Talk:Canon EOS 5D Mark II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Photography (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Photography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Brands (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


The EOS 5D MKII and original EOS 5D share the same autofocus system Canon EOS 5D MarkII preview by

Sample Video from a Pre-Release Camera[edit]

Vincent Laforet recently made news by showing a video he shot over a weekend with a prerelease version of this camera. Links here: and a behind the scenese video of the shoot here:

The video was done without any post-processing and so is a good example of the new video features. Would it make sense to include this information in some way? Ryan Guill (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I was asking myself the same thing. I think it does and according to Laforet his blog had more than 500,000 visitors.
Here are some more impressions regarding the video capabilities (including some samples): Rror (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If you plan on citing it as a source, no. A blog is not considered a reliable source. However, an external link may be considered okay, but that's often frowned upon. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Full HD[edit]

This article states "Full HD". To me, that means 1080p, but this camera does 1080i.[1] Do others agree that this point should be clarified? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Full HD" is Canon's wording according to the feature listing: "The EOS 5D Mark II is the first digital EOS to offer recording of Full HD video in Live View Mode. Capable of shooting clips almost half an hour long at full 1080 resolution, the EOS 5D Mark II does amazing double duty, making it possible to shoot broadcast quality video on your camera by simply changing settings. The advantages move way beyond the ability to shoot on your SLR - the wealth of high-speed lenses and shooting accessories that make EOS photography so remarkable can be used in shooting video. Where interchangeable lens video cameras cost thousands of dollars, with the EOS 5D Mark II their operation, including HDMI output, is simply an added bonus to a remarkable camera. " Jauerbackdude?/dude. 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
If you look at [2] now, you will find:
"Update: When this brief review was first written in early September I was under the impression that the 5D MKII shot 1080i video. Since I left for a shoot in Africa just a day or so later it was not until I returned on Sept 22 that I discovered that in fact it shoots 1080P. All the better. The article below has now been corrected. I apologize to those that read this during the first few hours that it was online for the incorrect information." Rror (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What is the frame rate?[edit]

I looked up the sites, but don't see a reference to this. Does this camera take 60 frames per second in HD? Or just 30? With 1080i you can usually assume that their are 60 images on 30 frames, but 1080p could be either way. Algr (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Based on the rolling shutter samples, it is pretty clearly 30 fps. If it were taking 60i and generating 30 progressive frames from them, the edges would have a comb pattern rather than the focal-plane shutter-like distortion. -- Autopilot (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Weather Proof?[edit]

In laymans terms, is this camera waterproof to the extent that the Canon 1D series is? I've read the DP review article but I can't tell... - Normal Phobic —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer: NO. It looks like the 5D Mk II has only water resistance, it's not waterproof. If you look at the images on DPR, the 5D Mk II uses molded pieces of rubber around its buttons. The 1D series used O Rings, a lot of them, for each and every button. This means that even when a button is pressed it is sealed. The same cannot be said for molded rubber, it is not "pressed" to form a seal, so pressing a button can negate the seal(make a gap). It should prevent a small amount of water from getting in, but I would not use it in a hurricane. Nebrot (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Black Spots in long exposure images[edit]

On many photography forums there have been threads following a problem with many 5D Mark II units: In long exposures at high ISO sensitivities, high-contrast edges on the right sides of blown highlights are turned black. Are there any more reputable sources confirming this? CarVac (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it. But if there is a firmware update/or recall, that can be used as a reference. Honestly, this issue looks to be factual, but without more information, and as you say "reputable source", nothing should be written about that. Though I don't think it will be too long before we do get something from canon. Nebrot (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a few photo magazines like Popular Photography have noted about this problem. Photo review sites like Cameralabs have also noted this happening. Frankyboy5 (talk) 02:55, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Back panel picture[edit]

Could somebody add a picture of the back panel? I feel it would be more useful than the "Body detail" picture at the bottom. --Thenickdude (talk) 01:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll take one later. --Elliot Li (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2009 (UTC)


Apparently the upcoming House Season finale was shot using this - —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This definitely seems more significant than the fact that it was once used to take a politician's picture (first paragraph). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

MPEG-4 licensing[edit]

I've removed the section on licensing of MPEG4 patents since it isn't relevant to the users of the camera. Even the Final Cut Pro license includes the same boilerplate about "not for commerical use". CNET sought legal advice on the topic and found:

For somebody supplying footage to a movie studio, for example, H.264 licensing requirements don't enter into the calculation until the last step in the production chain--broadcast of the movie or replication of its disc, Harkness said. An H.264 license would be needed, though, for a band making and selling its own concert video disc, he said.

