Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Barely worth it!

December 22nd, 2008

Canon has really lost it. It wasn’t so long that I wrote why they have lost it, and it seems that they continue to take hit after hit, not only from the competition, but from their own mistakes as well. It’s one thing to be given a hard time by the competition, but it’s completely different to be screwing up your own products. It appears that Canon simply do not learn from their mistakes.

Take the EOS 50D for example. From the moment they announced that camera, I could immediately see that it would not be succesful. I wrote a lot about it, and you can read the older articles and judge for yourself. How could I have seen all of that coming, and Canon not see it? I would assume Canon’s marketing department knows a lot more about the DSLR market than I do. So howcome I was able to see that the 50D was a mediocre product at best and would barely sell, and they didn’t? Just check out what Canon Rumors had to say about the 50D recently:

The disappointing thing for Canon? The 50D hasn’t been very well received. It’s not moving the units Canon wants. This could partially be because of the economy, but as we’ve seen from the 5D2, people are willing to spend. The xxD line reached its peak with the release of the 20D. It was basically the first truly affordable prosumer camera. Then came the 30D, which was lamented pretty hard for its very conservative improvements over the 20D. The 40D saw a bit of a comeback in the line, the camera was a bargain when it launched and is a super bargain today. I can’t with any honesty recommend the 50D over the 40D based on their current pricing.

Nobody wants the 50D because it’s a worthless upgrade compared to the 40D and too expensive for what you get (although the price has dropped from an absurd $1400 to around $1050 now). It has nothing to do with the economy. Like Fake Chuck Westfall said, Canon simply does not have the products right now to excite users into buying:

I’m not going to deny that the global economic crisis is going to influence our business at Canon, but at a time when we really need to have exceptionally good products to drive sales, we’re here releasing a load of crap on the market. We’re in a period right now when people are going to think twice as much, if not more, before they decide to spend their money. You’re going to have to really have a good product on your hands if you expect people to lay down the cash in this economic situation. And it looks like the market just doesn’t think we have those products at this time. And this is going to hurt us more than the economic crisis itself.

The 50D even has worse image quality compared to the 40D! No wonder the 40D is selling a lot better right now. As an alternative, the Nikon D300 offers A LOT more and it is no surprise that a lot of people are buying the D300 instead, and that Nikon has been taking over the market as a result. The D300 is a more modern camera body, offering a wealth of features that photographers expect today. You’d think that Canon would have noticed and respond with the 50D, but none of that happened.

And then, the 5D Mark II. From the moment it was announced, I immediately pointed out its weaknesses. Now after the fact, it will make me look like some kind of prophet, but the fact is, you don’t have to be a prophet to see these things. Even some basic knowledge about photography and the DSLR market today would have allowed anyone to see that the 5D Mark II would have a hard time competing with other brands. The question is, again, how could Canon think that they would even stand a chance with such a product, at that price, compared to the competition? Reviews of the 5D Mark II are starting to get published, and the same weaknesses I pointed out months ago now, are being discovered by others. For example, check this review by Pop Photo:

The partial metering mode uses the center 8 percent of the viewfinder, and the spot, 3.5 percent, which is larger than the Nikon’s impressive 1.5 percent.

The 5D-era AF, however, is no longer competitive with the blazing speeds we see in most DSLRs these days. At the brightest light level in our tests, the 5D Mark II focused in 0.51 sec, while the Nikon D700 zipped along at 0.35 sec, and the Sony A900 roared to the head of the pack with 0.29 sec.

In low light, the Canon is downright sluggish, and in extremely low light (EV -1 and -2), it’s inconsistent and sometimes fails to focus. But Canon rates the AF system to be effective down to only EV -0.5, about the same as a very poorly lit living room. This limits the utility of the high ISOs. Granted, you can focus manually, but in such low light, that’s no mean feat.

Oddly, some older and newer Canon models have faster AF systems. Just as Nikon trickled down the D3’s AF to the D700, we think Canon should have done this with the 1Ds Mark III and 5D Mark II.

Even with regard to image quality, it appears the 5D Mark II isn’t the best. The Sony A900 beats the 5D Mark II with regard to resolving power, and the Nikon D700 beats the 5D Mark II with regard to low noise performance. In addition, similar to the 50D, Canon has been overhyping the low noise performance of the 5D Mark II. The 5D Mark II noise performance seems to be about the same as the original 5D or worse in some cases when comparing RAW images. The JPEG images from the 5D Mark II are being processed with noise reduction inside the camera and look less noisy, but similar to the 50D, these images look less detailed and blurry too because of the noise reduction.

5D Mark II Noise Reduction causing a blurry and less detailed image. Images taken from the review at The Digital Picture.

In a review on The Digital Picture, you can clearly see the difference when comparing sample images from the 5D Mark II with and without in camera noise reduction. The pictures with in camera noise reduction look blurry and less detailed. And it appears that even as low as ISO 100, the camera still applies a bit of noise reduction, which can’t be turned off apparently (*) (I have yet to confirm this). This is what happens ofcourse, when you try to cram megapixels onto a small sensor instead of giving priority to image quality. Most people would have preferred the same 12MP sensor from the original 5D, with the improvements from the new 21MP sensor (gapless microlenses, etc.), resulting in MUCH better image quality and high ISO performance. But apparently Canon is completely out of touch with the market (no surprise here).

A review at the Online Photographer points out the following:

And here’s where we come to the Canon 5D Mark II. No, the Canon does not have the A900’s ungodly resolving power; but it comes reasonably close. And no, sorry, no matter what you’ve heard here, there, and everywhere, the Canon does not match the Nikon’s (D700) high-ISO performance.

…

I have to admit I have some mild reservations about the 5D Mark II’s image quality. It’s very good, no question: Canon has hit the “what consumers want” targets on the nose: More Megapixels! Less Noise! (Great Taste, Less Filling). But there’s at least a partial price to pay for all that tasty goodness. It shows up in the form of what I’d group under the heading “artifacts.”

…

Then there’s the quality of the Canon’s noise. It’s a bit tilted towards the chroma type, and it has a weird, blotchy character. (I don’t read the forums—is the consensus that Canon is applying noise reduction to the raw file?)

…

Then there’s an entirely new artifact that, as far as I know, is unique to the 5D Mark II: sometimes you’ll see black fringing next to blown highlights, but only on the right-hand side. Weird. This shows up fairly often in the shooting I’ve been doing at night that includes Christmas lights.

…

Finally, there’s highlight clipping. This is probably my most serious reservation about the Canon because it really does affect the look of pictures. Here I have to go back to the Sony A900, which is particularly good in this respect.

With regard to the black fringing in images from the 5D Mark II, there currently is an even bigger problem refered to as the black dot issue.

5D Mark II Black Dots Issue

The black dots can appear next to highlights in images taken with a 5D Mark II, and even in videos recorded with it, which can result in a post processing nightmare. Just check out this post at Fake Chuck Westfall for more details and sample images. And as if all of this isn’t enough, the 5D Mark II also suffers from banding issues that look ugly in pictures that are affected by this problem.

5D Mark II Banding Issue

Again, check out this post at Fake Chuck Westfall for details and samples. These are very serious image quality problems, and Canon has announced that they are looking into it and are going to try and fix these issues, but there’s no word on when this will happen and what the fixes will be. Hopefully people won’t have to send their cameras back to Canon like happened during the recent 1D Mark III autofocus fiasco. You would think that Canon would have learned from all the quality control issues they have had the last few years with camera bodies and lenses. But that sure didn’t happen.

And the 5D Mark II would already have a hard time competing with the D700 and A900 if it worked well because of all its shortcomings, but these issues make it a lot worse. So it’s no surprise that there have been reports everywhere of people cancelling their 5D Mark II pre-orders and of demand slowing down:

Hi, I’m currently in Hong Kong and there seems to be quite an abundance of 5Dmk2 in the shops – especially the kit with the 24-105 lens.
It seems with the economic uncertainty, coupled with the blackdot scare, a lot of people have dropped their names from the waiting list. Prices however are still high and most of the reputable stores like Man Shing, Wing Shing and Citi are charging around $20800 HKD ($2683 USD) for the body only and $28000 HDK ($3612 USD) for the kit.

Unfortunately, the same faith of the 50D awaits the 5D Mark II. The 5D Mark II is too little too late. The price of the 5D Mark II will go down as early as next month if Canon wants to be able to continue selling. With the competition offering better options, even at lower prices (the D700), the 5D Mark II can’t possibly sell for $2700 very long. Right now Canon is probably trying to get the money from early buyers, who by the way are discovering they spent their money on a product that has issues. And just think about it, the 5D Mark II is a body similar to the 50D. About the only thing that is different, is that the 5D Mark II has a fullframe sensor inside and has video capabilities. Essentially, compared to the 50D, Canon expects users to pay $1600 more for a fullframe 21MP sensor (5D Mark II price of $2700 minus 50D price of $1100). And the 50D even has a better AF system! I don’t think the $1600 price for the sensor and video capability alone is justified. The 5D Mark II should cost around $1800, especially taking into account that the Nikon D700 currently sells for $2400 and is a fully featured pro body with a 51 point AF system that completely blows away anything Canon has to offer, even in their expensive 1D series bodies. At $1800, I think the price of the 5D Mark II would have been competitive. But not at $2700, so expect the price to significantly drop in the coming months.

Right now the Nikon D700 and the Sony A900 are making short work of the 5D Mark II. The Nikon D700 is currently the world’s best DSLR body on the market, and it even costs cheaper than a 5D Mark II (current price: D700 $2400, 5D Mark II $2700). I expect the D700 to remain the best DSLR on the market for well until early 2010, or when Nikon releases the D700x (or D800). Canon simply won’t be able to respond until October 2009, and even then, we’ll have to see what they come up with. What is certain is that the 5D Mark II will have a short life, as short as one year, and certainly not the 3 years that the 5D had.

(*) What I mean by this, is that even if you turn off the noise reduction on the camera completely, the camera still applies a bit of noise reduction even at lower ISO values which you can’t turn off. I have yet to confirm if this is really the case.

Update 12/28/2008: In a previous post, I had already discussed the poor AF system of the 5D Mark II. In that post, I had warned about its performance, about it being slow and not very accurate. At the end of that post, I discussed how it seemed like even a wedding pro had difficulty getting his POSED shots in focus. And recently, a fashion photographer got a chance to experience first hand just how bad the AF system of the 5D Mark II really is. Check out the post on his website. Here’s a quote:

So this week I got a change to use the 5D2 for a real shoot, using daylight which is my favorite way to shoot. Unfortunately, for full body shots, I got many frames where the model is out of focus. I counted 50% of the shots out-of-focus using the outer AF points and my 85 1.2 on a tripod! A few were due to movement of the model, but mostly just due to misfocus with the outer AF points which were positioned over her face. Fortunately I noticed this fairly early on and switched to the center AF point, which worked fine.

A week prior I found that these outer AF points work like a charm with the 85 1.2 lens in fairly bright light outdoors, but they apparently are not stellar performers when it’s dim. This is very disappointing in a $3000 camera. You will definitely do better with the 1Ds2 or 1Ds3 if you are shooting dim available light as I often do. However if you are in a situation where you can use the center point 100% of the time the 5D2 AF should work fine.

I saw these issues coming way in advance. Right now forums around the Internet all have similar stories from users who are complaining about the autofocus system of the 5D Mark II. The Pop Photo review which I mentioned above warned about these issues too.

Also, I’m not the only one who thinks Canon is in trouble. Check out this post.

With regard to the color blotches problem which I mentioned in some comments below, check this post on DPReview. Happens even as low as ISO 100.

Update 12/30/2008: The Online Photographer made the 5D Mark II their camera of the year. And that, my friends, is the joke of the year. Keep in mind that the same people at the Online Photographer were mentioning all the image quality problems with the 5D Mark II. I quoted them above. At PDN, they seem to understand better what a camera of the year is (the Nikon D700).

Some of you might remember that I got banned a while ago from the DPReview forums because of discussing Canon quality control issues. I wrote about that here. The Digital Picture launched their forums today and as a frequent visitor, I registered and posted a link to this post on my blog, requesting feedback from people. I was already getting some responses when a few hours later I get an email from the webmaster, Bryan Carnathan, that he deleted my post:

Your post was deleted by Bryan Carnathan.

Subject: Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Barely worth it!

Reason: Karel,

I welcome you to the community, but would rather you not bring your anti-canon posts here.

Regards,

Bryan

Thank you,
Photography Community team

So it looks like only pro-canon posts are allowed there. This is plain censorship, and nothing more. If there is one thing I don’t like on the Internet, and anywhere else for that matter, it’s censorship. If you take a look at the comments below, you’ll see that I allow everyone to post their opinions on my site. Whether they agree with me or not, some of the comments are very harsh sometimes. But even that is tolerated. So I have to wonder why these websites, like DPReview and The Digital Picture feel the need to censor my opinion on Canon. Perhaps the reasons are what I discussed in a previous post about the DPReview case.

Update 01/02/2009: After exchanging some emails with Bryan Carnathan, I was able to explain to him the purpose of my “anti-Canon” posts and he has agreed to restore my original post back on the forum. Basically I told him I am a Canon user and that the purpose of all this is not just to bash Canon, but to make it absolutely clear we’re not very satisfied with how things are going right now and to stimulate Canon to improve in the future. If that happens, it will benefit all of us. It is important to be critical of Canon, otherwise those of us who have invested in Canon gear will be forced to look for alternatives in the future.

Update 01/03/2009: I mentioned already that Canon has been overhyping the high ISO and low noise capability of the 5D Mark II, just like they did with the 50D. And already people are beginning to discover this around the Internet. When comparing RAW files of the 5D Mark II with the older 5D and cameras like the 40D, there’s little improvement with regard to noise. In fact, the 5D Mark II images even contain a good amount of noise as low as ISO 100!!! This can be seen especially in the darker parts of images and out of focus areas (bokeh). I mentioned a while ago in the comments below that I could have seen this in the noise review at Luminous Landscapes. There you can clearly see the noise in the ISO 100 shots of the 5D Mark II. Image quality has sunken to a new low with this. Check this thread on DPReview, here are some quotes:

Despite the hype about the 5DII, it looks like it’s only marginally better, if at all, than the Canon 450D. I did a test against my 40D and it was at most 2/3 of a stop better than my 40D at high ISO, and the 40D is very similar to the 450D

…

I agree—I’m absolutely in love with the 5D2, but I have to say that it’s low-light performance isn’t mind-blowingly great.

…

I hope I’m not insane.

cropped this picture, no resize and max quality in DPP

2 problems with it.

1. The dittering in the background. I like taking pictures with blurry background. ISO 100 gives me nice blur… ISO 400 and up.. gives me dithering…. It reminds me of those 8 bit GIF’s from the old days

2. Sharpness no more. My F2.8 lens usually manages to make the subject I take pictures of stand out from the background.. but here is is just flat…. I always get this when I shoot high ISO… ISO 100.. sharp, almost 3D look alike… high ISO.. just a pixel blur.

