Canon 5DII rumors thread

Moderated by: guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Canon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums | Canon-mount SLRs | Join Image Upload

1 2 3 … 33

35 … 126 127 end

Archive 2008 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

ShaneEngelking
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #1 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

Pixel Perfect wrote:
digitalbug30d wrote:
Canon is the Toyota DSLRs

That's so rude it's not funny. Toyotas have no redeeming features whatsoever, they are the last bastion of those that cannot drive.

What, longevity, reliability, great gas mileage, and reasonable prices are not good features?

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:18 PM

Beni
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.34 #2 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

gazzajagman wrote:
Beni wrote:
To James:

If you really believe that the 5D mkII will have a 100% VF then I'll concede you your point, fact is it won't anyway as we know....

It's all immaterial anyway, the reason why the Nikon on board unit can justify itself, and IMO very well, is that it's a wireless master, the day canon gives that kind of functionality to an on board instead of requiring you to buy a 580ex is the day the 5D mkII will be able to compete in any way with the D700 on anything but pure megapixels.

Actually, it's the D700 that's competeing with the Canon 5D, not the other way around. The D700 is still very new to the market and doesn't seem to be selling as well as Nikon hoped.
So are you saying that the D700 is better because it has a newer spec list (eg live view) and a built in wireless master? Or maybe it's the addion of the pop up flash?
From my observations of the D700, the 5D at lower iso values (say sub 400) is sharper and clearer than the either the D3 and D700. At the moment, the Canon 5D is the better camera for pure IQ. The 5DII is rumoured to have a weaker AA filter, so that would hint at it being even better in terms of clarity and sharpness.

Regards,

Gareth Cooper

You proved my point, canon only bother to compete on megapixels. A 4X5 will blow my 5D out of the water for IQ but I still won't shoot a wedding with it. There gets to a point where you have enough megapixels and are fed up compromising with a camera that only allows you to actualise that IQ under good-perfect conditions but not under the trying conditions that the features of the Nikon's will allow. I shot two weddings in the rain last week. During the second some water got into the lens contacts and the lens stopped communicating until I gave it a thorough clean. 12 Megapixels is enough quality. I'm fed up of shooting with my coat over my cameras and not over myself, fed up of only one useable focus point and fast lens focusing with f2.8 or faster lenses only in low light at a price point that I should not have to compromise at, given the features offered by the competition at a quality that is perfectly sufficient and without needing to buy the top tier camera system. At present what is tying me to canon is the 17-40L, 70-200f4L IS and the 85mm 1.8 USM lens. That's it.

Edited by Beni on Sep 06, 2008 at 06:22 PM GMT

Edited on Sep 06, 2008 at 06:22 PM

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:19 PM

ShaneEngelking
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #3 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

roger coen wrote:
WOW!

30+ pages on a camera..........that is not even here yet.

ONE thing is sure, "Old" 5D's are going to be $800 paper weights.

Edited by roger coen on Sep 05, 2008 at 03:02 PM GMT

LMK when you have one of those $800 paper weights for sale, OK?

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:22 PM

alvit
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.34 #4 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

Beni...At present what is tying me to canon is the 17-40L, 70-200f4L IS and the 85mm 1.8 USM lens. That's it.

On a 1.6 or a FF ?

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:23 PM

aero145
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.34 #5 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

bobbytan wrote:
And that is the reason why Japanese cars sell better than German cars .... because you get a lot of extra features at no cost. Nikon has gone that route with their D700 and I expect Canon to follow suit .... if they want to remain competitive and reclaim the market share they once had.

On average, Toyota have sold ca. 752400 Corollas a year, since production started in 1966.
On average, VW have sold ca. 735300 Golfs a year, since production started in 1974.

The difference is ca. 17.100 cars.

The cheapest version of Toyota Auris (1.4 petrol) (Toyota hatchback in Europe) costs at Toyota DE 16,180 €.
VW New-Golf costs with a 1.4 petrol 16,500 €. The difference is 320 €.

I wouldn’t be surprised the Auris would come with more additional equipment, but after five years, I think the VW will be worth more.

Personally, I find it more comfy to be in a Golf than in a Corolla/Auris, on the roads.

I may be wrong, but I prefer Volkswagens!

Tschüss,
David

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:28 PM

mfurman
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.34 #6 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

I think that it is again becoming obvious that the needs of professionals (who have to get a picture) and hobbyists (who go for quality and fun) are different. The emotional connection to the equipment and taking pictures (for the fun of it) is different too. Like it or not, in any hobby the emphasis is not on practical aspects of the activity. I use completely different computers at work and for fun. Even a case for my fun computer matters and costs a lot more.

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:32 PM

dcmiller
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #7 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

Beni wrote:
.....................
You proved my point, canon only bother to compete on megapixels. A 4X5 will blow my 5D out of the water for IQ but I still won't shoot a wedding with it. There gets to a point where you have enough megapixels and are fed up compromising with a camera that only allows you to actualise that IQ under good-perfect conditions but not under the trying conditions that the features of the Nikon's will allow. ....................

Without question there are price/performance benefits to Nikon that make the brand a better choice for some shooters. That's how they hope to regain market share. We are seeing the beginning of Canon's response with the 50D. But unless Canon's market share is eroding rapidly on the high end, Canon's going to avoid competing on price as much as possible.

Canon has the 1dIII for you. That is their answer. You may not like that answer, but there it is. The 1DIII makes enlargements at least as good as the 5D.

As you probably know there are very high end wedding photogs who use the 5D.

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:32 PM

bobbytan
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #8 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

David, you are probably right - if you are looking at European car sales - but in the USA Toyota is undoubtedly #1 and the VW Golf is almost unknown here.

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:33 PM

jamesf99
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.34 #9 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

Beni wrote:
To James:

If you really believe that the 5D mkII will have a 100% VF then I'll concede you your point, fact is it won't anyway as we know....

It's all immaterial anyway, the reason why the Nikon on board unit can justify itself, and IMO very well, is that it's a wireless master, the day canon gives that kind of functionality to an on board instead of requiring you to buy a 580ex is the day the 5D mkII will be able to compete in any way with the D700 on anything but pure megapixels.

Ahh, part of the problems with internet forums; things get confused without tone, inflection, and context

I actually don't believe the 5d2 will have a 100% VF. I think it's going to be just like the 5d was, a consumer camera with a FF sensor, or in this case, a 50d with FF sensor (but I'm just guessing).

I also agree with you completely and if Canon were to actually make the flash useful as a master, ala Nikon, then I would support it as it would be an incredibly useful too. But this is Canon we're talking about.

It's insane for me, or anyone, to argue about meaningless points on a possibly non-existent camera. Talk about wasting time and energy. Uggg. But in a few days to few weeks, all the mystery will be gone and we can begin speculating on the real Canon products, also called the 1 series.

Will that be boxing gloves or bare knuckles?

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:34 PM

mfurman
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.34 #10 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

to bobbytan

Do you drive a Toyota? I somehow doubt it.

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:36 PM

aero145
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.34 #11 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

bobbytan wrote:
David, you are probably right - if you are looking at European car sales - but in the USA Toyota is undoubtedly #1 and the VW Golf is almost unknown here.

Hey Bobby!

I understand what you mean, didn’t completely register that you’re all from the US, American Toyotas are no Japanese Toyotas, really! You have some interesting Corollas there!

Regards,
D

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:41 PM

brainiac
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #12 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

ulrikft wrote:
Brainiac:

Are you stating that: Bounce flash is useless, All flash diffusers are useless and that off camera flash in general is useles... AND expect to be taken serious? Or are you still trying to make some point?

No - I'm saying that bounce flash works in a narrow set of circumstances:
1) the bounce surface is bright enough
2) the bounce surface is near enough
3) the bounce surface is of neutral colour
4) the bounce surface is continuous and not interrupted by glass-covered pictures or mirrors
5) the bounce surface is in the right direction to illuminate your subject matter appropriately
6) the photographer like the look of bounced flash

I find that at least half of the time (6) and at least one of the others fail. I don't like to suck the life out of my pictures by wasting my subjects' time.

As for diffusers, as I said, the micro-apollo is the only one that manages to spread the light beyond an effective point source, and frankly it's a nuisance as it's always getting knocked into. The omni-bounce, or small white diffusers and reflectors do virtually nothing, because they don't spread the light source. It's not bouncing the light off or through a diffuser that helps, it's how broad the light source is as seen from the subject's point of view. Doubling the light source width from 3cm to 6cm, when it is 6 feet away from the subject achieves so little that it is barely possible to tell the difference between direct flash and diffused flash. At normal shooting distances like 6 feet, the light would need to spread over at least a foot or two to see any significant diffusing effect. Most modifiers fail to do that.

