I have recently received the 5D-II and put it through the required setup and testing. On the whole, this seems to be a pretty fine little camera - however does not live up to the initial hype that seems to pervade this forum.
The initial setup was rather quick and easily done. The configuration follows more closely the 1D-III which is nice in terms of consistency. My dozen or so lenses were setup with a single -5 micro-adjustment.
The only SERIOUS PROBLEM from an operation point of view is Canon\'s choice to reverse the meaning of the main dial and quick control dial when setting ISO. On the 5D and 1D-III, ISO is dialed in with the quick control dial whereas the 5D-II uses the main dial. This makes it difficult when working in conditions where setting ISO and using multiple cameras - for example, when I shoot theatre and dance. To me, this is a serious human interface design mistake.
Of course, the video and live view mode work well and are easy to use. But, for me, these are useless features for the type of subject material I shoot. YMMV.
The LCD display is excellent, to say the least.
Focus speed with the centre point only is slightly faster than the older 5D. Focus on low contrast subjects is substantially better - when shooting a low texture wall, the 5D-II would easily lock focus whereas the 5D would hunt forever. This is a great improvement for my work - particularly for dance where contrast can be rather miserable at times.
On the whole, the off-centre focus points seem almost as useless as on the 5D (well, slightly better - but not enough of an improvement to really make these extra points useful in my shooting condtions.... thank heaven for my 1D-III\'s).
Image quality quite fine. I did, however, hope that the 21 mpix would result in \"much\" higher quality images than the older cameras. In the final analysis, the extra megapixels, although visibily useful, are merely an incremental improvement in resolution. To test this, I shot my static model with flash, used the 100mm F2.8 macro lens at F8 and set the camera to ISO 100 in RAW mode. Conversion was done in ACR. Images from the 5D and 1D-III were upresed to match the 3744 pixel width of the 5D-II.
Here is the comparison of the 5D-II, 5D, and 1D-III. Although the 5D-II is superior to either the 5D and 1D-III, the differences is less than I hoped for. It really illustrates that even the 10mp 1D-III is a useful studio camera :-) In a sense, I am happy I got the 5D-II rather than the 1Ds-III - at least from a price / resolution point of view:
Noise comparison was approximately what I expected. The 5D-II seems to have about a one stop noise advantage over the 5D and about 1/2 stop advantage over the 1D-III. The ISO 12800 is possibly useful in a pinch. The ISO 25600 is purely last resort. As far as I am concerned the truly useful ISO range is ISO 50-6400 - which, as far as I am concerned, excellent for a 21mpix camera and my intended shooting conditions.
As with the previous image, the 5D and 1D-III images were upresed to match the 3744 pixel width of the 5D-II.
While doing these test, I noticed that the flash system often resulted in over-exposed frames when shooting the 5D-II while never resulted in this problem with the 5D nor 1D-III. About 1 image in 20 shot with the 5D-II resulted in over-exposure.
I have recently received the 5D-II and put it through the required setup and testing. On the whole, this seems to be a pretty fine little camera - however does not live up to the initial hype that seems to pervade this forum.
The initial setup was rather quick and easily done. The configuration follows more closely the 1D-III which is nice in terms of consistency. My dozen or so lenses were setup with a single -5 micro-adjustment.
The only SERIOUS PROBLEM from an operation point of view is Canon\'s choice to reverse the meaning of the main dial and quick control dial when setting ISO. On the 5D and 1D-III, ISO is dialed in with the quick control dial whereas the 5D-II uses the main dial. This makes it difficult when working in conditions where setting ISO and using multiple cameras - for example, when I shoot theatre and dance. To me, this is a serious human interface design mistake.
Of course, the video and live view mode work well and are easy to use. But, for me, these are useless features for the type of subject material I shoot. YMMV.
The LCD display is excellent, to say the least.
Focus speed with the centre point only is slightly faster than the older 5D. Focus on low contrast subjects is substantially better - when shooting a low texture wall, the 5D-II would easily lock focus whereas the 5D would hunt forever. This is a great improvement for my work - particularly for dance where contrast can be rather miserable at times.
On the whole, the off-centre focus points seem almost as useless as on the 5D (well, slightly better - but not enough of an improvement to really make these extra points useful in my shooting condtions.... thank heaven for my 1D-III\'s).
Image quality quite fine. I did, however, hope that the 21 mpix would result in \"much\" higher quality images than the older cameras. In the final analysis, the extra megapixels, although visibily useful, are merely an incremental improvement in resolution. To test this, I shot my static model with flash, used the 100mm F2.8 macro lens at F8 and set the camera to ISO 100 in RAW mode. Conversion was done in ACR. Images from the 5D and 1D-III were upresed to match the 3744 pixel width of the 5D-II.
