Canon 5D MkII Announced!

[troyhark]

The benefit for having HD video in an SLR is the cheap tele and specialty lenses, but with no good audio all we will have are silent films or crappy skate videos with EMO music playing in the background.

The major benefit for many people will be the large capture sensor and the look of resulting image. This is bigger than the RED sensor, though not as high res.

As for sound, if you are serious you normally have someone else capture sound, though being able to record sound directly onto camera is certainly a plus for post.

Potential solution...?

Useful link. Ta.

 

[wheezy]

The major benefit for many people will be the large capture sensor and the look of resulting image. This is bigger than the RED sensor, though not as high res.

As for sound, if you are serious you normally have someone else capture sound, though being able to record sound directly onto camera is certainly a plus for post.

Don't a lot of Camera Microphones have a 'foot' on them that would slide into the flash hotshoe? I'm just guessing here, but that would allow you to mount a decent mic on there to get better quality sound. Should work better than working it MacGyver style.

 

[jaduffy108]

I'm "sure" the IQ will be awesome on the 5DII, but it has a slow AF system and 4fps. Since *I* don't print at poster size or larger....going by specs, I would still choose the Nikon D700. The D700 being far richer in terms of features imo. This pixel war thing is out of hand.

 

[tonie]

hopefully it will be under $2500

 

[tip]

hopefully it will be under $2500

No, it's $2700.

I think the 5D mk2 is a bit underwhelming, particularly with Nikon's recent offerings.

Still, I'm still happy with my "mk 1" and probably won't upgrade anytime soon.

 

[volvoben]

Although I didn't like the ergonomics or operation of the 5D, the sensor was really quite amazing...and it appears the mkII is more of the same, assuming the image quality is at or above 1Ds mkIII level.

About 2/3 of the time i'd probably prefer the great ergonomics and speed of a D700, but when on a tripod with some time to set things up and not worry about being spotted or whathaveyou, I'd certainly prefer the extra resolution and sharpness of the 5DmkII.

In any case my D300 will need to last at least another 2-3 years, or at least until I can finally afford a mac pro based system, then save enough to replace the D300, plus normal and ultrawide zoom lenses...

Oh well, really I'm still perfectly happy with the photos taken with my D70, D100, numerous film cameras...and even some cheap p&s digis have made photos whose quality i'm happy to print 20x30 and sell. Everything in perspective as they say.

 

[Digital Skunk]

...

True, right now the speed of the D700 is keeping it afloat in the FX market. Not that the IQ doesn't hold up, just that 8 fps on an FX body is only capable with the D3 and the D700.

Personally looking to grab either a D700 and D3 or two D700s. Then pickup one of the Canon GX series of P&S cameras for the portability. Hopefully both Nikon and Canon will stop killing us with these 14 MP ultra small sensor bodies, and give us the speed and IQ that EVERYONE wants with bridge cameras and rangefinder "like" cameras.

p.s. having a dedicated audio guy is usually done in film and broadcast TV (sports mainly). Electronic News Gathering and freelance/journalism most audio is collected on camera, or via mics patched into the camera inputs.

 

[wheezy]

I'm "sure" the IQ will be awesome on the 5DII, but it has a slow AF system and 4fps. Since *I* don't print at poster size or larger....going by specs, I would still choose the Nikon D700. The D700 being far richer in terms of features imo. This pixel war thing is out of hand.

How does the AF system compare to the D700 and what qualifies it as 'Slow'? AFAIK, they've included their new high-sensitivity cross sensors on there, as well as hidden assist points to help with the AI Servo mode. My 3yr Old Canon 20D is plenty fast on the focus with my USM lenses. I'm not trying to argue your point here, I'd like an explanation. I don't know how the D700 AF system works.

I do agree though that the MP war is getting old, and everyone knows it. This thread points you to a news story where Canon Engineers and Marketing are going different directions, marketing still pushing the MP hype, whereas the Engineers wanted a modest MP jump while adding killer new features:

"The image quality on the 5d1 was so good that it's still as good as the new NikonD700 even though the Nikon is 3 years younger. I was hoping (...) for two new cameras. One would be a 'reheated' 5D1 with a same megapixel count but a slight redesign in sensor combined with new processor and all the gadgets like micro autofocus adjustments, vignetting control, dust reduction, better weather seals and an upgrade to the autofocus."

"The other one would be a 'revolution' 5d, with a completely new sensor design (so it can actually take a lot more megapixels), dual processor for faster frames per second and the gadgets above with a 'near' professional grade autofocus for the sake of protecting the 1D series and model segregation".

On the flip side though, they've had 3 years with this in development, why couldn't they pull off everything they wanted in that time? (Please note, I didn't make the IQ comparison between the 5D and D700, that was an article quote)

 

[tip]

On the flip side though, they've had 3 years with this in development, why couldn't they pull off everything they wanted in that time?

Different strategy than Nikon.

With Nikon, when you buy a model, you get most of the features of the lesser-priced models (provided they're older (e.g., D90's video is unique)). So I can buy a D700 and not have to worry about missing out on D300 features.

With Canon, it's a bit different. Each model line is treated separately, so a low end xD (e.g., 5D2) has less (okay different) features than a high end xxD (e.g., 50D). So if I bought a 5D2, I still might have to consider getting a 50D for some applications.

I don't know if that marketing article is true; however, until Canon stops overly "protecting" other cameras in their lineup, this will probably continue for years to come. Hopefully it'll be less than another three.

 

[Digital Skunk]

.....

I get you. That's why I always felt the 5D was more on the lines of a stripped down 30D (Rebel) with a full frame sensor. It was made primarily for IQ, not speed or features.

The 5DII does a better job, even though they only added the weather sealing.

As far as IQ goes, it's been pretty set since the D2x/1DsII for me. I am primarily looking at IQ at extremely low and high ISOs, long exposures, and AF speed and accuracy while shooting at high frame rates.

 

[jaduffy108]

How does the AF system compare to the D700 and what qualifies it as 'Slow'? AFAIK, they've included their new high-sensitivity cross sensors on there, as well as hidden assist points to help with the AI Servo mode. My 3yr Old Canon 20D is plenty fast on the focus with my USM lenses. I'm not trying to argue your point here, I'd like an explanation. I don't know how the D700 AF system works.

I do agree though that the MP war is getting old, and everyone knows it. This thread points you to a news story where Canon Engineers and Marketing are going different directions, marketing still pushing the MP hype, whereas the Engineers wanted a modest MP jump while adding killer new features:

"The image quality on the 5d1 was so good that it's still as good as the new NikonD700 even though the Nikon is 3 years younger. I was hoping (...) for two new cameras. One would be a 'reheated' 5D1 with a same megapixel count but a slight redesign in sensor combined with new processor and all the gadgets like micro autofocus adjustments, vignetting control, dust reduction, better weather seals and an upgrade to the autofocus."

"The other one would be a 'revolution' 5d, with a completely new sensor design (so it can actually take a lot more megapixels), dual processor for faster frames per second and the gadgets above with a 'near' professional grade autofocus for the sake of protecting the 1D series and model segregation".

On the flip side though, they've had 3 years with this in development, why couldn't they pull off everything they wanted in that time? (Please note, I didn't make the IQ comparison between the 5D and D700, that was an article quote)

As others have pointed out, the 5dII has the same AF system as the orginal 5d which wasn't anything to celebrate about even three years ago. Now...compared to current Nikon's AF system..c'mon. No contest. Maybe the well publicized AF problems with the newer 1D Canon cams are the reason Canon didn't upgrade the AF system. As you said, you're happy with the 20D AF performance, which tells me, you'd be happy with the 5dII AF performance. I would not be happy with the 5dII's AF system, knowing what the D700 can do for basically the same money.

I suggest you go rent a 1DmkIIn for a day...and you will quickly see what Pro AF is about...and the new Nikon AF system is even better. That Nikon *Pro* AF system is on the D300, btw.

I'm not a Canon hater. I can see people being thrilled with the new 5dII. Do you shoot in a studio? Great choice. Mostly landscapes? Great choice. Super large prints? Great choice. **I** don't do much of the above ....not a great choice for me. Quite a poor choice for me actually. I want a very responsive system for pj/sports/street/ work. I would actually prefer a Nikon D300 over the 5dII. The obvious...what good is the 5dII's extra resolution if I miss the shot??? A D700 gives me a far better set of tools to "get the shot" combined with fantastic resolution, etc. The 5dII appears to have a few great strengths, but also a very significant list of weaknesses such as being quite limited to controlled circumstances.

Bottom line: Nikon's philosophy better matches *my* needs. The new 5dII only reinforces and clarifies the differences in **priorities** between Nikon and Canon. Nikon developed fantastic new sensors that FINALLY equal (or surpass) Canon in terms of noise....combined them with intelligent, efficient ergonomics and an emphasis on camera features/performance (AF speed/accurancy!!). This resulted in cams with a VERY broad set of strengths. Cams that will GET THE JOB DONE in MANY circumstances.

Frankly, *IMO*...Canon has once again chosen to develop a camera that matched their MARKETING STRATEGY (the MP war that you acknowledged), rather than the other way around. If you perceive this, why are you buying into it??? Have a lot invested in Canon L glass?...fine...get a used Canon 1DmkIIn...that's a solid cam and a much better value imo.

As you said and I agree, the IQ of the original 5d is still very good and competitive with current cams from Canon and Nikon...all the more reason NOT to be duped by Canon marketing into buying a 21mp cam with consumer features/performance!!! At the level of cams we talkin', IQ is no longer the issue. Technically, they're *all* capable of producing wonderful images..so this begs the question...what is the criterion for choosing your "tool"? Canon has decided to reinforce the myth that more MP is the way to achieve great photography. Bresson and others are rolling in their graves.

If the 5dII's only real "selling point" is it's resolution and someone rarely if ever prints A1 or larger, the 5dII makes almost ZERO SENSE.

On the other hand, if you make wall sized prints of static objects/scenes...get the 5dII.

I would love to "go off" on a rant 'bout now about how these issues are damaging the ART of photography, but I'll spare you.

 

[valdore]

21 Megapixels is great and all, but unless they've solved this insanity with how the 5D attracts so much dust, debris, and filth to its sensor, then I'm not interested.

A few days ago I spent over three hours cleaning my 5D's sensor, both with the Copper Hill wet solution/swab kit, and also with the Arctic Butterfly from Invisible Dust. And even still at narrow apertures, miscellaneous crap will surface out of nowhere after a quick lens change - and I practice good lens-changing habits. Hell, even with wide apertures I've had photos nearly ruined because the sensor on my 5D was so filthy. I've wanted to take the bloody thing to the top of the parking garage at work and hurl it over the side, that's how frustrating this can be.

 

[scottydawg]

Hopefully they are dealing with dust, here is what they have to say (look towards the bottom of the features list).

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...categoryid=139&modelid=17662#ModelFeaturesAct

and a direct link:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...TabAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17662&pageno=6

 

[troyhark]

I'm not a Canon hater. I can see people being thrilled with the new 5dII. Do you shoot in a studio? Great choice. Mostly landscapes? Great choice. Super large prints? Great choice. **I** don't do much of the above ....not a great choice for me. Quite a poor choice for me actually.

I don't do much of the above either, yet strangely camera is great for me.

