ent2b wrote:
...imagine, i see where i want to shoot, and my eye gets to the corresponding box in about 100-120milliseconds and let's say (i'm guessing here) it takes another 100milliseconds for the ECF to engage my target. i have successful focal point selection in less than quarter of a second if not [most likely] faster.
Specs look great, its a shame Canon bodies still look like they have down syndrome or something. I'll probably still have to buy one anyways.. Canon is now the only company producing a full frame digital for F-Mount!!! Ironic isn't it?
Who cares though, will take brilliant pictures with my Nikkor glass.
Dr D wrote:
Still not worth the extra $2500 over a 20D or $1000 over a 1DII. To be honest, this new "tweener" makes getting a 1DII or used 1Ds much more value for money.
And I disagree regarding Canon's wide angles. I have no problems with them (other than they don't have a decent EF mount wide suitable for a 1DII) and they are well built with good image quality. That said, I'm a hobbyist and what I demand from my lenses is very little. I notice you're shooting with a 'blad, so it's no wonder you feel the Canon wide angles are rubbish in comparison ...Show more →
I'll take a 1DII over the EOS 5D any day of the year.........
foto-z wrote:
FF means:
- larger viewfinder, which is essential for manual focussing or just supervising Canon's special 'hit and miss' autofocus
- wider FOV using the same lenses. Canon has great telephoto lenses but their wide angles are woeful. Having a crop factor just makes it worse.
- less noise (compared to undersized sensor with same number of pixels)
lordarka wrote:
We routinely print gorgeous 12x18 and 20x30 files for clients from existing 8MP cameras that many in this thread consider to be inadequate for professional needs. My business associate brings in six-figure revenue with such cameras, and generates great work to boot!
Arka C.
Horses for courses mate. The quality from an 8mp camera is not good enough for me, that doesn't mean I'm crazy for needing 12mp just because you don't. I'm obviously just fussier than your customers and just about bear an A3 print from my 20D that my friends would ooh and ahhh over. I know photo journalists still happily working with 4mp cameras. Each person has to assess their own needs withouth being subject to the holier than thou attitude from some on this site, you know the ones... "it's about the photography not the equipment", or "I'm still happily using a 2mp P&S and blowing them up to 300 ft square and making millions from it." Give me a break!
Dr D wrote:
Can't say that I'm impressed. Similar hit & miss AF of the 20D but with a full frame sensor. Not worth spending the extra money on a bigger sensor when the AF is rubbish as I'd rather have a 1.6x crop camera with terrific AF performance, than a FF camera with rubbish AF performance. Prediction - within a week of the 5D hitting the shelves, the same people now saying how great it is that an "affordable" FF camera is within the budgets of most people, will be complaining as to why their $4000 camera can't produce a correctly focused image....Show more →
Not only do we have people buying a non-existent camera or possibly a not-yet existent camera based on a rumor, but they have already tested it and condemned it.
Dr D wrote:
While I'm on the topic, the next 1 series camera won't be called the 1D Mark II N. Think about it - there is NO camera out there called the 1Dn, so why would there be a Mark II version? That said, I'd be interested in the specs of the camera, even though I've got no chance to afford one.
In the same "advertising" that convinces the user of the supposed existence and worthlessness of a non-existent or not-yet existent camera, the user rejects the evidence of another non-existent or not-yet exitstent camera as non-existent.
Either the "advertising" is real or it isn't. Since it mentions 5D and 1DIIN either both are real or not. Which is it?
this is obviously canon's baby 1ds mk2, just as the 300d was the baby 10d, just as the 20d was the baby 1d mk2. and the 350d was a miniature clone of the 20d
canon will find it hard to sell this baby. as soon as i got wind that this was the new "big deal" i went out and got me a new 1d mk2 at a knock down price. megapixels are not everything and neither is ff. i doubt nikon are ever going to be bothered to make a ff. the files from the d2x look just as good if not better than the 1ds mk2. canon have already addressed the w/a "problem" with an efs 10-22mm. i really can't see who's going to buy this. pro's will go for the 1ds mk2 if they want max resolution or 1d mk2 for the best compromise of speed v res. i doubt many amateurs would want ff at 1.5x the cost of a 1d mk2.
normski wrote:
canon will find it hard to sell this baby. as soon as i got wind that this was the new "big deal" i went out and got me a new 1d mk2 at a knock down price. megapixels are not everything and neither is ff. i doubt nikon are ever going to be bothered to make a ff. the files from the d2x look just as good if not better than the 1ds mk2. canon have already addressed the w/a "problem" with an efs 10-22mm. i really can't see who's going to buy this. pro's will go for the 1ds mk2 if they want max resolution or 1d mk2 for the best compromise of speed v res. i doubt many amateurs would want ff at 1.5x the cost of a 1d mk2....Show more →
Two points here. First the statement "the files from the d2x look just as good if not better than the 1ds mk2". If you use the same number of pixels to represent the same subject in both shots then the results are similar, but only at lower ISO levels and the 1DsII can capture about 10-12% more detail. I'm fairly confident that IF the 5D specs are true it will be 1 to 2 stops better in terms of noise levels.
Secondly "i really can't see who's going to buy this.". Take a look on eBay at the number of people who are prepared to fork out £2200-£2500 for a used 1Ds mark 1. Something with lower noise, better DR and resolution than a 1Ds for the same kind of money as a used 1Ds? You bet there's a market!
