5D MkII query
- Thread starter ishmac
- Start date
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
The number of megapixels doesn't matter so much as once you get over about 18 megapixels the diffraction effects at F11 and narrower apertures more or less stop the extra pixels being relevant to the end image. If you need more than 18 megapixels you need to go up to medium format digital. At ISO3200 and printed at A3+ size I wouldn't expect a 21 megapixel image to be any more detailed than one from a 12.8 megapixel camera.
You might find the 3 stop extra sensitivity more useful than the extra resolution by the way.
There are some relative sharpness examples on Ken Rockwell's site here and here too
You might find the 3 stop extra sensitivity more useful than the extra resolution by the way.
There are some relative sharpness examples on Ken Rockwell's site here and here too
cliffpatte
Speed camera anarchist
best to use the images by themselves because Mr Rockwell has known and variable biases which if you know what they are can be measured against the words - for instance he seems to think scanned 35mm velvia has a higher resolution than the D3X which is just plain wrong.
The difference is night and day. Overall, the Mark II is at least three stops better in terms of high ISO noise. The AF is radically improved: it's not the fastest, but it's very accurate and works well in low light.
Obviously the leap in resolution is significant - you have to think much more carefully about aperture selection to avoid diffraction, and you will need the best (most expensive) lenses to exploit that resolution - but well handled Mark II captures are on a completely different level to the Mark I.
The screen is useable; the Mark I's isn't. Live View enables you to focus manually with absolute precision; it's completely hit-and-miss with the Mark I. I could go on . . .
Given the price difference between a used Mark I and a used Mark II, especially now we're well past the half-way point of its lifecycle - the Mark II is amazing value, especially compared to the nearest Nikon equivalent, or even the 1-Series Canons.
Obviously the leap in resolution is significant - you have to think much more carefully about aperture selection to avoid diffraction, and you will need the best (most expensive) lenses to exploit that resolution - but well handled Mark II captures are on a completely different level to the Mark I.
The screen is useable; the Mark I's isn't. Live View enables you to focus manually with absolute precision; it's completely hit-and-miss with the Mark I. I could go on . . .
Given the price difference between a used Mark I and a used Mark II, especially now we're well past the half-way point of its lifecycle - the Mark II is amazing value, especially compared to the nearest Nikon equivalent, or even the 1-Series Canons.