shots. You can crop later for composition, but then you lose the 21MP resolution. You could focus and recompose, but that is risky since you might lose the moment while you recompose, and/orthe focus might be off in your picture (which might not be visible in small prints). So it's not really an option.


At least not for me, to me it's a bad joke by Canon. But if others think this works well for them, that's fine by me too. I'm just giving my opinion and everyone else theirs.

[Todd Reichman]

I sure can't change your mind Karel, and I imagine everyone else is getting tired of our back and forth, though its been fun. All I can say is that when my order comes through I'll own 4 5d mark 2s and no other cameras and I'll shoot everything I do with them. Its certainly general purpose for me, through I don't shoot sports which is the only thing I think I wouldn't trust it for. As far as it being like a bike without pedals, well, that'd be a camera without an AF system. This ones got a really nice AF system from my perspective. I trust it completely after coming home from a wedding and having a 100% keeper rate with the mark2. I didn't even get that with the supposedly superior AF system of the 1dsmk3.


I guess I keep posting for all those folks who might be reading this thread who might pass on an otherwise stellar camera. I would think that at some point everyone would need 21 MP. Print anything larger than 8x10 and you can benefit from it. I print alot of wall portraits in my business and I won't give it back for anything. You do get a really fantastic 10mp camera bundled with the 5dmk2 as well .


- trr

[Mr Chad]

KarelDonk:


No problem. I think it also depends on what criteria you use to rate inferior. I'm not fully happy using my 40D to track on-coming subjects with Ai Servo, my 30D was even worse yet. But at the same events my buddy could put his 5D in the same corner on a big tele, and track an on-coming subject and nail the shot more often them me on my 40D. My other pal with a 40D found the same to be true, shooting beside my buddy. (Maybe my 5D buddy has more skill?)


I'd argue the current xxD 9 pt AF is faster, but less accurate at times - it does lack the 6 hidden AF points, which being a center point AF user I'm really growing to like them. So from my experience, how would you rate inferior? One-shot AF in low light, or Ai Servo twelve noon. Idefinitelyfind the 5D II better then the AF of my prior 30D in all aspects, and merely different from the 40D in others.


Finding a 5D II on the shelf in Chicago is still like looking for hens teeth to my knowledge, so unless that changes soon I don't look for a big price drop. Especially given how affordable the 1D mk3 is looking right now for those that need the speed.

[atticusdsf]

this thread is getting annoying.


i definitely agree with karel says about the 50d. based on bryan's own review i gleaned that it was a piece of crap. the 5d2, however.. i love mine. i've been shooting on a 40d for the past year.. it was my first experience with any type of pro camera. it's been a really solid piece of gear.. reliable, easy to use, and it takes good photos.. but i really hope to begin to get a photography career off the ground this coming year, so i wanted something full-frame that could yield a pro resolution without sacrificing image quality like a over-full crop sensor would.


ireceivedmy 5d2 last week, just in time for christmas photos.. i love it. the first thing that struck me, being someone who hasn't been exposed to premium cameras before, is that it feels and functions almost exactly like my 40d (only more solid and rugged). which is good-- i feel right at home. the slower frame rate is the only sacrifice i feel that i've made, but even then, i didn't use the full speed that often on my 40d anyways (the only time i can think of was a seahawks game).


the real excitement came once i got back to my macbook and popped the card into my reader. the photos were absolutely stunning. not a single complaint whatsoever.. professional quality. even zoomed in 100%, the photos topped the quality of my 40d, even when the ISO setting was higher.


couldn't be any more pleased.

[Tom Alicoate]

I have a 40D, and it may be faster than the 5dMkII at attaining focus, does that make it better? Maybe the accurracy is more important, and maybe the 5DMkII is slowerso it canbe more accurate. As you say it is more critical for 21MP. I have one of the first Sony 1080i prosumer video cameras, the AF on that thing was very slow, and I am sure it was related to the fact that their lower end models AF while much faster, couldn't be as accurate.


I can't really comment on how the AF performs though, since I don't have the camera. Hopefully someday.


Everything that Canon does is a marketting decision. They are a public company, and that is what they need to do. While I would like a full frame 15MP sensor with noiseless 12800 ISO, it doesn't seem like that would help Canon sell a lot of 85mm 1.2Ls. I could just buy the 1.8 version, heck the AF is even faster on that lens. As high ISO in cameras gets better, the need for fast glass goes down. As sensors get more megapixels, the need for better glass does go up. So If I am Canon, I keep noise where its at or a little better, and I push the MP to get it to the point where people need to buy better glass for their cameras.


You used a bike metaphor, so I will go there also. Its not a bike without pedals though, its a bike with 18 gears instead of 21. Can you get a bike with 21 gears? Yes, but does it really make all that big a difference? Not enough for me to get worked up over.


Tom

[atticusdsf]

i have that same camcorder.. i know exactly what you mean!


..anyways, the AF is by no means appalling.. when i chose this camera, i heard it was the same system that was in the 5d, any many pro photographers that i respect have used the 5d as their primary camera for many years, and have been quite successful with it. if it's good enough for them, it's good enough for me.


the other thing people aren't considering.. some of these things may be improved through firmware updates. it's rare in today's day and age that a 1.0 product works as you'd hope it would.

[Steve Spencer]

Hi Karel,


You asked, "How is that for balance and nuance?" Well, IMO, it is a start but still way short of balanced and nuanced. At least you are now acknowledging that your opinions are opinions and not facts, but you still fall short in your evaluations of giving other's opinions space, legitimacy, and a fair hearing. You now acknowledge for example that using the center point and cropping is possible, but you quickly dismiss this point by saying you lose the 21MP resolution. But how much resolution do you lose by cropping? This could actually be figured out and then you could analyze how much of a problem this method would actually pose. I think such an analysis would show that this is not nearly as much of a problem as you suggest. I am pretty sure for example that cropping as far as would be required to get to the outermost cross type sensor on the D700 for example will leave you with more than 12 megapixels. So using the center point and cropping for composition might very well still leave you with a higher resolution shot with the 5D MKII than with the D700. You could do this comparison presenting real numbers and dealing with other issues such as changes in depth of field and noise. I would love to see such an analysis--maybe someone like Bryan will actually do this--but without such an analysis to simply dismiss this possibility in my view lacks objectivity.


You also raise the issue of focus and recompose, but again you quickly dismiss it as not really an option. Well, again IMO this lacks balance and nuance. Many photographers are very good with focus and recompose, can do it quickly (perhaps even quicker than changing AF points) and do not make errors. For them it is an option and a good one. Now not all photographers can use this technique well (I am one who is pretty bad at it), so a fair and nuanced evaluation of focus and recompose would simply say that focus and recompose would be a viable alternative for those who can use it well, but those who struggle with it won't have this available as a work around for the 5D MKII.


A balanced and nuanced evaluation would also return to the central question that started this thread: is the 5D MKII worth its $2,700 price tag? The answer would not be a simple yes, no, or barely. Rather it would depend on the way the photographer is going to use the camera. With regard to autofocus it might say, for example, that the camera could well be worth the money if the photographer is willing to use the center point and crop for composition or if the photographers is comfortable and competent at focus and recompose, but that if the photographer regularly used the outer focus points and need optimum functioning of these points then the camera is likely to disappoint. Much more would need to be said about the other features of the camera in a similar balanced and nuanced way, but I trust you are getting the point.


Best wishes,


Steve