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

do people even listen to him anymore?

LOL, I found this line pretty funny: "If anything, the 3.9FPS rate is too fast, and I wish the 5D Mark II had a menu setting to give a Cs rate of about 3 FPS. Since the 5D Mark II only runs at Ch, I often fire two shots when I really only wanted one. "
 
do people even listen to him anymore?

LOL, I found this line pretty funny: "If anything, the 3.9FPS rate is too fast, and I wish the 5D Mark II had a menu setting to give a Cs rate of about 3 FPS. Since the 5D Mark II only runs at Ch, I often fire two shots when I really only wanted one. "

You have to remember this is the guy who could take over the photography world with nothing but a D40x. 3.9 FPS is blinding speed! :lol:
 
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif][SIZE=+1]Sharpness of Smaller (M and S) Image Sizes[/SIZE][/FONT] top
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]
Excellent![/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]As hoped, lower resolution files get sharper because Bayer Interpolation is no longer needed.[/FONT]

This is much better than Nikon, [FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]whose images don't get any sharper at 100% when set to smaller resolution like MEDIUM and SMALL.[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]On the 5D Mark II, MEDIUM and SMALL files are super, duper sharp. [/FONT]

I don't need 21MP. I usually shoot set down to 11MP (Medium) and get images much sharper than from 12MP (native) cameras, like the Nikon full-frame cameras.

For family photos, even the 5D Mark II's SMALL (5MP) setting is plenty for making great 20 x 30" prints, since its 5MP setting has about the same sharpness as an 8MP (native) camera.
Interesting...

Does anyone here use the "MEDIUM" setting? I wonder if there's any truth to this.
 
I have picked up a lot from Ken. His insights to photography is very useful!
 
I don't even waste my time with his "reviews", "reports", "b.s."....whatever you want to call them. There are many, many better places with a wealth of knowledge.
 
It's a lovey-dovey, fawning review of the 5D Mark II. He'll probably get some click-through sales from the review, so he can support his growing family.
 
Yeah that's the problem. The guy is a joke but people don't get it. 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.

Either that or you get wedding photographers with a D40 + kit lens.

If his site gave safety tips then he'd be outright dangerous.
 
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.
 
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.
And i'm sure people will take your comment seriously!
 
I remember last time when we talked about Ken in here, a lot of people click the link from TPF to his site. And because of the traffic from TPF, Ken stopped by and post some comment in various threads. That was kind of funny. Since he found a lot of negative comment about him.
 
I really enjoy Ken's insights, too. Just be aware of his relative and personal opinion.
 
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.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top