p.4 #1 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Why not sell the D3X,
keep the ordered D800,
& re-buy #5 (1DmkIIN) ? --to provide a 2nd body (w/diff. reach) for Canon lenses?
Wouldn't that give an answer to the Moose question?
p.4 #2 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
drofnad - Might be but it also might be simpler to just buy the D800E that I have preordered, I have not canceled yet and then after using it for awhile I'll decide which body to sell.... or not.
p.4 #3 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Well, I love my 5D2. Its the files, they are routinely breathtaking. Its like medium format film, or close enough for me.
I use the camera for lowlight ISO 3200 landscapes, and its the best for this demanding work that I have seen in 30 years. I paid the premium for the 5D2 not long after it came out, so mine already has a few years under its belt. I reckon I will pass on the 5D3 (partly because I don't have the money at present!) and am looking forward to working with my 5D2 for at least 3 or 4 more years (God willing!). The 5D4 might tempt me though, should have saved up enough by then.
The 5D2? Its about IQ. BTW I've almost grown to like the squeaky door. Gives the camera character!
p.4 #6 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Not everyone has such wonderful luck with their 5D cameras. I myself have had to deal with many more OOF shots than is acceptable because the cameras failed to focus accurately when shooting around f/1.8-f/2.2 on both moving and static subjects. Since I am doing photography for work, this is completely inexcusable and intolerable. Outer focus points are inconsistent at best, and many times won't lock at all. The center point gives me about 70% accuracy with ALL of my lenses.
I simply want an AF system that is designed better and is more accurate and consistent. If that means more AF points and clustering abilities and being able to accurately lock with outer points, god forbid Canon do that with any non-1-series full-frame body (unlike Nikon).
p.4 #7 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
David Baldwin wrote:
I use the camera for lowlight ISO 3200 landscapes, and its the best for this demanding work that I have seen in 30 years.
Can you say more about that? As someone who shoots the 5D II for landscapes (seascapes mostly, actually) all the time, I would not have thought that was something anyone would do. I find ISO 400 marginal in low light, and it feels restricting. But I am always shooting with an eye to a print about 40-inches wide. Maybe your prints are smaller? Or do you use the noise as a feature? Heavy post, and less detail? I'm curious. Maybe I ought to experiment more.
p.4 #8 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Tripods are for low light landscapes. Tripods offer tremendous advantage beyond just slow shutter speeds. Modern tripods are light in weight but sturdy
p.4 #9 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Brilliant post, Gerard! I distinctly remember the launch of the 5D II, and the deluge of damning comments that poured on the new camera. Incredible! Because Canon didn't do AF like Nikon, didn't do weather sealing like Nikon, didn't do flash like Nikon...
During which, the camera was back-ordered for 11 months. That alone testified to it being a runaway sucess. It must have minted money for Canon.
Dang! all those critics were right, what a useless piece of gear!
p.4 #10 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
lovinglife wrote:
it's funny that back in the days, people were able to take pictures using completely manual equipment and film
Wonder what they complained about back then!
They probably grumbled about imperfections, but didn't complain too loudly. After all, there were no internet forums to complain on.
p.4 #11 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Can you say more about that?
I like landscapes showing stars as points of light. In my film days at ISO 3200 I had grain like golf balls (quite liked it sometimes) with an 18 second exposure on a Nkkor 28mm f1.4:
p.4 #14 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
David Baldwin wrote:
Can you say more about that?
I like landscapes showing stars as points of light. In my film days at ISO 3200 I had grain like golf balls (quite liked it sometimes) with an 18 second exposure on a Nkkor 28mm f1.4:
p.4 #15 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Thanks for the examples. I like your images.
Presumably you favor north-facing exposures to minimize star trails? And are you shooting wide open? Coma ever a problem? I'm going to assume you can't get that kind of image with a slow TS-E lens. Even the 21 Zeiss is f/2.8.
p.4 #16 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Thanks very much Ralph and splathrop.
My point is that the 5D2 has a superb low light sensor. It is so good that using f2.8 you can get fixed star images at ISO 3200 at around 8 seconds. On that basis you don't have to worry about star trails at all if you are using a wide lens. I don't know about the TS-E in the darkest conditions, might have to wait for an extra stop or so on the 5D3 or 5D4?, although I should say that image http://www.nightfolio.co.uk/revisit/pges/ch003.html was made using an old Nikkor 28mm f3.5 shift lens on the 5D2. But I would have thought the 21 Zeiss would be great wide open.
On the 24L Mk2 for example, yes coma is an issue. How much is acceptable is a subjective thing, personally I can accept the corner coma by f2.2, with the problem virtually gone by f2.8 IMHO.
p.4 #18 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Yes I am in love everytime I download the files from my 5D MKII.....low on flashy features for the tech heads but very high on results for the photographer.
