Canon 5D Mark II - First Impressions

After saving my pennies, I finally took the plunge into full-frame digital. I've had a 20D for the past four years with an EF 70-200 f/2.8L IS and a 24-70 f/2.8L with the intention of moving up to full-frame sooner or later, so I finally get to see what I've been missing out on.

Wow…I've been missing out on a lot.

The first thing I noticed when taking test shots was that there was so much more viewable area in the viewfinder. I always heard about it from other photogs but always thought it was an exaggeration – the difference is actually rather startling. I also took the opportunity to see what 24mm actually looks like, and it's definitely a lot wider than I've been used to.

As for the camera itself, it has its pluses and minuses. I haven't been able to put it through any sort of paces (only had it for 4 hours), but on the plus side:

-This thing is SHARP. It produces images with the standard picture setting that are noticeably sharper than my 20D with in-camera sharpness cranked all the way up.

-Resolution is such that you can crop and crop in post-production to your heart's content.

-With proper lighting and Av/Tv settings, stills from 1080p video look absolutely stunning.

-IQ seems to be pretty responsive, especially with both my f/2.8's. Low light focusing is definitely better than what I'm used to coming from a 20D. I would assume that daylight focusing will be very good.


On the minus:

-Low light video exacerbates the rolling shutter (i.e. "jello") effect, especially when doing panning shots. As a video platform, this is definitely a breakthrough product at this price point and sensor size, but it has its limitations which have to be worked around.

-Also on video – 30fps only is definitely bothersome. From what I've seen, using a combo of FCP and Compressor in post can get video to 24p/25p acceptably. So it's more of a hiccup than a huge problem, but it just adds more work. That being said, if I were an indie filmmaker, I would still be jumping to get one of these.


So really my minuses right now are with the secondary video application anyway. As a still camera, my copy so far seems very good – I'll definitely be out shooting tomorrow in a variety of situations to see how it does. I'm also stoked to have a LiveView camera so I can use this (http://www.ononesoftware.com/detail.php?prodLine_id=38) as a remote for portrait work.

Just my .02

me want me want... :(

I still don't get why you would want 24p in a medium that will be displayed at 30p or 60i...

24p provides a look that's akin to film (23.976 fps); it's mostly an aesthetic thing so that you don't get the cheap, "home video" look that's oft associated with 30fps.

It is so easily replicated (faked, if you will) in post that the aquisition of any video in 24p is an affectation. The only reason it was ever applied to video was to avoid needing a telecine conversion to incorporate video into a film-based product that was ultimately printed onto celluloid. Remember when all TV's in movies had the scrolling gray bar?

The limitation on the "flat" soap opera look was mainly the video camera's tubes or later first gen. chips. Current CMOS or Hyper-HAD CCDs do not suffer from the same limitations and "film looks" can easily be achieved in 30p or 60i High-Def.

I suppose my beef is just the fact that you'd have to do anything in post in the first place – it'd be just as easy for Canon to bake in support for 24p so you don't have to take the extra steps in getting there. Check out this post near the bottom (What about 24fps?) – 2 hours to convert a 1:44 clip. Granted it's on a laptop, but the fact that you're spending all this time for a step that could have been skipped had Canon just added 24p support is a bit of a pain.

Thanks for the review. I actually could care less about the video function of the camera and am more interested in it's photographic capabilities. So far, I like what I hear. I'm planning on pulling the trigger on a full frame really soon. The 5D will probably be what I end up buying as dropping 4 grand for a Mark III will get me shot by my soon-to-be wife.

A few questions/observations - is 21 megapixels really necessary? How big are the bloody files? 12.2 on my XSi seems to do just fine for most of my purposes. Crap, I'm going to have to buy more memory cards and a couple of terrabyte hard drives for the computer along with the 5D......

How well do the 6 AF assist points work? I wish this thing had more than 9 AF points. More often than not, I find myself needing more AF points when I'm framing a shot on a tripod, especiallyl in low light.

I really wish there was a happy medium between the Mark II and the Mark III. The Mark III kicks ass with its 45 AF points and 10 fps. That blows the Mark II out of the water. But, the III is only a 10.1 megapixel.

I take my XSi biking, skiing, hiking - pretty much everywhere. Will the 5D hold up to a little jiggling and wiggling around? It looks to be about the same as the Rebel body so I'd assume it's just as rugged.

Would love to hear more thoughts as you use the camera more!

21 megapixels on a full frame is phenomenal – PHE-NOM-E-NAL. Coming from an 8 MP 20D, it's a major difference. This camera is going to be absolutely bomber for portrait work. As far as file size, well, that's the kicker – full RAW files end up being 24-25MB on average. Now, you can still shoot in sRAW1 (10MP) or sRAW2 (5.2MP) if you want RAW images but don't necessarily need a full resolution file.

The AF-assist points work well in good light – start shooting at night or very low light and you'll find your lens doing a lot of hunting. Now, that's not definitive as I'm trying out some different metering schemes to see how that affects things, so YMMV.

