Posted by Jerry Gowins on January 6, 2009 at 9:30 PM
Has any of you 5D users had a chance to do a side by side test between these cameras? I've read the hype, but want to know if there truly is a leap in image quality for the landscape photographer. I know there's suppose to be a difference at high ISO's, but I'm talking about real life image quality differences between the two at the typical tripod mounted lower ISO's.
Thanks!!
Jerry
Posted by Andrew Yip on January 7, 2009 at 12:50 AM
Well, the biggest benefit is resolution. I went from the 5D to the 1Ds Mark III (and now to the 5D Mark II) and never looked back, because it was immediately clear that I was getting much more detail in my images (as long as my lenses could keep up). I wanted the ability to make large prints (20x30, etc.), so I didn't bother with detailed head-to-head testing. Subjectively I also feel that the 14-bit images offer slightly better tonality and a little more latitude in the shadows.
So if you plan to make larger prints it may be a worthwhile upgrade, otherwise the image quality differences are more subtle.
Posted by Rick Lamb on January 7, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Well just as in buying a car it's more than just raw speed/IQ. Without question the IQ of the 5D MkII is noticeably better. But that's only part of the story. The 5D Mk II has a whole list of improvements to its feature list. Nancy & I bought two 5D Mk II's and are completely pleased with the decision. After IQ I would say the biggest improvement is the LCD screen and Live View. For on tripod, low ISO work Live View was IMHO purpose built for that task!
I advise you rent a 5D Mk II for a day and find out for yourself.
Posted by Scott Brown on January 7, 2009 at 11:47 AM
ProPhoto Supply in Portland has a 5DMarkII to rent - I want to do that soon... but as a current 1DM2n user, going back to a 5D style of camera would be hard... with the way the MarkIII prices are falling, the 1DsMarkIII might end up in camera sometime soon :)
Posted by Rick Lamb on January 7, 2009 at 12:11 PM
Scott I made the same assumption about the differences between a 1D Mark III (my other camera) and the 5D Mark II. Truth be told they have a LOT more in common than you might realize.
Posted by Scott Brown on January 7, 2009 at 2:16 PM
OK here is my one major gripe about the Canon 5D Mark II - The resolution is so amazingly good that it puts to shame all my Canon L-Series zoom lenses!! Using my Canon 85mm F/1.2 L Series II I get truly stunning resolution. Using my ever trusty 24-70mm F/2.8 Series L doesn't even come close... So I suspect I might be putting some lenses up for sale to get the cash I'll need for some primes. I've had my eye on that Canon 14mm F/2.8 Series L anyhoo...!
Posted by Cezar Mart on January 9, 2009 at 1:37 PM
I've been thinking long time about jumping to the Canon camp because of Mark II. The idea was very attractive: great resolution, colors, details, image quality. And finally I came to a conclusion that all depends on your personal goals in photography. Mark II is probably the best for insanely sharp, ridiculously saturated, very detailed, candy sweet, grand scene landscapes. If this is what you do then Mark II is the answer. And because I came to conclusion that oversweetened and oversaturated grand landscapes are my photographic dead end and basically a death to my personal development as a photographer, I abandoned the Mark II idea completely. Since I become more and more interested in all possible aspects of photography, mostly exploring b/w, emotions, travel, candids, sports, artistic expressions, then the final solution came to me as Nikon D700.
It is probably the most universal affordable camera - fantastic high ISO, phenomenal AF, huge arsenal of the best lenses on the market. The only problem - lack of ISO 100, but overall probably the best choice for a universal all-around photographer.
Posted by Philip Kuglin on January 9, 2009 at 2:07 PM
I've been thinking long time about jumping to the Canon camp because of Mark II. The idea was very attractive: great resolution, colors, details, image quality. And finally I came to a conclusion that all depends on your personal goals in photography. Mark II is probably the best for insanely sharp, ridiculously saturated, very detailed, candy sweet, grand scene landscapes. If this is what you do then Mark II is the answer. And because I came to conclusion that oversweetened and oversaturated grand landscapes are my photographic dead end and basically a death to my personal development as a photographer, I abandoned the Mark II idea completely. Since I become more and more interested in all possible aspects of photography, mostly exploring b/w, emotions, travel, candids, sports, artistic expressions, then the final solution came to me as Nikon D700.