I certainly don’t need to zoom the picture in anyway to see this “issues”

I don’t deny that in good sun light and you want to shoot 1/4000 of a second.. High ISO is good. But in poor sunlight and 1/40 second.. high ISO doesn’t work for me quality vise.

…

Sorry I meant noiseless ISO 400 5D2 shot, but now that I think about it, even ISO 100 shots seem to have shadow noise in the shots I’ve seen for the 5D2 🙁

…

Is there grain? Yes, of course. But .. so? DPP does a really nice job of removing enough chroma noise so that the image looks good (I rarely go over 10 in the chroma reduction level, more like 5-10).

I don’t see why some people are so afraid of some grain, I personally find it kind of pleasing to look at. (Ed: Yeah, tell that to the stock agencies).

…

ISO 100 shadows are the 5D2’s weak spot. Canon took no care to avoid banding in this camera, especially vertical banding, which is the predominant banding at ISO 100.

Please note that when comparing it’s important that you compare RAW images. The 5D Mark II JPEG images look cleaner and contain less noise, but that’s because they are being processed in the camera with noise reduction. But as a result of this, these images also look blurry and less detailed, as I discussed above with sample images from The Digital Picture. That’s unacceptable.

Update 01/07/2009: I came across another review of the 5D Mark II. Here are some quotes:

Sample images have shown that the DIGIC IV is doing some skillful noise reduction in-camera. JPEG shooters should seriously rejoice. The RAW files may be somewhat of a disappointment to concert photographers as Canon’s Chuck Westfall was reported to say that the RAW performance of the 5DmarkII sensor as being similar to that of the 1DSmarkIII, which is only spec’d to ISO1600.

…

Honestly, the focusing specs of the 5D Mark II are the most personally disappointing part of the camera. With only 9 selectable AF points clustered at the center of the viewfinder, the photographer is forced to focus and recompose the image more often than not.

While not horrible on its own, focus and recompose is horrible for tracking a moving subject while maintaining a specific composition. I know a lot of concert photographers who make due with Canon’s 9 point system, but coming from the 1D Mark III, which has 19 selectable points, I have little interest in anything less.

Furthermore, I believe only the center point of the 9 AF sensors present on the 5D Mark II is cross-type and sensitive to f/2.8. This is particularly important to concert photographers who are regularly forced to shoot at f/2.8 or faster. Without getting into the details, the outer 8 AF points on the 5DmkII are several stops less accurate under normal concert conditions than the center point.

…

My biggest fear is that Canon has put too much energy into the megapixel race and very little energy into improving other features of the camera that really affect the feature set and user experience.

…

I personally had a lot of hopes for this camera as a smaller FF backup to my 1D Mark III. The specifications of this camera were a significant factor in my recent decision to switch to Nikon.

Especially pay attention to the last sentence above. “Switch to Nikon.” Unfortunately, many are doing so right now, and many are looking to make the switch soon because of the disappointing products from Canon lately.

Update 02/09/2009: In the mean time some more examples have been posted of the 5D Mark II focus issues. The fashion shooter I mentioned above, who had trouble getting his 5D Mark II to focus properly got another 5D Mark II body, and apparently he had the same issues with that one. Now he has decided to NOT use the 5D Mark II AT ALL. Here’s what he had to say:

There are a few issues with this camera which I can not live with. The AF is still pretty bad on this, my second 5D2 body in anything but the brightest of light. (the first one was returned with abysmal focusing and weird image quality issues.)
People right and left are reporting failures in damp conditions/light rain. There were a bunch of 5D2 failures on Michael Reichmann’s Antarctic trip.

…

I cringe every time I remember this scenario: I was shooting advertising with the 5D2 with models, hair, makeup, stylists, etc waiting on me. As I was shooting tethered, the art director was standing next to me looking at the monitor and saying “they are soft!”, and I was there thinking, yeah, I can see that, but I don’t know what the f*ck to do about it. This is after hours or working with the AF microadjustments, etc., etc.

I cringe when I think about something like that happening to me as well.

And that’s not all. Another photographer compared the old 5D to the new 5D Mark II, doing some tests with both camera’s in the same conditions, and noticed that the 5D Mark II did not focus consistently, and that shots from the 5D Mark II were in fact slightly out of focus often:

I’ve come to the conclusion that the 5Deux has A.D.D. Sometimes it focuses very well. Other times, it’s slightly disappointing compared to results from the old 5D. I know the 5Deux can focus well, because I’ve got proof, it just doesn’t focus well ALL of the time, which is annoying.

…

I’ve seen other photographers say that they’ve had similar results, so I guess this is pretty common among 5Deux owners.

…

In conclusion, the 5Deux did not walk away with a clear decisive victory because of the focus issue.

So again, I have to ask, what the FUCK is the use of 21 megapixels when you can’t focus properly?!?! Take a good look at the sample pictures posted in the above mentioned review, and notice how the 5D Mark II images are out of focus compared to the old 5D. All the extra resolution you expect from the 5D Mark II can’t be achieved because of the very poor autofocus system.

And here’s what PDN had to say about the 5D Mark II autofocus capabilities in their review:

A bigger issue is the annoyingly slow speed of the 5D Mark II’s autofocusing in low contrast, low light situations. These are the sorts of situations where the 5D II should really shine especially since the High ISO/low light capabilities of its 24 x 36mm CMOS sensor are so impressive.

Though we didn’t experience problems with the focus while shooting inside the dimly lit subway station and in Grand Central Terminal, when I later went to photograph the park at night, I found that the 5D II would often hunt for focus, racking in and out until it would finally lock in. On occasion, the camera couldn’t find focus at all.

The problem really lies with Canon’s resistance to updating the 5D II to a new autofocus system. The camera uses the same 9-point selectable AF with 6 assist points around the center as its predecessor, a system which clearly is getting a little long in the tooth. While Canon’s resistance might be understandable—after it upgraded its Mark III series pro cameras to a new 19-point/16-assist point autofocus system it faced many complaints from photographers about autofocus misfires—it still doesn’t solve the problem of putting a creaky old autofocus system in a brand new camera.

Yep, I saw this coming way in advance.

Update 04/18/2009: Some more people talking about the issues with the Canon EOS 5D Mark II. Photographer Zack Arias said the following:

• The AF system sucks in low light situations. Every Nikon I have ever owned from the D100 to the D3 can lock focus faster and more accurately than the 5d does in low light levels.
• Nikon still pwns Canon at ISO 3200 and up.
• It’s slow as Christmas compared to the shooting speed and buffer of the D3.
• The ergonomics. The 5d feels like a brick in my hands even with the grip. The D3 feels like a glove.

He later also says:

I will tell you this though… when it comes time to shoot the reception tomorrow night I bet you the 5d goes back in the bag because the auto focus is useless in low light. You’d think they could do something about that. The D3 can focus in just about any dark environment I find myself in. The 5d requires you to be standing on the surface of the sun to have enough light to focus. Ok, maybe not right on the surface but pretty close. The AF system on the Canon can not even be compared to the Nikon. In this area Canon sucks and Nikon rocks. The rest seems to be up for debate.

Photographer Lloyd Chambers had the following to say:

This latest AF issue follows on the heels of a Live View exposure problem with the Canon 5D Mark II. I think it’s fair so say that with 3 professional camera models with issues, this firmly establishes Canon as having a track record of not testing products adequately. And at the cost of customer time, hassle, and perhaps money.

I couldn’t agree more. I have written a couple of posts about Canon quality control problems. Just search my blog for them.

Pingbacks

Canon having bad luck? Disaster with 5D Mark II and 50D. | Photo Skills by Constantin Chirila (29/12/2008)
Karel Donk » Blog Archive » The-Digital-Picture.com deletes “anti-Canon” post about the EOS 5D Mark II (02/01/2009)
Karel Donk » Blog Archive » Canon EOS 5D Mark II: NOT WORTH IT - Save your money! (09/02/2009)
Karel Donk’s Blog » Blog Archive » Canon EOS 1D Mark IV Reviews & Thoughts (09/02/2010)
Karel Donk's Blog » Blog Archive » Canon EOS 5D Mark II – A Piece of Shit (10/06/2011)
Karel Donk's Blog » Canon EOS 5D Mark III Review (18/07/2012)

Comments

There are 100 responses. Follow any responses to this post through its comments RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

tony December 23rd, 2008 at 11:07 am

as usual typical comment from psycho nikonian ,

Reply
Karel Donk December 23rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm

I’m actually a Canon user.

Reply
Jonathan December 23rd, 2008 at 3:40 pm

The 5D Mark II plays the same role as the original 5D which wasn’t much different than the 30D.

I’m not sure if you or anyone else knows this Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentax do not make ANY cameras that directly compete with each other.

I wish people would jsut end all of this nonsense. Vote with your wallet. Go enjoy photography.

Reply
Ulrich December 24th, 2008 at 3:30 am

Jonathan is right. This post is unqualified.

Reply
John December 24th, 2008 at 3:55 am

I’m another Canon 5D (original) user and all I wanted was an upgraded camera with a few more MP, better low light capability and better autofocus (and perhaps some weather sealing). Canon have lost the plot.

Reply
planetMitch December 24th, 2008 at 5:43 am

I did buy a 5d mk ii and am very very happy with it. I guess I’m not as technical as you and haven’t spent a ton of time yet diving into the comparisons between my old 5d and this one, but I’m very pleased so far. I’ve added your review to the 5d wiki at http://planet5d.com

Reply
Aziel December 24th, 2008 at 6:31 am

planetMitch, go out and enjoy photography for what it is. Take great pictures and make great memories that are worth taking pictures of rather than worrying about the technical details.

In response to the article, what is the point of propagating the comparison of the “D700 high ISO quality to the 5DII”? The 5Dii has almost 1.5x the resolving power of the D700. To really make an accurate high ISO comparison, one would have to take the 5DII image and downsample to a 12.1MP resolution.

Let’s compare apples to apples, people.

Reply
Andrew December 24th, 2008 at 6:55 am

Do you even own the camera? From my experience the 5D Mark II has the following improvements own the 5D

AF better. WB better. Flash better. Noise better. Auto-ISO better. Generally a host of small improvements which make it a better camera to use.

I for one (again speaking from experience) prefer Canon to Nikon ergonomics. For wedding photographers the Nikon is probably a better choice since it is more configurable but most of that configurablility is of minor utility if you shoot RAW and Nikon’s selection of lenses is worse.

Reply
albutch December 24th, 2008 at 6:55 am

You quote from the review (a very good review) at The Online Photographer but you have cherry picked to support your argument. For example, the first paragraph you quoted reads in full:

“The best compromise: And here’s where we come to the Canon 5D Mark II. No, the Canon does not have the A900’s ungodly resolving power; but it comes reasonably close. And no, sorry, no matter what you’ve heard here, there, and everywhere, the Canon does not match the Nikon’s high-ISO performance. Don’t just look at the noise; look at the pictures. (I say that having made myself bleary-eyed poring over the most inane “test shots”—something I also once promised myself I’d do as little of as possible.) But it’s pretty close. And here’s the thing: it has much more resolution than the Nikon, and much better high-ISO capability than the Sony. So its win over the Nikon where resolution is concerned is bigger than the margin by which it loses to the Sony in the same department, and its win over the Sony in high-ISO performance is much more decisive than the margin by which it loses to the Nikon on that score. As they say in auto racing, when you’re really good but not quite the best, what they call you is second—but strong seconds in two categories could be a good thing.”

I suggest that readers should follow the link to the full review.

Reply
Andy Frazer December 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm

I agree with your comments about the price point of the 5D MkII. The original 5D was a major breakthrough camera which had no competition. Canon was able to set, and maintain, a high price point for the 5D.

However, the 5D MkII is not a breakthrough camera; it is an upgrade to the earlier breakthrough camera. It also has very strong competition on two fronts: Nikon and Sony. The only place that Canon can react is on price.

Reply
jouster December 24th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

I can selectively quote from the Online Photographer as well:

“The 5D Mark II is a brilliant camera in many ways. It has more, and better, of most of the good things we like.”

There you have it: a “brilliant” camera.

Guess you were wrong.

Reply
Karel Donk December 24th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

Jonathan:

You’re wrong. Canon and Nikon do make cameras that compete with eachother. The 1D Mark 3 competes with the D3 and even the D700. The 1Ds Mark III with the D3x. And the 40D with the D90 and the 50D with the D300.

Aziel:

In response to the article, what is the point of propagating the comparison of the “D700 high ISO quality to the 5DII”? The 5Dii has almost 1.5x the resolving power of the D700. To really make an accurate high ISO comparison, one would have to take the 5DII image and downsample to a 12.1MP resolution.

This is wrong. There should have to be no downsampling at all. If you downsample the image from the 5D2 from 21MP to 12MP, then what’s the use of the extra megapixels?? The whole point of getting a 5D2, is because you expect better image quality than the D700 at a resolution of 21MP. If you downsample to 12MP you might as well just get a D700. To be worth your money, the 5D2 has to deliver the D700 image quality at 21MP. That’s why you will want to pay more for the extra megapixels.

Andrew:

AF better. WB better. Flash better. Noise better. Auto-ISO better. Generally a host of small improvements which make it a better camera to use.

AF is the same as the 5D. And like you say, a host of SMALL improvements, which are not worth the price. Just like witht he 50D and look how bad that is selling.

I for one (again speaking from experience) prefer Canon to Nikon ergonomics. For wedding photographers the Nikon is probably a better choice since it is more configurable but most of that configurablility is of minor utility if you shoot RAW and Nikon’s selection of lenses is worse.

The Nikon is better overall, not just for wedding photographers. It is fast, has all the pro features you need, with exceptional image quality. Nikon’s selection of lenses is getting pretty good. They have the best 14-24mm lens and 24-70mm lens. The only thing they don’t have are some of Canon’s fast primes. But they’re getting there.

jouster:

A “brilliant” camera with all those image quality problems? Isn’t there an alarm going off inside your head? How can a camera with all those issues as the reviewer points out himself, be a brilliant camera?

Reply
Mike December 24th, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Do you even own the camera because all the pictures in this “review” are from other pages/forums.

If you dont have the camera have you had a chance you use one?

The Canon 5D mark 2 is the best Wedding/Portrait/Land Scape out there for the prosumer. The camera also does awesome with commercial and stock work. not to mention that the HD video portion has changed the new industry.

You are right the camera does not have the best AF but it is completely adequate and is more then enough to get the job done.

Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Absolutely worth it!

Reply
Karel Donk December 24th, 2008 at 4:50 pm

Mike, no I don’t own the camera. I was planning to own it until I saw the specs. What a let down. On top of that, now you get all these quality control issues too. The camera as it is now is not worth the price. But hey, if you’ve got money to burn, feel absolutely free to buy it. I’m just giving my opinion here on my blog.

Reply
Analysis December 26th, 2008 at 11:02 am

You can go on and on about Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sony but, in the end, you honestly get nowhere. The only reason why you can write this “cherry-picked” article is because these units are so similar. It’s like comparing the Corvette ZR1 and the Nissan GT-R. You can go on and on about spec comparisons but when you’re test-driving the car, all the specs fly out the window. You really think professionals ponder about all the technical stuff when they’re shooting, or maybe (like all photography) it’s all about the right place at the right time.

Pulitzer prize winner Vincent Laforet, for example, can’t stop talking about his Mark II (and neither can I). Guess it just depends on what’s comfortable in your hand, and not the internal noise reduction (which CAN be turned off…guess you don’t have one).
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/12/05/tips-and-tricks-for-the-5d-mkii-part-i/

So, in short, if you have your eye on a camera that you truly want, go get it…no matter what the unprofessional reviews are telling you. In most cases, you have 30 days to return in (RitzCamera)…so give it a shot. You can post a picture from all of the cameras listed above of a bald eagle snagging a fish out of a lake and you, most likely, won’t even be able to tell the difference. Well, except that I was recording full HD video of the bald eagle at the same time while I took the photo.

On a side note to the writer – for someone who is so anal, I would think your blog wouldn’t look so hideous. I hope this was a template because if you spent any time on this, I feel bad.

Reply
Karel Donk December 26th, 2008 at 11:29 am

Analysis:

You really think professionals ponder about all the technical stuff when they’re shooting, or maybe (like all photography) it’s all about the right place at the right time.

Wrong. Professionals should ponder about the technical stuff. And most do. The capabilities of the camera also decide wether you get the shot or not. Take the 5D Mark II in low light receptions, and then take the D700, and discover the difference.

On a side note to the writer – for someone who is so anal, I would think your blog wouldn’t look so hideous. I hope this was a template because if you spent any time on this, I feel bad.

I’d love to hear what you don’t like about it.

Reply
Todd December 26th, 2008 at 12:05 pm

“On a side note to the writer – for someone who is so anal, I would think your blog wouldn’t look so hideous. I hope this was a template because if you spent any time on this, I feel bad.”

Ouch. That’s just mean and unwarranted.

Reply
Karel Donk December 26th, 2008 at 1:14 pm

I don’t care if it’s mean, if his criticism is justified with good arguments I am all ears. In the same way I hope Canon listens to what I have to say.

Reply
Seinberg December 26th, 2008 at 3:40 pm

LOL – nice. I love how you ignored the positive things The Online Photographer said, for instance that the Canon outresolves the D700 by far and has much better high ISO performance than the A900, and that it’s almost the same ISO performance as the D700 and almost the resolving power of the A900. His reserve was mainly the highlights “issue” (which I don’t see) and that it wasn’t the best at any one category, hence it couldn’t be a “game changer”. It’s also important to remember that he completely (and admittedly) ignored the video capability, which clearly *is* a game changer.

You neglected to mention that the black dot phenomenon isn’t visible even on the largest prints. You can only see them when you pixel-peep.

The comparison of 5D’s ISO performance being higher than the 5D Mark II is downright silly – there are countless comparisons available on the web, and I have yet to see one with better performance from the 5D (in fact the consensus seems to be 1 to 2 stops better performance in the Mark II, despite the higher number of pixels). My own experience with the 5D Mark II has also proven it has excellent ISO performance, and in comparison with my 40D the Mark II has significantly better performance.

Your point about the price somewhat misses an industry trend: release at a higher price point, then lower the price after all the excitement and willingness to buy at the higher price wears off. Nikon did it with the D700 too.

All in all, your blog entry is a classic example of confirmation bias. It’s clear that the 5D Mark II hits a sweet spot for very many photographers. There are concerns, and Canon may have released it a few months too early and missed a few bugs, e.g. banding when in highlight priority mode (banding issues disappear if you turn highlight priority mode off), but your angry post is two things: 1) comically biased, and 2) trying to provoke a flame war to drive traffic to your site.

Reply
Analysis December 26th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

Well it is hard to have good arguments when it comes to web design, since it’s based on perception. But there are many things that can subconsciously get your readers to come back for more (design-wise).

First off, we’ll start with the header. You should never have any part of your foreground (at any time) match the color of your background. Big no no. If it wasn’t for the orange and your avatar, you would actually think it is part of your background. You should extend the orange and maybe fade it into a grey. Also, any time you are able to make your header shorter (less vertical pixels), you should. It looks like you have some space to give up. Due to the fact that some still use a ridiculous 800X600 screen resolution, your banner would probably take up more than 25% of their screen when viewing your Site.

Second off, the font. The font family you’re using is “Sans-Serif, Verdana, Arial,” which is more for a corporate web design. For something as creative as photography, you should have a font family like “Helvetica, Trebuchet, Georgia.”

Third off, I think you should use a lighter background color. I think too many Sites nowadays have dark background colors when they should be lighter. This is just my opinion though.

Overall, I think you’re Site looks good. I don’t even know why I mentioned it. I guess I got a little frustrated because I already dished out the money for my Mark II, and now I’m reading this. It is a great camera nonetheless, but it is a little pricey. If I could I would probably switch to Sony, but I have already invested so much into Canon (with lenses and other Canon accessories), you and I both know how difficult that would be.

I guess it’s just bad timing. I just took my Mark II to the Canon customer service because I found a dead/hot pixel (I’m guessing it’s a hot pixel because it’s red) on my sensor. I just got it less than a month ago and now Canon will have it for more than 10 days. I’m fed up with Canon in general right now. You think the whole “black dot” issue is enough reason to get my money back from Canon? If I did return it, what other camera would be a good substitute (remember, it will have to be a Canon with how much I’ve already invested)?

Thanks Karel. And I apologize for acting like a d-bag in my previous post.

Reply
Karel Donk December 26th, 2008 at 6:04 pm

seinerg:

LOL – nice. I love how you ignored the positive things The Online Photographer said, for instance that the Canon outresolves the D700 by far and has much better high ISO performance than the A900, and that it’s almost the same ISO performance as the D700 and almost the resolving power of the A900.

This article is about the issues with the 5D Mark II, which that reviewer admits are there. With such bad image quality issues, it doesn’t matter what other positive things the camera has. We’re talking *image quality* here. This is not something like the battery not lasting quite as long as we would like, or some other smaller issue. IMAGE QUALITY! This is something that should be perfect. Any issues are UNACCEPTABLE. The same goes for the SLOW autofocus system.

You neglected to mention that the black dot phenomenon isn’t visible even on the largest prints. You can only see them when you pixel-peep.

Tell this to the stock agencies when they reject your images. Good luck! Have fun cleaning up the black dots, the banding, the black fringing, the noise, the color blotches etc.

The comparison of 5D’s ISO performance being higher than the 5D Mark II is downright silly – there are countless comparisons available on the web, and I have yet to see one with better performance from the 5D (in fact the consensus seems to be 1 to 2 stops better performance in the Mark II, despite the higher number of pixels). My own experience with the 5D Mark II has also proven it has excellent ISO performance, and in comparison with my 40D the Mark II has significantly better performance.

Most of the reviews are comparing JPEGS. Compare RAW files, and then you’ll see a different story. This is also the case with the 40D and 50D. JPEGS from the 50D look much better with regards to noise because by default noise reduction is on on the 50D. Comparing RAW files, it is clear that the 40D is better, just look at the review on DPReview.

Your point about the price somewhat misses an industry trend: release at a higher price point, then lower the price after all the excitement and willingness to buy at the higher price wears off. Nikon did it with the D700 too.

This might be an industry trend, but in this case it will happen also because of slow sales. Like in the case of the 50D.

All in all, your blog entry is a classic example of confirmation bias. It’s clear that the 5D Mark II hits a sweet spot for very many photographers. There are concerns, and Canon may have released it a few months too early and missed a few bugs, e.g. banding when in highlight priority mode (banding issues disappear if you turn highlight priority mode off), but your angry post is two things: 1) comically biased, and 2) trying to provoke a flame war to drive traffic to your site.

Confirmation bias? I think what’s happening with the 50D shows it’s not. It’s still early for the 5D2, but let’s see in february how well it is doing.
Also, don’t try to pretend that all the problems with the 5D2 aren’t that bad. It sucks. Furthermore, my goal is not to drive traffic to my site. As you can see, I have nothing to sell here and no ads running.

Analysis:

First off, we’ll start with the header. You should never have any part of your foreground (at any time) match the color of your background. Big no no. If it wasn’t for the orange and your avatar, you would actually think it is part of your background. You should extend the orange and maybe fade it into a grey. Also, any time you are able to make your header shorter (less vertical pixels), you should. It looks like you have some space to give up. Due to the fact that some still use a ridiculous 800X600 screen resolution, your banner would probably take up more than 25% of their screen when viewing your Site.

Thanks for the feedback. With regards to the background, there is a clear black line and shadow which should seperate the header from the background. But it could be that this is not so clear on your monitor especially if it is not calibrated. I did think about the 800×600 limitation, but in this case I also decided to think about the future since I want to use this skin as long as possible. So I tried to find a middleground between keeping the 800×600 resolution limitations in mind, but also to make the site ready for higher resolutions which are now becoming the default. Most people run at 1024×768 now at minimum.

Second off, the font. The font family you’re using is “Sans-Serif, Verdana, Arial,” which is more for a corporate web design. For something as creative as photography, you should have a font family like “Helvetica, Trebuchet, Georgia.”

Yes this is true but I discuss a wide variety of topics here on my blog. It’s not just a photography blog. Sometimes there are technical posts as well as politics etc. Also this font made sense since I wanted my blog to reflect the style of my main website at http://www.kareldonk.com.

Third off, I think you should use a lighter background color. I think too many Sites nowadays have dark background colors when they should be lighter. This is just my opinion though.

I certainly do not like black background with light foregrounds, it makes my eyes hurt after a while because of the high contrast. So I tried keeping it in the middle here.

Overall, I think you’re Site looks good. I don’t even know why I mentioned it. I guess I got a little frustrated because I already dished out the money for my Mark II, and now I’m reading this. It is a great camera nonetheless, but it is a little pricey. If I could I would probably switch to Sony, but I have already invested so much into Canon (with lenses and other Canon accessories), you and I both know how difficult that would be.

I can understand how you feel about spending money on the camera and now finding out it may not be the best choice. I too have a big investment in Canon stuff (around $15000 at minimum), but it won’t stop me from complaining and letting them know that I am deeply unsatisfied. I too would love to feel good about my investment, but I’m not going to fool myself into thinking Canon have top quality products when they clearly don’t. I might as well speak up and point out the problems, so that they improve in the future (hopefully) and that I can then benefit from my investment a lot more. If everyone wouldn’t complain, they just might think they’re doing the right things and we get crappier products in the future. At that time we can all just throw away our investment because it’ll be too late then.

I guess it’s just bad timing. I just took my Mark II to the Canon customer service because I found a dead/hot pixel (I’m guessing it’s a hot pixel because it’s red) on my sensor. I just got it less than a month ago and now Canon will have it for more than 10 days. I’m fed up with Canon in general right now.

See, this is what I’m talking about! Why the hell do people seem to think that it’s normal these days to buy a NEW product, and then having to send it in within a few days or weeks for repairs? HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE? And yet, this is what is happening almost every day with Canon products, not only bodies, also lenses that have issues, etc. Just read my posts here on my blog about the quality control issues at Canon, search the Internet, forums everywhere are full of these stories. This is absolutely unacceptable. And instead of accepting it, we should complain. And that’s what I am doing because if we don’t, it will only get worse. The only reason why it got to this point is because people were asskissing Canon for a long while now. Canon could just do nothing bad in their eyes. Let’s not fool ourselves because we want to feel good about our investments. If things suck, it needs to be said. We need to bring these issues to their attention.

You think the whole “black dot” issue is enough reason to get my money back from Canon? If I did return it, what other camera would be a good substitute (remember, it will have to be a Canon with how much I’ve already invested)?

If you are in the position to get your money back from Canon at this point, I would do it immediately and wait to see what happens. Return the 5D2 and wait. The price will go down in the mean time. A substitute right now could be the 40D. I have 2 40Ds myself. I was planning on getting 2 1D Mark IIIs but then the focus problems came (luckily before I bought it). So I waited to see what happened, and it wasn’t really fixed. I hoped the 50D would be more like the D300 but it was worse than the 40D even. Then I hoped the 5D2 would be close enough to the D700, but it’s a piece of crap compared to the D700. So now I’m waiting again. I don’t want to spend the money to switch to Nikon just yet. If the 5D2 drops to an acceptable price range ($2000), and they fix all the issues, I might get it in the future, but only for specific work like studio shots. For other stuff I will still have to use the 40D because the 5D2 AF system is worthless in low light.

Thanks Karel. And I apologize for acting like a d-bag in my previous post.

No problem, I understand. Now start emailing Canon and let them know how you feel.

And check these:

http://www.opensourcephoto.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=40661
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=30438155&page=1

Is that acceptable?

Check this: http://weekendshoot.blogspot.com/2008/12/canon-heads-for-er.html

Reply
Noir December 27th, 2008 at 7:21 am

What a way to whine. Oh noes, if you downsample 5D Mk II to D700’s resolution it’s not fair.

Well, it is sir. Tell me wich Nikon camera at THAT price can give an equal or superior image quality for that price.

mhh I thought so.

Anyway, enjoy your aids : D

Reply
Karel Donk December 27th, 2008 at 7:40 am

Noir:

No, downsampling is not fair, it’s stupid. I know Chuck Westfall wants you to believe you should downsample for comparisons, but that is misleading. If the 5D2 image quality was so good, comparing 100% crops of D700 and 5D2 images would show this. If you have to make the 5D2 images smaller in order to come close to the D700 quality, then you might as well just get a D700.

Reply
Seinberg December 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm

Karel –

Take a look at this: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three.shtml.

The Canon 5D MKII is probably the all-around champ, offering a combination of image quality, features and especially price that is very hard to top.

Also, downsampling is of course reasonable. It’s something someone very well might do, and if the Mark II gives better quality than the D700 at the same resolution, and nearly equal at 21 megapixels, isn’t that actually a positive thing? You’ll say no, but only because you’ve already committed yourself to bashing the Mark II.

Reply
Seinberg December 27th, 2008 at 7:34 pm

And here:
http://dougplummer.blogs.com/dispatches/2008/12/5d-first-video.html

Anyone who actually uses the camera says it’s great. I can confirm that assertion myself, at least when drunken douchebags aren’t hitting the camera with a pool stick, anyway! haha!

Reply
Karel Donk December 27th, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Seinberg:

I saw that review from LL earlier today, and like Reichmann says it was just a basic noise test. He also didn’t compare it to the D3 or D700, but to the A900 and D3x. Those are high resolution sensors and you would expect the noise to be similar. Reichmann completely ignored all the issues with the 5D2 sensor right now. If you look at the ISO 100 shots, you can clearly see noise in the background. Since when is it normal to have noise at ISO 100?

