# 5D MK II Announced - the moon shines



## keith204 (Sep 16, 2008)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091705canon_5dmarkII.asp

http://www.canon.com/moon/en/index.html


----------



## z.peletz (Sep 16, 2008)

$2699 is not too bad of a price. I wonder when they start shipping and how long it will take people to actually get them. I'm looking forward to a user review but I already know I want that camera.


----------



## keith204 (Sep 16, 2008)

Yep.  People on other forums are complaining that it's not completely weather-sealed, no 45+ point AF, and they're complaining that it has 1080p video.

Shoot, that's not the intention of this camera.  It'll be a solid, great IQ camera that's in a decent budget.  I can't wait to see some high ISO samples.  Pretty sure this will make its way to my bag soon after it comes out.  $3499 with a 24-105 f/4L IS is reasonable IMO.


----------



## MarcusM (Sep 17, 2008)

Nice, that's about what I thought the specs would be. I have mixed feelings about the HD video...but as long as it's there, might as well use it. And $2700 is not bad at all. I was thinking at _least_ $3000.

Basically it's $350 more than the 5D for HD video and a better processor, higher ISO and other minor improvements. This will definitely be my next camera.

I'm surprised that the FPS was only bumped up to 3.9 though. They don't want it the pro sports photographers buying this I guess.


----------



## MarcusM (Sep 17, 2008)

This quote on DPreview makes me happy:



> The new  DIGIC 4 processor combines with the improved CMOS sensor to deliver *medium  format territory image quality*


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Sep 17, 2008)

The UK price on there is scandalous - my maths says that's around $4,090.00, whilst the Euro price is $3,550.00. Lets hope there's some serious discounting going on with the street price.


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 17, 2008)

and to think I got up early for that! oh well I'll see how well it handles soon

as for the price, well its based on the price of the D700 (£2000) and A900 (about £2499) so its about what I thought it would be. Look at how much the D700 has dropped in price already, it sells for about £1749 give or take so the 5D will be £1999 in no time.

It will sell but I get the feeling there will still be masses of people changing over to Nikon, so lots more nice L glass coming in in part exchange


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 17, 2008)

strangely, I can't seen to find any examples over ISO 100 anywhere!


----------



## bigalbest (Sep 17, 2008)




----------



## Overread (Sep 17, 2008)

sigh - us poor nature photographers - why are we forced to the top end to get the basics that we need (weather sealing!) 
Also with the video feature I would have thought that FPS would have been faster. 

In the end though it looks like a very good camera for full frame - still I don't know if its the full frame I would head for - I will wait and see how good its ISO is


----------



## S2K1 (Sep 17, 2008)

I'm going to start saving now. I've wanted a FF camera to compliment my 1D MKII, and I think this will be it.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 17, 2008)

Looks alright to me.  



> sigh - us poor nature photographers - why are we forced to the top end to get the basics that we need (weather sealing!)


It says, "additional environmental protection"...I wonder what that means.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 17, 2008)

Go ahead and switch to Nikon. It's basically getting a 1DsMKIII sensor for a fifth of the price. This Camera is hopefully going to be amazing.

I mean, people are still using the OG 5D. It has low FPS and no bells or whistles. It takes pictures and does it amazingly well.


----------



## Overread (Sep 17, 2008)

http://www.dslruser.co.uk/dslrtv/
video review 

From what I have read its got some weathersealing, but not the same as the 1D series cameras - so whilst its got some protection its not fully protected (though it should survive a small downpour)


----------



## soylentgreen (Sep 17, 2008)

The 3.9 fps and 9 pouint AF is what's killing it for me. Was hoping to get a better 1D-ish AF system so I do not have to splurge on a 1D Mark III. I will have a talk with Canon tech and see if the AF holds water on the 5D though in all honesty, I do not think this is a camera geared towards sports or wildlife photographers.


----------



## BoblyBill (Sep 17, 2008)

1080 video of my storm chases... here I come!!!


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 17, 2008)

soylentgreen said:


> The 3.9 fps and 9 pouint AF is what's killing it for me. Was hoping to get a better 1D-ish AF system so I do not have to splurge on a 1D Mark III. I will have a talk with Canon tech and see if the AF holds water on the 5D though in all honesty, I do not think this is a camera geared towards sports or wildlife photographers.


 
3.9 fps is good. It's almost double the mp from the 5D and has an even faster shutter rate. You're probably looking at RAW files that are 20mb. That's a lot of data to move.

The Digic V chip that's in development is supposed to do that even faster. Maybe a 7D or a new 5D MKIII next year.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Sep 17, 2008)

Interesting. The camera is spectacular, but ultimately I don't need it - I have the 5D Mk I and it is perfect for all those family photo sessions. For my landscape and architecture work I bought the 1Ds Mk III, and although I admit I like the price of the new 5D a lot better than the $8,400 I paid for my 1D, I don't feel like I got out-maneuvered by Canon. Esp. the serious weather-proofing is a big deal, and probably more expensive to implement than we realize. 

By reading between the lines of the improvements on the 5D, Canon seems to have understood who the primary customer is - wedding and event photographers, and high-end hobbyists. The number of AF points is enough for most, the fps is a little thin, but multiple custom set-ups, the noise features, and so on really speak to that segment.

Also, unlike a lot of members of this forum, Canon and Nikon understand that they have customers who stay with them because of an investment in lenses. The people here who are saying "just get a Nikon" or a Canon or a Sony (whatever) are talking to a very small group (or trolling lightly). The fact is that such a camera is usually only considered by people who have a good amount of experience, and a prior investment in glass.


----------



## droyz2000 (Sep 17, 2008)

I would have to think that this camera is quite a blow to Sony after they just announced the a900. We all knew that the new 5D was coming but now that it has been announced it makes it much more tangible. Those people who wanted full frame and high MP without spending $8000 now have it from Canon and will no longer consider Sony. At least that is how I would look at it.


----------



## soylentgreen (Sep 17, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Interesting. The camera is spectacular, but ultimately I don't need it - I have the 5D Mk I and it is perfect for all those family photo sessions. For my landscape and architecture work I bought the 1Ds Mk III, and although I admit I like the price of the new 5D a lot better than the $8,400 I paid for my 1D, I don't feel like I got out-maneuvered by Canon. Esp. the serious weather-proofing is a big deal, and probably more expensive to implement than we realize.
> 
> By reading between the lines of the improvements on the 5D, Canon seems to have understood who the primary customer is - wedding and event photographers, and high-end hobbyists. The number of AF points is enough for most, the fps is a little thin, but multiple custom set-ups, the noise features, and so on really speak to that segment.
> 
> Also, unlike a lot of members of this forum, Canon and Nikon understand that they have customers who stay with them because of an investment in lenses. The people here who are saying "just get a Nikon" or a Canon or a Sony (whatever) are talking to a very small group (or trolling lightly). The fact is that such a camera is usually only considered by people who have a good amount of experience, and a prior investment in glass.


 

Well put Iron, as usual. The 3.9fps is okay upon further review. I am a selective shooter, so rarely use high-speed mode. Gotta test drive the AF though to see if it will work for my wildlife work. My photo-journalistic side is drooling for IQ test results.


----------



## Jeff Canes (Sep 17, 2008)

The big question is does the auto focus work as well as Nikon's dose with a moving subjects and all combination of lens


----------



## Overread (Sep 17, 2008)

Canons AF system was perfectly fine till the 1D (whatever model it was) problems - before that people did not have a problem with the system until that production line problems started up,
I think Canon well know this and will have taken steps to avoid this problem in the 5D and 50D


----------



## Jeff Canes (Sep 17, 2008)

Overread said:


> Canons AF system was perfectly fine till the 1D (whatever model it was) problems - before that people did not have a problem with the system until that production line problems started up,
> I think Canon well know this and will have taken steps to avoid this problem in the 5D and 50D



 As the owner of the Canon D1 MIIn I would strongly disagree, IMO the Canon AF is often ***** with fast moving subject


----------



## Brian Austin (Sep 17, 2008)

The 5D and 5DII were never designed as "action" cameras or extreme weather bodies. People looking for that level of performance simply need to cough up more $$ for a different Canon body....or look at switching systems.

The 5D was good for a lot of things, including fair weather landscapes, weddings, portraits, and entry level full frame photographers who couldn't afford the 1Ds series.

The 5DII continues that tradition. It's not a sports camera. It's not an extreme weather camera. The movie stuff is gimmicky, imo, but if it's there, it's there. Doesn't mean it has to be used. It offers the exceptional Canon ISO performance, full frame photosites for better low light images, the Digic IV processor, high MP count, and a few other features helpful for those missions.

It will make a fine upgrade for wedding, portrait, and fair weather photographers such as myself. I'm looking forward to the purchase and using it in the studio and on location. This is the one I've been waiting for.

The Sony, while admirable at 24+MP, is untried in full frame. We simply don't know how it's going to perform. Canon has a long history in FF digital bodies, including at the "prosumer" level like the 5D/5DII. I'd consider the Sony or Nikon alternatives if I didn't already have serious thousands of $$ tied up in Canon EOS mount lenses. One doesn't change bodies so much as systems...and it ain't cheap.


----------



## Christie Photo (Sep 17, 2008)

Well, sh*t.  I guess I better start saving.

-Pete


----------



## pm63 (Sep 17, 2008)

That's it, when I finish uni and hopefully make lots of money, I'm switching to Canon.

Why pay more for lower image quality (Nikon)?

EDIT: Canon could AT LEAST have bothered to correct chromatic abberations in the landscape example shot


----------



## shivaswrath (Sep 17, 2008)

Auto ISO and WB are a plus as well - def heating up the competition with the D700, I can't wait to see the D700 prices come down now as well!


