Canon 5D II

[shreds]

Canon have unveiled the anticipated 5DII and no doubt we will be seeing reviews and tests in the magazines for months and months to come.

I think the 21 MP or thereabouts was expected and a projected price tag of around £2300 to start with, moves the game up a little, even though we all know that MPs are not the be all and end all. Some of the other features are good, others are a little surprising, and no doubt those who were thinking of upgrading will advise us of their findings.

Me, I am sticking with my Nikon so I will watch on with interest!

After all, it is not the camera, but the creative eye of the user that is critical!

[McQ]

I am quite excited about the new Canon 5D Mark II. It's a sea change to have a camera push medium format territory in just a 35 mm sensor. I will certainly be making a transition to this camera in November...

edit: the wait lists for this camera are through the roof...looks like it will take a lot longer to get a hold of one than I had thought.

[shreds]

Look forward to your views, Sean. Should be interesting.

[DanielJ]

I plan to make my first venture into full frame territory when this camera is released. It seems to me that there's no need to replace any of my current set (17-40 f4 L, 70-200 f4L, 15mm 2.8 fisheye) of lenses to better match it's sensor, but any advice along those lines is welcome. I see the 24-105 f4 IS is offered at a 20% discount purchased together, but besides the tempting IS, it doesn't seem like there'd be any benefit. If you own both teh 17-40 and 24-105 lenses I'd love to hear your input on how they compare at the widest end, where I shoot primarily.

[McQ]

I have found that owning both the 17-40 f/4L and 24-105 f/4L IS to be useful on a full frame camera. If I am going on a hike or short trip where I can only realistically carry the camera with one lens, I always choose the 24-105 lens. I think that you'll find the 17-40 lens to be way too wide on a full frame camera for general walkaround use (even though it's quite good for this purpose on a 1.6X sensor). You would need to keep switching between the 17-40 and 70-200 lenses, and will likely notice the 40-70 mm gap in the "normal" focal length range. Just my thoughts though...

[rc53]

The 24-105 is an excellent 'walk about' choice for the Canon 5D Mk II if you can only take 1 lens.

[DanielJ]

I'm grateful for the feedback as I'm still on the fence with the 24-105. I primarily shoot architectural interiors and landscapes, both tripod mounted, so...hmm... I guess the additional expense is something to sneeze at for me. From what I've read the two lenses are about equally sharp at 24mm, with similar distortion @ f11. Mr Q, would you concur? For my needs if I found the 24-105 was a better match for the 21 megapixels that would be a deciding factor.

[ZozoCalypso]

I'm fortunate enough to have acquired the whole f/2.8 zoom lens range 16-40,24-70,70-200. Having originally bought the 24-105 with my 5D1, the glass doesn't get a great deal of use these days. As a general daytime lens, aerial shooting, or Event lens (with a speedlight) the 24-105 is great. But 95% of the time my 24-70 always gets preference, especially if I'm using just one camera. I'm not entirely convinced of Image Stabilisation in low light and a faster f/2.8 has it's obvious advantages.

I guess one has to consider what lenses you hope to eventually invest in. Maybe it will be more feasible to avoid the 5D Kit.

That said, it's by no means a bad lens and it served me well while saving up for extra gear.

I plan to make my first venture into full frame territory when this camera is released. It seems to me that there's no need to replace any of my current set (17-40 f4 L, 70-200 f4L, 15mm 2.8 fisheye) of lenses to better match it's sensor, but any advice along those lines is welcome. I see the 24-105 f4 IS is offered at a 20% discount purchased together, but besides the tempting IS, it doesn't seem like there'd be any benefit. If you own both teh 17-40 and 24-105 lenses I'd love to hear your input on how they compare at the widest end, where I shoot primarily.

