Although I was ready to cancel the camera and get a 50d instead. I think you've just put me at ease. Thanks and you are right. I guess I was having some pre buyers remorse.
With some many actual owners posting separate threads, I wonder why we need the sticky for this cumbersome master thread of almost 200 pages anymore? The same goes for the even older 50D master thread when the last post is older than 2 sdays.
apdieb wrote:
Sounds like you need to figure out what you plan to be shooting most. The 1DmkII and 5DmkII are 2 vastly different bodies appealing to different audiences typically. If you shoot high ISO stuff often.. there is a LOT of difference. I sold my MKIIN awhile back...
Great camera for sure.. but I really can't say one replaces the other.
I kept my IDM2N as it complements the 5D2. For outdoor sports photography, the IDM2N takes amazing shots. The 5D2 doesn't even compare here. But, as zore wrote, for image size and high ISO, the IDM2N comes in at a distant second. So if you can only afford one body, keep the one that fits your needs. I personally won't sell my IDM2N unless a 1DMKxx comes out with high ISO performance like the 5D2 (for indoor sports).
ohyeah wrote:
I kept my IDM2N as it complements the 5D2. For outdoor sports photography, the IDM2N takes amazing shots. The 5D2 doesn't even compare here. But, as zore wrote, for image size and high ISO, the IDM2N comes in at a distant second. So if you can only afford one body, keep the one that fits your needs. I personally won't sell my IDM2N unless a 1DMKxx comes out with high ISO performance like the 5D2 (for indoor sports).
Love my mkIIn, I'll keep it till it or me dies. Same with my 1Ds, I know that sounds strange since I have the 5D mkII but...
After a week and a half I am totally happy with my 5D mkII. I do not push the camera shooting or images in PP to produce the banding at high ISO and the dots are not a big issue for me. Others that do cityscapes, yes I see the problem there.
I read this morning over at DPR, that on the Japanese Canon site they were discussing the fix for the dots. From what I could gather from the discussion at DPR it may or may not be the type of fix we are looking for.
RDKirk wrote:
What the heck does "per pixel" quality actually mean, anyway? A pixel is an image atom ("atom" as the Greeks originally coined the term) that's going to have a hue and an intensity.
It seems to me that any comparison of the resolution of two images comprised by pixels of two different sizes must necessarily be on a "multi-pixel" basis. An image doesn't exist on a "per pixel" basis, nor can resolution of two images be compared on a "per pixel" basis.
Otherwise, it's like comparing water to alcohol on a "per atom" basis. You have to consider at least a single molecule or you don't even have "water" or "alcohol."...Show more →
Show me one pixel from a 5D and one from a 5DII, and I'll tell you which one I prefer!
Hi there i'm a fresh newbie here and thought i'd say hi in here as i now own a 5D!! i gotta say its a brilliant camera, and for anyone sitting on the fence about it, dont you'll never regret the decision once youve made it.
jaapv wrote:
I think you are not so much seeing an increase in resolution as a weakening of the AA filter. Whatever, a clear improvement.
No. There is just as much aliasing in the 5D shot. Look at the flag poles. Canon engineers have always been very consistent in adjusting the radius and strength of their AA filters to suit the pitch of the sensor. That's why you can get such reliably interchangeable results across a huge number of Canon SLR's going right back to the first ones. The optimal AA filter is easily calculable and easily implemented. Hot rodded cameras, in my view, capture a negligible amount of additional information compared to a correctly sharpened AA'ed file, but a lot more moire problems. People wax on about how sharp they are, but it's really just a sharpening of the pixel grid, not a sharpening of actual pictorial information. You can usually achieve a similar effect, only without moire, by turning up your sharpening in the right way. Optimal per pixel sharpness of 5D2 files will take no less sharpening than optimal per pixel sharpening of a 5D file, provided the lens is not limiting. You can count on it. There has been no variation in AA levels from Nikon and Canon in a long time. Speculation about varying degrees of (relative) AA filter strength is almost never supported with examples from reliable tests.
edit: well that didnt last long, its all sold out now..
It is still available for $5,399.99 and the body is available for $4,899.99. Hurry, only 1 left in stock of each... wow, talk about price gouging. Ships from and sold by Pavilion Electronics, whoever the heck they are. Amazon should drop those guys.
How they could justify that kind of price is beyond me. Well, I guess as long as there are people willing to pay that kind of money.... It can be had for $3K on that auction site minus 8% cashback for a total sum of $2,800 plus $20 or so shipping.
Andi Dietrich wrote:
I think the real deal for Canon is that every second 5dII buyer is going to replace the 24-105 with a 24-70, quite smart those guys
I turned down the kit because I like my 24-70 and the f/2.8 way too much. The 24-105 would have become a dust collector. I'm not saying the 24-105 is not a good lens, the 24-70 just fits my shooting better under 100 mm.
