Nick Devlin's 5DII review

[JohnBrew]

I find Nick's review to be a breath of fresh air considering all the hype we go through with each release of the new "uber" camera. It was candid and informative. I'm not a DSLR shooter but I like to keep up with what's going on. Thank you, Nick.

[wolfnowl]

I am a DSLR shooter, and I also liked the article.  It's informative, and balanced.  Very similar to Michael's reviews...  Well done!

Mike.

[francois]

- deleted - wrong post!

[mcfoto]

As an owner of both the 1DsMKIII & the 5DII I found it to be a very good review. The high iso was what I wanted from the 5DII.
Denis

[jashley]

Good review (and lovely pictures), but to me there's a noticeable quality difference between a "native" (240) 16 x 24 5DII file and a 5D uprezzed to 16 x 24 (same glass).  If you then uprez the 5DII file there's no contest.  So even if the glass isn't delivering the full resolution of the sensor, I'm still getting a worthwhile quality improvement simply because there are more pixels.

Also, a big advantage of the higher pixel count, regardless of lens quality, is crop-ability.

[vjbelle]

You are so right regarding the lenses.  I own "0" zooms for my 5DII just for that reason.  I also shoot with a P45/H2 and know about the quality of the Hasselblad lenses.  Even with the Hassy lenses I won't shoot anything under an 80 mm.  For wide I use Digitars.  You really nailed it regarding the 5DII - great review!

[Conner999]

Also found the review refreshing. balanced, fun read and oh so true about the lenses.

[AlanG]

I agree that some of the Canon wide angle lenses are not all that I could hope for. Yet in careful tests with 16-35 series I lens on both he 5D and 5DII - at 16mm f8, I see a bit more detail in the 5DII files. The same is true of the 24TS-E. So shooting with these lenses and the others that I own is still better on the 5DII than on the 5D.  I expect the new 17 and 24 TS-E lenses to be a lot better, or what is the point of them?

[jashley]

I agree that some of the Canon wide angle lenses are not all that I could hope for. Yet in careful tests with 16-35 series I lens on both he 5D and 5DII - at 16mm f8, I see a bit more detail in the 5DII files. The same is true of the 24TS-E. So shooting with these lenses and the others that I own is still better on the 5DII than on the 5D.  I expect the new 17 and 24 TS-E lenses to be a lot better, or what is the point of them?

Alan, check out the 16-9 shoot-out between the Canon 17-40, Nikon 17-35, and the legendary Contax Zeiss 21mm.  In the center at f/11, where a lot of people seem to think the 17-40 is at it's best for landscape work, the 17-40 is essentially the equal of the Zeiss in resolution and there's only a little falloff away from center (at 100% magnification).

At f/16 the 17-40 is within a point or two of the Zeiss in terms of resolution edge-to-edge and has much less geometric distortion.  In fact, Welsh says that if you correct for distortion then the Zeiss produced images are "scarcely better" than the Nikon or Canon.  Yes, Welsh notes that the Zeiss has a little more contrast and sparkle (again if you don't correct), but this is still pretty amazing stuff, and strongly counterbalances, at least for typical landscape photography apertures, the "all Canon wide-angles suck" school of thought.

 

[neil snape]

I liked the review a lot. Many of the points I already experienced, and then others I will probably never discover.
I almost always use a 100mm 2.8 Macro which is darn sharp. I find the AF not as well placed as the 5D. If anything in the frame is closer than the eyes on beauty pictures it finds it.
When it is in focus though it shows more detail in studio lighting than the 5D could.
I agree, where I loved the 5D (sold today) the 5D MK11 is a higher MPX camera but I don't think there is any vast improvements , and even somethings that have slipped.
I was hesitating to go to Nikon, but seeing the HDTV and >20mpx for the price I decided to stay. When the next round of affordable studio cameras come around I will be happy to change to whichever is the best.

[DaveCurtis]

Great review. One of the best reviews I've read. I must admit I get more out of a quality field review than some reviews that just state facts and figures that we have all read before.

I must admit being a Canon 1DS3 user, I'd have to agree with Nick's lens comments. However to be far to Canon most of their L series primes over 50mm seem to be on the money.

