Is canon 5D Mark II suitable for low light photography

[philip_wilson]

<p>Ed your point on the 5DII for weddings is probably correct but for absolute low light performance - (my main experience is badly lit amateur ice hockey) the 1DIII or even 1DIIN will beat the 5DII as the Af on the 5DII struggles in these conditions. But I cannot understand why you would need this type of Af performance at a wedding!</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>G Dan, I dont shoot weddings at midnight, but will be shooting a reception close to midnight this week. I have shot in old churches that had so little light and wouldnt allow flash with dark brick walls and almost black wood ceilings that might has well been dark outside, and for those moments where you need focus aquisition fast and accurate, there isnt a better camera than the 1D3. The 5D2 would just hunt and get focus too slow as the moment would pass.</p>

<p>Ed, the 5D will never equal AF performance even in the best of light. It may work fine and do well, but never equal to it. The 5D2 doesnt produce a cleaner image at normal viewing mag. I have already proven that. You might see an issue at 16x20, but I have never printed a ISO3200 shot at 16x20 anyway and have never sold a 16x20 of any wedding. SO its moot.</p>

<p>In a 11x14 which has been my biggest, it wouldnt be better. At very least you could say just average printing without pixel peeping that they are the same in ISO performance, but then the only thing the 5D2 does better is resolution. And the 10mp 1D3 makes 11x14 prints so sharp that I often soften the skin tones of my brides just so they dont complain.</p>

<p>OK, if you need 21mp, its the best camera for the money for that. Just because it has some improvements that the 1Ds doesnt have.</p>

<p>Theres also price. If one was needing an awesome wedding camera, affordable and it must be Canon, the 5D2 is it. Most cant consider the 1D3 or 1Ds3 cause of price, so yes, the 5D2 is the best bang for buck. No questions asked. I'm only defending the point that the 5D2 isnt the best camera Canon makes.</p>

<p>If you wanted the best all around wedding camera from Canon and you could spend $4k, the 1D3 is it. It has the best AF, it has enough res cause most dont even want 11x14, it definitley has ISO performance.<br>

Since the last AF repair mine had, its better IMO than the Nikon D3 in AF. Its always been faster of the gate no doubt, but now the accuracy is 99%. The D3 may track better, I dont know, but its negligable. Its(D3) about 1/2 stop cleaner in ISO. I have used both of those side by side as well. I was quite surprised how close they are when used side by side especially when you hear all the hype.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>David I have used a D3 for ski racing and in tracking AF it is clearly better than Canon (at the moment). I do not feel that Canon's 1 series AF has made a lot of progress since the 1V of 2000. The 1DII essentially has the same 45 point AF - it has F8 capability and more cross points but this is not a big upgrade. canon claims it works to 1 EV lower but this is not really obvious in use. It is time for a Canon upgrade</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>David,<br>

At 11x14, the 5DII will be much cleaner than the 1DIII at ISO 3200. It has already been explained to you several times by several people. You seem to have a psycological thing for the 1DIII.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p>"... there isnt a better camera than the 1D3. The 5D2 would just hunt and get focus too slow as the moment would pass."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A few quick comments.</p>

<ol>

<li>The 1D3 is certainly a fine camera and (early issues aside) it certainly is optimized for fastest AF more than the 5D II. </li>

<li>That said, I think you vastly underestimate the AF system of the 5D II. It is not the case that it would "just hunt and get focus too slow" - in other words fail to function. The differences between the AF systems in cameras at this level are measured in degrees, not "failure" vs. "success."</li>

<li>As nice as the 21MP is for certain types of photography and final products, those are not the only features that can make the 5D II attractive to a variety of photographer.</li>

<li>(I don't understand how a thoughtful photographer could make a generalization like "there is not better camera than a 1D3," though...)</li>

</ol>

<p>In the end, we make our choices from among a range of very capable cameras, each of which is likely optimized for certain situations and types of shooting, but each of which is also quite capable of functioning in a wide range of situations. When thinking of these issues in a general sense, I think it is worth stepping back from certain preconceptions (e.g. - a 1 series camera is always "better" than anything else) and consider the issues with a bit more objectivity.</p>

<p>Take care,</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Lets be honest both of those cameras will make lousy wedding photos in the hands of an unskilled photographer. The photographers style, vision and skills will have a far greater effect on the quality of photos than whether they choose a 5DII or a 1DIII. There were many great wedding photos taken long before these cameras ever existed and there are many great wedding photos still taken with far lesser specified cameras than these.</p>

[david_amberson1]

<p>I said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>for those moments where you need focus aquisition fast and accurate, there isnt a better camera than the 1D3.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This wasnt a statement on the "best" camera.</p>

<p>The 1D3 is the best camera right now for speed in focus aquisition/accuracy. Even the very guy that brought forward the focus issue that everyone complains about said himself that even the D3 wasnt as good as 1D3 in that regard. He said specifically that the 1D3 was by far the best camera he had ever used in regards to speed of focus aquisition/accuracy. His only issue was tracking.</p>

