 I love my EOS 5D Mark II |
| Review Date: March 14, 2010 |
| Reviewer: James S. Bomgardner, Ellicott City, MD |
| This is a great camera. The buttons can be a bit confusing, but I'm just getting use to them. The camera feels good in my hands - solid, substantial. The LCD on the back of the camera is large, bright, and clear. The various menus make life easier. I highly recommend this product. I've been using a Canon T90 film SLR since 1986 and if the 5D Mark II performs half as well I'll be delighted. |
Not really a video camera
|
| Review Date: March 13, 2010 |
| Reviewer: Thomas L. Clark, |
I bought this camera a couple of weeks ago. I already owned the first version of the EOS 5D, but I thought it would be handy to have High Def video in the same unit. Many consumer grade handy cams have the ability to shoot stills, but their still photo resolution leaves much to be desired. I would have to carry both a high quality SLR and a handy cam to be ready for both situations. When the 5D Mark II came out I saw the opportunity to get high def both ways in a single camera.
Indeed it does that, but the video capabilities of the 5D Mark II are not nearly as convenient to use as almost any consumer grade camcorder at 1/3 the price. Let me be clear about what I am saying. The quality of the high def video that the 5D Mark II shoots exceeds any consumer grade camcorder I have ever seen. Capturing that video however requires both hands whereas almost any handycam is a one handed breeze due to the ergonomic placement of the controls. Not so with the 5D Mark II.
You would think that to start shooting video you simply select "movies" on the mode dial and click the shutter with your right index finger and everything happens automatically from that point. Not so. Not even close. With the 5D Mark II, first you press the "live view" button. The mirror flips up and the image appears on the LCD screen. Then you find the part of the image you want to be in focus and press the AF-ON button (assuming you are using auto focus). Step 3, you press the "set" button to start recording video.
In the high def mode, the camera will record up to 12 minutes in a single run while making a digital file on the memory card of about 4GB. Think about that. 4 GB for 12 minutes! One 12 minute clip would completely fill a standard single layer DVD. That's a whole lot of data! In fact neither of my Windows based computers can play it back smoothly. Even the built-in playback within the camera itself is jerky. The more motion there is in the scene, the more frames that are dropped. Even the Canon web site acknowledges that the playback "MAY" be jerky unless your computer has a certain minimum configuration. To be fair, I will say that Apple computers seem to be much better playing back these huge movie files smoothly. This camera records movies in .MOV file format. That is Apple's Quicktime software. Even though Quicktime does run in a Windows environment, it seems to work much better on a Mac. A recent test I conducted showed that a current model Macbook Pro with a 2.53 GHz Intel CPU did a very smooth playback job using Quicktime.
Speaking of focus, you would hope that you simply set the camera to the full automatic mode and your auto focus lens takes care of the rest for the duration of the clip. Once again no. It doesn't work that way. The only way I found to make this camera track the focus in movie mode is to set the mode dial to one of the non automatic positions, and set the focus to the "servo" position as though you were trying to capture still images of a moving subject.
Zooming? Ah yes, that is another capability that is far less convenient. Most handy cams have a built-in powered zoom that is easily operated with one finger on the same hand that is holding the camera. With the 5D Mark II, as with any quality SLR, zooming is done by reaching around to the front of the camera and rotating a lens ring. Needless to say, that can't be done smoothly if you are hand holding the camera with your other hand.
With all the buttons to push and settings to remember, this is not the camera you want for shooting candid spontaneous footage in a hand held situation. To be sure it does a great job shooting video in a controlled environment mounted on a tripod with a fluid head. Without a steady mount however, this camera is best for stills if hand held. |
This is it
|
| Review Date: March 11, 2010 |
| Reviewer: J. Roberts, San Anselmo, CA |
| I've had this camera since December and it is better than I thought it will be. I read the reviews before I bought in which people complained about the focus. It is true that you need to be much more careful about focus with this camera (I came from a 20D.) It's not that there's anything wrong with the camera. To the contrary, it's that the detail is so good that your focus mistakes show up more. Use good lenses, use good technique and the results you get will amaze you. |
Finally Upgraded - Glad I Did
|
| Review Date: March 5, 2010 |
| Reviewer: Fisherman Dan, Richmond, VA |
I've been looking at the Canon 5D Mark II for a long time - since before it came out in late 2008. It's taken a while but I finally pulled the trigger.
My first Canon SLR was the EOS 650 - the autofocus SLR that "started it all". Then in early 2000's I got the Digital Rebel, then an XTi and quickly after that the Canon 40D.
I've liked all the digital SLR's I've used to date but only the 40D reminded me of the build quality and "heft" that my original 650 had. And although you get used to it, the 1.6 crop factor of the sensor size is really a big difference on the wide-angle side.
Over time I also upgraded my lenses to the 17-40 F4L, the 24-105 F4L, the 70-200 F2.8L and the 100-300 F4.5-5.6L - with IS in all but the 17-40.
I guess I'd call myself an "advanced amateur". My usual approach to photography is to compose a good shot and then crop later to a better composition to get my "keepers".
With the 40D and my outfit of lenses I can pretty much do it all - especially on the telephoto side. However, I noticed that when you crop significantly a 10.1MP image, the end result can have significantly reduced image quality.
So - I determined a little more megapixels to work with would be helpful.
Next, the 40D's max ISO is 1600 but at 800 the noise can be a bit of a distraction. The simple solution is to stay below 800 but that requires a flash or photos of stationary objects in darker settings.
So - I determined that something with better light sensitivity would be helpful.
I noticed that some of my lenses were sharper than others on the 40D. I sent the body to Canon with my 24-105 to get the focusing "matched" and the results were good. But it was a one-size fits all solution.
So - I determined that something that offered lens microadjustment would be helpful.
I watched and waited patiently for the "brouhaha" of enthusiam for the 5D MarkII to settle down as I'm not the sort of sucker that pays more than MSRP for anything. I knew my time would come, I'd get my 5DMarkII - even if my wife said no. Now the MSRP is $200 less!
Finally, along comes this blasted Canon 7D to totally ruin my plan. It solves my megapixel issue, it solves my ISO issue, it has lens microadjustment (as does the 50D) it even offers an advanced video capability and "new and improved" autofocusing system. And it's $800+ less expensive. What a quandary.... now what?
With much consternation and angst I debated over and over the 7D or 5DMII. On the one hand, on the other had - you know the drill. Is the 5DMII worth it?
I put my 17-40 lens on the 40D and then on my EOS650 and like I said - the difference is huge between a full frame and cropped sensor. I'm not a video-enthusiast and I'm not really sure what the big deal is about "24p" vs "30p" so that wasn't too important. I believe with autofocusing - "it's not the arrow, it's the indian" and unless something's out of wack your images should be focused or you're making a mistake.
So, I took the plunge and purchased the 5D Mark II.
It's awesome.
The look and feel is very EOS-like. Not too different than my 40D - probably a little better in fact. I like the Creative Auto mode a lot and the menu on the LCD is great.
The ISO range is totally worth it. I take shots routinely at 3200 and they look like 400 on the 40D (very minimal noise / graininess). When I use a flash - the results are amazing.
I microadjusted the camera for all the lenses I own, and as expected the settings for each were slightly different. Now my images are spot-on, unless I screw up (again - it's not the arrow, it's the indian).
To top it all off - Canon is coming out with a firmware update to add 24p (et al) to the 5DMark II.
The Live-view mode is much simpler than on the 40D and focusing is very easy.
The 21 Megapixels is way more than I really need but when I crop my images I get great results so I'm delighted there. I delete images I don't like so my storage constraints are limited.
Finally - the full-frame sensor gives me all the image my considerable lens investment can provide and offers me opportunity on the wide angle side that the 7D couldn't. It's a big deal and not to be discounted (although you can get an EFS 10-22 to make up for it on a cropped body).
I'm sure the 7D is an awesome camera too and I bet the autofocus system is an improvement. However - if you're like me, you've got great lenses, you've been patiently waiting for the hysteria to calm down, and you're ready to change camera bodies then I totally recommend going full frame and getting the 5D Mark II.
|
Nikon Guy forced to go to Canon for resolution
|
| Review Date: February 22, 2010 |
| Reviewer: caleb, |
| I'm doing a large scale documentation project photographing objects on a copy stand. Was pretty sure I was going to use Nikon bodies as thats what I'm familiar with. I tested several bodies and it came down to a 5d MkII or a D3. I'vee never been a pixel peeper but it was clear that that the added resolution with the 5D made a big difference and it was too ignore. Also it comes with the software you need to tether the camera which is nice. My biggest complaint is the ergonomics, big and clunky. Luckily I don't have to handle too much, because I definitely think Nikons are better in this regard. Also Canon's RAW format is less proprietary than Nikon's which does make a big difference to me. |
|
No video reviews found for this product.
Recent Comments