EOS 5D Mark II Reviews

The Canon EOS 5D Mark 2 Digital SLR camera is scheduled for delivery by the end of November, 2008. Because as of this writing the camera has just started to ship, there are no good customer reviews to speak of. However, the original EOS 5D was a groundbreaking, popular camera, and the current model with its more advanced features promises to be a very popular camera as well.

EOS 5D Mark II Customer Reviews

This camera is awesome., February 11, 2009
By  Bionic Dog

Are you a photographer? Hard to beat this full-frame 21mp camera for the price. Do you like HD video with depth of field using great lenses? This is the only camera in existence that does it this well for the price. It's not perfect, but very few things are when the first arrive on scene. That said, go surf the web and you'll see the amazing work people are still able to do with it, even with all the imperfections. If you shoot video for paying clients, this may not be the camera for you, unless it is only to supplement other cameras in your collection. Otherwise, I've been waiting for this camera for a long time and it's finally here.

Mostly positive, but mixed feelings, January 1, 2009
By  Glenn Przyborski

First the good...

If you're looking for an excellent, full-frame DSLR, the 5D Mk2 is very, very good. It's at least 1 full F-stop more sensitive to light than my Canon 1DS Mk2. A setting of ASA 800 or 1000 yields about the same noise level as my older camera at ASA 400. It's autofocus system is very fast and accurate on single shot mode. (I don't think EF-L series lenses are capable of faster focus action.)

The new LCD screen is gorgeous. 3" diagonal with 900,000+ pixels. It's possibly the best quality LCD screen ever put on a DSLR. The menus are easier to understand and navigate than the 1DS Mk2's menus. "Live View" is an excellent way to do critical focusing. If you've never used a DSLR with live view, you'll love it. The only negative of live-view is that it really drains your battery and it can only be used for a certain length of time before the CMOS imager circuitry heats up, adding noise to the image. (In real-life typical shooting, overheating is not a problem and besides the camera will auto cancel live-view if it senses an over temperature condition.)

The huge 21 mega-pixel RAW images are excellent. The camera uses an updated variant on Canon's .CR2 RAW format so if you use an older version of Adobe's Lightroom or Photoshop for image processing, you'll need the latest Lightroom 2.2 or Photoshop CS4 to get the proper RAW converter. I've personally never liked the included software for RAW image processing, but many people are happy with it.

The auto-exposure system seems very accurate... more accurate than my 1DS Mk2.

I never experienced any "black dot" phenomenon. But I've only shot RAW images at less than 1200 ASA. The "black dot" sample images that I've seen on the internet look like simple, in-camera, over-enhancement of highlights. Besides, unless you're shooting sports at night or are part of a CSI team, who shoots at 3200+ ASA anyway? If you're doing a night shot of a city use a tripod, a longer exposure, and a lower ASA. This will yield rich, clean blacks and much higher detail in highlights. Also, although JPEG's are much smaller, every professional photographer that I know shoots only RAW images.

I ordered the camera with the optional BG-E6 battery grip. This grip makes the camera taller and easier to hold. It allows simultaneous use of 2 Canon lithium batteries or 6- AA alkaline or rechargeables. It's a very valuable accessory to consider.

More...