<p>In regards to focus on 5D2, I made a statement about a specific situation I was shooting in where I have used lesser cameras and the focus did just hunt and fail to focus. Namely the 40D which has a better AF system. It might eventually find contrast and lock, but who has 60 seconds in a candid moment to hope it locks.<br>

For those who know it would fail, yes go ahead and MF and not wait and gamble. But for those who dont, this has happened alot with that AF. These were extreme low light and not typical lighting conditons cause otherwise yes, the 5D would focus and lock, just a little slower than the 1 Series, but I often work in very low light and this why I chose an extreme camera. Why is it so hard for some to accept that Canons top tier 1 Series AF is just alot better than the next level down. Which is arcaic btw.</p>

<p>And the MarkIII 1 Series has the newest AF system of Canon and has been completely overhauled compaired to the older stuff...so its not the same.</p>

<p>Sounds more like someone else has a "psycological thing" for the 5D2 and cant accept they dont own the best and anyone who says something negative about it is wrong. I know the downfalls to my 1D3 and have stated them. No one seems to think the 5D2 has any down falls. Its also funny how many people complained about the very things I mentioned when it came out and how dissappointed they were in such a mediocre upgrade to the original. All complained how they felt the AF system should have been completely overhauled among other things, but Canon didnt bother. They figured, who needs better AF for $2600...we gave them.....video.</p>

<p>But here, on Photo.net, a few cant stand any negative comments. Thats quite fine. I know what I have, and the others who have never used a 1D3 dont know what they are missing, so they dont know. The 5D2 is as good as it gets for them. And when they see Nikon users of the D700 with pro AF praising how wonderful the AF is and its pro feel/quality, they just wonder, maybe even switch. All because Canon wont give their Prosumer camera at least a better AF system than the 50D. I shouldnt have allowed myself to make as many posts as i did. Just got caught up on work, thought I'd browse the net to kill some time. <br>

All this time wasted cause of a few comments. The OP asked and made a statement of</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The key area I am focusing on is to make photographs for weddings and going thru many forums and reviews by users I find 5D mark II has slow AF in low light... Pl suggest me with your comments. Thanx</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then Daniel said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you learn how to auto focus properly even an old 10D is quick in low light.<br>

* Move AF activation off the shutter release (a custom function).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So I responded with the correct answers to the OP addressing Daniels response by saying moving the AF button will in no way speed his focus...and it doesnt. It wont change accuracy at all and nor will it change speed what so ever. Think thats wrong,ask Canon</p>

<p>Then Ed said</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the 5D II is the BEST Canon low light camera by far.<br>

If it isn't good for low light, no Canon camera is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Then I addressed Ed's response to inform the OP what Ed said is wrong. The 5D2 is not the best camera for low light focus that Canon makes. He said its the best by far, if its not then no Canon is. Which was totally incorrect. The OP asked about AF performance cause of what he has read by many other complaints. It can be slow and its not the best, again Canon will tell you where the best AF performance is. Those who complain about the 5D2 AF being slow are expecting more from $2600, maybe cause Nikon did. Imagine that. But its the best right:-)</p>

<p>So lets say the OP was considering both the 1D3 and 5D2(i know he isnt). I've already shown ISO results as being at very least equal, some saying the 1D3 was better...whatever, say its equal, thats close. Then we look at AF. We who have brains know the winner here. This sums up low light. Which is what he was interested in, not resolution. SO if they both have equal ISO capability, the 1D3 has the best AF....why would the 5D2 be the best low light Canon by far. Thats all I was trying to say. Inform the OP. I'm sure he wasnt considering the 1D3 or he would have posted a 1D3 vs 5D2 question. But at least be honest about the 5D2 AF and not say bold statements like,</p>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>the 5D II is the BEST Canon low light camera by far.<br>

If it isn't good for low light, no Canon camera is.</p>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm done with this. I wasted too much time here debating with someone other than the op. I explained my statements and why I said them. Hope the OP finds what they are looking for.</p>

[Brad_]

ZZZZzzzzZZZzzzzzz..........

[edrodgers]

<p>Jeff Ascough from the link posted above:<br>

"Ahh that old chestnut. In terms of AF using the center point, the MKII is a match and I would say is marginally superior to the 1DsMKIII. Looking at the other peripheral points, the 1DsMKIII is superior as it has more horizontal/vertical points than then 5DII. When I first got the 5DMKII pre-production camera back in November last year, I was blown away by its focus accuracy in low light with the center point."</p>

<p>That is, of course, if you are the type of person that uses the focus / recompose method. I am, the OP may not be.</p>

<p>And on the second point, it's a fairly simple concept to understand. Twice the resolution = half the apparent noise. Show me a high ISO full image comparison at ANY size, and the 5DII has half the noise. That's not the case with the 1DsIII, mind you, but definately with the 1DIII.</p>

<p>Since David does weddings, as well as sports, I'd say he has the camera he needs.</p>

<p>But me personally, I've never had to blast off 10 low resolution frames a second at a high speed target while shooting a wedding. I choose the 5DII for weddings. It's not about the money. I've dumped $15,000 on an M8 and two primes just for fun. So, if David thinks I prefer the 5DII because I can't afford the 1DIII, he's quite crazy. I might have gone for the 1DsIII as my main wedding body, but decided to wait for the 5DII, and I'm very glad I did. The only thing I really miss is the dual card slots. Redundancy is definitely a good idea at a wedding.</p>

