5DMk2: 21.1 MP, 1080p movies, 3.9 fps, up to ISO 25600. Hard drives not incl.
- Thread starter Roger
- Start date
I cannot wait to see the first shots taken at WDW. I think you have just upped the ante for us. I'm glad I got my D300 so I could at least make a chance at hanging with "the master"
Last edited by a moderator:
PolynesianMedic
Global Moderator
What, a day goes by and no photo's are posted yet? Congrats on getting the camera, but I want to see some photo's buddy!
Last edited by a moderator:
PolynesianMedic
Global Moderator
HAHA nice, back to that conversation are we? 
Well folks, I have some bad news with regards to the Mk II. No, not about the black dots or the banded noise...
By all accounts they've artificially restricted the movie shooting functionality to using the equivalent of the green box mode only. You can be in live view mode with manually set exposure settings, and the moment you push the button to start shooting a movie it'll ignore your chosen settings and pick its own.
If your primary interest is in the Mk II as a still camera then perhaps this doesn't matter, but the reason I was so excited about it was the prospect of having a video camera (not even about the 1080P spec) that would give me full control over the exposure settings. Canon has a site up promoting this very thing, waxing poetic about the creative potential that comes from the narrow depths of field that are possible with a DSLR and a fast lens.
Yet in another area of their site they mention that movie mode automatically picks its own exposure settings.
That's bordering on deceptive marketing to me. They have a demo video they're showing off that shows a lot of narrow depth of field scenes, what they don't tell you is the reason that the shooter got those DOFs was that he shot the whole video at night, using very fast lenses. The camera was basically forced to use the lenses wide open. Had the videos been shot during the day the depths of field would have been a lot wider.
I'm very unhappy about this, yet I'm still thinking of getting one. I'm ticked off at Canon for intentionally limiting the movie shooting mode to protect the market for their expensive video cameras (their standard definition camera with removable lenses costs about the same as the Mk II), yes. But... desperate users are finding ways around this limitation, ranging from the desperate act of partially unlocking and rotating the lens so that the electrical contacts are broken and the lens effectively becomes a manual focus, fixed aperture lens to various tricks like taking a picture while shooting video, supposedly that overrides the aperture setting. There was one elaborate trick that involved going into exposure preview mode and doing various things that should supposedly force the camera to use more or less the ISO and aperture you picked.
In the end the Mk II still looks to be a quite capable camera. I've seen grumblings in some other forums, some are unhappy about the noise levels, they feel it's not enough of an advancement to justify purchasing a new body, but from what I've seen it should still meet my needs, it gives me the same pixel pitch as my 30D (EXACTLY the same pixel pitch) yet with lower noise levels thanks to the microlenses, I don't exactly need 21 megapixels but the option of shooting either full resolution to get maximum possible crop capability from the pictures or lower resolution RAW files to get wider images without spending 25-30 megabytes or above per shot still appeals to me. Despite the asinine restrictions placed on the camera by Canon it still promises to be an impressive convergence device that achieves in one package what can't be had separately for near the same cost.
In a way we Americans got lucky. The camera shoots 30 FPS video only. This is a hassle for European users, because their PAL video standard uses 25 frames per second. So while US photojournalists can use the camera to shoot video when they need to it's not that easy for Europeans, from what I've read 30fps video converted to 25 can look kind if nasty.
It supports the predictions that I've seen made that there are a whole new generation of video capable DSLRs on the horizon. The D90 and the Mk II were just the beginning.
By all accounts they've artificially restricted the movie shooting functionality to using the equivalent of the green box mode only. You can be in live view mode with manually set exposure settings, and the moment you push the button to start shooting a movie it'll ignore your chosen settings and pick its own.
If your primary interest is in the Mk II as a still camera then perhaps this doesn't matter, but the reason I was so excited about it was the prospect of having a video camera (not even about the 1080P spec) that would give me full control over the exposure settings. Canon has a site up promoting this very thing, waxing poetic about the creative potential that comes from the narrow depths of field that are possible with a DSLR and a fast lens.
Yet in another area of their site they mention that movie mode automatically picks its own exposure settings.
That's bordering on deceptive marketing to me. They have a demo video they're showing off that shows a lot of narrow depth of field scenes, what they don't tell you is the reason that the shooter got those DOFs was that he shot the whole video at night, using very fast lenses. The camera was basically forced to use the lenses wide open. Had the videos been shot during the day the depths of field would have been a lot wider.
I'm very unhappy about this, yet I'm still thinking of getting one. I'm ticked off at Canon for intentionally limiting the movie shooting mode to protect the market for their expensive video cameras (their standard definition camera with removable lenses costs about the same as the Mk II), yes. But... desperate users are finding ways around this limitation, ranging from the desperate act of partially unlocking and rotating the lens so that the electrical contacts are broken and the lens effectively becomes a manual focus, fixed aperture lens to various tricks like taking a picture while shooting video, supposedly that overrides the aperture setting. There was one elaborate trick that involved going into exposure preview mode and doing various things that should supposedly force the camera to use more or less the ISO and aperture you picked.