Off camera flash:
Off camera flash, if used with diffusers can look OK, but otherwise all it does is to produce harsh and long shadows across faces or under noses and chins. It's not nearly as practical if you have to keep moving and have a lot of ground to cover. Two undiffused off-camera flashes just cast double shadows, as any studio photographer can tell you.

What it boils down to is that if you need to shoot social stuff professionally, whether it be for press or weddings or what have you, ring flash is the most flattering (almost) practical option, while built-in pop-up flash is the next best, by virtue of the flash bulb being close to the lens. Anything else is a bit student, and interferes with your ability to respond, and capture the ephemeral heart of the event.

Edited by brainiac on Sep 06, 2008 at 06:49 PM GMT

Edited on Sep 06, 2008 at 06:49 PM

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:46 PM

dcmiller
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #13 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

Yet we don't even know if it focuses better or worse than the 50D. It does have fewer pixels and costs more than 2x the 50D.
Specs and features are fine when they work and are useful.

Another feature is that IQ of the D700 isn't as good as the three year old 5D. I may thinking crazy, but I'm kinda interested in IQ in a digital camera.

Etadam wrote:
(my best-off ...
* Image Sensor Cleaning (vibration) *
* ISO 200 - 6400 (with boost up to ISO 25600 and down to ISO 100)
* 14-bit A/D conversion, 12 channel readout
* New Kevlar / carbon fibre composite shutter with 150,000 exposure durability *
* Multi-CAM3500FX Auto Focus sensor (51-point, 15 cross-type, more vertical coverage)
* Auto-focus tracking by color (using information from 1005-pixel AE sensor)
* Auto-focus calibration (fine-tuning), fixed body or up to 20 separate lens settings
* Scene Recognition System (uses AE sensor, AF sensor)
* 5 to 8 frames per second continuous with auto-focus tracking*
* 3.0" 922,000 pixel LCD monitor
* Live View with either phase detect (mirror up/down) or contrast detect Auto Focus
* Virtual horizon indicates if camera is level (like an aircraft cockpit display)
* HDMI HD video output
* 'Active D-Lighting' (adjusts metering as well as applying D-Lighting curve)
* Detailed 'Control Panel' type display on LCD monitor, changes color in darkness
* Magnesium alloy body with connections and buttons sealed against moisture ))

and cheaper or =, I'll be happy

[but honestly i don't think it'll have all of that]

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:46 PM

bobbytan
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #14 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

mfurman wrote:
to bobbytan

Do you drive a Toyota? I somehow doubt it.

No, I don't drive a Toyota. I drive a 2000 model Acura RL which is also Japanese. No other car at that time had GPS as a standard feature! For the price that I paid for it ($45,000 then) there is just no way that I could have bought a BMW or Merc with a comparable feature set. And after 8 years and clocking 150,000 miles, I have not had a single problem .... touch wood!

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:56 PM

Beni
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.34 #15 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

alvit wrote:
Beni...At present what is tying me to canon is the 17-40L, 70-200f4L IS and the 85mm 1.8 USM lens. That's it.

On a 1.6 or a FF ?

FF

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:57 PM

brainiac
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #16 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

ulrikft wrote:
bobbytan wrote:
Of course he's not suggesting that. A built-in flash can never compete with an off-camera and even on-camera flash .... but it DOES have it's uses when you don't have an external flash with you. I don't take a flash with me 90% of the time and 10% of the time I would be kicking myself for not having any kind of flash. When you want to travel really light, even the smallest flash is too bulky and heavy and inconvenient. A built-in flash works for near-distance fill, helps to add a catch light to a subject's eyes, and will trigger off-camera flash units IF it has a wireless triggering device (like almost all Nikon bodies) built into the unit - so you don't have to spend another $200+ just for a transmitter and having to carry another piece of shxx.

ulrikft wrote:
Brainiac:

Are you stating that: Bounce flash is useless, All flash diffusers are useless and that off camera flash in general is useles... AND expect to be taken serious? Or are you still trying to make some point?

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:59 PM

Beni
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.34 #17 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

dcmiller wrote:
Beni wrote:
.....................
You proved my point, canon only bother to compete on megapixels. A 4X5 will blow my 5D out of the water for IQ but I still won't shoot a wedding with it. There gets to a point where you have enough megapixels and are fed up compromising with a camera that only allows you to actualise that IQ under good-perfect conditions but not under the trying conditions that the features of the Nikon's will allow. ....................

Without question there are price/performance benefits to Nikon that make the brand a better choice for some shooters. That's how they hope to regain market share. We are seeing the beginning of Canon's response with the 50D. But unless Canon's market share is eroding rapidly on the high end, Canon's going to avoid competing on price as much as possible.