"Whoever is the seller of AVC video to the end user is the party who needs to take a license," he said.

The camera used to generate the data does not matter; only the final sale of the MPEG4 encoded product to the end user requires the license. -- Autopilot (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Further: Original research: I spoke with Ryan Rodriguez, with MPEG-LA regarding this idea. (301) 986-6660 I was assured that mere use of H246 and MPEG-4 in the generation of content is not liable for the royalty. The issue is for the distribution of material compressed using their systems. Theoretically the party responsible is the end user, the (commercial) distributor who (again) uses the compression as a means of putting the video onto a DVD, or in a form usable on the internet. The party distributing single copies, or even small numbers of copies are not subject to this royalty--the provisions kick in as the number of copies distributed increases. The details of all of this is best explained through this website.Trackinfo (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Expanding the critisism section[edit]

I wonder if it would be ok to add something in the critisism section about the lack of GPS and the lack of ways to add GPS data to the pictures using the WFT-E4 II wifi adapter. --Opspin (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's not original research, you have reliable sources, and it isn't expanded too much, it should probably be fine. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:07, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
This page and similar 'product profile' pages like this could do with some discussion of the product - this entry reads like an advert for the camera, not an 'encyclopaedic' treatment of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

In reference to Video recording section[edit]

In regard to the "Sensory Perception" paragraph: It is lacking cited references, seems to be a blatant plug for a movie and director, and is located in the article twice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur and removed it citing WP:EL, WP:LINKSPAM and likely WP:COI#Self-promotion, too. The rest of the claims in the section seem fairly well founded and cited, so I would argue that the infobox can be removed. -- Autopilot (talk) 08:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree whole heartedly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
I've removed the link again. User:Canon777 -- please read WP:COI#Self-promotion and feel free to discuss the merits for including a link to your film here on the talk page; there are several films that claim to be the "first DSLR feature", so what makes yours notable? -- please read WP:DONTBITE. Otherwise we're up against WP:3RR. -- Autopilot (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, still figuring out wikipedia. So the first time I entered the paragraph, I didn't mean to do it twice. Noticed it was gone, and entered it in again. And if you actually read our paragraph, we're not claiming to be the first DSLR feature, we're claiming to be the first DSLR feature that used Canon lenses. This was verified by IMDB, which actually has a process of evaluating these claims. As far as the directors name - thats fine, not a big deal to leave that out. But Sensory Perception WILL be linked to the Mark 2 forever, whether wikipedia "editors", that have nothing better to do, like it or not. Also, I don't appreciate people who anonymously make rude comments in responding. At least have the stones to give a name. No one will hurt you. Also, didn't know you couldn't externally link to wikipedia, that seems kind of counterintuitive to spread info. Like it or not,, it is a FACT that SP is the first 5D feature shot with Canon lenses. Leave out the directors name, leave out any external links, a fact is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon777 (talkcontribs) 00:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear some things up with this blown out of proportion issue... I never expressed an issue with the film being mentioned within the article and I only removed, the exact same mention after it was removed once already due to the issues, as noted. Rest assured Mr. Canon my referencing IP is a more reliable identification than a name and I see no logical reason why it would matter what it was, what gender I am, or even what religion I practice. I have never heard of you or your little movie, nor do I plan to look any further than it's title in the future. Rest assured that you are blowing your top over something you could have easy just fixed and it would have been left in the article. Please refer to Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples where it states "Trivia on sites such as IMDb or FunTrivia should not be used as sources. These media do not have adequate levels of editorial oversight or author credibility and lack assured persistence." The Trivia and Goofs sections of IMDb are all user submitted. I'm fairly certain that I could add to the trivia section on the Sensory Prosecution IMDb page with trivia that I made up, or is impossible to verify. (talk) 13:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC), considering that you are someone I know (no coincidence your IP is out of New Britain area), there's definitely an element of cowardice involved, especially when you keep throwing small minded jabs my way. So keep hiding behind your IP, thats fine, I've already stated what I'm doing below and am NOT looking for your approval on anything. Thanks for hating. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canon777 (talkcontribs) 15:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Haha, you really need to get over yourself. I'm done arguing. I've stated what I intend to do and that's all. (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I read some of the links Autopilot mentioned. Didn't realize how involved wikipedia is, I'm actually pretty impressed how it works. Anyway, I'd like to work with Autopilot to post the paragraph, being that it is a conflict of self interest, and after reading more, realizing the neutrality principle. But this camera is intertwined with independent filmmaking, and it needs to be noted the first films to lead the way. I have no problem listing 3 more films that "claim" to be the first DSLR feature. I have no problem listing their directors, too. It's an encyclopedia, and a special one, because the volume of information that it can contain is virtually limitless, so there's no need to omit details, no matter how much you may think they are just little pieces of sand. It is an encyclopedia. Autopilot, I will repost the paragraph tommorrow, in a much less biased fashion. Canon777 (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

