Guest post by Introduction
I got a Canon EOS 10D back in 2003, I had been considering getting a DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex) for some time and the 10D was the first that came into a price range I could stretch to. The 10D can do very good pictures but there were always some aspects of the camera I was always unhappy with. For a start the start-up time was slow, it took about 4 seconds before I could take any pictures. The screen was also small and it wasn’t very fast at displaying images.
I don’t specialise in my type of photography, I take pretty much everything that I think looks good. I sometimes like taking candid images of people and often these are indoors. I also prefer not to use flash as it tends to be unnatural. ISO 800 is normally OK for this but there are times you really need more. The 10D could do ISO 1600 and 3200 but this was far too noisy to be any use.
The 10D has been replaced with a number of models over the years (they’re currently up to the 50D). Each of these has added features and made various improvements over the previous models. Most of my gripes with the 10D have long since been addressed. The 5D mkII (I’ll just call it the 5D2) has all of these improvements as well as its own new features.
The biggest difference between the 5D2 and the 10D’s line is the full frame sensor and the addition of video recording. The majority of DSLRs use an “APS-C” sized sensor which is somewhere around 1/3 of the size of a 35mm film frame. The 5D2 has a full frame sensor, a whopping 838 sq mm, absolutely massive for a silicon chip. The huge sensor enables you to not only have more pixels but also allows them to be bigger and thus collect more light. The more light a sensor can collect the less noise there is and you get a better image. Such technology comes at a price however, the 5D2 is over twice the price of the 50D.
On the monster chip, Canon have put in sensors for 21 million pixels worth of data – to put that into perspective, that’s over ten times higher resolution than a 1080p video display. The sensor and image processing technology has improved over the years so despite a slightly higher pixel density the 5D2 can comfortably take images right up to 6400 ISO without too much noise. You can extend this to ISO 50, ISO 12800 and ISO 25600.
The sensor size also means lenses are now the focal length that they actually say they are. On the 10D my 28-105mm EF lens acted like a 45-168mm lens. This does not happen on the 5D2 as there is no multiplier factor on a 5D2, the lens has in effect shortened itself. Canon also has EF-S lenses which are specifically designed for the smaller sensor size but these do not work on the 5D2.
The 5D2 has the sensor cleaning system that shakes the sensor to remove dust, there’s also anti-static layers in front of the sensor to help stop dust getting to it in the first place. I haven’t noticed had any dust problems yet but a quick test reveals (shoot something plain at a very high F number) there is some small bits of dust there present. There’s also a system that allows the camera to automatically remove dust. This works by having you take a picture of a white card, the camera then analyses the image and either it or your software can remove the dust.
Look and Feel
The 5D2 looks and feels just like a 10D, it’s a similar weight and pretty much the same size, I don’t know about others in that range but the 20D was a bit smaller than the 10D. Some of the controls have been altered over the generations of cameras and this takes a little getting used to. For example, the wheel you change the ISO setting with has been changed, that’s very confusing when you first use it.
The ISO control may have moved but it’s also been improved. You are no longer limited to relatively fixed ISO ratings such as 100,200,400, 800 etc. The 5D2 has many intermediate ISO ratings so if you want just a little extra sensitivity you can get it without going up a full level. If you are using program mode (pretty much what I do 90% of the time) the camera selects the shutter speed and aperture depending on the light reading. You can now alter the settings with the front control wheel, the exposure is the same but you can alter the shutter speed and aperture relative to one another. This is useful if you want to use say, a different shutter speed or alter the aperture for different depth of field.
The menu system is completely different but it’s very easy to navigate and use. There’s a whole bunch of new options for users of old DSLR so you’ll need to read the manual, or if you’re lazy, see the (long) review DP Review did of the camera [DPR]. Canon provide the manual as a small book which is a good size, small enough to carry about with while you’re learning about your new toy. There’s also a small quick start guide that explains the basics.
The 5D2 has a new battery and charger. It’s only 50% higher capacity then the 10D but the 5D2 obviously uses much less power than the 10D, the number of pictures you can take on a single charge is several times higher – very impressive considering these are much higher resolution images and there’s a bigger, higher resolution screen to power. The display is big and high definition, and the processing is fast, you can scroll though images very quickly, something the 10D certainly couldn’t do.
Find your view
DSLRs are a bit of an oddity in the digital camera world in that you still use a viewfinder to compose your image while most digital cameras use an LCD screen for this purpose. A viewfinder may appear antiquated but I don’t see them going away anytime soon, a viewfinder is much higher resolution so enables you to focus much more accurately. That said recent DSLRs have been adding the ability to use the screen as a viewfinder and the 5D2 is no different with the addition of “Live View”.
While a real viewfinder is better for focusing there are times when this holds you back. I once photographed the Tour de France, I was in a crowd so holding the camera to my eye didn’t allow me to get anything. My only option was to hold the camera up, go wide angle and hope the camera was pointing in the right direction. I ended up with quite a few beautifully focused pictures of the back of peoples heads with blurry cyclists in the background, the auto focus had found the wrong area…grrr
The addition of Live View fixes this in that it allows you to see what you’re composing even when you hold the camera away from you. You can also use the zoom button to zoom in and check your focus. There is a contrast based focusing system you can use that is reportedly very slow, and facial recognition based focusing. The other option is to press and hold the AF-ON button, this briefly lowers the mirror and allows the normal focusing system to work. Remember to press and hold until the mirror comes back up, otherwise it wont have time to focus properly (this has caught me out a few times).