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 17, 2008)

I'm not a fan of auto ISO and auto WB really doesn't work too well on any DSLR I've seen used.


----------



## epp_b (Sep 17, 2008)

I hope video does not become a "standard" feature of DSLRs.  I hate paying extra for gimicks.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 17, 2008)

I think I would like auto ISO...changing the ISO and remembering where it's set, has been  inconvenient for me....but I use cameras that don't display the ISO in the viewfinder.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 17, 2008)

> I hope video does not become a "standard" feature of DSLRs. I hate paying extra for gimicks.


The new 5D II is cheaper than the 5D was...so you wouldn't really be paying extra for it.   I'd chalk this feature up to the fierce competition in the marketplace...it's like a bonus.  You could ignore it completely and enjoy the rest of the features, if you don't like it.


----------



## Do'Urden's Eyes (Sep 17, 2008)

hm with both the 40d and the 5d dropping in prices now im going to have to make a decision. old 5D, or old 40D im thinking with all the xmas sale and stuff the 5D will start to drop down near the 40D's old new mark in price... excitement. 

and look at those uropean prices, thats ridiculous. especially england's.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Sep 17, 2008)

Don't let regional prices fool you - the exchange rate is in an odd imbalance right now, but there is such a thing as market value. Also, don't forget that EU prices already include 19% V.A.T., whereas US consumers typically need to pay a sales tax - the internet has been unbelievably helpful in that respect though.

I would suggest the following: if you're a Canon shooter, and have been waiting to go Full Frame, really think about what you're shooting, and what you're printing. You might conclude that the 5D Mk I is good enough, and will be able to get a big discount on them right now...


----------



## usayit (Sep 17, 2008)

I rarely buy anything brand new.... I'll be one of those in line for a good used 5D MkI as a secondary for my 1dMII which still keeps me happy.   I think the 5D MII is going to be a good selling product but none of the specs on paper really pushes me to upgrade.

Wonder if they improved the dynamic range at all...


----------



## MarcusM (Sep 17, 2008)

usayit said:


> Wonder if they improved the dynamic range at all...



I think so, unless I'm reading this incorrectly....from the press release (http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20080917_5dmkii.html)



> *Peripheral Illumination Correction*
> The Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR camera automatically conducts peripheral illumination correction when shooting JPEG images, a function that previously could only be accomplished through post-image processing using software such as Canon's Digital Photo Professional, which Canon supplies at no extra charge. Peripheral illumination correction evens brightness across the image field, making an image of a blue sky even toned throughout and reducing light fall-off at image edges. This new feature essentially eliminates one of the limitations of previous full-frame digital SLRs.





> *Auto Lighting Optimizer*
> Canon's enhanced Auto Lighting Optimizer technology helps ensure each picture's subject is clearly visible by analyzing image brightness and automatically adjusting dark areas in images so that they appear brighter. This function is ideal in high-contrast situations such as urban landscapes captured on sunny days, where the tops of buildings are brightly lit while street level details are obscured by heavy shadows. In this type of scene, the 5D Mark II camera's Auto Lighting Optimizer technology preserves accurate exposure of the highlights while opening up the shadow areas for a more pleasing tonal rendition.


----------



## Buszaj (Sep 17, 2008)

soylentgreen said:


> The 3.9 fps and 9 pouint AF is what's killing it for me.



+1. I was personally hoping for some more fps and definitely more AF points, but other than that I still think its a great camera. I think that what Iron said though is true. Lets hope it is.


----------



## MarcusM (Sep 17, 2008)

Buszaj said:


> +1. I was personally hoping for some more fps and definitely more AF points, but other than that I still think its a great camera. I think that what Iron said though is true. Lets hope it is.



I agree about the AF points being less than what I was hoping for, but I can overlook this considering that I think this camera will be able to produce some extremely high quality images.

On the topic of AF points, can anyone explain this statement from Canon's press release, as I couldn't understand exactly how the Assist AF points work in practice...I am wondering if they could potentially be a cause for frustration if they are focusing on points that you actually don't want them to focus on?



> The camera includes a 15-point Autofocus (AF) sensor with nine selectable AF points plus six additional Assist AF points (three center AF points sensitive to f/2.8 lenses) with enhanced light source detection and AF microadjustment for greater autofocus performance.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 17, 2008)

> I was personally hoping for some more fps and definitely more AF points, but other than that I still think its a great camera. I think that what Iron said though is true. Lets hope it is.


If you want more FPS and more AF points...then buy a 1D or 1Ds....that's what Canon wants you to do.  If they make the 5DII too good, fewer people would buy the pro bodies.  



> The camera includes a 15-point Autofocus (AF) sensor with nine selectable AF points plus six additional Assist AF points (three center AF points sensitive to f/2.8 lenses) with enhanced light source detection and AF microadjustment for greater autofocus performance.


The way I understand it....The additional AF points are 'hidden' assist AF points.  They are meant to be used when you are tracking a moving subject around the centre of the frame.  Basically making the whole centre area a big AF zone.  The points are more sensitive/effective when used with fast glass and there is a microadjustment option for when your lens won't focus accurately. 

One thing that a lot of people seem to be complaining about, is that the 9 points that we can see...are too close together.


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 17, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> If you want more FPS and more AF points...then buy a 1D or 1Ds....that's what Canon wants you to do.  If they make the 5DII too good, fewer people would buy the pro bodies.



thats true to a point but I know a few people who will trade in 1DS mkIII's for a 5D mkII as its so much lighter, its only 1.1 FPS slower than the 1DS mkIII and its better at high ISO's than the pro body.


----------



## usayit (Sep 17, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> I think so, unless I'm reading this incorrectly....from the press release (http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20080917_5dmkii.html)



I'll have to see when reviews are out but my interpretation of those parts means better leverage and usage of the present data captured in a high contrast scene by the sensor.  What i don't know is whether or not the sensor itself has improved dynamic range.


----------



## usayit (Sep 17, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> If you want more FPS and more AF points...then buy a 1D or 1Ds....that's what Canon wants you to do.  If they make the 5DII too good, fewer people would buy the pro bodies.



I agree!!!  whenever these prosumer bodies are released people usually comment about how they are missing this feature or that feature... all features in their high end fully pro-bodies.  What people don't realize is that the "lack" of these features is what makes these prosumer bodies more "affordable".  Turn it around... we are plain lucky Canon even makes this level of camera...  they could have easily stopped and  not fill the gap between the 50D and 1D/SMIII.

Everyone wants the world of features but no body wants to pay for them.


Frankly.. I'm surprised that the 5D MII is 21 megapixel sensor.... I was expecting something in between the 1DMIII and 1DSMIII.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 17, 2008)

one AF point is good enough for me


----------



## Buszaj (Sep 17, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> If you want more FPS and more AF points...then buy a 1D or 1Ds....that's what Canon wants you to do.  If they make the 5DII too good, fewer people would buy the pro bodies.



hehe, true.


----------



## soylentgreen (Sep 17, 2008)

I will most likely end up with the 5D Mark II given that my first priority is IQ and high ISO performance. FF is a nice addition. From a recent conversation with a Canon tech rep that visited the local store, I brought up the question about multiple AF points to him when the 50D was announced. How they seem to lag behind what nikon offers in the D200/300 and D700. He explained to me that though the Canon models "show" less selectable areas, they actually cover the same amount of AF space. The AF processor will still lead the focus from one to the other as if a selectable point was there. All of the Canon points are cross-type AF with the center having the additional high-precision crosses. Dunno how much is a pitch but this is suppose to be the norm for the XSi, 50D and presumably the 5D Mark II. We'll see how real world test hold up since I plan on testing both offerings.


----------



## JustAnEngineer (Sep 17, 2008)

It all looks good.  I'll wait for it to come down in price a little bit.


----------



## Antithesis (Sep 17, 2008)

There are huge complaints about the specs over at dpreview... it's pretty funny. It's not a D3 or D700 with Canon written on it so they are crapping their pants. 

I'm going to go fondle my 5D and try to remember why a love it so much.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 18, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> Interesting. The camera is spectacular, but...





Overread said:


> sigh - us poor nature photographers - why are we forced to the top end...





MarcusM said:


> I think so, unless I'm reading this incorrectly....from the press release (http://www.usa.canon.com/templatedata/pressrelease/20080917_5dmkii.html)



I don't get it. So far the only thing I've seen impressive from this camera was the 1080P video. You guys really think this: http://web1.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/2_landscape.jpg or this: http://web1.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/1_portrait.jpg is "spectacular", "top end", or shows signs of a "better dynamic range"? 

Reeeeeely?  What am I missing then?  My monitor needs to be repaired or something?

It looks to me like that sensor is WAY past it's actual resolving abilities.  Like maybe it's an interpolated 8MP or maybe it's a JPG at the lowest level of compression. Those looked trashed to me.

Both are at ISO 100 with a fast shutter too.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 18, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> I don't get it. So far the only thing I've seen impressive from this camera was the 1080P video. You guys really think this: http://web1.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/2_landscape.jpg or this: http://web1.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/1_portrait.jpg is "spectacular", "top end", or shows signs of a "better dynamic range"?
> 
> Reeeeeely?  What am I missing then?  My monitor needs to be repaired or something?



The funny thing about Canon sample images taken with their own cameras is, that they are really horrible. Already the sample shots on Canon's webpages taken with the old 5D were really not done well, in particular when it comes to landscape.

Oh, and chromatic aberration is quite visible on the first image, so that seems not the best choice of lens there either.

I personally would claim, that most of my landscape shots with my current camera are better than those images Canon displayed on their site to advertise exactly that same camera


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 18, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> It looks to me like that sensor is WAY past it's actual resolving abilities.  Like maybe it's an interpolated 8MP or maybe it's a JPG at the lowest level of compression. Those looked trashed to me.



