Canon EOS 5D Mark II: Worth the wait?

(Credit: Canon USA)

Three years is a long time for any product to hang around, especially when the technology changes as rapidly as it does for digital cameras. So before moving on to Canon's latest marvel, the EOS 5D Mark II, let's take a moment to appreciate how well the EOS 5D filled the needs of burst-indifferent professionals and deep-pocketed prosumers.

Right. Time to move on now. Though it's always had a big fan base, 5D users have nonetheless been itching for more, and the successor Canon delivers, the EOS 5D Mark II, will likely be a must-have upgrade, especially for the wedding photography crowd for whom the 5D is a workhorse. And with many of the imaging components of the 1Ds Mark III (and a later version of the image-processing engine, Digic 4) for a price tag $5,000 lower, it's sure to be an attractive alternative.

One thing to keep in mind is that when the 5D originally shipped, it had no competition. The landscape has changed considerably since then. Here's how the 5D Mark II stacks up against its predecessor and its competitors on the basics:

	Nikon D700	Sony Alpha DSLR-A900	Canon EOS 5D	Canon EOS 5D Mark II
Price (body only)	$2,995	$2,999.99	$2,499.99	$2,699.99
Sensor	12.1-megapixel CMOS	24.6-megapixel CMOS	12.8-megapixel CMOS	21.1-megapixel CMOS
A/D conversion	14 bit	n/a	12 bit	14 bit
Sensitivity range (expanded)	ISO 100 - ISO 25,600	ISO 100 - ISO 6400	ISO 50 - ISO 3200	ISO 50 - ISO 25,600
LCD	3-inch/920,000 dots	3-inch/920,000 dots	2.5-inch/230,000 dots	3-inch/920,000 dots
Continuous shooting frames best quality JPEG/full-size raw	5 fps/8fps with optional battery grip 100/17	5 fps 11/12	3fps 60/17	3.9fps unlimited/14 (with UDMA card)
Viewfinder	95% coverage 0.72x magnification fixed matte focusing screen	100% coverage 0.74x magnification interchangeable focusing screen	96% coverage 0.71x magnification interchangeable focusing screen	98% coverage magnification n/a interchangeable focusing screen
Autofocus	51-pt AF 15 cross-type f5.6 and wider	9-pt AF center dual-cross type with 10 assist points	9-pt AF 7 center cross-type f2.8 and wider; single center cross-type f4 and wider	15-pt AF 6 center AF assist points; 3 center f2.8 and wider
Live View	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Shutter durability	150,000 cycles	>100,000 cycles	100,000 cycles	150,000 cycles

And how it compares with its big brother, the 1Ds Mark III:

	Canon EOS 5D Mark II	Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III
Price (body)	$2,699	$7,999
Sensor	21.1 megapixel CMOS	21.1 megapixel CMOS
A/D conversion	14 bit	14 bit
ISO sensitivity (expanded)	ISO 25,600	ISO 3200
AF system	15-pt AF 6 center AF assist points; 3 center f2.8 and wider	45-point AF 19 cross-type points; 26 Assist AF points
Continuous shooting frames best quality JPEG/full-size raw	3.9fps unlimited/14 (with UDMA card)	5fps 56/12
Viewfinder	98% coverage magnification n/a interchangeable focusing screen	100% coverage 0.76x magnification interchangeable focusing screen
Shutter durability	150,000 cycles	300,000 cycles

By all measures, it's priced fairly aggressively, coming out as the least expensive of its cohort by several hundred dollars. As long as Canon can pull off the image quality--which we've seen it do with the same sensor in the 1Ds Mark III--the high-resolution sensor will prove to be an asset. The sacrifice, however, is in burst performance. It's the slowest of all the new models, partly because of Nikon's significantly lower resolution and Sony's doubling up on the processors to maintain burst rates. Based on the specifications, its autofocus system seems to lag Nikon's as well, though specs only tell a fraction of the AF story.

