Canon's EOS 5D Mark II gets painstakingly detailed

Canon went a bit berserk this morning, but without a doubt the looker from the crowd is the 21-megapixel EOS 5D Mark II. Make no mistake, this bad boy is bringing all sorts of new and revamped technology to the game, and thanks to the good folks over at DPReview, you don't have to waste your day trying to piece it all together. Linked below is a 13-page "preview" that dishes out more details on the specs, changes, operation, design, menus and favorite date spots than you could ever fathom. Being the DSLR freak that you are, however, we know you've already ventured off and are onto page 2. No hard feelings, though.

[Stanley @ Sep 17th 2008 10:09AM]

Yes! finally Canon..

[Paul @ Sep 17th 2008 10:14AM]

That 13 page still doesn't clarify if there is autofocus for video, AF type, etc.

[Futile @ Sep 17th 2008 10:29AM]

AF is contrast Detect only during Video filming.

[Tom @ Sep 17th 2008 10:36AM]

"Contrast-detect AF is available during video capture, however it's pretty slow."
Page 11, Live View Movie Mode

So...yer, it does AF during video, which is ...good...

[Don @ Sep 17th 2008 10:22AM]

The resolution of the video was so high, my pc had a hard time playing it...

ISO 6400 looks usable as well

[Mehul @ Sep 17th 2008 10:24AM]

Holy macro! is that ISO 25600? Nobody had tested the new Digic 4 processor but imagine the possibilities if it gives grain free pictures at even ISO 3200.....

Ah Canon... Welcome back!
Now where is that D90 killer? (50D is for D300)

[Kimleng @ Sep 17th 2008 11:03AM]

There isn't one. People who own XTi/XSi/XXX aren't the type who are gonna just sell all their crap to switch to the other camp. Canon just don't care enough. Back in the old days, the Rebel series used to compete with the DXX series, but Nikon stepped it up a notch while introducing lower end models and Canon stepped it down a notch without introducing higher end models. So, Canon basically doesn't have a reason make a D90 competitor. Their users will naturally either go with a lower end XSi or go to a 40D/50D...since they have no choice. Most of those consumers aren't going to sit there and question the Best Buy guy where the $900 dollar Canon is. Best Buy, however, will just throw in a crappy lens with the XSi and say "Here it is!"

[Jason Litka @ Sep 17th 2008 11:24AM]

@Kimleng,

The 18-55 IS kit lens that comes with the XSi is actually really nice (when compared to the old 18-55). That said, I replaced mine after using it for about 100 shots with a 17-85 IS USM.

[Mehul @ Sep 17th 2008 11:50AM]

I don't the exact sales but I dont think D80 was a good seller (Compared to 40D) so now I think Canon's strategy is to save in R&D costs and just lowering the price of the 40D to $1099 (Body only) instead of introducing a new model. So 40D will now compete with D90 and 50D will compete with D300.

Ofcourse, 40D being more than a year old cannot is edged out by the newly introduced D90. Yes they loose some sales to Nikon but they save on R&D costs. They do have Nikon beat in the other categories. For example, Rebel XS vs D40x, Rebel XSi vs D60 and now 5D MKII vs D700

[Mehul @ Sep 17th 2008 11:51AM]

**I don't know the exact sales

Stupid comment system. When are we going to have an 'Edit Comment' feature, Engadget???

[Phil @ Sep 17th 2008 10:46AM]

Does anyone know what the MSRP is?

[The Pepto Pimp @ Sep 17th 2008 10:58AM]

Hit the [READ] link:

(Body Only)

US: $ 2,699
EU: € 2,499
UK: £ 2,299

[Steve Childs @ Sep 18th 2008 4:49AM]

Yup, Cannon knows how to screw non US customers doesn't it.

$ 2,699 in the US

€ 2,499 in the EU ($ 3,590.52)

£ 2,299 in the UK ($ 4,176.96)

At that rate you could buy a flight from the UK to the US, buy the camera and then fly back & still save just under £1000.

Hell, buy a few when you're out there and ebay them when you get back and you'd make thousands on the deal.

Could be an idea actually, when are they out?! ;)

[Sharone @ Sep 17th 2008 11:19AM]

3.9 frames per second is poor. I was expecting at least 5. The viewfinder is also not as good as Sony's A900 (apparently).

It would have been better had they given a 16-18 MP sensor with higher frame-rate. You disappoint me, Canon.

[Smooth Op @ Sep 17th 2008 11:58AM]

Exactly. I would have preferred 16MP @ 5FPS than 21MP at 3.9FPS.