They are simply not well taken images. In the first one the lens resolution looks not up to the sensor resolution. And why a fast shutter in landscape work? Probably the shot is taken by some technical geek but not by a photographer..


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 18, 2008)

I take that back... The new battery system is impressive too.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 18, 2008)

Alex B, 

You're telling me that Canon can't take good example pics?  I'm not sure what to think. I'm not sure if I think you made a lame excuse or if the Canon co. it so lame as to be _that_ incompetent. 

As far as lens selection and settings the girl portrait is:
File Name..................1_portrait.jpg
Tv (Shutter Speed)......1/100 sec
Av (Aperture Value).....f/2
ISO Speed..................ISO100
Lens..........................EF50mm f/1.2L USM
White Balance.............AWB
Picture Style...............Neutral​
and the landscape one is:
File Name...................2_landscape.jpg
Tv (Shutter Speed).......1/800 sec
Av (Aperture Value)......f/7.1
ISO Speed...................ISO100
Lens...........................EF24-105mm f/4L IS USM
White Balance..............Daylight
Picture Style................Landscape​


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 18, 2008)

Here's the links again so people don't have go back to page 1

http://web1.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/2_landscape.jpg 
http://web1.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/1_portrait.jpg


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 18, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Alex B,
> 
> You're telling me that Canon can't take good example pics?  I'm not sure what to think. I'm not sure if I think you made a lame excuse or if the Canon co. it so lame as to be _that_ incompetent.




I am not telling you that they cannot take good example pics, just that they seem not to care! Some of the 5D example pics almost kept me from buying it!

If I was canon, I would shoot with a good prime, and not with the 24-105 f/4 L, which is a convenient lens, I use it myself quite often, but, it is optically not a perfect lens.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 18, 2008)

Well if that's really the case these are awesome points in case.  Because of those images I'm put off completely from the camera!

I don't see how these could be just bad examples.  To get images to look that bad in my $200 bridge camera I would have to process them pretty hard.  I don't know of a way to get those kinds of bad effects in-camera. I guess a $50 lens could do it. <shrug>


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 18, 2008)

All 'test sample shots' are taken with pre-release cameras that generally speaking are not up to the final release spec. The 5D mkII's I played with yesterday had pre-release firmware so I'd expect the results to get slightly better.


----------



## elrafo (Sep 18, 2008)

do you know when we will be able to buy one of these Cameras ?
Is it still worth buying a D700 when you can have a 21MP ....cheaper??!!


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 18, 2008)

elrafo said:


> do you know when we will be able to buy one of these Cameras ?
> Is it still worth buying a D700 when you can have a 21MP ....cheaper??!!



Not seen a date yet but if you want to take pics at really high ISO's then get the Nikon D700 as it is far better


----------



## elrafo (Sep 18, 2008)

really ? the D700 is better in low light conditions ? ...
I heard that the new canon sensor was really good.
... So I will maybe stay with Nikon ( I have my lenses...)


----------



## peterbj7 (Sep 18, 2008)

lostprophet said:


> Not seen a date yet but if you want to take pics at really high ISO's then get the Nikon D700 as it is far better



This is the key question for me, and there is so much hype going around it's difficult to get at the facts.  I want to see a really thorough and impartial comparison between the D700 and 5DII.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Sep 18, 2008)

peterbj7 said:


> This is the key question for me, and there is so much hype going around it's difficult to get at the facts.  I want to see a really thorough and impartial comparison between the D700 and 5DII.



+++1 and then some more.


----------



## Brian Austin (Sep 18, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Alex B,
> 
> You're telling me that Canon can't take good example pics? I'm not sure what to think. I'm not sure if I think you made a lame excuse or if the Canon co. it so lame as to be _that_ incompetent.
> 
> ...


​The DoF is way too tight for a sharp, clean example of a 21MP camera.  And, as a JPG with no processing (ie Neutral Picture Style), it's a really bad example.  Most photographers would have popped the contrast slightly and used a smaller aperture, probably at least in the f/2.8 to f/4 range.



> and the landscape one is:
> File Name...................2_landscape.jpg
> Tv (Shutter Speed).......1/800 sec
> Av (Aperture Value)......f/7.1
> ...


 
Again, bad photography.  Daylight WB is really only accurate mid-day.  That lens isn't the greatest, optically speaking, and really isn't sharpest at less than f/8, ime.  The shot also needs a warming polarizer since the haze is going to wash out any colors.

I'll wait until I see a real photographer post example images before writing it off as a dud.


----------



## Dao (Sep 18, 2008)

I came across with this interesting article regarding the new 5D


Canon engineers held back by marketing department's "megapixel race"

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/20080917/ttc-exclusive-canon-engineers-held-back-e870a33.html


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Sep 18, 2008)

Brian Austin said:


> [/indent]The DoF is way too tight for a sharp, clean example of a 21MP camera.  And, as a JPG with no processing (ie Neutral Picture Style), it's a really bad example.  Most photographers would have popped the contrast slightly and used a smaller aperture, probably at least in the f/2.8 to f/4 range.



Not only that, AWB looks to have been a poor choice - poor lass looks green...


----------



## pm63 (Sep 18, 2008)

Dao said:


> I came across with this interesting article regarding the new 5D
> 
> 
> Canon engineers held back by marketing department's "megapixel race"
> ...



Thanks for sharing! It's sad for me to think that DLSR manufacturers are lowering themselves down to a P+S level, that the MP race is still on.


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 18, 2008)

Especially when many of the working pros have openly stated that 8, 10 or 12 mega pixels was plenty enough for them...and anything bigger is a PITA because of the huge file size.


----------



## Overread (Sep 18, 2008)

I supose with quade core computers now becomming mor afforedable and duel core being the new minimum standard that the camera manufactureers considered that a pro working with a computer would be able to afford a decently powered machine for image processing.
Further pressure will also be on adobe to make its programs run more efficiently with larger file sizes - though this is a reactive change so the high MP cameras had to come first


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Sep 18, 2008)

elrafo said:


> do you know when we will be able to buy one of these Cameras ?
> Is it still worth buying a D700 when you can have a 21MP ....cheaper??!!





elrafo said:


> This is the key question for me, and there is so much hype going around it's difficult to get at the facts. I want to see a really thorough and impartial comparison between the D700 and 5DII.



I think it's funny that everything people are complaining about what should be in the 5D are in the D700 at a similar price point. 

Sealing - I have actually _submerged_ my D700 in a river before. I was shooting firedancing in Lake Oswego (check my flickr page for the pics), was being clumsy, slipped on a rock and _ker-PLUNK _my camera was soaked all the way to the lens mount. I just got my towel and dried it off, made sure the lens mount was dry (it was for the most part) and kept shooting like nothing happened.

Autofocus- Everyone knows the D700 has the D3's 51 point AF system that unlike the 5DII covers most of the frame. Everyone knows how fast it is.

Drive- out of the box, 5fps, put a grip on it, you're at 8, put it in single shot, and if your finger is fast enough, you can get more then 5fps on it out of the box w/o the grip. 

Pop up flash- This is actually _better _then the D3, with the pop up flash you can control your speedlights off camera, something that I use almost every time I photograph people in a controlled environment. 


They're two cameras made for different purposes. If the D700 is for a fast, lightweight FF SLR that you can take over to Baghdad, the 5DII would be for the L.A. fashion photographer who's got a tight budget studio or the vacation landscape shooter.

There are things that Canon should have done with the 5DII, because even though it's 20-someodd megapixels, it's outclassed by the D700.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 18, 2008)

If you can buy a 5D MKII and you are a pro, you should already have a good computer, like a quad core or a dual core...
Soon I am buying a nice dual core
Intel Core 2 Duo E8500 Dual Core $190
along with a bunch of other computer parts


----------



## usayit (Sep 18, 2008)

ooooOOOoooo  always gotta end up a Canon versus Nikon discussion


----------



## Overread (Sep 18, 2008)

usayit said:


> ooooOOOoooo always gotta end up a Canon versus Nikon discussion


 
well its not like there are any other contenders :lmao:


----------



## usayit (Sep 18, 2008)

honestly.. I wish there were more contenders.....  the nikon versus canon thing is kinda old.  

I was hoping that someone would finally release a new body in which their primary focus was a significant (and easily visible) increase in dynamic range.  Instead of the mpixel race, gizmo features, etc....   At olympus is changing the whole DSLR design.....


----------



## Overread (Sep 18, 2008)

A wider range of top end companies would be rather good - they could specialize in a field - one for sports/wildlife, journalists, studio, football mums/dads, crazy pixel peepers, etc.....
Rather than two companies that try to make one size fits all cameras


----------



## Iron Flatline (Sep 18, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> They're two cameras made for different purposes. If the D700 is for a fast, lightweight FF SLR that you can take over to Baghdad, the 5DII would be for the L.A. fashion photographer who's got a tight budget studio or the vacation landscape shooter.


It's also the weapon-of-choice for Paparazzi.


----------



## Overread (Sep 18, 2008)

I will also say a lot of macro photographers are keen on the 5DM2 - full frame is something good for macro work (makes it much easier to get the whole bug into many shots over crop sensor where you lose areas) but also many are thinking on macro films as well.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Sep 18, 2008)

Actually, the Mark I has a Full-Frame sensor as well. However, LiveView is really handy for macro work, so I will agree.


----------



## Overread (Sep 18, 2008)

oh yes the mark 1 is also a good macro camera, but I think video for many is a bonus they want to try - 12 mins is more than enough for most macro events.


----------



## prodigy2k7 (Sep 18, 2008)

high def video with a fish eye would be awesome


----------



## Iron Flatline (Sep 18, 2008)

Without sounding snarky, I don't think I've ever seen serious photography with a fisheye, except maybe some skateboarder stuff so it looks like the guy is getting a lot of air.


