One of my favorite camera magazines, What Digital Camera, just published their 5D Mark II review in their February issue.I was surprised to see they posted it online as well:http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/digitalslr/886/1/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii.htmlThey gave it a 92% . The comparable Nikon D700 scored 95% back in October.Andy

VerdictTraditionally, Canon and Nikon's approach to the pro market was to have one model built for speed and one for cold, hard resolution, though the advent of highly-specified offshoots at a cheaper price point means that this concept isn't as defined as it used to be. Canon users may now have the resolution of the 1Ds Mark III in a smaller and much cheaper body, but it's clear that the similarities end there. Rather than being a straightforward derivative of its pro sibling, the 5D Mark II has its predecessor as its template, but with its 50D sibling as a strong influence. As such, the newer model may not be expected to perform to the same 'pro' standard as the 1Ds Mark III, and its specifications, to a degree, reflect this.For speed, responsiveness and high-sensitivity shooting (and at the moment, price, too), it's clear that Nikon's D700 still maintains a comfortable lead, and it's no surprise that many pros have defected that way. However, much as comparisons are drawn between the two, it's perhaps more sensible to look towards Sony's A900 as a direct competitor, whose spec sheet and price more closely resemble that of the 5D Mark II. Both these models are suited to their applications almost equally, though Canon's extensive support system is something that will no doubt swing the ball very much in Canon's favour - particularly for the professional.On the issue of movie recording I remain enthusiastic, and I completely side with Canon on having included it in the 5D Mark II. After all, the 5D Mark II isn't designed necessarily for the average person with £2000 burning a hole in their pocket, but for the professional who is likely to call upon it as required. A photojournalist or wedding photographer with the ability to record video - even if compromised by a number of limitations - is without question a much greater asset than one who cannot. Purists will argue otherwise but no-one's under any obligation to use it, and its future development could potentially lead to benefits outside of its use, such as with advances in sensor cooling.Perhaps critically, we not only get the best EOS image quality yet, but at less than half the price of the existing 1Ds Mark III. Nikon and Sony are hardly taking this lying down, but they certainly have a fight on their hands, because in our estimation the EOS 5D Mark II is, all things considered, probably the best ever Canon DSLR.Reviewer: Matt Golowczynski

Ravitej Khalsawrote:Verdict... the newer model may not be expected to perform to the same 'pro' standard as the 1Ds Mark III, and its specifications, to a degree, reflect this.snipPerhaps critically, we not only get the best EOS image quality yet, but at less than half the price of the existing 1Ds Mark III.snipin our estimation the EOS 5D Mark II is, all things considered, probably the best ever Canon DSLR.So the review claims that the 5D Mark II specifications reflect that it will not perform to the same standard as the 1Ds Mark III, and the 5D Mark II has the best EOS image quality and is probably the best ever Canon DSLR?Am I the only one who sees a contradiction in this review?

For speed, responsiveness and high-sensitivity shooting (and at the moment, price, too), it's clear that Nikon's D700 still maintains a comfortable lead,I should hope so - it has almost HALF the number of pixels on the same size sensor - they failed also to mention that the 5D Mk1 has the same High ISO advantage (in RAW) as the D700

I don't see it as a contradiction as the reviewer was referring to the other Pro specs of the 1DS3, not just the image quality of the 2 camera'sTrevor

Adam, if you are correct (& i'm not saying you are or are not), that the 5d mk1 has same hi-iso capability as d700, then as i believe that the 5d mk2 has been reported as better than the mk1 in this aspect then it would follow that mk2 is better than D700 for hi iso.....& i am not so sure that is the case. Is it? So which assumption is inaccurate?

Andy Klafterwrote:One of my favorite camera magazines, What Digital Camera, just published their 5D Mark II review in their February issue.I was surprised to see they posted it online as well:http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/digitalslr/886/1/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii.htmlThey gave it a 92% . The comparable Nikon D700 scored 95% back in October.AndyAfter reading What Hi-Fi, I have trouble taking a similarly named magazine seriously. Do they have the same publisher?

Andy Klafterwrote:One of my favorite camera magazines, What Digital Camera, just published their 5D Mark II review in their February issue.I was surprised to see they posted it online as well:http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/digitalslr/886/1/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii.htmlThey gave it a 92% . The comparable Nikon D700 scored 95% back in October.AndyThe games have changed since October (or September when the review was done) because at the time D700 with 12 MP was at a higher standing than it is now. If D700 was reviewed now the same time as 5DMk2 it would have scored well below the Canon.

Andy Klafterwrote:One of my favorite camera magazines, What Digital Camera, just published their 5D Mark II review in their February issue.I was surprised to see they posted it online as well:http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/digitalslr/886/1/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii.htmlThey gave it a 92% . The comparable Nikon D700 scored 95% back in October.AndyInterestingly enough, the 5D was given 91%--although this kind of numerical rating provides a spurious accuracy.Bob

Taikonautwrote:The games have changed since October (or September when the review was done) because at the time D700 with 12 MP was at a higher standing than it is now. If D700 was reviewed now the same time as 5DMk2 it would have scored well below the Canon.You're absolutely right.If the sole criteria for a score is MP count. We all know that's not the case.So, let's look at how the 92% is arrived at:Design 18/20 Feature 19/20 Image Quality 19/20 Performance 18/20 Value 18/20In which of these areas does the D700 score 'well below' the Canon then? --'All the technique in the world doesn’t compensate for the inability to notice.' - ElliottErwitt | 'It's no good saying 'hold it' to a moment in real life.' - Lord Snowdon

Ravitej Khalsawrote:Perhaps critically, we not only get the best EOS image quality yet, but at less than half the price of the existing 1Ds Mark III. Nikon and Sony are hardly taking this lying down, but they certainly have a fight on their hands, because in our estimation the EOS 5D Mark II is, all things considered, probably the best ever Canon DSLR.Reviewer: Matt GolowczynskiCan someone point to a RAW comparative of the 5DII & 1DsIII that demonstrates this "best ever" image quality?-evan

Robert Deutschwrote:Andy Klafterwrote:One of my favorite camera magazines, What Digital Camera, just published their 5D Mark II review in their February issue.I was surprised to see they posted it online as well:http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equipment/digitalslr/886/1/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii.htmlThey gave it a 92% . The comparable Nikon D700 scored 95% back in October.AndyInterestingly enough, the 5D was given 91%--although this kind of numerical rating provides a spurious accuracy.BobI agree, especially since reviewers only base the numbers on the competition and technology that exists at that time of the review. Phil gave top numbers to cameras years ago that wouldn't even rate compared to what's available now.Sal

If Canon had made a better low-light performer in our 5D II, I think it would have scored closer to the Nikon's. Drop some megapixels, noise, and banding... and Canon would have had a winner!

Too much looking at pixels on screen. Not enough printing. In print, I'll take the 5DII at any comparable ISO. -- --The artist formerly known as The Krakkenhttp://www.mdholmesphotography.com(work in progress)

One of teh cons this review states is 25600ISO unusable.I would dispute that highly.http://pix.ie/punkrock/812236I don't know how to embed pictures on this site, everyother site yes but for some reason here no!

NOEvan Effawrote:Can someone point to a RAW comparative of the 5DII & 1DsIII that demonstrates this "best ever" image quality?-evan