[Tom @ Sep 17th 2008 12:41PM]

Huh? You'd rather lower image quality so you can take pictures faster? Going by the "If I take more pictures faster, my chances of getting a keeper is better" rule, eh? Glad Canon R&D didn't listen to you... the 5D is first and foremost about image quality.

That being said, I've had loan money marked off for this camera for months. Can't wait 'till the release date!

[Pom @ Sep 17th 2008 12:47PM]

The 5D is a full frame studio camera thats not meant to compete on par with the speeders like the 1D or 50D. This line (and 1Ds) is meant to be a poor-man's medium format. If you read the reviews on the original 5D, it didn't even have adequate weather seals to make is rugged enough for extended outdoor use.

[Ender @ Sep 17th 2008 1:23PM]

@Tom

Megapixels have absolutely nothing to do with image quality. Know what hell you are talking about before you comment.

[Tom @ Sep 17th 2008 2:28PM]

Lol, relax man. MP does have a relation to image quality, I hope you realize. Now, of course MP is not the only deciding factor, and too high of a pixel density can hurt image quality immensely (noise, CA, etc.). However these people are asking for a lower MP sensor simply for the ability to shoot faster. When a company can produce a high-quality sensor with super-high MP, this is not a bad thing and when you take a sensor design that is capable of fine images and simply lower the MP rating, you are effectively lowering overall image quality. Well, not image quality per se, but rather print quality. Ever try printing a 16x20 print from a 20D's sensor? That sensor was great, but image quality on a print suffers simply because it's not large enough. That 8.3MP sensor was alright for 6x9 prints, but further than that it was a crapshoot.

Clearly it's not about stuffing a cam full of pixels wherever they will fit, however a balance must be reached between overall image quality and printing capabilities. Canon seems to have found a great meeting point between the two, and YES, absolutely taking the same sensor design and reducing the pixel count will lower image quality and print quality. Sacrificing this for such a fickle thing as shooting faster would be a truly unfathomable move on Canon's part (really, anybody who is dropping cash on this camera should know how to shoot - and anyone who is considering this cam but is complaining about AF and speed of shooting should really just save coin and go to the 1Ds MkIII).

This is a studio cam with capabilities to be an everyday shooter. 3.9 fps is PLENTY fast for something like that, and anyone complaining about that is just searching for shit to complain about. Lowering print quality is not an option in a camera like this.


So I counter you: Megapixels has LOTS to do with IQ and PQ. And thanks for the insult, too.

[RobJ @ Sep 17th 2008 4:25PM]

@Tom:

Nice try, but even Canon's own engineers don't agree with you about MP. Check this out:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/20080917/ttc-exclusive-canon-engineers-held-back-e870a33.html

Canon engineers are being held back from developing new sensor technology by marketing departments in a "race for megapixels", claims an employee of the Japanese photography company.

The employee told Tech Digest that Canon have the technology to "blow the competition away" in terms of image sensors, but are instead being asked to focus on headline figures like the number of megapixels a camera has. When asked for his opinion on the Canon EOS 5D Mark II, which we covered this morning, the employee said:

"I am hugely disappointed because once again Canon engineers are dictated by their marketing department and had to keep up with the megapixel race. They have the technology to blow the competition away by adapting the new 50D sensor tech in a full frame format and just easing off a little on the megapixels. Although no formal testing has been done on the new model yet, judging by the spec and technology used, it just seems to be as good or as bad as the competition - not beating them by a mile (which we used to)."

[pom @ Sep 17th 2008 5:37PM]

-Francis

I think your quotes just proved David's point that MP matter.

MP are like horse power in a car, it's not everything but it's pretty darn important for certain things you need to do with a car. Why else would Leaf or Phase one backs

[Tom @ Sep 17th 2008 5:48PM]

Once again, RobJ, I must insist that MP is but only a part of image quality, and if you go too high it can vastly degrade image quality. However high MP cameras have their time and place (i.e. if the end product is going to be a large print). The 5D suits this purpose VERY well, and is one of the reasons why I am purchasing it on day one. My photography thesis will be printed somewhere around the 20x24in range and the sensor on the 5D will likely allow that to be reasonable. The sensor on the 50D, while excellent, wouldn't be sufficient for such an endeavor.

And lastly, one employee's off-handed comment CANNOT be taken as truth. Especially since we have seen no definitive studio and real-life test shots taken with the camera and no comparisons made to other current-gen models from Canon and it's competitors. I agree with you that the MP race is absurd, but when you're talking prints, you need every last one of those pixels (as long as the IQ doesn't suffer because of a crowded chip).