----------



## 8power (Sep 18, 2008)

the image quality of the landscape shot is laughable.
the portrait shot detail is soft as soap.

that lens cannot deliver the resolving power for that level of MP.


----------



## usayit (Sep 18, 2008)

8power said:


> that lens cannot deliver the resolving power for that level of MP.



What makes you think it is the lens?? 

The portrait of the girl was taken with the 50mm f/1.2L @ f/2.  Do a calculation of DOF at around 4-5 feet..... Shooting at that aperture as a demonstration of the sharpness and detail of a camera/lens is laughable.

There are so many reasons why making an assessment of either camera or lens based on those two samples is completely idiotic.  Not to mention we are all staring at Jpegs.  How about actually wait for a in depth review....

Both 50mm L and the 24-105L are known to perform better than what is in the samples...  I'd say even the 5D MI with either can also....    First time I've heard anyone call 24-105L optically not sharp unless over f/8.... thats laughable....  Compared to typical primes.. yeh... but not capable of sharp images unless f/8.. 

Sheesh...


----------



## peterbj7 (Sep 18, 2008)

You know, unless someone can convince me otherwise, I think I'm probably going to get a D700 and sell the Canon gear.  The 5DII may have some detailed advantages over the D700, but the Nikon seems a more rounded camera for general use.  For me, good performance in low light is the most important factor and the D700 has already proven itself there.  Being able to use it, or just to carry it, in pouring rain or very wet conditions is also important to me as I like hill walking/climbing in Britain and it often rains.  It seems extraordinary that Canon haven't picked up on this one.


----------



## Overread (Sep 18, 2008)

Is it really worth selling your canon kit and moving to nikon when a year - 2 years down the road you will get a now load of bodies and canon might end up looking more attractive?
I can't help but feel that unless you have a really important issue (like a highly paid professional where the kit will earn back its keep - and I don't know you might be) or one series of lenses is giving you an edge - that it is really worth switching.
If you are not earning off the kit then chances are switching to nikon (which tend to be more expensive lenses generally - on the longer primes for certain) then I just see it as a money sink really - preventing you from moving on.
If the body is not up to scratch now (and lets face it few body upgrades are worth upgrading to if you own the previous body modle) then invest in a new lens - £2000 or there abouts is either some very good short/meduim gear or well on the way to a top rate long prime - get lenses now and then in a few years come back to bodies


----------



## usayit (Sep 18, 2008)

Does anyone have low light examples of the 5D MII???

I feel like I missed out....


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 18, 2008)

peterbj7 said:


> The 5DII may have some detailed advantages over the D700, but...



I don't think it does. Processing and lens settings considered I still think there is a very fundamental resolving problem. Either the lens is bad or the CCD is bad. "Not the final version" of the camera would mean to me ony that the processing engine is the old one or not yet debugged fully. If this is the case (and I believe these guys here - they're pretty top shelf photographers) then I should be able to make up the differences in PS for the most part. I can't. The images are moooshed!

If it's the DOF as is being stated in the case of the portrait then the in-focus areas should be crisp and clean. They aren't. They too are moooshed and the kinda mooshedness it has looks the same to me as a too dense P&S sensor or a reeeeeely crappy lens being used. The older Canon 21MP FF sensor looks the same to me too. It's moooshed! All the images I've seen in full rez without processing from that cam look moooshed to me. It's almost like a posterizing filter was run on it or a 128 color pallet was used initially and then blurred in true-color space.   That's what it _looks like_ to me anyway.  When I see 100% crops side by side from the D3 or D700 and the older Canon FF sensor I always point to the D700/D3 image as being far far superior in terms of color fidelity and image resolution.  This new one looks like the same deal only MUCH worse.

With the 1080P video acquisition I want this camera but I sure wish they had gone with a lower density sensor design. Yeah, &#8804; 14 mp would be great.   I wanna get something pretty soon - I'm already getting bored (again) with this little A2.


----------



## Antithesis (Sep 18, 2008)

usayit said:


> Does anyone have low light examples of the 5D MII???
> 
> I feel like I missed out....



http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=29377164

Actually pretty good. I mean really good. It actually looks just as good as a Nikon D3... what do ya know..


----------



## peterbj7 (Sep 18, 2008)

Overread said:


> Is it really worth selling your canon kit and moving to nikon



I'm just beginning to feel that Canon have lost the plot, whereas Nikon are right there.  I know others who feel the same way and have made the switch - and in no way regret it.


----------



## usayit (Sep 18, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=29377164
> 
> Actually pretty good. I mean really good. It actually looks just as good as a Nikon D3... what do ya know..



Yes real good... I'd like to see the raw... but the jpeg posts look very nice.


----------



## usayit (Sep 18, 2008)

peterbj7 said:


> I'm just beginning to feel that Canon have lost the plot, whereas Nikon are right there.  I know others who feel the same way and have made the switch - and in no way regret it.



thats ok....  camera shops love you.


----------



## Overread (Sep 19, 2008)

peterbj7 said:


> I'm just beginning to feel that Canon have lost the plot, whereas Nikon are right there. I know others who feel the same way and have made the switch - and in no way regret it.


 
I think its more that nikon made a wildlife/sports photographers camera and canon made a journalists one 
I don't worry about it since I know in time that things will change again - besides nikon long primes cost far more than canon long primes -- and its hard enough to save up for one of them!


----------



## soylentgreen (Sep 19, 2008)

I find it interesting that anyone will switch from one system to another at a drop of a hat because of a few nuances. A few months ago it was unheard of to take images at ISO 6400 or higher, now it's "They do not perform well at ISO12800". We will have to wait a couple of more models to see ISO 100 quality at much higher  levels. Hopefully. Far better to invest in good glass than follow the "Body Race". I guarantee that within the next 6-8 months, Nikon will unveil the D3x and Canon will follow suit with the 1D Mark IV. Both of which will blow the socks off anything before them and be much more camera than any photographer can handle. As long as the camera can perform to your needs, your good to go. The new 5D has most of the features that many photographers have been craving from Canon's perspective, minus a dedicated mirror lock-up button to get rid of the direct print. Yeah I wish the Af was 1D-ish, but other than that it is a solid product. The sample images are mediocre, but until I test it myself under the conditions that I am actually going to use it in, I will hold judgement. I have no idea what sort of PP were done to these images, compression, etc. As far as resolving issue with lens and sensors, that was inherent with the 1Ds Mark III and may be with the 5D Mark II. At FF 20+MP anything less than top-shelf lenses will not hold up. That includes many L's. I have that issue now with my 40D and 400mm. 2 cents.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 19, 2008)

I'm rather glad whenever I see someone adult enough, independent enough, and intelligent enough not to be duped by "brand loyalty" and the ridiculousness of everything that goes with that. I've "switched" from and to just about every camera maker there is and I think I'm much much better off for it. I always get my money back out of the system and owning (if I sell timely) is always cheaper than renting. After a person knows the basics of photography learning a new camera system only takes a few hours of attentive use and manual reading. I go from P&S to dSLR to Bridge camera to film and jump just anywhere I like. It keeps the experience alive and keeps me close to the technological vortex of camera evolution. My most recent move was from a D2x to a Konica/Minolta bridge camera called the A2 and currently worth only about $200.  I'm about ready to change again too. Life is good! :thumbup:


----------



## Big Mike (Sep 19, 2008)

> Being able to use it, or just to carry it, in pouring rain or very wet conditions is also important to me as I like hill walking/climbing in Britain and it often rains. It seems extraordinary that Canon haven't picked up on this one.



Check this out...


> As you can see from the first image below the body is made up of three pieces of magnesium, the only plastic elements being sides and the base. With the advent of the Mark II Canon are finally talking about the dust / water resistance of the body, the second image below shows these seals, Canon's description: "The battery compartment, memory card door, LCD and the camera buttons are all fitted with sealing materials (indicated in red). In addition the adoption of high precision split-level alignment of the magnesium-alloy external covers, high precision dial construction and external rubber grip covers (indicated in green), has improved the camera's dust and water resistance."


From HERE


----------



## Brian Austin (Sep 19, 2008)

Just looking at the specs again since I don't pay much attention to these things...

Why is everyone considering switching to a FF 12.1MP camera from Nikon compared to a 21.1MP FF camera from Canon? Seriously. Nikon has no dSLRs above 12MP out right now. And yes, I realize MP isn't everything in the grand scheme of things but the more you have, the more you can work with it.

And pricewise, the D700 street $$ is more than the MSRP on the 5DII. Granted, it has some weather sealing but overall, is that enough for the additional cost with reduced performance?

If the D700 is your consideration for a FF body, you'd be better off going with a first gen 5D with similar performance for a whole lot less, especially in a few months.


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 19, 2008)

Brian Austin said:


> Just looking at the specs again since I don't pay much attention to these things...
> 
> Why is everyone considering switching to a FF 12.1MP camera from Nikon compared to a 21.1MP FF camera from Canon? Seriously. Nikon has no dSLRs above 12MP out right now. And yes, I realize MP isn't everything in the grand scheme of things but the more you have, the more you can work with it.
> 
> ...



In the UK the D700 is £500 cheaper than the 5D mkII

the 5D mkII  may have more pixels but the image quality on the D700 looks far better to me from the shots I've taken on both cameras

The AF is far far far far better on the D700 than ANY Canon at the moment and I use a 1D mkII which has very good focusing but the D700 is better than that


----------



## keith204 (Sep 19, 2008)

What we're overlooking here, is that Canon has managed to achieve D700 or D3 - like ISO performance, WHILE having 10 million MORE pixels crammed into the same size sensor.

I downloaded the original 25600 ISO image on DPReview and edited it in LR just a bit (I'm no pro noise reducer) but the noise came out FAR more easily than 3200 on the 40D.

