I have just upgraded to the 5D2 from the original 5D (which I'll call the mark 1 here on in).
It's weird. It does everything on the tin but somehow I'm just not "wowed" by the shots. I seem to be missing focus more often than with the mark 1 and AWB seems way off when shooting interior (and I don't mean flourescent).
I always shoot RAW by the way, with neutral settings. I view the results in Apple's Aperture.
The first body I got I sent back to Jessops and got replaced. I was convinced it was under exposing by almost a full stop, more even at times. But it seemed to depend on the lighting conditions: more prone to error under lower light esp. indoors. Also, I had developed with the mark 1, a style of shooting whereby I'll run off a burst at my subject and expect a 50% hit rate viz focus. And usually got more than that. But with the mark 2 my keepers are much thinner on the ground. But add to this that some shots WITHIN THAT BURST are simply under exposed - even in comparison to the other shots in that burst. Odd. It's like the Digic IV just skipped a beat or something.
I use AF and matrix usually, but leaning more and more towards spot metering in camera, with my thumb married to the Exposure lock button.
Maybe I am doing something wrong? Do I need to calibrate my lenses? I have tested the Mark 2 with a 70-200 ISM 2.8 L and a 24-105L. Both a bit off all the time somehow.
Anyway - the second copy seems identical to the first in all respects. Meaning, still prone to underexposing. Still checking on focus side of this body.
I have rumaged in forums and sensed that Canon my have changed it's exposure reference point, to be more in line with industry standard. Can anyone here verify this? As far as I understand, this would imply a "lower" exposure to be "correct".
Or is it that the 14 bit detail increase means that one should be exposing in a slightly diferent way to take advantage? To grab those bits at the bottom in effect.
I am (clearly) only a keen amateur (heck, I am who this camera is aimed at lets face it) and I would welcome constructive criticism (or total destruction of it's argued well). Please tell me where I'm going wrong.
Thinking of replacing this with a 1ds3, but wondering if this is sheer madness just to get snappier (much) focus.
So - anyone else puzzled by the exposure and foxus side of things?