Thoughts on the Canon 5D Mark II Announcement
Canon has finally launched the successor to the EOS 5D. The Canon EOS 5D Mark II brings a 21 megapixel sensor to the game that provides higher ISO performance than its predecessor, a new review screen, live view, and a new 1080p HD movie mode. On paper, there’s much to like about this new camera. But, there are a couple of major points that make this release bittersweet, at least for me. Here’s my thoughts about this camera as announced, but please note that this is not a review. Just thoughts.
As I’ve previously written in The D3, D700 and Canon, I’ve been waiting for this release as I think it serves as a bellwether for where Canon is going for the foreseeable future. With Nikon on the resurgence, Canon has recently lost their clear cut domination of the digital SLR marketplace. There are many paths that Canon can take to address Nikon’s recent achievements, some of more interest to me and my own photographic needs than others. So, what does the new 5D Mark II tell us?
First and foremost, the 5D Mark II tells us that Canon still considers megapixel count increases to be the most important feature to push. In the first part of this decade, this was true to a large degree. The first 3 megapixel digital SLRs were indeed limited. But, now that digital SLRs sport sensors that capture 10+ megapixels, it’s not as clear cut anymore. Just as the megahertz wars brought us mostly meaningless improvements in computer specifications that were more impressive on paper than in reality, the run up in megapixel counts has reached a point of decreasing returns.
One issue with a 21 megapixel sensor is that there are precious few lenses that can resolve enough detail to really take full advantage of the resolution capabilities on hand. And those that can are bloody expensive. With the 10 and 12 megapixel cameras I currently own, I can see the limits of a few of my expensive L-series lenses in the resulting files. That said, this isn’t the worst of fates. All other things being equal, being limited by your lenses is probably preferable to being limited by your sensor.
Even if you have a good enough lens, there’s the small matter of being able to keep your camera still enough to get the most out of it. I can tell you from my own experience that I regularly see minor resolution loss in my hand-held images from my current 10 and 12 megapixel cameras when I closely inspect them. I see this even when using state-of-the-art Image Stabilized lenses. At normal use sizes, these losses aren’t noticeable, but to get the most out of 10 or 12 megapixel cameras requires the use of a tripod or to be shooting in full on daylight. To really take advantage of a 21 megapixel sensor, you’ll want to break out the tripod..
Another issue with higher megapixel counts is that, all other things being equal in the electronics being used, the smaller photo-sites that are a byproduct of higher megapixel counts capture relatively fewer photons and need more amplification resulting in more noise. Canon has long kicked ass on their noise handling and it’s only recently Nikon has joined the party. As they say, however, there is no free lunch. I would really have liked to see what Canon’s engineers could have done with their current technical abilities with a 12 megapixel sensor. Or even a 16 megapixel one. Given that the currently available photos from the 5D Mark II seem to indicate that it has a stop to stop and a half advantage in noise levels over the original 5D, the same processing applied to larger photo-sites could have resulted in some truly spectacular results. Alas.
So, beyond marketing and bragging rights, what does stuffing 21 megapixels into the 5D Mark II get us? If you’re out shooting in the landscape with great lenses and a tripod, you’ll no doubt see some real benefit. In such a situation, every shred of detail that you can capture matters and you’d rather be lens-limited than sensor-limited. If you’re shooting in the studio—again probably with a tripod—you’ll also see a benefit. If, on the other hand, you’re shooting hand-held anywhere but in full on daylight, I doubt you’re going to get much of an improvement over a 12 megapixel camera.
The big downside to the high megapixel count is file size. 21 megapixels results in huge files. Current 10 and 12 megapixel RAW files put quite a load on all but the most powerful of desktop machines. Larger images only increase this load. If you are shooting in a manner to maximize the benefit from these large files—using your tripod and mirror lock up—then this workload increase is a worthy trade off. If, however, you are shooting mostly handheld or shooting a large number of images—say hundreds or thousands at an event—the impact of the huge file size will be a net negative. (Note: Samuel Linde has brought up a good point in the comments that using sRAW could alleviate some of these negatives. I personally don’t have first hand experience with this, so can’t comment for now, but will look into it.)
Beyond continuing to engage in the megapixel war, Canon is telling us something else with the 5D Mark II. And this is something that matters a whole lot more in the end than the pros and cons of having a 21 megapixel sensor. The one area in which I considered the original 5D deficient was its autofocus system. It was a glaring flaw in an otherwise amazing camera three years ago. The only reason to put up with it in 2005 was to get the amazing images that the original 5D can produce. The image quality was worth it, but it was always a puzzling question mark in an otherwise awesome camera.
In 2008, including the same basic autofocus system in the 5D Mark II is ridiculous. I can tell you from experience with my 5D that in light levels requiring the use of ISO 1600 or 3200, the only useable focus point is the center one. From everything I’ve seen, this will remain unchanged for the 5D Mark II. If you’re taking your time composing your shots, you’ll probably be fine with this. Out in the landscape, you almost certainly won’t care too much. On the other hand, if you are shooting on the run in low light where you want to take advantage of ISO 3200 or 6400, you’ll find the autofocus to be a cruel joke and will end up with way too many 21 megapixel out-of-focus rejects.
It’s pretty clear that the only reason to put in a crippled autofocus system into the 5D Mark II is to protect the margin on the 1D series of cameras, especially the $8000 1Ds Mark III. After all, with similar sensor specifications, one might wonder what else justifies the massive price difference. Of course, build quality, size, and shutter-life specifications matter, but evidently autofocus is a key differentiating feature of the 1D series of cameras to Canon which must be protected. This is a different approach than the one taken by Nikon who pushes advanced autofocus technologies further down into their camera line.
The bottom line is that I think the 5D Mark II is going to be a fantastic camera for a good number of photographers. The image quality will be great and there are going to be a lot of great photographs made with this camera in a variety of situations. Furthermore, those that shoot out in the landscape on tripods should be over the moon about this camera. If I were making my living shooting in nature, I’d definitely be interested in this camera. Despite my comments about the downsides of having a 21 megapixel sensor, I’d be happy being lens-limited shooting out in the field.
On the other hand, for the style of shooting that I do for a living—photojournalistic event photography in crappy light conditions—the 5D Mark II doesn’t make the grade. Not even close. It’s too bad. I was really hoping that Canon would produce a 14-16 megapixel camera with a pro-level autofocus and an even lower noise threshold. That would have been about right, at least in my book.
Update (9/25): As some have pointed out in the comments, until we have the camera in hand, it may be too early to pass judgement. On the other hand, I’m seeing more and more evidence that the AF is unchanged from the original 5D, including a post in dpreview.com’s forums pseudo-quoting Chuck Westfall as saying the focus is unchanged. Of course, forum posts are subject to skepticism too. Caveat reader.
Related Posts:
59 Comments
James, this was a very insightful read for someone like me interested in purchasing this as an upgrade from my 40D, while also seriously considering jumping ship back to Nikon. I appreciate your thoughts on the perceived direction Canon is taking based on what they thought were top priorities in the next-gen 5D. There are some (namely, video) non-pro features of this camera that you didn't mention that appeals to me, but the thought of chugging along digesting huge files for little or no gain definitely leaves a bad taste in my mouth and I don't have $5k lenses to throw at the problem =)
Thanks for the great read.
-B
Reply to this comment
How is it that almost all of the critical opinions re: the 21 megapixels fail to mention the option to shoot sRAW files at either 10 or 5 megapixels? I don't see why shooting sRAW at 10 megapixels wouldn't fit for the workflow you're mentioning.
Of course, Canon's decision to basically keep the old AF is puzzling indeed.
Reply to this comment
Dote, I did indeed skip out on talking about video. For me, it's an unknown. Currently the presence of lack thereof of video isn't a decision point. I know that some people are very excited by it and Vincent Laforte is positively giddy. See http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/something-very-interesting-is-comingboth-to-this-blog-and-to-our-industry/ for some thoughts from him on it.
Samuel, good point. I think the reason I personally give sRAW short shrift is that it hasn't been supported by tools like Aperture and Lightroom. Not being able to use it in a serious workflow totally cut it out of my thought process when I last looked into it. Until just now when I looked into it, I didn't even realize that CameraRAW now features support for sRAW (although Aperture still does not). I'll update the post with a note and investigate more. Even so, the 5Dm2 is off the table for me simply because of the autofocus.
Reply to this comment
I can only hope that the next 1D mk X or whatever it is called will only move to a 12-14MP sensor. Oh yeah... and improve the autofocus.
Reply to this comment
Nicely put Duncan, as ever, that last paragraph sums up my feelings perfectly. My wish list was:
Full frame, 15-6 megapixels with improved noise & ISO range, next-gen AF (a preview of what'll be in the next 1 series, which'd also prove they've got the Mk.III problems fixed) and 6FPS.
I can see how they don't want to scalp the 1 series sales – though if people are still buying a Canon camera it's hardly a disaster, and there will always be those that *need* a 1D/1Ds – but also feel they've gone down the wrong road by making this so biased towards a 'studio' camera. I was hoping they'd make a fantastic all-rounder that fit perfectly between the 50D and the 1D Series, leaving the decision between studio & action to the pro line, or even, as some rumours suggested, split this into a 5D2 (huge megapixels) and 3D/7D (better AF & frame rate). Ah well!
Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll spring the 3D on us in a few months :)
Reply to this comment
That's pretty much what I thought: it's a lovely sensor, but I'd have preferred to have seen larger photosites, and that AF is just a joke. It's interesting that the 5dmkii is essentially more like a 5ds - the slow-but-high-resolution category. It'd be interesting to see a 1dmk3 - ie, lower-resolution sensor, though still full-frame, and faster AF/performance - equivalent in this range. As it stands, it feels like a noticeable gap.
Also: a lot of people are going to be bitten by the lenses issue, I think, and that's a real shame.
Still, it's clearly an excellent product, and it's nice that Canon and Nikon are very much "sandwiching" each other with their model lines - their products don't so much directly compete as constantly leapfrog one another. It's an exciting time to be a photographer, but the criteria for the body choices we make are no longer as clearcut as they used to be. Nice analysis of the situation.
Reply to this comment
I wouldn't be surprised if Canon starts loosing customers to Nikon because of this approach.
Reply to this comment
BWJones, I'd agree that it'd be nice if the 1Dmk3 replacement were full frame 12-14MPix. It'd be a good move. And of course, fix the AF. I'm still getting my ass kicked by the AF on the mk3s in stage lighting. I hope the rumors about a redesigned AF are true. We'll see.
Stef, a 3D would be nice. It'd be perfect in fact, especially as a reply to the Nikon D700. I don't expect it tho. I think we'll continue to see Canon stick with their current buckets for the time being. It's a business plan that they seem to be comfortable with.
Tom, indeed. Part of the situation that we find ourselves in is that Nikon and Canon are both in the game, but in different places. The sweet spot for various kinds of photography vary and no one brand has them all covered well right now. I think that's the base cause of much of the gnashing around on these issues we see currently.
Thijs, indeed, I think it is a problem for Canon and an advantage for Nikon. It's already shown up as a problem for Canon at the Olympics. No longer can they rely on the wall of white lenses for advertising their prowess. We'll see how much Canon reacts to this in the future, however. After all, the bulk of their camera profits surely come from the Rebel and Dxx lines. As long as sales of those remain strong, they are certainly going to be comfortable with their plans.
Reply to this comment
I share many of your thoughts on the 5D MkII. When I purchased my 5D 2 years ago as an upgrade to my D200, I was giddy- the camera offered everything I wanted as a natural light portrait photographer. Of late, it was starting to show its age, and with the Canon rumor mill nearly silent I jumped at the chance to purchase a D700. Ergonomically I prefer the Canon- the spinny wheel is the best invention since sliced bread, and I do not understand how Nikon thinks it's ok to reverse the Cartesian coordinate system with their exposure bar.
If anything, though, I am even more in love with my D700 now than I was when my 5D was new. Don't get me wrong, I am keeping my 5D as backup, since the 5D & 24-70L is a great setup.
Given how far Nikon advanced with noise reduction in a year and a half, I had high expectations for what Canon could accomplish, not only with high ISO performance but autofocus and metering (does the new 5D meter off selected focus points or is it center-meter only?) and this new release is a huge letdown.
Reply to this comment
Good point Duncan, the megapixel race does not have much meaning.
I think the autofocusing system does not have much more as well, unless that is the most important for someone (work related or?). Let's not forget the manual focus world, the unforgettable photography masterpieces, done with manual focus. The quality, the moving power of an image is the most important in my opinion.
Reply to this comment
It's an interesting move - the AF is a mistake, obviously, and I do wonder why they've gone down that route. Apart from that, I'd have been interested to see something more comparable to the D3 (i.e. half this resolution, but still full-frame, going all-out on the high-ISO performance and speed). Going high-res gives them the edge over Nikon, until the D3x launches, but how will the 5DmkII compare?
Saving only half the pixels won't make up the difference: the light sensors sampling the image are still half the size they would be in a full-frame 10 MP body. Perhaps some clever tricks to sum pairs of pixels would close the gap, but this sensor will still be at a disadvantage against a lower resolution one using the same level of technology.
Perhaps the strategy here is to build on the 5D's existing strengths, high quality static photography, conceding the fast-action market to the D3 for the time being? A risky choice, particularly with the D3x in the pipeline - but perhaps they'll soon fill the gap Tom notes, bringing out a faster model as well. As I recall, Canon do like to bring out new models as surprises, so there could well be a sister camera in the works...
Reply to this comment
I both love and hate the MPx argument. But when considering that a medium format camera is wildly more useful than a 35mm, I can't help but conclude that even with a "cheap" lens like the 70-200mm F2.8L I've got, I'm going to get more out of it than a camera with fewer pixels.
Reply to this comment
There is a lot of talk about the autofocus being a total disaster, but I have yet to read any hands-on review of this system. Yes, it appears to be similar to the original 5D, but perhaps we should wait until the mark ii autofocus is put through its paces before slamming it over and over. Just seems like jumping to conclusions...
Reply to this comment
I shoot way too many pictures and I'm in many more situations where I demand higher FPS. 3.9fps is honestly not fast enough. Regarding details and landscape shooting, sure, this is an amazing camera, but I'm willing to 'get by' with my D700... and if 'really really' cared about top notch detail, I'd probably just buy a used Nikon F4 for a fraction of the price.
In the end, I was slightly saddened as well by Canon's release of their 5D mkii, but only for selfish reasons. I think this will be a *really* amazing camera for a number other folk out there. Image quality will be awesome, sharpness will be unmatched (digitally speaking), and the colors will fly.
Reply to this comment
Very true, Eric, we won't see till the models actually start shipping (which is late November/early December) so proper judgement should be reserved till it's been fully evaluated. However, there's enough information out there already to be able to get a good idea of how it will perform.
For all reports so far, it seems to be the exact same autofocus system as the 50D, but with a full frame sensor and 6 added invisible 'AF assist' points. (I'm not sure where as they've not told us and they're, uh, invisible!) The problem I see immediately is the same as the original 5D, which took the AF system directly from the 20D, resulting in all the points in-effect bunching at the centre, as it took a 1.6x sensor's AF and put it directly into a 1x sensor camera without scaling/resizing/spreading.
Compare the 5D mark II's viewfinder:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/images/contents/2_4.jpg
With the 50D's viewfinder:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos50d/images/sections/02_3.jpg
And the 1D mark III's viewfinder:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eos1dm3/images/items/13.jpg
Doesn't look good, does it? If you compose/track subjects to anywhere near the edge of the frame, which happens a lot with sports and fast-moving action, this appears to be impossible using the 5D2 as the AF is too central – you'll lose tracking. Perhaps I'm wrong, but unless they've added those invisible assist points out past the proper ones it doesn't look promising.
As far as the 50D's AF goes, as it's so new I've not used one yet so I can't comment first-hand. From what I've read, the 50D's AF apparently carries over mostly unchanged from the 40D, but for speed improvements afforded by the Digic 4:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-9314-9568
The 40D's AF isn't awful for what the camera is, but its AF tracking isn't great. Rob Galbraith brought up the possibility of switching from the beleaguered 1D Mark III to a 40D as a temporary workaround, but dismissed it with the following comments:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-8740-9068-9537#40d
So unless the 50D's AF is a huge improvement on the 40 – which it may be, here's hoping! – it's not a brilliant sports shooter. If the 5D2's AF is the same, then combining this with its meagre 3.9 FPS and bunching all the AF points in the centre means it's going to be a lot less useful than the 50D is for action. As Duncan's article states, this would fit perfectly with Canon's intentions for the 5D series: a landscape/studio camera with an excessive amount of megapixels. It looks like it'll succeed admirably in this respect, it's just unfortunate that this isn't the camera a lot of people want.
Reply to this comment
The megahertz comparison is ridiculous .... I don't understand how come anybody can write anything he/she wants :)
Everything else seems to make sense, no doubt. SRaw should be the answer for most of concerns.
It would be interesting how many people, that are not using the DSLRs as point and shoot, are really using more than teh center AF point?!
I know Nikon lovers taht use only one of teh 51 sensors :)
Reply to this comment
Dragomir, I'm a huge fan of what people have done over the years with manual focus Leica M and other manual focus cameras. But, there are certainly places where autofocus opens up new horizons. Modern AF systems are essential to many disciplines at this point. As well, cameras designed around autofocus systems tend to be harder to use manually than older manual only cameras. In the end, it's always about the resulting image, not the tool. But sharper tools do help make those images.
Ryan, indeed. Being lens-limited isn't necessarily a bad thing. But unless maximum resolution is your goal, it's not necessarily a great tradeoff. I'd rather see fewer and better pixels at this point in time. But, that is my own personal feeling on the matter. In retrospect, I think I spent too much time talking about megapixels here, but have refrained from editing things down for the time being.
Eric, from comments made by dpreview staffers who have access to the camera, the AF is almost exactly the same as on the 5D. As well, as Stef says, the placement of the AF points on the 5D is really constrained to the center frame. Certainly there are lots of photographers that are single focus point only types. Me, I'm certainly not. I hardly use the center AF point and almost always use an edge point, preferably with metering information being taken from that point.
Dustin, yes. Framerate is something I didn't touch on, but in my own work, 5fps is a minimum. It's funny that it doesn't seem like a big difference, but when you photograph people that are speaking, facial expressions change rapidly. Anything less than 5fps means that you can miss things. I aspire to shooting fewer frames and predicting the height of action, but sometimes a well placed burst of shots is the best tool at hand.
Stef, thanks for posting those links that show the relative coverage of the AF systems on the various cameras. It really drives home the point that the AF system on the 5D is biased to the center. There are a few diagrams of the 5Dmk2 AF system floating about showing the hidden focus points as being arranged around the center point in the same manner as the hidden focus points on the original 5D. I'll make a note of them when I find them again.
Anonymous xx with the bogus email address, if you've never used anything but the center point, you owe it to yourself to try. It might just open up large photographic horizons for you. As far as sRAW, I remain unconvinced until I do some more experimentation. However, given the other characteristics of the 5D, I'm not sure it deserves much investigation as it's not really suited for the work I do.
Reply to this comment
I planned to buy this camera, but 22 megapixels is too much. I, too, was REALLY licking my chops for a 16 (give or take) megapixel camera with better ISO performance than the 5D and perhaps better autofocus. I have decided not to buy this camera because the file sizes are too large for me. I look forward to reading about the outcome of the sRAW format tests to see if that fills my needs. Will using sRAW on the 5D mk 2 increase the ISO performance compared to using the full 22 megapixel RAW format? If so, I would reconsider.
Reply to this comment
Gentlemen:
Nice give and take in this blog. for me photography is an orchestra! Nikon is the precussion and brass sections, Canon is the wood winds and string sections.
I need the color and resolution of the Canon glass.
Regards all around.
Juan
Reply to this comment
How is it that almost all of the critical opinions re: the 21 megapixels fail to mention the option to shoot sRAW files at either 10 or 5 megapixels? I don't see why shooting sRAW at 10 megapixels wouldn't fit for the workflow you're mentioning.
Because those 5 megapixels sRAW are useless for larger prints, and the 10 megapixes sRAW use the same small photodiodes that the 22 mp sensor provides.
What's the point of buying this camera and then just downgrading your image size to 10 megapixels? At least if it was a real 10 to 16 mp camera, the diodes would be bigger.
Reply to this comment
I too am a bit upset. 16 MP with great high-ISO/low-light performance would have kicked ass. I don't care about Live View and I sure as heck don't care about videos.
However, I'll still likely pick one up. It's still going to be an improvement on the 5D, even if it's just the "stop and a half" of noise reduction. Yeah, maybe I'm a sucker. But on the bright side, a December ship date gives me plenty of time to talk myself out of it.
Reply to this comment
barzeski, yeah. The thing I didn’t say that I should have is that the 5D Mark II is a pretty good update to the original—even if it isn’t what some of us really wanted. If you’re shooting full frame Canon and want to keep using your lenses, it is going to be a worthy enough update to spend the money on.
John, from what I’ve been able to find online so far, the noise advantage of sRAW is similar to just scaling down your images after the fact. IE, the on-board binning reportedly happens after A/D conversion. If it happened at the analog side of the fence, there are many that think it would and could lead to better noise. But, this is all second-hand and only testing specifically for this would really tell us anything.
Reply to this comment
Hello James,
first: I'm impressed by your thoughts & and by your politeness when answering too.
I read Vincent Laforte's opinion as well and found it quite interesting.
The first shots of the camera on the web look impressive. Esp. the shots with high ISO, - better than any Nikon-pictures I've seen!
If it would really be necessary to use a tripod (most of the time) and to buy lenses that are more expensive than the body itself, these facts would be killing the camera... at least its selling.
On the other hand: a HD-Video that can be used with all capable lenses as a plus might be a strong buy-reason for many (me too).
Let me ask you a question yet: Do you know the quality of the 24-105 L IS lens of Canon offered as a bundle good enough to judge about its quality? Is it good enough to be used with 21 MP?? (This is no ironical or critical question: it is serious asked :-)
I'm looking forward to your answer with much interest.
Best regards - Stefan
Reply to this comment
Stefan, Vincent's shots do look great. It should be noted that 1080p video is capturing an image that is just under 2 megapixels. For video use, any Canon EF lens that you have in your arsenal should produce spectacular results.
As far as still use, the EF 24-105L is a good choice. It has a nice focal length range and the constant f/4 aperture is quite nice indeed as well. Many people that I know who own it have remarked that it’s quite sharp at f/4—sharper than a lens usually is wide open (most lenses really need to be stopped down a stop or two to come into their own). I’ve not ever owned this particular lens, but I have certainly considered adding it to my collection.
That said, I think that it’ll be a good lens combo with the 5D Mark II. You will almost certainly be lens-limited with the combo, but I wouldn’t be surprised if you do get somewhat nicer results from this lens with the 5D Mark II versus the Mark I—at least at print sizes larger than 12x18.
Hope that helps.
Reply to this comment
Well if you're taking anything that Fake Chuck Westfall says as fact that's a shame. He's obviously a Nikon Fanatic. But it's been fun watching him get stuffed by fake Nikon users.
I've never felt the autofocus to be that huge of a problem for me. I shoot weddings and fashion. More of a problem has always been high ISO noise, and seeing what the 5D Mark II did on DPReview I'm excited to get my hands on one.
As far as resolution power, the samples I've seen are pretty sharp. I think your statement about only a few lens being good enough for 21 Megapixels is more of an opinion then a fact. Lets wait till you get the camera in your hand before making that opinion sound like a real-world truth.
I have several L-lenses and I'll put my trust in them when the 5D Mark II comes out.
I like your article it brings up a lot of good valid concerns. Cheers.
Reply to this comment
I don't get the general web hating of the AF of the Mk2 even before it is released. It seems the 5d had decent AF, it might not have been as quick as folks liked (seemed to not experience mk3 type OOF issues). Assuming the AF chip = Digic 4 are working on AF, it should be a faster AF system than the 5d with Digic 2.
Also I concur CPS Member RE lens resolution power. Camera out-resolving lens IMHO is greatly over-exaggerated. A lot of other factors come into play there. Canon not aggressively going into EF-S lens space is a boon for the FF shooters.
Think it will be a lot more telling when the camera is out and the broad feedback is generated. Understood the concerns from the tech specs, but real performance in a variety of fields is where it will determine the success of the 5d Mk2.
Reply to this comment
Duncan,
late to the game but-
i think you need to look at the 50d. I think that's a real indicator of what's next- they have launched an entirely new camera with the features that you're after (better ccd at lower res, extraordinary low light noise quality, etc). I think the next round of revisions for the canons are going to be extremely interesting - but not sure which one will get the features first!
-james
Reply to this comment
I am a bit struggling with the comment on too much resolution of the sensor. Anyone with some more background on this?
"The biggest problem with a 21 megapixel sensor is that there are precious few lenses that can resolve enough detail to really take full advantage of the resolution capabilities on hand."
Actually the pixel density in the 5DmkII is exactly the same as in the 20D. So this statement, if true, can only apply to the edges of the image where lens imperfections and aberrations are larger.
We are approaching the resolution of film (16-60 MPx),
was film resolution complete overkill?
Reply to this comment
If you're using anything but the centre focus point, you are doing it wrong. Just because they give you a bunch of fancy focus nonsense doesn't mean that you should use it. Your camera can't tell you what to focus on -- you have to choose this yourself, because it's a creative decision. Therefore, use the centre focus point only and shut off the rest.
What if Canon advertised 'autoframing' -- would you just go ahead and use it, and let your camera attempt to frame the shot for you?
Complaining about the performance of multipoint autofocus on a pro camera is like complaining that your caviar doesn't taste good with your favourite ketchup -- LAME.
Reply to this comment
My next DLSR will be the Canon 5D Mark II.
My opinion is that you have to buy the camera or cameras for the type of photography you want. As Michael Reichmann of Luminous-Landscape.com says, its "horses for courses".
The Canon 5D and the Canon 5D Mark II were never great sports cameras or actions cameras. For that sort of photography, you should get at last a 50D or ID Mark III or move over to the Nikon DLSRs, which have a fantastic focusing system.
However, the Canon 5D Mark II will excel as a people camera and landscape camera. For these uses, I would generally not be using large apertures, thus critical focus isn't as necessary.
The Canon 5D Mark II is THE great wedding camera. The ability to do video is fantastic - particular in doing video under natural lighting situations given its high sensitivity.
