For regular readers: I've once again decided to publish a blog post in English instead of Norwegian, because I think the topic will be useful for a bigger audience.
Before we start, let me get one thing off my chest: The conclusion of this blog post will be that this is by far the best camera I've used in my life.
But you should also know this: I'm not a professional photographer, I'm
not even a very good amateur. My current DSLR is a Canon EOS 350D
(called Digital Rebel XT in the US) combined with a reasonably good lens. So when I say that the EOS 5D
mark II is the best camera I've ever
used, well... then it may say just as much about what I'm used to, as
it does about the 5DmkII. So this blog post is meant as a 5DmkII short guide/hands on experience for low end guys like myself. (But high end guys are welcome to read too :-)
I got hold of the 5DmkII because sometimes the Morning God *) works in mysterious ways. By coincidence I had said yes to attend a presentation of Canon's new big format ink jet printers (they're so big that it almost feels like an insult to call them ink jet printers). During that presentation they also showed off the Canon EOS 5D mark II. After the presentation I asked the guys from Canon Norway whether they could loan me a pre-release Canon EOS 5D mark II sometime. To my surprise that wasn't only OK for them, but I got it right there and then. It was mine over the weekend. Five full days.
The willingsness to loan me the camera was a little surprising, because the not-yet-released Canon EOS 5D mark II has reached near-mythical status on the different photography message boards on the web. The HD movie mode probably has something to do with it, helped a lot by Vincent Laforet's hype (and, of course, the movie he produced that actually proved his hype was well founded). Some Canon users also felt that the recently released Nikon D700 ran circles around the original 5D, especially when it comes to high ISO noise levels. And of course: The original 5D was long overdue for an upgrade. And all this, combined with knowing that it's coming but most people being unable to hold it and try it for some time yet, caused a buzz I've never seen for a photographic product before.
Since the camera has reached this mythical stauts, I thought I'd share my experiences with you. I may be able to drag it down from the pedistal a bit, and claim that it is -- after all -- just a camera. And I may even be able to verify a few of the myths. Anyway, I think I have a few useful things to say about the 5D mark II, especially for those of you who currently use Canon's low end gear like me and wonder how the high end gear really is. So read on.
In the box
What I've got is a pre-release camera, so I guess it's unfair to talk about the box contents. Unfair in the sense that it's not even certain that this is what'll end up in the final box. Hopefully the released product will contain more. For instance a CD-ROM with software and a printed manual.
Apart from these omissions, I found the usual stuff.
- A battery
- A charger with cable
- A USB cable
- An S-Video cable
- Camera Strap
- The camera itself
The camera has an HDMI port. Considering that 1) the camera can record Full HD video, 2) the retail price of the 5DmkII (around NOK 23.000 in Norway, and I guess around or above $3000 in the US) and 3) what 1 meter of HDMI cable costs these days, I find it strange that Canon hasn't put an HDMI cable in the box instead of or in addition to an S-video cable.
As I said the camera came without both software CD and manual, so I can't say much about those. What this means in practice is that I don't have a RAW converter that's compatible with the camera, so all you'll see here are JPEGs from the camera.
Picture test and handling
For reasons I can't explain in a way that's both short and makes sense, the only lens I had available on day one was a 10+ year old EF 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 III. This was not a particularily good kit lens even when it was new (I got it together with the EOS 50E), and I hadn't used it since 2001. Still, this was what I had on day one, so that was what I used. For the same reasons as above I also didn't have much time on day one, so I ended up walking around my house snapping a few shots here and there. Without any photgraphic ambition whatsoever, mostly just to familiarize myself with the camera.
The apparent softness in the pictures are all due to the lens, not the camera. I've got examples with other lenses further down.
(Text continues below the picture)
Even with the shitty lens I was using, the camera performed well. The few test shots I did immediately showed visible differences from my trusty old EOS 350D. First: The dynamic range seems to be much wider, i.e. I don't see as much burnt out highlights with this camera as with my own.
But the most important thing I noticed at first had nothing to do with picture quality. It was the fact that not only was the LCD screen bigger compared to what I'm used to (3 inches compared to 1.8 inch) but it now is so detailed that the blinking black spots that indicates burnt-out areas actually becomes useful. The resolution is also so big that you now actually can use the screen to assess sharpness and exposure with a reasonable amount of certainty. This is a great improvement in my eyes, greater than what you might think when you only read the specs.
