The-Digital-Picture.com deletes “anti-Canon” post about the EOS 5D Mark II

December 30th, 2008

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.

Original post:

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 my blog post titled “Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Barely worth it!“, 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 at the bottom of my “Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Barely worth it!” blogpost, 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.

Pingbacks

Best wishes for 2009 « Fake Chuck Westfall (31/12/2008)

Comments

There are 25 responses. Follow any responses to this post through its comments RSS feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Rootbeer December 31st, 2008 at 4:28 pm

I experienced something similar to this at SportsPooper where the main moderator disabled me from posting in the forum after he disagreed with my opinion, and prevented me from expressing myself on a website dedicated to photojournalists, where I was a contributing, and paying member of.

What ever happened to the good old days of …”I may disagree with you but I RESPECT you for tactfully expressing your opinion”..? It seems to have been replaced with something to the effect of: “Since I disagree with you, therefore I am right, and you are wrong, and that is why I decided to CENSOR you, because I have the power to do so!”..

Hmmmm……good thing I kept their e-mails.. 😉

You know,…this blog makes me want to publish them.. 🙂

Reply
Rootbeer December 31st, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Terms of Use | © 2003 – 2008 Bryan Carnathan
“Powered By Christ!”

Hmmmm…? WWJD? 😉

JP

Reply
Noons January 1st, 2009 at 5:43 am

Dude, what did you expect from a site where one of the menubar options is:
“Canon News”?

If there is one thing I’ve learned from Canon’s presence online is that their marketing department will stop at NOTHING to push their product, whatever the consequences may be. It’s effects are all over the www, and the number of Canon shills and scammers on Usenet begs disbelief.

This is unfortunately one of the consequences of companies with way too much money operating in a totally unregulated global market. Let’s hope the current financial situation around the world will bring these people down to size, because nothing else will.

Reply
Wingo January 1st, 2009 at 12:43 pm

Even though I don’t agree with your opinion of 5D Mark II being ‘barely WORTH it’, it’s sad that TDP had to remove your post. Possibly because your title’s just a bit too ‘subjective’, while you don’t have enough real-life tests so prove it. No matter how subjective and personal any post gets (such as yours), as long as it’s relevant to the forum, it should definitely stay there for everyone to read and discuss about. I’m sorry for the removal.
On the other hand, I appreciate you start such an argument. 5D II, a worthy product or not? Personally, I totally think it is. Despite the obviously aged AF system, what other weakness does it have? For any serious shooter, esp. Canon users, it’s still the choice of ‘best value’ for the ‘ultimate image quality’; it’s the cheapest Canon Full-frame DSLR; cheapest DSLR with 20+ MP…
Guess if you give a detailed list of Pros and Cons to prove your point, it’d be more ‘welcomed’ in those forums… 😉

Reply
Karel Donk January 1st, 2009 at 2:52 pm

Wingo:

The experiences of pro users which I have mentioned in the post in question show enough. Even better than real-life tests. Those are actual experiences in the field. And I’m talking about the poor AF system here. Reviews around the Internet say the same. Many forums have messages from users saying the same.

I can’t really name pros for the 5D Mark II. If you read some of my early posts about the 5D Mark II, you’ll see that I did have the high resolution as a pro. But after having seen the image quality issues, even that isn’t really a pro anymore.
Besides, what use is 21MP when you can’t focus properly and get soft or out of focus shots most of the time? What use is the high ISO performance, when the AF system can’t focus well in low light?
On top of that, the 5D Mark II is way too expensive for what you get right now.

Sorry but that leaves us with zero pros. Someone upgrading from a 10D or 20D, or some rich lawyer who uses it to take occasional family photos might love the 5D Mark II. Anyone else would have to ignore the issues.

Reply
Wingo January 2nd, 2009 at 12:07 am

Thanks for the reply, Karel.

I actually went back to re-read your posts on your blog, basically you concluded 5D Mark II ‘barely worth it’ due to its flawed/inferior AF system. Is one weakness really capable of deeming one product ‘not worth it’? I think that’s the reason your argument was considered ‘biased and exaggerated’ by some.

I’ve used my 5D for almost 3 years and never find any AF issues, along with 16-35, 24-105, 70-200, 70-300, etc. lenses. The speed is definitely not top-notch, but accuracy is pretty high. I can comfortably say, no more than 3 percent shots are possibly out of focus even at the toughest situations, that’s 1 photo in 30-40. If 5D can do that, I tend to believe the new generation Mark II after 3 yrs, will do at least as goo as that. Just trying to counter your ‘can’t focus properly and get soft or out of focus shots’. I’ll be looking forward to seeing some real-life AF test on the accuracy to believe it! 😉

As for your other point of ‘too expensive’ what it is, may I list the pros that you don’t feel like calling ‘pros’:
– Much better build (according to Canon and some user observation, more rugged than any previous Canon DSLRs, even 50D, except EOS-1D/1Ds series, of course)
– Much higher resolution (same as current Canon flagship, only beaten by 2 other cams, one of them being 3x the price); even lower noise than original 5D
– Numerous new features: high-res large LCD, bigger viewfinder coverage, Live View w/ AF, HD video recording, AF microadjustment, innovative menu system, sensor cleaning… all this I’m sure everyone knows already

All in all, for a price that’s cheaper than any other 20+ MP FF DSLR, cheaper than original 5D, about the same as 12MP D700 which has been in the market for months… U still call it ‘barely worth it’? I guess you may consider switching brand then. 5D II gives what D700 doesn’t provide, while D700 has what 5D II doesn’t possess. If you need best AF system and build quality, but less resolution, D700 would be a much better choice, but that doesn’t justify ‘5D barely worth it’, while D700 or anything else ‘totally worth it’.
–

Reply
Karel Donk January 2nd, 2009 at 7:12 am

Wingo:

Is one weakness really capable of deeming one product ‘not worth it’?

As a matter of fact, YES. This weakness is a serious problem. Like I said many times before, what use is 21MP, when you cannot focus fast and ACCURATELY? You can’t use the 21MP resolution if your pictures end up soft or out of focus. What use is the high ISO capability, when you can’t focus fast enough in low light? Worthless. Read here for more:
http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-not-all-it-could-have-been/

With all the image quality issues, it became even more wothless. 21MP of artifacts.

No serious pro can consider this camera based on these serious flaws. Just look at what happened to the fashion and wedding pro. Luckily the fashion pro discovered on time that he AF system of the 5D2 was not working well otherwise he’d have done the whole shoot and was left with few pictures to use. This is the kind of danger a pro would be in using the 5D2. It’s unacceptable.

But tell me, how did you use the 5D to focus? What kind of shoots were you doing? What environment?

Reply
Ivor the Engine Driver January 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 am

I was kicked off Fred Miranda after the Canon fanboys there objected to my criticisms of the Mark III. Some airhead there “proved” the mark III didn’t have a focusing problem by 1) taking a sequence of a truck driving down the street in front of his house; and 2) taking a picture of his thumb on a 106 degree day. I was made an un-person after pointing out that 1) a pickup truck moving laterally in front of you isn’t the same as a sprinter coming directly at you; and 2) the thumb was out of focus.

Reply
Erich Anderson January 2nd, 2009 at 1:55 pm

Um, you might want to stop bashing the forum at The Digital Picture…as you can see here, Bryan put your forum post back up:

http://community.the-digital-picture.com/forums/t/156.aspx

-Erich (innocent bystander)

Reply
Karel Donk January 2nd, 2009 at 3:29 pm

Thanks I updated the post above.

Reply
Wingo January 2nd, 2009 at 5:31 pm

Karel, I used my 5D for 2+ yrs shooting tons of events in dim restaurants, dark tent and crammed clubs, with no AF issues at all. Of course, I always have 580EX II on it, and the red beam pattern emitted from flash did help achieving AF fast and precisely. While shooting in studio, there’s no 580EX’s AF-assist beam, as long as I keep a minimum modeling light on, AF has no prob.

So if you ask me, when anyone has 5D AF issues, it could be: 1)a faulty camera; 2)camera/lens need AF adjustment; 3)he/she’s not working the camera properly (i.e. too dark to use AF anyways)

As much as I trust my 5D for its strong AF capability, I admit the 5D Mark II’s AF system is indeed its Achilles’s heels, after handling a pre-production working sample at a private Canon event. The entire camera, including the build, the menu system, the responsiveness, etc. etc. have been improved tremendously, just by playing with it for 30min. However, the AF with its aging technology and FLAWED PATTERN DESIGN (this I totally agree with you, Karel), didn’t make me feel any different or improved over the original 5D. Since I’m not shooting sports or wildlife – 5D (Mk II) ain’t designed for that, most people got their expectation too high – I’m okay with the AF speed. As for the ACCURACY, which is CRUCIAL for everyone, I’m gonna wait for Rob Galbraith to do his ‘highly-scientific’ tests to prove it.

