Any 5D Mark ii Owners?

[TriggerHappyDude]

If its any solace to anyone, I still feel good about a Canon 5D Mark II purchase with a 24-70mm f/2.8 L or the kith 24-105mm f/4 IS lens...

 

GTFO?

[05XRunner]

If its any solace to anyone, I still feel good about a Canon 5D Mark II purchase with a 24-70mm f/2.8 L or the kith 24-105mm f/4 IS lens...

your call..I personally got the 24-70 because of the 2.8...the 24-105 is nice cause it has IS..but also there is some barrel distortion at the 24mm end of it.

 

GTFO = get the F out

[wfournier]

LOL..Nikon has a FF 24MP camera compared to the 1DsMKIII that canon came out with about 3years ago and took them this long to catch up. I like How a link about the 1DIII focus added even though that has been sorted out already. Plus the D3x is what the 1DIII was priced at release..Now you can get the 1DIII for about $6000 so once again Nikon is behind the ball on that as well. I and MANY Nikon shooters I see think the D3x is a fail. It is basically nothing more then a D3 with a 24mp chip tossed in and added a $3500 price hike..GTFO

 

You can keep your Nikon

 

GTFO? Seriously? Are we this childish on this forum?

 

I saw that you had posted some information that to the best of my knowledge is factually incorrect. I was making no argument about Nikon being a better company than Canon, simply that Nikon's offerings at this point in time outperform Canon's in the categories where you said that the 5D Mk. II was top dog.

 

If I wanted to bash Canon I could talk about the 1D Mk. III, which you own and Canon's continuous problems with it. it is a camera that has been out for almost two and a half years (or nearly three depending on how you're counting ) and just last month another "fix" for the autofocus issues were released, that some users still feel did not solve their problems. This is YEARS after the release of a "flagship" top of the line professional cameras. The 1D Mk. III is the best thing to happen to Nikon in recent years.

 

We could talk about the 25% failure rate of 5D Mk. II in the luminous landscapes Antarctic trip.

 

Yes Nikons cost more, but I feel (my own personal opinion, I am not claiming this as a universal truth) that they are a better product, at least at this point in time.

 

Canon is a very good camera maker and I fully expect them to release something that will surpass what Nikon has available. They have not done that yet so the statement I made about the D3 and D700 being better at high ISO and the D3x having higher resolution than the 5D Mk. II still stands (statements that you have not addressed in any way shape or form, unless saying something is expensive is saying it is technologically inferior).

[05XRunner]

GTFO? Seriously? Are we this childish on this forum?

 

I saw that you had posted some information that to the best of my knowledge is factually incorrect. I was making no argument about Nikon being a better company than Canon, simply that Nikon's offerings at this point in time outperform Canon's in the categories where you said that the 5D Mk. II was top dog.

 

If I wanted to bash Canon I could talk about the 1D Mk. III, which you own and Canon's continuous problems with it. it is a camera that has been out for almost two and a half years (or nearly three depending on how you're counting ) and just last month another "fix" for the autofocus issues were released, that some users still feel did not solve their problems. This is YEARS after the release of a "flagship" top of the line professional cameras. The 1D Mk. III is the best thing to happen to Nikon in recent years.

 

We could talk about the 25% failure rate of 5D Mk. II in the luminous landscapes Antarctic trip.

 

Yes Nikons cost more, but I feel (my own personal opinion, I am not claiming this as a universal truth) that they are a better product, at least at this point in time.

 

Canon is a very good camera maker and I fully expect them to release something that will surpass what Nikon has available. They have not done that yet so the statement I made about the D3 and D700 being better at high ISO and the D3x having higher resolution than the 5D Mk. II still stands (statements that you have not addressed in any way shape or form, unless saying something is expensive is saying it is technologically inferior).

 

I am looking for more test..But that D3 might look like it has better noise control but it loses details at High ISO vs the canon..That is the thing people miss..They think the Nikon has this great HIGH ISO ability but they are not seeing that it lacks the fine details compared to the Canon. They use alot more in cam process to smooth the image to appear that it has cleaner high ISO.

http://clublexus.com/forums/digital-photog...e-showdown.html

 

Dont worry i will find more there is one in particular I am looking for that shows the details better then this.

 

 

Oh and what about your D300 and the 14bit files..If you want to shoot at its full 6fps you can only shoot in 12bit color..But if you move it up to 14bit color that drops down to what 1.5fps burst. Yea thats useful...why even give the camera 14bit if it cannot use it at all times full speed?