Downsampling is not reasonable. The reason why you buy a 21MP camera instead of a 12MP one is because you expect to be able to use the higher resolution! You expect to use it in larger prints that should look better, and you expect to use it when cropping so you are left with an image that still has enough resolution. If you have to downsample to 12MP to get similar quality as the 12MP sensor, you can just choose the 12MP sensor.

Reply
matt December 27th, 2008 at 8:56 pm

more comments on the 5D2’s AF issues:

http://www.afashionshooter.com/2008/12/20/5d2-af-in-dim-light/

Reply
Karel Donk December 27th, 2008 at 9:52 pm

matt:

Thanks for pointing that out. I have seen many similar comments in the last few days on forums online, especially at DPReview.
I had already discussed the poor AF of the 5D2 here:

http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-not-all-it-could-have-been/

http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-the-autofocus-lie/

Reply
Seinberg December 28th, 2008 at 2:00 am

The reason why you buy a 21MP camera instead of a 12MP one is because you expect to be able to use the higher resolution! You expect to use it in larger prints that should look better, and you expect to use it when cropping so you are left with an image that still has enough resolution. If you have to downsample to 12MP to get similar quality as the 12MP sensor, you can just choose the 12MP sensor.

Clearly, as every single reviewer who has compared them has said, the 21 MP sensor blows away the D700’s 12 MP sensor in terms of resolution. This is not in question. Also not in question is that at maximum resolution the Mark II is nearly as good as the D700, i.e. very very good, which has been suggested by every reputable reviewer (including ones you quoted). You suggest that it’s somehow not good, which is absurd. Then, if one is so inclined, to get even better high ISO performance than the D700, one can downsample. It’s an all-around positive thing. It’s far more flexible. “it was just a basic noise test” — does that invalidate the test, somehow? As I mentioned in my first post, you’re suffering from classic confirmation bias: seek out facts to back up your claim and interpret facts that refute your claim in such a way that they no longer refute it.

If Canon had put in every other feature you suggest, e.g. complete weather sealing (it’s already quite good), 1D-level autofocus system, still with 21 MP, and more than 4 FPS shooting speed, wouldn’t end up with an upgraded 1Ds? An $8,000 camera. Or a D3x? Also an $8,000 camera.

The “noise” in the background of the LL images is evident in any camera, including those $8,000 cameras I just mentioned and the cameras tested by Reichman. This is what happens when one investigates pixel-by-pixel. If you’ve ever printed images, you’ll also know that even the noise that’s visible at ISO 3200 is perfectly reasonable for practically any sized print. What is it, exactly, that you expect? Buttery smooth images at ISO 25,600?

Reply
Karel Donk December 28th, 2008 at 9:15 am

Seinberg:

Yes the 5D2 has more resolution compared to the D700. This was clear from the review I cited in my post. But it also has more noise. More resolution with more noise is worthless to me. This is the same problem the 50D has. It has more resolution compared to the 40D, but also more noise! That’s a step backwards, and DPreview seems to agree with their review of the 50D. NOISE = BAD.
And like I said before, if you have to downsample to get the quality of the D700, just get the D700.

If Canon had put in every other feature you suggest, e.g. complete weather sealing (it’s already quite good), 1D-level autofocus system, still with 21 MP, and more than 4 FPS shooting speed, wouldn’t end up with an upgraded 1Ds? An $8,000 camera. Or a D3x? Also an $8,000 camera.

Nikon put all the pro features in the D700. Did that make it a D3? Nope. It’s like that Pop Photo review said, they should have at least put the 1Ds3 AF system in the 5D2.

The “noise” in the background of the LL images is evident in any camera, including those $8,000 cameras I just mentioned and the cameras tested by Reichman. This is what happens when one investigates pixel-by-pixel. If you’ve ever printed images, you’ll also know that even the noise that’s visible at ISO 3200 is perfectly reasonable for practically any sized print. What is it, exactly, that you expect? Buttery smooth images at ISO 25,600?

As a matter of fact, I and many others would have preferred a 12MP sensor with noise free ISO 1600 instead of a 21MP sensor with noise at ISO 100.
You clearly don’t have experience with situations where people demand the best image quality. Try submitting those noisy images containing all kinds of artifacts to stock agencies, and see what happens. Go on, try it. Tell them that they shouldn’t look at pixel level, tell them the black dots don’t matter in print, the black fringing doesn’t matter in print, the banding doesn’t matter either and the color blotches are normal. Good luck.

Reply
Seinberg December 28th, 2008 at 10:45 am

As a matter of fact, I and many others would have preferred a 12MP sensor with noise free ISO 1600 instead of a 21MP sensor with noise at ISO 100.

You don’t seriously think that ISO 100 is noisy and isn’t submittable to stock agencies, do you? Honestly? And you know that turning off highlight priority mode is a temporary fix for banding, which is currently be worked on by Canon and will be released in a firmware update (full support in bashing Canon for letting this bug in a production version, but there’s a very easy workaround temporarily). Did you see the other 20+ MP cameras in the LL test? They had the same or worse noise levels at every ISO. Your assumption that the 5D II is noisy is flawed, and patently incorrect.

Reply
- chad December 21st, 2011 at 3:16 am
  
  It is amazing the mindset of so many consumers. It seems as though many have been brainwashed into believing that it is ok for consumers to be paying ridiculous amounts of money for a product that really doesnt deserve it, or when real photographers complain about noise with ISO 100,Simply because Canon says to. “theres a very easy workaround temporarily” for one problem,after paying all that money? THERE SHOULD BE NO PROBLEMS!! There should not be noise.period.Not for what you pay.
  If you have to fix something it is not worth what you paid. You have been taken for a ride by Canon.and the sad part is so many are actually standing up for Canon when they should be standing up for the consumer.
  Then we have regular Joes screaming at how great the camera is and saying REAL pro photographers shouldnt be complaining about pixels and noise and banding when your weekend pictures look fine.You cannot compare some guy with a camera to a real photographer.Just because you bought a “supposedly” great camera does not make you a real photographer.
  This is why companies constantly get away with inferior products,because half of the people wont complain and just take whatever is offered.No one expects superior products anymore,no one complains loudly,and if someone does like this site,we see personal attacks,uneducated comments repeating whatever they have been told.Ridiculous!!
  This camera should be superior to any of the lower priced ones.In every way.Not comparable.But because more often than not,people will just accept whatever given and follow the leader mindlessly,spending big money on a camera just so they can say they did.Pathetic.
  
  Reply
  - Karel Donk December 21st, 2011 at 3:27 am
    
    Well said.
    
    Reply
Karel Donk December 28th, 2008 at 11:05 am

Seinberg:

Yes I think ISO 100 is noisy and images with that much noise aren’t going to get accepted. It’ll require post processing, but at ISO 100, I would have expected noise would be the least of my problems.
I read about some workarounds for the 5D2 issues, but that doesn’t make the problem ok. In addition, for a lot of the artifacts, I haven’t seen workarounds.
Yes, the other cameras in the LL test had similar noise. This however, does not make it acceptable. Would the black dots be acceptable if the A900 also had them? And how about the banding?

Reply
Seinberg December 28th, 2008 at 11:58 am

I see. So we’ve come to the conclusion that the best and most expensive cameras from Canon, Nikon, and Sony, produce images at ISO 100 that are so noisy as to be rejected by Stock imaging agencies. This is big news – perhaps we should broadcast it more loudly!

Reply
Mario C. December 28th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I am getting me a 40D to upgrade my 30D.
All this war over a piece of equipment is making my stomach turn.
I agree that a company should produce quality, reliable gear, but heck…Canon has been here for years and they still have many many years to go.
To me my wallet is the most important thing: if I can spend less money to get quality gear I’m totally in for it.
In the end every piece of electronic equipment has an expiration date ( a day when it’s going to die ), so guys…..stop ‘fighting’ and start shooting photos.

Nuff’ said!

Reply
Karel Donk December 28th, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Seinberg:

Congratulations, I suggest you start telling people. The thing is that the 5D2 is the worst of those 3 cameras right now, with the black dots, banding, black fringing, color blotches, and last but not least, the crap autofocus.

Reply
Toni Sutinen December 28th, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Karel, I guess the meaning of your blog (not just this article) is to raise conversation, which is good. Bringing pro’s and con’s of things into daylight will help other people with selecting their next or maybe first camera.

You have pointed out some important weaknesses of 5DMk2. I fully agree that Canon should have made a significant improvement on their outdated AF-system. I also think that black dots or any other clearly visible artifacts are NOT acceptable. But…

if you want to have a good conversation, not a childish debate, I suggest that adjust your style of writing just a little.

1) Replace phrases “You’re wrong”, “This is wrong”, “Wrong” etc. with something like “I disagree” and “I don’t think so”. The title of your blog, “in my opinion”, will then fit better.

2) Don’t get stuck with your opinions. You’re credibility suffers a great hit if you just keep on repeating your one and only truth.

3) Avoid continuous comparison between two brands. Your posts make you sound like Nikon advertiser.

And finally: Most agencies still accept photos taken with 20D, 30D, 5D, 1Ds and 1DMII. In my opinion 5DMII offers substantially better image quality in all areas of photography. In bright conditions 21MP will offer impressive resolution and for low light situations, lower resolutions (downsampled) will give outstanding high ISO performance. Can you name any agencies will not accept photos taken with 5DMII?

PS. I apologize my bad english…

Reply
Karel Donk December 28th, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Toni:

Replace phrases “You’re wrong”, “This is wrong”, “Wrong” etc. with something like “I disagree” and “I don’t think so”. The title of your blog, “in my opinion”, will then fit better.

In my opinion, I think those arguments and/or people were wrong. 🙂

Don’t get stuck with your opinions. You’re credibility suffers a great hit if you just keep on repeating your one and only truth.

I’m not the one to get stuck with opinions, when people can clearly show that they’re wrong. If people also keep repeating certain things, I have little choice but to keep giving my opinion on them, even if it’s the same one.

Avoid continuous comparison between two brands. Your posts make you sound like Nikon advertiser.

It is not my intention to sound like a Nikon advertiser but I certainly understand if people think I do. Unfortunately it’s just a side effect. I’ve clearly stated I am a Canon user with a reasonably large investment in Canon gear. I don’t see why I would want to advertise for Nikon. However, I will be honest and if I think Nikon has a better product, I will just say so.

And finally, I didn’t mean that agencies will not accept images taken with a 5D2. What I meant was that agencies are not going to accept images with such artifacts in them as produced by the 5D2.

Reply
Dan December 28th, 2008 at 10:19 pm

Downsampling is fair, and an accurate way to measure noise. The ultimate destination of any image, is to be printed. A 21 megapixel image printed at 12×18 will have a higher resolution, and less noise per square inch in the print, than a similar 12 megapixel file printed with the same dimensions. If you were to compare PRINTS, this would be obvious. Downsampling on a computer is not perfect, but it is an accurate way to compare what noise would look like in a print situation.

The 5DII, however, is still not a homerun, and I agree with you in that point. But, at least man up and admit that some of your bashing is emotional, not logical. The banding is limited to only the sRAW file size. The black dots, however, are a serious issue, and worth the fight.

As for the video, it IS a game changer. 1080p, on a full frame sensor, is unheard of prior to this camera, in either the high end video market, or in still photography. It will change the game for many journalists, and definitely independent film makers. It might not be for you, but it is for a few. At this price point, that alone is worth the $2700, compared to any video camera offerings presently out there. Ironic thing is, most photographers don’t really care about the video. But many videographers will be happy to snap up such a cheap system.

Reply
Karel Donk December 28th, 2008 at 10:47 pm

Dan:

Downsampling is not a fair way to measure noise. Not all images are going to be printed. Some 21MP images may also get cropped (perhaps as much as taking a 12MP sample out of the 21MP image). The best way to measure noise is on a per pixel basis. That will make very clear if there is a noise improvement with higher resolution.
You might also want to read this:
http://blog.dpreview.com/editorial/2008/11/downsampling-to.html

There might be some emotion connected to my bashing (I certainly can’t stand it when people are lying or are misleading – Westfall with regards to downsampling and Maeda with regards to the 5D2 AF system), but let me make very clear that I’m not going to make things up or purposely hurt anyone. If anything I say isn’t logical, show me.

And as for video, I haven’t seen it changing any game yet. Vincent Laforet made a nice video but that was about it. I have however seen many people complaing about the large video files, their computer not being able to play the videos well, and needing quad core systems and high end computers to be able to do anything with them.
Like you say, most photographers could care less about the video feature. And that is my point. It’s practically useless to most people and Canon could have instead given us a better AF system and other features that really matter to taking good PICTURES.

Reply
Dan December 29th, 2008 at 1:52 am

That makes no sense. If an image isn’t destined for print, then what is it destined for? The web? If that is the case, a 21 megapixel image that has the same noise at the pixel level as a 12 megapixel camera, it would still look better at the reduced web resolution, as the effect of per pixel noise is reduced by the ratio of reduction. I have read the DPreview article, and there is some validity to their point that because noise is not always random, it is emphasized by reduction. My response to that is to try it on real world images. I do it all the time. High resolution files reduced to smaller sizes reduces the noise of an image at a per pixel level, when handled appropriately, and when compared at say, half resolution, the smaller file always looks more impressive. It’s not that hard to figure out, try it on some noisy images you have.

The bottom line is this: the 5DII is perhaps the best camera with a 35mm sensor ever made when you consider both resolution, and effective noise. What more do you want? Apparently, you want more for less… (And you even argue that Nikon is delivering more for less, so what are you waiting for???)

If you are talking about taking a crop out of a 21 megapixel image, and making it twelve, while doing the same crop out of a 12 megapixel image, the comparison is still the same. If you need a full frame camera with 12mp and reduced noise per pixel, you already have it. Just shoot the 5DII and use it at the resolution you need.

The AF system isn’t great. But, it’s good enough. That’s the point. If you want the best, pay for the best. The options are there. Canon is doing exactly what Canon ought to be doing. Putting 1D autofocus in a 5D doesn’t do much for the 5D market. It’s already ridiculous hot right now. People want this camera. The problem is that nowadays, digital photography has some fashion to it. Apparently, there are many people willing to invest large sums of money into gear, while making zero return on that investment. The 5D caters to them perfectly. Just within reach, and good enough to make people really really great images. But it’s not the “pro” tool. But, if you want the pro tool, you can have it. Just pay for it. If you have work that really requires you to hit 80 or 90 percent of every photo you take, you better pay top dollar for gear that will make that happen. But, if you can settle for perhaps the ultimate in image quality, while making some other sacrifices, the 5D will probably suit you very well. If it doesn’t, shut your mouth, open your wallet, and go to some product that does. It’s that simple.