Switching?  As mentioned by previous posters, most people who are even considering either of these cameras have at least $10k in glass.  The reason would have to be pretty doggone good to switch.


----------



## keith204 (Sep 19, 2008)

lostprophet said:


> the 5D mkII  may have more pixels but the image quality on the D700 looks far better to me from the shots I've taken on both cameras
> 
> The AF is far far far far better on the D700 than ANY Canon at the moment and I use a 1D mkII which has very good focusing but the D700 is better than that



Are you able to post the shots you took on here?  Those are hard to come by at this moment!


----------



## Brian Austin (Sep 19, 2008)

lostprophet said:


> The AF is far far far far better on the D700 than ANY Canon at the moment and I use a 1D mkII which has very good focusing but the D700 is better than that


 
The AF on the 5D series is not comparable to the exponential increase in AF points on the 1D or D700.  I wouldn't even consider them in the same decision matrix.


----------



## Antithesis (Sep 19, 2008)

Brian Austin said:


> The AF on the 5D series is not comparable to the exponential increase in AF points on the 1D or D700.  I wouldn't even consider them in the same decision matrix.



People are tearing apart the AF on the new 5D, but consider the market for a camera like this. Who is going to be shooting sports on it? It's not meant to be a fast action PJ or Sports camera at 3.whatever FPS, but for studio or commercial work, it's pure gold. Oh, and landscapes? It does have it's benefits. And as time goes on, it will be recognized as an awesome camera.


----------



## bigalbest (Sep 19, 2008)

The 5D I currently own is mainly being used for studio portraits and event photography. FPS and multiple AF points have little to do with this type of work and while the call for large prints is rare, it is nice to have the ability to print at larger sizes when needed. My main problem recently has been justifying $8K for the 1DS MKIII and the new 5DII has made that decision a lot easier.


----------



## Antithesis (Sep 19, 2008)

bigalbest said:


> The 5D I currently own is mainly being used for studio portraits and event photography. FPS and multiple AF points have little to do with this type of work and while the call for large prints is rare, it is nice to have the ability to print at larger sizes when needed. My main problem recently has been justifying $8K for the 1DS MKIII and the new 5DII has made that decision a lot easier.



I'm sure a lot of people share your sentiments. I'm sure there are a lot of people that own 1Ds's that are pretty mad right now though.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 19, 2008)

we should all wait for production samples to be tested. Then we can decide what field of application the camera is good for, and then decide if we buy it. Should it not be like that? 

I am considering it for landscape work BTW. Oh and the more pixel my image has, the less relevant noise becomes if I print at the same size. Also aggressive noise reduction in (post)processing kills by far less detail if the pixel resolution of the original image is larger. In other words the _effective _leap forward in high ISO noise will be very significant compared to the 5D mk I if you print at the same size or use both cameras to finally create 13MP images.


----------



## Peanuts (Sep 19, 2008)

I just ordered mine and there ain't nothing you can say about it that will make me regret it. (other then my account is empty but shh....)


----------



## peterbj7 (Sep 19, 2008)

I borrowed a friend's D80 a few days ago and was experimenting with it.  I found the controls to be mind-blowing, as there were so many of them and they weren't marked in any way that I found meaningful (having not seen the manual, which he didn't have with him).  Far from enjoying all the AF points I was trying to turn all bar one off, as I wanted to photograph someone through slats and the damned thing kept focussing on the slats.  I'm sure there must be a way, but I couldn't work it out and he didn't know (he used the camera like a P&S).

He had Nikon's 28-200 zoom fitted, and I have to say that I thought it was a horrible lens to use.  Because I couldn't do what i wanted with AF I turned it off, but found the very thin manual focus ring to be difficult to hold (impossible with gloves) and jerky in its movement.  I gave up trying to focus accurately with it.  I also wasn't very keen on the zoom, as it didn't move linearly but seemed to "change gear" about half way towards the telephoto end.  It was smooth in its action but still difficult to use precisely.  My Canon 100-400L has a push-pull zoom so that's not comparable, but the focus ring on that lens, and on my 24-105L, is beautifully smooth and easy to grip even with gloves on, as is the rotating zoom ring on the 24-105.  The Canon lenses feel vastly better made, though I didn't see any results from the Nikon lens.

I was initially a bit surprised that on the Nikon lens the focus ring was close to the camera body and the zoom was at the business end.  Meant that I HAD to remove the lens hood from it's inverted "stored" position to use the lens at all, unlike both my Canon zooms (and all the FD lenses I have at home, from several manufacturers).

All this talk about Nikon's sophisticated AF compared with Canon's rather primitive offering (!) ..... I generally turn off the AF points on my 5D, and use just one on the main subject.  Allows me to be far more creative.

In any case, Canon are saying that the 5DMkII doesn't just have the AF points you can see (I forget if it's more than the 9 of the Mk1) but that these are only the ones you can control.  They say the whole image is covered with AF points that the camera sees but you don't.  I'm not sure I understand that, but if I do then it means that my strategy of choosing one point I want to be in sharp focus won't work with that camera, and I don't like that.

From what I've seen so far I won't be buying the MkII, and in fact I can't see any other Canon DSLR I want to buy.  I'll keep my Mk1 and my two L zoom lenses and probably add a fast 50mm and maybe an UWA zoom, but that will be it.

My next camera based on what's out there today will certainly be a Nikon, probably a D700 or a D3.  I won't buy a D3 until the price drops quite a lot, as I think it will, and even then possibly not just because of the sheer size of the thing.  Nikon seem understand that it's the quality of the pictures you take that matters, not a detailed check-list of merit points.  These two Nikons will take superb pictures in low light very quickly, and that'll do me.  But I'll need to choose the lenses very carefully, as none of the Nikkor lenses I've used recently impressed me with their build quality or ergonomics.

I'm an enthusiastic amateur who's published a bit (back in film days, using my much loved A1) and I want the quality of pro kit but not the bulk and probably not all the gongs and whistles.  I know lots of amateur photographers like that, so I expect the D700/5DMkII area of the market to become very important and competitive.  I just wish Canon had done a bit better with this most important upgrade - it isn't enough to stop the trend towards Nikon.


----------



## peterbj7 (Sep 19, 2008)

Antithesis said:


> People are tearing apart the AF on the new 5D, but consider the market for a camera like this. Who is going to be shooting sports on it? It's not meant to be a fast action PJ or Sports camera at 3.whatever FPS, but for studio or commercial work, it's pure gold. Oh, and landscapes? It does have it's benefits. And as time goes on, it will be recognized as an awesome camera.



I think most people looking for a camera at around this price point won't be thinking of studio work, but will be amateurs wanting a camera for general use.  For that the D700 seems much better suited (and regardless of regional differences is at around the same price point).  In not covering the needs of those people better, the majority of potential customers, I think Canon have made a huge mistake.  I'm sure the MkII will be an excellent camera and I'd rather have it than my MkI, but when I have to put down my dollars/pounds/euros there are other cameras out there that would better serve my needs.  When I bought the MkI that wasn't the case, but it certainly is now.

Still, I'm not about to rush out to buy a new camera, so perhaps Canon will have a suitable model by then.  But Nikon have raised the bar very high for people like me.


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 19, 2008)

keith204 said:


> What we're overlooking here, is that Canon has managed to achieve D700 or D3 - like ISO performance, WHILE having 10 million MORE pixels crammed into the same size sensor.



The high ISO on the 5D mkII is good but its nowhere near as good at the D700 or D3


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 19, 2008)

keith204 said:


> Are you able to post the shots you took on here?  Those are hard to come by at this moment!



they were posted in the subscribers forum on wednesday


----------



## keith204 (Sep 19, 2008)

Peanuts said:


> I just ordered mine and there ain't nothing you can say about it that will make me regret it. (other then my account is empty but shh....)



Where'd you order it from?  I just got an email from Amazon regarding pre-orders...


----------



## Buszaj (Sep 19, 2008)

peterbj7 said:


> I think most people looking for a camera at around this price point won't be thinking of studio work, but will be amateurs wanting a camera for general use. For that the D700 seems much better suited (and regardless of regional differences is at around the same price point). In not covering the needs of those people better, the majority of potential customers, I think Canon have made a huge mistake. I'm sure the MkII will be an excellent camera and I'd rather have it than my MkI, but when I have to put down my dollars/pounds/euros there are other cameras out there that would better serve my needs. When I bought the MkI that wasn't the case, but it certainly is now.
> 
> Still, I'm not about to rush out to buy a new camera, so perhaps Canon will have a suitable model by then. But Nikon have raised the bar very high for people like me.


 
:er: Are you serious? Who the hell buys a 3000 dollar camera for "general use"? Only the rich I'd think. Its been already mentioned in this thread, the D700 and 5DMkII are aimed for two different uses. Most people will be _investing_ in the 5D know what they're doing, and even rely on it for income, such as wedding photographers, where the 5D really shines. But I'm not downlplaying Nikon, excellent cameras too of course.


----------



## elrafo (Sep 19, 2008)

I checked the high Iso files, it says 35mm f1.4, sutterspeed 1/2000 sec!!
I also downsized the files to 12 MP + high pass, the pictures look amazing. can the D700 be good at this point in low light ??


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 19, 2008)

D700 ISO 3200 100% crop straight out of camera no post processing

As a Canon user I am somewhat jealous


----------



## Overread (Sep 19, 2008)

ouch! you sure that was 3200 ISO?

Darn I hope Canon catch up!


----------



## elrafo (Sep 19, 2008)

DAMN! do you have the full resolution file ?? please


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 19, 2008)

elrafo said:


> DAMN! do you have the full resolution file ?? please



I have but its too big to post or email but the D700 is readily available so just go into a shop and ask if you can put a CF card in one and take a few pics


----------



## deanimator (Sep 19, 2008)

The quality of video offered by the 5D II is extremely good...and photojournalism is heading this way. 
Go google "platypus photojournalism" if you don´t know about this already.


