The Canon 5D mark II

3 years is an eternity in digital cameras today, but that’s just how long Canon users have waited for the  successor to the Canon 5D. After months of rumors, tons of hype and a clever ad campaign that implied that the camera would eclipse the competition, Canon has finally released official images and a lengthy list of specifications.

UPDATES – I had a chance to play around with the the 5D Mark II recently and now that the camera has officially hit stores, I’ve updated this post with additional thoughts.

As a concert photographer, the only question on my mind is:

“How well will the 5D Mark II perform in the pit?”

The following is my initial opinion of the camera as it relates to concert photography beginning with a list of the relevant specifications.

Canon 5D Mark II Specifications:

Full frame 21.1 Megapixel CMOS sensor
ISO 100-6400 (expansion from 50 up to 25,600)
9 AF points + 6 Assist AF points (Center point is cross-type and f/2.8 sensitive)
3.0” VGA (920k dots) LCD
New DIGIC IV image processor
UDMA compact flash support
3.9 frames per second continuous shooting
Optional Battery Grip BG-E6
73ms shutter lag time
145ms viewfinder blackout time
98% Viewfinder Coverage

IMAGE QUALITY

Canon has always made great sensors. There’s no arguing with the amazing enlargement potential of a native 5616 x 3744 pixel image.

Even though I haven’t field tested the camera yet, I think it’s fairly safe to say that with a default ISO range of 100 – 6400, the image quality of the 5D Mark II will be good. Canon’s standard sensitivity ranges are usually spot-on and there’s no reason to think that they’ve lowered their standards now.

There are however a few things to consider.

1) The 21MP Monster

5DmkIII_CMOS

Nevermind the marketing babble, cramming more megapixels into the same real estate results in more noise. Canon’s flagship 1DS Mark III, powered by the DIGIC III processor, is also 21MP and tops out at ISO1600 by default. Even at 1600, the image quality isn’t great.

Do the DIGIC IV processor and new sensor design of the 5D Mark II really improve performance two full stops without turning your image into an impressionist painting?

That a 21MP sensor can go up to an astounding ISO 25,600 is mind blowing. If the DIGIC IV processor can go to eleven and still produce a sharp image with good color and contrast I’ll be pleasantly surprised.

I would be more excited to see a lower MP count with correspondingly higher ISO potential.

UPDATE – Sample images have shown that the DIGIC IV is doing some skillful noise reduction in-camera. JPEG shooters should seriously rejoice. The RAW files may be somewhat of a disappointment to concert photographers as Canon’s Chuck Westfall was reported to say that the RAW performance of the 5DmarkII sensor as being similar to that of the 1DSmarkIII, which is only spec’d to ISO1600.

2) Pixel Binning?

5DmkIII_digic4

Since the 1D Mark III, Canon cameras have been able to record images in sRAW format. Unlike Nikon’s DX mode that crops the active area of the sensor to produce a smaller image, sRAW uses the entire sensor. The advantage of a Nikon’s DX crop mode is that it trades megapixels for effective zoom reach. The possible advantage of sRAW for concert photography is far more intriguing.

Through a process referred to as pixel binning, whereby the data load of each pixel is compare to the pixels around it to achieve an average signal to noise reading, the 5D Mark II in sRAW could use the entire 21MP sensor to create a 10MP image with extremely low noise. Let’s see what DIGIC IV can really do.

UPDATE – The DIGIC IV does not employ pixel binning. 5DmarkII owners can expect a small improvement in noise when using sRAW.

USABILITY

There are a lot of factors that add up to a good concert photography camera. Among them, focusing characteristics, FPS, battery life, shutter characteristics and user interface are key.

UPDATE – After handling the 5D Mark II, my initial feeling is that the build quality is better than the original. Specifically, the finish feels nicer and the shut lines feel tighter. The high resolution LCD is a monumental improvement.

1) Focusing Characteristics

5DmkII_viewfinder

Honestly, the focusing specs of the 5D Mark II are the most personally disappointing part of the camera. With only 9 selectable AF points clustered at the center of the viewfinder, the photographer is forced to focus and recompose the image more often than not.

While not horrible on its own, focus and recompose is horrible for tracking a moving subject while maintaining a specific composition. I know a lot of concert photographers who make due with Canon’s 9 point system, but coming from the 1D Mark III, which has 19 selectable points, I have little interest in anything less.