It is probably the most universal affordable camera - fantastic high ISO, phenomenal AF, huge arsenal of the best lenses on the market. The only problem - lack of ISO 100, but overall probably the best choice for a universal all-around photographer.
Cezar - I can't take this comment seriously
Nothing about the 5D or 5DMkII demands that the output be "insanely sharp, ridiculously saturated, very detailed, candy sweet, grand scene landscapes". It is how the photographer processed their image. Nothing about the 5D series or the D700 or any camera forces you into "oversweetened and oversaturated grand landscapes". They are simply tools and the person using it determines the output be it landscapes, portraits, sports etc.
Do what you want and use what ever setup you want, but do you seriously believe what you wrote?
Posted by Cezar Mart on January 9, 2009 at 2:39 PM
> Cezar - I can't take this comment seriously
First: Phil, other than the resolution and color over-saturation, there is no advantage of Mark II. In all other possible aspect Mark II has no edge on other cameras of this class. The resolution of 21 MPx, in my case and in the case of 99.99% people, is completely unnecessary. Plus the over-saturation is needed only for grand scale calendar and poster landscapes, in which I and many other people are NOT interested. If you don't shoot calendars and posters with grand landscapes on them then Mark II gives no edge at all. However, if you do, then yes, Mark II is the choice.
Second: yes, what you do and how you do is the personal choice of the photographer and the camera is simply the tool. However, we talk about spending money for Mark II upgrade, and my text is trying to answer the question if this is really needed. So my answer for my own question if I want to upgrade, which I share here, is that for me and for 99% of people the money spent on Mark II is not necessary. Especially I heard tons of opinions about clumsiness of Mark II autofocus, which is VERY necessary for all-around travel photography.
I repeat - these are my personal thoughts. Of course you don't have to treat them seriously...
P.S. Oh, I forgot about the movie mode in Mark II. What is a "movie mode"?
The Canon 5D Mark II is a tool. And like any tool it won't fix everything. And like any tool it gets better in the hands of the right user. And like any tool some will hate it.
Cezar it sounds to me like you are making a lot of global assumptions without having actually used the camera in question. I ask that you refrain from making such global assumptions and instead simply state that this tool isn't for you.
I own several cameras. Each has its own purpose. Horses for courses I say. None of my cameras is "perfect". And I don't ask for perfection. Instead I use each tool to create my art. That's all.
Movie mode is for recording High Definition movies. This is the future in photography happening now. Truly amazing stuff!
So folks I ask for careful reflection in replying to this thread. Let's stick to what works for YOU. And drop making global assumptions about others and various cameras.
Posted by Philip Kuglin on January 9, 2009 at 8:59 PM
Cezar -
What I was referring to was your use of pure judgment in a factual way. Statements like
"other than the resolution and color over-saturation, there is no advantage of Mark II
The word "over" here is your judgment and is not a fact - it is far from it. Why must the 5DMkII be over-saturated when using the raw capture mode? Not sure make has any truth at all.
One can discuss many attributes of a product and why it is for them, but different strokes for different folks.
For example you state "good autofocus, which is VERY necessary for all-around travel photography".
Well I challenge that. For me and many, many photographers for many, many, many (did I say many) years used manual focus camera's with great results and many still do. For me my travel camera is a Leica MP rangefinder. Complete manual camera. Can be throw against the wall, dropped in sand, have the batteries die (and in a pinch be used as a weapon to beat ones attacker off) and still work. I wouldn't trust a D700 or my1DsIII in those conditions w/o backup. Drop you D700 from 5 feet off the floor and see if it works. I am sure the Leica would...
Things are never black and white...