List cruft in independent film section[edit]

There is a bunch of WP:LISTCRUFT that needs to be cleaned up in the independent film section. It seems to be attracting self promotion links for every project using the 5Dm2. I propose removing all of them that don't have reliable sources and adding a comment to warn against more entries. --Autopilot (talk) 15:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Video Production[edit]

Can someone help clear up, or revise the section on Video Functionality?

"The 5D has been used for video production, with two exceptions—Sensory Perception and A Beautiful Belly"

I'm not sure why they say these are two exceptions. They appear to be examples, not exceptions, unless the meaning of "video productions" does not include feature films. Does anyone understand the meaning of this sentence? Thanks. Mateck (talk) 19:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed. As it wasn't clear what it meant, and wouldn't have added anything much to the article even if it was, it seemed reasonable to remove it. PRL42 (talk) 09:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it also seem reasonable to delete the phrase that starts the whole section "In March 2010, Canon released firmware version 2.0.4 for the 5D Mark II, adding 24p framerate and manual audio recording"? It was already mentioned earlier in the article. Further, it was probably there as an introduction to the feature films "Sensory Perception and A Beautiful Belly", which were probably shot in 24p, which PRL42 has now deleted.

Also, is it not notable that these two feature films were recorded with this camera? If the television shows are notable, it would seem like the feature films would be more so. Mateck (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Independent Film - we need a consensus on examples[edit]

People are still adding random films to this section. Whilst I suppose it's notable that people have started using DSLR's for producing films it seems wholly unnecessary to have a long list of them. I would have thought maybe four examples: First partial and first full use for each of TV and film. Can we get a consensus for this? PRL42 (talk) 16:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The Movie Frances Ha in it's extra "Interpreting Reality" discusses its use of the Canon 5Dmk2 & 7D with L series lenses. It also discusses how they processed the colour video to make their Black and White movie.

It therefore may be notable to add this movie, because the DVD has this extra discussing the camera and techniques between the director & cinematographers. (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)Henri

File:Canon EOS 5D Mark II with 50mm 1.4 edit1.jpg to appear as POTD[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Canon EOS 5D Mark II with 50mm 1.4 edit1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 10, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-02-10. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Canon EOS 5D Mark II
A Canon EOS 5D Mark II camera, pictured here with an EF 50mm f/1.4 USM lens. The Mark II, released in 2008 and discontinued in 2012, was the first DSLR to feature 1080p video recording. It has been used to shoot several television series and films.Photograph: Charles Lanteigne; Edit: Jjron

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Canon EOS 5D Mark II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)