I want a very responsive system for pj/street work. I would actually prefer a Nikon D300 over the 5dII. The obvious...what good is the 5dII's extra resolution if I miss the shot??? A D700 gives me a far better set of tools to "get the shot" combined with fantastic resolution, etc. The 5dII appears to have a few great strengths, but also a very significant list of weaknesses such as being quite limited to controlled circumstances.

Like just about any item one can buy, so if it doesn't do what you need, buy something that does. I use a 5D is a huge variety of uncontrolled circumstances, yet it still produces some damn fine pics.
Could it be improved - without doubt.

Bottom line: Nikon's philosophy better matches *my* needs. The new 5dII only reinforces and clarifies the differences in **priorities** between Nikon and Canon. Nikon developed fantastic new sensors that FINALLY equal (or surpass) Canon in terms of noise....combined them with intelligent, efficient ergonomics and an emphasis on camera features/performance (AF speed/accurancy!!). This resulted in cams with a VERY broad set of strengths. Cams that will GET THE JOB DONE in MANY circumstances.

Only since they got FF sensors, before that Nikon were not even a consideration. Thank god they've got thier act together.
As for ergonomics. I found the Canons very easy to use, without even reading the manual. With Nikons, reading the manual is a must and they always feel clunky, IMO. As for Canon being surpased by Nikon, most tests of the more expensive and three years younger D700 vs the 5D came to the conclusion there wasn't actually much in it.

Frankly, *IMO*...Canon has once again chosen to develop a camera that matched their MARKETING STRATEGY (the MP war that you acknowledged), rather than the other way around. If you perceive this, why are you buying into it??? Have a lot invested in Canon L glass?...fine...get a used Canon 1DmkIIn...that's a solid cam and a much better value imo.

I prefer the handling of the 5D. Never liked the bulk of the 1ds.

As you said and I agree, the IQ of the original 5d is still very good and competitive with current cams from Canon and Nikon...all the more reason NOT to be duped by Canon marketing into buying a 21mp cam with consumer features/performance!!! At the level of cams we talkin', IQ is no longer the issue.

Er yes it is! They differ and can still be inproved upon.

Canon has decided to reinforce the myth that more MP is the way to achieve great photography.

And will continue to do so as it sells cameras. They are a business not a charity and sadly most people only care about MP, which is particularly stupid as those people are the ones least likely to notice any improvements in cameras IQ anyway.

I've notice a lot of moans in past and of late that the 5D/5DII doesn't shoot 8fps or whatever. Now I do dance photography and find if one takes a single picture at the right moment, then there's no need for a fast fps. Tried with a camera with higher fps a while back and camera always missed the right moment.
Too many machine gun photographers out there. Spray and Pray as it was very accurately described above.

 

[jaduffy108]

I've notice a lot of moans in past and of late that the 5D/5DII doesn't shoot 8fps or whatever. Now I do dance photography and find if one takes a single picture at the right moment, then there's no need for a fast fps. Tried with a camera with higher fps a while back and camera always missed the right moment.
Too many machine gun photographers out there. Spray and Pray as it was very accurately described above.

It's too bad you didn't take the time to educate yourself before making a purchase, because to buy a 5dII (or 5dmkI) for dance photography is a very poor choice in "tool" and a waste of money. A Canon 20D/30D/40D/50D, combined with fast glass, would have been much better tools for shooting dance performances. A used 1dmkIIn would have been even better.

A Nikon D300 would run circles around your 5d for dance/action photography. Not just the fps either, the AF on the D300 is in another league compared to the 5d.

And you don't make large prints very often?? As in A2, A1, etc? If not...again....the 5d is a poor choice and waste of money.

Am I ragging on the 5d? No, it's a great cam for specific tasks. My ex has one and she does great work with it. Head shots for actors, portraits and product brochures!!! Not dance....geez.

This isn't about Nikon vs Canon...there are some wonderful cameras in both product lines...BUT...the 5d is a niche product. All the more true with the mkII.

For you to promote the 5d as an action camera is irresponsible.