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 19, 2008)

The video quality IS very good and although I'd probably not use it very often I would like it on my next camera


----------



## amba (Sep 19, 2008)

at http://www.dprguru.com/?model=530927760 (EOS 5D Mark II reviews database, and yes, it is a sweet camera, but I'm a Nikon guy...)


----------



## Mystwalker (Sep 19, 2008)

Was hoping for more "cross-type AF points" - maybe 11 to 19?  Instead, we get the same 9, with only the center be cross-type   Also, the 9 AF points look to be all concentrated in middle - I think my 30D has better coverage.  Was not sure if that's the way a FF camera works so do not know what to think - I know I would like more then 9 points.  Guess I'm going to do more of the "focus", "recompose" thing instead of selecting my AF point.

Doesn't the 50D have Digic IV?  Was hoping for dual-Digic IV because 3.9fps just doesn't sound like an "upgrade".  Was hoping for 5-8fps so that it's at least on par with D700.

"1080P video?" - this must be a marketing thing - doubt I will ever use it, but guess it's nice to have - wonder if this will decrease life of your shutter.

"21MP" will be awesome for cropping especially since I do not have a "long" (300+) lens.  Would not have minded 15-16MP and 5-8fps.

"commander (or whatever it's called on Canon side)" - COME ON!  No flash, no "commander mode"?  Would be nice to use flash bracket without the cord.  Canon must be making a fortune off their external unit (ST-E2?) to not include this in any model.

All these perceived "shortcomings" just mean I'm going to sit on fence for reviews from those who like to be "first".  All comes down to IQ and I'm confident it will be top notch - just not willing to pop down $3K, yet.


----------



## soylentgreen (Sep 19, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Was hoping for more "cross-type AF points" - maybe 11 to 19?  Instead, we get the same 9, with only the center be cross-type   Also, the 9 AF points look to be all concentrated in middle - I think my 30D has better coverage.  Was not sure if that's the way a FF camera works so do not know what to think - I know I would like more then 9 points.  Guess I'm going to do more of the "focus", "recompose" thing instead of selecting my AF point.
> 
> Doesn't the 50D have Digic IV?  Was hoping for dual-Digic IV because 3.9fps just doesn't sound like an "upgrade".  Was hoping for 5-8fps so that it's at least on par with D700.
> 
> ...



sounds like you need a 1Ds Mark III.  At 3.9fps the new 5d is not that bad considering it is nearly doubling it's MP count. As stated, I will have to try out the new AF to see if it will do. All are cross typed though and suppose to be for f/5.6 lenses and faster. We'll see.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 19, 2008)

Two Digics need more space, and more battery. So this has always been reserved to the bulkier and heavier 1-series bodies. But we want a slim 5D (I never use a battery grip with mine either).


----------



## peterbj7 (Sep 20, 2008)

Buszaj said:


> :er: Are you serious? Who the hell buys a 3000 dollar camera for "general use"? Only the rich I'd think



I actually know several people who would buy such a camera for "general use".  Myself for one.  I might make the odd buck with my camera and I've had a few pics published, but my income has always been nominal compared to the costs.  But then I don't buy a new car every five minutes, or expensive HD televisions, or lots of the other high cost consumer goods that many people seem to be unable to live without.  I have several high-cost hobbies and photography is one of them, and I fund them out of a modest income.

One friend recently made the move from Canon to Nikon, and will never change back.  He sold several top-end bodies and specialist lenses (he shoots exclusively underwater) plus three high-end housings, and replicated the whole lot from Nikon.  Three D3s for a start.  Now THAT's profligate - I just dabble.  I have my 5D and I expect to add a D700 to it before the end of the year (the above picture of dive gear at ISO 3200 convinces me), but my car is 17 years old (and I see no reason to change it).


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 20, 2008)

Overread said:


> ouch! you sure that was 3200 ISO?
> 
> Darn I hope Canon catch up!



I don't think they can as long as they insist on cramming 21MP onto the sensor - even against most customers hopes and wishes.

They're the victim of self defeat IMO.




lostprophet said:


> The video quality IS very good and although I'd probably not use it very often I would like it on my next camera



 Me too! :thumbup:


----------



## Overread (Sep 20, 2008)

some examples of the 5DM2 at high ISO levels:
http://www.prophotonut.com/2008/09/20/canon-5d-mk2-high-iso-pictures/#more-724

click on the photos to link to the fullsized versions. Its a big improvment from my little 400D!


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 20, 2008)

of course.  It's better than my Minolta A2 too.


----------



## Samriel (Sep 20, 2008)

I think it is going to be quite popular with studio shooters, especially for product photography. Most small studios specializing in food and small products shots (meaning no cars, furniture etc.) here already use the 5D (and are quite happy with it), and I can see them being more than happy with the 5D II, since it would allow then to make even larger quality prints. As many have stated, I think this camera has a special purpose, and it doesn't seem to be photojournalism, sports or any hardcore (meaning properly weather sealed) landscape and nature photography. A good camera, but nothing revolutionary. I would've rather put the video capability in the 50D though - would probably sell better (compared to the D90). 

@peterbj7

I didn't read the manual for the D80 until about 7 months after I first got it, and I found all the controls to be quite logical and easy to understand. I played with a 40D a few months ago, and I managed to understand how it works in about the same time as with my D80. Except the entry level models (D40, D60, Rebel), I'm not really sure any camera of any maker as hard to use as you described it. I'm looking at my D80 now and wondering what could be possible misunderstood, except maybe the DoF preview button and the function button.


----------



## MarcusM (Sep 20, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> I don't get it. So far the only thing I've seen impressive from this camera was the 1080P video. You guys really think this: http://web1.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/2_landscape.jpg or this: http://web1.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/1_portrait.jpg is "spectacular", "top end", or shows signs of a "better dynamic range"?
> 
> Reeeeeely?  What am I missing then?  My monitor needs to be repaired or something?
> 
> ...



I'm glad I read this - I was just about to start a new thread devoted solely to the 5D MkII's IQ until I saw that that was the direction this thread is going.

I have been thinking the exact same thing Bifurcator - I must say from what I have seen of the image samples all put out so far from the 5D MkII, I have not been impressed. Your links didn't work for me, but I'm assuming the landscape shot was the shot that looks like it was from Iceland with the broken ice on the shoreline?

I'm especially disappointed after reading Canon's claim from their press release that the IQ is approaching "Medium Format quality territory". Not even close from what I've seen.

I hope what Alex says is true...also, I the sample shots are up on dpreview now and I did read this statement from their site:



> Note: Samples in this gallery were shot with a Beta (pre-production) unit and may not be fully representative of a final quality camera.


But, really, how much could the quality possibly improve from now until release?

The HD video looks spectacular, though.

Oh, and I will say that it looks like the High ISO shot quality is superb, so that is one HUGE plus for me. I can't even see grain at 1600, barely there at 3200, and definitely usable at 6400 and even 12800 (12800 looks like 1600 on my EOS 300D, lol) 25600, now that looks like a really bad scan, but hey, there might be a time when you forgot your flash and need to get the shot!


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 20, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> but I'm assuming the landscape shot was the shot that looks like it was from Iceland with the broken ice on the shoreline?



Exactly. I have to say, it was a difficult scene with a huge dynamic range. But as from the image we cannot judge how difficult the scene was, we can only see how poor the picture is. Of course there are very difficult scenes where you simply cannot get a decent shot without the right filters and some postprocessing, but such scenes are not the best to advertise the camera 

The only real way for me to judge it would be to actually use it and shoot the way I shoot now with my mk I ... and see what the improvement is, if any besides the resolution.

The more I look at it though, the more this camera seems to be the right choice for me. 

- For landscape work my current 5 D is nice, just resolution is a bit low sometimes and limited dynamic range makes exposing hard sometimes. The new mk II would solve the resolution issue, I doubt it would help with the dynamic range issue.
Weather sealing is sufficient on my current 5D if I am a bit careful, and hey, I have been sliding hundreds of metres on ice and snow, with water and ice spraying everywhere, been on boats, been in heavy rain, bitter cold, and in central American heat and humidity, the camera never failed me. So the mk II would even mean a slight improvement here.

- for my architectural work the mk I is fine, a bit more resolution welcome but not necessary most of the time.

- For my wildlife and action work I would sometimes need better low light performance. This seems improved a bit with the mk II, which is fine and will make things easier from time to time.

- since it will be full frame, for wildlife I could crop down to 13 MP and still get decent image quality with my 300mm, but more magnification than with my current mk I.

- even for action shots / sports, my habit is to shoot with the central AF point only. So I can live with not having any improvements here.

So these points appear sufficient improvement for me to get the mk II, and use the lenses I have, and stay with that 5D feeling in terms of handling.

Oh, And since Zeiss now introduced the EF mount, I might get a Zeiss lens for it as well as soon as they introduce EF with wide angle .. sounds great for landscape work


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 20, 2008)

MarcusM said:


> I'm glad I read this - I was just about to start a new thread devoted solely to the 5D MkII's IQ until I saw that that was the direction this thread is going.
> 
> I have been thinking the exact same thing Bifurcator - I must say from what I have seen of the image samples all put out so far from the 5D MkII, I have not been impressed. Your links didn't work for me, but I'm assuming the landscape shot was the shot that looks like it was from Iceland with the broken ice on the shoreline?
> 
> ...



Yup! We do actually have to wait for the release model as so many have said but we certainly do get *****-rights until then!  With the images they released there's nothing else that can be. If they show us crap and tell us it's MF quality then as intelligent beings capable of discernment we get to call BS!

