First Look: Canon 5D Mark II
by Wesley Fink on December 4, 2008 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Canon 5D Mark II vs. Canon 5D
The Canon 5D is something of an imaging legend, so any examination of the 5D Mark II update has to begin with a comparison to the current 5D. Our comparisons are based on a similar technique used in our review of the Sony A900. Namely, we did same size 150x250 actual pixel crops as one means to compare to the 5D. However, the area covered with the 5D2 21.1MP sensor is about 65% greater than the 12.8MP sensor in the 5D.
Any who have printed large images from a digital file will immediately understand that a larger noisy image when printed smaller often looks like it has much lower noise. This is why we often say the noise level would be good enough for small prints but not for big enlargements. The noise becomes more apparent as the image size is increased. To better compare noise in the same image area, we ran a second set of crops that attempt to cover the same image area. With the metrics of the 5D and 5D Mark II that means a crop of 190x317 pixels for the "same image" comparison, which is then downsized to 150x250
That is the reason for the two crops for the Canon 5D Mark II. The regular view is a pixel-level 150x250 crop, while the 0.6x view is about 65% more pixels adjusted for the same image area as the 12.8MP crop form the 5D. We will leave it to you to decide which is the more relevant of the two crops for the 5D/5D2 comparison, and of course you can also view the original images by clicking on any crop.
All images are captured using a 2-second shutter delay on a tripod in the same location. The manufacturer's 50mm f/1.4 prime lens is used in all cases at an aperture priority setting of f/4.0, some three stops down from their rated speed. All images are processed with the in-camera JPEG processing with high ISO noise reduction set to the low setting. Light is provided by a 100W tungsten bulb, and white balance on all cameras is manually set to tungsten.
| ISO Comparison – Canon 5D2 vs. Canon 5D vs. 0.6x Canon 5D2 | |||
| ISO | Canon 5D2 | Canon 5D | 0.6x Canon 5D2 |
| 50 |  |
|
|
| 100 |  |
 |
|
| 200 |  |
 |
|
| 400 |  |
 |
|
| 800 |  |
 |
|
| 1600 |  |
 |
|
| 3200 |  |
 |
|
| 6400 |  |
|
|
| 12800 |  |
|
|
| 25600 |  |
|
|
Click on any of the above image crops for the full image. Note: Full size images are between 4.1MB and 15.5MB! |
|||
The base range of the original 5D is 100 to 1600 ISO with expansion to 3200. Canon appears to have succeeded very well in matching and surpassing the low noise and superb resolution of the original 5D. In fact the 5D2, with a base range of 100 to 3200, is every bit as good in that range as the 5D in its 100-1600 range. Most will have no real problem shooting in the 50-3200 ISO range without much regard to noise. That range is a justified option in the Auto setting on the 5D2.
The 6400 and 12800 ISO options are certainly usable in most circumstances, but the noise increases as you go up from ISO 3200. By 25600 the Canon 5D2 is still producing amazingly sharp images, but noise has reached a point where output should be limited to smaller prints. Further noise reduction processing could improve the image but there is usually a trade in image softness for the reduced noise.
Finally, this is a first look so tests are limited to in-camera JPEG images. We plan to do further comparisons shooting RAW with post-processing as we look more closely at the 5D Mark II.
We will leave to you whether the actual pixels or actual image areas are the better comparison for resolution and noise, but certainly the results are a bit different. Regardless of how you look at it, though, the comparisons to the 5D are truly exciting. Canon seems to have achieved their goal in improved image quality and extended ISO range in comparison to the original 5D. We next compared the 5D2 to the other two full-frame DSLRs in its class.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
39 Comments
View All Comments
stefan - Saturday, December 6, 2008 - link
Thanks for this great comparison!!I would love to know how the noise of the 5D II and D700 compare at long exposure times (30 s) at 3200 ASA. That is what I would need for landscape nightshots including a sky full of stars.
Do you have experiece with this?
Thanks!
Stefan
Wineohe - Thursday, December 4, 2008 - link
Maybe someone else has already beefed about this, but I never shoot JPEG's with my 5D. I doubt anyone does. My photos always get post processing, either in DPP or more recently Photoshop. In this category of camera RAW comparisons should somehow be the default method of comparison. Couldn't you just import them to Photoshop and save them to a Jpeg without any post processing. At least they would get the same treatment. This would be a more likely scenario among anyone spending this kind of money on a camera. Throw me a bone here, what am I missing.strikeback03 - Friday, December 5, 2008 - link
ACR by default does different things to different camera files, so "no post processing" is not the same for each camera's files.I too always shoot RAW, but as Wes said the fact that they have samples up already compensates for the fact that they are not perfect.
And the 5D had a print-share button, so obviously Canon thinks somebody is going to shoot JPEG.
golemite - Friday, December 5, 2008 - link
lets face it, Anandtech camera coverage is strictly from a consumer point of view, until they step up their game, its only useful for a first look or teaser of what to expect. And it's unforgivable that the Sony already exhibits such noticeable noise at such low ISOs. Besides the megapixels, that looks almost like Point and Shoot performance to me...Wesley Fink - Saturday, December 6, 2008 - link
Actually some evidence is accumulating that the 5D2 may exhibit best performance in JPEG mode. Some users are saying Canon 5D2 in-camera JPEG better controls noise than any current RAW processing software. That is similar to my own experience with the 5D so it does not come as a surprise.www.imaging-resource.com has just posted a complete set of RAW files for the 5D2. They can be compared to the D700/D3 and A900 in their comparometer. You may need to download and resize the 5D2 images to properly compare the D2 12.1MP to the Canon 21.1MP.
I have looked carefully at the data posted ar IR and find they basically support what I have already posted in this review. Multiple confirmations are always good.
strikeback03 - Monday, December 8, 2008 - link
Hopefully the noise suppression software catches up then. The advantages of shooting in RAW are too great.Wesley Fink - Saturday, December 6, 2008 - link
Obviously we are talking about the D3, not the D2. Edit would be handy here.Wineohe - Thursday, December 4, 2008 - link
I have the 5D which I always thought was among the best at higher ISO. The Mark II seems to blow it away. No more Talls or Grandes. I'm going to start saving my money and brewing my own so that I can replace my 5D.Roy2001 - Thursday, December 4, 2008 - link
I used to trust DPR but they are biased against Canon which I don't like. Thanks for post. Cannot wait for a full review.Roy2001 - Thursday, December 4, 2008 - link
I used to trust DPR but they are biased against Canon which I don't like.