[TriggerHappyDude]

I just like the feel of the Canon's in my hand a lot more than the Nikon's...before I did any initial research or holding of the camera's I thought Nikon was the only way to go, and was set on a D90 or D300. I've since held those two and a D700, and while they are awesome camera's they felt awkward in my hand. I'm sure if I just bought one over time I'd get used to it. But then I started liking the features of the 50D and almost pulled the trigger on that until I started seeing the buzz about, what I thought for sure I didn't want in my DLSR, HD video. Its not the reason I want a 5DMII, but it helps it out. While I can't sit here and argue with you two on the really technical details yet on the Canon and Nikon's...I just want to say both are really great brands, we can agree on that, I just feel more drawn to the Canon brand right now. I would love to be able to play with both for a week, and should maybe look to rent them for a true test, but I could go back and forth all week with them.

[05XRunner]

I just like the feel of the Canon's in my hand a lot more than the Nikon's...before I did any initial research or holding of the camera's I thought Nikon was the only way to go, and was set on a D90 or D300. I've since held those two and a D700, and while they are awesome camera's they felt awkward in my hand. I'm sure if I just bought one over time I'd get used to it. But then I started liking the features of the 50D and almost pulled the trigger on that until I started seeing the buzz about, what I thought for sure I didn't want in my DLSR, HD video. Its not the reason I want a 5DMII, but it helps it out. While I can't sit here and argue with you two on the really technical details yet on the Canon and Nikon's...I just want to say both are really great brands, we can agree on that, I just feel more drawn to the Canon brand right now. I would love to be able to play with both for a week, and should maybe look to rent them for a true test, but I could go back and forth all week with them.

your also buying a system...If you are into prime lenses Nikon really doesnt have anything to write home about compared to Canon.

[wfournier]

I just like the feel of the Canon's in my hand a lot more than the Nikon's...before I did any initial research or holding of the camera's I thought Nikon was the only way to go, and was set on a D90 or D300. I've since held those two and a D700, and while they are awesome camera's they felt awkward in my hand. I'm sure if I just bought one over time I'd get used to it. But then I started liking the features of the 50D and almost pulled the trigger on that until I started seeing the buzz about, what I thought for sure I didn't want in my DLSR, HD video. Its not the reason I want a 5DMII, but it helps it out. While I can't sit here and argue with you two on the really technical details yet on the Canon and Nikon's...I just want to say both are really great brands, we can agree on that, I just feel more drawn to the Canon brand right now. I would love to be able to play with both for a week, and should maybe look to rent them for a true test, but I could go back and forth all week with them.

 

If the Canon feels better to you, than by all means get the canon. Something I hear people say a lot is get a chance to hold both cameras in your hand and pick the one that feels best. I think this makes a lot of sense. I came from Pentax and almost got a canon, the only thing that drove me to Nikon was that a friend shot Nikon and it meant that we could share lenses. What really matters is using the camera and if it feels good than you are more likely to use it.

 

your also buying a system...If you are into prime lenses Nikon really doesnt have anything to write home about compared to Canon.

 

you are right Nikon is weak in terms of their prime lenses, this is an area where Canon has a big edge over Nikon. The new nikon 35mm f1.8 DX lens is really nice, especially for $200, but it is only a drop in the bucket.

 

Nice tank pics by the way.

[Rehype]

Well check out this review. In summary the canon is clearly sharper in all of the images but the nikon wins the high iso test. Mostly because it has a "nicer noise pattern" (whatever that means ) Honestly IMO i find looking at the raw files exhausting simply because the results are so similar. Not to mention the canon shots are clearly underexposed and thus the nikon shots appear cleaner noisewise. They also say the nikon was better in IQ when hes judging the two based on auto white balance??? The canon shots appears to be more red and sharper when looking at crops. While the nikon appears more yellow and softer.The reviewer prefers the more yellow look of the nikon. IMO opinion the nikon may have slightly won the high iso noise test although the difference is ever so slight especially when the shots are exposed correctly.The reason for this difference is that nikon prefers stronger noise reduction at the expense of image detail while canon prefers sharper detail at high iso at the expense of more noise. However the Canon was clearly the winner in terms of IQ. The canon is sharper in all of the shots posted. All in all you cant go wrong with either body because in real world application such as prints you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two. JMO

[TriggerHappyDude]

I learned early on not to dive into these Nikon vs. Canon wars, they can get serious. Canon is going to be my path that I take, no only does it feel good in the hands, my family members have Canon and lenses we can share, so it only makes sense to me. Besides I've fallen head over heals in love with the 5D Mark II and will probably add a 50D down the road as a back up once I'm established and start shooting where I might need help at certain events. My wedding was all shot in the Canon 5D, so how can I go wrong?

 

This was my guy...

 

http://www.paulriedl.com/

[Rehype]

Hey check out this time lapse video shot with the 5D2.Its just amazing. Lets see the D3x pull that off....jk..not really . Im so glad i upgraded my pc so i can start editing video.

[wfournier]

Well check out this review. In summary the canon is clearly sharper in all of the images but the nikon wins the high iso test. Mostly because it has a "nicer noise pattern" (whatever that means ) Honestly IMO i find looking at the raw files exhausting simply because the results are so similar. Not to mention the canon shots are clearly underexposed and thus the nikon shots appear cleaner noisewise. They also say the nikon was better in IQ when hes judging the two based on auto white balance??? The canon shots appears to be more red and sharper when looking at crops. While the nikon appears more yellow and softer.The reviewer prefers the more yellow look of the nikon. IMO opinion the nikon may have slightly won the high iso noise test although the difference is ever so slight especially when the shots are exposed correctly.The reason for this difference is that nikon prefers stronger noise reduction at the expense of image detail while canon prefers sharper detail at high iso at the expense of more noise. However the Canon was clearly the winner in terms of IQ. The canon is sharper in all of the shots posted. All in all you cant go wrong with either body because in real world application such as prints you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the two. JMO

 

Interesting review, to me the D3x looks a touch sharper in the ISO 100 shots, but not much. If I was looking to buy a 20+ megapixel camera, it would probably be the 5D Mk II. I don't think I could justify the added expense of the D3x over the 5D Mk II for minimal improvements in IQ. However personally if I were to buy a FF or FX (whatever you want to call it) camera it would probably be the D700 as it fits my needs better. The 5D Mk II meets other people's needs better. It's too bad you can't get a Canon with a (full functioning) Nikon mount of vice versa. It would make things so much easier.

 

As far as in camera noise reduction, I actually think that Canon tends to be more aggressive in this area. However Nikon in general tends to use stronger AA filters to deal with moir which softens the image. This is why Canon's tend to look sharper at low ISO's. Check out this company, there has been some debate about just how accurate their examples are but it is interesting to look at.

[TriggerHappyDude]

I like Canon...

[Rehype]

Interesting review, to me the D3x looks a touch sharper in the ISO 100 shots, but not much. If I was looking to buy a 20+ megapixel camera, it would probably be the 5D Mk II.

 

I dont know about that look closely at the eyelashes as well as the eyebrows....The 5D is pulling in more detail

[wfournier]

I dont know about that look closely at the eyelashes as well as the eyebrows....The 5D is pulling in more detail

 

I think the better WB on the D3x is reducing the contrast which is going to make it look a little sharper, however I am not sure that is all of it. I was looking at the mailbox(?) pictures where the D3x looks slightly sharper, but then again I am not convinced that both cameras are focused on the same spot.

[latazyo]

for every photographer that you can find, who, on their death bed will admit that their career was a total failure, simply because they chose canon over nikon or nikon over canon, I will pay out $1,000

[TriggerHappyDude]

But I still like Canon...

[Withers]

We seem to get into a lot of these arguments when all we're really doing is splitting hairs

[seahorsedreams]

PERFECT thread. I'm about to buy the 5D. I hate my 40D so much I wanna throw it out the window.

[seahorsedreams]

PERFECT thread.

 

Until I read the whole thing and realized it was yet another offtrack Canon/Nikon debate.

 

 

 

To the OP, how are you finding it. Anything you don't like? Anything that is particularly nice?

[andykee]

PERFECT thread. I'm about to buy the 5D. I hate my 40D so much I wanna throw it out the window.

why do you hate your 40D?

[seahorsedreams]

I use to get like 90% of my attempted shots.... now it's like 50 or 60% success. I've owned this line forever and this one just doesn't produce for me.

[Withers]

What's different about the 40D that made you think that it's the culprit? Not a criticism by the way, it's just that the 40D is likely my next upgrade (or at least that line is).

[TriggerHappyDude]

PERFECT thread. I'm about to buy the 5D. I hate my 40D so much I wanna throw it out the window.

 

Are you going to sell the 40D? Just curious. I'm going to purchase the 5D Mark II, waiting on a connection with a quote...hopefully today!

[seahorsedreams]

Not taken as a criticism. I know how to handle this camera pretty well. I owned the Elan 3e and then the 7e which were the immediate versions prior to them going digital. Then I bought the 350D? ... the first in the series... and then to the 20D and then 40D. I got great shots on all except the 40D.

 

The first 40D I got I bought online and I couldn't get it to focus to save my life. But I really needed it and brought it to a local repair shop for them to look at. They refused to even touch it saying nothing shimmed like that should have come out of the factory and that it needed to be sent back on principle alone. I sent it back and got a replacement. STILL couldn't get it to focus. Sent it in to Canon's repair shop this time because I didn't want to take a chance on another new screwed up one. They said the focus was way off and they recabbed it.

 

It focuses great now...... if I go to the right of what I really want to focus on. And now I'm just generally cranky over the whole thing... others like theirs just fine.

 

What's different about the 40D that made you think that it's the culprit? Not a criticism by the way, it's just that the 40D is likely my next upgrade (or at least that line is).

 

If you're going that line, go with the 50D. I've heard less focus complaints with that body.

[andykee]

If you're going that line, go with the 50D. I've heard less focus complaints with that body.

this