(Credit: Canon USA)

The most notable difference between the 5D Mark II and its competitors is the movie-capture capability. It's interesting that Nikon chose to introduce video in its consumer-focused D90, while Canon opted for a debut in the higher-end model. Canon supports 1,920x1,080 at 30fps, true 1080p HD, with stereo audio, and longer clips of up to 4GB compared with the D90's monoaural 1,280x720 24fps for 2GB. (And as with that camera, it works in Live View mode.) While there are some obvious applications for it in areas like wedding, law enforcement, insurance and other professional and commercial environments, a lot of its usefulness will rest on the implementation. In a nice touch, the camera has a minijack for an external microphone.

(Credit: Canon USA)

While several of the new capabilities definitely target pros--a pair of low-resolution raw formats (10 and 5.2 megapixels), in-camera peripheral illumination correction to compensate for brightness nonuniformity across the image, and a silent Live View mode--Canon also adds the Creative Auto mode which debuted with the 50D. That latter's more of a newbie feature than I'd expect to see in a camera of this class. The company did upgrade the body for improved weather resistance.

All in all, the EOS 5D Mark II looks quite intriguing, but doesn't provoke the knee-jerk WANT response I expected. Still, I can't wait to get it in and give it a shot (or several hundred). It's slated to ship at the end of November; body only for $2,699 or with the24-105mm f4 L USM lens for $3,499.

[tuned_supra]

"but doesn't provoke the knee-jerk WANT response I expected"... lori, what were you really expecting? the successor to the enormously popular 5d improves on almost every aspect that was lacking. and for people actually going to go and purchase the 5d mk2, the reasons you'd have an induced "knee-jerk WANT" reaction would probably have absolutely no effect on the decision.

[mikelats]

The question is not about whether the new 5D Mark II improves on every aspect of its predecessor or not because obviously that had to be the case - especially after it took Canon 3 years to realease it.

The real question is HOW MUCH the features one wants/values have been improved. Needless to say, it all depends on personal preferences.

I like the fact that Canon improved the camera's weather resistance and battery life. However, while having HD video is a nice add-on, to me it is definitely more important to have a viewfinder with a 100% coverage, more AF points, a faster burst mode and a dedicated button for ISO settings (they had plenty of space for that). I don't care for the Creative Auto mode either and I also find it surprising that Canon decided to include such feature in a camera of this class.

I can't wait either to read a full review and test results.

[Starfires]

It looks like full-frame is making it's way into cheaper models across the board and with it some new features, like HD video. I get the feeling that this is aiming as much at those who might otherwise settle for a D90 as for the semi-pros that will go for a D700. Having a 'high-end' camera that is eclipsed by a bigger brother seems to have limitted the 5D's sales, as pros can more or less buy whatever is best regardless of price, while others are in search of features.

I also look forward to reviews, especially to see what they can do with higher ISOs on a 21mp sensor. As a Nikon user there is only one possible choice for me here, but a D900 may well try to trump that 5D Mk. II.

[ishizukatony]

5DMKII is a big leap to me. There is interesting video content on the canon.co.uk website. Video with two representatives from Canon + worldpress photo winner talking about the advantages of full hd video. Time will tell if HD video will change photojournalists work but their story had some legs.

http://www.canon-europe.com/thefutureofphotography/

[AShearer9]

The video is an add on, don't think it will be used much professionally but HD is coming big time across the broadcasters. It'll be good to know if metadata capture is possible with it.
The 'reduced' AF will be interesting.
Lets just see how the pics turn out - I saw one example at real low light and it looked amazing.

[sjschaef]

The question is.. with HD video.. can I use all of my old Canon lenses or am I going to have to invest in all new ones?

[strat60]

The 5D is my staple. I shoot weddings and portraits. While I really cannot see how I will ever use the HD video, I am very satisfied that this camera seems to be a great upgrade for me. Wedding photography often craves high MP for the ability to crop, so a 21.1 MP sensor is a huge deal to me. The expanded ISO capability is also key. The 5D was already a low light monster, but I'm really excited to see how the MKII does. Perhaps the biggest draw to me is the price of this little beauty. I was expecting the body to be $3,200 or more. At $2,700, I am quite happy and anxious to purchase one of these (or two?).

