A COUPLE WEEKS WITH THE CANON 5D MARK II

With over 5000 clicks on the Canon 1Ds Mark III, I have some pre-formed ideas of how the 5D2 will handle and perform. After using a Canon 1-series dSLR, using a semi-professional dSLR such as the 5D Mark II take some time to get used to. The following list are some immediate highlights and disappointments -

1. •The 5D Mark II build quality is nice, but the CF door flexes and squeaks - it cheapens the experience.
   

2. •The 5D Mark II viewfinder feels smaller and dimmer than the 1Ds3’s; I found manual focusing to be much easier on the 1Ds3.
   

3. •Both the 5D2 and 1Ds3 clip highlights too easily / quickly.
   

4. •I prefer the 1Ds3 file color; the 5D2 is lights and darks and not much between. The color lacks “vibrance”; see this previous entry for an explanation of “vibrance”.
   

5. •The 5D2’s new 3” LCD is nice; plenty of detail when reviewing images and check for accurate focus.
   

6. •At ISO 1600 the 5D2 seems better than 1Ds3; the 5D2’s ISO 800-3200 performance is impressive.
   

7. •The 5D2’s viewfinder info (the green LEDs) are washed out in sunlight - this is very annoying.
   

8. •The 1Ds3’s auto focus feel quicker and more accurate.
   

I do not want to bash the Canon 5D Mark II, but the file quality has been less than expected - mostly it is the color that I do not care for. Presumably I can fix this by building some custom color profiles in Canon’s Color Style Editor. I did this with the Canon 1Ds Mark III, it was not easy and it required several weeks of testing, adjusting, more testing and more adjusting. For more information on creating color styles and uploading them into the 1Ds Mark III (and other current Canon dSLRs), read the “vibrance” entries.

In parallel with the Canon 5D Mark II, I am also trying to decide how best to address digital medium format and which lenses for the Leica M8. I have given up trying to consolidate to a single system. There are many considerations at work: system size (weight, bulk, etc), file quality, lens range, ease of use, flexibility, required ancillary equipment, personal preferences, money and. so on. I have come down to two basic solutions: the M8 and medium format and the M8 and a dSLR. Both solutions will cost about the same, but how money is allocated between the systems will vary greatly.

QUALITY VS FLEXIBILITY

The following outlines my perception of the two possible scenarios. Everybody has different preferences, values, needs, wants, etc. - and these priorities are fluid and continually evolve as our experience grows, as technology progresses, as tastes change, etc.

1. •Option 1 - Leica M8 and Medium Format:  This is the sexier of the two options. This option is all about file quality, so I am sacrificing flexibility for higher quality files (in theory). The medium format kit will be small - most likely a Hasselblad H3DII-31 with the 80mm kit lens and the 150mm or 210mm lens. In this scenario the Leica M8 has to cover alot of ground - walk around, wide angle, candids, point & shoot, etc. The M8 lens kit would probably be the Tri-Elmar (28-35-50), 50mm Summilux ASPH and 75mm Summilux or APO. While the M8 is busy covering all the impromptu shots, the Hasselblad will be used for the more important, planned out shots. The overall budget is ~$22k.
   

2. •Option 2 - Leica M8 and a dSLR:  This option focuses on flexibility. The Leica M8 brings lightweight, easy to carry solution when a dSLR too heavy or more effort than benefit. The M8 is already performing this role and I am very happy with its results. The Leica M8 kit could be as simple as a 50mm Summilux ASPH, or it may be the same trio as above (Tri-Elmar + 50 Lux + 75 Lux or APO).
   

3. Mostly likely I would pick the 1Ds Mark III as the dSLR. The 5D Mark II is okay, but I am not crazy about it.  A used 1Ds Mark III costs about $2000 more than a 5D Mark II, and at this point I would rather have the 1Ds Mark III - mainly for the viewfinder which will directly impact my keeper ratio. The lens line-up would probably be a 24-105L IS, 70-200/4L IS and several Zeiss ZEs. Some problems here - such as the ZE lenses not existing yet (ie - 50mm F2 Makro-Planar, 100mm F2 Makro Planar and maybe the 18mm F3.5 Distagon). I also think the Leica Tri-Elmar may outperform the Canon 24-105L IS (more on this later).
   

Having owned the 1Ds Mark III and Canon 5D Mark II, I know the Canon dSLRs will not match medium format quality, but it may be the proverbial “good enough” quality level. With Canon there are infinite lens choices, Live View, universal file formats, great battery life, etc., etc. When it comes to flexibility and handling, Canon beats medium format very easily. The Nikon D3X is an option, but I have already tried the Nikon D300 and D700, and simply put - I am not a Nikonian. Option 2 will cost the same as option 1. In a nutshell, option 1 offers file quality and option 2 offers focal length range and flexibility out the ying-yang.

Since the M8 is part of both options, I have been focusing on the M8 piece for past 3 months. I am still trying to decide between some lenses and that mostly has to do with deciding how to allocate money, “should $2000 go towards a M lens, or should that $2000 go towards Canon zooms?” Option 1 and 2 also represent two different photographic styles. Option 1 is more about pre-planned and waiting for the decisive moment. Option 2 is more about shooting on the go, getting the shot and moving onto the next picture. Option 1 reflects how I behave when sitting at home. Option 2 is how things go when we are traveling. If money were unlimited I would own all three systems.

WHAT’S COMING NEXT

The Canon 5D Mark II has not been winning my heart. Part of the problem has been the lack of a good test lens. The Zeiss 50mm F1.4 Planar ZE arrived this week. Now I feel like the 5D Mark II and Leica M8 files can be compared more fairly. These types of comparisons are loaded with pitfalls, so these images are for my benefit and I am uploading them here because I know some people will find this amusing. During next couple weeks I plan to go through a series focal length comparisons. To start things off, here is a 50mm F5.6 comparison. These are full size JPEGs original shot as raw files; the Canon CR2 processed in DPP 3.6, the Leica DNG processed in C1 4.7. And since everybody is critic when when it comes to comparing images of varying pixel sizes and sensor pixel density, here are the JPEG files saved at the highest quality from Photoshop CS3. Be sure to use Photoshop or a colored managed application to view the files; the Canon JPEG is still in Adobe RGB1998:

1. •Canon JPEG File (10.6 MB)
   

2. •Leica JPEG File (6 MB)