Furthermore, I believe only the center point of the 9 AF sensors present on the 5D Mark II is cross-type and sensitive to f/2.8. This is particularly important to concert photographers who are regularly forced to shoot at f/2.8 or faster. Without getting into the details, the outer 8 AF points on the 5DmkII are several stops less accurate under normal concert conditions than the center point.

UPDATE – It’s been confirmed that the 5D Mark II shares the same AF module of the original 5D. In a recent interview with dpreview.com Canon’s Director and Chief Executive of Image Communication Products Operations, Masaya Maeda had the following to say:

“Firstly the market’s evaluation of the 5D’s AF system has been very positive; there have been no complaints from users, with everyone saying it’s very good. Given that, to a certain extent, we think we shouldn’t change it. And also there’s some limitation with size; the AF sensor in the 50D is very big; the one in the 5D is much smaller. If we wanted to have all cross-sensors in the 5D Mark II, it would mean we might have to sacrifice the compactness of the body. It’s all a question of balance of features and benefits.”

“No complaints from users” and “compactness of the body”?

My own impression of the 5D Mark II auto focus was that under normal conditions, it’s totally fine. It feels slower than that of the 1DmarkIII when used with a Canon L lens, but no so slow as to be a problem at all. That being said, would definitely stick to using Canon glass on the new 5D as third party lenses tend to focus more slowly – not to mention that the 21mp sensor will totally spank crappy lenses.

Comparison:

Canon 5D Mark II – 9 AF points (Center point is cross-type and f/2.8 sensitive)
Canon 1D Mark III – 45 AF points (19 selectable, 19 cross-type and f/2.8 sensitive)
Nikon D3/D700 – 51 points, 15 cross-type and f/2.8 sensitive)

With both the 1D Mark III and 1DS Mark III released with less than perfect auto focus performance, I know a lot of people were hoping for a more aggressive AF specification on the 5D Mark II. I personally would have paid an additional $500 for more pro-spec AF.

2) FPS (Frames Per Second)

The 5D Mark II shoots at a conservatively stated 3.9 FPS. This is fine for day to day shooting but may fall short of capturing the subtle changes of expression present in a lot of live performances.

I find that shooting in bursts of three shots produces the best yield when focusing on facial expressions and arm movements. My personal sweet spot for the three shot burst is 6-7 FPS. Again, I would trade a few megapixels to get to 5FPS.

UPDATE – My impression of the 5DmkII frame rate is similar to that of the AF in that 3.9FPS is neither fast or slow and how well it suites any specific photographer will depend highly on what she/he is used to. Coming from the 10FPS of the 1DmarkIII, it’s slow.

3) Battery Life

The 5D did not have stellar battery life. It wasn’t as horrible as the Nikon D200, but you’d still need a couple of spares to get your through an entire day of shooting. I hope new 1800 mAh battery is more than enough to compensate for the more powerful processor and heavier sensor load. It would be nice to see Canon take a hint from Nikon an allow the use of the 1-Series batteries via the optional grip.

One of the best things about using a 1-Series camera is not having to worry about battery life when shooting all-day festivals or events.

4) Shutter Characteristics

With a 73ms shutter release and a 145ms viewfinder blackout, the 5D Mark II isn’t exactly quick to take a photo. Although 73ms doesn’t seem like a long wait from the time the shutter is depressed to the actual exposure, I’m of the opinion that every millisecond counts when it comes to capturing the decisive moment.

The slower the shutter release time, the longer it takes for the camera to fire. The longer viewfinder blackout the longer it takes for the mirror to return to the angle necessary to see what you’re shooting. Obviously both of these things have a pretty big bearing on the handling of the camera even if they don’t impact image quality at all.

Comparison:

Canon 5D Mark II – 73ms shutter release and a 145ms viewfinder blackout
Canon 1D Mark III – 55ms shutter release and 80ms viewfinder blackout
Nikon D3/D700 – 41ms shutter release and 74ms viewfinder blackout

Even though it’s not at all related to performance, photographers often overlook the amount of noise the shutter makes when firing. The recent crop of Nikon cameras have really violent shutter actuations that might be a problem when shooting quieter performance like classical music, theater or dance. Although there are plenty of after market camera covers designed to muffle the shutter, who wants to put a sweaty oven mitt on their hand for two hours?

Let’s hope the 5D Mark II is quiet.

UPDATE – It’s quiet. Not as quiet as an APS-C camera, but not as loud as say, a Nikon. You’d still need a blimp to shoot dance or classical music . The silent shooting mode of the 1-Series bodies is still king in terms of mirror slap.