The reason you haven’t seen many videos yet, is because the camera isn’t widely available, and professional video takes much much longer to process than still photography. Give it a few months, you will see some impressive work. The file sizes are huge, but not compared to other formats. Video is difficult to process for the layman, but there are no 1080p HD formats that are easy to process. Especially at this price point. We are witnessing a step in the evolution of photography and video with this camera, a very significant one in the ultimate creation of a camera that will shoot high resolution still photos at up to 30fps. Would that be a game changer?

The camera isn’t perfect. Everyone knows that. The difference is some people use tools to get a job done (Vincent Laforet). Others complain about the same tools holding them back or not being “worth it.” (Karel Donk) Those who made great images with a 5D will continue to do so with a 5DII.

The fact you haven’t changed camps tells me more than anything in your article. It tells me Canon, as a whole, has a camera system that is meeting your needs. Perhaps it is wise to consider not only the camera, but the whole system, when considering what a camera really offers. If canon wasn’t meeting your needs, you would change, plain and simple. Either that, or you have a huge disposable income that is clearly not derived from photography. Photography gear is now at the point where equipment is not what is holding people’s skills or their profitability back. We have the highest quality gear every available, at very low price points, relatively speaking. So I guess the real question is, what’s holding you back Karel?

Reply
Karel Donk December 29th, 2008 at 7:42 am

Dan:

The reason why you want higher resolution is because you can make larger prints without the quality loss that you get when you would have to upscale a smaller image. That’s why the higher resolution image has to have as much or less noise compared to the smaller resolution file at the pixel level.
What you and others are essentially saying is that if we want to compare a 12HP engine with a 24HP engine, we have to downgrade the 24HP engine to 12HP. But the whole reason why the 24HP engine exists, is because you need the extra HP!! Can’t you see how stupid your argument is?

The bottom line is this: the 5DII is perhaps the best camera with a 35mm sensor ever made when you consider both resolution, and effective noise. What more do you want? Apparently, you want more for less… (And you even argue that Nikon is delivering more for less, so what are you waiting for???)

The 5D2 has potential. But with all the image quality issues (which were unexpected) and especially with the seriously poor autofocus system, it’s practically useless to pros for most usage. I and many others do want more for less, and Nikon was able to do just that.

The AF system isn’t great. But, it’s good enough. That’s the point. If you want the best, pay for the best. The options are there. Canon is doing exactly what Canon ought to be doing. Putting 1D autofocus in a 5D doesn’t do much for the 5D market. It’s already ridiculous hot right now. People want this camera.

LOL. The AF system is good enough? Tell that to the fashion photographer which I mentioned in my post who discovered a large percentage of his pictures were out of focus. Let’s see how hot the 5D2 really is in a few months once people discover how good it really is.

The problem is that nowadays, digital photography has some fashion to it. Apparently, there are many people willing to invest large sums of money into gear, while making zero return on that investment. The 5D caters to them perfectly. Just within reach, and good enough to make people really really great images. But it’s not the “pro” tool. But, if you want the pro tool, you can have it. Just pay for it. If you have work that really requires you to hit 80 or 90 percent of every photo you take, you better pay top dollar for gear that will make that happen.

Nikon has a pro tool right now for $2400 (D700). Even the D300 is a pro tool at around $1400. Somehow Canon just doesn’t seem to be able to do the same.

But, if you can settle for perhaps the ultimate in image quality, while making some other sacrifices, the 5D will probably suit you very well. If it doesn’t, shut your mouth, open your wallet, and go to some product that does. It’s that simple.

What you are saying is that if you can settle for the ultimate in image quality, but with your subject out of focus or soft focussed most of the time, the 5D2 will suit you well. Not to mention that the “ultimate in image quality” currently gives you a load of artifacts in your images.

With regards to the video feature, it’s just a toy. Period. Nothing much is going to happen. Consumers won’t be able to deal with the large files. Pros could care less about the video feature.

The camera isn’t perfect. Everyone knows that. The difference is some people use tools to get a job done (Vincent Laforet). Others complain about the same tools holding them back or not being “worth it.” (Karel Donk) Those who made great images with a 5D will continue to do so with a 5DII.

Vincent Laforet made a nice video while playing around, but let’s see what JOBS he is going to be doing with the 5D2. That fashion shooter I mentioned earlier got to experience how wonderful it is to get the job done with the 5D2 with such a crap AF system.

And with regards to me not switching camps yet, tell you what: If you give me $15000 right now for my Canon gear, I’m switching to Nikon instantly.

Reply
Dan December 29th, 2008 at 11:26 am

Karel, if you want the “pro” autofocus, for god’s sake, go BUY it. Or switch to Nikon. It really is that simple. I don’t understand this bitching about how you can’t get what you “need.” (probably because it isn’t a “need,” it’s simply a kid on Christmas wanting to open more presents.)

You are missing one key point, the 5D is not targeted at professionals. It is targeted at enthusiasts, those folks who can make do without the best autofocus. If people can’t afford to have an out of focus shot, they shoot with a 1DsmkIII. The 5DII is much more suited for landscape artists or studio professionals where focus is more controlled, or people who want the exceptional image quality, at a lower price point (hence the sacrifice in autofocus.)

And no, your argument about larger prints doesn’t hold up. If the 5DmkII has the exact same per pixel noise (hypothetically) as the 5D I’ve been shooting with previously, a 24×36 print will look better than the original 5D, both in terms of noise (because it will be of a finer grain) and because of increased resolution. Hello! That’s a significant step forward.

You don’t actually downsize the file to make it look better when going to print. You only downsize to compare what images will look like at similar resolutions, to emulate what it might look like in a print. In a print, the relative effect of downsizing is already done for you, because the higher the native resolution, the smaller each individual pixel is relative to the whole image, hence the noise will appear more fine in the final print. No one is advocating to reduce the file resolution to make the noise better. We are suggesting that an increase in resolution, and a small decrease in noise is a substantial step forward in image quality, moreso than keeping the old 12 mp sensor, and simply reducing noise. I don’t think you quite understand that.

I still don’t understand why you are waiting to switch camps. 15 grand? Big deal. Unless, again, you don’t actually make money with your gear, so you are bummed you will lose money to still not make money… And no, I’m not interested in your gear for 15 grand. You are the one who made the initial investment, apparently deeming the gear to be of sufficient caliber for your work. What’s changed? Your gear isn’t good enough anymore? You bought it, now deal with it. Quit bitching as if it is Canon’s fault. Especially on your own professional website where I assume you are trying to attract potential customers (though I can’t really tell, because your photography is hard to find on here.)

I almost feel bad for you man. With all the emotion you’ve put into this silly argument, sounds like Chuck Westfall himself kicked you in the groin or something.

Reply
Karel Donk December 29th, 2008 at 12:26 pm

Dan:

The 5D2 is targetted at pros. Read the Canon press release, thanks. With regards to the focus capability, how much more controlled focus do you want when we’re talking about POSED studio shots? Even then, the 5D2 can’t perform well. Refer to the example of the fashion shooter and the wedding shooter from my other post who couldn’t get their subject in focus. And then, Canon wants journalists and wedding photographers to use the 5D2? Not only is this quite sad, it’s hilarious at the same time.

What would be a significant step forward is the old 5D 12MP sensor manufactured with the latest tech from the 21MP sensor.
The increase in resolution to 21MP did not give us less noise, on the contrary. Apparently we now have a good amount of noise at ISO 100. Please note I am talking about RAW images, and not JPEG images which are being blurred by the in camera noise reduction.

I still don’t understand why you are waiting to switch camps. 15 grand? Big deal. Unless, again, you don’t actually make money with your gear, so you are bummed you will lose money to still not make money…

LOL. It’s not a big deal huh? Aaaallrighty then.

And no, I’m not interested in your gear for 15 grand. You are the one who made the initial investment, apparently deeming the gear to be of sufficient caliber for your work. What’s changed? Your gear isn’t good enough anymore?

What’s changed is the series of fuckups by Canon and the latest batch of mediocre product releases. Moreover, you have people asskissing Canon and being blind to all the issues as well, trying to talk everything good.

Reply
Dan December 29th, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Change camps then. Sell your gear at 75-80 percent of it’s retail value (if it is lenses.) So you are out maybe 4 grand. Invest in your Nikon dream. Put your money where your mouth is.

What gear do you shoot with, btw? Do you have a 5D? What about a 5DII? 40D? And what exactly are your photographic ambitions? Seriously, is Canon really fucking up your life that bad?

Reply
Mario C. December 29th, 2008 at 12:57 pm

I don’t know if 1 plus 1 is still two, but if I had the money I would never spend it to buy a Full Frame camera from Canon Inc. There are way too much issues regarding their latest ‘pro’ gear that it gives one the creeps.
A company is not supposed to produce crap, let alone sell it to (long time) users for a very high price. That’s not what the consumer expects from a rather trustworthy and reliable company like Canon.
I think what concerns Karel and many others is the fact that the last few years Canon is trying to uphold its number 1 spot, but fails to invest in decent equipment and quality control. As a consumer you have the right to speak out and that’s not a matter of being emotional or bashing at all. Remember, that we the buyers uphold the company and not otherwise. If the sales begin to drop, there will be no more Canon (ask the guys from Konica-Minolta).
Especially in this time of recession people are careful with their money and don’t want to spend it on things which are inferior.

Call it what you want, but if you purchase a Lamborghini you don’t expect it to perform as a Hyundai: You’d want the performance you paid for.
That’s my simple conclusion!

In the mean time let us all show Canon that they are expected to do a better job!

Reply
Karel Donk December 29th, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Dan:

If you read some of my previous comments to other people above, you’ll find the answers to your questions.

Mario C.:

This is what I’m talking about.

Reply
olipoli January 2nd, 2009 at 4:19 pm

Hi

I realy dont want to get personal and have to point out that Im not biased in any company’s favor (because I dont own any cameras, yet). Its just that the way you wrote and the style you responded made me suspect that you are the type of person who fails to look at himself from the outside. The best way I think to decide if your words should be given any credit, is by looking at the work you produce. I did and have to say that you arent going to be the person who I will look for if I need to know info on anything.

Reply
Karel Donk January 2nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm

olipoli:

The best way I think to decide if your words should be given any credit, is by looking at the work you produce.

The work I produce has no influence on the facts. If I say that the sky is blue, my work being good or bad will not be changing that fact. If you don’t trust what I say here, that’s fine. Continue to do your own research and see where you end up.

Reply
David January 2nd, 2009 at 9:03 pm

Karel you make some good points, I don’t understand why so many feel they need to defend Canon. We are talking about a company that we pay good money to buy products from, but end up receiving defective products or products that do not meet advertised specifications.

If I was receiving these products for free, then yes I would be more charitable, but spending thousands, no, tens of thousands of dollars on equipment that need repeated AF calibration, CMOS recalibration, repair, sub system replacement, AF unit replacements is annoying to say the least. What is worse is often the inability of Canon to fix their problems sometimes, as well as their denial that problems exist in the first place. How many times have you called up Canon asking them about a certain issue you are having that others on forums also report, only to be told “Oh, we’ve never heard of that issue before”

I’m still waiting on a fix for the 85L II + EOS 40D combination battery metering problems which Canon has said that Canon Inc (Japan) is investigating. This was 6 months ago. The 1D3 AF is still not fixed to everyone’s satisfaction. My fast primes (f/1.2, f/1.4 primes) still front focus despite calibration.

Canon make great products, and I am a brand loyalist, but at the same time they need to be accountable. We don’t owe them loyalty or our custom because we have already paid (dearly) for the products we own. Why must the 5D2 has the poorest AF system in its class? Why must the 5D2 suffer the most obscene banding out of its class? Why can’t the 5D2 render OOF highlights as well as the cheapest Point and Shoot Camera? Why don’t I just not buy the 5D2? That’s true, I’m not going to at the current time. So why am I complaining? Because Canon has a monopoly on me because of my lens and accessory investments, investments into a system. The reason I pay so much for my lenses and accessories is because the EF mount and EX flash system are compatible across bodies. By purchasing these items, I also paid for Canon’s future Research and Development Expenditure. R&D expenditure that has come up with this 5D2 that I can’t gather up the courage to purchase.

I suspect many users who criticize the 5D2 do so out of frustration. We so want to buy this camera, but it would be illogical to spend our hard earned money on a camera that has had so many teething problems as well as systemic hardware and software issues that have yet to be resolved. I’m sorry but I don’t share other customer’s optimism about future firmware fixes based on my own past problems – but I hope to be wrong.

Reply
Karel Donk January 2nd, 2009 at 9:15 pm

David, what you wrote there sums up exactly how I feel. We’re waiting 2 years now for an official comment from Canon on the 50mm f/1.2 lens backfocus issue. I wrote about that here:
http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-ef-50mm-f12-l-defective-by-design/

People are still discussing the issues with this lens:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=30395035&page=1

And yet, you don’t hear anything from Canon.

Reply
Philip W January 6th, 2009 at 5:09 pm

Fucking whiner. Take your bullshit “review” and stuff it. Put it where the sun never shines. Such a pathetic useless whiner review. And stop spamming dpreview with your whining.

Reply
Luke B January 6th, 2009 at 5:49 pm

I’m using my MK II for few weeks so far- that “so called review” is sad grumble from NIKON fan!
I’ve just printed few landscapes in 45″x20″ taken with ISO 1600 please try to see some noise on picture – BEST OF LUCK WITH THAT!

If you buying that camera specifically for video mode no wonder you’re disappointed !

I really feel sorry for that guy that wrote this pathetic review!!

5D MK II is great piece of equipment – stop reading – start using it!!

Reply
Karel Donk January 6th, 2009 at 10:57 pm

Philip W: Thanks for the feedback.

Luke B: I’m a Canon fan. I don’t think you read everything since I did not buy this camera for the video mode.

Reply
Raymond January 7th, 2009 at 7:48 am

I just switched from Nikon to the Canon 5D MkII, and I must say that I am quite dissapointed with the quality of the images. I have the kit lens 24-105. And the images are generally (majority) are out of focus when I shoot light actions, eg. kids playing, swiming, etc. Hell, even still objects seems somewhat out of focus. Now the problem could be calibration, but what the heck is Canon doing.. being the 1st batch, we should have been more careful with the QA. I cannot recommend this camera to anyone. And might switch back to Nikon.

Reply
Karel Donk January 7th, 2009 at 8:05 am

Raymond:

What you are experiencing there are the results of the inadequate AF system of the 5D Mark II. It is just not up to the task. Even for still subjects, the AF can give you out of focus images. Just check my example of the fashion shooter above. In this case it’s not a quality control problem. The system just sucks technically.

Reply
Craig Volpe January 7th, 2009 at 9:15 am

Karel, you have some good points, but man, like others have said you really hurt your credibility by your dogma, exaggeration, and cherry picking specific articles or even just sections of them to support your opinion while ignoring the big picture.