EOS 5D Mark II Customer Discussions

Replies to 'Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L vesus Tamron AF 28-300mm f3.5-6.3 VC for 5d Mark II' in 'Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21.1MP Full Frame CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) forum' - Amazon.com Customer Discussions
15 Mar 2010 at 4:50pm
  • Posted on Mar 15 2010 at 4:50 pm
    by C. Coward
    This is a little late of a post, but I figured I'd chime in just in case anyone else was considering this option. I too had the Tamron 18-270mm lens on my 400D before I upgraded to a 5D last year. At that time I was torn between purchasing another super zoom and the 24-105L. I had always had great luck with my 18-270 and some of my better prints still come from when I was using that lens. In the end though I went with the 24-105L. It's the better buy. When you upgrade to camera that has a sensor this good you need to pair it with glass that's of equal quality. Buying a great body and then shorting yourself on the glass is just throwing your money down the toilet. If you want to short anywhere, it's on the body. Great glass will last many years, a great body will only last a few.
  • Posted on Jan 22 2010 at 2:26 pm
    by Conway Yen
    Go L. the 24-105 is a fantastic lens. Super-zoom lenses like the Tamron you mentioned are significantly inferior, optically speaking. With such a long zoom range, you're sure to get good amounts of barrel and pincushion distortion at opposite ends of the range. You'll also have to consider CAs and all the other usual concerns with lenses.
  • Posted on Jan 15 2010 at 12:25 am
    by Craig Dickson
    Well... if you liked your Tamron 18-270mm then I can understand the temptation to go with a Tamron 28-300mm for your new full-frame camera. But to me it really doesn't make sense to buy a $2500+ camera and then pinch pennies when buying lenses. If anything, I would rather use a low-budget camera and put the best lenses on it. When I mostly shot on a Rebel, I used Canon L zooms (24-70mm f/2.8L and 70-200mm f/2.8L IS) and the difference between them and the cheap EF-S zooms was incredible in every way. Sharper images, better contrast and color, much less vignetting (loss of brightness around the edges), less distortion... So even the cheaper DSLRs benefit from high-quality glass. And if you shouldn't put cheap lenses on cheap cameras, then it makes even less sense to put them on a higher-grade camera like the 5D Mark II.Now, I must admit I have not used the Tamron 28-300mm lens you're interested in. But I have read up on it online (from multiple sources), and while some people are happy with it, I don't see many people saying it's as good as the Canon L lenses. Take a look at the user reviews on this page, for example:http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1091/cat/23Over and over, even from some of the people who like the lens, we see it noted that it is "soft" or "unsharp", particularly at the ends of its zoom range. The AF is said not to work well in low light and to be slow (a common complaint with Tamron lenses, by the way). One reviewer says that Tamron's VC (Vibration Control) doesn't work as well as Canon's IS (Image Stabilization).There is also the problem of the f/6.3 maximum aperture at the long end, which all by itself guarantees that you will have AF problems. Except for the 1D/1Ds models, Canon DSLRs need f/5.6 or better for AF to work well. All of Canon's own DSLR lenses can do at least f/5.6 at all focal lengths.All these issues, to me, sound like reasons to avoid this lens. But it's your money, and you're the one who has to be satisfied with what you decide to buy.Either the Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L or the significantly less pricy but equally good EF 17-40mm f/4L, combined with the EF 24-70mm f/2.8L or the EF 24-105mm f/4L, and either the f/2.8 or f/4 versions of the EF 70-200mm L IS, gives you complete coverage from wide-angle to telephoto with top-quality lenses. The f/2.8 lenses are larger, heavier, and more expensive than the f/4 ones, but f/2.8 will perform better in mediocre light, such as is often found indoors or in shaded areas. But if f/4 is satisfactory for you (which I suppose it should be if you're considering an f/3.5-6.3 zoom, which will be at f/4 or worse across most of its range), you can definitely save money buying them instead of the f/2.8 lenses.You can also deal with the low-light issue by augmenting your zoom collection with a couple of really fast, really good, but inexpensive primes, such as Canon's EF 35mm f/2, EF 50mm f/1.4, or EF 100mm f/2. Lenses like these laugh at darkness and turn out beautiful pictures. Sometimes they make me wonder why I bother with zooms at all!
  • Posted on Jan 6 2010 at 1:16 pm
    by D. Chan
