5D Mark II, Practical Working Impressions, first night shooting.

[josh_reiss]

I've been reading a while, and I finally wanted give back by sharing a few thoughts and impressions from my first

night shooting with the 5D Mark II

 

I cover events for Metromix and LA CityBeat in Los Angeles (normally with a 1D Mark III), so my first night with

the 5D Mark II was spent covering a pub crawl (perfect for checking out night and low light performance.)

Here's my impressions

 

FOCUSING: Much better in low light than original 5D.

The center point seems to work well, the outer points have a noticeable drop in performance for focusing. The

focus will work, but in my mind is a huge fail of this camera. I feel this camera is missing a decent focus

outside of the center area. I'll talk about this at the bottom.

 

BATTERY: Seems to last longer than expected!

After almost 7 hours use, battery indicator is only down to 3 out of 4. I was shooting a lot, and excitingly

reviewing on the lcd screen (and showed a lot on the lcd throughout the night).

From 8pm to 2:30am, I took 440 shots. I used the lcd mercilessly showing off the new toy, and only lost 1 out of

4 notches of battery power. I'm guessing a combination of energy efficiency and new battery lead to this major

win. I feel I could easily go out for a night with only 1 battery

 

LIGHTROOM: I had to convert to DNG.

Lightroom does not yet support 5D Mark II files. I had to convert to DNG first using this utility:

http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4213

Adobe has announced a 2.2 lightroom update for december covering this issue.

 

NOISE AND ISO details: I spent the whole night shooting mostly from 3200 to 25600 iso (occasionally going down to

1600). with the noise reduction at the standard setting.

3200: definitely usable. Quality akin to (or better than) 1600 on the 1D Mark III

6400: debatably usable. Quality akin to (or better than) 3200 on 1D Mark III. Although there is definitely

noise, the noise is mostly minor luminance within the original color range (for example, you don't get red noise

in a green shirt), and I feel can be used for shots that are "must gets". There is no "sensor horizontal banding"

creating large banding lines across the image (and i feel this is important). Detail holds up ok.

12800: Akin to 6400 (H) on 1D Mark III. minor chromatic aberration begins. Dithering starts to impede on detail.

Backlighting seems to cause banding in the sensor.

25600: Major dithering. Detail really gets obfuscated by dithering. Major chromatic noise and major sensor banding

 

NOISE AND ISO CONCLUSION: I'll try to stick to 3200 or under for most work. I will switch to 6400 when needed.

12800 maybe, occasionally. I will mostly avoid 25600, or really explore noise reduction. One things I did feel is

that the noise at 6400 on the 1D Mark III is somehow more "appealing" than the noise on the 5D mark II at 12800.

The sensor banding at 12800 and 25600 with backlighting really bother my eye, and I feel the 5D mark II's noise

is more pixelated (maybe due to higher resolution sensor?) than the 1D Mark III noise which seems to blend a

little more, and felt more "film like" to me.

 

FILE SIZE: The file size is... large.

I spent the night shooting RAW and sRAW1. The file size on the sRAW1 seem to range from 15mb to 19mb. While the

file sizes on the RAW seem to range from 25mb to 39mb!

The major factors in file size seemed to be softness, and noise. The largest shots were high ISO shots with

crazy nightclub lighting effects (large noise, and/or soft light through fog). It seems like the file sizes go up

since you cannot losslessly compress bands of color easily.

 

BUILD QUALITY: More in line with the 1D series.

I felt the old 5D felt a lot more like the consumer xxD series (like the 40d). The 5D Mark II feels very solid,

and much more like a smaller 1D than the previous model. I am loving it.

 

BUTTONS: Extra buttons occasionally unresponsive

First, there's no problem with the shutter, or any mission critical buttons that I noticed.

However, I definitely felt some oddness with the buttons on the back. Sometimes it felt like I had to press in

extra hard, or use my nail to push beyond the recessed boundary to get a response. This may be build quality, or

unresponsive software. I also notice the buttons seem to be able to shift around a little when compared to the 1D

Mark III.

Overall, I would say that something is slightly off, but I'm not sure if it's software, or build quality.

 

BURST SPEED: 3.9 fps is not very fast.

