p.3 #1 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
hmmm...looking back what I'm not missing:
- slithering cold matte chromed heavy steel bodies and lenses
- notchy and/or pinch release aperture, shutter speed and focus rings
- 2 ton removable prism viewfinders to drop in your pocket along with your 6 tons of lenses
- 3 lenses, 35, 50 and 90 - zoom, what's that?
- crotchety film advance levers or knobs and 20 ton motor film drives
- loading film blind under a hat, coat or bag or looking for some dark place where you also can't see a thing
- double exposures
- what film did I load, how many shots left, rewinding
- etc., etc.
p.3 #2 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
It was a nice story to read, yet it's a story anyone can write about their beloved gear...
You can write a story like that about any DSLR which still holds its ground (5Dc, 1Ds II).
Canon knew that 5D II is a very good camera so they HAD to cripple it somehow. Had they given it 1D AF, who in the world would have gone and bought a 1DsIII ?
Yet I think the true cornerstone is the 5Dc...
What I quite don't get is how did the OP managed to keep both systems for 3 years....without going for one of them.... I find some of the body choices redundant...but that's just me..
p.3 #5 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Marcus Watts wrote:
It wasn't long ago that people were screaming that the 1D's mk2 was still not going to cut it as a digital camera would need 50 megapixels just to be even with 35mm film.
Huh, yes!!!
The 1DsII is still the most beautiful camera that I have ever owned.
After I got it I gave up my 2, Mamiya 7II 6x7 and my 645 film cameras. It wasn't planned, I just didn't use them for a year,but hated to sell them. I took them out to start using them again, tried once, and sold them. The only film I kept (until now) was 4x5.
At the same time there were still all the flame wars about 50MP being needed to replace 35mm film, as you say.
What we really found out was 1) how effing dirty film was, both the noise (grain) and the surface, and 2) film has 3 separate planes of focus (for color layers), so it could never be as sharply focused as digital.
I took a 6MP image and added noise in PS. The film fanatics could not tell the difference from 35mm (which I had given up years earlier for MF only - I **hated** the quality of 35! Even 645 was marginal. But that 1DsII was magic ,..)
p.3 #8 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Ralph Conway wrote:
I guess he mentiones the CF cards door. Mine squeaks too.
My 5D2 is 3 years old but lacks the squeaky CF door. I even tried to make it squeak but to no avail. I owned a couple EOS A2 (EOS 5 in the rest of the world) and they squeaked and flexed like crazy but were my fav camera for 10 years. Five point AF was really ghetto compared to a 5D2 but rarely let me down.
p.3 #9 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
I had Nikon in the days when film ruled the universe but with the advent of digital I had to think of a lot of things. I shot a lot of dance and music performances and my favorite lens was my 85mm f1.4 MF and a 105mm f1.8 on my F3. I was the king of pushing TMAX 3200 two stops to 12500. So, I rented a 1D Canon with an 85mm f1.8, a Kodak 14N (I think that is what it was) with a Nikon 85mm f1.8 and a Nikon D100. I was test shooting performances at 800 ISO and the best results were with the 1D and I was shooting at f2.2 and 2.8. I looked at the prices and had a heart attack especially since I owned all fast Nikkors and 2 F3HPs, MD4s. Needless to say, I took the plunge and sold everything I owned for film and bought a 1D and a 50mm f1.8. After 10K actuations the 5D came out and I jumped since it was a full frame and bought the 85mm 1.8. But wait, it was slow in low light and I had to manual focus most of the time. Did I make the wrong choice? I rode the wave and when the Mark II was introduced, I really wanted to see. I now shoot with the 5D Mark II and will never go back to Nikon. It focuses fast, color unmatched, 21MP, the optics of the lenses I own are reasonably priced. 32MP will be great but Nikon took 10 years to come out with fast primes that are 20% higher in price as Canons and the noise of high ISO is handed by contrast not metering as Canon does. The 5D Mark II will stand proud and when the Mark III is introduced, Nikon beware.
p.3 #11 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
marti.g3 wrote:
I fell asleep 1/4 of the way.....z
You got that far?
There are people that simply can't make decisions - and stick to them. This doesn't make them bad people, it just means they're indecisive. We should help them in any way we can, and wish them good luck because the quest for perceived perfection is an expensive journey.
p.3 #12 · 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!