5) User Interface

Canon has made huge steps forward in terms of the user interface as of the 1D Mark III but it wasn’t perfect. One of the main complaints was the quality of the LCD. Specifically, it’s fuzzy enough to make critical focus confirmation almost impossible.

Canon users suffer no more.

The high resolution LCD screen added to the 5D Mark II promises beautiful image previews with excellent focus confirmation. Canon has also added a passive light sensor that automatically adjusts the brightness of the LCD to make it more readable outdoors. Huzzah.

UPDATE – The LCD is a massive massive improvement over the screens on the current 1-Series bodies and it totally spanks the crappy little thing on the original 5D.

The camera also sports a huge and bright viewfinder with 98% frame coverage. It goes without saying that a having bright viewfinder when shooting dimly lit shows is a huge aid to composition.

UPDATE – Yup, it’s big and bright.

Conclusion

The 5D Mark II looks like an amazing studio and landscape camera for photographers on a budget. However, after these comments, it’s no surprise that I question the suitability of the Canon 5D Mark II for concert photography.

(To be fair, I question the suitability of most cameras in this regard but I was hoping that the successor to the 5D would be specified in more equal terms with the Nikon D700.)

The fact of the matter is that the 5D Mark II surpasses the Nikon D700 and even the Nikon D3 in a number of areas, megapixels and HD video among them. It’s too bad that the strongest features of the camera have almost nothing to do with shooting rock shows.

My biggest fear is that Canon has put too much energy into the megapixel race and very little energy into improving other features of the camera that really affect the feature set and user experience.

Ultimately, my final judgment on the 5D Mark II will have much more to do with the feeling of camera in-use (and the image quality) than any spec sheet or Canon white paper. I plan on taking the camera for a lengthy field test as soon as it is available. Until then, we all have to wait to see what other new toys PMA has in store.

Feedback and comments are welcome.

UPDATE – The results are in and the facts don’t stack up well for the 5D Mark II as a concert camera. This doesn’t mean that amazing concert photos won’t be made with it – it just means that there are better tools for the job.

I personally had a lot of hopes for this camera as a smaller FF backup to my 1D Mark III. The specifications of this camera were a significant factor in my recent decision to switch to Nikon.


  1. Thanks for the great writing. I found it very helpful.
    I have been using Canon DSLRs for many years now. I have had my 20D for ages and it has had many problems over the years. I have waited for the replacement of the 5D for ages and now I am not sure it is what I want really. The price of it in the UK is a bit high comparing to the US one.
    I have been thinking towards a Nikon D700 lately but very confused about changing all my lenses and stuff.
    I think I’ll wait and see what people say once the camera is tested to make a proper decision.
    I feel very confused.

  2. Though not an avid Canon user, I was certainly expecting more out of it. I was surprised they kept the MP so high and the FPS so low. Though, now boasting a nice 25,600 ISO, that could really help some concert shots — but honestly, the MKiii still sounds rock solid. The video recording capabilities are interesting, and even though I hated them at first with the d90, I may come around to them eventually — but for now, I’d like to focus on stills :)

    I think Canon could have brought more to the table, but what they brought still seems to have a lot of potential. For the concert photog area — agree with you, seemingly not. Overall looks like a great camera though.

  3. Canon 5D Mark II & Concert Photography: First Impressions http://tinyurl.com/3e8qhd

  4. Victor

    On an image basis (as opposed to per pixel basis) there should be less noise, not more noise, with a higher pixel count. Additionally, highlight detail is less likely to be lost. The more pixels you use to represent an image, the lower the bit depth needs to be. Inkjet printers, for example, generally print with only something like 6 colors, yet they are able to faithfully reproduce a photo. This is possible because of pixel density.

  5. chris

    Solage, I’m in the same boat, believe it or not. Unless the image quality from the 5D Mark II is worlds better than the 1Ds Mark III at ISO3200+, I may be going back to Nikon. Only time will tell!

  6. chris

    Chris, By the specs, the 5D Mark II is certainly a great camera for specific types of photographers, namely studio and landscape. I’m really interested to see if Canon has used pixel binning to it’s full advantage on the DIGIC IV processor and whether or not 3.9 FPS is enough for my style of photography.

  7. chris

    Victor, Thanks for your comment. You’re right that on an image basis, a higher pixel count means less noise perceived for the image as a whole. However, there comes a point when the level of noise generated at the pixel level at high ISOs eclipses the detail gained by having a higher overall pixel count in a fixed amount of two dimensional space.