Surprisingly 3.9fps feels very slow compared to the 40d and 1D. I am disappointed canon could not arrange a

speed increase at sRAW1, or sRAW2. Woudl someone explain how the 50d get away with 6.5fps, while the 5D only does

3.9? And how nikon adds a battery grip that increases D700 fps to 8fps?

 

 

WEIRDNESS: I did notice one thing weird.

Throughout the day, when I went to look at the menus or show an image, the lcd screen would often unexpectedly

turn off (like it was going back into shoot mode), and I would often find myself turning the camera to show a

photo I believed was on the screen, and was told the screen was black.

 

 

CONCLUSIONS: Well, that wraps up my initial practical conclusions. My one big disappointment in this camera is

the Focusing system. right now the 40d and 50d have 9 cross type focus points! the 1D has 19 cross type points!

The 5d has... 1?

With this, I feel canon has publicly said "In 3 years we could not come up with something better than this old

system". That's a shame, because I love the focus system (with bugs worked out) on the 1D mark III, and it blows

this system away.

I will be sticking with my 1D Mark III for any shot that requires off center focus (moving focus, or moving

subject).

 

I am excited for my 5D, and love the performance. The file size will definitely lead to me using more memory

cards and disk space.

 

 

--

Josh Reiss

www.joshreiss.com

 

 

 

 

[alan_bryant1]

Excellent mini-review, I hope more people will post their first impressions like this. I'm very interested in this camera.

 

Regarding the burst speed, I believe the main problem versus the 50D is the size of the mirror. The full-frame 5D has a much larger and heavier mirror than the crop-frame 50D, and therefore can't throw the thing around as fast. Even the 1Ds Mark III only manages 5 fps, barely better than the 5D Mark II.

[wgpinc]

It looks like Adobe Camera Raw 5.2 includes the Canon 5D Mark II:

 

Newly supported camera models:

 

Canon EOS 5D Mark II

 

Canon PowerShot G10

[gerhard_hofmann1]

Alan,

 

actually Imho the mirror is not really the reason for the burst rate after all the EOS1V managed already a burst rate 8-10 and was “full-frame”. It is more likely the file size which slows down a camera like the 1DSIII.

 

 

Gerhard

[jcolwell]

Josh, thanks for sharing your first impressions on the 5DII. I agree it would be nice to have a better AF system, but

it's a useful improvement over the original 5D, which I use for people, still life, macro and 'scapes. Your comments

on improved build quality are appreciated - I haven't broken anything recently, but stuff happens. I guess my next

camera depends on what goes first - my 5D or one of my 1DII's; either way, the path ahead is clear: 5DII or 1DIII.

Thanks, Jim.

[alan_bryant1]

Gerhard, interesting, I didn't know any film cameras were so fast. You could burn an entire roll of film in 4 seconds at that speed.

 

At 3.9 fps it is moving around quite a bit of information. 22,000,000 actual pixels X 14 bits each X 3.9 fps implies 150,000,000 bytes-per-second transfer rate for sensor-to-digic. That's a lot, but not compared to modern CPU memory bandwidths. Maybe it has to be even faster; if the image has to transfer while the sensor is not taking a picture, the bandwidth would have to be several times faster.

[mpolfer]

I am a Canon newbie or recent convert. I sold my D200s in search of an overall better camera and waited for about two

months with great anticipation for my 5d mark ii. My personal expectations were exceeded by far !(keep in mind I am

leaving a D200 Nikon) I am in awe of the overall ability of this camera to get it "right". Nearly all of my shots are spot on

now. 1000 iso looks like 100 iso !

 

Below is a photo at 1000 iso taken 11-20-08. 110mm with 70-200 @ f2.8 8000th sec<div></div>

[mpolfer]

Thought I would include another from my first day with the 5d mark ll.

[timbowles]

Josh, thanks for your review- hopefully we see more of these coming out from the trenches..

 

I'm curious about your statement re cross type focus points- you say the 50D has 9 but the 5DII only has 1. The AF specs for autofocus are the same for both cameras on the Canon site... Are you implying a 50D will focus off-center more accurately than the 5DII, because it seems to me they'd focus the same, based on their specs.

 

Another question re noise at high ISO's. Obviously we'll have to wait for the side-by-side comparisons to come out, but it doesn't sound as if the noise reduction at high ISO is as good as I was maybe hoping, like that of the Nikon D3. Obviously the 5DII is in a different price range, but it was my understanding that the D700 had the same technology and equally good noise absence at high ISO's. I know D3 and a D700 users who say that there is virtually no noise and the photos look like they were shot at ISO 100, even when using beyond 3200 and even 6400. Your results don't sound nearly as promising.

 

Good to hear about battery life. Hopefully the LCD turning off is just a temporary glitch......

 

Tim

[andrew_todzia]

I think Canon already has the 5D Mark III planned and how they will get a lot of Mark II buyers to buy the new model is by putting in a much better auto-focus system.

[keith reeder]

From Rob Galbraith (and echoed elsewhere - this is accurate, Tim):

 

"Autofocus The 5D Mark II's AF system, including its CMOS AF sensor, carries over mostly unaltered from the 5D, and is comprised of nine AF points plus six Assist AF points. The centre AF point acts as a cross-type sensor with lenses whose maximum aperture are f/5.6 or faster. If an f/2.8 or faster lens is used, the centre AF point detects focus with double the precision of slower lenses."

 

As you see, only 1 cross-type sensor (both the 40D and 50D have 9) - but the 5D Mk II has those 6 hidden "assist" AF points which balance things somewhat.

[keith reeder]

"Another question re noise at high ISO's. Obviously we'll have to wait for the side-by-side comparisons to come out, but it doesn't sound as if the noise reduction at high ISO is as good as I was maybe hoping, like that of the Nikon D3".

 

Think about the *significant* difference in sensor "size" and the 5D Mk II suddenly looks rather impressive again...

 

"I know D3 and a D700 users who say that there is virtually no noise and the photos look like they were shot at ISO 100, even when using beyond 3200 and even 6400".

 

*They would say that though, wouldn't they..?*

 

;0)

 

I've seen quite a few D3/D700 images that would contradict the "everything is rosy in Nikonland" hype - although those two cameras *are* very good.

 

Decent PP will make up for much of the supposed noise advantage the Nikons have though - I've taken "12,800" ISO images with my 40D that, exposed and processed properly (which for me means conversion in Capture One 4 with NR in Neat Image as needed) that were sharp, detailed, colour-accurate and *very* usable in terms of noise.

[alan_bryant1]

My primary question concerns the high-ISO performance. Most reports I'm seeing seem to be relating about a 3-stop improvement over the 5D Mk 1. I'm wondering if this is actual improvement in the sensor performance, or does it reflect more aggressive noise reduction? Or a combination? The 50D has similar spectacular high ISOs available, but the gain there appears to be primarily in noise reduction, which appears to reduce sensor resolving power significantly at the highest ISOs. It's still useful, but there is a real cost to using it. At least that's what reviews are saying.

 

If the 5D2 has a real 3-stop sensor improvement over the already impressive 5D1 -- well, I was planning on getting one eventually, it might have to be sooner rather than later...

[chrisjb]

`but the 5D Mk II has those 6 hidden "assist" AF points which balance things somewhat.

 

But don`t the hidden points only work for tracking in `A1`, or has it changed for `one shot` as well?

 

Nice report Josh, thankyou :)

`

[ralph_jensen]

Alan wrote: "Most reports I'm seeing seem to be relating about a 3-stop improvement over the 5D Mk 1."

 

Alan, that would mean that ISO 6400 on the Mark 2 is as good as ISO 800 on the Mark 1, which I find impossible to

believe (it would completely dust the Nikon D700 and D3, for example).

 

Could you provide a link to any of those reports? I hang out at fredmiranda.com, and there I'm hearing a 1-stop

advantage at most. Not that that's not impressive--increasing the pixel count by 75% AND decreasing noise even by

a half-stop would be an impressive achievement--but I can't believe anyone would say that ISO 6400 on the new

camera is as clean as ISO 800 was on the old one.

[alan_bryant1]

I'm basing that on people who have held and used the camera saying that 6400 is a completely usable setting. The highest "completely usable" setting of the 5D1, in my estimation, is 800. And I agree it's an amazing claim, that's why I'd like to see a careful test.