As a full-frame camera, it kicks any lesser camera in resolution - including all the Nikons. This is where it is fantastic as a landscape camera. Having the ability to really use wide-angle lenses is fantastic compared to any smaller-crop camera.
Where does 21 megapixels give us an advantage? Cropping, cropping, cropping.
Reply to this comment
DBL, I think you may be confusing having multiple points with letting the camera choose which point to use. I always choose my focus point manually and never let the camera choose for me. I retain all creative control on this front, even when I use the 45-point AF on my Canon 1D Mk3s or the 51-point AF on a D3/D700 that I’ve test driven.
Reply to this comment
Hello Duncan,
Great website, and great "Preview".
I am slightly new to the game of SLR photography. I started with a G5, and then moved up to a 20D. Purchased all the recommended lenses along the way (24-105L, 50/f1.4, 17-40/f4).
And loved it so much, that about a year ago i started to crave a full frame D-SLR.
Now that the 5Dm2 has finally been announced, I am also disappointed, primarily because I am a photographer first, and never wanted any of this "live view" and videocamera extras whether in HD 30fps or not.
I just want to take a great lo light shot of subjects without the aide of a flash, and i just couldn't do that with my 20D. But I guess there will be many reviews coming up to see if this kind of shot will be better or the same as the 5D. So at this point, many of chats are just pontificating.
my question to you is that i have also read other sites, and it seems that everyone else is talking about "weather seal". Strangely this was totally ignored in your preview, as well as your commentors. Am i missing anything, is this not important to you? And maybe better yet, why is this important? Thanks for taking time out for a "newbie".
keep up the great work!
Reply to this comment
I too am really struggling to understand the issues with AF. Its probably because I dont shoot fast moving action much. (I live on a 350D but looking to upgrade)
If I have a car moving past my lens at great speed from left to right, how does having more AF points benefit me?
Does it track the object across the frame as it moves over the points or something? How does it know what object to track? Would you have the far left point selected as the AF point initially and then the camera would change it as it moves?
Maybe if someone could just point me towards an AF resource. Ive been fine since I started shooting using center point, locking focus, then reframing my shot.
Reply to this comment
I remember reading a review that compared the D3 (12MP) and the 1Ds Mrk III (21MP). It was apparent that at these sorts of resolutions you ARE lens limited - if you want a bigger file then interpolation will give equally good results! I have a couple of friends who have ordered the 5DmrkII and I'm waiting to see what its like in comparison with my fairly recently purchased 5D before bothering to join the MP race!
However, full HD video capture would save me buying a camcorder ;-)
Reply to this comment
I think this back and fourth about all the potential problems with 21mp is a scream. It's just like how we in the media (I'm a newspaper photo editor) can turn anything good into a problem. Like a slow news day in the fall. We report - It's a sunny day in the mid 70's with low humidity and slight breeze. It's a great day for a pic nic but don't dare venture outside - You'll Get SKIN CANCER!! I love to poke fun at us.
Seriously though. Good discussions, valid concerns but anyway you look at it 21mp is AWESOME. You'll just need to shoot RAW and only open the size file you need. Thats all. This is a benefit for those of you that haven't considered RAW. The flexibility you have with raw is really great. With modern software, it's just not the drag on workflow that it used to be.
The 5D MKII was absolutely is the camera of the future for the newspaper business. We shoot so much video now but alway struggle with do we just shoot video and pull stills or juggle two different systems? Kind of like the old days of B/W film in one camera, Chrome in the other. With the 5D, those days are over.
Like the rest here, I can't wait.
Alan
Reply to this comment
I'm impressed with the specs and look forward to seeing how this camera performs. I heard Canon had introduced weatherproofing to this model? That will be a big bonus to some. The movie mode may well be unwanted by some, but I bet it'll get used. Think of the amount of times you play with the video mode with a compact. Still, if i had the choice of losing the movie mode and getting a cheaper 5d2 then i would...
Reply to this comment
1. As a landscape photographer, I am finally ready to trade in my 1Ds for a 5d mkII - to get a meaningful jump in resolution, a useful LCD screen, sensor dust-off, and the ability to shoot video "on demand." I attended a lecture by Sam Abell this summer, and he explained that National Geographic will no longer hire photographers who are not able to shoot both still and video! It is the future, my friends...
2. The 24-105L lens is my current favorite glass. It covers a useful range of lengths, is crisp at all f-stops, and provides a consistent 2-stop IS advantage. I can't tell whether it will be "outperformed" by a 22-meg imager, but I have no complaints on my 1Ds with lots of enlargement.
Reply to this comment
I’ve been wanting to purchase a video camera (Sony HDR-SR12) but just been looking around. I’d be consider quite a novice compared to most of you folks! So here is my question: Is this camera and all it’s extraordinary features a better option for HD Video in making small family videos. I’d wait and spend the dollars if this new technology is worth it…or this this camera too much for a novice…Additionally I collect rare 18th century maps and will need to make close up shots for my book…would this camera be a good choice and what lens would you recommend for close up shots and for regular shots? Thank you so much for your help.
Reply to this comment
Just a quick note:
Given same frame size, higher MP sensors do have more noise PER PIXEL, but comparisons at equal resolution show that higher MP camera's in fact have less noise.
A 300dpi 8x10 is only 7MP, so for the majority of work will be downrezzed for printing. Downrezzing reduces noise. Downrezzing more reduces noise more.