[loosely_coupled @ Sep 18th 2008 1:37AM]

This isn't a sport shooter...

[Jason Litka @ Sep 17th 2008 11:22AM]

Wow... I'm really happy with my XSi but Canon has really brought out the big guns for the new models. My pics start to get noisy on screen at 800 and at 1600 it's noticeable in a print. Also, I'm not really interested in video recording, but I'll give it to them, 1080p is impressive from any camera (many video cameras don't do 1080p30), but for a market that hasn't had ANY video recording until recently, this is a huge step.

[pobodys nerfect @ Sep 17th 2008 12:48PM]

Any word on a release date?

[stretchsje @ Sep 17th 2008 12:51PM]

All the comments on dpreview.com are bashing this camera for having high-noise images, a slow continuous shutter speed, and a behind-the-times autofocus. I hope these criticisms are premature and unjustified, though the sample image seen there was very unflattering.

[David @ Sep 17th 2008 11:48AM]

There are bashers for every new camera release. Since Canon owned the DSLR space for some time, there's a natural backlash now that Nikon's lineup is competitive. However, much of the bashing is based careful selection of spec-sheet discrepancies in order to find food for complaint rather than considering how to truly evaluate this camera in the right context. For instance, pixel-level noise (noise when an image is viewed at 100%) makes for unfair comparison because it compares two images at different levels of magnification. What matters is image-level noise or comparing images displayed at the same size and coming from equal-sized crops of the sensor area. It's likely that the 5D Mk II will beat lower-pixel-count cameras in image-level noise and even in pixel-level noise when properly downsampled to match the competition's pixel count. Frame rate also must be evaluated in the context of pixel count, since the limiting factor is data transfer rate. 4fps at 21.1Mpixel with 14-bit/pixel data is a very fast rate. Plus 4fps is fast enough for any market that values high pixel count or the ability to crop deeply if necessary, such as photojournalists, product photographers, wedding photographers and so forth. Note that 21.1Mpixels provides you with 8Mpixels even if you crop out an APS-C (1.6x crop factor) portion of the center of the image, allowing one to perhaps get away with lower focal length lenses (just as with other APS-C cameras). Sports photographers are less represented, but that's who the 1D and 1Ds cameras are aimed at.

About the only spec open to real complaint is the AF system. However, once again, it's more than up to the task of fast, accurate AF and thus suitable for the markets at which the camera is aimed. It's less good for high-speed action photography where a larger number of AF points helps ensure that one lands on the elusive subject.

In the end, sports photographers will look elsewhere while the rest should consider this model strongly, esp. for the price (which will fall rapidly, as is typical with Canon products due to high competition from their very many retail distribution channels).

[Francis @ Sep 17th 2008 2:02PM]

@David
You are correct in evaluating the sensor fairly, HOWEVER I must take issue with your comments about the auto focus.

Have you have ever tried to get a sharp picture of a moving kid with an f1.8 lens? Pro level AF is not something that only sports photographers need. Many wedding photojournalists need this as well. I love my 5D, but fast glass (85mm 1.8, 24mm 1.4, 135mm 2) almost always found a home on my 1D mk2, for the sole reason that I knew when I hit the trigger, the AF would do its job and and give me an in focus picture. The 5D... not so much with fast glass.

And yes, one can get a 1Ds MkIII, but the reasons not to do that are numerous (camera is too heavy for someone with bad wrists, price).

So all in all, I am extremely disappointed with the 5D mkII for not including some kind of improvement to the AF, considering even the old D200 has better AF in my opinion.

[Sébastien @ Sep 17th 2008 12:56PM]

So many typos on the Official Canon website :
- Features : they say compatible with EF-S too
- Specs : no more EF-S, but they say there's a 1.6 crop ratio ... (lol : fullframe is supposed to be 1:1)

Looks like they took a 50D description page template

[keropipi @ Sep 17th 2008 1:09PM]

h.264 1080P video O_O

[erikengd @ Sep 17th 2008 1:20PM]

Does this mean that the price of the Nikon D700 (or possibly D3) will have to be cut?
Interesting to see what Nikon will response, pricewise. But I think they will bring down the price of the D700 to around $2000 in order to stay attractive. Otherwise people will go with the Canon 5D Mark II.