[AlanG]

Alan, check out the 16-9 shoot-out between the Canon 17-40, Nikon 17-35,

Thanks. Actually, I'm pretty happy with the results I get from the 16-35. I shoot a lot of interiors with it. I use DXO to correct the distortion, c/a, and vignetting. I usually am at f8 and the extreme corners while lacking a bit are fine.  Most of the time, the corners have a blank ceiling, floor, or wall in my shots. So detail is not important there.  In my test of the series I vs. the series II, the series II version of the lens caused point light sources and other small bright lights to show much more of a long trailed starburst effect than the series I lens produces.

[neal1740]

Dear Nick. i loved your review and your photographs. You said it just the way it is. My wife and i were there one week after you and it was the trip of a life time.The 12 hours before the Lemaire Passage and that day were unforgettable. I used a 5D2 with  the 24-105 f4   and a 50D with the 70-200 f4, often with  the 1.4x extender. The 100-400 f5.6 was used with the 50D on the  deck. I found  walking to the top of Paradise Bay and  Dorian Bay with the 100-400 f 5.6  is challenging, so i took the 70-200 f4. It was sleeting at Deception Bay and only the G10 was used. The photos are great. The 5D2 is a great camera.I should have used the 100-400 f4 with the 5D2 more often. I would recommend Anarctica to  any one. My photos are on PBASE under zitsdoc, for i am a dermatologist. Thanks again Nick for sharing,Neal

[aaykay]

Alan, check out the 16-9 shoot-out between the Canon 17-40, Nikon 17-35, and the legendary Contax Zeiss 21mm.  In the center at f/11, where a lot of people seem to think the 17-40 is at it's best for landscape work, the 17-40 is essentially the equal of the Zeiss in resolution and there's only a little falloff away from center (at 100% magnification).

At f/16 the 17-40 is within a point or two of the Zeiss in terms of resolution edge-to-edge and has much less geometric distortion.  In fact, Welsh says that if you correct for distortion then the Zeiss produced images are "scarcely better" than the Nikon or Canon.  Yes, Welsh notes that the Zeiss has a little more contrast and sparkle (again if you don't correct), but this is still pretty amazing stuff, and strongly counterbalances, at least for typical landscape photography apertures, the "all Canon wide-angles suck" school of thought.

Are we not comparing a decades old Zeiss design (developed for film), with modern digital-optimized designs from Canon and Nikon, where the Canon/Nikon lenses have had the advantages of modern digital-specific coatings, digital-specific "shaped" lens elements and other lens design advances ?  

The way to do a more apples-to-apples comparison, would be to go head to head against a 2009 Zeiss design, like the Carl Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar in the Sony mount.  Comparing the Canon/Nikon lenses against a 2009 Zeiss design, should be eye-opening, to say the least, on what such a Zeiss lens can do.  

[jashley]

Are we not comparing a decades old Zeiss design (developed for film), with modern digital-optimized designs from Canon and Nikon, where the Canon/Nikon lenses have had the advantages of modern digital-specific coatings, digital-specific "shaped" lens elements and other lens design advances ?  

The way to do a more apples-to-apples comparison, would be to go head to head against a 2009 Zeiss design, like the Carl Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8 SSM Vario-Sonnar in the Sony mount.  Comparing the Canon/Nikon lenses against a 2009 Zeiss design, should be eye-opening, to say the least, on what such a Zeiss lens can do.  

Yes, I'd like to see those.  Welsh does says though in his comparison of the "game-changing" Nikon 14-24 to the Zeiss 21 that "nothing can touch the Zeiss".  So again, the fact that the 17-40 comes very close to "touching" the Zeiss 21 from f/11 to f/16 is very impressive, especially given it's street price.  Hard to tell since they weren't compared in the same review or even with the same crops but it looked to me as though the 17-40 is actually sharper edge-to-edge than the 14-24 at 21mm.  That would be a very interesting head-to-head.

[Snook]

Can somone post a link?
Snook

[pcunite]

Can somone post a link?

Excellent review!

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/...DIIreview.shtml

[stever]

i have one exception to this review

my 100-400 has significantly better resolution on the 5D2 than the 5D - and a crop to match the 40D (640 equiv) has no noticeable difference in resolution

this was a surprise to me as i'd bought the argument that crop frame cameras took advantage of "less than stellar" lenses.  i've had similar results on other lenses and am pretty much a full-frame convert - but will shortly test the 400DO with 40D and 5D2

as much as i want Canon to come up with a better replacement for the 100-400, there is no substitute for the damn thing