<p>Do I have an itch for a swarm of focus points that don't know an eyelash from a nose hair? No.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Ed, I have to disagree with you on the 5DII ceneter point Af vs the 1DIII or 1 DsIII. As I said earlir I shoopt sports, both ski racing and ice hockey. These are two of the most difficult sports for AF as the speeds are quite high, the lighting can change rapidly (especially in ski racing where it goes from sun to shade quite often as the athlete gets into shadows from trees) and amateur ice hockey can be played in very dark (cold) arenas. Even in these conditions the 5DII AF (so long as you only select the center point or for AF Servo center and hidden assist points and use a USM lens of F2.8 or faster) is very good. Almost 100% for ski racing (the only thing it fails on is a skier comming suddenly into view - for example over a jump) and about 90% for ice hockey. For hockey the speeds are quite high and I have been in arenas where the light measured between LV8 and LV10. However, even pair of old 1Vs are better in AF than the 5DII I have had since Christmas. My point is that for critical AF situations the 1 series is better than the 5DII - but that the 5DII if used carefully is more than enough for most people. The 5DII is a great camera but you fly in the face of every test and even Canon's own specifications when you say the 5DII has better AF than the 1DsIII. For professional sports the 1 series is still the best solution.<br>

I am at more of a loss why you need the 1 series AF performance for weddings however. While the churches may be dark, subject motion is limited and my 5DII will easily focus on a static subject in LV 3 even. One issue I have noticed with the 5DII AF is that for critical portrait work you need to turn the AF assist points off (if you use AF) as you get the center point on the eye and get focus confirmation only to find that the camera has actually used one of the assist points perhaps focusing on the nose. This is not a big issue as i tend to use live view and MF for this type of shot but it is something you have to be aware of.</p>

[edrodgers]

<p>Philip,</p>

<p>I didn't say the AF is better, Jeff Ascough, the famous wedding photographer and paid Canon ambassador did. And he didn't really say it was overall better, only that the center point works better than his 1DsIII in his opinion.</p>

<p>I know that for tracking motion and overall speed, the 1 series is better for auto focus.</p>

<p>But like you say, this is a wedding we are talking about. It's a non-issue in my opinion.</p>

<p>The clunky, archaic, and inadequate focus mechanism in my old 5Ds and my new 5DIIs has never once failed me. If it hunts, it's going to be under exposed anyway. We are talking EV1 here. At that point, IR assist better be working with my lighting.</p>

[philip_wilson]

<p>Ed I have to agree that the 6DII AF is up to most tasks. I think it is a very good camera and bought it over the 1DIII as it was cheaper and better for landscapes etc... The fact that it works so well for sports and low light sport was an unexpected bonus. It only works well with good glass for sports - I use the 70-200 F2.8 or the 300 f2.8 both of which (especially the 300) focus fast.</p>

[wasteofmind14]

<p>USE MANUAL FOCUS!</p>

[rishij]

<p>Um, yeah, try using manual focus while a couple is spinning on the dance floor at 60 rpm at a wedding. In the dark.</p>

[k_constance]

<p>I photographed my first low light event last night using a canon 5d mark 11 only no tripod or flash. I put my ISO up to over 1600, f stop mainly 2.8 to let in us much light as I can though I was still getting shutters of below 1/50 most of the time as the lighting was continually changing . obviously due to the equipment i was not carrying with me and having long exposures some photos where blurred. I also shot in raw and jpeg. please help me with advice in this situation of what I could have done differently. thankyou kindly</p>

 

[rishij]

<p>We need more/faster focus points b/c 'focus & recompose' does NOT work for large aperture lenses with close subjects. My Canon EOS-3 has more focus points than my 5D. It also has eye-controlled focus point selection. I don't understand why the 5D & 5D Mark II are ages behind Canon's own film cameras.</p>

<p>So to answer the OP: I use the 5D in low light, but I really wish I didn't have to. I need extra, high-sensitivity, focus points.</p>

<p>Furthermore, in my dream world, I want a touch sensitive 4:3 frame, representing the full field of view, where I can use my thumb to just touch the area of focus points I want selected. As I move my thumb around on this small touch-sensitive frame, the appropriate points would light up in the viewfinder. This'd make focus point selection <em>exponentially</em> faster. It'd be a game changer. C'mon Canon. Nikon. Somebody. Who's not here listening to me...</p>

<p>To answer the last person's question: shoot manual. Keep your aperture open & your shutter speed at a setting you see does not give you much blur. Then select auto ISO or just deal with dark images that you may brighten up later. Or not b/c dark photos can make for cool effects... at concerts for example, where a light happens to brighten a face.</p>

<p>OR. Use a flash & shoot in aperture priority. Bounce the flash light.</p>

<p>Rishi</p>

<p> </p>

[k_constance]

<p>very difficult to get fast shutter speed in low light, turned iso very high need F1.4 lens</p>

[k_constance]

<p>very difficult to get fast shutter speed in low light, turned iso very high need F1.4 lens prime lens</p>