 

[840quadra]

Wow,

This thread has gone way off topic, and kinda getting personal.

I am somewhat interested in the ability to create HD clips on the fly. There are often moments when pulling out an other camera can be a bit of a pain (or cause you to miss your opportunity). Being able to do high quality video or images in one device is something that will likely become more commonplace as time moves forward.

Nice feature list on paper.

 

[troyhark]

I'm not a 'spray and pray' photographer as I simply take one shot at the correct moment. And rarely miss the shot, so why bother with a motordrive sequence with lots of duff shots, when I can take one good one. Which is what the talent free tend to do.
In a set up I did recently, I had a new idea for a shot, put dancers in position, said go and took just the one shot [see below]. It was exactly as I wanted it without repainting Zebra crossing more evenly, so I didn't see any point in taking any more.

It's too bad you didn't take the time to educate yourself before making a purchase, because to buy a 5dII (or 5dmkI) for dance photography is a very poor choice in "tool" and a waste of money. A Canon 20D/30D/40D/50D, combined with fast glass, would have been much better tools for shooting dance performances. A used 1dmkIIn would have been even better.

Nonsense, I have a 20D and funnily enough it's not a patch on my 5D for many reasons and the same things apply to the more recent versions. Don't even like the 1DII.

A Nikon D300 would run circles around your 5d for dance/action photography. Not just the fps either, the AF on the D300 is in another league compared to the 5d.

But it's not full frame so completerly and utterly useless for my needs.

And you don't make large prints very often?? As in A2, A1, etc? If not...again....the 5d is a poor choice and waste of money.

Well print size is a minor reason for choosing a FF camera, the look of the image is way more important and the 5d produces beautiful looking images. I cannot stand crop cameras or the focal lengths/fields of view they produce. The 20D however could easlily be considered a waste of money, as it was only used briefly before getting a 5D and it's never been used since. It's now my doorstop, sorry back up camera and I've never needed it.

Am I ragging on the 5d? No, it's a great cam for specific tasks.

Actually you are as you don't appreciate how good it is when used well.

My ex has one and she does great work with it. Head shots for actors, portraits and product brochures!!! Not dance....geez.

Well funny how I find it exceptionally good for the job, oh hang on maybe it's not the camera, maybe it's because I'm actually a good photographer. BTW newflash for you - It's not the camera that takes pictures, it's the person behind that does so. Could the camera be better, certainly, eye control focus like the EOS 3 would be the greatest single improvement for me.

This isn't about Nikon vs Canon...there are some wonderful cameras in both product lines...BUT...the 5d is a niche product. All the more true with the mkII.

Only a niche if your lack of skills/immagination limit it to a niche.

For you to promote the 5d as an action camera is irresponsible.

Irresponsible!!? Even if I had promoted it as such, which I didn't, that's a ridiculously over the top thing to say.


Besides, people who work in camera shops are not working professionals and from my experience, most know very little about photography or even how to use the cameras they are selling. Oh and photography is my day job. Love and kisses. TH


BTW I'm now trying to decide which of the latest 50/60MP MF DSLRs to get to use in future for my work, including dance photography. And they only do 1fps at best. But according to your thinking, they will be even more useless. So why not write to say Lois Greenfield and tell her how she's been doing it all wrong these years.
http://www.loisgreenfield.com

 

[troyhark]

There are some example shots on DPReview and the quality looks execrable. Though hard to tell if it's user or [beta] camera that is responsible.

 

[Phrasikleia]

troyhark, that was one well reasoned retort, especially your point about FF cameras being beneficial for more than just large print sizes.

 

[Kebabselector]

I know the 5D AF isn't 1D standard, but I've not found it to be lacking. As with all cameras technique is required. You have to work with your camera, not shoot away and hope. Though for some instances I know high fps is essential.