    "L" glass is definitely worth the extra cash especially for the 5d mark ii. The high resolution of this camera will reveal any short coming of a mid grade glass. Since most of your shooting are landscape you probably won't miss the extra reach of a telephoto zoom. When i shoot landscape i typically reach for a wide angle lens like a 16-35 mm L. i also have the 24-70 mm L and that lens stays on my camera most of the time. Unless you do a lot of wild life or sports photography the long zoom is not that essential. If you find yourself needing a long zoom, check out the canon 70-200 mm f4 L. It's $600 and is very sharp. Good glass does make a difference, whether you shoot with a highend camera or a entry level camera. i rather have good glass on a decent camera than decent glass on a good camera. Invest in good lens, cameras will get outdated but lens you can keep forever (unless you break em).
  • Posted on Dec 19 2009 at 6:34 pm
    by C. Creviston
    Decided I want to get the 5D Mark II as my first full frame (compared it against Nikon D700) but now trying to figure out what lens choice I want to make. I can obviously buy it with the Canon 24-105 lens with the lens effectively costing $800. However, I've had really a good experience using my Tamron 18-270 with my Canon XSi so considering just getting the 5D Mark II body and picking up the full-frame compatible Tamron 28-300 for a little under $600. I like the versatile focal range I would get that I wouldn't get with the Canon 24-105 but I have never shot with "L" glass so I'm not sure if its worth the extra money and accepting a more limited focal range then dropping more $$ to get a special telephoto lens. I plan on shooting about 80% landscape, scenery and about 20% human/animal subjects. Any recommendations on which way to go?Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens for Canon EOS SLR CamerasTamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD VC (Vibration Compensation) Aspherical (IF) Macro Zoom Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras
Replies to '5D mark ii VS 1D mark iv for wedding photography' in 'Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21.1MP Full Frame CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) forum' - Amazon.com Customer Discussions
24 Apr 2010 at 4:06am
  • Posted on Apr 24 2010 at 4:06 am
    by Dylan Crutchfield
    In a couple months, I hope Nikon releases a D700X or D700S to lower the resale of the D700. In any case I'd take (and plan to additionally buy) a Nikon for high iso low light event shots (I currently own a 5D2 and have since release). It's really not that hard to sell your Canon lens (especially when they tend to hold their resale quite well).With that significant money saved you can buy 2 D700 bodies, a couple fast primes (24 1.4, 50 1.4, 85 1.4, 135 2.0) and maybe some standard zooms (14-24, 24-70, 70-200). As much as I love my 5D2, I find myself shooting flash-less at 1600-6400 for low light events quite a bit, even with the fast primes I have wide open. I find the chroma noise quite noticeable 3200+ and the noise reduction used heavily to reduce some detail.Then again later this year or early next year we might find ourselves with press releases for a Canon 1DS IV, Canon 5D Mark III, and/or Nikon D700S/X and they each may have even better iso stop performance over their predecessors and current camera bodies out there.
  • Posted on Apr 13 2010 at 7:30 pm
    by Tom Martin
    M. Malik says: the 5d mk ii is a terrible camera for focusing, and the build quality is subpar as well for a 2300 dollar body.Where do you come up with this stuff? Obviously you don't own a 5D MkII and never have! To bad you feel you have to justify your Nikon purchase, by slamming Canon products.
  • Posted on Apr 13 2010 at 11:07 am
    by Jorge Gonzalez Chau
    Hi, M, tnx for your reply. I cannot go Nikon for I have a good investment in canon lenses and I'm not willing to sell them. Besides, I love canon system and don't want to go discussing Nikon vs Canon. D700 is probably a better body than 5DmkII as D3s and x are better bodies than 1D mkIV. But then it's the photographer not the camera... I'm doing a good job with 50D's which are not even in the same league, regarding to ISO, with 1D, 5D, D700 or D3.... but it would really help to have 3-4 stops of ISO so I can go with higher speed with the shutter and have less blur. I'm glad this post came live again. I hope someone can give some insights regarding to 5D mkII vs 1D mk IV specifically for wedding photography. I haven't bought any of those because my wife has to approve the investment and she hasn't.... in her opinion I'm doing good enough with what I have, and maybe she is right. Our clients are satisfied and here in Nicaragua I cannot charge too much for weddings, so I think I'll be saving for some time before I take the divebest regards and tnx in advance for any help in this regard
  • Posted on Apr 13 2010 at 12:13 am
    by M. Malik
    the 5d mk ii is a terrible camera for focusing, and the build quality is subpar as well for a 2300 dollar body. The D700 which costs the same is infiinitely better in every aspect for wedding photography, focusing, high iso (1-1.5 stops better than 5d mk ii), handling, etc etc.
  • Posted on Jan 22 2010 at 3:43 pm
    by Conway Yen
