Anyone that thinks the camera is capable is either a 'fanboy' or suckered by marketing, any pro commenting positive is simply a shill, and the only people in all this that are correct and objective are those saying the camera is limited, its AF isnt good enough to work, its not fast enough, and it isnt weather sealed enough.
From what I've seen, it has outstanding IQ, and I will be finally replacing my film cameras for landscape imaging , especially with the newly announced 21mm distagon.
Video isnt my thing, never has been, but I can tell you this, the thought of combining this video function with the MPE65 or 180L Macro and the sheer number of possibilities has given me an enthusiasm for image making I havent had for many years.
Its not perfect, no camera is, but it certainly ticks many of the boxes Im looking for, and a few I didnt know were there.
I'm seeing just as much of the opposite, if you do NOT almost religiously love this camera, you are a "whiner".. I suspect you can find just as many of that camp here. Both camps are at fault, just don't forget one of them beacause it is closer to where you are.
I am curious. As a landscape photographer who is anxiously awaiting the manual-focus 21mm Distagon, I would presume you would be stopping down a lot and using the live view for critical manual focussing most of the time. Why then do you complain that the AF isn't good enough?
Mark Bishop wrote:
Anyone that thinks the camera is capable is either a 'fanboy' or suckered by marketing, any pro commenting positive is simply a shill, and the only people in all this that are correct and objective are those saying the camera is limited, its AF isnt good enough to work, its not fast enough, and it isnt weather sealed enough.
From what I've seen, it has outstanding IQ, and I will be finally replacing my film cameras for landscape imaging , especially with the newly announced 21mm distagon.
Video isnt my thing, never has been, but I can tell you this, the thought of combining this video function with the MPE65 or 180L Macro and the sheer number of possibilities has given me an enthusiasm for image making I havent had for many years.
Its not perfect, no camera is, but it certainly ticks many of the boxes Im looking for, and a few I didnt know were there.
bobbytan wrote:
I am curious. As a landscape photographer who is anxiously awaiting the manual-focus 21mm Distagon, I would presume you would be stopping down a lot and using the live view for critical manual focussing most of the time. Why then do you complain that the AF isn't good enough?
Maybe he, heaven forbid, uses the camera for something else than _just_ MF landscapes? :P Who knows. I know I can't afford to have a 2700,- usd ++ camera per application
On another topic: suppose you want to jump into FF world right now, you are not interested in video, neither in 21 MP. Would you still by 5D2, or try to get one of the last 5D's (new) ?
ALF07 wrote:
On another topic: suppose you want to jump into FF world right now, you are not interested in video, neither in 21 MP. Would you still by 5D2, or try to get one of the last 5D's (new) ?
Given your criteria above I'd purchase a new 5D mark I. As a landscape enthusiast I'm curious to see the 21mp printed large compared to 12.
About the weather sealing of the 5DII. 10mm of rain in 3 minutes is about 1.56 inches of rain in 12 minutes. That's 39.6mm of rain in 12 minutes or about 200mm of rain in 1 hour.
When classified according to amount of precipitation, rain can be divided into:
Very light rain — when the precipitation rate is < 0.25 mm/hour
Light rain — when the precipitation rate is between 0.25 mm/hour - 1.0 mm/hour
Moderate rain — when the precipitation rate is between 1.0 mm/hour - 4.0 mm/hour
Heavy rain — when the precipitation rate is between 4.0 mm/hour - 16.0 mm/hour
Very heavy rain — when the precipitation rate is between 16.0 mm/hour - 50 mm/hour
Extreme rain — when the precipitation rate is > 50.0 mm/hour
Check the math but this would seem to indicate that the 5DII is nicely rain resistant no? Of course that depends on what all is actually sealed on the camera and it being paired with a weather resistant lens that is weather filtered. Extrapolating out like this might not be realistic if the sealing materials saturate early. But in a light or medium amount of rain fall, the camera will probably be fine for an hour or so of shooting. I shoot in light rain sometimes with my 5D and non weather resisant lenses and have had no problems to date.
ALF07 wrote:
On another topic: suppose you want to jump into FF world right now, you are not interested in video, neither in 21 MP. Would you still by 5D2, or try to get one of the last 5D's (new) ?
ulrikft wrote:
I'm seeing just as much of the opposite, if you do NOT almost religiously love this camera, you are a "whiner".. I suspect you can find just as many of that camp here. Both camps are at fault, just don't forget one of them beacause it is closer to where you are.
