REVIEW: EOS 5D Mark II

[AdamJ]

This is my EOS 5D Mark II Review, which is really more of a field/user report.


Background
Exterior & Handling
Menu System
Viewfinder
Image Quality
Auto Focus
Auto Exposure
Anti-Dust
Video


Background
I'm not sure I could even qualify myself as an amateur photographer, I prefer the word enthusiast. Photography is a hobby of mine, and has been a serious one for about 5 years now. The vast majority of my photography is for my own artistic enjoyment, although I have shot a couple events and done alot of product/stock/inventory shots for clients.

I've had the 5DMK2 since early December and have had about 2 weeks now to get comfortable with it and its output. The information below is really nothing more then a highly subjective opinion of one user, don't assume anything further.

I have previously owned the following Canon EOS Cameras: 30D, 40D, 5D as well as the Nikon D700 so I also will be comparing the 5DMK2 to those cameras at times. This review won't be a technical feature comparison, or a pixel-peeping image comparo-rama. This is a realistic view of the differences that a single user encounters.

Please feel free to post questions, but if I feel the answer is better suited in a private response I may PM you my response. I will not be posting any kind of side-by-side photographs or other technical oriented tests, as there are already many fine examples on the internet, so please don't request.

Exterior & Handling
The 5DMK2 is a well built camera, the build quality is obvious when you handle it due to solid materials and tight tolerances in any plastics. It feels similar to a 40D, except it seems the 5DMK2 has made an improvement on the CF card door.





The camera is significantly different from the 5D, it feels more solid even though they weigh the same. The CF door is a huge step forward, no creaking! The LCD is simply incredible, the ultra-high resolution allows you to see extremely fine detail at 100% even outdoors. The LCD also has an automatic brightness control that increases in bright light and decreases in dim light, it took me a bit to get comfortable with this because in low-light I felt maybe my images weren't exposed well enough (which was really because I was used to seeing a blown-out LCD display in the dark) but ultimately I now prefer it. The LCD color is also extremely accurate compared to the old 5D, which had a magenta cast.

The 5DMK2 now has the AF-ON button, which I can no longer live without. For over the past year I've shot with AutoFocus and Exposure metering as separate steps, this allows me to acquire precise focus and then after recomposing the metering can account for the lighting in the recomposed scene. The only exception is when shooting portraits of almost any kind, in that case I often spot meter the face and just lock the exposure or use manual.



The 5DMK2 continues to keep the playback button set along the left side of the playback LCD as opposed to placing them below the playback LCD as on the 40D/50D. This seems a trivial point, but in the field it is significantly easier and faster to access the buttons along the left side with your left thumb, then it is to reach them under the display. Its certainly not a 'big deal' to me and wouldn't affect a purchasing decision, but its worth noting because it does make a difference.

The LCD screen on top is larger then the 5D's and now shows the ISO speed at all times along with a few other pieces of information, an expected and welcome change.



Canon has rated the weather resistance with a quantitative figure of 10mm rain in 3 minutes. That is quite a step forward, as that figure translates to 200mm rain per hour, or 7.8 inches of rain per hour, which is a quite heavy rainfall indeed. Obviously you must be using a weather-resistant lens to take full advantage, as the lens mount is a very vulnerable area for water penetration. Many photographers using non-L series lenses will carefully place some gaffer tape (bent in the shape of a L ) around the mount to provide better protection. Frankly I'm not shooting in rain often, although I am out in the winter which means strong winds and blowing snow. I always carry a couple of Op/Tech Camera Rain Sleeves with me so if it did start pouring I would be using one of those, but its nice to know that Canon has some faith in its weather sealing.

Menu System
Probably one of the best major improvements over the 5D is the new menu system. Similar to the 40D, all menu options are contained on tabs that are only one 'screen-page' long. This means no longer are you scrolling through pages of options trying to find what you are looking for. The 5DMK2 (and 50D) use a 'cleaner' font along with fade-in fade-out effects when changing tabs, not a big deal but again a difference.

The 5DMK2 also has the My Menu option which lets you define your own frequently used options, although you are limited to a single page of only six options. Canon would be wise to either allow the user the option to include more then one page of options, or have a second My Menu tab to fill. But its better then nothing.

In comparison to the Nikon D700, the 5DMK2 menu seems significantly simpler and intuitive to operate. The D700 has pages and pages of options often tucked into places that you can't easily remember. On one hand the sheer amount of customization the Nikon provides you is incredible, and very welcome. On the other hand the layout of the menu system which when I was 'under pressure' during a shoot was very frustrating. I made a habit of setting up the Nikon 'My Menu' with all the options I 'might' possibly use when on a scene because I couldn't remember where they would normally be. Many would say that this isn't a big deal, and I'm sure for some its not. But there is a major trade off, with the Nikon you get some great customizability but with a trade off of potentially frustrating menu controls.