I too wish this thing had more AF-points – the 5D Mk.II got kind of shafted by the new 7D which has 19 AF points. If Canon just traded AF systems (9 in 7D, 19 in 5D), I think that would befit both cameras nicely in terms of price point, etc. (and you'd have a lot less 5D users feeling like they got left out in the cold). But, it is what it is, so 9 will have to do.

Build quality is very solid – it's more akin to a 50D than a Rebel (for your purposes). You'll find, coming from an entry-level body, that this is much more rugged, and feels a lot less cheap than the plastic shell on the Rebels.

I'll try and get some sample images up later in the week.

Jackamo, thanks for the reply and the info. It's nice to hear some first-hand knowledge on the camera. I'd love to see some pictures when you get some.

I did a bit of research today and this camera definitely looks like the one I'll be getting. I'll also be picking up a 1TB drive to pop in to one of my two empty slots on the PC. Probably have to get another one in the future!

Today is my first day cutting 5D footage for a client. Awesome look but I am having major audio issues. They recorded audio externally and I can't get it to sync correctly now. I looked on a forum and they said I had to make my external audio 99.9% speed to make it stay in sync. Unfortunately, with the length of the clips they slowly go out of sync again. I'm going to have to make cuts and slip the audio all over the place. The next month is gonna suck!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by advres

I looked on a forum and they said I had to make my external audio 99.9% speed to make it stay in sync. Unfortunately, with the length of the clips they slowly go out of sync again. I'm going to have to make cuts and slip the audio all over the place. The next month is gonna suck!!!

---

Are they slow or fast? Can't you just tweak the overall speed of the audio (+/-) until it's right? Seems simpler...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DeutschBag

is 21 megapixels really necessary?

---

I personally hate having the 21MP sensor. The 13MP sensor on the original 5D was sufficient. With the 5D2, you get ~500 RAW images per 16GB card. That's fine if you're shooting low-volume, but otherwise it adds up quick.

The AF is still garbage, and the metering is second-rate. I guess Canon figured that by adding video, no one would notice it's the exact same camera as the original 5D, save for the high-ISO capabilities (which are actually quite awesome.)

So unless you plan to make good use of ISO 3200-6400, pick up a used original 5D and spend the extra money on a fast prime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lonnie

Are they slow or fast? Can't you just tweak the overall speed of the audio (+/-) until it's right? Seems simpler...

---

The audio is too fast for the video. I kept trying to slow it down but I was doing it by .1% increments and it would still slide out of sync one way or another. I don't get why this is happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by advres

Today is my first day cutting 5D footage for a client. Awesome look but I am having major audio issues. They recorded audio externally and I can't get it to sync correctly now. I looked on a forum and they said I had to make my external audio 99.9% speed to make it stay in sync. Unfortunately, with the length of the clips they slowly go out of sync again. I'm going to have to make cuts and slip the audio all over the place. The next month is gonna suck!!!

---

Came across this the other day. Several other suggestions in the replies section:

http://digitalartwork.net/2009/07/15...on-5d-mark-ii/

Seems like everyone is running into issues....

I STILL don't want to continue using this thing. The prep time is just absurd. Transcoding all the footage to ProRes for this 3 1/2 minute piece took 48 hours for the client. That is way too much prep time for such a short edit!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dipstik

I personally hate having the 21MP sensor. The 13MP sensor on the original 5D was sufficient. With the 5D2, you get ~500 RAW images per 16GB card. That's fine if you're shooting low-volume, but otherwise it adds up quick.

The AF is still garbage, and the metering is second-rate. I guess Canon figured that by adding video, no one would notice it's the exact same camera as the original 5D, save for the high-ISO capabilities (which are actually quite awesome.)

---

Why not shoot sRAW? From what I understand there's no real appreciable loss in quality @ 10MP. I think my workflow is going to end up being 21MP for portrait, landscape, and product photos and 10MP for stuff like vacation photos, sports, family stuff, etc.

I'll agree on the AF – it's essentially the same as my 20D, which is how old? I'd say it's sufficient (and I'm used to it's deficiencies, so I know what to expect, if that's any kind of consolation for myself), but I would have expected better for a pro-line camera. Really, if Canon just threw a FF sensor into a 7D, that would really answer a lot of the qualms I have about the camera.

Still love it, though :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by advres

The audio is too fast for the video. I kept trying to slow it down but I was doing it by .1% increments and it would still slide out of sync one way or another. I don't get why this is happening.

---

Audio is Non-drop frame (30fps,) video is drop frame (29.97fps)

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/8/1044091

Here's a short I did tonight with the Mark II (click through for HD):

[ame="http://vimeo.com/6604935"]Construction - Canon 5D Mark II Test on Vimeo[/ame]

Canon lenses are amazing for stills, more so for film.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Jackamo

24p provides a look that's akin to film (23.976 fps); it's mostly an aesthetic thing so that you don't get the cheap, "home video" look that's oft associated with 30fps.

---

If you get a home video look on this camera in 30p, you are doing something wrong.