    the 50D is a pretty decent camera, actually. What I like most about it is that it has far more focus points than the 5d2, ironically. Additionally, the points are more spread out for easy usage, and most of the points are of the more accurate cross-type variety.Instead of going for a better camera, have you considered getting the new Pocket Wizard units, the Flex and the Mini? If you're not familiar with them, one of the newer updates with these units allow you to use 2nd curtain sync off-camera, and the timings are actually closer to the end of the shutter than native Canon products. This is a huge development, which I am very excited about (I'm ordering several units this weekend).Additionally, if you order and register your new PW flex and mini's before January 31st, they will include radio frequency blocking fabric sheaths for your Canon brand flashes, free of charge (the 430EX, 580EX, and 580EX II emit a lot of RF noise, which interferes with off-camera strobe reliability. The fabric sheaths will cost about 20 - 40 USD after Jan 31st, and the metal ones will be appx 70 USD). This offer may not be extended outside of the United States, but I would check if you're interested. It would be much cheaper than buying a 5D mk II, and I honestly think this would be a better solution in a lot of ways (you'll need 1 mini unit for your camera and 1 flex unit for every flash you'd want to deploy E-TTL, off-camera).Currently, these Pocket Wizard Flex and Mini units are the only units that will allow you to use 2nd curtain sync off camera. Since they are more accurate than using native Canon equipment, you don't necessarily need higher ISO capabilities -- 2nd curtain sync freezes your subjects in place, there is little or no blur, and you're only paying appx. 200 USD per unit, as opposed to ~2400 for a 5d2. And since your flash will be coming from off-camera, you're already getting much better quality light.P.S. No, I don't work for PocketWizard, nor do I get a kickback, a payment, or any compensation for recommending them. I wish I did, though.
  • Posted on Jan 22 2010 at 2:55 pm
    by Jorge Gonzalez Chau
    Thanks a lot for you useful answer; Conway Yen. At this time, I'm working with 2 50Ds. One with a 70-200 2.8 IS and the other with a 17-55 IS USM. And I use a 50mm 1.4 for details and stuff.... I guess, if I were to buy the camera at this time, I'll go for the 5DmkII just for the price. And I know the increment in ISO performance will be great compared to my 50Ds. I do weddings in Nicaragua. People here always get married at night. Never by day. So I have to live with that. In most conditions I don't dare to go further than ISO 400, because if you don't nail the exposure, you will have serious issues with colors, etc, at anything higher than that. So you are at least 3 stops north from what I can get away with. That would do for me at this time. I'm doing kind of good with what I have... But the faster I can go in a typical wedding is 1/100, but I'm usually at 1/50 and some times 1/25... so you guess). I get so many blurred pictures...I'm always using One shot. Never though to use AI Servo to follow somebody in a wedding ... just birds and wild animals, hehe. Not much of a difference, anyways... and I always focus (center point) and recompose... I never developed the ability to change focus points faster enough... I know I have to work hard on my technics. I have so much to learn... and Yes.. people is always asking why you move the camera so much... 3,200 would be amazing for me, jeje..... so I would love a 5D mark II, but I will wait and see how the mark IV develops. Anyhow, I will buying a new camera in a few month, so I will listen to what you said and will wait to see how good the mkIV behaves compared to the 5DmkII.... I guess the 1Ds mkIV will be out sometime soon. But it's not in my capacity to make that kind of invesment in a camera body (guessing it will be some 7,500 or 8,000 thousand). thanks again for your answer and the useful on-the-field information.
  • Posted on Jan 22 2010 at 2:23 pm
    by Conway Yen
    the 1D 4 is a little too new to really make the call at this point, IMO. Theoretically, it should blow the 5d2 out of the water, but the pattern with Canon has been that they've been releasing products prematurely, without sufficient testing and quality control. For example, the mk4 hasn't been out much longer than a month, and it's already got a focus-related firmware update coming down the pipes.I've owned and extensively used a 5d2 for a while now, and I've shot numerous weddings with it. While it is an amazing camera with a ton of features packed into a relatively inexpensive package, there are issues with it that you should be aware of, simply so that you can work around them:1) AI Servo performs poorly. You'll be better off using one shot, but then you'll have to refocus every single frame if your subject is moving (and, needless to say, at a wedding EVERYBODY is moving. Constantly). You can still use AI Servo if the room is brightly lit, if you're outdoors during the daytime, or if you don't really care about the occassional fuzzy-looking images (which occur too often, IMHO).2) the outer (far left, far right) focus points don't work well in low light conditions. Use the center point, which is the only cross-type focus point in the camera anyway. Yes, this means you'll have to grab focus and reframe the image every time. You'll also have to endure the persistent questions from those unfamiliar with how a DSLR works, "Why are you jerking the camera like that????"3) I've actually been dissatisfied with the low light performance at super-high ISO settings. 