[rob]

The lack of additional AF sensors is a big turn-off for me

Rob

[DanielJ]

Well, the time is drawing nigh and I've been poring over lens specs and images and came upon a completely unexpected conclusion. The best lens to pair with a 5D MII for my particular needs is the Nikon 14-24 2.8, as I'm shooting landscapes and interiors almost exclusively. Most of my images have been captured with the 15mm fisheye (x1.6 crop factor) or the 17-40 at 20mm or less. So there it is. The resolution advantage the 21 megapixel FF sensor affords combined with the resolving power of the Nikon 14-24 seems meant to be. The Nikon will require manual focusing as well as aperture or manual exposure mode, for me both habitual practices. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the requisite for a Nikon G to Canon EF adapter as well. It's going to be interesting, and heavy.

[crisscross]

Well, the time is drawing nigh and I've been poring over lens specs and images and came upon a completely unexpected conclusion. The best lens to pair with a 5D MII for my particular needs is the Nikon 14-24 2.8, as I'm shooting landscapes and interiors almost exclusively. Most of my images have been captured with the 15mm fisheye (x1.6 crop factor) or the 17-40 at 20mm or less. So there it is. The resolution advantage the 21 megapixel FF sensor affords combined with the resolving power of the Nikon 14-24 seems meant to be. The Nikon will require manual focusing as well as aperture or manual exposure mode, for me both habitual practices. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the requisite for a Nikon G to Canon EF adapter as well. It's going to be interesting, and heavy.

I suppose you know what you are doing, but will the Nikon lens still have the same properties, as I imagine the adaptor will throw the lens much further from the sensor than if fitted to a Nikon? Think I have seen similar discussion on other forums

[DanielJ]

I can't honestly say I know what I'm doing, I am however following the path taken by a handful of 1Ds III owners using an adapter developed by the author of this review.
First hand accounts can be read by searching the Fred Miranda forums.
Optical properties remain intact, operational suffer. You really have to want it.

[_GUI_]

I can't honestly say I know what I'm doing
(...)
Optical properties remain intact, operational suffer. You really have to want it.

Daniel, I am also considering this combination (5D MKII + 14-24 in my case). Could you please post more about you experience?

I am very new to photography and have 0 experience from the old times, but I think adapting a good lens to your camera body is something which was very common in the past, so I don't think anyone doing this with the 14-24 should consider as he is doing anything 'strange'; the strange thing would be not doing it!
For certain kind of photography (architecture, landscape, interiorism) I find the couple 5D MKII + 14-24 unmatched at the same price range, even in Nikon paradoxically.

BR

[Colin Southern]

I've read several reviews of people mounting the Nikon 12-24 on Canon hardware, and for the life of me I still can't understand why anyone would want to do it (outside of an experiment).

Optically, Nikons 12-24 is very very good - absolutely no doubt about it - but I feel that it's important to keep things in perspective; compared to Canon's EF 16-35 F2.8L II USM, Nikon's lens has better corner sharpness, but both lenses are more than adequate in this area, and the difference after proper sharpening - in a printed image at normal viewing distances - is all but zero.

On one hand you get a "real world" image quality that's on-par with sevaral other lenses (ie outside of 100% pixel-peeping on the screen) whereas on the other hand you lose auto-focus and have to set aperture manually (both very considerable disadvantages).

In my opinion it's a lot like putting a Ferrari engine in a Porche for a few more horsepower, but having to hand-pull a boot lace for a throttle cable; it gives you a theoretical advantage whilst on the dynamometer, but out on the streets it's a step backwards.

Cheers

[Colin Southern]

"I am quite excited about the new Canon 5D Mark II. It's a sea change to have a camera push medium format territory in just a 35 mm sensor."

Sean - we've had "sea change" for quite some time now - it's called the 1Ds Mk. 3

[DanielJ]

After a couple months of seesawing over the 5DII/D700 I decided the Nikon would suit me better in almost every way, so I'm now shooting the 14-24G 'natively'. I still shoot 4x5 landscapes and have and will continue to stitch them when I'm carrying only a digital rig, even the lofty 21 megapixels would not have changed that for me I realized.
GUI, the Fred Miranda forums have quite a few 1DsMIII/Nikon 14-24 shooters. Also, David Clapp has written up a great little piece on the same. The D700 became so much easier to decide on after the price fell from 2999 USD at launch, to 2699 for a spell, and in the week leading up to Christmas, where it sits now at 2319 USD, when I bit. The contrast of the 14-24 with the quality of Nikons FF sensor is inspirational. The flare on the 14-24G is kept well in check, btw, at worst, a couple small rainbow colored comas, while contrast seems unaffected in general. The D700 can bracket 9 shots max, very well done.

