Galbraith, Imaging-resource (text not the spec sheet) and Canon USA and Japan pages say only one cross-type sensor.
--------------
Edit edit:
DPreview has edited the spec sheet:
9-point TTL CMOS sensor
• 6 "Invisible Assist AF points"
• Centre point cross type F5.6 or faster
• Center point additionally sensitive with lenses of F2.8 or faster
• AF working range: -0.5 - 18 EV (at 23°C, ISO 100)
apdieb wrote:
Funny.. my 5D easily outperformed my 1D MKIIN in low-light focusing (in One-Shot with center AF point). That is how I primarily use it so it works well for me. The MKII series definitely was better in Servo... I did just the opposite and sold my MKIIN... I have a MKIII now and still use my 5D more at weddings than any other body I have owned.
I use almost always other than the center point (one-shot). My 5D sucked with peripheral points. 1DII is not fool proof either but my hit ratio is a lot better with that.
jamesf99 wrote:
I'm so tired of this hackneyed load of tripe.
Firstly - charming, secondly - what about that statement is untrue? You didn't get the camera you wanted, some people did. But Canon are not about to release a 5D that trumps their high end cameras - basic business sense, not tripe.
You have a fantastic camera in the 1DsII - go out and enjoy it.
So....if Canon had released a 5D with 1 series AF...people would be bitching that Canon didn't upgrade the sensor, and that they just slapped new AF in a body.
Canon gives you a sensor, that with the new digic IV should perform BETTER than the 1DsIII (which has already shown to be about equal to the D3 in noise performance for equal resolution), for LESS money than the old 5D (at release) and the current D700, and that sucks because it's not upgraded AF.
People were all in awe two weeks ago about the A900 providing full frame high resolution at $3000. Now Canon comes out with a camera that undercuts that camera by $300, and it's not good enough? And considering the 1DsIII spanks the A900 in IQ, at least from initial pictures, the 5DII should absolutely mop the floor with it.
Some people will never be happy.
Upgrading BOTH these things would undercut 1DsIII sales to the point of eliminating the camera.
The fact is, you can get an extremely good 21.1 MP camera for $2600 or an extremely good 12 MP camera for $3000. While some will choose the latter, a whole heck of a lot of people will choose the former. Considering wedding photographers used the 5D like mad, the 5DII will be an amazing camera for them. For landscapers, this will be absolutely fantastic.
It's not a sports camera. This line never has been about sports. It's also not meant to replace the 1-series, which a lot of people want it to.
Speak what you want about the D700 being so close to the D3...I think it was actually a very, very poor decision on Nikon's part. There is no reason to buy a D3. None.
Jman13 wrote:
So....if Canon had released a 5D with 1 series AF...people would be bitching that Canon didn't upgrade the sensor, and that they just slapped new AF in a body.
Canon gives you a sensor, that with the new digic IV should perform BETTER than the 1DsIII (which has already shown to be about equal to the D3 in noise performance for equal resolution), for LESS money than the old 5D (at release) and the current D700, and that sucks because it's not upgraded AF.
People asked for some specific things, and most photographers (complete gear heads and fanboys excluded) were not asking for the MPs to be increased to 21. The 5d AF pretty much sucks. I learned years ago that it has one AF point; the center one... Combined with the rebel-like 3 FPS, for anything moving faster than a stationary landscape the camera is poor. The .9 FPS increase is an insult...
People were all in awe two weeks ago about the A900 providing full frame high resolution at $3000. Now Canon comes out with a camera that undercuts that camera by $300, and it's not good enough? And considering the 1DsIII spanks the A900 in IQ, at least from initial pictures, the 5DII should absolutely mop the floor with it.
Some people will never be happy.
Upgrading BOTH these things would undercut 1DsIII sales to the point of eliminating the camera.
So what? It's about time Canon dumped their ridiculous feature/pricing structure. I remember in 1986 Compaq (not a joke company then) sold a 16Mhz 386 for $12k. My blackberry had a 386 processor (performance level) in 2000 for about $300. The 1 series is grossly over priced, and the only way that Canon is going to change that is by customers telling them the truth, not by just sitting back and taking it in the shorts because you think you have to for some unfathomable reason.
The fact is, you can get an extremely good 21.1 MP camera for $2600 or an extremely good 12 MP camera for $3000. While some will choose the latter, a whole heck of a lot of people will choose the former. Considering wedding photographers used the 5D like mad, the 5DII will be an amazing camera for them. For landscapers, this will be absolutely fantastic.
It's not a sports camera. This line never has been about sports. It's also not meant to replace the 1-series, which a lot of people want it to.
Speak what you want about the D700 being so close to the D3...I think it was actually a very, very poor decision on Nikon's part. There is no reason to buy a D3. None. ...Show more →
Video, who cares? 5% of the people. Go buy a video cam or a P&S.
AF, FPS, weather sealing, VF, and features that make the tool pleasurable to use? Yeah, those are important. Video is not...
I never could understand the "I'll take whatever you throw my way" attitude of you guys. I don't know if you've ever worked for a high tech company or not, but what's exciting, and interesting, is what's possible. This is far from what's possible. It's a check-off item camera and nothing more. Impressive. Not in the slightest...
Lord Fluff wrote:
Firstly - charming, secondly - what about that statement is untrue? You didn't get the camera you wanted, some people did. But Canon are not about to release a 5D that trumps their high end cameras - basic business sense, not tripe.
You have a fantastic camera in the 1DsII - go out and enjoy it.
OK, not meant personally and calling it a hackneyed load of tripe may have overstated it a wee bit, but not by much...
That doesn't change the fact that this same line of reasoning is exactly why Canon does what it does. It's the mistaken belief that there's something magical about features and that they have to cost thousands of dollars (worthless dollars admittedly, but..). Canon introduced the 45 point AF on the EOS 3 in 1998 for $995. So what, we need to pay $4500 for working AF today (assuming the 1 series works)? Give me a break. The EOS 3 could shoot at 7 FPS, for $995. The $2600 5d2 does what? 3.9 FPS? They couldn't even make it 4 FPS?
A direct print button? Canon dodged another bullet. Many thought that Canon would finally be forced to provide a half sized camera that performed well and had great features. Instead we get video. Close call Canon, but you managed to pull off another one without living up to even modest expectations...
Given the weeks of anticipation & levels of ridiculous speculation I suppose it was inevitable that many would be unhappy with this announcement regardless, however, I'm pretty surprised at the level of vitriol evoked - & this before a single test has been done!
jamesf99 wrote:
People asked for some specific things, and most photographers (complete gear heads and fanboys excluded) were not asking for the MPs to be increased to 21. The 5d AF pretty much sucks. I learned years ago that it has one AF point; the center one... Combined with the rebel-like 3 FPS, for anything moving faster than a stationary landscape the camera is poor. The .9 FPS increase is an insult...
So what do ou think the 5D is? A sports camera? Jesus Christ people give it a break... AF crap come on!
jamesf99 wrote:
People asked for some specific things, and most photographers (complete gear heads and fanboys excluded) were not asking for the MPs to be increased to 21. The 5d AF pretty much sucks. I learned years ago that it has one AF point; the center one... Combined with the rebel-like 3 FPS, for anything moving faster than a stationary landscape the camera is poor. The .9 FPS increase is an insult...
You have such a massively overdeveloped sense of your own importance sometimes it's quite funny. If you are SO insulted by Canon why not just F@#& off and buy some Nikons instead and leave us all alone?
I should add that I have taken thousands of bird images with just a 20D, a camera which AF is considered inferior to the 5D. Most of these pictures wide open, on superteles at something like 700mm, most of them dead sharp. I am happy I also have a 1D though but vomitting things like crap AF is total nonsense.
I should add that I have taken thousands of bird images with just a 20D, a camera which AF is considered inferior to the 5D. Most of these pictures wide open, on superteles at something like 700mm, most of them dead sharp. I am happy I also have a 1D though but vomitting things like crap AF seems ridiculous to me.
Yup, I've owned several 5D's which have been pressed into service doing gatherings, portraits, all sorts of events and I've never had a single focusing issue. In fact my 5D is better in low light than my 1D2N due to the fewer but larger sensors. It's not a sport camera and clearly neither is it's replacement. If that doesn't suit some peoples style, best thing is not to buy it it would seem, rather than just try and dismiss it entirely.
The uninformed vitriol that permeates this place nowadays is very disappointing.
dhphoto wrote:
You have such a massively overdeveloped sense of your own importance sometimes it's quite funny. If you are SO insulted by Canon why not just F@#& off and buy some Nikons instead and leave us all alone?
David
Oh sorry, got one of the gearhead fanboys here...Struck a nerve there pal?
What I'm clear on is the lack of importance of you, your opinion, or anything you say.
I have $20k to $30k in Canon lenses, more than what's in my profile. If you'd like to pay me for them, I'd be glad to sell them to you. Until then STFU..
What I really don't get is the HDvideo thing. If I'd wanted to shoot video-films, I'd buy a video camera. I want to take pictures not motion pictures. Just think that the $ would have been better spent elsewhere, from both Canon and the buyers.
jamesf99 wrote:
Oh sorry, got one of the gearhead fanboys here...Struck a nerve there pal?
What I'm clear on is the lack of importance of you, your opinion, or anything you say.
I have $20k to $30k in Canon lenses, more than what's in my profile. If you'd like to pay me for them, I'd be glad to sell them to you. Until then STFU..
Good try, but you will have to do a lot better to stop yourself looking so daft round here.
jamesf99 wrote:
I have $20k to $30k in Canon lenses, more than what's in my profile. If you'd like to pay me for them, I'd be glad to sell them to you. Until then STFU..
Wow what a striking point. I am so most impressed.
F$$$k they claim that 5D is used heavily by wedding photographers, but refuse to add a f$%^$n dual slot capability that we all want. We hate to use 1D series because it's too heavy for such extended use of 8h+/day.
I'll take dual cards over stupid HD video any day of the week. Shit, I'll pay you extra!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
..