Excuse me guys. There will be 2 cameras announced. One's to complement the 1D Mark 2, and the other will be the in between the 20D and the 1D mark 2. Or should I say one's just to complement the 20D in a better way.
normski wrote:
canon will find it hard to sell this baby. as soon as i got wind that this was the new "big deal" i went out and got me a new 1d mk2 at a knock down price. megapixels are not everything and neither is ff. i doubt nikon are ever going to be bothered to make a ff. the files from the d2x look just as good if not better than the 1ds mk2. canon have already addressed the w/a "problem" with an efs 10-22mm. i really can't see who's going to buy this. pro's will go for the 1ds mk2 if they want max resolution or 1d mk2 for the best compromise of speed v res. i doubt many amateurs would want ff at 1.5x the cost of a 1d mk2....Show more →
The 10-22 didn't solve anything for many folks pining for FF. That lens is ostensibly a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8, but they forgot a few things:
A) f/2.8
B) The fact that even if they made it f/2.8 it would still have the DoF of an f/5
C) L build quality
D) Weather sealing
There is no replacement for a bigger sensor for some work - portraiture in particular - so there will always be people who know that nothing else will do.
normski wrote:
The 10-22 didn't solve anything for many folks pining for FF. That lens is ostensibly a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8, but they forgot a few things:
A) f/2.8
B) The fact that even if they made it f/2.8 it would still have the DoF of an f/5
C) L build quality
D) Weather sealing
Let me disagree about the 10-22. I extensively used the 16-35 2.8 in the past and I find the 10-22 to be a better (and cheaper) lens in certain respects. Large apertures as well as DoF do not really matter if you go for these kinds of lenses, plus I don't find the built quality of the 10-22 to be inferior to the 16-35.
I want to sell 30x40 family portraits. To do that, I need more enlargeability than either the 20D or 1D MK II provides.
I already know that the 1Ds Mk II can do it. I have some interest in the Mamiya ZD and the Pentax 645D, but those are still vaporware at this point. If this 5D turns out to be a real thing and if it can make the grade at 30x40, then it will be what I need. The specs of this "leak" appear to point to a good portrait camera--and neatly fills the space left by Kodak's bailing out of the 24x36mm camera business.
Inasmuch as this 5D (if real) has a Digic II sensor, I kind of wonder if this isn't the result of a crash project on Canon's part just to fill that space--otherwise I wouldn't expect them to reuse Digic II technology in a new upper-level camera.
I've already said on this forum that I don't think they'd reuse old tech, nor did I think they would revert to a less spec (13mp 24x36mm) than they've otherwise achieved. If this 5D is a real thing, then my hypothesis is wrong, but I'm willing to eat the crow raw and salt it with a 5D purchase.
Sam Bennett wrote:
The 10-22 didn't solve anything for many folks pining for FF. That lens is ostensibly a replacement for the 16-35 f/2.8, but they forgot a few things:
A) f/2.8
B) The fact that even if they made it f/2.8 it would still have the DoF of an f/5
C) L build quality
D) Weather sealing
There is no replacement for a bigger sensor for some work - portraiture in particular - so there will always be people who know that nothing else will do.
Many pros do very nicely with less than full frame and less than 8 Mpixel for portraits because pin sharpness is often not very flattering.
A little logic here: Canon knows its markets.
The "Build quality", that most overused phrase, is just fine. It is a well built lens. So called L build quality is not wanted by the market for this lens. The lens will last a long time. There is a, say for the sake of argument, one percent chance that in the lifetime of ownership by a user of the lens that it would break while an L quality lens would not. So, it might be worth adding one percent to the cost of the lens to achieve that. It can't be done. Now for a pro, the cost of failure on the job is higher. But if you are a pro doing rugged work where that might be an issue, then you are using expensive 1-series cameras anyway and you wouldn't be buying EF-S lenses. Similar logic applies to weather sealing.
The 10-22mm is a great lens for the 20D market, including many pros using it for lots of purposes, but most especially for advanced amateurs. Canon knows its markets.
Monito wrote:
Many pros do very nicely with less than full frame and less than 8 Mpixel for portraits because pin sharpness is often not very flattering.
Umm... so? Care to address my point about maximum aperture and DoF?
Monito wrote:
The "Build quality", that most overused phrase, is just fine. It is a well built lens. So called L build quality is not wanted by the market for this lens. The lens will last a long time.
Except for it flexing in the middle, of course. And the fact that it's not weather sealed. Look, pros buy weather sealed zooms for a reason. My point is that the 10-22 address the 16mm equivalent focal length, and that's it. You cannot write-off people wanting FF simply because all the focal lengths can be reproduced with other lenses - it's a small part of what goes into the decision to buy a lens.
The 10-22mm is a great lens for the 20D market, including many pros using it for lots of purposes, but most especially for advanced amateurs. Canon knows its markets.
timmyquest wrote:
I simply dont believe that is true, my 4mp 1D does a damn good job at it. Not to say 12.8 mp wouldnt help but you sure as heck dont "need" it.
I couldn't agree more. The pro photographer who was supposed to photograph a country club's swim team didn't show up for some unknown reason. I had the privilege of taking over on just a few minutes notice. I brought my 1D and EF 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, cranked it down to f/16 at ISO500 and WOW!!! Sharp, sharp, sharp . The 1D, IMO, is the best 4MP cam ever made, and even when I pick up a new body (1D Mark II, 20D, or possibly one of the "two" new models being talked about), the 1D and I won't be parting .