[molotov]

Can we stop these megapixel wars once and for all? 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 21, 24megapixel cameras are all obsolete when compared them to the old, dinosaur yet still superb technology; film. Why you ask? Well for example; a simple 35mm film can generate an image of a 50megapixel sensor, easily. And if I take out my medium-format camera; your 21megapixel Canon might as well be a camera phone sensor stuck in an SLR body. It is taboo, I know, but that is how it is. Until Nikon comes out with a real sensor for mass market; under $5,000 with 50megapixel sensor - you might as well use a 6 megapixel sensor, otherwise you are just getting milked and humiliated by these companies. Got Cash? Get a digital medium format camera for $50,000. Otherwise do not even think about anything above 10megapixels.
And besides; don't you know that the professional men and women who make money shooting models and copose photographic art use film. Eventhough; it is costly, unflexible and old. The film technology is here to stay, for now.
This article might as well be obsolete. SOHO, NYC.

[zip22]

"Well for example; a simple 35mm film can generate an image of a 50megapixel sensor, easily"

What? The comparisons are different across the internet, but I have never heard that. It really depends on the size of the print, but I'm pretty sure these modern digital cameras are at the level of film or have surpassed it.

[rpphoto555]

Actually, I am a professional shooting critical magazine work, fashion, fine-art, cd covers, posters, etc. and I have not used my Hasselblad and Mamiya medium format cameras in years now. Recently, I went to a lighting seminar that 700 pro photographers attended. When asked how many mainly shoot film, seven people raised their hand, so one-percent of pros here use film cameras. The images I generate with my 5D provide far-more flexibility and quality than film, and my clients love the outcome. Personally, I don't know a single pro using film anymore. For someone that has worked in this industry and art for many decades, your statements just sound laughable and naive.

[bigjuliefromchicago]

Film will always have it's place in fine art. After all, people are still making etchings and lithographs despite the fact that those technologies have been "obsolete" for a hundred years or more.
Where digital completely kills film - for pros and snapshooters alike - is the ability to shoot virtually unlimited shots with out reloading and...drum roll please...AT NO ADDITIONAL COST. For pros shooting live events - weddings, sports, news - it's everything. Take 10, 20, 50 shots. No difference.

[HGRection]

Oh Really??

You take your 35mm film camera, and I'll take my DSLR, we will both take a picture of the same thing, create an enlargement 36inch X 24inch, and lets see who's photo comes out the best.

Film technology is History, and a pain in the ass.

[johnmotts]

The idea that a 35mm film camera gives the equivalent of 50mp is just so far removed from reality as to be perhaps the most absurd comment I've ever read anywhere. Where on earth did you get this idea from?

Hardly any professionals use film anymore and it's not just a cost thing either. I used to use medium format film for weddings and I now use a pair of Canon 5Ds. The image quality from the 5Ds absolutely wipes the floor with film, especially 35mm film.

Are you honestly saying that all those studios who have invested tens of thousands of dollars on 39mp digital equipment would get better results from a 35mm SLR? Please!

[eard]

Thanks molotov for putting your life on the line. I shoot most of my commercial work as well as stock (masterfile,Firstlight) with digital. Its like fast food, quick tasty and it goes down fairly effortlessly. But like a fine gourmet meal it simply does not compare to the tastes you can get with, oh lets say a 8x10, 4x5 or a pentax 6x7, or a polaroid or a 110 disposible. The variety of "looks" one can get with film-lens-camera format combos is still an amazing thing. I just shot a job for a client who wanted colour neg, so I shot it with my 5d as well, you know just for fun, the raw files were beautiful, but the film was amazing!!! Oh right I forgot you can make anything look like film? I have yet to see it. For people shooting many jobs where quality is secondary, or its being printed 8x10 at 150dpi then shoot digital, but please we should not even compare digital to film, they are just too different. By the way I have pre ordered my March II like everyone else...when I need to be like everyone else. Remember these are only the tools; what makes a great image is way beyond this discussion.