AND they frequently limited themselves to Kodachrome 25 (ISO 25) to Tri-X (ISO 400), maybe pushing the Tri-X a couple stops. Now, no one would drop $50 on a P&S that limited them to ISO 25-400... If only Ansel Adams had known, he wouldn't have wasted his time trying to take photos with HIS primitive equipment.
p.3 #13 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Glenn NK wrote:
You got that far?
There are people that simply can't make decisions - and stick to them. This doesn't make them bad people, it just means they're indecisive. We should help them in any way we can, and wish them good luck because the quest for perceived perfection is an expensive journey.
Actually, I'd always heard that they don't know when to STOP making decisions...and that seems to sum up what I've observed.
p.3 #15 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
There is without a doubt good reason behind 5dII being so successful in sales, and yes, it will go down as a classic for many reasons, the main two being excellent high resolution images, and second being revolutionary by introducing video. Up until now, it has also been the best compromise for me at any price (I would pick it on top of the list of all bodies available, till now). by the same token, for my style of shooting (landscape, family with fast primes, with desire for off center composition, and birds) the d800 is a dream camera. I am not sure how much the high resolution will help for landscape, but it does help to replace my 7D for birding, given a 14.5 MP equivalent to 7D sensor, which is closer to the sweet spot with my 100-400L. It is also nice to have f8 autofocus, and reliable off center focus points, as well as expanded bracketting for my landscape. Some of these features, like extended bracketing does not even cost any money. All that said, the Nikon lens offerings suck, esp in the long end. the 80-400 is optically poor, and slow focusing. the 200-400 very expensive. so you are limited to offerings from sigma. On the family shooting side, I love my 85 1.2, 35 1.4, and 24 1.4.
Yes, 5dII provided amazing value, and with used prices in the 1500 with future release of 5d3, it is a phenomenal camera for many years to come. I would say if it had pro autofocus, I would have no desire to upgrade to anything anyone has to offer at this point.
p.3 #16 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
marti.g3 wrote:
I fell asleep 1/4 of the way.....z
I didn't even get past the first sentence as I've never heard someone call the 5DII horrible. It's a great camera with a crippled AF system, that's all. I don't think I've ever heard any other complaint about the 5DII other than photographers simply wanting a legit AF system. Oh the banding too but that doesn't affect me...
If everyone was able to call a spade, a spade, we wouldn't be having these discussions. Or, if Canon had another FF offering with a legit AF system along side the 5D we definitely wouldn't be hearing the "whining" about the 5DII AF. Let's hope this next generation changes this.
p.3 #19 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
John_T wrote We live in luxury today. ...within the limits of the law, every single one of us can do what the hell we like, whether it makes any sense whatsoever or not.
Thanks John_T - Yes Sir, those were the days
Regarding how I could possible have both systems and not be able to come to a decision. The decision is made when I buy the camera, lens, or whatever. The reason I own more than one brand is because I like using them.
I put at least 5500 shots on my 5D MKII in 2011, I would guess somewhere between 35 & 45 thousand on my Nikon equipment. Another 5 to 7 thousand on 2 other brands. I have no difficulty making decisions on anything.
I tend to keep a lot of my equipment - esp. if it serves me well, it owes me nothing.
I still have my Anscoflex II, my Olympus XA2, my Tenax Automatic, Yashica FR1, and four or five Canon film bodies.
These bodies remind me where we have traveled.
It was good to read the replies from many regarding what we have on hand. Too many today look over the fence IMO, when their gold mine is already in their possession.
I understand the value of progress in equipment and technology, I upgrade mine quite often including computers and software. It is easy to upgrade equipment. Learning the value from yesterday takes a little more effort, some say that it can only happen with time.
p.3 #20 · Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
Why did Canon ever produce the lack-luster 5D MKII?
It probably seemed like a good idea at the time. Obviously the video feature was new at the time for FF/FX bodies and helped make the camera popular. The horrific mini-diamond AF pattern and sub-par AF performance were deliberate crippling measures to steer the pros and others to the 1Ds III. The 1Ds III lost popularity (not that it was ever the most popular body anyway) and the whole line was discontinued. For a time the 5D II was a reasonable body choice, but that will very soon be history, too. Since Canon fired their leadership, perhaps there will be better cameras some years from now.