Canon has the 1dIII for you. That is their answer. You may not like that answer, but there it is. The 1DIII makes enlargements at least as good as the 5D.

As you probably know there are very high end wedding photogs who use the 5D.

My point was that I don't want to have to invest in a large 1 series, especially not a crop 1 series and if I can get the same functionality for much less and a lesser size from the competition then I might well do it. I know that there are plenty wedding photographers using the 5D, when they bought into it you couldn't get a better package. There used to be plenty great wedding photographers using the 10D when that was the best digital solution availible. The map is different now and there are choices which didn't exist before.

Sep 06, 2008 at 06:59 PM

brainiac
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #18 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

tayo wrote:
rceres wrote:
Last but not least, it makes for an ugly camera.

+1. A bare viewfinder is a beauty, the new one appears to look even better, with the mode dial moved to the side.

Look, if that's what informs your camera choices, why not just buy a porn mag and save yourself a fortune?

Sep 06, 2008 at 07:03 PM

bobbytan
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #19 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

They do. They work a little bit like a bare-bulb flash in that they disperse light everywhere. Your flash head is supposed to point slightly upwards or at a 45º angle for it to work properly.

brainiac wrote:
The omni-bounce, or small white diffusers and reflectors do virtually nothing, because they don't spread the light source.

Sep 06, 2008 at 07:03 PM

ulrikft
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.34 #20 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

brainiac wrote:
ulrikft wrote:
bobbytan wrote:
Of course he's not suggesting that. A built-in flash can never compete with an off-camera and even on-camera flash .... but it DOES have it's uses when you don't have an external flash with you. I don't take a flash with me 90% of the time and 10% of the time I would be kicking myself for not having any kind of flash. When you want to travel really light, even the smallest flash is too bulky and heavy and inconvenient. A built-in flash works for near-distance fill, helps to add a catch light to a subject's eyes, and will trigger off-camera flash units IF it has a wireless triggering device (like almost all Nikon bodies) built into the unit - so you don't have to spend another $200+ just for a transmitter and having to carry another piece of shxx.

ulrikft wrote:
Brainiac:

Are you stating that: Bounce flash is useless, All flash diffusers are useless and that off camera flash in general is useles... AND expect to be taken serious? Or are you still trying to make some point?

Well it seems like he is saying "i prefer the results from my builtin flash over the ones from off-camera flash". I suspect that not only many amateur strobists, but also pro strobists will disagree a tiny bit with that?

I do. I get paid to take pictures, about 80% of which use on-camera flash. I don't care how many 'pro strobists' disagree, I have made abundantly clear my reasons for preferring pop-up flash. In case you didn't get it: pop-up flashes cast narrower shadows. Of course it's also true that pop-up flash is useful in an emergency, or as a convenience, or when you don't want to have to carry extra kit. But yes, I prefer the look of it to the look of a 580 EX, no matter how unprofessional you think that makes me.

Well, you are entiteled to like a flatter look, but coming across as _extremely_ arrogant when you have an opinion that is very much head on opposite to most professional lighting people.... is not a very redeeming feature. Especially when your only "argument" is "I get paid to take pictures". Something tells me that quite a lot of people get paid to take pictures, me included, that doesen't make my arguments (or yours) any more or less valid. Britney Spears gets paid to make music, that doesen't make her arguments about musical technicalities more or less valid, it is called "appeal to authority" and is a logical fallacy. I would recommend that you step down a bit and try to form your arguments in a less provocative and confrontative matter if you want to be heard ..

Sep 06, 2008 at 07:08 PM

jrsforums
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.34 #21 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

ulrikft wrote:
brainiac wrote:
ulrikft wrote:
bobbytan wrote:
Of course he's not suggesting that. A built-in flash can never compete with an off-camera and even on-camera flash .... but it DOES have it's uses when you don't have an external flash with you. I don't take a flash with me 90% of the time and 10% of the time I would be kicking myself for not having any kind of flash. When you want to travel really light, even the smallest flash is too bulky and heavy and inconvenient. A built-in flash works for near-distance fill, helps to add a catch light to a subject's eyes, and will trigger off-camera flash units IF it has a wireless triggering device (like almost all Nikon bodies) built into the unit - so you don't have to spend another $200+ just for a transmitter and having to carry another piece of shxx.

ulrikft wrote:
Brainiac:

Are you stating that: Bounce flash is useless, All flash diffusers are useless and that off camera flash in general is useles... AND expect to be taken serious? Or are you still trying to make some point?