Here is the comparison of the 5D-II, 5D, and 1D-III. Although the 5D-II is superior to either the 5D and 1D-III, the differences is less than I hoped for. It really illustrates that even the 10mp 1D-III is a useful studio camera :-) In a sense, I am happy I got the 5D-II rather than the 1Ds-III - at least from a price / resolution point of view:
Noise comparison was approximately what I expected. The 5D-II seems to have about a one stop noise advantage over the 5D and about 1/2 stop advantage over the 1D-III. The ISO 12800 is possibly useful in a pinch. The ISO 25600 is purely last resort. As far as I am concerned the truly useful ISO range is ISO 50-6400 - which, as far as I am concerned, excellent for a 21mpix camera and my intended shooting conditions.
As with the previous image, the 5D and 1D-III images were upresed to match the 3744 pixel width of the 5D-II.
While doing these test, I noticed that the flash system often resulted in over-exposed frames when shooting the 5D-II while never resulted in this problem with the 5D nor 1D-III. About 1 image in 20 shot with the 5D-II resulted in over-exposure.
I have recently received the 5D-II and put it through the required setup and testing. On the whole, this seems to be a pretty fine little camera - however does not live up to the initial hype that seems to pervade this forum.
The initial setup was rather quick and easily done. The configuration follows more closely the 1D-III which is nice in terms of consistency. My dozen or so lenses were setup with a single -5 micro-adjustment.
The only SERIOUS PROBLEM from an operation point of view is Canon\'s choice to reverse the meaning of the main dial and quick control dial when setting ISO. On the 5D and 1D-III, ISO is dialed in with the quick control dial whereas the 5D-II uses the main dial. This makes it difficult when working in conditions where setting ISO and using multiple cameras - for example, when I shoot theatre and dance. To me, this is a serious human interface design mistake.
Of course, the video and live view mode work well and are easy to use. But, for me, these are useless features for the type of subject material I shoot. YMMV.
The LCD display is excellent, to say the least.
Focus speed with the centre point only is slightly faster than the older 5D. Focus on low contrast subjects is substantially better - when shooting a low texture wall, the 5D-II would easily lock focus whereas the 5D would hunt forever. This is a great improvement for my work - particularly for dance where contrast can be rather miserable at times.
On the whole, the off-centre focus points seem almost as useless as on the 5D (well, slightly better - but not enough of an improvement to really make these extra points useful in my shooting condtions.... thank heaven for my 1D-III\'s).
Image quality quite fine. I did, however, hope that the 21 mpix would result in \"much\" higher quality images than the older cameras. In the final analysis, the extra megapixels, although visibily useful, are merely an incremental improvement in resolution. To test this, I shot my static model with flash, used the 100mm F2.8 macro lens at F8 and set the camera to ISO 100 in RAW mode. Conversion was done in ACR. Images from the 5D and 1D-III were upresed to match the 3744 pixel width of the 5D-II.
Here is the comparison of the 5D-II, 5D, and 1D-III. Although the 5D-II is superior to either the 5D and 1D-III, the differences is less than I hoped for. It really illustrates that even the 10mp 1D-III is a useful studio camera :-) In a sense, I am happy I got the 5D-II rather than the 1Ds-III - at least from a price / resolution point of view:
Noise comparison was approximately what I expected. The 5D-II seems to have about a one stop noise advantage over the 5D and about 1/2 stop advantage over the 1D-III. The ISO 12800 is possibly useful in a pinch. The ISO 25600 is purely last resort. As far as I am concerned the truly useful ISO range is ISO 50-6400 - which, as far as I am concerned, excellent for a 21mpix camera and my intended shooting conditions.
As with the previous image, the 5D and 1D-III images were upresed to match the 3744 pixel width of the 5D-II.
While doing these test, I noticed that the flash system often resulted in over-exposed frames when shooting the 5D-II while never resulted in this problem with the 5D nor 1D-III. About 1 image in 20 shot with the 5D-II resulted in over-exposure.
I have recently received the 5D-II and put it through the required setup and testing. On the whole, this seems to be a pretty fine little camera - however does not live up to the initial hype that seems to pervade this forum.
The initial setup was rather quick and easily done. The configuration follows more closely the 1D-III which is nice in terms of consistency. My dozen or so lenses were setup with a single -5 micro-adjustment.
The only SERIOUS PROBLEM from an operation point of view is Canon\'s choice to reverse the meaning of the main dial and quick control dial when setting ISO. On the 5D and 1D-III, ISO is dialed in with the quick control dial whereas the 5D-II uses the main dial. This makes it difficult when working in conditions where setting ISO and using multiple cameras - for example, when I shoot theatre and dance. To me, this is a serious human interface design mistake.
Of course, the video and live view mode work well and are easy to use. But, for me, these are useless features for the type of subject material I shoot. YMMV.
The LCD display is excellent, to say the least.
Focus speed with the centre point only is slightly faster than the older 5D. Focus on low contrast subjects is substantially better - when shooting a low texture wall, the 5D-II would easily lock focus whereas the 5D would hunt forever. This is a great improvement for my work - particularly for dance where contrast can be rather miserable at times.
