5D MK II Announced - the moon shines

[Bifurcator]

ouch! you sure that was 3200 ISO?

Darn I hope Canon catch up!

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

They're the victim of self defeat IMO.

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

Me too! :thumbup:

 

[Overread19 7]

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

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

 

[Bifurcator]

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

 

[Samriel]

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

@peterbj7

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

 

[MarcusM]

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

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

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

Both are at ISO 100 with a fast shutter too.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The HD video looks spectacular, though.

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

 

[Alex_B]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Bifurcator]

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

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

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

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

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

The HD video looks spectacular, though.

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

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

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

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

 

[Alex_B]

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

 

[Bifurcator]

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

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

Especially when both images showed essentially the same problems.

 

[Alex_B]

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

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

Especially when both images showed essentially the same problems.

Well, both seem not well focussed either ...

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

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

 

[Iron Flatline]

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

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

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

Go take some pictures.

 

[Alex_B]

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

Well, it was original resolution, not tiny

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

 

[MarcusM]

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

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

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

Go take some pictures.

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

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

 

[Brian Austin]

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

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

 

[jvgig]

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

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