Until some real tests like Rob G surface, I don’t consider those spotty ‘experience/feeling-based’ tests convincing. So let’s wait and see! [p.s. May God bless Canon… hahahaha]

Reply
Karel Donk January 2nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Wingo:

I did read a few places that the flash AF assist beam does help the outer AF points of the 5D to focus better. I have no doubt that it might also work on the 5D2 but it continues to be risky. On top of that, it requires you to have a flash on the camera and that makes it heavier and bigger.

In other posts here on my blog, I did say that the 5D2 would have been an incredible camera if it only had a better AF system. At that time, I was assuming the image quality would have been flawless but now that turned out a bit different.

And yes, I do not have any scientific tests for you here, unfortunately, but I do think that what I have here is pretty solid. Ofcourse this might not be convincing to you, but then you’ll have to wait for Galbraith to do something. Or you could get the 5D2 and experience everything yourself, if you have a lot of cash to throw away 🙂

Reply
Wingo January 3rd, 2009 at 5:07 am

Hehehe… I kinda ‘guessed’ there could be some technical glitches, plus the long waiting-list for pre-order, I’m gonna wait until late spring to get my Mk II. Possibly price will come down to below $2.5K in 3 months (enough stock to feed the market, more competitive to A900 and upcoming D400) and all the issues (black dots, AF accuracy, etc.) have been resolved by then.

As for the flawed design of the AF points (that all points are crammed in the center of the frame), I may go as far as to zoom out more so the outter AF point falls on the subject’s eye. I know it sounds dumb but with such high resolution, cropping out the center part out still yields more MP than 5D.

Reply
Karel Donk January 3rd, 2009 at 10:46 am

Wingo:

I don’t think all image quality issues will be resolved. I hope so, but it’s probably not going to happen. I think the black fringing and color blotches will stay there, as well as the amount of noise, even at ISO 100. Canon has lied about the noise performance of the 5D2 again, just like they did with the 50D. If you compare RAW images, there’s almost no noise improvement in the 5D2, and you even have noise at ISO 100 in darker parts of the images. Check here:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&thread=30535290&page=1

JPEG images of the 5D2 look like they have a lot less noise, but that’s because of the in camera noise reduction removing the noise in JPEG images, but also making the images look blurry and less detailed. I wrote about that here:
http://blog.kareldonk.com/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-barely-worth-it

Reply
Wingo January 3rd, 2009 at 5:51 pm

Karel, first of all, let’s leave JPG aside as I’m sure most of us don’t shoot JPG often. (I personally never shot any JPG w/ DSLR, if I wanna do JPG for fun, there’s a pocket Canon PowerShot for that.)

After discussing so much about AF, wow let’s get on to the NOISE issue. Your reference may be valid but everywhere else I read about 5D Mk II’s noise performance was TOP NOTCH, including side-by-side comparison with D700, D3X and A900, by Michael Reichmman of Luminous Landscape. The-Digital-Picture’s early review also reflects this, sadly, he used strong noise reduction with weak sharpening on the ISO 3200 sample that gave a soft/blurry result. I’ve never heard anyone complaining about 1Ds Mark III being ‘noisy’, why should 5D Mk II with a very similar sensor be noisy below ISO 3200? From samples and comparisons I’ve seen, 5D Mk II is as good as 5D from ISO 100 to 800, better than 5D from 1600-3200. Again, let’s wait for more ‘in-depth reviews’ such as DPReview and other sites’. I don’t believe Canon’s marketing ‘claims’, but I trust 3rd party reviews. Until then, anything ‘user review’ is just not very convincing.

The obvious glitches such as BLACK DOTS, and BANDING will definitely be corrected through firmware and refinement of sensor manufacturing. Firmware may not solve every issue, so I guess Canon may improve the sensor manufacturing process – without spending any money, because it’s the same design, just modify the processing to get better quality sensors. If that’s the case, of course, the early adopters may be thrown into a bad situation.

Finally, the price WILL come down soon – no doubt about it. With A900 price creeping down slowly to 5D II after the stocks are filled; D700 has already dropped way below its original spot; Nikon’s new mid-range D400 around the corner; new EOS-1D/1Ds coming out within 6 months at a price point lower than D3/D3X…

With all/most flaws fixed, top image quality (class-leading resolution and noise level) and price down to $2.5K or lower, I’d say it’s WORTH IT!

Reply
Karel Donk January 3rd, 2009 at 6:12 pm

Wingo:

The LL comparison shows the 5D2 has about the same noise as A900 and D3x. But I think that’s a lot of noise for ISO 100.
I think that the 5D2 will have to drop to $2000 or lower to be competitive. The D700 is cheaper and it is just a whole lot more camera than the 5D2.

Reply
Spokker January 5th, 2009 at 2:38 am

Even if he restored your post, he still closed the thread.

What’s with power tripping moderators?

Reply
Craig Volpe January 7th, 2009 at 5:17 am

Wingo, you mentioned you rarely had AF issues with your 5D and mentioned that when in dark environments you would use the 580’s IR beam to help the camera achieve focus.

The reason that won’t work for me (and I imagine for some other photographers), and why I was so disappointed with the release of the 5D II is that when I’m in darker environments I almost always have a pocket wizard mounted on my flash shoe, thus I’m not able to use a 580 or STE2. Despite that I like Canon’s selection of lenses better, I was so disappointed by this fact that I ended up switching systems entirely and getting a D3. I know every photographer has different needs, but I would have been so happy if the 5D had half the pixels and twice the AF performance.

Karel, the AF on the 5D isn’t THAT bad. It’s just not great for low light or sports. I bet it’s good enough for most users, especially if they can mount a flash or ST-E2 on top. You make it sound like it won’t even work in daylight or something…

Reply
Karel Donk January 7th, 2009 at 7:35 am

Craig:

If you look at the example of the fashion shooter, you’ll see that even in daylight, it gave out of focus images with using the outer points. It did give a focus confirmation, but nothing was in focus. That is a serious risk to take as a pro. Luckily that fashion shooter discovered the problem on time. I wouldn’t want to be in such a situation.

Reply
Craig Volpe January 7th, 2009 at 9:28 am

True, but that doesn’t mean that wasn’t an isolated incident. I’m sure there’s been instances of D700s acting up or any other camera for that matter. From what I’ve read, heard from others, and experienced first hand, the AF works fine for most people when it’s not dim.

Reply
Karel Donk January 7th, 2009 at 9:49 am

Craig:

From all the experiences I have seen online, and I put quite some time into this, I can tell you this is not an isolated incident. Even if you just look at the specs, you can already have an idea how the AF system will perform.
Also, when I lay down $2700 for a camera, I do NOT want to worry about the AF working or not and keep track of the light being dim or not. IT SHOULD JUST WORK. How do you justify the Nikon D300 which costs $1400 right now having a FAR better AF system than this $2700 5D Mark II ????????? Even the 40D which costs $800 now has a more reliable AF system. This is absolutely unacceptable on such an expensive body targetted at pros.

Reply
Craig Volpe January 7th, 2009 at 11:57 am

Okay, I get your point but like I said I think it’s a bit like complaining the 1DS cameras have too slow fps since it costs $8000. Using your logic, shouldn’t a medium format body have much better AF than a D3 if it costs $30,000? I think we are both right about this from different perspectives and I feel this debate is just going in circles at this point. You seem to think upgraded AF is a required feature in the 5D2, while I am simply disappointed that Canon chose to focus on other things like video and resolution instead of AF.

Reply
Karel Donk January 7th, 2009 at 3:08 pm

Craig:

I agree with you about being disappointed that Canon chose to focus on other things like video instead of AF. In another post about the AF system of the 5D Mark II I made similar comments.
The medium format cameras are not made for journalistic work and weddings and stuff like that with fast action. So they don’t have the D3 AF system, but they do seem to have an AF system that is very accurate, otherwise you would not be able to fully take advantage of the high resolution if your focus isn’t spot on.

With the 5D Mark II, Canon was targetting journalists and wedding photographers, but the current AF system is just not up to the task. Not even for things like event photography. Check the link below and see what that guy has to say about using the 5D Mark II for concerts:
http://onelouderphoto.com/2008/09/18/canon-5d-mark-ii-concert-photography-first-impressions/

Reply
Craig Volpe January 8th, 2009 at 11:52 pm

With the 5D Mark II, Canon was targetting journalists and wedding photographers, but the current AF system is just not up to the task. Not even for things like event photography. Check the link below and see what that guy has to say about using the 5D Mark II for concerts

By targeting, do you mean the design or the marketing? I don’t think they designed the camera for photojournalists, journalistic wedding photographers, concert photographers, sports photographers, etc. I don’t even think they designed the camera for pros. I think the design was dictated by what they thought the prosumer market wanted which was high megapixels and full frame. As far as marketing, they’re marketing it to pretty much all photographers. Why wouldn’t they?

Reply
Karel Donk January 9th, 2009 at 7:36 am

Craig:

I am wondering myself if Canon expected this design to be good for journalists and wedding photographers. That would have been stupid.
But they do target journalists and other pros with it if you read the press release they sent out for the 5D Mark II.
Also, the prosumer market also wants better autofocus, not just fullframe and more resolution.

Reply

Popular Posts

Recent Posts

The-Digital-Picture.com deletes “anti-Canon” post about the EOS 5D Mark II

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