4 of 8 people found the following review helpful
This review is from: Canon EOS 5D Mk II Digital Camera & EF 24-70mm L USM Lens Kit (Electronics)
I was very keen to get a full-frame camera and undertook plenty of research before taking the plunge. Within a month of getting the 5DII, I'd sent it back and have for 12 months now, made do with my old 400d while I await news of the 5DIII.
I shoot commercial images where image quality is paramount, so when I got the 5D, I thought I was set-up for the next few years but I experienced a stream of disappointments:
1. The 24-70mm lens is very sharp within the range of 40-70 but at anything wider (even stopped down to its optimum F11), the edges are dire - soft, dirty and distorted. When you're paying £1000 for a lens, you really should be getting much better than that.
2. Even at 100 iso, blue skies were full of noise - big, chunky noise. Out of focus backgrounds too showed loads of noise. I expected images to be silky-smooth at 100 iso but they were anything but.
3. The nine-point AF system is archaic - especially when compared to the Nikon's systems. There are too few sensors and what sensors there are don't work accurately.
If you don't view your images at 100%, you wont be bothered by the noise and poor lens performance but the AF system will still get you.
If you want full-frame, wait for the Mk III or look at the Nikon options.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-2 of 2 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 6 Sep 2011 00:08:30 BDT
J. R. Bestall says:
I wouldn't hold your breath for much more than an upgrade to the video capability on the MkIII when it finally breaks cover. Noise (at ISO 100)? poor lens performance (soft dirty and distorted)? AF sensors that don't work (what did we do before AF)? it doesn't sound like the 5D MkII & 24-70 I've spent the last 2 years with, or the thousands in use around the world with other satisfied photographers.
Nikon options? D700 marginally better at high ISO but 12MP. D3x matches and just beats it for res and will give you better high ISO performance but it's over 5 grand. I don't know what the answer is for you Nadger, are you seriously saying the images produced for 12 months on an old 400d beat those you could have produced on the 5D MKII?
Posted on 25 Sep 2011 19:04:26 BDT
Mr. George Johnson says:
Sorry to hear you had so many problems. I am absolutely paranoid about noise, one tool I rely on is Nik Tools Define to remove noise from my images having bought the 5D about 6 weeks ago ( moved up from a 550D after only 10 months of owning it ) and shooting it at ISO 50 I haven't had use Define anywhere near as much as I used to. I cannot believe the clarity of the 24-70 over my old 15-85mm Canon and 10-20mm Sigma, which are both absolute rubbish ( despite costing £650 each ) compared to this one 24-70mm L lens. I will admit at f2.8 there is some nasty bokeh sometimes, but that's the lower end of the lens' range and obviously the sweet is up from there by a stop or two. You sound like you know exactly what you were after and finding out that the results were so diabolical I would have been inclined to return the camera/lens as faulty and demand a a replacement or alternatively take it along to a Canon repair centre and demand a kit checkup under warranty, they would have most likely have found some severe faults.
I hope you reconsider and give Canon another try, I have nothing but praise for the 5D MkII.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›