 

I mostly recall seeing it in newsgroups. As far as I know there aren't any detailed reviews posted yet, just some sample images floating about and glowing reports of early samples seen at shows.

 

If it turns out to mostly be noise reduction, like the 50D has, it will still be fairly impressive. Based on the-digital-picture.com review, the 50D with aggressive noise reduction has impressive colors at 3200. Sharpness takes a hit, but it isn't fatal. For web posting and smaller prints it would suffice -- especially considering there really aren't any other options at that ISO anyway, so it's that or nothing.

[scott_ferris]

Alan,

 

Gerhard is right about the mirrors. I have a couple of 1VHS's and they do 10fps and are very similar to the 1D series. But more relevantly the 1D MkIII has a full sized mirror, the same as in the 1DS MkIII, it works at 10 fps without a problem, Canon has stated several times that they believe that 10-12fps is basically as good as you can do with a lifting mirror, rumors abound of newly designed electronic pellicle mirrors, sound interesting.

 

Saw some figures somewhere that compared the info write rates for both 1 series MkIII's, they were both basically the same, DS bigger pixel count but slower frame rate, D lower pixel count but higher frame rate. Like I said it added up to the same information flow rate. But the Digic IV is supposed to be faster.

 

Take care, Scott.

[john clark]

Thanks for the review - I'm still very keen on this camera.

 

One thing: call me a luddite, but on every EOS I've owned I have turned off the multiple focus points and rely on the centre one only - focus & recompose works for me. I take it, then, that the benefits of the 50D and 1D mkIII would be largely lost on me, given my preference for a single central focus point?

 

Cheers,

 

John

[joel_p]

Just got mine on Sunday. Love it so far. Iso performance is very good. Everything up to 3200 very good. 6400 useable. My only beef is that Canon raw files aren't read by Aperture 2 or PS 3 and compared to EOS3 the Mark II seems too small for my hands (esp with long lens attached.). Here's a random pic at ISO 12800. (4.0 / 1/500, 50mm 1.4)

 

Cheers,

joel<div></div>

[joel_p]

for comparison sake, here's the same image at iso 1600.<div></div>

[markonestudios]

John Clark, it's exactly the same for me. I only ever use the centre point for focus :) Hmmm... now where's that 5DII when you need it? ;-)

[timbowles]

It just blows my mind that Canon can get a 2.8% spot that links to focus point, and a far superior focus system in the "antiquated" EOS 3 but they can't get it into their new state-of-the-art 5DMKII. Why would they not just put this in it? It seems to me they have the perfect camera with these added specs and then just have to build on the high ISO noise reduction fo rfuture renditions.

[scott_ferris]

Tim what would they put into the MkIII if they made the perfect camera now?

[timbowles]

Scott- better noise reduction, I guess. The reasons I held off from the MKI are still present, other than the presence of a dust system. Too bad for me- I thought it was finally time to buy a dSLR in this one, but it may just not be the case. I now have to seriously think about whether the shortcomings in the MKII are ones I can live with, or do I wait another 3-5 years and see if they finally get it right in the MKIII. I doubt I'm the only one in this (small) boat, so maybe too bad for Canon... It's more likely they will sell so many MKII's that they won't care about the loss of my money and that from a handful of others. Too bad I invested in Canon film bodies, lights and some pretty sweet lenses. If it weren't such a loss from starting over, I'd go to the Nikon D700.

[scott_ferris]

Tim I agree,

 

I have held off on the 1DS MkIII hoping that the 1DS MkIV would give me the frame rate and FF I want in a 1 series body, but I think I might be disappointed, I hoped the Nikon D3x would push Canon more but the truth is they don't seem to have done, the Nikon does have some great features and if I was starting out I would be very interested in the ability to get higher frame rates by cropping in camera, all my high speed work is done with tele's, and a few other good looking features as well as the 14-24, it looks ver interesting. But at only 5 fps the next DS body only needs to increase MP (not my top on the list needed improvement!) and put HD movie in there (another thing I absolutely don't want) to raise its game enough, though at least the pricing is starting to slide on these top guns.

 

Take care, Scott.