3200 is the highest I'll go, if I want a decent, salvageable image. Otherwise, I hope you have Noise Ninja or something else.Those are my major pet peeves with the camera in the wedding photography context. If you look around, you can find a ton of other user complaints for all cameras of all brands. The 5d2 is no exception. Good luck.
  • Posted on Jan 19 2010 at 12:00 am
    by Jorge Gonzalez Chau
    I know the 1D mkiv is worth twice the price of the 5D mkii but in terms of usability, IQ, Low light and focus system, which camera behaves better for wedding photography??Does anyone have a link to comparison?thank in advance for any comments
Replies to 'I just got my frisr 5d.... but my sigma 17 70 2.8 dc' in 'Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21.1MP Full Frame CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) forum' - Amazon.com Customer Discussions
5 Feb 2010 at 2:54am
  • Posted on Feb 5 2010 at 2:54 am
    by Technology Guy
    There's also the relatively bargain priced Tamron 28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di.
  • Posted on Jan 27 2010 at 6:57 am
    by Tom Martin
    The Sigma 17-70 is designated as a DC lens, this means it is equivalent to a Canon EF-S lens and not a EF lens. It is designed for APS-C cameras and is not designed to work on a full frame camera like the 5D. While it may physically fit on the camera, it will have severe vignetting.edit: The Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM Standard Zoom Lens has good image quality, low price, and 28mm on a full frame camera is almost as wide as the Sigma was at 17mm on your old APS-C camera.Sigma also has the Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro Aspherical Large Aperture Standard Zoom Lens for Canon SLR Cameras, which will actually be wider than your 17-70 was on your APS-C camera.
  • Posted on Jan 26 2010 at 5:28 pm
    by A. causey
    I just got my frist 5D mark ii. I have been saving for a year to get it. I own a xsi and 2 sigma lens that I LOVE the 17-70 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8. my 70-200 is fine but my 17-70 is not working well. zoomed out to 70 it is not so bad but at 17 it is bad. so i caled my camera store to find out what lens i could use on a 5d. but he just said ef lens from canon.... but I love sigma, and I can't affrod L glass or i would buy it...i need a wide angle to shoot weddings. but can'r put out another 1,000 bucks
Replies to 'Nikon D700 12.1mp or Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21.1mp' in 'Canon EOS 5D Mark II 21.1MP Full Frame CMOS Digital SLR Camera (Body Only) forum' - Amazon.com Customer Discussions
23 May 2010 at 7:07am
  • Posted on May 23 2010 at 7:07 am
    by John Brookes
    portrait - canonall else - nikon, but nikon good for portraits too
  • Posted on May 23 2010 at 6:58 am
    by John Brookes
    D700 vs. 5D:I shot both for a month each. I ended up returning the Canon and keeping the Nikon D700. I suspect the quality of Canon is better - It seemed to capture nuances of light better. But the ergonomics of the Nikon are much better. I'm not sure I made the right decision. hmmm. At this point I'd like to use my Nikon glass with the Canon. Is that feasible? About the video, I decided that was a crock, a total canard. If you look at Vince Laforet's setup (He's Mr. 5D video), it costs somewhere north of $10,000. You can get a much better video camera for that and even use dslr lenses on. The best photo I took recently was a shot of a pelican cruising above the water. I panned it. It shows the water blurred behind the bird, who is tack-sharp. I got this shot from a boat on the Gulf of Mexico. I used a D700 and a 70-200 vr II (only 2400 for the lens). I doubt I could have gotten this shot with the 5D, but who knows?Another series of shots were done in Haiti, in the mountains and in a hospital in port au prince. Some of the shots just exist for a short time, and the clunky 5D might not be able to grab them.The quality of the 5D seems better, and that is bothering me. The "glow" of light it captures takes photos from another world. The 100-400 telephoto - captures landscape details with astonishing color and detail.Stuff that's moving, in flux, short-lived: D700 better. Landscape: 5D better.
  • Posted on Apr 23 2010 at 4:29 pm
    by James007
