Ken Rockwell's *new* 5D Mk II review

[cfusionpm]

Luckily, the 5DII was made for family snapshots and nothing more serious.

The comedy just keeps comin! :lmao:

 

[AlexL]

Not that he's wrong that more megapixels does not a better image [necessarily] make. I get sort of tired of of megapixel race when there's more to it than that.

But in all seriousness, he's also right about the medium setting, I've switched to that for nearly all my family photos. In fact, the "high" setting is so much lower quality, I've started to use that when shooting pets or people I don't like, or piles of animal feces, reserving the "medium" setting for the good stuff.

Luckily, the 5DII was made for family snapshots and nothing more serious.

If I had a 5DII I wouldn't waste my time taking pictures of animal feces. I would probably do a documentary on how paint dry.

 

[Derrel]

You could also use a 5D Mark II to make videos for the web, like this one. We all know that Canon d-slrs have excellent video capture, and that many Canon fans love to tout the quality that Canon delivers from its d-slr video in several models.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxLG2wtE7TM&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Josh220]

I don't know what you guys are talkin about.

I think Ken's reviews are to the point without all the fluff... one of the best resources out there.

You could also use a 5D Mark II to make videos for the web, like this one. We all know that Canon d-slrs have excellent video capture, and that many Canon fans love to tout the quality that Canon delivers from its d-slr video in several models.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxLG2wtE7TM&feature=related

LOL! Nice Derrel.

 

[MrLogic]

Evidently sarcasm escapes some people.

It's hard to sense sarcasm when there is none implied.

Rockwell was dead ****ing serious, IMO. He really loves his 5D II, just like he loved (yup, past tense) his Leica M9.

Ultimately you end up with people new to photography running around with Canon 5D MkIIs set to Medium because he's the first hit in google.

I was just wondering if there was some truth to it. Not that I believe everything he writes... or even most of it.

But it's not the first time I've heard/read it. That some cameras produce "sharper" files at lower megapixel settings, I mean.

 

[Overread]

The problem is simple - some of what he says is true and some is not - other times what he says is true, but within a set range of boundaries/parameters that he often does not mention/realise himself. This latter part is what makes him a mockery of many who are more serious about their photography whilst at the same time making him semi popular with those who are less serious because they often also don't realise the these more subtle differences.

In the end I still can't work out how a website that populated with ads and poor design keeps being so popular - ken is a credit to the powers of internet advertising skill!

 

[Village Idiot]

Ken Rockwell is a joke.

I remember when he compared the 5D MKII to the D3s by up sizing the 21mp 5D MKII files to match the 24mp size of the D3s and complained how soft the 5D MKII files were in comparison after making them larger than their native resolution.

Well duh...common sense states that when you enlarge a file past it's original size, you're going to end up with a photo that's softer and possibly more pixelated.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The key with KR is to not take him too seriously.

Do i agree on his philosophy of shooting Jpeg? not for me. But for my mom, or most people who come into the store, yes, i do agree. If you shoot the camera in auto, you probably shouldn't shoot RAW.


There are some things that he nails on the head though, and as a reader, people need to have the deductive reasoning to be able to filter what's useful to them and not.

 

[bigboi3]

Ken Rockwell told me I'd be better off getting a nikor 18-55 lens over the 17-55. HAHA.

 

[Mike_E]

Ken Rockwell told me I'd be better off getting a nikor 18-55 lens over the 17-55. HAHA.

He told you personally?

If you're like 95% of all the photographers out there you would be. An 18-55mm and an SB900 would take care of more than they would ever get around to shooting in that range and still leave enough money left over (within $100 new or still plenty if bought used) for a 105mm/f2.8 VR macro. Or close enough for a used 80-200mm f2.8.

 

[cfusionpm]

The key with KR is to not take him too seriously.

The only problem is that, unlike things like The Onion, its not blatantly obvious that he's just jerking around. If you don't already know what he's talking about, one could easily be led down a trail of horrible advice.

 

[inTempus]

I have picked up a lot from Ken. His insights to photography is very useful!

 

[Josh220]

I have picked up a lot from Ken. His insights to photography is very useful!

I think it deserves the next level.

 

[Phranquey]

I have picked up a lot from Ken. His insights to photography is very useful!

I think it deserves the next level.

 

[Garbz]

I was just wondering if there was some truth to it. Not that I believe everything he writes... or even most of it.

But it's not the first time I've heard/read it. That some cameras produce "sharper" files at lower megapixel settings, I mean.

There's always truth to some of the things he says but usually it's for all the wrong reasons. For instance he says it's because beyer interpolation is not needed. That's just bull****. If you didn't do beyer interpolation on the data coming from the sensor your pictures would be green. This is because there are twice as many green pixels as red or blue. There are countless cameras out there with sensors in a beyer pattern that produce excellent photos.

The reality is that the sharpness of the sensor is based on the filter infront of it, and the light hitting it. Ok these days low pass filters are excellent performers, but at 21mpx you need the bloody sharpest lens you can buy to get the full performance from the sensor. Even with a 12mpx camera I can see a huge difference in quality between my lenses and most of them aren't cheap. 21mpx makes this even more important.

As for the real reason pictures look sharper it's all to do with image processing. E.g. suppose you have 3 pixels in a row:

black grey white white.

This isn't sharp. The transition between black and white happens over 3 pixels. But if you halve the size by taking every second pixels:

black white

perfectly sharp transition now isn't it.

This is somewhat akin to printing out a picture that isn't sharp, hanging it on the wall, and then looking at it from the opposite side of the room. Sure from that distance away it looks tac sharp.


But this is all just semantics because quite frankly if you buy a 5DMkII and shoot at medium you deserve to have a dog bite your testicles off. Shoot RAW (unless you have a good reason not to) and then resize the image in post processing.

facepalm

I'm at home sick. It's a sad day for me. But man you made it so much better.

Btw you owe me a new keyboard this one now has coffee all over it.

**** man now i'm crying too. :lmao: