First Look: Canon 5D Mark II
by Wesley Fink on December 4, 2008 3:00 AM EST- Posted in
- Digital Camera
Canon 5D2 Full Frame vs. Nikon D700/D3 vs. Sony A900
The Canon 5D was the first "popular" priced full-frame DSLR introduced at the $3500 mark for the body only about three years ago. The 5D Mark II just started showing up at dealers on Monday, and the first units began arriving from web etailers on Tuesday, December 2. However, the market is no longer Canon only as both Nikon and Sony have recently introduced models to compete in the $3000 full-frame DSLR market.
The A900 was introduced just a couple of months ago and sells for $3000. It is currently the highest resolution sensor in its class at 24.6MP. The 5D2 has slightly lower resolution at 21/2MP. Nikon also just announced a 24.5MP D3x that will ship later this month, but the new Nikon is in a completely different class with an $8000 price tag.
Nikon introduced the pro-targeted D3 about a year ago with a full-frame $5000 12.1MP sensor. The D3 claim to fame was the widest ISO range ever seen in a DSLR, with a range from ISO 100 to ISO 25600, a 9-stop ISO range. Mid-year 2008 Nikon moved this wide-range full-frame down to the $3000 D700 to compete with the Canon 5D, as well as the coming 5D2 and Sony A900.
Again, all images are captured using a 2-second shutter delay on a tripod in the same location. The manufacturers' 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. Nikon D700/D3 vs. Sony A900 | |||
| ISO | Canon 5D2 | Nikon D700 | Sony A900 |
| 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 3.2MB and 15.5MB! |
|||
The D3 and 5D2 are both no brainers to ISO 3200. I wouldn't hesitate to use either of them for anything up to ISO 3200. 6400 and 12800 are both good with more noise, but still usable for most things. 25600 on either is more for small prints, although I suspect DXO, Noise Ninja, or perhaps other noise reduction programs can do wonders at that speed. They certainly do with RAW processing - the Sony A900 high ISO images that look noisy unless RAW processed. Resolution of the 5D2 is better than the D3/D700, but not quite up to the Sony A900 at regular ISO. I suspect at high ISO with in-camera JPEG the Canon will be equal or better than the Sony.
The Sony seems to be fine up to ISO 1600, but above this noise really starts to intrude. It is not the wide ISO wonder of the 5D2 or the D700, but it is definitely the highest resolution image at lower ISO ratings. The 5D2 is close in resolution, however - much closer than the D700/D3. Recently we have also seen some professionals getting extraordinary high ISO Sony results with RAW post-processing with programs other than Adobe Camera RAW. They claim ACR is quite poor at processing noise in the A900 images and there are much better tools. We are experimenting with their suggestions for A900 RAW post-processing.
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.