And especially when their last 21MP camera produced vastly inferior results when compared to the D3 with 1/2 the number of pixels! [_for clarification and total disclosure allow me to specify then when I take the 21mp images from the big canon and the 12mp from the top Nikon and either scale one up or the other down the Nikon has always won in color and IQ._]

I like Canon as much as I like Nikon (or Pentax, or Olympus) as far as companies go. But I'm not a fan-boy who will make lame excuses for either one when they blow it.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 20, 2008)

I just hate Canon for the direct print button.  There you can see the power of the marketing department.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 20, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> Exactly. I have to say, it was a difficult scene with a huge dynamic range.



That would cause clipping at one end or the other but not moooshed colors and low resolve throughout the entire image.

Especially when both images showed essentially the same problems.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 20, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> That would cause clipping at one end or the other but not moooshed colors and low resolve throughout the entire image.



But that could be due to underexposure through most part of the scene, which could be caused by carefully avoiding clipping in the highlights!



> Especially when both images showed essentially the same problems.


Well, both seem not well focussed either ...

If the AF is similar to that of the mk I, then I am sure I could get better focused pictures with the mk II than they did 

Maybe they also used out of the box lenses. I had to get the focussing for all my lenses adjusted at the Canon service in Germany. Now they work like a charm.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Sep 20, 2008)

At the risk of provocation: anyone who judges an image (or the camera used in creating it) by looking at a tiny JPG on the Internet is not serious about photography, unless all you care about is posting pictures on Flickr. 

The question should be about what the final print looks like, and how the RAW file works with your customary workflow.

ESPECIALLY the declarations of which company is leading and who has dropped the ball in whatever respect are laughable. 

Go take some pictures.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 20, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> At the risk of provocation: anyone who judges an image (or the camera used in creating it) by looking at a tiny JPG on the Internet is not serious about photography, unless all you care about is posting pictures on Flickr.



Well, it was original resolution, not tiny 

but as i said, I have to take some images myself to see how it compares.


----------



## MarcusM (Sep 20, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> At the risk of provocation: anyone who judges an image (or the camera used in creating it) by looking at a tiny JPG on the Internet is not serious about photography, unless all you care about is posting pictures on Flickr.
> 
> The question should be about what the final print looks like, and how the RAW file works with your customary workflow.
> 
> ...



As Alex said, the images were full sized - they were not tiny. You could see some pretty close detail. Not that I will take your broad assertion seriously to assess whether or not I am serious about photography, but you should take a look at the images in question. I think you can get there from dpreview.

I agree it would be best to make a judgement from an actual print, but you can't tell me you can't get a good idea of image quality from a full-sized digital image on screen.


----------



## Brian Austin (Sep 20, 2008)

I'd trust Phil's shooting over a Canon engineer's...

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=138811


----------



## jvgig (Sep 20, 2008)

I am a film/video student at a local arts magnet school and am in need of a dslr and a video camera.  Since I need the manual controls for both, this seems like it may provide me with what I need at a fraction of the cost of buying them separate.  

Does anyone know what the quality of the video is?  I read that it records at 38.6Mb/sec which is much higher than even most prosumer camcorders in the $3-5k range.  Considering that it uses a cmos sensor as opposed to the 3ccd design that many video cameras use, approximately what level of camcorder does it relate to?  Does anyone know anything about its audio processing capabilities with an external mic such as the Rode Stereo VideoMic?


----------



## MarcusM (Sep 20, 2008)

jvgig said:


> I am a film/video student at a local arts magnet school and am in need of a dslr and a video camera.  Since I need the manual controls for both, this seems like it may provide me with what I need at a fraction of the cost of buying them separate.
> 
> Does anyone know what the quality of the video is?  I read that it records at 38.6Mb/sec which is much higher than even most prosumer camcorders in the $3-5k range.  Considering that it uses a cmos sensor as opposed to the 3ccd design that many video cameras use, approximately what level of camcorder does it relate to?  Does anyone know anything about its audio processing capabilities with an external mic such as the Rode Stereo VideoMic?



Well, it's 1080 HD quality. The video I saw looked pretty damn good.
http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/5dmark2/index.html


----------



## rjackjames (Sep 21, 2008)

I think th 5D Mark II, will be a great body. I think that we are all speculating on what this camera will be like. We have seen sample images from Canon, until we see how these images look taken by a regular photographer. We have to wait until for the release in Nov, to get hands on test from the photographers themselves.


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 21, 2008)

rjackjames said:


> I think th 5D Mark II, will be a great body. I think that we are all speculating on what this camera will be like. We have seen sample images from Canon, until we see how these images look taken by a regular photographer. We have to wait until for the release in Nov, to get hands on test from the photographers themselves.



I've posted some photos taken by a regular photographer, me, in the subscribers forum


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Sep 21, 2008)

lostprophet said:


> regular photographer, me



:lmao:































 ...sorry Andy, couldn't resist, far too tempting


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 21, 2008)

Peanuts said:


> I just ordered mine and there ain't nothing you can say about it that will make me regret it. (other then my account is empty but shh....)



ROFL!  Now *that's* the spirit!
Good luck with your purchase, I sincerely wish that it exceeds ALL your expectations!


----------



## rjackjames (Sep 21, 2008)

I wait few more before to order mine, If i order mine now.....it will set me back, on the things i want to buy after this deployment.


----------



## peterbj7 (Sep 21, 2008)

lostprophet said:


> I've posted some photos taken by a regular photographer, me, in the subscribers forum



Where is that?  Can you provide a link please?


----------



## usayit (Sep 21, 2008)

peterbj7 said:


> Where is that?  Can you provide a link please?



Subscriber's forum in the TPF is only open to those that subscribe.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 21, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> But that could be due to underexposure through most part of the scene, which could be caused by carefully avoiding clipping in the highlights!



I have no idea what you mean. But if there was too much range in the scene for the range recordable by the sensor (as there is in just about every scene for ALL digital sensors in ALL cameras) I doubt it would produce the pixel soup shown in those images.



> Well, both seem not well focussed either ...
> 
> If the AF is similar to that of the mk I, then I am sure I could get better focused pictures with the mk II than they did



I dunno, I could see where the focus landed in both images. there were parts that were in focus on both images. To be fair I tried to only look at the focused parts for evaluating resolve. I looked at the OOF parts for too tho.



> Maybe they also used out of the box lenses. I had to get the focussing for all my lenses adjusted at the Canon service in Germany. Now they work like a charm.



OMG, really? That totally sucks. Man, that makes me not want to buy any more Canons - like ever - reading that. Really?


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 21, 2008)

jvgig said:


> I am a film/video student



I was a film/video/CG teacher for a little over 8 years.   Kewl! :thumbup:



> at a local arts magnet school and am in need of a dslr and a video camera.  Since I need the manual controls for both, this seems like it may provide me with what I need at a fraction of the cost of buying them separate.
> 
> Does anyone know what the quality of the video is?  I read that it records at 38.6Mb/sec which is much higher than even most prosumer camcorders in the $3-5k range.  Considering that it uses a cmos sensor as opposed to the 3ccd design that many video cameras use, approximately what level of camcorder does it relate to?  Does anyone know anything about its audio processing capabilities with an external mic such as the Rode Stereo VideoMic?



1) Does it have mic jacks?  I thought it didn't. So, one of the costs here is syncing a DAT walkman with proper mic(s) for the job.

2) I don't think it relates to any camcorder. I think it's recording 4:4:4 (unconfirmed) but it has some temporal and/or delta issues that no modern camcorder has. The frame quality is excellent tho and if it could shoot in RAW I assume it would approach some of the top $50K ~ $70K cameras (in that specific regard). For it's price I don't believe anything currently comes close to it's quality and versatility.

3) The Canon dSLR does about 5 megabytes per second (storage) or about 300megs per/minute (storage) in it's 1080P mode which is about right from what you read it as 38.6Mb/sec.. And you can see how that stacks up here: http://pdf.textfiles.com/technical/ccow_fbddr.pdf

Where did you read that BTW?  I had to examine recorded files.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 21, 2008)

Overread said:


> ouch! you sure that was 3200 ISO?



My first thought exactly!  

But evenly (if low powered) lit areas are no great challenges... what will challenge them are the shadow areas.

I'd love to see the shadow side of a late evening tree or a dark shadowy room with variances of light... THAT will tell you how good it really is.

Not to worry, that D700 is still on my Christmas list.


----------



## JerryPH (Sep 21, 2008)

Overread said:


> some examples of the 5DM2 at high ISO levels:
> http://www.prophotonut.com/2008/09/20/canon-5d-mk2-high-iso-pictures/#more-724
> 
> click on the photos to link to the fullsized versions. Its a big improvment from my little 400D!



Its darned clean for sure, but that ISO 1000 did not impress me... after I saw that D700 at 6400 shot.  The D700 shot "looked" to have less noise than that background did on the above site.

Of course this doesn't mean anything to anyone but me... lol


----------



## jvgig (Sep 21, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> I was a film/video/CG teacher for a little over 8 years.   Kewl! :thumbup:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It does not have XLR inputs, but according to the dpreview, it has a 3.5mm mic input on the bottom.

Everything I know is what I have read here and from the dpreview preview.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 21, 2008)

Kewl! I didn't know it did!  It's awesome that it does. :thumbup: It's a good move on Canon's part - it's a needed feature IMHO.


----------



## jvgig (Sep 21, 2008)

its really interesting that it does.  it shows that canon has intentions of making this into a viable alternative to their video cameras or maybe merging the two groups.  from some of my recent readings it is speculated that the image quality could be better than video cameras in the $10k+ range and even better than $100k+ setups in low light performance.