 

[AlaskaMoose]

Well, I agree with troyhark in relation to camera shooting speed. However, please take my comments with a grain of salt, since I am not a sports photographer. Even so, common sense tells me that before 1 or 2 or 10 fps speeds were available to photographers with film and then digital cameras, these were still producing images that to this day can't be equally duplicated with the fastest cameras available. How did such photographers achieve such feats with slow (if that's what we should call them) cameras?

Something else I have noticed is that the best photographers around have no time to argue about cameras and such, or are usually very quiet about it.

 

[Grimace]

First, the comments regarding the benefits of FF are laughable. Where do you people pick this stuff up??? Defraction, DoF, etc. are the arena of FF. You CANNOT distinguish whether an image is from a cropped vs FF cam from a print. That's insane! Holy-moly.

Please...NAME ONE SINGLE PRO SPORTS Photographer using a 5d(IorII) at a sports or action event. Not ONE...EVER...in my YEARS of work.

I'll pick apart just two bits that stand out.

1. Full Frame does have DoF benefit over cropped cameras as more of the lens is used at the wider end. If the subject is in focus in the middle, more of the out-of-focus parts of the lens (at the periphery) are visible. It makes an image pop more because there can be more variance. You are correct that someone would be hard pressed to pick out from a randomly selected image if the camera was FF or not. The aperture setting on either type of camera could provide results that look like the other. But, to qualify that -- if both types of cameras take a shot at f/2.8 (or f/4 etc.) will look more defined with a FF camera than the same shot, same angle, same everything when taken with a crop camera - only because there is more of the DoF exposed with the lens coverage of a FF camera, as mentioned earlier.

2. Anyone can shoot sports with a 5D (the mkII isn't out yet.) But, any "pro" wedding photographer could use a Rebel XT. That said, you would be hard pressed to find a pro on the sidelines of major sporting events with a 5D (or its successor). It simply isn't the "best" tool for the job. Sports shooting happens in 1000ths of seconds and the 5D won't cut it for much other than maybe golf putts.

Let's stick to discussing the cameras and not let things get too personal!

 

[Phrasikleia]

He basically said the 5D works for him; I see nothing in his comments about it being the "be-all-end all of cameras", especially since he said he's in the market for a medium format camera.

I think most of us here will agree that dpreview is hardly full of people who want to rip anyone apart. Those forums tend to be just as good-natured as these do.

 

[wheezy]

As I stated, the AF on my 20D has been great for me, but it's all I know. I'm sure if I used a 1d MkIII with it's fast frame rate and pro-level AF then the 20D suddenly wouldn't cut it; such is the way of upgrading on anything.

I shoot Canon, it's what I started on. I have nothing against Nikon; frankly I don't know enough about Nikon to nit pick and and complain about this feature or that feature. However, I hardly see Canon as a company that has lost it's vision and has no idea what it's doing. I would be floored if the 5D MkII proved to be nothing more than a MkI with a bigger sensor. And I don't expect it to. It shares the same sensor as the 1Ds MkIII, I hardly doubt it's going to be pro-sumer quality at best (especially since Canon is saying it has the best IQ, period, of all their current bodies). The Fast Frame rate and Fast AF are sport qualities for sport bodies, it's obvious that the 5D is NOT a sports body. For what it's been built to do (namely portrait and 'slower' life pictures) it's going to excel. That's what I'm excited about; that's the style of photography I generally take and I'm excited to jump into a FF body instead of a crop.

I don't want to switch to Nikon, and what I've heard from a very professional and award winning portrait photographer, since Nikon has jumped into the FF market, they're discovering that all their new lenses designed around a crop body are having vignetting and fall-off problems when used on the new FX bodies.

So... the 5D MkII for me. And that HD video thing could prove to be quite handy at times (even if the audio sucks)

 

[Phrasikleia]

So... the 5D MkII for me. And that HD video thing could prove to be quite handy at times (even if the audio sucks)

I'm curious about the HD video and how that differs from fps, especially when frame grabs are as good as Vincent Laforet says they are.