The 5D II is not a good choice for all photographers but for some, it’s a great camera. Different photographers have different needs. Just because people like you and me would have preferred the mkII to be a 12 MP camera with great low light and autofocus performance, doesn’t mean it’s a bad camera or that Canon effed up with their design choice. Clearly Nikon decided to focus on speed over resolution with the D3/D700. Canon decided to go for resolution over speed with the new 5D. So what? Yeah it sucks for those of us with a large investment in one system when that system doesn’t go the path we would prefer. Personally, I wish Canon would offer 2 versions of the 5D, one for sports/journalism, the other for fine art/commercial, kind of like Canon’s 1D vs 1Ds or Nikon’s D3 vs D3x or the D2h, D2, and D2x. Who knows, maybe Canon will release a 5DIIn followup geared for folks like us. I imagine they didn’t do that because they didn’t think there was a big enough market for it. A 5DIIn would be geared primarily for journalism, and generally speaking I think most journalists are working pros who need a fast and rugged body and they or their paper can afford to pay top dollar for it. On the other hand, I would guess most photographers in the $3000 price-range are more into fine art type stuff, for which speed isn’t as much of an issue. Canon’s decision makes sense to me from a marketing standpoint, but hopefully the success of Nikon’s D700 will teach Canon that there IS a market for full-frame, high speed, lower resolution cameras in the $3000 price-range. Unfortunately they can’t make a new camera overnight, but I think there’s a decent chance they’re currently working on something to compete with the D3/D700. In the meantime, it’s important for people like you and me to let Canon know there’s a strong demand for this kind of camera. But at the same time, I think it’s stupid to say the current 5DII is a waste of money for ALL photographers. It would be like saying the 1Ds is a crap camera because it won’t shoot at 8fps like the 1D can, or the 1D is crappy because it’s not 21MP! The fact is, the 5DII is not designed for speed or high performance AF. I believe that was a design decision, not a manufacturing flaw.

I’m sure there are cases where photographers had a bad experience with the AF, but they are probably the exception. It’s possible the fashion photographer had a bad camera or it didn’t like the lens he was using. If it were as bad a problem as you’re making it out to be, wouldn’t it be more talked about? Obviously it’s not going to perform well in low light or for sports, but for many photographers the AF will be just fine. And for those of us who have more specialized requirements, that’s not what the camera is designed for. Get a 1D, switch to Nikon, or wait for Canon to release a 5DIIn.

Now, as far as image quality goes, I think you are exaggerating a bit on some of your points. I don’t know what kind of stock agencies you’re dealing with, but to say a stock agency won’t accept an image with the amount of noise you’re talking about (at ISO 100) is ridiculous. I’m not a commercial photographer, but my brother is, and I can vouch that Getty has accepted images of his taken at ISO 6400. Certainly stock agencies won’t accept ALL ISO 6400 images, but to say what you’re saying about stock agencies in such general terms suggests to me that you don’t have much first hand knowledge or experience on the subject.

I have a sneaking suspicion the black dots phenomenon is also being exaggerated. To use your own cherry picking tactics, I will use one of your own references, the fashion photographer who was having autofocus issues with his 5DII. In a separate post, he pointed out how he found black dots in a 1Ds3 image and basically said it doesn’t matter in the real world (which includes stock agencies btw).

http://www.afashionshooter.com/2008/12/09/black-dots-black-dots-everyewhere/

The banding thing is a flaw, but it sounds like you have to have very specific settings for it to even appear, and again, it doesn’t sound like it’s an issue with real world photography.

Now as far as the video feature goes, I too couldn’t care less about it, but again you are basing the needs of others based on your own needs. Just because it’s not important to you, doesn’t mean it’s not important to others.

“With regards to the video feature, it’s just a toy. Period. Nothing much is going to happen. Consumers won’t be able to deal with the large files. Pros could care less about the video feature.”

Quite the contrary. There is more and more push with newspapers to expand multimedia coverage and a lot of photojournalists are excited about the possibility of using their still cameras to record video instead of having to carry a separate video camera with them on assignment. I don’t know how a staff newspaper photographer doesn’t classify as a pro, so if they are excited about the feature then you are patently wrong to say pros could care less about the feature.

I can see how you could be frustrated with what Canon decided to do with the 5DII, and that there’s no Canon equivalent of the D700. I was frustrated enough myself to switch to Nikon a few weeks ago. Despite your frustration, and some valid complaints, I think your message would be more effectual if you backed off a bit and were more objective on the topic. Let Canon know you would have bought the camera if it was fewer MP and better AF. Money talks and I already spoke with mine loud and clear.

Reply
Karel Donk January 7th, 2009 at 9:41 am

Craig:

Thank you for the lenghty response.

Karel, you have some good points, but man, like others have said you really hurt your credibility by your dogma, exaggeration, and cherry picking specific articles or even just sections of them to support your opinion while ignoring the big picture.

Obviously I cannot copy and paste the entire articles here on my blog, so I am quoting the relevant parts here. It has nothing to do with cherry picking. That is also why I include a link to all the articles I am quoting so that people can go and read for themselves and make up their own minds.

The 5D II is not a good choice for all photographers but for some, it’s a great camera. Different photographers have different needs.

I have stated in comments and in other posts on my blog about the 5D2 that it would be suitible for studio and landscape photographers, for example. However, even that might not be entirely the case, as we have seen with the fashion shooter example where the guy was shooting a posed subject in a studio and still managed to get about 50% out of focus shots.

Who knows, maybe Canon will release a 5DIIn followup geared for folks like us.

Personally I think Canon can not wait longer than a year to release such a camera. There is already an exodus of Canon photographers to Nikon, and it will only get worse.

In the meantime, it’s important for people like you and me to let Canon know there’s a strong demand for this kind of camera. But at the same time, I think it’s stupid to say the current 5DII is a waste of money for ALL photographers.

I’m sorry to be so extreme, but in this case we are talking about features that are absolutely essential: autofocus and image quality. You simply cannot cripple those on any camera. That’s like selling a bike without pedals. These are core functionalities. If these don’t work well, the camera is practically useless, as you have seen yourself when you were trying to take shots of kids. Even the fashion shooter with POSED shots got issues. So let’s not try to be balanced for the sake of being balanced. If the product sucks, it sucks.

I’m sure there are cases where photographers had a bad experience with the AF, but they are probably the exception.

Nope, similar stories are appearing everywhere on forums online. I just can’t quote each and everyone here.

Now, as far as image quality goes, I think you are exaggerating a bit on some of your points. I don’t know what kind of stock agencies you’re dealing with, but to say a stock agency won’t accept an image with the amount of noise you’re talking about (at ISO 100) is ridiculous.

If you want, try submitting images with noise to, for example, Istockphoto and Shutterstock. Just give it a try, it won’t cost you anything. Tell me the results.

I have a sneaking suspicion the black dots phenomenon is also being exaggerated.

No it’s not. It is a serious problem.

With regards to the video feature: The video feature is still too crippled on the 5D2. Journalists would do better bringing a cheap HD cam corder with them. The video feature is a nice gadget to have right now, but not very useful. They should have given us a better AF system instead and better image quality.

Reply
Craig Volpe January 7th, 2009 at 11:37 am

Thanks for replying. How do you do the fancy indented quotes?

“It has nothing to do with cherry picking.”

Yes, that’s good that you include the links but what I mean by cherry picking is you appear to be taking part of each article that backs up your opinion and ignoring the parts that don’t back up your opinion. You back up your claim that the AF is terrible with the the fashion shooter for example. “A week prior I found that these outer AF points work like a charm with the 85 1.2 lens in fairly bright light outdoors, but they apparently are not stellar performers when it’s dim.” How is that not to be expected? The camera is not designed for AF in dim conditions. I don’t get how that’s analogous to a bike without pedals. You can’t use a bike without pedals. I’d say it’s more like a bike with generic pedals which you can’t clip your specialized bike shoes into. It will do fine in many situations but not certain specialized ones like dim light using the outer autofocus points and without an aid such as the STE2 or 580EX to assist it. That same fashion photographer also claimed that the black dots are not an issue in the real world but you seemed to ignore that. That’s what I mean by cherry picking.

“However, even that might not be entirely the case, as we have seen with the fashion shooter example where the guy was shooting a posed subject in a studio and still managed to get about 50% out of focus shots.”

Besides the fact that it was low light, which as far as I know is not typical for fashion, he also said that was his first real shoot with the camera and went on to say that once he started using the central focus point it “worked fine”. Clearly he was still learning the ins and outs of the camera so one shouldn’t expect a normal fashion shoot to have a 50% out of focus rate based on that example. For comparison I have a Nikon D3 and I can say my success rate with photos was much lower while I was first getting used to it.

“autofocus and image quality. You simply cannot cripple those on any camera.”

Autofocus is not crippled. It is just not specialized. Normal bike pedals will work fine in many situations and for most bike riders. We want specialized AF. It’s unfortunate but we just have to buy a different camera that is specialized for that need such as a 1D.

As far as image quality, if the AF met my needs I would have no hesitation buying a 5DII based on it’s image quality reputation, black dots and all. There seems to be a lot of complaints from pixel peepers, but not so much pertaining to real world usage.

“If you want, try submitting images with noise to, for example, Istockphoto and shutterstock. Just give it a try, it won’t cost you nothing. Tell me the results.”

Okay first of all you said to try submitting those “noisy” images to stock agencies and see what happens. Then I gave you a specific example of images that were accepted by one of the largest stock industries in the industry that had much, much more noise than you suggested. And now you want me to submit photos from a camera that I don’t even have, to a microstock agency (if you even consider that a real stock agency), after telling you I’m not a commercial photographer. No, I think the burden is for you to give a specific example of a stock agency refusing to accept a ISO100 5DII image because it was too noisy or even because of the 5DII’s black dots. I would be surprised if you could find a single case of this happening at any stock agency, let alone it being the norm.

Whether the video feature is “too crippled on the 5D2” to be useful for journalists is debatable. What I do know is I personally know a lot of journalists who are excited about it which is in direct contradiction to your earlier statement, “Pros could care less about the video feature.” Like I said I don’t care about it much myself, but I know for a fact it’s an important feature for some professional photographers.

Oh yeah, since we’ve established we’re talking about professional photographers, I think that pretty much rules out using microstock for the stock agencies. But even with those I would be surprised about them refusing ISO100 images from a 5D2 because of noise. Have you experienced this or heard of this happening?

I realize it’s hypocritical of me to be overly critical of your comments which I find overly critical of the new 5D. In your credit, I’d like to say I really appreciate your levelheadedness with your replies and not letting any comments degrade into a name calling or yelling match.

Reply
Karel Donk January 7th, 2009 at 3:03 pm

Craig:

You can use the blockquote tags like this: < blockquote > blah blah < /blockquote >
But without the spaces after the < and before the >.

You back up your claim that the AF is terrible with the the fashion shooter for example. “A week prior I found that these outer AF points work like a charm with the 85 1.2 lens in fairly bright light outdoors, but they apparently are not stellar performers when it’s dim.” How is that not to be expected? The camera is not designed for AF in dim conditions.

This is exactly the point I am making Craig. The AF system is very unpredictable and unreliable in such a case. And if you look at the fashion shooter’s studio picture that was out of focus, that is absolutely not a very dark setting. If the AF system can’t perform well with so much light, how are you going to use it during weddings in dark churches and dark receptions?
Everyone knows the center point of the 5D and 5D2 work fine. But that is to be expected since it is very sensitive. Canon should have made all of them as sensitive.

No, I think the burden is for you to give a specific example of a stock agency refusing to accept a ISO100 5DII image because it was too noisy or even because of the 5DII’s black dots. I would be surprised if you could find a single case of this happening at any stock agency, let alone it being the norm.

Like I said, the 5D2 images might need a good amount of post processing even at ISO 100 to remove noise in the darker parts of pictures. Otherwise they will get rejected for containing noise. I have enough experience with what kind of images get rejected for noise. And with the black dot artifacts, banding, black fringing etc. you’ll have a lot of cleaing up to do depending on the image. I don’t plan on owning a 5D Mark II anymore so I can’t give you examples.

What I do know is I personally know a lot of journalists who are excited about it which is in direct contradiction to your earlier statement, “Pros could care less about the video feature.”

Being excited about something is different from actually using it in the field often to make a living. Vincent Laforet was excited about the 5D2 and made a nice video. Now he is getting work from Hollywood. But guess what he will be using for those projects? That’s right, a real camera. The RED system.
At this point, the video in the 5D2 is just a toy, a nice gadget to have. Maybe in 2 years, it’ll be more useful, but for right now, Canon would have made a better move if they had given us a better AF system.

I updated my post above, check the last part.

Reply
Cody January 8th, 2009 at 7:35 am

<>

Dear Karel,

One should be very careful when passing off an engineering truth as stupid. From what I see, I guess you don’t have any backround in engineering.

Cool glasses, though.

Downsampling an image IS the way to go when you compare imaging sensor output. Hires sensors, if properly engineered, can match the hi iso performance of a lower pixel density, but still attain hi resolving power at lower ISO. I don’t want to get a D700, because this means for me only 12MP at ISO100.

I’d much rather have 21MP at ISO 100 and use the extra resolution as “currency”.

I can spend that currency for better noise performance as I boost the sensitivity. That is the proper way to approach this engineering feat.

From what I can see, the sensor is properly designed. The workflow of photographers is somewhat more complicated, because one must downsample the photo proportional to the boost in ISO. The way I see it, one shouldn’ ask “how many MPs do I get?” but rather “How much do I get at ISO XXX00?”.

A properly designed sensor should give quite ugly results (100% crop considered) at the highest ISO settings. That is how you know that you’ve taken it as far as you could in terms of resolving power.

I agree completely with the general disapointment about the AF system, though.

I believe, however that as far as digital imaging sensors go, this is the best out-there.

Reply
Karel Donk January 8th, 2009 at 7:58 am

Cody:

I have no background in sensor engineering. I’m giving my opinion from an end user perspective. While it may be true that from an engineering point of view it would make sense to downsample images to compare them, from an end user perspective it does not make sense to me.

When I buy a higher resolution camera, I buy it to use the extra resolution. When people buy a medium format camera above 30MP, they buy it for the resolution. For the extra large crisp and clean prints they can make with those images.
If you make a sensor with higher resolution but with more noise, image quality goes backwards. If you make large prints, you’ll see the noise.

Again, I agree that if you downsample such an image, it will look a little better. But downsampling is not why you choose for cameras with larger resolutions.

Reply
Craig Volpe January 9th, 2009 at 2:07 am

Thanks for the formatting tip Karel. I’ll try it out right now.

And if you look at the fashion shooter’s studio picture that was out of focus, that is absolutely not a very dark setting.

Besides the fact that the post in question was titled “5D2 AF in DIM light”, how can you even tell how dark an indoor setting is just by looking at the image?

From your 1/07 update:

I personally had a lot of hopes for this camera as a smaller FF backup to my 1D Mark III. The specifications of this camera were a significant factor in my recent decision to switch to Nikon.