Other notable differences includes the weight and the solid build. It feels heavy, but not uncomfortably so, and it's seems very sturdy and durable. The machine oozes quality compared to my regular DSLR. When you press the shutter release, the sound is low and deep and in a way... reassuring? I don't know how to describe it better. It just feels different; more dependable so to speak.
You know this already: The 5D mark II does not have a built-in flash, so for flash photography you need an external Speedlight. This adds weight and bulk, but also possibilities of course.
The function wheel lacks the image programs (you know, sports, portrait, landscape etc), but it still has the Green Zone program (full auto everything). The back of the camera have a big scroll wheel. I had that on my EOS 50E, and is the one thing I missed when going digital a few years back. Other things: it's not that the EOS 5DmkII have more buttons than the 350D, it's just that I feel they're more logically placed. They also give easier access to functions such as flash exposure compensation. These differences may seem subtle, but handling wise they're a big difference.
(Two paragraphs removed ***)
I have a little more to say about handling, but we'll get back to that since I think the stuff I have to say will make little sense without having read a couple of other things first.
The hidden cost (and benefits) of buying the 5DmkII
We've talked about weight, sturdiness, handling, shutter sound, the lack of built-in flash, etc. All those are important differences from Canon's low end offerings. But the biggest difference from a low end camera doesn't become apparent before you return home and download your first test snaps to your PC.
Let's imagine a scenario: You've shelled out three grand for the camera and another grand or two on lenses. And you may even have paid another 500 on top of that for a new flash gun. Would you believe me if I said that you already the next day would shell out another couple of thousand on a new computer?
No? If you got a computer like mine you will. I've had an iMac for a couple of years now. It has done everything I've wanted it to without complaining. But it showed its age when forced to dealed with pictures 2.6 times bigger than my 350D pictures. Opening the files take quite some time, and if you try do large operations such as copying a full 21 MP picture over to a layer in another, the camera pauses and the disk grinds and complains and... well, there's a lot of waiting.
The good thing about having 21 MP pictures on the other hand, is something I've never thought about before I actually got my hands on one. I initially thought the main benefit I'd get from it was more freedom to crop hard and still be able to get good prints. What I discovered, however, is that the large resolution is good for a lot of other things too. One of these things is tracing edges in Photoshop: Let's say you should want to trace the edges of an object in a picture and copy it to another layer or something like that. With the enormous resolution present here, the tracing actually becomes easier. You can be more sloppy and the end result still looks good. I sometimes also do stuff like (don't ask me why) moving pupils a little to the right or left in an eye, and if you try to do this in a full figure portrait of a person the eye doesn't consist of many pixels in an 8 MP picture. But here you actually get enough resolution to make tracing and retouching easier.
So resolution is good, no doubt about that. It made the job of creating a picture like the one under a breeze. Here I used the EF 16-35mm f/2.8.
(Text continues below the picture)
So again: Apart from the fact that I'd probably have to get a new computer to handle image processing, I'm pleasantly surprised (bordering on "have-to-buy-it-although-i-probably-don't-need-it") by how great it is to have lots of megapixels to play with.
Noise tests
One of the most heated debates online, seems to be whether the pixel density of the 5DmkII will make it worse at high ISO noise than the apparently excellent Nikon D700/D3 cameras. (The 5DmkII has 21 MP vs the D700's 12 MP).
As you can guess by now, I haven't tried the D700 either. So I really can't answer the questions you may have in that regard. But compared to the EOS 350D, the 5DmkmII high ISO rocks. My current camera has 1600 as its highest setting; the EOS 5D mark II goes all the way to 25600. More importantly: In my opinion ISO 6400 on this camera is equal to or better than ISO 1600 on the 350D. The noise of the 350D at ISO 1600 is not as bad as the 5DmkII's ISO 12800, but the 5DmkII maintains color much better when you increase ISO.
In short: In my opinion noise in the jpeg files are excellent up to ISO 3200, usable even at 6400. 12800 and 25600 are nice ISOs to have, I guess, but here noise is so visible and unpleasant that it should only be used when you don't have any choice.
Let me elaborate a litte: In my experience noise at high ISO is worst in areas that are out of focus and/or in shadow. So on your right you'll see 100 % crops of identical out of focus/shadow areas at different ISO levels.