On the whole, the off-centre focus points seem almost as useless as on the 5D (well, slightly better - but not enough of an improvement to really make these extra points useful in my shooting condtions.... thank heaven for my 1D-III\'s).
Image quality quite fine. I did, however, hope that the 21 mpix would result in \"much\" higher quality images than the older cameras. In the final analysis, the extra megapixels, although visibily useful, are merely an incremental improvement in resolution. To test this, I shot my static model with flash, used the 100mm F2.8 macro lens at F8 and set the camera to ISO 100 in RAW mode. Conversion was done in ACR. Images from the 5D and 1D-III were upresed to match the 3744 pixel width of the 5D-II.
Here is the comparison of the 5D-II, 5D, and 1D-III. Although the 5D-II is superior to either the 5D and 1D-III, the differences is less than I hoped for. It really illustrates that even the 10mp 1D-III is a useful studio camera :-) In a sense, I am happy I got the 5D-II rather than the 1Ds-III - at least from a price / resolution point of view:
Noise comparison was approximately what I expected. The 5D-II seems to have about a one stop noise advantage over the 5D and about 1/2 stop advantage over the 1D-III. The ISO 12800 is possibly useful in a pinch. The ISO 25600 is purely last resort. As far as I am concerned the truly useful ISO range is ISO 50-6400 - which, as far as I am concerned, excellent for a 21mpix camera and my intended shooting conditions.
As with the previous image, the 5D and 1D-III images were upresed to match the 3744 pixel width of the 5D-II.
While doing these test, I noticed that the flash system often resulted in over-exposed frames when shooting the 5D-II while never resulted in this problem with the 5D nor 1D-III. About 1 image in 20 shot with the 5D-II resulted in over-exposure.
I have recently received the 5D-II and put it through the required setup and testing. On the whole, this seems to be a pretty fine little camera - however does not live up to the initial hype that seems to pervade this forum.
The initial setup was rather quick and easily done. The configuration follows more closely the 1D-III which is nice in terms of consistency. My dozen or so lenses were setup with a single -5 micro-adjustment.
The only SERIOUS PROBLEM from an operation point of view is Canon\'s choice to reverse the meaning of the main dial and quick control dial when setting ISO. On the 5D and 1D-III, ISO is dialed in with the quick control dial whereas the 5D-II uses the main dial. This makes it difficult when working in conditions where setting ISO and using multiple cameras - for example, when I shoot theatre and dance. To me, this is a serious human interface design mistake.
Of course, the video and live view mode work well and are easy to use. But, for me, these are useless features for the type of subject material I shoot. YMMV.
The LCD display is excellent, to say the least.
Focus speed with the centre point only is slightly faster than the older 5D. Focus on low contrast subjects is substantially better - when shooting a low texture wall, the 5D-II would easily lock focus whereas the 5D would hunt forever. This is a great improvement for my work - particularly for dance where contrast can be rather miserable at times.
On the whole, the off-centre focus points seem almost as useless as on the 5D (well, slightly better - but not enough of an improvement to really make these extra points useful in my shooting condtions.... thank heaven for my 1D-III\'s).
Image quality quite fine. I did, however, hope that the 21 mpix would result in \"much\" higher quality images than the older cameras. In the final analysis, the extra megapixels, although visibily useful, are merely an incremental improvement in resolution. To test this, I shot my static model with flash, used the 100mm F2.8 macro lens at F8 and set the camera to ISO 100 in RAW mode. Conversion was done in ACR. Images from the 5D and 1D-III were upresed to match the 3744 pixel width of the 5D-II.
Here is the comparison of the 5D-II, 5D, and 1D-III. Although the 5D-II is superior to either the 5D and 1D-III, the differences is less than I hoped for. It really illustrates that even the 10mp 1D-III is a useful studio camera :-) In a sense, I am happy I got the 5D-II rather than the 1Ds-III - at least from a price / resolution point of view:
Noise comparison was approximately what I expected. The 5D-II seems to have about a one stop noise advantage over the 5D and about 1/2 stop advantage over the 1D-III. The ISO 12800 is possibly useful in a pinch. The ISO 25600 is purely last resort. As far as I am concerned the truly useful ISO range is ISO 50-6400 - which, as far as I am concerned, excellent for a 21mpix camera and my intended shooting conditions.
As with the previous image, the 5D and 1D-III images were upresed to match the 3744 pixel width of the 5D-II.
While doing these test, I noticed that the flash system often resulted in over-exposed frames when shooting the 5D-II while never resulted in this problem with the 5D nor 1D-III. About 1 image in 20 shot with the 5D-II resulted in over-exposure.
Jan 06, 2009 at 06:55 PM
Previous versions of tonyfield's message #6565419 « 5D-II compared to 5D and 1D-III »