The Nikon menu system also allows you to create shooting presets but they are again accessed only through the menu instead of the dial. Additionally you can't copy settings to a preset 'bank', you have to first go into the bank and then set up your settings. This means you have to spend time setting up each preset bank from a 'default' configuration. With the Canon system you can just 'register' your settings to one of the three Custom shooting mode positions and have quick access with the shooting mode dial. The Nikon even goes a step further into mad hattery by having preset banks for the custom functions, essentially untying them from your shooting banks. So not only are you going to have to setup each shooting bank from scratch, if you want different custom function banks you will need to set them up as well. Ideally Nikon should provide the opportunity to register the current settings (including custom functions) into a shooting bank. This made the shooting banks less useful to me, and I often only used two banks (A and B) and only one custom function bank.

In the end I was able to work with both just fine, and I can't necessarily say one is better then the other. The simplicity of the Canon system is lacking the customizability of the Nikon and vice-versa. What it comes down to is that I ultimately make less mistakes with the Canon system and have less problems finding and changing settings. I'd like to see Canon expand its customization to include re-programmable buttons and other features, and I'd like to see Nikon better implement shooting banks and a Menu system that didn't have pages a mile long.

Viewfinder
The 5DMK2's viewfinder is large, bright, and clear. It is a significant improvement over the 5D, and I would also concur that it does not have the slight 'yellow' tint to it that my 5D had, although I don't find that to be an issue as when looking through the viewfinder your eye automatically 'white-balances' what you see, I can only see a difference when you switch back and forth looking through a 5D and 5DMK2. The viewfinder is rated at 98% coverage, compared to the 5D at 96%. Some say that they couldn't tell a difference, I could. With the 5D I had to purposely frame tight, with the 5DMK2 I find that isn't so much the case. The 5D also had a 20mm eyepoint, where the 5DMK2 is 21mm, personally it felt more like 22mm. The difference is dramatic to me, with the 5D my eyelashes would sometimes hit the viewfinder glass, leaving smudges, with the 5DMK2 this isn't the case.

I do wear eyeglass, I have an appx -0.75x correction, which means anything over ~8 feet from me starts to loose 'fine' detail, and a person that is more then 100 feet from me becomes difficult to recognize by facial features alone. However I don't legally need to wear the glass to drive, I almost always do. I've never been comfortable wearing glasses while shooting, but as usual I've found that with glasses on you cannot see the entire viewfinder unless your willing to essentially sandwich the camera to your glasses. I've found that with some diopter correction (appx -2.5), I can see anything and everything perfectly sharp without glasses, both near and far, the camera essentially provides my vision correction.

Compared to the D700 the difference is more along the 'whoa' lines. The D700, is a great viewfinder simply because its so large and bright being a full-frame viewfinder, but the frame coverage is tight. I always shot tight in the D700 and I still felt like sometimes the frame was too wide. The difference is more noticeable to me with wide angles, it seems the viewfinder coverage differences are compounded by a wide angles lens's wide FOV.

I've fitted the 5DMK2 with the EG-D Grid viewfinder screen which I like very much. The D700 has the ability to provide on-demand grid lines, however the D700's lines are somewhat 'thicker' compared to the EG-D. With the EG-D the lines are more of 'hair' lines that when your composing a subject they seem to 'disappear' but when you want to line up a horizon or frame they are there. With the D700 sometimes I had to turn them off because I felt they were intrusive. Again its a matter of preference, having the ability to turn them on and off is excellent, but I'm not fully convinced I prefer that over the extremely fine 'hair' lines the EG-D provides.

Viewfinder differences seem to be very subjective, some don't see any difference, others think its dramatic, thus this subject is one of those things you simply have to experience to make your own conclusion.

Image Quality
This subject is covered in lots of detail elsewhere on the internet, alas:

The resolution is impressive, and it is obvious that the anti-alias filter is weak as sharpness at a per-pixel level exceeds my expectations. I have not experienced any moire, although others have, but I have no problems trading a slightly increased risk of moire for the detail.

Color is also excellent, without a doubt the color detail, and specifically the tonal gradation of colors is the best I've ever seen from a Canon camera.

High-ISO performance is also superb. I have absolutely no concerns shooting in 'any' situation up to ISO 6400. Anything over ISO 6400 and there is potential issues. The color and dynamic range of the 5DMK2 at ISO 1600-6400 is appx 1.5 stops better then the original 5D. The color and DR at ISO 6400 on the 5DMK2 is better then ISO 3200 on the 5D, but not quite as good as ISO 1600 on the 5D. The Noise levels at ISO 6400 on the 5DMK2 are roughly the same as the 5D at ISO 3200.

Below are are two photos shot at ISO 6400, the one with the two cats on a brown blanket is a common High ISO 'stress test' I use because for some reason dark brown seems to produce lots of shadow noise. Each photo is linked to a higher resolution version (but not a 100% - I don't have the bandwidth and you can find 100% examples elsewhere).






RAW 'latitude' is appx 1 stop better then the 5D, meaning that I can push or pull the 5DMK2 files about a whole stop further then I could with the 5D.

In comparison to the D700, the 5DMK2 produces more detail at least through ISO 6400, but with more noise. In the ISO 3200-6400 range the D700 images are like 'gloss' right from the camera and typically only need some luminance noise removal and sharpening. Where as the 5DMK2 requires significantly more noise reduction both on the chrominance channel and luminance, although less sharpening is needed. With noise reduction applied, and compared at equal viewing size, regardless of whether your upsampling the D700, or downsampling the 5DMK2, the 5DMK2 could consistently produce sharper/more detailed images. Color tonality and reproduction in this ISO range is indistinguishable, both produce amazingly great results.

At ISOs above 6400 the 5DMK2 could often introduce various forms of noise that were difficult to remove. Sometimes it was low frequency noise that appears as a noise pattern that is 5-10 pixels wide, other times it was noise 'bands' - both of which, although didn't always occur, would occur often enough to give me reservation about shooting the 5DMK2 over ISO 6400 if I planned to print anything larger then an 8x10. If your using a powerful 3rd party noise reduction program, and willing to downsample the ISO 12800 results from the 5DMK2, I felt that the results were only a 'hair' worse then the D700. At the highest setting, ISO 25600, the 5DMK2 was unpredictable and I was uncomfortable with the output, but I was with the D700 just as well. The 5DMK2 maintains excellent usability up to 6400, but drops off quickly, where as the D700 IQ just ramps down beyond 6400. In this case I would say that at ISO 6400 the 5DMK2 retains only a slight advantage over the D700, since the noise reduction applied to the 5DMK2 images reduces the effective resolution to just slightly more then 12 Megapixels. For anything beyond ISO 6400 the D700 is significantly more friendly and useable.

At most ISO settings the D700 can produce more dynamic range. At the base ISO the best I could manage from a single exposure on the 5DMK2 was right around 10EV (confirmed by spot metering a scene that contained a 12EV difference from dark to highlight, using a Sekonic L-758DR), in comparison the D700 provided me with a consistent 11EV. This means I have less room to push/pull exposures. At ISO 3200 the D700 provided about 9.6EV while the 5DMK2 was at 9EV, and at ISO 6400 the D700 provided a solid 9EV and the 5DMK2 was 8.6EV - so the differences in dynamic range decrease at the higher ISOs.

There is no doubt to me that you are making a trade off between the two cameras. I can't simple say one is better then the other because 'better' depends on what factor is most important to you. Both camera's represent amazing leaps forward in image quality, but in slightly different directions. Up to ISO 6400 the 5DMK2 gives you impressive sharp, high-resolution, detail laden files at the expense of about 1 stop of dynamic range. As they say, pick your poison.


Auto Focus
The 5DMK2 seems for the most part to retain the 5D's focusing system. Somewhat of a let down given the 3 year span with which Canon had opportunity to provide for 'more'. On the other hand the focusing system is solid and works very well.

Compared to the 5D, the 5DMK2 seems to snap onto focus a bit faster, but published reviews I've seen don't seem to confirm that. AI Servo works very well, having no problem focusing on moving targets as long as you keep them under your desired focus point. My 'keeper' rate for the AI Servo when tracking some animals and children is about 90%, primarily to my own inability to sometimes keep the subject under the focus point.

Compared to the D700, the 5DMK2 is feature lacking. The single largest difference between the D700's autofocus and the 5DMK2 is the 51-point 3D tracking system in the Nikon. The D700 can track a subject based on color across all 51 points which means less out of focus shots for moving subjects. The difference in the number of focus points on the D700 isn't really a consideration to me other then when using the 3D tracking system, otherwise I almost always use a single focus point.

There is no contention here, the Nikon's 51pt 3D tracking is a huge feature that would weigh heavily on my purchasing decision based on the frequency with which I would be shooting moving subjects. While there is nothing inherently poor about the 5DMK2's auto focus, it requires alot more work with moving subjects and ultimately results in less 'keepers' in those situations.

Auto Exposure
The 5DMK2's evaluative auto exposure system works very well, and is very similar to the 5D. It has a tendency to preserve highlights in nearly all situations, unfortunately when indoors this can mean underexposure and I usually shoot with +1/3 or +2/3 exposure compensation. Outdoors it exposes very well, and requires no compensation.

What is odd is that this behavior is different then the 40D. The 40D I found to expose indoor scenes well requiring little compensation, but outdoors I would default to -1/3EV just to protect some of the really bright areas. Since I have not used the 50D, I can't say if the 50D continues this but I can say that the 30D and 5D both also tended to preserve highlights in evaluative auto exposure.

The D700's matrix metering would frequently overexpose in low-contrast scenes (indoors, overcast outdoors) by about 2/3, which was a bit odd. This doesn't mean that highlights were blown, because with all the RAW headroom recovery of bright areas was excellent, but in general the exposure was higher then what my Sekonic L-758DR would read for example. I became comfortable with this because if often meant less noise in the shadows, while in high contrast situations (such as daylight) the D700 would still do a good job to balance the scene. Neither behavior is a problem, or 'better' for me, it was simply a matter of knowing how the camera 'thinks' when it looks at a particular scene and implementing exposure compensation when I felt it would be helpful.

The 5DMK2 implements a new form of Auto-ISO that attempts to use the lowest possible ISO to obtain correct exposure, while also attempting to keep the shutter speed at 1/FL. This is a very welcome change, as I would prefer to use the lowest ISO possible when shooting, and instead of having to manually adjust the ISO the camera sets it automatically. The automatic shutter speed adjustment based on the 1/FL is also a very positive feature since on a zoom if I go from 35mm to 85mm the shutter speed will automatically change from 1/30s to 1/80s. Unfortunately the Auto-ISO is missing some important features. First is that the maximum ISO is set at 3200, this means if I want ISO 6400 I have to set it manually, and if I don't want the ISO to go over 1600 again I have to set it manually, ideally it should be a user controlled setting. Additionally the minimum shutter speed of 1/FL should also have the option to be user controlled to other ratio's such as a 'slower' option of 2/FL for using wide angles or lenses with IS or a 'faster' option of 0.5/FL for telephotos and macros, and also a user defined speed.

The Auto-ISO also essentially doesn't function in manual mode, which is a major drawback. With the Nikon implementation you can use manual mode with Auto-ISO as a form of Tv+Av priority mode. For example, you are indoors with relatively low light situation, you can set a minimum shutter speed, your largest aperture (or a preferred one for better sharpness or DOF) and the camera will adjust the ISO automatically as you shoot to obtain a correct exposure, since some areas indoors are brighter then others. This cannot be accomplished with Canon's implementation, you can use Av with Auto-ISO but the shutter speed will be 'pre-defined' to 1/FL which sometimes can be too slow to stop subject motion.

Because of these limitations I don't use Auto-ISO exclusively, but for appx 50% of my shooting. When I know the light is sufficient for proper exposure at or below ISO 3200 I use it, but indoors in low-light I switch to manual ISO settings.


Anti-Dust
I wanted to note that the 5DMK2's Anti-Dust features are exemplary, as well as Nikon's D700. I took a 'dust reference' photo when I first received the camera, by shooting a white wall at f/22 and focused at infinity and I could not see any dust until I compressed the levels to a completely unrealistic amount. At that point I found 3 tiny black dots, about 5 pixels wide each - nothing that would affect my photos in everyday shooting, even on a 'sky' shot (its the larger dust that shows up in everyday shooting). After appx 40 lens changes made both indoors and outdoors, I took another dust reference shot and again there was nothing unless I compressed the levels unrealistically and then I only saw 1 tiny speck!

This is a huge improvement, the 5D was a dust magnet for me, with dust on the sensor that would show up at f/16 without compressing the levels after almost every lens change. A blower worked well but not perfect, and I had to wet-clean often (once every 5-10 lens changes) if I wanted any form of dust-free image at anything above f/12.

Canon's earlier implementation, such as on the XTi (400D) wasn't bad, but wasn't great. The XTi still accumulated dust but it was better at keeping the larger more intrusive dust off the sensor, but still required a wet-clean to remove most specks. The 40D was a step better, in that I found the blower worked better - there must have been less 'adhesion' between dust and the sensor on the 40D, I never had to wet-clean my 40D sensor, but I used the blower about every 5 lens changes. Onto the 5DMK2, I haven't even used the blower yet...