The Live View mode has a number of settings you can use though it has its oddities. I noticed it appears to use different settings in Live View than using the normal viewfinder, I must admit I haven’t fully read all the manual yet so I’ve yet to figure out what was going on there (I think I had it in video mode rather than still mode). As I said before you really need to read the manual with this camera as there are a lot of things to understand to get the best out of it.
I think you should look at upgrading your lenses too. That 28-105mm doesn’t look like it does justice to your camera. Some fast primes like the 50mm f1.4 would be really awesome and you’ll enjoy the shallow depth of field immensely.
Thanks for this review, very interesting. I’m a Nikon shooter using a D90, my video comes out in AVI, so it blew my mind to see the file size of video that the D2 does, even though it comes through as mp4. Admittedly, the D90 only does 720p, so 1080p at 30/fps is crazy – it’s better than my video camera.
I’m curious about the lens that came with your body. Did you buy a kit or use a lens you already had?
Since this is OS news and a story on photography, let me post this link to “Linux Photography”
http://jcornuz.wordpress.com/
It has a low post count so as of now the latest article is still his April Fool’s day post, so don’t get fooled.
Disclaimer: Its just a site that I enjoy reading, I’m not affiliated in any way.
I still remember his “The future of computing” series here on OSnews. Pretty crazy stuff(not the good kind of crazy, though). According to him the PC,X86 and compiled languages should be dead by now and we all should run scripted appz on PPC/Cell
The future is not what it used to be. I think static typed languages will be around for a long time (Scala could actually win scripter over again) and only the slow emergence of FOSS everywhere will break the Wintel monopoly … but fairly slowly..
Right. The new Palm platform, ARM Netbooks, JavaScript applications in browsers talking back to cloud servers running Python in Virtual machines. And the Java and CLR aren’t even worth mentioning.
He was way off the mark.
What is it like for low light photography? I mean evening shots and night shots, indoor candlelit scenes and even moody light restaurant scenes. A lot of cameras really don’t do these well.
What are people’s experiences or opinions as to what the best camera is for low light shooting?
On modern DSLRs the biggest and i mean the biggest thing is the quality of lenses you have. If your lens does not have a large aperture like a 1.8/2.8 then low light shooting is quite tough. However if you lens does support that, and you play around with your ISO you can get some incredibly low light photography.
Well I haven’t used the 5D2, but I have used the Nikon D700 and D3 and they’re excellent for that kind of shooting, especially when combined with a fast f1.4 or f1.8 lens. I imagine the 5D2 will be very good as well since really the large sensor size is what you’re after.
Of course you have to look at the price. While not quite as good, both the Nikon D90 and the Canon 50D with a fast lens will to a very good job and less than half the price.
If you already have an SLR and you’re using the zoom lens that came with it, my first step would be to buy a fast prime lens. You’ll get significantly improved low light performance for very little money.
For low light shooting, you’ll want a full-frame camera like the 5D, in order to let in as much light as possible.
Thanks for the article. It sounds a great camera to have though too high-end for many folks perhaps, unless you are a professional. Pentax here, and I go for their “Limited” prime lenses. Tiny but so good.
I’m not sure I completely agree with what some folks have said about fast lenses. There are depth of field issues of course, but a more promising and certainly more economical way round this may be by camera-makers generally improving performance at higher ISOs. In fact, if camera and sensor technology continue to improve it may be that fast lenses purely because of low light won’t be nearly so important any more. Digital has already made a huge difference to shooting at high ISOs.
I like that link about Linux software. Could become a whole article. At the moment I am using rawtherapee and Gimp with the fx-foundry plugin. Digikam does a good job of importing and cataloguing but Picasa under wine isn’t too bad either. I get some colour management by using icc profiles and xcalib64 to load them. Don’t feel I’m missing out, anyway, by not running Photoshop for stills, though video files may be another matter.
There’s a limit to what you can achieve with sensor technology. You’re essentially limited by the amount of light per area, and that’s a reason why a current compact or bridge camera (like the Canon SX1) will give much worse high ISO performance than a DSLR from 5 years ago (like the Canon EOS 10D).
With a fast lens, you get great low light performance today. Compare a fast 50mm f1.4 lens with some mickey mouse kit lens. With such lenses, you’re looking at around f5.6 at 50mm. This is a 4 stop difference, i.e. the f1.4 lens lets in 16 times more light. To put it in a different perspective, to get the same shutter speed as a f1.4 lens at ISO 100, the f5.6 lens requires ISO 1600.
If low light photography is important to you, a fast lens is a must.
9 – 3 = 6
Nice in-depth review of the EOS 5D. Interesting pictures on the linked pages. The high-end specs of the 5D make my Nikon D60 seem like an Asus EEE next to a MacBook Pro.
Before you go feeling sorry for yourself, remember that you paid $550, and he paid $3550.
Yeah good advice. I’ve got a Canon EOS 400D and next to this piece of hardware, mine makes me feel like I’m shooting with the camera built into my phone.
The 400D is an excellent camera. Pair it up with some high end glass and you’ll be wowed by the results. You might want to buy a battery grip though, since high end glass = heavy glass and this tends to off-balance the entry level DSLRs since their bodies are too light.
Don’t get me wrong, I love it, but the one in this article seems a whole lot better.
You are right though, get better glass and the quality of images goes up remarkably.. well to my eye anyways.
Yes I should get a battery grip but I’d rather get the top end flash attachment instead. I really hate the built in flash.
Here’s some untouched photos from my 400D:
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=fdf2xf&s=5
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2pzl4t4&s=5
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=10yntw4&s=5
You really should never use JPEGs from Canon bodies. The in-camera conversion is not good and your images will look much, much better by converting them on the computer.
It is scary trying to find space for them, though, when using a 35mm frame camera body.