[Colin Southern]

Personally, I'm finding the Nikon -v- Canon dynamics quite interesting to follow. Over the years we seem to have gone from a "mine is better than yours" type position (with the better one being the one that the poster has of course) - to a more mellow "they each have good models at identical price points - so try both and go with the one that has the features you need" to a situation now where not only do both camps have more or less identical image quality, but also almost identical features.

From a marketing perspective I'm wondering if most of the effort needs to be (or is) directed to first time SLR buyers, given that those who already have one brand or the other (and a significvant investment in glass) are unlikely to change brands, only needing to be convinced to change models within the same brand?

I suspect that only a very small percentage of shooters with mid to high range gear would change camps. With regards to the Nikon 12-24 users on Canon bodies - as mentioned by me above - I just can't see the point. FUn to try for sure, but from a commercial point of view it just makes a rod for one's own back, with no commercial advantage.

Cheers

[ntv369]

I am NIKON shooter. . I have D200 and D300 with a bunch of 2.8 lenses. Now I am considering to give the D200 to my son and plan to take D700 with 14-24 . I am always amazed with the wealth of knowledge in this forum. Now I am little tilting to buy Canon 5D M-II , instaed of D 700. But I read , in this site, the following:

I want your comments and advice on this please.

"Ideally, perceived noise levels (at a given print size) generally decrease with larger digital camera sensors (regardless of pixel size)."

"No matter what the pixel size, larger sensors unavoidably have more light-gathering area. Theoretically, a larger sensor with smaller pixels will still have lower apparent noise (for a given print size) than a smaller sensor with larger pixels (and a resulting much lower total pixel count). This is because noise in the higher resolution camera gets enlarged less, even if it may look noisier at 100% on your computer screen. Alternatively, one could conceivably average adjacent pixels in the higher pixel count sensor (thereby reducing random noise) while still achieving the resolution of the lower pixel count sensor."

Now,
Can I say that Full frame D700 with 12.MB is much better than Canon 5DM-IIwith 21 MB ?

[Colin Southern]

In my humble opinion many of these good folks can't see the forrest for the trees; I would suggest that in a correctly exposed image, the noise level from any of these cameras is so low that it's just not an issue in the real world - moreover, it hasn't been an issue for several years now.

Something I see all the time is people making decisions on specifications that are irrelivant (in most cases) - like talk of selling a 1Ds3 for a 5D2 because of "higher image quality" when in reality they would be better served by making a big comparitive list, but rather than giving (as an example) the 5D2 the "big tick" in the image quality department because it's theoretically better, giving instead both of them the "big tick" under a general heading of "more than adequate".

So - as a case in point - I literally hear of people thinking that the likes of the 5D2 is the better camera because of a theoretical (but in reality indistinguishable) IQ advantage, over the 1Ds3, whereas in reality, overall, with the 1Ds3 you end up with more keepers and better images due to far more capable AF (45 points & 2 dedicated CPUs -v- a 15 point AF), 63 metering zones -v- 35, far more versatile exposure metering (ability to display up to 8 spot measurements -v- 1) - not to mention things like full weather sealing - more robust construction - superior shutter life - vastly more sophisticated array of functions etc.

I'm sorry that my explanation centres on Canon equipment (I'm a Canon shooter) - however in your case I'd suggest that - in terms of noise - you'd find the 5D2 -v- D700 both "more than adequate" - but I would have thought that inlight of your investment in lenses, the Nikon would be the obvious choice.

Just my opinion!

Cheers

[ntv369]

Thank you Mr.Colin. I appreciate your views . Thanks