[RobJ @ Sep 17th 2008 1:55PM]

The D700 price will probably fall slightly (though it probably would have anyway). Keep in mind that the D700 has a much better autofocus system and is a faster camera in terms of frames per second. So, although the Canon has a higher megapixel count, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be the more expensive camera.

[Anomalyi @ Sep 17th 2008 3:03PM]

I don't believe Nikon will have to drop the price significantly at all to stay competitive to this new body. It's highly unlikely that someone who's purchasing their first DSLR will go with a $2700 camera, nor will most Nikonians ditch their collection of Nikon/Nikkor brand gear just because Canon has answered back with a helluva camera. I drooled when I saw the Nikon D3 and D300 ISO performance compared to anything Canon had out at the time, but I wasn't about to unload $6k in gear to switch. I waited patiently to see what Canon was going to do and I'm glad I waited.

All in all, though... I could be completely wrong and Nikon may drop their prices. I guess we'll see.

[techdudeMs @ Sep 17th 2008 3:33PM]

Your post reminds me that a large portion of people posting on the interwebs always speak of changing camps every time the competition leapfrogs one another. Do you guys/"those people" really change camps that much? How do you stay current with "necessary items" such as good glass, flashes etc which for the most part belong to one camp only. Camera's from a single company, competitors will always leapfrog one another. That will not change for a long time. From my perspective, the knowledge I have in photography then my camera lenses have had the most impact. So why jump ship? I don't get it. Is a super marginal gain worth the effort to dump an entire line of tried and true lenses/flashes/etc products? For me...not so much :)

[Doug F @ Sep 17th 2008 3:24PM]

Yawn. Canon gives up a big viewfinder, 5fps, 1/250 sync speed and IS to the Sony A900 for HD movie mode? Sure that's cool, but I think a photographer would rather have the Sony features. However, I'm sure die hard Canon users will drink the koolaid. A900, here I come.

[john @ Sep 24th 2008 4:24PM]

Digital whatever!! I'm still using my 1970's F-1's.

[Rafyta @ Sep 17th 2008 3:48PM]

Coooooooool take that Nikon fanboys!

[Eric @ Sep 17th 2008 4:04PM]

I'm getting two next year for the office. But for me? I just got a Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8G ED AF-S. Canon has nothing like it.

Although Canon does have a new 24mm f/1.4L II which should be one sweet lens. I have the older one at work. And Nikon has nothing like that!

I'm also a member of both NPS and CPS. So I can get free loans from either company for work or home. I live in the best of both world. Very few people can. But I can't carry it all! Life is full of compromises no matter what. Use what you have and don't worry about what else is out there.

And anyone dropping Canon or Nikon for Sony isn't a pro, so it doesn't really matter. Let them have their fun. The A900 will do them just fine. Few pros would go that route. But so what?

[Jimi Hendrix @ Sep 17th 2008 4:40PM]

ISO 25600 looks like ISO 800 on my XTi!!!

[emptyspaces @ Sep 17th 2008 4:42PM]

Real photographers know the following:

1. Megapixels aren't directly related to image quality, unless you're making enormous prints.
2. You can make stunning 20x30" prints from a 6mp camera. I have a few in my house. The reason for this is that you view large prints from at least a few feet away. That's why they're so big! Best Buy sales clerks want you to believe that nice prints are only achievable at 300dpi, which is a crock.
3. The 5D mkII is not designed to be a pro camera - it's for landscapes and weddings.
4. The 1D series is pro because a)autofocus speed, b)10fps, and c)weather sealing. The 5D mkII has nothing to do with pro shooters, nor should anyone expect it to.

No one currently slagging the 5D mkII has ever touched, seen, or shot with one. So they don't know jack squat.

Take a breath, this will prove to be an absolutely fabulous camera, I believe.

[Francis @ Sep 17th 2008 5:10PM]

hold on a second... ""The 5D mkII is not designed to be a pro camera - it's for landscapes and weddings.""

Anyone who thinks a wedding is not a "pro" level event clearly has never shot one before is and is talking out of their ****. I have worked in sports, journalism, fashion, and yes, weddings. By far the most challenging and demanding of these is shooting weddings. I will add the caveat that I am talking about MODERN weddings. there are plenty of old school budget wedding photographers that show up for a few hours, take a few controlled environment formals, and leave. this is not what I am referring to. I talking about the modern wedding photojournalist that works his @$$ off all day, camera never leaving his hand for 10-16 hours straight, who takes thousands of photos.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOWEVER I agree with you on the first half. ""The 5D mkII is not designed to be a pro camera..... The 5D mkII has nothing to do with pro shooters, nor should anyone expect it to.""