As you increase pixel density, noise increases more slowly than resolution. That means you get to lose more noise by downrezzing.
Reply to this comment
Why would you want video in a Pro camera?
Pictures right?
Video JVC
Reply to this comment
Very well written editorial on the 5DmkII. To me, this is not a preview or review as you have no copy of even a pre-launch version of the body.
That being said, I feel that your editorial is offbase on a few key issues. One is low-light performance. On paper, the ISO levels are impressive. If Canon can deliver excellent ISO performance at 3200 (needed for wedding photogs), that alone is worth the upgrade.
And everyone needs to chill on the AF. The 5D is legendary. At that price point, the 5DmkII promises to be the same. Nikon has 51AF point systems that still can't convincingly lay the smack down on Canon 9point AF systems, so why the cheese and wine?
The video feature, I could care less, but I understand that Canon, just like Nikon and all the other camera manufacturers that have massive broad market appeal, will package features into a camera for that reason.
And finally, the Megapixel criticism. Canon's flaship body has been using 21mp for a long time, it's only simple product evolution, that the technology would trickle down. Having the larger megapixel is a tremendous feature that extends the product life cycle of the body. You may not have a need for it now, nor the budge to acquire lenses that would fully exploit the massive MP, but in the future you may. Remember, this is a pro-series camera, so room to grow should always be significant. And, scaling back to a smaller mp value is something available in ALL Canon bodies, an important point you left out.
All in all, I see the 5DmkII, on paper, as an solid response to market competition and consumer demands at that price point. If this body can deliver, the legend of the 5d will continue to be, well, legendary.
Reply to this comment
Please review the camera when you have it in your hands before telling me that it’s not that great based on speculation!
I don't understand why everyone is so quick to judge? I use two Canon 5D's to shoot weddings and they are fabulous. I almost always shoot on the center spot to focus and they work great. In low light when flash is “needed” I shoot at f5.6 to increase focus range. Let’s face it; many cameras have problems focusing in low light. If you’re a pro, you overcome this obstacle. My primary assistant shoots Nikon (when not with me) and both of his recent bodies have failed with far fewer actions (he uses my equipment mainly, so his Nikon's are very minimally used). Neither of my 5D’s has ever given me a problem and unfortunately as a wedding photographer, they get banged around. Now Canon has produced a 5D Mark II for less than the original 5D with 21.1 million pixels, a weather resistant case, a 3” higher resolution display, fantastic 1080P movie mode, a much faster processor and much more. One only has to view the Vincent Laforte 1080P movie (http://vincentlaforet.smugmug.com) to understand Canon has produced another awesome product (it’s only $2699). If you want to use it for weddings and don’t need 21.1 mega pixels then shoot at a lower mega pixel setting. If you want to shoot outdoor landscape or studio pictures then use the 21.1 mega pixels on a tripod. Why not have the best of both worlds. I use a dual quad core MacPro with 10 GB of RAM and Lightroom 2.0 for the initial editing. If you’re going to do high volume, high resolution professional work, then you’ll need the right machines and software. I love the fact Canon has released a 21.1 mega pixel 5D Mark II. Thanks Canon!
Reply to this comment
Can anyone tell me how the 21MP 5D and the 15MP 50D stack up against each other in printe sizes. I have a 20D and anything over 11x14 starts to fall apart. How much will either the 5D or 50D help me. I want to get 20x24 maybe even larger. I am talking sharp focus, max RAW pixels and proper exposure.
thanks
Frank
Reply to this comment
I'm buying the camera regardless of what it can or can not do. My work is events and wedding's and for the most part the work comes out great. And as far as print is concern, I thought only a raw file gave you a 24x26 print. Not true, depending on your files sharpness you can print a 20x30 in a jpg format. So as far as the 5dmk2 is concern, it only gets better. Do some research
Reply to this comment
I am totally pumped for the release of this camera - pre-ordered from Ritz and hoping for an early Xmas. I am generally a landscape/tripod type of guy, shooting for magazines like Backpacker and for scenic calendars.
I gladly dumped by 1D Mk3, which was way too bulky and heavy for backpacking, and simply didn't satisfy me in terms of resolution. (currently shooting with the old 5D and Xsi when I need to go light)
Although I would agree about the pixel-war absurdities in general, I can hardly wait to see what this camera is capable of on a tripod with top quality glass.
I am also cautiously psyched about the video capabilities, and can only hope that with an external mic that fairly good quality video can be taken alongside my still coverage in the backcountry.
As far as file sizes go, I routinely work with lots of files much bigger than what the MkIII is going to put out on a Vista 64 bit machine with 8GB RAM, and it's simply not an issue.
Reply to this comment
I love to see sample images get posted to see how the high ISO shots perform.
Reply to this comment
Concerning your comment about only the best optics being able to take advantage of the 5d Mk II's sensor resolution, I sat down and did the math and came to a surprising conclusion. The pixel to mm count of the 20d and the 5d Mk II are almost identical (the 5d has .25 less pixels per mm.) This being said, if your lenses were capable to get good edge resolution with a 20D you should be able to get the same resolution with the new 5D. This is of course totally disregarding the advancements from Digic I to Digic IV which are significant. I'd advise reserving judgement until you can play with the thing. I personally am more concerned with whether I will see an improvement in dynamic range from my current work horse (20D.) Even if not, the rest of the new goodies just make me drool. :-) One last comment 21 MP is not really all that much of a resource hog... but then I am used to working with 2400 and 3600 dpi scans of 6x6 cm and 6x9 cm medium format negatives. Now that is a bit of a resource hog. That's my two bits. Party on, dude.