I was hoping the same thing and I also switched to Nikon for the same reason. But that’s not to say the 5D2 is a bad camera. Instead of making a mini FF 1D, Canon decided to make a mini 1DS without all the pro features. And I think they did a pretty good job at that. You can’t compare the 5D2 with the 1D because they aren’t designed for the same use. I think some photographers are just mad Canon didn’t make the camera that they wanted. If Canon had made the 5D2 like a mini FF 1D, there would be other people complaining that they wanted a mini 1DS. There were Nikon shooters upset with the D3 that it only had 12MP. If Canon made two versions of the 5D then it would probably satisfy both camps but who knows if they’ll ever do that. In the meantime, some photographers will just have to get a 1D3 or a Nikon.

And with the black dot artifacts, banding, black fringing etc. you’ll have a lot of cleaing up to do depending on the image. I don’t plan on owning a 5D Mark II anymore so I can’t give you examples.

I know you don’t own the camera and yet you’ve been able to link to examples of the other complaints you have so if it’s a real problem you should be able to find an example of it happening in the real world. If the noise was such a big deal to stock agencies wouldn’t a lot of people out there be complaining about it?

Being excited about something is different from actually using it in the field often to make a living. Vincent Laforet was excited about the 5D2 and made a nice video. Now he is getting work from Hollywood. But guess what he will be using for those projects? That’s right, a real camera. The RED system.

I’m not talking about Hollywood, videoographers, or even videojournalists. I am talking about photojournalists working for newspapers that are now being asked to shoot web video in addition to stills while they’re on assignment. The filmmakers will continue to use their RED cameras, but I have never heard of a photojournalist bringing one of those on assignment. Here’s an example of a working photojournalist who said while the 5D2 has serious limitations as a video camera, the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, and he’s already turned in his Canon XH-A1: http://www.mophojo.com/2008/12/first-take-on-the-canon-5d-mark-ii-2/
There are many other examples.

If you make a sensor with higher resolution but with more noise, image quality goes backwards. If you make large prints, you’ll see the noise.

I’m not quite following you on this. There are advantages of having a smaller sensor, but I don’t think image quality is among them. The slightly noisier large print will still look better than compared to an up-rezzed 12MP image printed at the same size. So for large prints, the larger sensor wins for image quality.

…if you downsample such an image, it will look a little better

If it’s true that you get slightly better images after downsampling, then it would reason the larger sensor would also look better for small prints. If the larger sensor looks a little better for small prints and a lot better for large prints, at what size print will you get better image quality from the small sensor?

On second thought, I think the disagreement everyone has with you about image quality pertaining to sensor sizes is because they don’t have the same definition for the word “image quality” as you do, Karel. If image quality is defined by how good an image looks proportional to the size of the sensor, than you are correct. On the other hand, if image quality is defined by how good an image looks relative to the size of the output, then they are correct. While the latter definition makes more sense to me, I think you are both right until we get a definitive answer to what image quality means (my guess is that image quality is subjective and could be based on any number of things). Regardless, this is another case of a feature that while useful for some photographers, it’s not for you and so you declare that the camera sucks. For some photographers sure it sucks. But that doesn’t make the camera suck in general.

Reply
Karel Donk January 9th, 2009 at 7:33 am

Craig:

Besides the fact that the post in question was titled “5D2 AF in DIM light”, how can you even tell how dark an indoor setting is just by looking at the image?

By looking at the image you can tell it was not a dark place. I don’t think he used long exposure there too 😛

Instead of making a mini FF 1D, Canon decided to make a mini 1DS without all the pro features. And I think they did a pretty good job at that. You can’t compare the 5D2 with the 1D because they aren’t designed for the same use. I think some photographers are just mad Canon didn’t make the camera that they wanted.

Photographers are mad because Canon keeps trying to sell them minor upgrades at exhorbitant prices when Nikon has pro features in their cheaper cameras.

If the noise was such a big deal to stock agencies wouldn’t a lot of people out there be complaining about it?

I have seen some threads at istockphoto about the issues with the 5D Mark II with regards to image quality. The black dots and banding seem to be fixed now, so it’s just the noise. I don’t know if the black fringing and color blotches problem have been fixed, I guess we’ll find out soon.

I am talking about photojournalists working for newspapers that are now being asked to shoot web video in addition to stills while they’re on assignment.

So how exactly do they expect to shoot film while also shooting stills? It’s one or the other. If you cover a press conference, you can’t shoot film and then take pictures at the same time, assuming you’re using one camera. Currently on the 5D2, if you are shooting film and take a picture, the film ends up with a gap in it. This is unacceptable if you want to use the film because you’ll have a gap in video and audio.

On second thought, I think the disagreement everyone has with you about image quality pertaining to sensor sizes is because they don’t have the same definition for the word “image quality” as you do, Karel. If image quality is defined by how good an image looks proportional to the size of the sensor, than you are correct.

Yes this is what I’m saying. Images should be compared at actual size to be able to see what advantage the larger sensor gives you.

Reply
Malcolm Locker January 10th, 2009 at 6:21 pm

Interesting…

I long ago concluded that there are serious QA issues at Canon:
-My 300D had exposure issues
-My 20D also had exposure problems
-My 550 flash seriously underexposed on auto
-My BG_E2 has never worked properly and I’ve given up on it.
-I had a G9 which worked fine; it was stolen and the insurance replacement has a poor optical viewfinder which I’ll try and get fixed

Do Canon make the same product at several locations – maybe there is an issue at one factory? When moving from film, I originally went to Canon as they had a clear digital lead over Nikon. I am not sure I would make the same decision if I were doing the move now.

Come on Canon, please get your act together!

Reply
Greg February 11th, 2009 at 10:15 am

Karel, you are a poor chap…. I’m really sad for you… You are so full of frustration… How long ago that you’ve been lad?

Reply
Eric February 15th, 2009 at 5:07 pm

I have been on dpreview fighting with people over the 450d focus issues. The “official” line is some crap from “lens works III” that basically claims that canon’s do not claim critical AF focus for anything over, effectively, a 3MP sensor. Critical focus on those cameras require manual focusing.

The 450d, after exchange for a better focusing body, is a modest upgrade from the 5 year old 300d.

Reply
ososumi February 26th, 2009 at 6:25 pm

For the next 5D Mk III

Here’s what I’ve picked up from you and other users for improvements:

– af faster, wider distrbution of AF points, more AF points, more cross type AF points
– faster frame rate
– flip screen
– weather proofing
– faster synch rate 1/500
– electronic grid in viewfinder
– in built IR focus assist
– built in flash
– wirelessly control an off camera flash
– auto-ISO min and max
– P to take into account image stabilisation
– external way of activating mirror lock-up ie. mirror lock-up button
– release connector still on the side of the body where it interferes with L plates
– bettter video mode, better video AF & constant fstop control

Anything else?

Reply
- Karel Donk February 26th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
  
  Yes, 3 or 5 frame exposure bracketing (selectable), shorter viewfinder blackout, a better way to close the viewfinder like Nikon has (internal), better built-in mic.
  
  Reply
P.C.Bos March 2nd, 2009 at 6:40 pm

I’m enjoying all this immensely… Karel, you’re an eighteenth century figure, which is praise in my world. Your fiery stance makes me – strangely- somewhat think of Hogarth. With whom you have, of course, nothing to do. Nevertheless. I like his prints a great deal.

By the way- that black dot’s issue is solved in the last firmware- but you know that of course. The one issue I fully agree with is the slowness of the 5D Mark II. But I was aware of that at the time of decisionmaking.
For it’s money, the quality is splendid. If a person wants better, he has to buy a Hasselblad, and a 27500 euro chip. Or pay a minimum of 7/8000 extra for a DX3 and a piece of good glass – and then still stay in the same small chippies league. I for one won’t till I am fully convinced of digital photography’s worth. Once I am convinced, I won’t fool around with the small cams anymore.

But Canon’s 5D Mark II makes it easy for me to dip the toes in the water, so to speak. And the color capabilities are amazing, with the right kind of lighting.

Yours,

Paul Christiaan

Reply
Werner Graf March 6th, 2009 at 9:16 am

The Canon 5D MK II Its not a Camera wich I would work as professional. The issues with Moisture under Bad Weather Conditions , Slow AFLlow Light, Random Miss Focusing.
NO DEAL CANON. I l wait drooping prices 4a Nikon 3X . When Leica S2 is coming .

Ken Rockwell:
IfLeica pulls this off and if the S2 goes for the teens of thousands of dollars and not tens of thousands of dollars, it will most likely be a far better choice for quality than the over-priced 35mm D3X. Why waste $8 grand on 35mm from Nikon if $15 grand could get you a medium format beauty from Leica? We can only hope.

The Nikons jpg are wonderfull. An I dont want to go on The RAW Workflow any more. NOT in front of the “KOMPUTER” Time eating machine but behind my Camera outside alive…

Reply
Nige Eos man March 6th, 2009 at 11:32 pm

Hey Can you even use a camera?????

It dosn’t take a rocket scientest to know what the differences are 40D is better than 50d?????
You don’t know what your on about!!!!!!

Used 20D,30D 40D, 50D oh there is no difference there either than
D700 good camera? yes maybe but Canon Cmos still kills it
Get a life… Get an Eos

Reply
David March 8th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

Thank goodness I can find some criticism out there! I really want one, but I’m scared to death that I’m not making a significant upgrade from my 5D. . .and I do consider $3000 a considerable upgrade!

My main complaint with the original 5D is the autofocus is terrible. . .and I’m scared to death that I won’t find anything better with the Mark II.

What other options do I have with Canon? I still can’t figure out if a 1D Mark III will work correctly, the 1DS Mark II isn’t any better for high ISO, which is my other main concern next to autofocus. The 1DS Mark III is $8000!!!!! and that’s flat out EXPENSIVE. The 40D image quality stinks compared to my 5D and the if the 50D isn’t any better, then I definitely won’t go that route.

Oh, and I should observe that my 40D has great autofocus – why couldn’t that technology be applied to the 5D Mark II?

Reply
- Karel Donk March 8th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
  
  David,
  
  From what I have seen, the 5D Mark II autofocus is as bad, and probably worse compared to the original 5D. Please read the reviews discussed on this link:
  http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-not-worth-it-save-your-money/
  
  Also check the comments there.
  
  You might also like to read http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com
  
  Reply
someguy6481 March 31st, 2009 at 2:39 pm

Nige Eos man,

you’re a typical Canon apologist, you always blame the user for Canon’s own failings. I doubt the 40d or 50d can compare to the d700, d300 or even the d90, i know you’re going to say that “Canon are going to release the 500d which can HD shoot videos at 1080p”, so what!! true camera enthusiasts don’t even care about videos in dslr’s, only gadget freaks who don’t know any better.

what attracted me to the d90 is the fact it borrows many features from the d300 and d3 for less money, and the most import factors are performance and image quality. The 40d and 50d is nothing compared to the d300, d700 or d90, 50d still uses out of date focusing technology, and the high iso’s of the 50d and 40d don’t even compare to the d90 and d300, so keep dreaming.

Reply
someguy6481 March 31st, 2009 at 6:16 pm

I meant:

the most important factors are performance and image quality. The 40d and 50d is nothing compared to the d300, d700 or d90, 50d still uses out of date focusing technology, and the high iso’s of the 50d and 40d don’t even compare to the d90 and d300, so keep dreaming

Reply
nobodeuno April 3rd, 2009 at 11:26 am

Saying you are a Canon user then slaming Canon of late really means nothing…you’re just nitpicking a great camera value…I bought one and it is truely a fantastically capable camera for capturing stunning images. I have no trouble with using it for even motorsports commissions, weddings or portraits. I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THE AUTOFOCUS…it’s as fast or faster than my Nikons (I have both) My Nikon has so many focus points it doesn’t know what to do. So while all cameras have there problems I personally feel you miss the point of Canons job of doing everything good and nothing perfect except taking stellar images in the right hands. One has only to do a search for images taken with the 5DM2 to see! Rest assured the Canon 5D Mark ll is backordered in allot of places. And sorry Nikons just don’t produce those smooth buttery color curves like Canon brews. So with all due respect why do you think you’re doing us a service? Quit ranting and just go shoot…or trade in all that L glass for a SONIKON Stuff..

Reply
john April 22nd, 2009 at 4:00 pm

can someone please explain me the main differences between 5d and 5d mark II? Is the price gap justified? (I’m not a pro as u can understand…but i’d like to do the right gift!!)

thank u all

Reply
ADR April 24th, 2009 at 11:08 am

Karl – I have been a Canon user for well over 20 years. I agree with nearly everything you have posted about the 5d Mark II.

I own a 1d Mark III and after suffering through all the problems with that camera I thought Canon would have learned something when they released the 5d Mark II. Boy was I ever wrong. I purchased one and am appalled at what they are shipping out.

If you are upgrading from an xxxD series body you’ll probably be in seventh heaven. But if you are coming from any of the higher end bodies to the 5d Mark II, you’ll find that you really aren’t getting a lot for the nearly 3 grand price tag. Canon very clearly stated that the 5d Mark II sensor and processor were going to be better than what is in the 1ds Mark III, which was the basis for many people buying the camera. Their claim simply does not stand up to real-world testing. The damn thing is overly NOISY at ISO 100 and 200 – I’ve seen this myself. There have been many reports of hot pixels right out of the box, banding, excessive noise, creaky CF doors, soft photos, error 30’s and 72’s, parts falling off or missing from inside the mirrorboxes, purple blotching, and we already know about the black dot problem that they already had to deal with.

The people that are in denial about the 5d2 problems either don’t own one, or if they do they haven’t used it much, or they are Canon apologist. We went through the same thing with the 1d Mark III’s when everyone told us that the camera was fine and it was all our faults because we were too dumb to figure out how to work the camera. Even Canon wouldn’t admit anything until Rob Galbraith stepped up and blew the whistle on them. Funny thing how now, a year and a half later, Canon has admitted that there were not one but TWO AF design problems with the 1d Mark III, PLUS there was a design problem with the mirrorbox which caused the cameras to Error 99 in cold weather. As more 5d Mark II’s are shipped and more photos are inspected, more people will begin to see what we are talking about.

If Nikon comes out with a d700-type body with a 20+ mp sensor, there will be a giant sucking sound as they slurp up a ton more of Canon’s market share.

Reply
someguy6481 May 1st, 2009 at 10:06 am

@ nobodeuno

you wrote:

“My Nikon has so many focus points it doesn’t know what to do. So while all cameras have there problems I personally feel you miss the point of Canons job of doing everything good and nothing perfect except taking stellar images in the right hands. One has only to do a search for images taken with the 5DM2 to see! Rest assured the Canon 5D Mark ll is backordered in allot of places.”

you can’t be serious, the reason the d300, d700. d3x and d3 has 51 focus points is that you get more areas in focus, this is why journalists and sport photographers are joining Nikon. The Nikon 51 point focusing is anything but a retarded piece of crap as you describe it to be, if anything Canon’s focusing system is. You say “the 5D Mark II is backordered in allot of places”, i wonder how many returns they received and are sent back to canon.