Anti-Dust features for some reason also seem to be as quantifiable as viewfinders, in that some say there are amazing differences and others say there are not. I continuously seem to hear people claim that all 'anti-dust' features are more marketing then anything else, while in the end I'm cleaning my sensor less, so something has changed!

Video
What else can I say about the Video that hasn't been said already? The video from the 5DMK2 is worlds better then what I get from my $1,500 Sony HD Camcorder. Dynamic Range is better, Sharpness/resolution is better. That said it takes some practice to be good at manually focusing while recording, but it can be done. With the video your focus doesn't have to be quite as precise, video is more forgiving to being just slightly OOF so once you have a feel for operating the focus ring based on subject distance its not bad at all. When subjects move, or I change composition, they initially go out of focus before I 'catch-up' but when watching the video it looks natural, almost artistic. Using the EF lenses for video also gives you incredible DOF control, so you can use shallow DOF for a really nice look.

The onboard microphone is really for 'emergency' only, so I've already put an external microphone on my 'Christmas List', once I get a chance to test using an external Mic I will report back.

Final Thoughts
I've left out discussion on the 'black dot' imaging concern issue. I've scrutinized about 30 frames of mine in situations that should have 'black dots' but even at 200% I'm not seeing them. I'm not saying they don't occur with my camera, I believe the can occur on all the 5DMK2s, but I think this issue has made a 'mountain out of a molehill'. I've done my normal new-camera tests, I shoot a resolution chart, some color charts, a step-wedge, and black frames at all ISOs to check for hot pixels and I've found nothing concerning on any of my images.

The EOS 5D Mark II is an exceptional camera and a huge leap forward from the 5D in nearly every aspect (except maybe in Auto Focus and Auto Exposure). It puts this class of camera into modern day technology and provides for alternative capabilities from its major competitors. I personally think that this slight diversion of capabilities between primarily the Nikon D700 and 5D Mark II is excellent for photographers because each camera fits differently into others photographic needs. Some have labeled the 5DMK2 as a 'jack of all trades, master of none' due to its relatively good High-ISO performance and relatively high resolution but personally I don't agree with that view point. Each camera in this class, including the Sony A900, has something unique to offer, while all of them produce excellent, top-notch, every day photographs. It is because of these differences that I personally cannot say any one camera is 'better' then the other, just like no lens is singularly 'better' then another because each has factors that must be taken into account.

There is really no basis for any of the information on the internet that seems to be proclaiming one camera better then another, especially in any kind of 'gospel-like' way. Each brand has its 'fanboys' and its 'haters' and in many cases these are the 'worst' source of information about a product; misinformation is worse then no-information.

For those looking to enter into the full-frame, professional, small-bodied SLR market the only sound advice is to perform your own research into the differences of each camera, then apply those differences to your own shooting style and needs while factoring any of your other considerations, and probably most importantly, go shoot each camera in the store and handle them personally before making a purchasing decision.

I personally am enjoying my 5D Mark II and the images I create with it very much!

I hope you found some benefit to this review, thank you for reading!

Below are some links to other sources of information about the 5D Mark II that I found valuable:

DP Review - http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkii/

Imaging Resource - http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2A.HTM

Canon Digital Learning Center - http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/control...&productID=249

Planet 5D - http://planet5d.dyndns.org/~wikiuser....php/Main_Page

[akiwi]

Wow.. good read. Thanks for the excellent review Adam. That would be the most comprehensive and useful review I have read.

I love the look of the 5D II, and it might be my next camera, but not for a year or 2 as I am currently very happy with my 40D and it fills all my needs at the moment.
I ike the possibility og using the sRaw and still getting high quality images without having the huge files. Like I said... I'm looking.

[JamieWillmott]

Great review Adam, as Peter says, a good read.

It does looks like a great camera, way way beyond what I could consider though unless I was doing photography full time again.

[martin]

good article, well written!

recently, I was pretty impressed by the huge number of worldwide contest winners, shooting with an entry level canon DSLR. I'm sure everyone knows the image of that snow-leopard, that hit the media a few weeks ago- it was taken using a 350D (not the best example, because it was a photo trap, but you get the point) I'm not sure if upgrading my beloved 40D to a 5DmII would really improve my shooting that much, so that I can justify its price tag.

fact-wise the 5DmII seems to be a good camera with a solid feature set (except that movie mode ). nevertheless, the FF-competition is hard like never before.

[planetMitch]

adam - thanks for the review and for the link to the 5d wiki http://planet5d.com - we're workin hard to make it the best darn 5d mk ii resource on the planet - including your review