Vincent Laforet calls Canon 5D II 'The Greatest Camera Ever Made'

[maash]

Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer Vincent Laforet was one of the first people to get his hands on the most coveted camera on the planet, Canon's 5D Mark II. He talked to us a bit about the breakneck stills-and-video shoot he put together in just a few hours to see what this camera can really do. You can catch a glimpse of the incredible results here and why Laforet says that it's the "best camera ever" that will "redefine the industry." Yes, what you're looking at are screencaps of the video from his site.

http://gizmodo.com/5052767/a-taste-of-the-...g-full-hd-video

[C++]

That is very, very impressive for night shots.

[MightyJordan]

:o WOW!!! Those pics look amazing!

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Those are stills from a video that was made using the camera. It's frickin' amazing!

[kazuyette]

Wow ! I'm impressed !!!

*Kazuyette prepares himself to rob some banks so he can buy this beast*

[crazzy88ss]

:o WOW!!! Those pics look amazing!

you can do those with a canon rebel. it's all about setting up the shot (posing, lighting, etc).

...not that the 5D isn't a great camera, I'm just saying.

[Ambroos]

One word emoticon:

:o

[sanctified Veteran]

Thats a bold overstatement :/

[instant.human]

read the article on gizmodo. really impressive...

i especially like this:

It's not the camera's still photography performance that Laforet says is a game-changer, as duly impressive as it is—he says it matches what your "natural eye in can see the worst light" which is "a big deal." It's the video, which he says—only half-jokingly—makes him "never want to shoot another still photo."

--

afterall you dont need a good camera for good photos, we all know that.

but in this case its especially that its a great dslr aswell as a HD camcorder. for around 2500$.

thats a great deal for, and i agree with gizmodo here, for indie film-makers, for example... especially because you can use canon lenses.

imagine a 15mm... and then shooting a video in HD...

and now imagine how much you would end up paying if you didnt have the 5d there. ;)

i see the overstatement there. but it sure does change the game a little.

imho.

[giga Veteran]

you can do those with a canon rebel. it's all about setting up the shot (posing, lighting, etc).

...not that the 5D isn't a great camera, I'm just saying.

Not quite, since they are video stills at iso 1600 and 3200.

[Andre]

Soon it will be Nikon D3x. Then Canon 6D. After that Nikon D4. Then another Canon... and so on.

[Ambroos]

Andre, you forgot Sony. They're starting to get in the line too..

[giga Veteran]

Sony's latest offering uses a non standard hotshoe and doesn't even show iso permanently in the VF. :hmmm:

[Simon Veteran]

Sony still has a lot of work to do to build their brand as a high quality DSLR maker. How long have Canon and Nikon been at it vs Sony?

[Rudy]

really nice shots!

[NeoXY]

If you read his entire post, the camera will seem more impressive.

He did all of this with virtually no crew, very little budget and 48 hours. Yes, you don't need a good camera to shoot great shots, but that requires planning, tweaking which translates to time and money. For someone who can just grab a camera, and shot and still get results like that, its gotta be worth something.

Although, he is a professional.

[random_n]

Those shots look like they were taken on 35mm film. :o

[o0moonman0o]

a good cam in a top pro's hands will turn out way more impressive than a good cam in an average person's hands, his lighting techniques have a lot to do with the quality of the video/photos. nonetheless the 5d2 looks great interms of image quality at 21mp but too bad the af on the thing is crippled just like original 5d.

oo forgot to add, having a cam that can do well at high iso is very important just like shooting in very dim wedding halls or receptions where iso 3200 is needed. however even if the cam can give u clean iso3200 shots u need a pretty good af to be able to af properly in those conditions, especially if u start using the off center points. so in order to shoot well in very low light u either need high iso + large aperture + good AF or u need high iso + large aperture + good MF.

[instant.human]

for low light, the camera still has to be made that beats a classic leica m6 + noctilux m 1:1/50. or, to be extreme, the new 1:0,95/50. yeah. period.

i mean... im just saying...

Edited September 21, 2008 by instant.human

[Prince Charming]

Throw some money around and slap the Canon EF 50mm F/1.0L on the front of the 5D MKII. Fairly sure you'd have a winner at light sensitivity.

[jcmulli]

Not quite, since they are video stills at iso 1600 and 3200.

lol thats awesome, there is virtualy no noise!

[BoJo]

I disagree with who-ever said that you could replicate these shots (i.e. at high ISO values) with a digital rebel :/ I agree that you can get really good shots with cheaper cameras, and that a good camera is not always going to get you a good shot, but low-light shooting is an area where the capabilities of the camera really matter.

Just my 2 cents.

[giga Veteran]

for low light, the camera still has to be made that beats a classic leica m6 + noctilux m 1:1/50. or, to be extreme, the new 1:0,95/50. yeah. period.

i mean... im just saying...

Compare iso 3200 film with the 5d II. Not even close. :p

You can slap on Canon's f/.95, f/1, or f/1.2 primes on there easily as said before me.

[instant.human]

Compare iso 3200 film with the 5d II. Not even close. :p

You can slap on Canon's f/.95, f/1, or f/1.2 primes on there easily as said before me.

maybe the 5dII will give you some less noisy pictures. but theres a difference between digital noise and film grain. :p

maybe im just a little conservative here but for low light/avalible light, there is nothing better than a grainy ilford b/w enlighted by a leica. :p

its about asthetics aswell! but thats something you cant argue about. ;)

plus im sorry because you cant compare the 5dII to a leica, not even the m8 because they are made for completely different target groups and purposes, as we all know. ;)

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

maybe the 5dII will give you some less noisy pictures. but theres a difference between digital noise and film grain. :p

maybe im just a little conservative here but for low light/avalible light, there is nothing better than a grainy ilford b/w enlighted by a leica. :p

its about asthetics aswell! but thats something you cant argue about. ;)

plus im sorry because you cant compare the 5dII to a leica, not even the m8 because they are made for completely different target groups and purposes, as we all know. ;)

It certainly will give you better pictures with less noise. Isn't that comparing it though? Sure, the cameras are geared toward different groups but you can still compare low light performance.