Why is it taking so long to see a DPReview of the 5D MkII?

[FP]

This will be my first DSLR. I was going to jump on the 50D but the reviews haven't been the greatest. Should I save my money and just get a 40D and some better glass?

EDIT: About time! Text

 

[jpeyton]

Why? Do you need Phil's permission?

 

[Deadtrees]

If you're going for either 50D or 40D, why do you want to read a 5D mk2 review?

 

[demiurge3141]

is it just me or does this thread make no sense?

 

[FP]

Wanted the 50D originally but saw the reviews/user feedback wasn't great.

Moved sights to 5D MkII after hearing about it and the features. I have always liked the idea of FF and the video capabilities would be nice.

Haven't seen DPReview review of MkII even though it has been out a while. I have based my previous photography purchases off of his reviews/their forums and have never been disappointed.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

 

[jpeyton]

Here's some camera buying advice.

Take your budget.

Subtract $660 for this.

Subtract $1000 for this.

Use the remainder to buy a camera body.

 

[Heidfirst]

I tend to agree with jpeyton on spending on glass & getting a simpler body to learn with.
.

 

[ElFenix]

dpreview is not the be-all, end-all of camera review sites. evaluating image quality by evaluating pixel quality is mistake number 1. i'm starting to prefer imaging-resource, though i have issues with them as well. their review of the 5DII is up.


edit: did not see that this was a first DSLR. i'd go with something less expensive to begin with, unless you're already bumping up against the limits of a good superzoom like an FZ50 or you've got a background with film SLRs.

 

[finbarqs]

are you bonded with canon? for the best APS-C camera, I'd give the edge to the D300! for the best FF, D3X. In between? 5D2! Hell if you NEED FF, go with the original 5D. it's cheaper, and you wont tell the difference in IQ! But if you're going to go 5D, go D700, so you get a pro level body and AF system, and the BEST low light shooter!

 

[996GT2]

Lenses are more important than the camera.

Especially for a FIRST DSLR, there is no reason to get a full frame 5D Mk. II unless you have some seriously extensive experience with film photography. If you're just starting out, you won't know enough to take advantage of the extra features offered by a 5D.

Get some good lenses first; you won't be getting rid of lenses anytime soon, but camera bodies are almost disposable in today's fast-moving market.

As for the Nikon vs. Canon comparisons, it doesn't really matter which one you go with. Both brands have their pros and cons. For example, Nikon's user interface is a bit more intuitive and their 51 point AF is better than Canon's competing system, but Canon has the edge with their lenses. What's the use of a 51 point AF if the lenses being used can't keep up? This is a problem with Nikon, since most of their prime lenses are still using the old screw-driven AF mechanism. Also, if you want to consider using older lenses on Nikon, you can pretty much forget about fast autofocus, since Nikon didn't really start putting Silent Wave Motors into lenses since about 2000 or so (prior to that, only a few high end lenses were AF-S). Meanwhile, Canon's had Ultrasonic motors in lenses since 1990 or so, and even older lenses with Ring USM focus ridiculously fast.

EDIT: I have a 40D and the 50D doesn't really offer that much more. 5 extra megapixels doesn't mean a whole lot when you're going from 10 to 15 (unless you print posters on a daily basis). The other features like AF microadjustment aren't really huge selling points, and the image quality between the two are almost identical. In fact, if you really care about speed, the 40D is actually about .3-.5 FPS faster in full speed burst shooting at 6.3 to 6.5 FPS compared to the 50D's 6 FPS

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: finbarqs
are you bonded with canon? for the best APS-C camera, I'd give the edge to the D300! for the best FF, D3X. In between? 5D2! Hell if you NEED FF, go with the original 5D. it's cheaper, and you wont tell the difference in IQ! But if you're going to go 5D, go D700, so you get a pro level body and AF system, and the BEST low light shooter!

err.. i dunno, the D700 is a pretty damn good choice because it's dropping in price.

but i'd say get a freakin 40D and glass and call it a day

 

[ivan2]

I will give you their result here:

Highly Recommended

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
What's the use of a 51 point AF if the lenses being used can't keep up? This is a problem with Nikon, since most of their prime lenses are still using the old screw-driven AF mechanism. Also, if you want to consider using older lenses on Nikon, you can pretty much forget about fast autofocus, since Nikon didn't really start putting Silent Wave Motors into lenses since about 2000 or so (prior to that, only a few high end lenses were AF-S). Meanwhile, Canon's had Ultrasonic motors in lenses since 1990 or so, and even older lenses with Ring USM focus ridiculously fast.

Then again, if he wants a pro-level wide and standard zoom, Canon's 16-35mm L II and 24-70mm L are bested by Nikon's newer/sharper 14-24mm and 24-70mm.

FWIW, a D300 (or better) will drive a screw-type AF lens fast enough to track moving race cars. Having 51 AF points spread across a wider portion of the screen is simply more accurate for moving objects than 9 AF points clustered around the center.

The OP hasn't mentioned what kind of photography he's into, so all this talk about camera bodies and lenses could all be moot if he's only got a portfolio of cat pictures.

 

[bobdole369]

You don't need dpreview to find out that it's an amazing camera.

This will be my first DSLR. I was going to jump on the 50D but the reviews haven't been the greatest. Should I save my money and just get a 40D and some better glass?

You don't need the 5d mk2. My wife has the 50d and absolutely loves it. The iffy reviews mostly compare the 50d to its predecessor the 40d, which would suffice just fine (same basic camera with a couple little changes).

Shoot - for a first dslr why not get the 450d (XTi) or something quite inexpensive like that. Spend the money on L-glass instead of a wicked expensive body. It's money MUCH better spent.

Your focus will be to learn how to take good pictures. The body will NOT get you there by itself.

A camera does not a good photographer make. I handed my uncle ( a pro ) my point and shoot and he took photos with it that I swear were done by a dslr.

I have a 350d and don't plan to upgrade anytime soon unless something unexpected happens. Think of the body as the artists paintbrush. Sure its nice to have bristles from an endangered llama with the softest hair known to man - and a handle made of rare aged dogwood from the hartz mountains of Germany, but it doesn't make you any better of an artist does it? Your lens is like your paint and canvas selection. Much better to spend the money on that.

Having 51 AF points spread across a wider portion of the screen is simply more accurate for moving objects than 9 AF points clustered around the center.

I turn em all off except one. Then use that one. It doesn't really matter as I focus lock/AE lock/recompose/shoot anyways. Having multiple AF points gets in the way of taking the picture.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: bobdole369
I turn em all off except one. Then use that one. It doesn't really matter as I focus lock/AE lock/recompose/shoot anyways.

[golf clap]

Having multiple AF points gets in the way of taking my pictures.

Fixed. Different tools for different jobs. Having 40+ AF points isn't needed for architecture or still life, but using a single-point/focus-and-recompose won't cut it for stuff like this.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: bobdole369

I turn em all off except one. Then use that one. It doesn't really matter as I focus lock/AE lock/recompose/shoot anyways. Having multiple AF points gets in the way of taking the picture.

people do this and then wonder why their shots are out of focus.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: bobdole369

I turn em all off except one. Then use that one. It doesn't really matter as I focus lock/AE lock/recompose/shoot anyways. Having multiple AF points gets in the way of taking the picture.

people do this and then wonder why their shots are out of focus.

Yup, you need to have generous DOF to focus lock then recompose and still maintain good sharpness.

Originally posted by: jpeyton

...using a single-point/focus-and-recompose won't cut it for stuff like this.

Awesome.

 

[bobdole369]

but using a single-point/focus-and-recompose won't cut it for stuff like this.

Oh no no no no. No way could I achieve that. I'm using a single focus point to learn. And it shows.

BTW Why would multiple points help? Doesn't the camera just lock onto one or a group clustered together? If you don't have your DOF right would certain parts of the bird appear OOF regardless of how many points are used?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: bobdole369

but using a single-point/focus-and-recompose won't cut it for stuff like this.

Oh no no no no. No way could I achieve that. I'm using a single focus point to learn. And it shows.

BTW Why would multiple points help? Doesn't the camera just lock onto one or a group clustered together? If you don't have your DOF right would certain parts of the bird appear OOF regardless of how many points are used?

the camera can track, and theoretically can track better when there are more points.

i'm pretty certain that the camera monitors the other points even if they're is off, so you may be able to track just fine with just the center point. if i were designing a camera, i would use all the points to help track and the selected point as the one to be in focus, using data from the other points to keep the selected in focus. if the user selected a tracking mode and a single point, that is.

you'd need to be much closer than most people get to a bald eagle fishing in the wild to have a part of the bird outside acceptable focus if you've got the focus right to begin with. unless you've got some unobtainium lens. most people are going to shoot stopped down a little because the lens is sharper and the dof is wider.

canons have a mode that allows dof to be calculated by the camera and aperture selected to keep all the focus points within dof.