[jackies35]

I understand what you are saying.... However, I know tons of amateurs and semi pros who is shooting with Nikon D60, d80, and d200 who makes $ 50,000 per year. As for the canon there is a guy name Knight who is making a killing in weddings (uses Canon 5d).

So, you go ahead and get the film or the $ 50,000 camera while these amateurs continue to shoot and make money!

No offense to what you are saying. I wish I was good as you and those I just mentioned. Go check it out!

Check out their work and see who is making big bucks and see why I can't agree with you story. Oh, by the way, these photographers are nice with Photoshop and some feel that's all you need. Good eyes (camera), experience, and nice with photoshop (aperture) etc....
Tom Couture - Masters Lighting
Jenn Hoffma - She studied Lighting

[cps08]

To Molotov:

First off you're very condesending and second you are spewing out information that is not accurate or even close to true. I know a few professional photographers making 5-figure commissions and they use digital. Hasselblads, hi-end Canons, hi-end Nikons, Phase One, Leaf..etc.

By all means I love film and I have dark room experience but don't tell me that your 35mm film is better then a 50Megapixel Sensor that is utter garbage. A 50 MP sensor would generate a wall size poster, and when Canon and Nikon release those sensors in the next 2-3 years it will be sharp. Maybe NOT as sharp as Hasselblad or Phase One 50 Megapixels but very good nonetheless.

To everyone else the D700, Canon 5D MKII, A900 these will all be great cameras to have and trust me you'll be able to use Canon and Sony's 20+ MP sensors for good use. Don't let this Molotov guy's negativity mean anything. If you want to know what the REAL pros are currently using check out Hasselblad or Phase One's websites.

[cps08]

Something to add about the Canon 5D MK II. You can use all your lenses for HD Video and from what I've seen it's amazing. You can do some really cool "film" like techniques that you can only do using nothing less then a Super 16 or 35mm film recorder.

This is a great movement because if you used Super 16 or higher you know telecine cost run up to $10,000 per hour of footage you shoot.

Usually I'm not for video capture in DSLRs but I am really excited about both the new 5D MK II and the D90 from Nikon.

[nycphoto]

FYI:
The new video feature WILL revolutionize the news industry.
Posting online video will save the newspaper industry.

[oppyxray]

Guys and Gals,
It seems that tomorrow is here if you can afford it. Check out the new Leica S System.
I am not a "Germanophile" but do own a couple of Leica film cameras and lenses.
This new system should accelerate the camera contest. Everybody else will try to catch up.

[Imagecapturer]

I am a freelance semi-pro photographer who lives and shoots in Miami, Florida. Believe it or not, I am still using my four year-old Nikon 8700 digital camera for image capture, and between that and the high level of expertise that I have achieved in digital image editing using Photoshop for the last 8 years (and I'm still using and quite content with Photoshop 7.0!) Yes--only 8 megapixels (usually shoot in RAW) and not even an SLR (yes, the shutter lag is a real drawback) but, you should see some of my pictures, which I've held next to the prints that came from some of the cameras mentioned in this article. I even surpised Scott Kelby who I met at a Photoshop seminar held locally with the quality of my photos. I'm waiting for the day that Nikon (I love Nikon--it was my first digital camera--the old Coolpix 990) or Canon comes out with a non-SLR camera with a system that can eliminate shutter lag and that has at least 12X zoom capability and image stabilization and then I'll spring for a new camera. The ability to change lenses has little value to me for the types of photography that I do (small weddings, Cuban "quinces", retirement dinners, etc.) and the availability of a swivel LCD has enabled me to capture some incredible images at unique angles--something that SLRs don't have. O.K. you pros out there in cyberspace--tell me where I'm wrong or tell me something that I should know.

