5DMk2: 21.1 MP, 1080p movies, 3.9 fps, up to ISO 25600. Hard drives not incl.

I'm gonna guess you are manual reading while waiting for the batteries to charge and pacing in ADD frustration.

 

Awesome news Tim, hope you are happy with it. I look forward to someday owning a full-frame, but I'm happy with mine (for now).

 

so does it hurt, holding those ankles in that bent over by adobe/assume the position posture??

 

ouch!

 

Well folks, I have some bad news with regards to the Mk II. No, not about the black dots or the banded noise...

By all accounts they've artificially restricted the movie shooting functionality to using the equivalent of the green box mode only. You can be in live view mode with manually set exposure settings, and the moment you push the button to start shooting a movie it'll ignore your chosen settings and pick its own.

If your primary interest is in the Mk II as a still camera then perhaps this doesn't matter, but the reason I was so excited about it was the prospect of having a video camera (not even about the 1080P spec) that would give me full control over the exposure settings. Canon has a site up promoting this very thing, waxing poetic about the creative potential that comes from the narrow depths of field that are possible with a DSLR and a fast lens.

Yet in another area of their site they mention that movie mode automatically picks its own exposure settings.

That's bordering on deceptive marketing to me. They have a demo video they're showing off that shows a lot of narrow depth of field scenes, what they don't tell you is the reason that the shooter got those DOFs was that he shot the whole video at night, using very fast lenses. The camera was basically forced to use the lenses wide open. Had the videos been shot during the day the depths of field would have been a lot wider.


I'm very unhappy about this, yet I'm still thinking of getting one. I'm ticked off at Canon for intentionally limiting the movie shooting mode to protect the market for their expensive video cameras (their standard definition camera with removable lenses costs about the same as the Mk II), yes. But... desperate users are finding ways around this limitation, ranging from the desperate act of partially unlocking and rotating the lens so that the electrical contacts are broken and the lens effectively becomes a manual focus, fixed aperture lens to various tricks like taking a picture while shooting video, supposedly that overrides the aperture setting. There was one elaborate trick that involved going into exposure preview mode and doing various things that should supposedly force the camera to use more or less the ISO and aperture you picked.

In the end the Mk II still looks to be a quite capable camera. I've seen grumblings in some other forums, some are unhappy about the noise levels, they feel it's not enough of an advancement to justify purchasing a new body, but from what I've seen it should still meet my needs, it gives me the same pixel pitch as my 30D (EXACTLY the same pixel pitch) yet with lower noise levels thanks to the microlenses, I don't exactly need 21 megapixels but the option of shooting either full resolution to get maximum possible crop capability from the pictures or lower resolution RAW files to get wider images without spending 25-30 megabytes or above per shot still appeals to me. Despite the asinine restrictions placed on the camera by Canon it still promises to be an impressive convergence device that achieves in one package what can't be had separately for near the same cost.

In a way we Americans got lucky. The camera shoots 30 FPS video only. This is a hassle for European users, because their PAL video standard uses 25 frames per second. So while US photojournalists can use the camera to shoot video when they need to it's not that easy for Europeans, from what I've read 30fps video converted to 25 can look kind if nasty.

It supports the predictions that I've seen made that there are a whole new generation of video capable DSLRs on the horizon. The D90 and the Mk II were just the beginning.

 

ok i'm going to climb up, way up, towards the top of my cranky old man soapbox here
i can't stress enough how annoyed i am at canon for even going down this path
i have no interest now, never did and never will in a camera that does both functions, if i want video i'll bring the video camera
i do not want to pay 1 extra penny for a function i will never use, nor do i want further technical development of the full frame prosumer body to lag behind or suffer because all the money and attention are now in the video feature, i am most afraid of my choices in body upgrade down the timeline ending up being either an aps sensor, or the really expensive 1ds pro body only and nothing in between
tim you'll appreciate this, unlike vinnie bagadonuts, i'm not looking for 1 body to be all things to all men
thank you for listening to all things considered and most found annoying here on not so public radio

 

Well said that man!