I would say most of the complaints have been rather silly though.
Why would anyone complain about the frame rate when the 5d was never a sports camera?
Why talk emotively about the autofocus when we have little to no idea how good it is? Speculation isn't fact.
Why complain about the video when a large section of the 5D market would need it and you don't have to use it?
Why complain about 21 mega pixels been too much when you can still shoot at lower resolution and it's there for those who do need it?
These complaints have been overly emotive and juvenile. I cannot think of any positive comments that can be classed as such but seeing as you suspect that to be the case perhaps you could list a couple
My original small man comment was not aimed at the 5D2 naysayers but the poster who took a swipe at bebe studio for mentioning that they were listed as one of the top ten wedding photographers on the planet.
Sure that list may be dubious from an amateur magazine who has not done any serious research but it is perfectly reasonable for anyone on that list to milk it for it's marketing potential and it is out of line to have a go at them for doing so.
Mark Bishop wrote:
What I am getting from this thread is this.
Anyone that thinks the camera is capable is either a 'fanboy' or suckered by marketing, any pro commenting positive is simply a shill, and the only people in all this that are correct and objective are those saying the camera is limited, its AF isnt good enough to work, its not fast enough, and it isnt weather sealed enough.
From what I've seen, it has outstanding IQ, and I will be finally replacing my film cameras for landscape imaging , especially with the newly announced 21mm distagon.
Video isnt my thing, never has been, but I can tell you this, the thought of combining this video function with the MPE65 or 180L Macro and the sheer number of possibilities has given me an enthusiasm for image making I havent had for many years.
Its not perfect, no camera is, but it certainly ticks many of the boxes Im looking for, and a few I didnt know were there.
Well, complains about the FPS can be quite reasonable, the data transfer rate in th 5d MKII is slower than the data transfer in the 50d, any rational reasons? Mirror box? Shutter assembly? or just intentional? When it comes to autofocus, it seems like it has gone over quite few/small improvements, that will raise voices, if it is valid or not, we'll see...
Other things like mirror blackout, shutter lag etc, seems like quite rational complaints. I have quite a few examples of childish comments towards people that MAKE these constructive points, you get flamed quite bitterly, even if you, as I, have already have ordered it and think it is great BUT has a few faults.
bobbytan wrote:
I am curious. As a landscape photographer who is anxiously awaiting the manual-focus 21mm Distagon, I would presume you would be stopping down a lot and using the live view for critical manual focussing most of the time. Why then do you complain that the AF isn't good enough?
You misunderstand,I think the autofocus is perfectly fine, my comment was simply the perception of reading this thread, culminating in character attacks on well respected professionals when they dared to say something positive and in contradiction to the 'it sucks' crowd..
I managed with an EOS 5 for years, and from experience with my current Eos 3 compared to my first digital camera, a 40D, despite the bigger numbers, the 40D AF is better in most situations, more accurate and faster, the Eos 3 has , in my opinion, a more forgiving tracking system, it stays locked on a bit better if you wander off the subject a little ,the 40D has a habit of instantly reaquiring on the background or whatever . I do miss eye control though, but I am sure the 5DII will be the equal of the Eos 3 AF , and as you correctly say, my main uses would be macro and landscape, both of which will be manual focus in the main (obviously so with the distagon).
The 3.9FPS is about 82.2 MP/s processing. My guess is that Canon didn't want to go faster to ensure an accurate AF lock when in servo focus mode. Looking at the fellow from the Philippines, who posted images from a soccer match and table tennis match using the 5DMkII, he commented about the servo focus being very accurate and not as sluggish as the original 5D. In my opinion, I expect the AF accuracy to be improved by 50% over the 5D.
The mirror blackout and shutter lag were destined to be the same because Canon did not re-work the shutter from the 5D. All they did was place the controlling magnets in a different location to get a shutter life of 150,000 actuations.
I've changed my mind about this camera and will get it when it comes out. Its a decent upgrade, but its priced about $200 USD too high. It should be about $2500 and it should have come out last PMA.
Part of the problem is that Canon needs to get some photogs to comment about AF and show some examples on their blogs, do that and this thing is hit out of the ballpark.
Marcus Watts wrote:
I would say most of the complaints have been rather silly though.
Why would anyone complain about the frame rate when the 5d was never a sports camera?