 

[996GT2]

Seriously though, 51 AF points is NOT necessary for the OP unless he is planning to do some serious birding or shoot pro football games and the like. I've seen many photographers shoot motorsports and other fast-moving scenes with EOS 20Ds, 30Ds, and 40Ds, and the pictures come out just fine. For a beginner, I'd recommend a 40D plus some nice lenses (Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 18-50 2.8 and Canon 70-200mm f/4L make a great combo). If you really want full frame, you can save a lot of cash by getting a used 5D Mk. I and still get great image quality at the expense of the speed of the crop-sensor cameras (the 40D shoots 6.5 FPS, while the 5D Mk. I only manages 3 FPS).

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: bobdole369
BTW Why would multiple points help? Doesn't the camera just lock onto one or a group clustered together? If you don't have your DOF right would certain parts of the bird appear OOF regardless of how many points are used?

If you're using the 5D and 5D2 center points, you're actually not using a single-point. The center point is surrounded by 6 invisible (non-selectable) assist sensors, which help the camera lock the center point into focus.

AF Wiki

There's nothing wrong with having more AF points. They let you lock focus when off-center subjects without recomposing, they let you track moving objects better, and they can be switched off if you don't need them.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
Seriously though, 51 AF points is NOT necessary for the OP unless he is planning to do some serious birding or shoot pro football games and the like. I've seen many photographers shoot motorsports and other fast-moving scenes with EOS 20Ds, 30Ds, and 40Ds, and the pictures come out just fine. For a beginner, I'd recommend a 40D plus some nice lenses (Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 18-50 2.8 and Canon 70-200mm f/4L make a great combo). If you really want full frame, you can save a lot of cash by getting a used 5D Mk. I and still get great image quality at the expense of the speed of the crop-sensor cameras (the 40D shoots 6.5 FPS, while the 5D Mk. I only manages 3 FPS).

40D tops out at 6.3. it's 6.5 because of the rounding rules CIPA had back when the 40D was released.

 

[FP]

Thanks for all of the great replies guys. I wouldn't consider myself a photography noob but I also haven't shot DSLR. I have taken a handful of photography classes for fun, learned all about shooting/developing with a film SLR and have shot a ton of pictures with various digital cameras. To be honest 90% of my shooting will be around the house of family/animals/events etc.

I have always been a Canon fan and my film SLR is a Canon (however really old).

I guess I am just conflicted between dropping a ton of money on the 5D MkII (which I am hoping gets excellent reviews) or a bit less on a camera that hasn't seen the best reviews.

Oh and lol @ the comment about dpreview giving the 5D MkII a Highly Recommended.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: FP
or a bit less on a camera that hasn't seen the best reviews.

90/100

4.5/5

...the image quality is nothing short of astounding...

...excellent image quality all add up to make the Canon EOS 50D a great choice for all types of photographers...

And here are some examples of what a 50D can do in real life.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Here's some camera buying advice.

Take your budget.

Subtract $660 for this.

Subtract $1000 for this.

Use the remainder to buy a camera body.

I'd go with the F2.8 instead of the IS personally for the same price, but either would work well.

Anyways, my gf has the 5D mk 1 and the mk 2 isn't worth an upgrade over the mk 1. You can pick up the mk 1 for ~$1700, about 1/2 the mk 2. With that being said though, I would drop ~$800ish on the 40D and spend the other $900 on lenses.

Without knowing your budget but for the same cost as the 5D mk 2 I would get:
f2.8 70-200 L
f2.8 24-70 L OR f4 24-105 L (I'd do the first one personally)
Canon 40D

For a total cost of right around $2800+shipping/tax, where the 5D mk 2 body alone is $2700+tax/shipping. That setup will get you a lot more for less. True it won't be FF, but the two lenses support FF when you migrate to it. If you have another $800 or so to spend, you could get the 5D mk 1 for about $1700ish (for a total of body+lenses right around $3600ish+tax/shipping) which would get you FF.

Don't forget though that there are many other things to buy with that. Camera bag, filters, tripod, a good flash (like the 430 ex II), memory cards, etc. that will add another few hundred to the cost of the body and lenses.