And that is EXACTLY why a number of PRO shooters people are not happy with the 5D. Nikon specifically targeted the pro market with the D700, however Canon specifically turned its back on the pro market with the 5DmkII. Many professionals, including myself, are rather upset that the "upgrade" we waited 3 years for really is just an "update" with a better sensor and some other trivial stuff. HD Video? Thats a consumer feature! Canon has forgotten who purchased most of the original 5D cameras....

[Silverfrog @ Sep 17th 2008 9:18PM]

I agree with emptyspaces,

I am a wedding photographer and if you think what I do every Friday/Saturday isn't pro-level work, I'd love to show you my photo gallery some time to change your mind.

Bottom line: If you think studio work is the only "pro" usage of the consummate professional, you'd be wrong.

[Silverfrog @ Sep 17th 2008 9:19PM]

Sorry--meant to say I agreed with Francis, not emptyspaces.

[emptyspaces @ Sep 17th 2008 10:05PM]

You are all missing my point, and maybe I didn't make it clearly. What I was trying to point out is, no matter how you choose to use the 5D/5D markII, it is positioned in Canon's lineup as an amateur camera. Now, that is simply a marketing distinction. There's no reason why you can't make some money shooting with whatever camera you want.

I have shot weddings myself, with my 40D. I produced outstanding work every time, and was paid for it.

I think of pros as photojournalists, sports photographers, and wildlife photographers, all of whom have no use for a 5D/5D markII in their work, because it couldn't possibly hold up or perform the way they need it to under the conditions they work in. For those type of pros, a 1D-series or a Nikon D3 is the only option.

I meant no ill will toward wedding photographers...you are all certainly a sensitive lot! But I empathize, having dabbled in it myself. I remember my first one - 9 hours on my feet, and a good 20 hours of processing work (which got me to take a long, hard look at my workflow). It's not easy. But I didn't need a 1DS markIII to do it, either.

Either way, I am surprised so many people here and on other sites see the 5D markII as a dog. I mean, what were you all using before? And no one's even used one yet! I'm just curious, what was everyone hoping for?

I see a lot of people wishing for more stats - AF points, etc. But all the real pros I've ever known don't worry about stuff like that. They test a camera under real conditions before they make a decision. And how many real pros have the time to argue with idiots like me on Engadget?

[Silverfrog @ Sep 17th 2008 10:17PM]

Real "pros" are everywhere on the web, scouring the internet for new technologies articles so that they are informed. That's what brought me here after all.

And by the way, I'll argue with anyone who claims the 5D wasn't designed to be a pro camera. Show me a document from Canon stating contrary and I'll believe you.

[ElCapitan006 @ Sep 18th 2008 7:03PM]

Whether a camera is aimed at pro's or not makes absolutely no difference. A professional photographer could turn out better pictures with an Xsi than a good hobbiest photographer could turn out with a 1Ds MIII. Specs and features are nice, but at the end of the day, it comes down to what the photographer does with the camera. If you want a "pro" level camera, then fork over the money for a 1Ds MIII if you really feel you need more fps and more autofocus and assist points, but more than likely you could get almost the exact same results, if not the exact same results, with the 5D/5D MII.

[5D M2 @ Sep 18th 2008 7:28PM]

I got my hands on this baby today. It's better than it reads, NO JOKE!

I couldn't believe how light it is compared to the D700. The higher ISO's look great. And the HD movies look like real 1080p HD, not YouTube HD. The camera houses the second largest video sensor on the market yet it's far cheaper than any high end video camera out there. The 5D M2 actually has to down sample the videos to get them to 1080p. And you can still shoot while making a movie. Yup! But it will create a half second gap in the video.

[fd2b8dd0 @ Sep 23rd 2008 1:37AM]

Anyone want to buy my 5D?????

[Blueripper @ Sep 30th 2008 4:29PM]

Does anyone know if the 5D MK2 can be used with infared filters such as a Hoya R72?

[Bob Aman @ Oct 21st 2008 10:48AM]

You're better off taking an old Rebel (or some other sufficiently decent camera you don't care about anymore) and getting someone to rip out the IR cut filter on it for you. (Or just do it yourself.) Plus, with that, you don't have to wait until the 5D mk II comes out.

Frankly, any camera that still has its IR cut filter in it is going to take lower quality pictures with an R72 filter, regardless of how sensitive the sensor may be. Proper digital IR photography always requires a dedicated camera.