If you're a landscape shooter I'll guess you stick with the low ISOs now matter what. But if my test are an indication, I think the rest of us will happily be shooting at ISO 1600 with this camera. You'll get perfectly acceptable prints from ISO 1600 pictures, perhaps even from ISO 3200. The noise is visible at 1600 and 3200, but it isn't discolored (if that's the correct terminology) -- which in my eyes is mainly what makes noise unpleasant to look at.
When you get to 6400 noise is so visible that it can't be ignored. Discolorization is now apparent. That doesn't mean it can't and shouldn't be used, though: I'm old enough to remember negative color film such as the Konica 3200, and if you remember that one too you'll think the 5DmkII is remarkable, going on amazing. **) In hindsight the Konica film had quality you wouldn't even find acceptable from cell phone pictures today; the 5DmkII is way, way better than anything you ever had in the days of analog film. So 6400 can be acceptable when you really, really need the low light capability. In my opinion noise levels doesn't become really unacceptable before you get to the H1 ISO. H1 equals ISO 12800. H2, which equals 25600, will only be used in very special circumstances.
Just to give an example of what you're able to achieve with the high ISO levels here: With a decent lens and ISO 6400, you can handhold and take pictures in conditions where it's too dark for the camera to focus. And even with two steps under exposure the scene looks nothing like what you're eye see. The image you'll get from the camera will have color and seem bright; what you see with your bare eyes is something dark and muddy grey. The picture below is an example of this (using the EF 50mm f/1.4):
I had to underexpose the picture almost three stops for it to get near what I saw with my eyes, and even then the image came out brighter. So the question is whether you're interested in capturing what you see or if you're interested in night vision. That will determine your lust for high ISO. But that it technically is great up to 6400, no one can argue.
When it comes to the H1 and H2 modes, however, I guess you can argue about how good or bad they are. My initial thoughts are that you won't be interested in them, unless you're a stalker or doing surveillance or you actually like extreme noise or you for some peculiar reason want to photograph stuff when it's pitch dark and have the pictures look like it's not pitch dark after all. I guess it's good to know that the extreme ISO options are there, but I doubt that you will use them regularily.
Handling the camera in the dark
This may seem like an odd thing to think about (I certainly never have thought about this when handling my 350D, for reasons that are obvious): When getting the 5DmkII I was very interested in finding out how the camera handles when it's very dark.
Why?
Well, as I explained earlier this camera is actually able to take pictures when you yourself almost can't see. Since online message boards seems to concern themselves very much with low light ISO capability when new DSLRs are released, I thought it'd be reasonable to see whether you actually manage to handle the camera in the dark.
It begins very well: The top plate has a button which activates back lighting of the top LCD. It has a nice orange glow and is very visible in the dark.
But when I fumbled around in the dark, it dawned on me that Canon has forgotten one important thing: What I had expected from a camera that a) can take pictures in near darkness and b) costs as much as this on does, is that the buttons were like the ones on my Toyota: When I activate the driving lights, the button labels also lights up.
Canon has hidden lots of obscure functionality behind these tiny, tiny little buttons, among other things the (in the dark) very relevant function for ISO selection. So I'd really would have thought that it'd be a good idea to implement something like this. For all I know this may be impossible to do. But if it's possible, companies that produce the next generation "night vision enabled" DSLRs should consider adding light to the button labels.
Live view
The EOS 5D mark II has a Live View mode. My 350D doesn't so this was also new (on a DSLR) for me. This means that you can set your 5DmkII to what in the beginning feels like P&S mode. I.e. it lets you use the rear LCD screen for composing and focusing.
But I'm really wrong in calling Live View a P&S mode. Because the 5DmkII and other cameras of its class are too heavy to be comfortably handheld in this mode. In addition the Live View autofocus is dead slow compared to normal AF. So the P&S mode makes the camera virtually unusable as a P&S camera. This irony is the main negative aspect of LV on the EOS 5DmkII.
Live View is obviously a function for the tripod toting crew. I guess it can be useful for still life shots, macro shots and some studio work. But I don't see that it in this implementation is very useful to me personally.
I've read reviews that criticize Sony a little for not including
Live View on the new flagship Sony A900 camera. But in reality I'm not
sure who this function is meant for, at least not as it's implemented here. So I for one don't blame them for
not adding it to the A900.
HD Video and handling
This may surprise you, but I wasn't all that interested in video when trying the camera. I filmed a few clips, then I went on to do other things instead. So I really don't have enough experience to say something useful about it, other than this:
1) You should prepare to focus manually. You can apparently let the contrast based auto focus (the same as in Live View) do the job for you. But that's a slow way to focus, and I think refocusing will be very visible in your video clips.
2) If you think this is the DSLR that will mean the end of your camcorder... well, maybe it won't after all. If you plan on hand holding the 5DmkII while shooting video, you'll soon discover that it feels a little awkward. A DSLR is designed for being held with your arms close to your chest and the camera close to your eye. But here you'll have to hold a relatively heavy camera out from your body, because you have to control framing and focus on the LCD screen. Since the LCD screen can't be flipped out and rotated -- it's fixed to the camera body -- it's not possible to find comfortable positions here either. So as with Live View, I feel that the video mode is for people who plan on shooting video with the camera on a tripod, a steady cam gadget, or something like that.
Conclusion
OK, so is there a conclusion? No, I don't think so. I started by telling you that this is the best camera I've ever used. And it is.
But now that the weekend is ending, I have to be honest and say that I'm also as impressed with the gadgets my colleagues lent me:
* The two Speedlite flash guns and operating them wirelessly, that was new to me. And it was very fun too (see example below)
* The lenses -- EF 16-35mm f/2.8 and EF 50mm f/1.4 -- were beautiful. I've owned cheaper ASP-C equivalents, but especially the 16-35 was in a different league than those. Much less distortion than the much cheaper Tamron I had. There was noticeably less flare too.
It was the "gadgets" and not the body itself that let me play around and get pictures like this:
(Text continues below the picture)
Playing around with the EOS 5DmkII, the EF 50mm f/1.4 and two Speedlights.
The lens and two-flash combo was almost cooler than the camera house in itself.
I enjoyed the possibilities with using one gun to deliberately overexpose and the other
underexpose. It was realtively easy to achieve fun and nice looking effects.
Since I write this for low end guys like myself, I guess the politically correct conclusion here is that what we should do is spend our money on lenses and gadgets instead of a new camera body. But still: The 21MP sensor makes Photoshopping (at least the kind I do) easier. In addition the feel and the handling of the camera is just... different. Reassuring and luxurious. A little like Lexus compared to Toyota, I guess.
More people drive a Toyota than Lexus. But a lot of them still dreams of a Lexus. I think I will have the camera equivalent of that after having had the EOS 5D mark II over the weekend.
What I can say without hesitation, though, is that you *can* set the EOS 5D mark II to "GREEN" on the function dial and use it as a brilliant $3000 point and shoot camera. So I let todays "green zone" pictures finish off this report (note, for instance, that the camera caught a piece of bread somebody threw into the seagulls mouth -- the camera is extremely responsive!).
See a larger version |
|
NOTES
*) Eos is the titanic goddess of the dawn in greek mythology.
**) I haven't tried the Konica 3200 since 1992, so it may very well be that it became significantly better in later versions.
***) In an earlier version of the post I wrongly stated that you had to keep buttons pressed while turning the dials. This was a big misunderstanding on my part. Thanks to DPReview reader Henrik Herranen to point this out for me.
PS! I want more Flickr contacts. Visit my photostream and see if you want to add me.
Hey! Great stuff! Thanks for sharing! I've linked to this via http://planet5d.com
Posted by: Mitch | November 23, 2008 at 22:00
@Mitch: Thanks Mitch. It's been fun to have the camera these few days too, so it was just fun to share :-)
Posted by: Jo Christian Oterhals | November 23, 2008 at 22:06
I'll probably make the jump from the 350d to the 5dII too, so I'm happy to read your experiment :)
> The top plate has a button which activates back lighting of the top LCD. It has a nice orange glow and is very visible in the dark. This is something my 350D does not have.
do you mean the 350d doesn't have a top LCD ? because the rear B&W LCD on the 350d can be illuminated in orange glow.
Posted by: kazekami | November 23, 2008 at 22:23
@kazekami: You're right. My sentences didn't come out as planned. What I meant was that my 350D doesn't have a top plate LCD (but as you say, it's located at the back instead). I've removed the sentence that causes confusion. Thanks again :-)
Posted by: Jo Christian Oterhals | November 23, 2008 at 22:32
you do realize that 5D2 manual is up since 24 October 2008 ?