    I have shot with Nikons for years and love it. I recently switched and got the 5D mark II for the video. There are a lot of things great about the camera and there are a lot of things I miss from my Nikon days. It is all about what one is trying to do with the bodies. I came from a Nikon D300s. It is way faster than the 5D mark II. When I pick up my D300 to shoot, I KNOW FOR A FACT I am gonna get the shot. No question. With the 5D if there is movement it is a toss up. A lot of these posters sound like folks with chips on there shoulders, or with bad cases of inferiority complex. I am happy with my 5D purchase because it is doing what I got it for, and doing it very well. If Nikon comes out with a full frame body that shoots 1080p with no 5min restriction, I will buy it because then they would have given me what I like about the 5D plus the awesome autofocus system of Nikon. I do miss the incredible CLS of Nikon. Anybody that has shot with a Nikon knows what I am talking about. It is second to none. If you have a Nikon, read up on it, use it, it is fantastic. Hopefully, the 5D Mark III would have something to that effect.
  • Posted on Mar 25 2010 at 5:29 pm
    by Tom Martin
    Considering Ken Rockwell is usually Mr. Nikon, I found this very interesting.'The Canon EOS 5D Mark II is the best digital SLR ever made by Canon. We are very lucky that it's not that expensive, which is why it's so wildly popular with digital nature and landscape shooters. ... Nikon's closest attempt at competition is the D700, which has only half the pixels and a lot more weight.'http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii.htm
  • Posted on Mar 22 2010 at 5:04 am
    by PencilInWin
    "Finally, I have a skewed viewpoint that people tell themselves they got the best product money can buy."To thine own self be true.The D700 and the 5D Mark II are targeting different people. It's no wonder that people with different needs will pick one over the other ever time. Sports photographers have different needs then Portrait/Studio photographers hooked up to strobes. That goes for lenses, AS WELL AS bodies. The D3x may be your ideal camera for it's megapixels and lens selection, others will go with a 1ds Mark III or a H4d-40 for similar reasons. In the world of sports, the D3s is arguably the best camera, and has hands down the best high ISO performance of any camera available. That allows you to take low light action photos without a flash and get great results.Many photojournalists and wedding/sports photographers will be able to get photos that weren't possible before. That ISO performance is enough for many people to justify the cost... just as high megapixels is enough for you.Point being, the 5d may be hands down the best camera for you and what you use it for, but different people have different needs and that's why there are many different models of cameras on the market... and in the end the camera can only do so much. An experienced professional photographer will take consistently better photos with a D3000 and kit lens than an amateur with a D3x and the 14-24, 16-35, and the 24/1.4.Then again, all a photographer does is press a button right?
  • Posted on Mar 17 2010 at 4:04 am
    by Charles L. Roberts
    Okay I had originally replied with another brash comment. I want to end this silliness. We are arguing over a camera, folks. Also I came across very rude and beligerant--which is a personality flaw I despise in anyone else in the world. Buy what you like. To some, the 5d is overpriced at 2,500.00 for some the D700 is a bargain at 2,700.00 I don't get it--especially when the D300 has an arguably superior AF system. The Nikon AF/metering is much more advanced than 5d and 50d. The 7d is very close, screw AF points--19 is way plenty and they work beautifully. Which, its based on 1d series, 45 pts and that my friends, is in no way supremely inferior to anything Nikon. I worked at a camera shop BEFORE digital got mainstream-- in 01 and 2002 as a college kid (a late graduating kid, at that). So Nikon was my forte. In fact, we carried the venerable n65 and the beloved n80. So years, years later, revisiting my camera fetish, I immediately thought Nikon was THE BRAND. However, I have done my homework and feel like Canon offers a little more to the non-pro. Nikon relies on Sony fpr R & D...sorry fellas but it is true. Also, my D80 was made in Taiwan---my 40D is from Japan. Two difft price levels but there is a difference. Anyway, if I had 20,000 right now I would not, never purchase a D700 or the D3s. I would be able to get the D3x and a few VERY good lenses. The 14-24, new 16-35, and the 24/1.4 would be choices. For the money left over, I could still get a 5d Mark II, 35/1.4L, and a 70-200/2.8 (new one). My math may be off, but you get the point. Nikon is higher because they are better, right? In this case...uh we don't know. The 14-24 is better than any Canon WA for sure. The rest is debatable. Finally, I have a skewed viewpoint that people tell themselves they got the best product money can buy. Like this fat nerd at best buy who told me he wouldn't take a Canon for free. His reason: "My D3000 (hahaha what a Dslr, buddy!!) has built in image stabilization in the body. It has better video features. It takes better pictures. It uses superior SD card slots. It is fuzzily, wuzzily, puppy dog cute and sassy, too (just kidding, he didnt say this last sentence but it wouldnt have shocked me either). This is coming from the owner of the cheapest Dslr Nikon probably makes. What a great fountain of knowledge. My point? Take these forums with the same grain of salt you take a grease ball, sleazy, flea-infested alcoholic car salesman. Cheers baby