Why talk emotively about the autofocus when we have little to no idea how good it is? Speculation isn't fact.
Why complain about the video when a large section of the 5D market would need it and you don't have to use it?
Why complain about 21 mega pixels been too much when you can still shoot at lower resolution and it's there for those who do need it?
These complaints have been overly emotive and juvenile. I cannot think of any positive comments that can be classed as such but seeing as you suspect that to be the case perhaps you could list a couple
My original small man comment was not aimed at the 5D2 naysayers but the poster who took a swipe at bebe studio for mentioning that they were listed as one of the top ten wedding photographers on the planet.
Sure that list may be dubious from an amateur magazine who has not done any serious research but it is perfectly reasonable for anyone on that list to milk it for it's marketing potential and it is out of line to have a go at them for doing so. ...Show more →
+100
Yes I would like to see one shred of evidence from all the whiners about AF and other unsupported comments.
IMO:
As mentioned above but opposite, negative nay Sayers are more less just whiners in my book and will be perceived that way no matter what they say. It is indeed interesting to watch I child in the candy store fall to the floor kicking and screaming because he did not get what he wanted.
My one opinion after 70 some odd pages of BS.
I wish I could afford to buy this right away and join the many exploring what this new tool can do for us as opposed to reading baseless comments.
My apologies. Yes, I think the 5D II's AF is perfectly fine (and proven with the 5D) unless you are frequently shooting BIF, sports, and other moving targets. I mean, just look at the $30,000 S2 ... I hear it has only 1 AF point!
Mark Bishop wrote:
You misunderstand,I think the autofocus is perfectly fine, my comment was simply the perception of reading this thread, culminating in character attacks on well respected professionals when they dared to say something positive and in contradiction to the 'it sucks' crowd..
I managed with an EOS 5 for years, and from experience with my current Eos 3 compared to my first digital camera, a 40D, despite the bigger numbers, the 40D AF is better in most situations, more accurate and faster, the Eos 3 has , in my opinion, a more forgiving tracking system, it stays locked on a bit better if you wander off the subject a little ,the 40D has a habit of instantly reaquiring on the background or whatever . I do miss eye control though, but I am sure the 5DII will be the equal of the Eos 3 AF , and as you correctly say, my main uses would be macro and landscape, both of which will be manual focus in the main (obviously so with the distagon).
Marcus Watts wrote:
I would say most of the complaints have been rather silly though.
Why would anyone complain about the frame rate when the 5d was never a sports camera?
Why talk emotively about the autofocus when we have little to no idea how good it is? Speculation isn't fact.
Why complain about the video when a large section of the 5D market would need it and you don't have to use it?
Why complain about 21 mega pixels been too much when you can still shoot at lower resolution and it's there for those who do need it?
These complaints have been overly emotive and juvenile. I cannot think of any positive comments that can be classed as such but seeing as you suspect that to be the case perhaps you could list a couple
My original small man comment was not aimed at the 5D2 naysayers but the poster who took a swipe at bebe studio for mentioning that they were listed as one of the top ten wedding photographers on the planet.
Sure that list may be dubious from an amateur magazine who has not done any serious research but it is perfectly reasonable for anyone on that list to milk it for it's marketing potential and it is out of line to have a go at them for doing so. ...Show more →
Well said. Thanks for putting some things in perspective.
Marcus Watts wrote:
Why complain about 21 mega pixels been too much when you can still shoot at lower resolution and it's there for those who do need it?
While I will be the first one to ask for even more than 21MP, so the file size is just fine with me, the above statement is not quite true. You can't shoot at say 10MP in true raw. sRaw is subsampled / binned, call it whichever way you want, and the pixels are true RGB and not R/G/B (separate). This means that the debeyer step has already been done by the camera, and doing the debeyer in software is one of the great benefits of raw. You lose that ability. For maximum image quality -- even if you're not after size but just after "clean-ness" (noise), you have to shoot full raw to be able to do the debeyer in software. Regardless how good the debeyer is in the camera, computer software will improve and if you use sRaw you're stuck with whatever the camera baked in at the time of exposure. While this may not be an everyday occurrence, I do find myself going back to my 1Ds images from back in the day and re-processing them, and am happy that the software got better in the last 6 years. With sRaw you lose this ability, at least partially.
I suspect you can find just as many of that camp here. Both camps are at fault, just don't forget one of them beacause it is closer to where you are.