Refer to http://www.canonrumors.com/2008/10/24/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-manual-posted/
& the RAW converted for 5D2 is announced on 22 October 2008 @ http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08102201adobe_camera_raw__lightroom_update.asp
Posted by: Vic | November 23, 2008 at 23:02
@Vic: Thanks for pointing out the URLs.
I knew that the manual is available as a PDF (I got it from Canon Norway by email). What I meant to say was that in the box the pre-release 5DmkII came in, there was no *printed* version of the manual.
As for the software, I didn't know that it existed before today. I tried Canon Europe's site a few days back, and found nothing for Mac OS X there. But when I searched Google for something else today, I found it on what I think is the american site.
Still: I enjoyed the 5DmkII even without the software. In my eyes the JPEGs produced in-camera seems more than good enough for a weekend test like this.
Posted by: Jo Christian Oterhals | November 23, 2008 at 23:54
THANK YOU for the fabulous review. I'm in the same bucket you are - currently shooting with a 350D. I'll be upgrading to the 5D2 as soon as I can get my hands on it. I appreciate the way in which this review was written, and found it pretty informative. I'm curious to know a couple other things... like how was the autofocus different than the 350d?
Posted by: Andy B | November 24, 2008 at 03:43
@Andy B: I'm very simple when it comes to autofocus. No matter what EOS I've used, I always enable the center point and set the camera to one shot. It may seem a little old fashioned. But I don't shoot fast moving motives, so it works well for me. Speed is really not an issue then, so I didn't think much about it.
But what I did experience (and I think I wrote it too), was that the autofocus in Live View was noticeably slow. Too slow even for my shooting style.
Posted by: Jo Christian Oterhals | November 24, 2008 at 09:58
Where I can get please more details about the below technique of using two speedlights? Looks really cool!
Thanks a lot,
Peter
Playing around with the EOS 5DmkII, the EF 50mm f/1.4 and two Speedlights.
The lens and two-flash combo was almost cooler than the camera house in itself.
I enjoyed the possibilities with using one gun to deliberately overexpose and the other
underexpose. It was realtively easy to achieve fun and nice looking effects.
Posted by: Pek | November 24, 2008 at 12:46
"Live View is obviously a function for the tripod toting crew. I guess it can be useful for still life shots, macro shots and some studio work. But I don't see that it in this implementation is very useful to me personally."
Isn't the mirror locked up while shooting video? If so, LV is rather vital I'd say.
Posted by: Frode | November 24, 2008 at 15:56
@Frode: You're right that Live View is crucial for shooting video. But you can also use it to shoot still photos.
I'm not negative to the idea of Live View in itself. What I find negative, however, is hthat the auto focus speed was noticeably slower in Live View mode than it is without. That in itself makes using LV a process for people with a tad more patience than me.
I'm sure others will love Live View mode and enjoy it very much.
Posted by: Jo Christian Oterhals | November 24, 2008 at 19:37
@Pek: Using two speedlights was very simple, really. I just put one on the 5DmkII. The other was switched to slave mode. That's really all there is to it to begin with.
In this particular case I did the following: The boy was placed onto a white rug. The room we were in was filled with daylight, so it was relatively bright to begin with. The head of the on-camera flash gun were pointed to the roof and set to normal output.
The second flash gun was held in front of the boy (or below him if you look at the picture). The flash head pointed directly at him. I set this gun to give 1/4 of normal output.
I then set the camera to expose correctly for available light, and before I finished I dialed in two stops over exposure.
I'm sure people will say that all I did here was wrong from start to finish: Underexposing one flash, normal exposing the other, overexposing available light... but what it did was that it burnt out the whites and produced what I feel was "angelic whites". As you can see some skin areas on his arms burnt out too, but I don't think that matters too much.
In Photoshop I played i little with levels to bring back some contrast in his shirt, but other than that I didn't do much.
I'm pretty satisfied with the result. In this case I actually do think that the camera had a little lot to do with being able to do this. The JPEGs have lots of information in them (i.e. what to me looks like a wide dynamic range). So I was able to pull back a lot of information in the shirt and skin by adjusting levels. I'm almost certain that I couldn't have pulled back as much information with JPEGs from my 350D.
(As I explained in the post, I didn't try using the RAW files from the camera)
Posted by: Jo Christian Oterhals | November 24, 2008 at 19:51