  • Posted on Mar 16 2010 at 4:48 pm
    by Tom Martin
    smart and bright enough to see that Nikon was going to be a much more expensive choice in the long run
  • Posted on Mar 16 2010 at 4:36 pm
    by H.M
    Jesus! God must made some mistakes by not keeping you as his personal secretary, you just so damn smart and damn bright!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! come on, people, poor lady is only ask the con and pros of two freaking camera, and some users' personal opinions, be a little cultivated.
  • Posted on Mar 15 2010 at 2:37 am
    by PencilInWin
    Charles L. Robert says,"You will see a flood of hate on here, but frankly, Nikon seems overpriced/underperforming. True, they have *arguably* better glass on some lenses. Yes, and their camera bodies are, feature for feature, more advanced. True, very true. But why only 12MP? Which, is not to discount it, wonderful resolution NOW. How about in 3-4 years? Yes, some people will actually have a $3,000 camera to keep for 3-4 years, believe it or not. How will that 12MP look then? Like crap....Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"I try to avoid bashing people, so let me tread delicately. 12MP will look the same in 3-4 years as it does now. You sound like somebody who is too caught up in the megapixel race.My 8mp 1D mark II takes great photos... and it will still take great photos as long as it continues to work. More megapixels does not = better image quality. There are other features which are compelling on the newer models, and more megapixels on a sports camera is great for cropping... but having a 30mp 10fps camera on the market won't make 12mp images look like crap.J. Perez, don't let people like this fool you. Both are excellent camera manufacturers. Both make excellent cameras. Find one that suits your needs with the manufacturer you are already invested in. Then don't look back or question your choice over silly comments like the one I've quoted.
  • Posted on Mar 14 2010 at 6:20 pm
    by Tom Martin
    J. Perez says: I forgot to mention that I have a 24-85 2.8 nikon lens and a 70-300mm 3.5-4.5 vr nikon lens,so a canon 1d Mark III is very good for portraits? If you all ready have that much invested in Nikon it doesn't make sense to buy a Canon camera. There isn't enough difference between the two makers to justify, leaving one for the other. Your money would be much better spent on educating yourself on getting the best results from the equipment you have, and only then, perhaps buying a lens or two. For someone just starting out there are some very good reasons for someone to choose Canon over Nikon, but, I can't think of any good reasons for someone who has several thousand invested in one maker or the other to change.
  • Posted on Mar 14 2010 at 12:16 pm
    by J. Perez
    Thanks for the info,just so you know I'm not a professional just a serious amature photographer,I take take mainly portraits of family members and once in awhile cousins playing soccer, I love photography and like everybody else want the best,am new with nikon systems and wanted to try something different, I forgot to mention that I have a 24-85 2.8 nikon lens and a 70-300mm 3.5-4.5 vr nikon lens,so a canon 1d Mark III is very good for portraits?
  • Posted on Mar 14 2010 at 11:32 am
    by Gatorowl
    Hmm, it's nice to see the world in black and white.First, is Nikon behind? Is it simply because their camera's boast of less resolution than Canon's? The reality is that for 90+% of shots photographer's take, 6-8mp are more than enough. Objective test after test shows that the gain in viewable resolution from increasing pixel count diminishes rapidly and is only visible if you crop your photos severely and were using a lens of quality comparable to those "outrageously expensive" Nikon lenses. Put simply, the vast majority of us are not getting better image quality by going from 12 to 21mp.So what do you get with a D700 compared to the 5DMII? You get from one to two stops better low-light quality. That means you get quality shots at ISO 6400 and 12800 when the 5DMII is just usable. You also get reliable and fast AF. What good is all that extra resolution when your keeper rate in difficult lightening situations is a fraction of that of the Nikon? You get a far more versatile camera. The 5D is a studio and landscape camera. Its inferior and slow AF and slow continuous shooting rate make it unacceptable for sports and bird-in-flight photography. the D700 is capable for all kinds of photography (albeit, perhaps not as good for birders).As for those expensive lens, you do pay a premium with Nikon. Canon has the advantage with some truly great prime lenses. However, Nikon's 14-24, 24-70 have no match on the Canon side. These lenses arguably perform at the level of Canon's primes, albeit with slower maximum apertures. The 70-200 2.8 tele zooms are comparable.So, it really comes down to what you shoot and how you shoot. If you rely on high quality primes, then Canon has an advantage. If you prefer the flexibility of using zooms, then Nikon has the advantage from wide angle to moderate (200mm) telephoto.So, the world isn't black and white. Cameras are tools, and there are tasks that Nikons and Apples excel at that make the premium paid worth it. Just as there's no reason to be a fanboy, it is equally silly to be a hater.