Grav
Reply to this comment
Indeed. The pixel density of the 5D mk2 isn't anything over the top compared to what we've seen with APS sized sensors. But on a full frame camera, your edges are getting further away from the "sweet spot" in those lenses.
As far as the resource hog thing, yah. Big 6x6 scans are a beast. But, on the bright side, you don't usually have to manage that many. My view on this is biased by the kind of work I do. For example, this week at the Web 2.0 Summit, I shot over 4000 frames in 3 days. My own workflow struggles immensely under the load of this with 10 and 12 mpix images. Doubling file size is a big deal, at least for me at this point in time.
I think it's safe to say that you're going to see a big pick up in DR. I saw a huge jump in range from the 20D to the original 5D. You'll love the camera's files, I'm sure.
Finally, I don't make any bones that these are just initial thoughts based on what we see with the release specifications and marketing materials. :) And, I fully expect we'll see amazing images made with the camera. I can't wait to see 'em.
Reply to this comment
I think we're all waiting for real-world images to start showing up from released cameras to see how it works out. :)
Reply to this comment
Tim, for tripod work, I think the 5Dmk2 will be an awesome camera. I have no doubt that you'll be able to make kick ass images with it and I hope to see some. Please feel free to send on a link to some when you make them!
As far as the whole file size thing goes, this only really matters depending on your shooting style. Shooting in the landscape producing relatively fewer images and working them up on a desktop machine is a different proposition from shooting thousands of images at an event and working them up on a laptop.
These are certainly not one-size-fits-all tools :)
Reply to this comment
James,
Guess your going to need an extra portable hard drive or three. Fortunately, the smaller ones at 320 gigs are quite affordable now. I do feel your pain. Though, at most I might get a 1000-1500 shots or so in a weeks time when I am on walk about, I have to deal with thousands upon thousands of frames when I am doing animation. I'm not so concerned with the sweet spot on the new body though. I already have two L zooms and enough primes to tide me. I fear this is going to be the end of me doing medium format for the most part... except for my Holga of course. Tried out one of those lens babies and they just don't do crappy the same way. I am going to have to invest in some bigger chips though. My old 4 gig chips are going to fill up real quick. Well, back to the grindstone.
Grav
Reply to this comment
Re comments on using sRAW to improve noise performence. My understanding was that this was dependant on the size of the pixels. Since this remains unchanged I am not sure if shooting in sRAW would make any improvements in noise performance. Please do correct me if I am worng.
Cheers
Shiva
Reply to this comment
Bigger files are time consuming for me ,as a photojournalist ,uploading 21 mps is expensive ,....very nice forum..... thanks
Reply to this comment
Hello, i have been offered to trade my D300, 2 Nikor lens for a 5DM2. I know the auto focus is better on the D300 and 5dM2 has about 10 more MP but does it really make a difference compared to the two cameras? Also is this a good trade
Thank you for your help
Reply to this comment
Would the 16-35, L2 Canon lens be able to take advantage of the 5D Mark's 21 MP capabilit? I
shoot almost 100% Landscape Photography...anyone??
Reply to this comment
You could always do what I did, go get a test roll of very slow high detail fim (I did asa 25 film developed in pyro,) stick the lens on a 35mm body and do a experimental shots on a tripod. Scan the film at high rez and pixel peak the corners. I did that to check my 17-40L. I expect a very small bit of detail loss and some more serious vignetting in the corners when wide open, but nothing that can't be compensated for easily in post.
Grav
Reply to this comment
The 5Dmk2 seems very interesting, I own a D700 now, and am happy as a clam.
I want a Canon eventually for a specific lens, but I still like Nikon quality and ergonomics overall. I have used Olympus and Pentax cameras also, and find it bizarre the way some Canonites identify with their camera. It's exactly like Mac vs PC - one guy says his assistants 2 Nikons crapped out, and if I said my friends 3 Canons crapped out, does that mean I'm ahead somehow? Eventually I plan to go to medium format and crush the Nikons AND Canons, so they both lose then - lol.
In real life though, I don't trust Canon, that's my only issue. It's proven they 'dumb down' the features on cameras. Yes, if the 5D2 has the same equivalent AF, that would count. Vincent Laforte is a shill, that's my other problem. He was 'paid' to be in a Canon 'great shooters?' series, so he will basically never say anything bad about Canon, that's called conflict of interest. Kenrockwell.com is unbiased, not paid by anyone, and personally buys both brands. Canon makes fantastic cameras, but that also means it will generate inertia, mediocre shooters will buy it because they see everyone else buy it, and of course everyone will claim to have the 'best'. I personally love Pentax ergonomics too, but they don't have great AF or high ISO performance, but if all were equal performance, I'd choose Canon last. That's me personally, I have that freedom. I hope the 5D2 is all its supposed to be, and maybe I can get a used one 2 years from now, it does deliver very sharp pictures I've heard, but more important, I hope Canon doesn't hold back on its fanboys, you've got to keep the cheerleaders cheering! ;)
Reply to this comment
Well, mine came in at high noon. I am really pumped. I'll give my thoughts on both image and video quality in a few days.
Grav
Reply to this comment
I have the Canon 1Ds MK II do you think it is worth me selling it for the Canon 5D MK II?
Reply to this comment
Leave a comment