----------



## peterbj7 (Sep 22, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> ..... if there was too much range in the scene for the range recordable by the sensor (as there is in just about every scene for ALL digital sensors in ALL cameras .....)


\How long do you think before cameras appear which are capable of compressing the dynamic range?  So that in effect they produce an "HDR" image?  After all, the purpose of a camera is to replicate what the eye sees, and in scenes with extreme contrast the eye can adapt and see details that no camera currently can.  Sound recorders with a comparable capability have been around for a long time, and most broadcasting stations compress their output as they know the result more closely matches what the ear would have heard had it been where the mike was.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 22, 2008)

peterbj7 said:


> How long do you think before cameras appear which are capable of compressing the dynamic range?



Many do that already.




> So that in effect they produce an "HDR" image?



If you mean the tone mapped images we see posted on sites like this then never! And I hope it's never ever considered either. Well, unless they're going to consider other artistic image processing like canvas texturing, automatic boarder frames, generated lens flares, ND gradients, and etc.




> After all, the purpose of a camera is to replicate what the eye sees, and in scenes with extreme contrast the eye can adapt and see details that no camera currently can.  Sound recorders with a comparable capability have been around for a long time, and most broadcasting stations compress their output as they know the result more closely matches what the ear would have heard had it been where the mike was.



I'm not sure I agree with any of that. Oh well, no biggy. But some people speculate that in heaven sight will include a much broader light spectrum that only cameras can record now and that human eyes can't detect.  Sounds weird to me. I guess I'll know for sure after I die. I just hope I die before they put heavily compressed tone mapping in cameras.


----------



## peterbj7 (Sep 22, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Many do that already



Can you name me any?  I've not yet come across one.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 23, 2008)

The Fuji (I guess the S3??) was the first camera I saw to offer this. I've since seen 6 or 7 others from various manufacturers that hint to or claim such results or at least better results from replacing clipped highlight and shadow areas with alternate range segments. 

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=19630

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/fujifilm-finepix-s5-pro/4505-6501_7-32082363.html
"...the company's Super CCD SR Pro imaging sensor, which combines two photodetectors per pixel in an attempt to create a wider dynamic range than you'd get from a normal sensor."

I believe the Pentax cameras are doing something similar. It's not the crazy out of control tone-mapping that we see on sites like this thankfully, but there is a very noticeable difference and clipped highlights and shadows are much more rare on these cameras!

Unfortunately it's rather hard to search for because a billion retarded camera nuts misuse "HDR" as a term to describe tone-mapping. So searches return thousands of incorrect results.


----------



## Hawaii Five-O (Sep 23, 2008)

Overread said:


> sigh - us poor nature photographers - why are we forced to the top end to get the basics that we need (weather sealing!)



My old p&s has that


----------



## Overread (Sep 23, 2008)

not sure if this is up somewhere yet, but video quality from the 5DM2
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086

I really really want to play with this in macro!


----------



## Benthic (Sep 23, 2008)

Is there and official release date for this camera?  I've heard 'November' on here, but I've been unable to find any information anywhere else.

Brian


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Sep 23, 2008)

Benthic said:


> Is there and official release date for this camera?  I've heard 'November' on here, but I've been unable to find any information anywhere else.
> 
> Brian



I'm pretty sure the date is listed on dpreview if nowhere else.


----------



## usayit (Sep 23, 2008)

That's pretty darn impressive.... I am pretty sure now that Canon needs to get better people to produce samples.


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Sep 23, 2008)

usayit said:


> That's pretty darn impressive.... I am pretty sure now that Canon needs to get better people to produce samples.



Check out the new Sigma thread - that's an example of what better people can do IMHO - if the 5DII isn't comfortably capable of that sort of stuff, then I'd say Canon will have missed the boat for a very long time.


----------



## usayit (Sep 23, 2008)

I was actually referring to the video sample from the 5DMII


----------



## Overread (Sep 23, 2008)

usayit said:


> That's pretty darn impressive.... I am pretty sure now that Canon needs to get better people to produce samples.


 
someone asked this on another site and I said this:

I  think also there is a quality issue with photographers - a sample image from Canon which is perfection would give the impression that that is the adverage quality of the camera - leading to mass complaints of bad/fautly cameras when people with less skills get hold of them. Waiting for the pro photographers after release instead means that the adverage person can see the quality at minimum on the Canon website- and see the quality in the hands of a pro online - giving them a range of qualities rather than just top end results.
That means when they get shots that are not tack sharp they are not going to as likley blame the camera and return it for repairs and blame canon for a bad product


----------



## Chris of Arabia (Sep 23, 2008)

usayit said:


> I was actually referring to the video sample from the 5DMII



Yeah, I realised that. It does show what can be done by someone who really knows their game. It's well past the standards of Uncle Joe and his old 16mm.


----------



## S2K1 (Sep 23, 2008)

Overread said:


> someone asked this on another site and I said this:
> 
> I  think also there is a quality issue with photographers - a sample image from Canon which is perfection would give the impression that that is the adverage quality of the camera - leading to mass complaints of bad/fautly cameras when people with less skills get hold of them. Waiting for the pro photographers after release instead means that the adverage person can see the quality at minimum on the Canon website- and see the quality in the hands of a pro online - giving them a range of qualities rather than just top end results.
> That means when they get shots that are not tack sharp they are not going to as likley blame the camera and return it for repairs and blame canon for a bad product


That actually makes sense.


----------



## lostprophet (Sep 23, 2008)

Overread said:


> someone asked this on another site and I said this:
> 
> I  think also there is a quality issue with photographers - a sample image from Canon which is perfection would give the impression that that is the adverage quality of the camera - leading to mass complaints of bad/fautly cameras when people with less skills get hold of them. Waiting for the pro photographers after release instead means that the adverage person can see the quality at minimum on the Canon website- and see the quality in the hands of a pro online - giving them a range of qualities rather than just top end results.
> That means when they get shots that are not tack sharp they are not going to as likley blame the camera and return it for repairs and blame canon for a bad product



and its those sort of people that are the bane of my life :er:


----------



## bigalbest (Sep 23, 2008)

Overread said:


> not sure if this is up somewhere yet, but video quality from the 5DM2
> http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086
> 
> I really really want to play with this in macro!



Whooaaa, that was amazing.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Sep 24, 2008)

Wow, I gotta say, that was pretty impressive - hand-held panning shot over NYC at night!


----------



## soylentgreen (Sep 24, 2008)

Great Budha that was impressive. There was only a couple of scenes that I thought were raggedy, but that could be due to the compression. It AF's in video mode right? I may have to reconsider picking one up. FLip flopping between it and the 1d Mark III.


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 24, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Unfortunately it's rather hard to search for because a billion retarded camera nuts misuse "HDR" as a term to describe tone-mapping. So searches return thousands of incorrect results.



In this respect us two are on a similar mission


----------



## Overread (Sep 24, 2008)

If I recall correctly its manual focusing only in video mode - no AF
I think also (as the video showed) that proper and good support really does help a lot more with video than stills - you can't just up shutter speed  -


----------



## Alex_B (Sep 24, 2008)

Hmm, doing macro video of living bugs is actually a nice idea... but very difficult In terms of focussing and camera shake I suppose


----------



## Overread (Sep 24, 2008)

I think a tripod would have to be a must - a geared or video head as well - ball might work though it might introduce too much shake from the hands. I think the biggest limit will be lighting, since your flash won't be of help - flashlights might become popular!
Focusing would take practice - I think a lot of people would want flying shots if they can and it will take a lot of patience and also I think experience in attracting subjects rather than finding them - that way one can set tripod and lighting up rather than having to adapt - works fine for stills since you only need one frame, but for video - harder -- still it would not stop me trying!


----------



## shivaswrath (Sep 24, 2008)

i downloaded some video clips off of dpreview for the MK2- did any of you have a "choppy" clip? I've played it multiple times on my computer, and it looks HORRIBLE - not sure if the video idea is really going to work, or if it's me. . . .at first I thought it was my processor, but I'm starting to wonder. . .


----------



## S2K1 (Sep 24, 2008)

Overread said:


> not sure if this is up somewhere yet, but video quality from the 5DM2
> http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086
> 
> I really really want to play with this in macro!


VERY impressive!


----------



## tonyeck (Sep 24, 2008)

So, who has this pre-ordered and from where?

I put mine in at Adorama, but they have 750 people on their list already!


----------



## Peanuts (Sep 24, 2008)

I preordered from Vistek. I think I am about 10th on the list (?) Somewhere between 5 and 12.


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 24, 2008)

usayit said:


> That's pretty darn impressive....





usayit said:


> ...referring to the video sample from the 5DMII




No, no. You're not allowed to be impressed. dSLR shooters "will never be able to produce anything other than goofy low quality YouTube clips...". It's the law. :lmao:


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 24, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> In this respect us two are on a similar mission



Cool... I'll ride shotgun while you drive and we'll switch off back and forth! :thumbup:


----------



## usayit (Sep 24, 2008)

Hehehe 

Welcome back to the world of the living... Mr Bifurcator V2.0.  

Did you have trouble finding the pieces of your former self after it was brushed into the corner?


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 24, 2008)

I'm not following... Too many possible implications.


----------



## Overread (Sep 24, 2008)

would you like me to test Bifurcator V2 to see if its working properly?


----------



## usayit (Sep 24, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> I'm not following... Too many possible implications.




 http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=139010

short clip:



Bifurcator said:


> <Bifurcator kills himself>





> *sweeps body into a corner*




We probably need to run through tests, Overread,  Bi V2.0 didn't get a proper brain dump.


----------



## Overread (Sep 24, 2008)

I suppose test one is my last post on that thread!


----------



## Bifurcator (Sep 24, 2008)

Ah... LOL!!!  hehehe...

Yup, I'm back and badder than ever.  I'm READY!


----------