    The obvious physical solution to the problem is to waste as little space on the board as possible – as megapixel count increases, the goal should be to keep the photosites as large as possible and as close together as possible. It’s clear Canon has done this on the 5D Mark II. My question is whether or not they succeeded at a level that creates an image is as detailed as the original 5D at the same print size.

    Seeing as all digital cameras take a hit to dynamic range and color reproduction at high ISOs, your points about DR and bit depth are well taken. Having more total pixels is a clear advantage in those terms.

  8. Can’t say that I disagree with your points, unfortunately.

    As a current 5D user, 3.9 fps is a slight improvement from 3.0 fps, but it seems marginal. And the decision to keep the AF system exactly as is boggles the mind. 9 AF points, 6 invisible assist points, and the center AF point being the only cross-type sensitive one? That’s exactly that I have to deal with today.

    For shutter release, the original 5D had a 73ms shutter release and 145ms viewfinder blackout — they didn’t improve this at all either.

    And the press release for the 5D Mark II did mention a Silent Shooting mode, BTW.

  9. chris

    Hi Kathryn, I’m glad you weighed in on this post. I was going to ask you what you thought about it next I saw you.

    The nice thing about using the 1-Series AutoFocus, or any Nikon D300 or better(I think), is that they have a f/2.8 cross-type sensor near the rule-of-thirds corners. You can just put on on the face of a moving subject and get in-focus photos of a moving subject with a non-centered composition.

    Regarding the Silent Shooting mode, I believe this is only using live-view. The reason the shooting is silent is because in live view, the mirror does not move up and down.

  10. Captain Fairly Obvious

    few points:
    Canon has obligation, to their long-term establishment, to NOT torpedo their 1D sales.

    For every concert photog, there are about 1 million nature photogs.

    That they decided as they did, is sane, from their perspective, re configuration.

    ( it also makes clear that that rule, don’t torpedo the 1D sales, applies across the board, not just concert photogs )

    2. If you can stick “Focus, Now” on another button, and shoot at a high enough f# to give a bit of depth of field, then focus, shoot/shoot/shoot shouldn’t be much of a problem.

    Re pixel-binning, versus crop, each has its place, but crop can be done afterwards, in post, whereas pixel-binning *cannot*.

    Therefore Canon made the right choice, IF the 5Mpx resolution gives 6400 ISO noise at 12800 ISO or higher ( if it gives no noise benefit, then why the hell bother? just to save filespace? the only justification for that would be higher frame-rate in a card-limited burst )

    comment erors, above:
    more pixels = less image-noise, not necessarily, or even likely.
    If the dynamic range is trashed, because the pixels are too small to store a decent range of values, then how the hell can you have any dynamic range in the image?
    Try listening to an 8-bit-depth audio file, and if you *can* enjoy that, maybe you can enjoy garbage dynamic range. ( think “posterization” as one example of junk dynamic range )

    further, CMYK printing doesn’t work by having only 4 colors, overlaid, it works by having 4 colors, at MANY different size dots, spread out in a pattern, so the color-density is given by dot-size, by density of dots, and by density of pigment ( photo printers, the pro ones, are 8 or 9 color, btw ).

    Look up “pointilism”, or however that’s spelt, for the oil-painting rendition of it, and you’ll understand that spacing of dots can create variation of density, but, as noted earlier, the piezo nozzles in the Epson printers, ferinstance, have multiple dot-sizes.

    If it were 4 colors = infinite colors, as suggested, then litebrites would need only 4 colors to present full photo subtlety ( though they’d have to be VERY BIG to do so at high resolution )

    Having seen examples of its images,
    6400 ISO is stunningly good, better than the D700 ( someone had a comparison, and there was *no* comparison! the 5D II was brighter, clearer, cleaner, and sharper, all at once )

    3.9 fps is about 30% faster than the previous edition, and at 20.1 Mpx? more than stunning, in a $3000 camera. The data-rate must be incredible, in that bus ( ~ 80Mpx/sec, RGB, so 240 000 000 photosites read, at 14-bits each, per second, nearly 500MB/sec coming off that sensor, being processed, and thrown into buffer )

    Focus: the focus-assist points seem to be good, & they have to keep this machine at the “semi-pro” function level, to protect their Pro level, so what on earth is everyone complaining about?

    Everything: it’s stunning.
    No SLR film camera could equal it, for image quality*speed*capability, or for effectiveness ( processing in wet chemistry means one doesn’t know if anything surprising went wrong until too damn late ).

    I agree with the ones who’ve used it, who say it’s a “Game Changer”.

    For all those who have established themselves on the “It’s No Good! I want infinite ISO, infinite framerate, infinite resolution, and infinite focus-perfection, for $3.99, and I want a discount on weekends” mode, grow up: you couldn’t possibly have produced what they did, it blows away 99.9% of all cameras produced in the entire planet’s history, and at $3000 its price is good.

    Rock on, man,

    :)

  11. Victor

    “Erors” corrected with actual errors:

    The 8 bit audio comparison is valid only if you goose the sample rate. Furthermore, Captain Fairly Obvious didn’t say what the alternative to the 8 bit audio would be. I will assume 16 bit. So now we’re comparing 8 bit to 16 bit. In the camera example, it’s more like 14 bits vs. 13 bits. Or 14 bits vs. 15 bits. There is a difference of many orders of magnitude between the audio analogy and the camera one. To make the audio analogy relevant, you’d need a sample rate 256 times as high as the 16 bit version.

    The pointillism analogy, ironically, just proves my point. The smaller the points in pointillism picture, the more realistic it looks. Or, the further away from the painting you view it from, the more continuous the tones. The camera analogy here would be to make the pixels smaller.

  12. chris

    Captain Fairly Obvious,

    Thanks for your lengthy comment.

    RE: Canon’s Long Term Establishment

    Yes, of course, the company should not torpedo it’s 1D sales.

    I’m just disappointed in the 5D Mark II as it relates to concert photography. I wanted a more well rounded camera in terms of features – specifically AF, Auto ISO, bracketing, and high ISO.

    The ideal camera for shooting music is an odd beast indeed. While I’m sure the 5D Mark II will take great concert photos, it’s like using flat screwdriver when you really need a phillips head – it’ll work, but it’s not the ideal tool for the job. The 5D Mark II is really a landscape photographers dream.

    I don’t fault Canon for appealing to the masses at all. I fault them for not building a more flexible tool.

    RE: Focus Technique and AF placement

    Focusing at rock shows is a bitch. Plain and simple. At f/2.8, there is not enough DOF to have the face in focus if the center AF point is on the chest.

    Focus, Shoot/Shoot/Shoot isn’t a problem if the subject isn’t moving. The most likely scenario is that the musician is moving (back and forth) while singing. Since the center AF point is the only one that’s going to be reliable at f/2.8. this requires the following:

    1) First Shot – Focus, Recompose, Shoot
    2) Performer rocks head back
    3) Second Shot – Focus Recompose, Shoot

    The problem with this is the “money shot” often occurs while the performer is in motion. Taking one static shot to another static shot just isn’t the best portrayal of rock’n’roll.

    I think we can all agree that having f/2.8 AF points on the periphery if the AF display would decrease the time from shot to shot and improve composition.

    For comparison, my focus technique on the 1D Mark II when a singer moves back and forth is:

    1) Set AF to Servo
    2) Select proper AF point on the eyeball for the given composition
    3) Enable AF via AF-ON button
    4) Shoot burst of 3-5 shots at maximum attainable FPS without recomposing

    I’m sad that they used the same 3 year old AF module as the 5D, which wasn’t known for focusing quickly or accurately with anything but the center point.

    RE: Pixel-Binning vs. Crop

    Agreed Canon did make the right choice. I think pixel binning is the superior technology except maybe for wire shooters who often need to deliver “composed in camera” shots direct to media outlets.

    RE: Your final points

    The samples I’ve seen in the past few days have been stunning. The detail retention at ISO 6400 is amazing.

    3.9 FPS is stunning considering the amount of data. 3.9 FPS is still too slow for my needs (energetic rock shows).

    The focus module is the same as the original 5D. I think people are disappointed that they didn’t improve the hardware it at all.

    In my opinion, Canon left a football field of headroom between the 5D Mark II and the 1-Series for a lot of photographers. They could have added a lot of things without threatening the Pro level.

    I don’t really appreciate being lumped in with the “It’s No Good” camp. I’d be fine with “It’s Not Great For Concerts” instead.

    No one seriously demands infinite anything. For the record, I wanted:

    15MP FF CMOS
    ISO 100 – 6400 (with expansion)
    9 Point AF f/2.8 sensitive, in a 1D arrangement
    5FPS
    A better shutter (faster response, less blackout)
    $3000 MSRP

    I wanted a versatile tool that would go well as a backup camera to my 1D Mark III, I think I wanted the fabled 3D or a D700 with an EF mount.

    What I feel like Canon produced was an amazing sensor in an otherwise vanilla body. Now that I think about it, it’s exactly like the original 5D, just 3 years later.

    “Concert photographers, I give you the appropriately named 5D Mark II. It’s got almost nothing you hoped for but absolutely everything you expected from the Mark II brand.”

  13. chris

    Hi Victor,

    Thanks for following up.

    The pointillism comparison does work in your favor.

    The point I was trying to make specifically with digital camera sensors is that at high ISOs smaller pixels actually hurt image quality because each individual pixel from a high MP sensor holds less data than a larger pixel from a lower MP sensor.

    At low ISOs, there is no comparison – the high MP sensor will out resolve the lower one any day.

    At high ISOs, sensors with smaller pixels are at a disadvantage because after all of the signal amplification, each pixel contains more digital noise than real data. So even though you have more pixels, if all those extra pixels are filled with garbage, you end up with either a net-zero or worse.

    The Nikon D2x was a perfect example of this. At base ISO, the camera was capable of resolving amazing details. (Macro shots were insane and portraits were often too sharp.) At high ISO, all of the fine detail seen at ISO100 was eaten by large, chunky luminance noise.

    Canon seems to have done an extremely good job at squeezing as much out of this sensor as possible (Chuck Westfall says it’s as much as 3 stops better than that of the 1Ds Mark III). Since the sensors in the 1Ds Mark III and 5D Mark II are virtually the same, we can assume they’ve accomplished this by attacking the sources of noise.

    When this stuff hits a lower MP sensor, like the one I assume will drop into the 1D Mark IV, the performance will be incredible. Assuming their AF redesign goes well, the camera will be enviable.

  14. I’m with Chris on this one, especially as a current 5D user. Having pushed the 5D to its limits over the past few years, I was hoping for small improvements in all its features. Improvements didn’t have to be up to the level of the 1D series, just better than the current 5D. We’re not asking Canon to cannibalize 1D sales by any means!

    There’s still a pretty big difference between the 5D Mark II and the 1D series in the areas that count for concert photographers. Now I’m gonna have nightmares that Canon will introduce a new body that is in between the latest 5D and 1D cameras….

  15. Aurora

    So where can I get it and how much does it cost?
    this is too exciting ..and yes i have been waiting..patiently mind you but still no camera stores near me sell it…frack…anyone got a website where i can but it from?? or a personal sale??

  16. Victor

    Canon does not use pixel binning for sraw. For sraw1, this fact is obvious. The math simply doesn’t work. Each 16×16 block of pixels is resized to a new 11×11 block of pixels. In other words, sraw1 is 121/256 times the pixel count of the full image. How are you going to do that with pixel binning? You’re not.

    For sraw2, it’s not so obvious. After a bit of careful thought, though, it’s clear that pixel binning is possible only if neighboring sensor elements are of the same color (you may note that there are other cameras that have been designed specifically with this purpose in mind and have a nonstandard bayer pattern).

    For sraw to work, the whole image must be demosaiced first and then resampled. This is all done in the camera’s linear raw color space, so the values remain raw values.

    Canon is tight-lipped on the algorithm used. It’s considered a trade secret.

  17. Yo,good post,thanks for your share! and I want to know if i can this post in my blog if I place a link back to yours? Waiting for your comment!

  18. Glad I stumbled across this post.. For a while I’ve been thinking that an upgrade from my 50D to a 5Dii would be a no-brainer, but now I have my doubts. The IQ on my 50D isn’t the best, and the noise could certainly be lower, but it’s the high frame rate and snappy focussing that often gets the best shots. I’m actually beginning to wonder whether I’d find the 5Dii a bit clunky in the photo pit. Since I can’t afford a 1D, perhaps I should stick with the 50D and put any ‘spare’ cash towards lenses! Tricky…

  19. You’ll want to add a facebook button to your blog. I just bookmarked this article, although I had to complete it manually. Simply my $.02 My partner and I really enjoyed reading this blog post, I was just itching to know do you trade featured posts? I am always trying to find someone to make trades with and merely thought I would ask.

  20. @lkeapproth This on the otherhand (comments too) has me thinking 7D is the more efficient option (with few sacrifices) http://t.co/phDFQFFH

  21. Educational, thanks Victor!

  22. It won’t be available until Nov/Dec. MSPR is $2,699.95.

Comment