Canon 5D Mark II travels to Italy

[bruce g. collier]

<p>Okay, probably no new news to anyone here, but I can't say enough good things about the 5D MII. I recently finished a new gallery from some trips to Italy, and the last one I was fortunate enough to have brought my new-at-the-time 5D. The majority of images were taken with the EF24-105mm f/4L zoom, but I also used the EF100-400mm f/4.5L, TS-E24mm F/3.5L, and 85 mm f1.8 prime. Places visited included Venice, Murano/Burano/San Michele, Urbino, San Marino, San Leo, Assisi, Montalcino, Montepuliciano, Pienza, Siena, Tivoli, and of course, Rome.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.brucegcollier.com/galleries/italy/level2_z_5dmii.htm"><strong>Canon EOS 5D Mark II Italy images</strong></a></p>

<p>Some background - I'm a film shooter and I normally tote a 4x5 large format and 6x7 or 6x9 medium format gear when I travel abroad. This time, I decided to leave the MF at home and bring this DSLR as I needed a camera that I could use in low-light situations such as church interiors, or anywhere tripods would be discouraged.</p>

<p>All shots were taken ISO 6400 or lower. At 6400, I had no problems shooting in the darkest interior handheld, and even the night photos of the Colosseum were shot by hand. Noise is manageable and does need some cleaning up (~ISO 2000 and above); but when I think of what I would have missed without this capability, not a problem.</p>

<p>About my only disappointment was not learning about IS during tripod useage before leaving, and learned the hard way once I got back home and viewed those images critically. That's really my fault, not the camera's.</p>

<p>No issue with the battery. Easily would have held up 2, maybe 3 days of all day use, but I would always top it off at night. After a full days shooting (say 300 images), it would take 30-40 mins to recharge.</p>

<p>All in all, I highly recommend this camera for travel. As long as you can contain yourself to one or two lenses tops, it makes for a fairly lightweight and small photography package.</p>

<p>Regards, Bruce</p>

[dennis_knoxville]

<p>Excellent pics. I too had a 4x5 LF and a 645 MF, but now have a 5D II. I shot Venice a few years back with a 30D and yours are obviously better</p>

[dennis_knoxville]

<p>Excellent pics. I too had a 4x5 LF and a 645 MF, but now have a 5D II. I shot Venice a few years back with a 30D and yours are obviously better</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Bruce, the IQ of 5D II astounds me as well, and I've barely taken it out of my home! And I, too, am a film user. </p>

<p>I guess it's tantamount to the analogue-digital debate in music: until 24-bit and DSD recording arrived, analogue was indeed superior; but now you'd be hard pressed to argue that that is the case.</p>

[bruce g. collier]

<p>Dennis - thank you; I appreciate the feedback! <br>

Mark - I would venture to guess that DSLR is gaining on MF, and in some respects such as light sensitivity, even ahead now. However, I still see the 5D MII as a compliment to my film cameras. Nothing beats a well scanned 4x5 or 8x10, or even a 6x9 negative/slide. But the fact is, I did leave the MF rig home this trip, and this DSLR does things none of those cameras (really, the film) can do. Sure, would have loved to bring all three, but it was barely practical bringing the two.<br>

Regards, Bruce</p>

[steven_f1]

<p>Nice photos. Out of curiosity, what was the issue with IS? I have never had an issue with IS when using a camera hand held. </p>

[evphotography]

<p>Impressive isn't it, the 5DII IQ is outstanding to say the least. It was funny when they first announced the 5DII everyone was putting the camera down before they even saw what it could do, because increasing the MP on that body was going to for sure result in lower IQ (noise) than the original 5D. Boy were they all wrong, hat's off to Canon for increasing the MP from 12.8-21 and actually producing lower noise images at high ISO than the original. Love my 5DII and will be holding on to it for some time.</p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>Great images. I'm sure the camera helped some. (-;</p>

[bruce g. collier]

<p>Steven - the issue wasn't when I was handholding, rather when I was tripoding (is that a word)? I failed to understand the mechanics behind IS when no motion is present, and likewise failed to give these images a critical review in the field. Many were blurry because IS was enabled at these times. Not all, seemed random. <br>

Eric, Thomas - thank you for the comments. Yes, I'm very pleased with my first real DSLR. It usually takes me a couple of tries to get something right, but luckily not this. :)<br>

Regards, Bruce</p>