In the end the Mk II still looks to be a quite capable camera. I've seen grumblings in some other forums, some are unhappy about the noise levels, they feel it's not enough of an advancement to justify purchasing a new body, but from what I've seen it should still meet my needs, it gives me the same pixel pitch as my 30D (EXACTLY the same pixel pitch) yet with lower noise levels thanks to the microlenses, I don't exactly need 21 megapixels but the option of shooting either full resolution to get maximum possible crop capability from the pictures or lower resolution RAW files to get wider images without spending 25-30 megabytes or above per shot still appeals to me. Despite the asinine restrictions placed on the camera by Canon it still promises to be an impressive convergence device that achieves in one package what can't be had separately for near the same cost.
In a way we Americans got lucky. The camera shoots 30 FPS video only. This is a hassle for European users, because their PAL video standard uses 25 frames per second. So while US photojournalists can use the camera to shoot video when they need to it's not that easy for Europeans, from what I've read 30fps video converted to 25 can look kind if nasty.
It supports the predictions that I've seen made that there are a whole new generation of video capable DSLRs on the horizon. The D90 and the Mk II were just the beginning.
Last edited by a moderator:
interesting spin, dan. I have found that the 1080p is silky, if limited. it is great for what it is... the ability to shoot video with a d/slr. I saw another tech website writing an open letter to canon petitioning them to upgrade the video mode via firmware. it would be nice but what one needs to remember is that it is a STILL camera first with a video option.
Last edited by a moderator:
gary
Member
ok i'm going to climb up, way up, towards the top of my cranky old man soapbox here
i can't stress enough how annoyed i am at canon for even going down this path
i have no interest now, never did and never will in a camera that does both functions, if i want video i'll bring the video camera
i do not want to pay 1 extra penny for a function i will never use, nor do i want further technical development of the full frame prosumer body to lag behind or suffer because all the money and attention are now in the video feature, i am most afraid of my choices in body upgrade down the timeline ending up being either an aps sensor, or the really expensive 1ds pro body only and nothing in between
tim you'll appreciate this, unlike vinnie bagadonuts, i'm not looking for 1 body to be all things to all men
thank you for listening to all things considered and most found annoying here on not so public radio
i can't stress enough how annoyed i am at canon for even going down this path
i have no interest now, never did and never will in a camera that does both functions, if i want video i'll bring the video camera
i do not want to pay 1 extra penny for a function i will never use, nor do i want further technical development of the full frame prosumer body to lag behind or suffer because all the money and attention are now in the video feature, i am most afraid of my choices in body upgrade down the timeline ending up being either an aps sensor, or the really expensive 1ds pro body only and nothing in between
tim you'll appreciate this, unlike vinnie bagadonuts, i'm not looking for 1 body to be all things to all men
thank you for listening to all things considered and most found annoying here on not so public radio
Thanks for the update Dan.
Honestly, I think Canon is planning on releasing the 1D Mk IV at PMA this year, and it will be a fully functioning video camera for the photojournalists. It'll probably only be around 12/16 mp full frame in order to have even lower noise and keep the file sizes down. I think they need to release sooner than their 3 yr cycle to help get rid of the sour mouths out there.
Assuming of course, that it can autofocus properly, not have black dots next to high contrast areas, not have Err 99 because it gets into the mood, etc.
Honestly, I think Canon is planning on releasing the 1D Mk IV at PMA this year, and it will be a fully functioning video camera for the photojournalists. It'll probably only be around 12/16 mp full frame in order to have even lower noise and keep the file sizes down. I think they need to release sooner than their 3 yr cycle to help get rid of the sour mouths out there.
Assuming of course, that it can autofocus properly, not have black dots next to high contrast areas, not have Err 99 because it gets into the mood, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
"gary" said:
I'll jump in here: Unfortunately Gary, that's not where the market is heading. Consumers want video in their still cameras. Look at the rise of the cameras that mention YouTube on the box. It was only a matter of time, esp. with the photojournalist crowd.
Canon unfortunately doesn't put their best equipment out first.
But what other technical development is there? Canon can, at any time, increase the features they put in their lower end body. You want the pro-AF module, well, Nikon puts that in the D300 and D700. Canon hasn't done something like that since the EOS-3.
Sony may have something with flipping over the silicon wafer, but what other developments are out there in the world of still photography? Sigma bought up Foveon; if that technology matures, we'll see 60mp still images with the same noise as the 5DMarkII. Immediately.
I think the next step is a merge of the Fuji SuperCCD and the Foveon sensor. Imagine a multi layered sensor, with highlight sensors and regular sensors. No noise and impossibly wide DR.
Last edited by a moderator: