[séamuis]

I only wish that with hoya, tokina, samsung ... I don't know... some how Pentax could make more FA lenses in production again

its not a question of can, its a question of will.

[Yohan Pamudji]

And your response to this Luminous Landscape article would be interesting;

Resolution
There’s lots of it. Like really a lot. How much I doubt I will ever know, since few if any of Canon’s lenses appear able to feed this sensor the detail it is capable of devouring. Specifically, I was very disappointed in my choice of taking a 100-400mm zoom instead of a fixed 400mm f5.6. Fully 85% of my keepers from this lens were shot at 400mm. At that focal length, the 100-400mm simply doesn’t have the gas. Notwithstanding its branding as an “L” lens, it’s just not up to meeting the resolution challenge offered by the 5DII. The shots I produced in 2007 with the 400mm on a 1DsII show greater enlargeability. This is a serious let-down.

I was also disappointed by a lot of the shots taken with the 24-70 f2.8L under 50mm. The only lens which performed to the resolution of the camera was the 70-200m f2.8L, which is not surprising given its stellar reputation. But even then, I can’t help but feeling that a very aggressive anti-aliasing filter is at work. While the 5DII produced beautiful files, they lack the “bite” in the fine detail that a perfectly exposed Phase One files shows. While I have not examined any D3x files, I can say that the same is true for the Sony A900 in most instances.

What does all this mean? To be blunt, Canon needs to build a lot better lenses. And a lot of them.

Dylan

I've learned to take everything Michael Reichmann says about image quality with a huge, HUGE grain of salt. He does great hands-on reports on how cameras handle in the field, and I enjoy reading those reports, but his eye for image quality is suspect. I find it funny how derisive he is (was?) about pixel peeping but then he tries to do it himself and fails at it.

Here's another example of what pingflood mentioned regarding his over-exuberance. In his 1DIII hands-on report he said, "I judge the MKIII to have between a one stop and two stop advantage over any Canon camera to date in terms of high ISO noise." The 5D was out by this time, so that claim includes the 5D. Careful controlled tests at other sites showed the advantage to be about 2/3 of a stop. I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he meant the 1DIII had a 1 stop advantage over some cameras and 2 stops over others, which would be pretty close to accurate, even though he didn't say that.

But then in his 40D hands-on report he claims, "I find that the IQ of the 40D is on a par if not even slightly better than that of the Canon 5D." Sorry, but I have both cameras and he's simply wrong. 40D is very good and to be fair quite close to the 5D in terms of noise. But it's not on a par and definitely not better. There's no way I can spin this statement in favor of Reichmann. It's at this point that I recognized the exaggeration trend and tuned out his image quality analysis.

I don't mean to bash the guy, but facts are facts. I don't know if he says controversial (and wrong) things just to get a rise out of his audience and increase traffic to his site or if he really thinks he sees these things, but either way he's not a reliable source for image quality info. Like I said his hands-on impressions are great and on the money, and that's why I enjoy reading his articles.

Sorry about burdening you with all that. You hit a nerve with a LL quote. As I'm about to show, that's just a rabbit trail though.

Based on the quote, I don't see where you're getting that he claims the 5DII is outresolving lenses. He's not wrong that the 100-400 is weak at the long end, but that's not because the 5DII is stressing it. You can see the difference between a 100-400 and a 400 prime on cameras with lower pixel pitches than the 5DII like the 1DII or 5D. 24-70L is also known to not be the highest resolving lens in the world, which again can be seen on cameras with lower pixel pitches. 2 of the lenses he used happened to not be the most stellar performers.

What I read from that quote was simply that Canon need to redesign some lenses, which is absolutely true. Nowhere in that quote did I get the sense that he was saying, "... there is no glass available that can potentially match the Canon's 5D MK11 sensor," as you claimed. He was simply saying some lenses won't bring out the best of the 5DII. There are plenty of L lenses that are up to the challenge of the 5DII and more. I personally think we might be getting close on APS-C with 15MP, but 21MP on FF leaves a lot of room to still go up in resolution and not outresolve all lenses.

[pcarfan]

fine what ever

I don't do that...

as I said before the thread was created out of or impulse response.
we can stop it right know

I apologize

Redpigeons, I appreciate this thread very much, exactly the sort of thing that is needed to make an informed decision. Thank you for posting this.

[pingflood]

What I read from that quote was simply that Canon need to redesign some lenses, which is absolutely true. Nowhere in that quote did I get the sense that he was saying, "... there is no glass available that can potentially match the Canon's 5D MK11 sensor," as you claimed. He was simply saying some lenses won't bring out the best of the 5DII. There are plenty of L lenses that are up to the challenge of the 5DII and more. I personally think we might be getting close on APS-C with 15MP, but 21MP on FF leaves a lot of room to still go up in resolution and not outresolve all lenses.

Yeah, the same pixel density as a 50D on full frame would be something around 39 megapixels. And as I said, the 50D pulls a lot of detail out of my 400/5.6 that I never saw with a 20D (granted only 8MP but not far from the 40D's 10).

[redpigeons]

Redpigeons, I appreciate this thread very much, exactly the sort of thing that is needed to make an informed decision. Thank you for posting this.

I want to say again

I just wanted to understand how it works .. not to start a fight or anything

if the slower AF is in order to keep very small lenses then I think its great

I will take small lenses over fast AF any day

to me Pentax is all about the glass ... nothing is like Pentax prime lenses , especially the older, faster ones

[pcarfan]

I shoot with our Canon gear regularly, and haven't shot with my Pentax lately (sold my K20Ds for K7 this month or next month). The USM AF in the lenses are really awesome. Try other Canon models, the 5DII's AF is pretty ancient and sucks like hell in low light.

We use L lenses (17-40/4, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8) and they're great but I'm honestly more impressed with the detail I get out of the K20D with my Limited lenses. Clients can't tell the difference though.

Even though I've got a full Canon system for work, I still prefer my Pentax system for my personal shooting.

Are you sure the Canon 5D II's AF in low light sucks ? or did you mistype?

[soccerjoe5]

Well, let's say I'm more impressed with our 50D bodies with regards to AF. The 5DII's AF system is the same as the first 5D.

Lots of people seem to say the same thing. Here's a quote from Zack Arias (Zack Arias - Atlanta based editorial music photographer), who uses both the Canon 5DII and D3 for his work:

"Which one do I love more? Can’t say. Can’t say at all. I will tell you this though… when it comes time to shoot the reception tomorrow night I bet you the 5d goes back in the bag because the auto focus is useless in low light. You’d think they could do something about that. The D3 can focus in just about any dark environment I find myself in. The 5d requires you to be standing on the surface of the sun to have enough light to focus. Ok, maybe not right on the surface but pretty close. The AF system on the Canon can not even be compared to the Nikon. In this area Canon sucks and Nikon rocks. The rest seems to be up for debate."

[pingflood]

I wouldn't say the 5D "sucks" in low light when it comes to AF, but it definitely isn't as strong as the XXD or 1D series bodies. The outer points are pretty weak, but center point still works ok even in lower light IMO...

[*isteve]

Are you sure the Canon 5D II's AF in low light sucks ? or did you mistype?

Try it with a 17-40 F4L. Sucks big time.

Edge sharpness is a weeny bit of a total complete disaster as well.

Sorry, is that a bit too objective?

[*isteve]

fine what ever

I don't do that...

as I said before the thread was created out of or impulse response.
we can stop it right know

I apologize

And its not already been said 100,000 times already?

Sorry I snapped, but this subject is as tired as the hills.

[pingflood]

Try it with a 17-40 F4L. Sucks big time.

Edge sharpness is a weeny bit of a total complete disaster as well.

Sorry, is that a bit too objective?

Yeah, I've never quite understood the love for the 17-40L on full frame. Not that it's a BAD lens, but I get better shots from my $220 (used) Sigma 15-30, and it's a fair bit wider.

The 17-40 is excellent on crop bodies though.

[soccerjoe5]

I wouldn't say the 5D "sucks" in low light when it comes to AF, but it definitely isn't as strong as the XXD or 1D series bodies. The outer points are pretty weak, but center point still works ok even in lower light IMO...

I agree with you there. I guess I was just underwhelmed that they didn't update the AF, especially for a pretty high-end and pretty expensive camera body. I guess I assumed that a newer, more expensive and higher-end camera (compared to 40/50D) would have same or better AF.

[GLXLR]

And it is comparable (or much better) to similarly-priced cameras from any other brand.

Comparing it to cameras that cost twice as much is flat out stupid.

It has the same AF motor as the 5D, which is about $1700 new.
So yes, again, it should be comparable -_-

[Yohan Pamudji]

I agree with you there. I guess I was just underwhelmed that they didn't update the AF, especially for a pretty high-end and pretty expensive camera body. I guess I assumed that a newer, more expensive and higher-end camera (compared to 40/50D) would have same or better AF.

I think most everybody would agree with that.

[GLXLR]

And its not already been said 100,000 times already?

Is there something extremely terrifying or horrid about apologizing?