[rpphoto555]

For me the self-cleaning sensor alone is worth the upgrade; I live on top of a dirt mountain, dirt roads, dust in the air. I have to watch for dust on the sensor every single time I change lenses, which is not fun.
The other new features are all well worth the upgrade, too, so I'm really looking forward to an upgrade to this new art-making-machine.

[Deafening1magery]

Oh-my-freakin'-God! I am so insanely excited! My dad's got a 5D and I shoot with it all the time (and his lenses, of course.) It's a great camera, but there are some distinct drawbacks that it looks like Canon has addressed for the M2. (WOO HOO!)

Imagecapturer, if you're happy, go nuts, man. Same to you, Molotov: if you like film, go nuts. The rest of us will be whetting our palettes on Canon's newest toy. Yes, there is some, "oooooh--SHINY!" For the ADD in all of us, it does make us do a double-take, but the things that make us happy are the things that really make this camera worthwhile.

So here it is, folks: Canon EOS 5D + improvements = "OOOooooh! AAAaaaah!"

[psalvia]

This camera is a game changer. Period. Suddenly, all the world class still photographers in the world will have a tool at their disposal they are already skilled at using that can capture 1080p. I'm hoping this will create an influx of high quality footage that can do away with the dirth of poorly composed video making up the majority of what we see on television (with the exception of the Planet Earth's and Wild China's out there).

I've posted a quick video tutorial explaining how to edit footage from the 5dmarkii in Final Cut Pro. Here's the link:

www.petersalvia.wordpress.com

I'm a video guy walking into a room of still photographers so there's a whole lot I know I have to learn about lenses, f-stops, etc. Hopefully these free tutorials can help people understand the video workflow for producing films with this amazing, game changing camera.

proactively ? peter

[gagazote]

If you'd like to take a gander at the video capabilities of this camera, take a look at Vincent's work:
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/10/10/without-further-ado-reverie/

[HGRection]

I for one, can't wait for this camera to come out. I look forward to being able to mix HD video and Still's all on the same file. Should be able to burn a really nice sequence on Blu Ray to display on a 1080 hd tv.

Cool stuff is happening!

[cps08]

Oppyxray, the new Leica is definitely a beautiful piece to have in any photographer's collection. Maybe some day when I'm up there with the big boys I can get a nice Leica or Hasselblad and some big boy glass.

For now, I'm using Canon bodies and L-series lenses. I think the 1Ds3 does produce some very awesome image quality nearing that of the big boys.

For anyone that doesn't think HD Video on the 5D Mark II is worth it. Just think about this. To get an equivalent similar to 5D2's video capability with interchangeable lenses and beautiful bokeh's you're talking about buying a Red One 4k ($17k new) or a Super 16 Film camera ($4000 used).

Yes the 5D2 only shoots in 2k (1080HD) and does not near the Red One's 4k 100FPS rate but still, for 2700 you can start shooting music videos, nature documentaries with production grade nearing that of Nat. Geo. or other big names. Google "Canon 5D Mark II, Reverie".

[cps08]

It's official, the 5D Mark II is in my hands and I am blown away. I have absolutely NO Black Dot problems. Shot my 5DMII directly at my xmas lights at ISO2000 and nothing happened except a crisp, tack sharp image with a few over blown lights here and there.

Using the 35mm f/2.0 and the 50mm f/1.4 in very dark environments. Right off the bat what has been super handy is Live View with zoom in function. What you think is precise based off the optical view finder is often slightly out of focus. Viewing it through the live view and zooming in 5x to get your focus even more precise is awesome. Just today alone, the sharpness of my images has improved because of this camera.

As far as the way it feels and handles...wow. Its not too heavy, a little beefier than my old 30 and 20Ds. The HD Video is just what I'd hope it was going to be. With lenses set to a very shallow depth of field it looks like I shot everything in Super 16. Its a lot of excitement to think that a cinematic look that use to cost 10k/hour to telecine is now free with the camera.

Yes built in flash and maybe 36 AF points would have been nice, but so far I'm not complaining.