Bravo...!!!

...plus, let's take the lighting discussion to the Lighting forum....

Edited on Sep 06, 2008 at 07:24 PM

Sep 06, 2008 at 07:22 PM

brainiac
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #22 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

tayo wrote:
Etadam wrote:
gabimaster wrote:
Etadam,I'm sure you know that the built in flash does not have good results with any lens,it can be a "tool for emergency",when you really need a flash and the external one just consumed the batteries.
I had not so bad results with my 10D simply by redirecting the light to the ceiling, or a piece of paper in front of the flash to soften the effect (+ some exposure adjustment). To be honest, I never used an external flash...

Anyway, according to the [macromedia!] flash from canon posted in this thread, it doesn't seem the new mk ii will have a built-in flash... so I'm just ready to answer the first post titled "official: 5d2" to reply "5D2 it is, D700 it'll be"

[depends on the price also, of course... but i doubt we'll have a cheap new 5d]

What you really want is a built-in softbox which pops up like an airbag.

Or better still, a reflector umbrella! They could call it personal weather-sealing. Nikon only weather seals the camera, not the photographer too. Nobody would be saying Canon has forgotten how to innovate then.

Sep 06, 2008 at 07:26 PM

brainiac
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #23 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

ulrikft wrote:
>> I do. I get paid to take pictures, about 80% of which use on-camera flash. I don't care how many 'pro strobists' disagree, I have made abundantly clear my reasons for preferring pop-up flash. In case you didn't get it: pop-up flashes cast narrower shadows. Of course it's also true that pop-up flash is useful in an emergency, or as a convenience, or when you don't want to have to carry extra kit. But yes, I prefer the look of it to the look of a 580 EX, no matter how unprofessional you think that makes me.

Well, you are entiteled to like a flatter look, but coming across as _extremely_ arrogant when you have an opinion that is very much head on opposite to most professional lighting people.... is not a very redeeming feature. Especially when your only "argument" is "I get paid to take pictures". Something tells me that quite a lot of people get paid to take pictures, me included, that doesen't make my arguments (or yours) any more or less valid. Britney Spears gets paid to make music, that doesen't make her arguments about musical technicalities more or less valid, it is called "appeal to authority" and is a logical fallacy. I would recommend that you step down a bit and try to form your arguments in a less provocative and confrontative matter if you want to be heard ..

The reason why I mention that I get paid to take pictures is because by definition that makes me a professional. I'm not saying I'm better than anyone or that my opinion is more valid than anyone. I'm trying to make the point that people keep on saying that professional photographers opine this way or do this or that. I don't know what bible of professional photography that information comes from, but it's not true in my case. That's all I'm saying.

The following pictures are a selection from one event, taken with a pop-up. The only difference a 580 EX would have made is that the shadows would have been bigger and uglier.

These pictures could not reliably have been illuminated with bounce, and an omni-bounce would not have altered the illumination, it would simply have wasted batteries. Sometimes pictures please clients because of what they are of, not because the photographer is some kind of visionary artistic lighting expert.

Edited on Sep 06, 2008 at 07:38 PM

Sep 06, 2008 at 07:35 PM

tayo
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.34 #24 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

brainiac wrote:
tayo wrote:
rceres wrote:
Last but not least, it makes for an ugly camera.

+1. A bare viewfinder is a beauty, the new one appears to look even better, with the mode dial moved to the side.

Look, if that's what informs your camera choices, why not just buy a porn mag and save yourself a fortune?

Ouch. Foul! Since when are porn mags beautiful? I don't like any of them. I chose the 5D for the image quality, but I'm glad it's also one of the most beautiful cameras.

With your technical understanding, "why not just" build your own flash, and put it on the hot shoe?

What's wrong with suggesting a hot shoe solution that has all the properties you are looking for?

Sep 06, 2008 at 07:45 PM

ulrikft
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.34 #25 · Canon 5DII rumors thread

Let us get back to the rumors guys :P I think we are beting each other's dead horse here.

My current wish spec list:

1) 18-21 mpix
2) weather sealed
3) af micro adjust
4) spot metering at each af point
5) iso 100-12800 (50-25600 extended)
6) 100% vf (0.95-1.00 magn. :P )
7) 4-6 fps
8) sensor cleaning

That is about it

Sep 06, 2008 at 07:48 PM


FM Forums \| Canon-mount SLRs \| Join Image Upload 1 2 3 … 33 34 35 … 126 127 end