@ ADR

you wrote:

“1d Mark III, PLUS there was a design problem with the mirrorbox which caused the cameras to

Error 99 in cold weather”Canon’s have error 99’s no matter the weather or situation, it’s a “normal” feature for Canon users. I feel your sorrow.

Reply
someguy6481 May 1st, 2009 at 10:07 am

Here is a list of common apologetics and accusations from Canon fanboy fundamentalists:

– you don’t know how to use your equipment.

– error 99’s are a normal feature.

– you got an error 99 as you didn’t use your camera properly.

– Nikon have errors as well, so it’s normal for Canon to have them.

– there is nothing wrong with the auto focusing system, it’s your fault.

– quality control costs money.

– you’re a loser.

– it’s normal to recalibrate your lenses, even from a “L” range lens.

– lens hood are additional accessory and should be sold separately.

Reply
Leonard May 29th, 2009 at 12:56 am

Help! 🙁

I bought the Mk II, expecting it to be the camera of my dreams. I’ve been using it for a couple of months, and noticed that there were a lot of out-of-focus shots, but I blamed a lot of it on shallow DOF with my f/1.4 lens or on subject motion; I even thought it might have been the lens. It NEVER occurred to me that it might be the camera body.

But last week I did a major portrait shoot with the works: pro studio, hair, makeup, the lot. I did *everything* I could to minimise blur from all sources – stopped-down aperture, great studio light, fast shutter speed, etc. etc… and the results were very disappointing.

Of the 800+ 21MP RAW images I took, less than 50 were perfectly sharp; and three quarters of the images are so soft they’re almost useless. The sharp images are incredible – zooming in on a head-and-shoulders shot I can make out the pores on the subjects’ flawless skin, and even flecks of makeup. But the focus was too hit-and-miss to get this result with any consistency.

Canon, honestly: WTF?

Reply
Alexey May 30th, 2009 at 10:52 am

I red all… and decided, that 5d Mark II is exactly what i need, even more than i thought before. I had Sony camera, and Nikon cameras use the Sony sensor as well, but somebody can say that it doesn’t matter which sensor u have in yr camera, the whole camera – that’s important. May be. And i was surprised when i downloaded a pictures from D700 and 5D MArkII with high resolution and compared them… )))) oh, yeah, my old fucked Sony camera, same picture on D700 like i had on Sony, picture like it’s a paint-made or cartoon whatever u like, yes Canon does noise, but noise is better than paint-made picture + noise of course. Nikon sucks, i’ll never buy it, i tried a 5D from my friend, it was more than wonderfull!!!! Don’t listen to anybody else, just make a decision and buy what u want.

Reply
Tim July 9th, 2009 at 5:39 am

I read it all as well.
See the comparison here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2RAW.HTM
or
here:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three-3.shtml

Can you honestly say which is better than the other?
Never mind the resolving power, etc, etc.

I would say, if the autofocus is almost as good as my old 40, 5dII is just worth it.
The canon has great line up of lenses, the holy trinity for example, 85 1.2, 135 2.0, 50 1.2.
Nikon’s mount doesn’t appear to be able to do the 85 1.2 due to physical limitation (size of the mount).

I see the 5d as a good bargain, compared to camera d3x (almost 3 times the cost).

Reply
abby July 19th, 2009 at 12:07 am

Sigh.

I wish I could slam just this blog for being anti-Canon, buy a 5DmrkII and be happy. BELIEVE me, I do.

I’m one of those wackos who swears Canons produce images with a “certain something” Nikon’s just lack. I would love to use a Canon, but everything I shoot moves so *reliable* AF performance is 100% non-negotiable. I don’t shoot from the stands with a giant tele lens, so the crop factor on the 1D’s capable of handling action keeps me from going that route.

Basically, as much as I’d rather be shooting with a Canon, I’m “stuck” with Nikon because they offer a FF camera that can actually focus. Anyone who says otherwise has never tried to capture an fast moving, erratically tracking subject with a Canon. Talk about an exercise in frustration (and futility)!

I’ve been waiting (and waiting) for Canon’s AF to evolve for awhile now. Finally got so desperate that I decided to simply ignore the “hype” about the 5DmrkII’s poor performance in this area. Today I sent my new Canon back, thoroughly disappointed.

It is worth noting that the images I shot of static subjects are stunning. It almost hurts to look at them compared to what comes out of my Nikon (D700). But it’s the shots of moving subjects (even slow-moving, easy to track ones) that really hurt. So many great shots completely ruined by soft or complete lack of focus. Believe what you read: when it comes to moving targets, the 5DmrkII’s hit rate truly is abysmal. Even for Canon lovers.

Reply
Severin October 16th, 2009 at 9:05 am

You are one angry human being. Well, I hope you will find a camera that satisfies your needs!

Good luck and have fun!

Reply
Alex Webster November 9th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

“I immediately pointed out its weaknesses”
“In a previous post, I had already discussed the poor AF system of the 5D Mark II. In that post, I had warned about its performance, about it being slow and not very accurate. At the end of that post, I discussed how it seemed like even a wedding pro had difficulty getting his POSED shots in focus”
“Yep, I saw this coming way in advance.”

Do you want a prize? We all have the internet. We all use it for finding information. We all realize there are shortcomings to the 5D MkII. Why do you write in such a self-serving, pig-headed manner? I don’t care WHEN you discovered the weaknesses, the readers are just here for the facts.

Sorry for contesting your writing style, but it really puts me off and I needed to voice my frustration.

Reply
Karel Donk November 9th, 2009 at 1:44 pm

Sorry Alex, I understand. Still I find it important to note when I discovered those things because at that time, people were saying I was nuts. Only now do most people take it as fact that the 5D2 has shortcomings.

Reply
James Wilkins December 30th, 2009 at 11:06 am

I agree Canon has had its problems with AF, not just on the 5D Mark ii, but also on the Canon 1D mark iii as well. I held of on buying a new camera (1D mark iii) because of this issue and still currently use a Canon 1D Mark ii and 1Ds Mark ii. Who wants to spend this kind of money on a camera that dosent auto focus! I have done work for the UN and other organations and if my pictures were soft, they would not be acceptable and I would be out of work. I have thought about switching over to Nikon, but I have too much invested in Canon. I will wait to see the performance of the mark iv line. Also, remember megipixels are not always what matters, Picture quality is. Some of my best images came from a Canon 1d, with 4 mps…

Reply
Michael January 3rd, 2010 at 1:45 pm

I have never seen so much pro Nikon crap in my life; the Nikon camp have really excelled themselves this time. I shoot 25000 photos professionally at weddings each year with a Canon 5D Mark II. The black dot issue was resolved some firmwares ago and I have never seen it since. Who the hell cares about point whatever of a millisecond difference in focusing and I have taken many hundreds of high speed photos at first dances in next to no light with the aid of the infra red booster from my speedlight 580EX II; they are very rarely out of focus and nearly all sharp. In addition I can click away with quite quick focusing whilst guests stand there like dummies no matter what camera they have – and you ought to see the end result compared to their efforts.

If you want to compare noise, compare like for like. Don’t blow up the 5D Mark II picture to 100% and then compare it with a Nikon D700, do it fairly. Remember the D700 is only 12 mega pixels so compare it with the 5D Mark II at 50% resolution and then eat your words – there is absolutely no competition; the Canon blows the cheaper Nikon out of the water.

Frankly I am getting completely fed up with this continual sour grapes from the Nikon camp and they ought to move on. Oh yes – that comparison with the old 5D. If anyone has any doubts about how much better the picture quality of the 5D Mark II is than the original 5D, I am about to trade my old spare 5D in for a second mark two as the difference in a low lit church is so obvious I am afraid my customers will notice if I mix the two. Admittedly I don’t shoot above 2500 ISO, but the original 5D can’t get close to that anyway.

Reply
David January 24th, 2010 at 12:09 pm

I’ll be fast:

I’ve laughed a lot reading your review about 5D2.

You are not right, and I’m not losing my time explaining why.

Reply
Jonny February 2nd, 2010 at 5:43 am

You are a nut case. A looser by note…..Lucky not everyone is thinking like you

Reply
toptankaman March 9th, 2010 at 1:25 pm

After spending a long time reading this blog I think that my 5D mk2 is the best camera I could possibly have bought for the money probably at any time in history. I have had it for over a year now and it is used for wedding and portrait photography regularly. It has never suffered from black spot, banding or any other gremlins at all at any time since I bought it. The quality is superb – much better than anything I have used before, it is unbelievable in low light handheld, shots at ISO1600 or even 3200 are turning out incredible quality large format prints on my ipf6100 that my clients absolutely love. I love canon products but i know and can empathise with nikon or sony or pentax or whoever owners who feel the same about their D700’s or D3’s or alpha 900’s etc.and now we are getting to the point – If you don’t like the camera don’t buy it! There is a huge amount of top quality cameras at all price ranges of every brand. Instead of complaining about something you haven’t yet spent money on find something you do want to spend your money on and celebrate it, find something worthwhile to complain about don’t criticise because their choice doesn’t match yours or a product doesn’t suit you personally because that is what kids do and we are all adults aren’t we?

Reply
Manuel Galrinho March 16th, 2010 at 7:15 pm

Unfortunately, this post tells the truth about the canon 5d2. Recently I moved from pentax to canon. Bought the 5d2 and I’m disappointed. Bad image, bad color, poor automatic white balance, poor definition, poor focus.

I am deeply disappointed, I should have bought a nikon d700.

I paid nearly 5000 euros to the 5d2 and lenses, but, surely I will continue to shoot with the Pentax k20d more often then with canon 5d2.

I should have read this post before buying… Now I do not know what to do …

Reply
Paulgi March 16th, 2010 at 7:26 pm

it’s great to know that i’m not the only one who find this piece of shit, the worst reflex digital camera ever built. sadly i lost my old 5D, and i can’t find a replace anywhere. 5D markII is not for exigent users, it’s just an expensive toy for tourists.

Reply
Toptankaman March 18th, 2010 at 4:10 pm

Still a lot of people bad mouthing this camera but not by anybody who actually uses one for what it was built for – professional use. Professional Photographer magazine rated it THE ultimate All Rounder 2010 and quote “Not an issue goes by without mention of this camera. It has become the workhorse or back-up for so many photographers that its almost become a rhetorical question when we ask pros what they shoot with.”
With praise like that and the fact that top wedding pro’s such as Mark Cleghorn and Damien Lovegrove absolutely swear by it, make no mistake this camera is the business but hey if you have a problem with Canon and want to buy something else then, buy something else, go out and do what you love – Taking Photo’s
As for the last but one post Bad Image, colour and AUTO WHITE BALANCE??? Any pro worth his salt would NEVER use auto white balance with any make of camera thats why the ability to set it is there with all makes. Auto white balance is just there for rich people who want to be seen with the latest greatest toy – nothing more, you are far better just setting the camera for flash white balance and fine tuning a raw image or better still learn how to use a grey card or buy an expodisc because that is the most accurate way to white balance whether you use Canon, Nikon , Fuji or whatever. Poor focus is usually down to poor camera grip technique (which allows movement into the shot) which figures if you still use auto white balance – try using image stabilised lenses until you learn good technique. Poor technique by the user is and always will be the biggest problem with ANY make of camera – just slating a camera , especially one as good as this is showing your own limitations – try spending less on a camera and a bit more on training so that you learn how to get the best out of any camera, chances are your tutor will have a 5d mk2 and will LOVE it.

Reply
John Horgan March 28th, 2010 at 9:11 am

I am so glad I kept my D5. The autofocus on the MkII is a joke and disgrace to Canon. I have done comparisons between the two bodies using identical lenses and identical shooting situations and while the D5 snaps into focus each time the MKII hunts and hunts and sometimes settles for a focus that is nearly right but noticeably soft on the computer thus defeating the whole purpose. I now only use it when I shoot static objects and repeat if necessary. Sorry I ever invested in it.

Reply
Ana May 16th, 2011 at 1:04 pm

Nikon D700 v. Canon 5dMII

I can’t speak to the Canon 5DMII yet, but to Nikon, I can speak loads. For the last 25 years I have only ever used Nikon products. Having begun with film and then DSLR, I have never had problems with Nikon image quality. The problems are with Nikon. I have owned at least a dozen Nikons plus the various high end lenses. Fabulous images. I take very good are of my equipment. Individually cased equipment in larger pro-case. In the last 5 years, my Nikon D was in service 4 times. I don’t mind that they keep it for about 2 months but I do mind that a camera that should be a Bugatti is acting like a Hyundai. I’ve paid too much for repairs to justify continued faith in Nikon. At least I have the blessing to be in the LA area where I can just drive my equipment in and pick up. Feel sorry for mail repairs. This last & 5th time in as many years was too much. I felt a bit ripped-off.

It is a tremendous expense in this crap economy but I decided to take the plunge and try Canon. I had to be completely frustrated since it means building my equipment from almost scratch. Took the plunge and just bought the 5DMII Friday. Now I have to save for the Canon 200mm F/2 IS L lens followed by additions one by one.

What I’m trying to say is that NIKON SUCKS. Admittedly, I am very frustrated, having invested a fortune. I’m not at the point of putting all things Nikon on Ebay yet. In fact, I’ve never sold my old equipment because I have such sentimental attachments. I don’t know what to expect from my Canon so I’m cautiously optimistic. I did talk to many pro’s before my selection and everyone recommended the same Canon for my $$.

Reply
Libby January 22nd, 2012 at 9:41 pm

Love your comment about being banned from DPReview. Here’s the reason – it’s all about the money there now. It used to be that you could post your true opinion. No more. Heaven forbid that a linked post would kill a Canon sale.

I used to be on the Pro forum there all the time. I had fear and was in awe of some of the guys there at the time. If I ever posted a pic it had to be stellar. Then one day on the forum one guy bragged about how he shot 2100 jpegs in 1 day with a Canikon whatever. He posted a pic and said “here’s the best” and it was some out of focus dog chasing a ball or some shit. Yeah, that’s something to really to be proud of.

Being banned from DPreview should in your case should be considered a badge of honor. Because now it’s chock full of fan boys and press release regurgitators. The pros I respected have left.

I still go there, but usually only on the Kodak SLR forum. Because my aging Kodak with no AA filter can still whip the snot of any Canon 5D or 5D MkII in terms of true sharpness.

Back to Canon – yeah people are touchy. Serious shooters spent good money on a camera and basically got fucked. People are kind of touchy that way.

Well a friend sent me to your blog to read about he Canon fun. I’ll have to cruise around and see what else you have or what other hornet’s nest you have prodded.

Reply

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Barely worth it!

Meta

Pingbacks

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Recent Posts

Subscribe to blog via Email

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Related

Recent Posts

Subscribe to blog via Email