Posted by Cezar Mart on January 10, 2009 at 3:01 AM
Phil, then in that case why even talk about upgrade to anything, including Mark II or D700, if Leica is good?
Talking about dropping - I propose a test. Dropping D700 and Mark II from as high as possible and seeing which one stops working first...
BTW - I don't contribute my camera for the test...
Posted by Rick Lamb on January 10, 2009 at 11:43 AM
Discussion
13 repliesThanks!!
Jerry
So if you plan to make larger prints it may be a worthwhile upgrade, otherwise the image quality differences are more subtle.
I advise you rent a 5D Mk II for a day and find out for yourself.
It is probably the most universal affordable camera - fantastic high ISO, phenomenal AF, huge arsenal of the best lenses on the market. The only problem - lack of ISO 100, but overall probably the best choice for a universal all-around photographer.
Cezar - I can't take this comment seriously
Nothing about the 5D or 5DMkII demands that the output be "insanely sharp, ridiculously saturated, very detailed, candy sweet, grand scene landscapes". It is how the photographer processed their image. Nothing about the 5D series or the D700 or any camera forces you into "oversweetened and oversaturated grand landscapes". They are simply tools and the person using it determines the output be it landscapes, portraits, sports etc.
Do what you want and use what ever setup you want, but do you seriously believe what you wrote?
First: Phil, other than the resolution and color over-saturation, there is no advantage of Mark II. In all other possible aspect Mark II has no edge on other cameras of this class. The resolution of 21 MPx, in my case and in the case of 99.99% people, is completely unnecessary. Plus the over-saturation is needed only for grand scale calendar and poster landscapes, in which I and many other people are NOT interested. If you don't shoot calendars and posters with grand landscapes on them then Mark II gives no edge at all. However, if you do, then yes, Mark II is the choice.
Second: yes, what you do and how you do is the personal choice of the photographer and the camera is simply the tool. However, we talk about spending money for Mark II upgrade, and my text is trying to answer the question if this is really needed. So my answer for my own question if I want to upgrade, which I share here, is that for me and for 99% of people the money spent on Mark II is not necessary. Especially I heard tons of opinions about clumsiness of Mark II autofocus, which is VERY necessary for all-around travel photography.
I repeat - these are my personal thoughts. Of course you don't have to treat them seriously...
P.S. Oh, I forgot about the movie mode in Mark II. What is a "movie mode"?
Cezar it sounds to me like you are making a lot of global assumptions without having actually used the camera in question. I ask that you refrain from making such global assumptions and instead simply state that this tool isn't for you.
I own several cameras. Each has its own purpose. Horses for courses I say. None of my cameras is "perfect". And I don't ask for perfection. Instead I use each tool to create my art. That's all.
Movie mode is for recording High Definition movies. This is the future in photography happening now. Truly amazing stuff!
So folks I ask for careful reflection in replying to this thread. Let's stick to what works for YOU. And drop making global assumptions about others and various cameras.
What I was referring to was your use of pure judgment in a factual way. Statements like
"other than the resolution and color over-saturation, there is no advantage of Mark II
The word "over" here is your judgment and is not a fact - it is far from it. Why must the 5DMkII be over-saturated when using the raw capture mode? Not sure make has any truth at all.
One can discuss many attributes of a product and why it is for them, but different strokes for different folks.
For example you state "good autofocus, which is VERY necessary for all-around travel photography".
Well I challenge that. For me and many, many photographers for many, many, many (did I say many) years used manual focus camera's with great results and many still do. For me my travel camera is a Leica MP rangefinder. Complete manual camera. Can be throw against the wall, dropped in sand, have the batteries die (and in a pinch be used as a weapon to beat ones attacker off) and still work. I wouldn't trust a D700 or my1DsIII in those conditions w/o backup. Drop you D700 from 5 feet off the floor and see if it works. I am sure the Leica would...
Things are never black and white...
Talking about dropping - I propose a test. Dropping D700 and Mark II from as high as possible and seeing which one stops working first...
BTW - I don't contribute my camera for the test...