  • Posted on Mar 13 2010 at 7:25 pm
    by Charles L. Roberts
    I had the same consideration. i actually found a *almost* new D700 for $1,350 locally---wealthy man who wanted a quick sale. Thought about selling my 40d (canon) and all lenses and going Nikon....Then started to research lens availability. Then started to look at 12MP vs. 21mp...or even 16mp from Canon's 2004 model 1Ds Mark II. Hmmmmmm........why is Nikon so many years behind? 2004 model Canon has more (4 million pixels, mind you) than a 2008 model Nikon? Whats up with that? And why are Nikon lenses so much more? Are they THAT better made? Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!You will see a flood of hate on here, but frankly, Nikon seems overpriced/underperforming. True, they have *arguably* better glass on some lenses. Yes, and their camera bodies are, feature for feature, more advanced. True, very true. But why only 12MP? Which, is not to discount it, wonderful resolution NOW. How about in 3-4 years? Yes, some people will actually have a $3,000 camera to keep for 3-4 years, believe it or not. How will that 12MP look then? Like crap....Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I sold the D700 for 2,300 on ebay and pocketed nearly $1,000. If I had enough money I would have both systems. Nikon has some just released very attractive lenses. The 24mm/1.4--but again, compare to Canon and you see about a $800-900 premium. Do you think paired with a D700 it will out resolve a much cheaper Canon 5d Mark II w/Canon 24mm/1.4L? Or how about Canon's 85mm/1.2L for the same price? OR Canons 50mm/1.2L for about $600 cheaper? Or Canon's delicious 35mm/1.4L for about $500 less? Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Get the point? Nikon is years behind in certain categories because they are a MUCH smaller company. Hell, most people don't even know that Sony builds the sensors that Nikon puts in ALL their cameras. Yes, the 24.6MP Nikon D3x is the same sensor as Sony's $2,700 full frame DSLR. Tell Nikon people that and they will drop their belief in God and proceed to hurt you over a simple fact. Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I like the Canon vs. Nikon debate because it proves my point about human stupidity: Get a product that cares neither about me or you and people will fight, yes, fight each other for what they believe in. But it comes down to one thing: which one do you like the best? I thought my love was with the D700---so I bought and quickly resold. I KNEW it was a better camera than the crappy, old 5d Mark II makeover right? Just an old dslr with a new sensor right? The old slow crappy inferior Canon 5d "mark 2", right? I put my money with the Canon--regardless of which Nikon or which Canon idiot seems to believe. To me, on paper, it makes a lot more sense than an overpriced D700. Sorry, fellas, but the Nikon is too expensive for what it is. And the D3s for $5000. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!I guess the same idiots buy a $6,000 mac desktop and will hurt you if you don't worship Apple, too. Apple and Canon and Nikon don't care about you!! Why will you hurt others for them?? Idiots!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • Posted on Mar 9 2010 at 5:29 pm
    by PencilInWin
    J. Perez --There is a lot of fanboyism going on at the beginning of this thread... and it's passed off as fact to be worse.If you're looking at these two cameras consider your needs. You already have nice canon glass so you may be better served going with the 5d II. What do you shoot? If it's sports I would definitely say lean to the D700 or look at the 7d (or 1d III as you mentioned). I personally think the 5D II has the best IQ of the bunch, but that is an opinion.Really, the two cameras mentioned here are a different beast. It's like comparing mac laptops to windows desktops. First decide if you use your camera more for sports or portraits then decide if you want the canon or nikon.
  • Posted on Mar 8 2010 at 10:09 am
    by J. Perez
    Now I am really confuse, I own a D700 and thinking of selling it and buy a 5d mark II or a 1d mark III, I have a canon 70-200 2/8 IS a 580 EX II flash also a 85 mm 1/8 lens that I don't want to get rid off need advise please thanks!!!!

EOS 5D Mark II Detailed Reviews

Full technical review of the Canon EOS 5D Mark II at Digital Photography Review.

Review of the Canon EOS 5D Mark II at photo.net.

Home | EOS 5D Mark II | Features | Info | Reviews | Specifications
Best Price | HD Video | EOS 5D Mark 2 | Accessories | Resources | Contact
Site Map | Privacy | Copyright | Disclosure | Terms