okafoja wrote:
I hope Canon will not put 7D Auto Focus on 5DIII. It will be a terrible mistake. Instead of 7D auto focus please Canon leave it as it is.
Leave it as it is? Leave the 5D III's focus the same as the 5DII's? Why? It's the one thing that is universally agreed lets the camera down?
PhilDWedding wrote:
I hope Canon will not put 7D Auto Focus on 5DIII. It will be a terrible mistake. Instead of 7D auto focus please Canon leave it as it is.
This, IMO, is where Canon dropped the ball with the 5DII. If the 5DII replacement recycles the 5D AF all over again they will fail even more epically than they had before. The Camera desperately needs an AF update.
PhilDWedding wrote:
Leave it as it is? Leave the 5D III's focus the same as the 5DII's? Why? It's the one thing that is universally agreed lets the camera down?
I know but not exact 7D AF. For what I shoot I trust my 5DII AF way more than 7D AF.
Wrong copy/delete here. Phil did not say that, it was OKAFOJA.
I was happy and I still am with the 5D II center point.
But of course (and even I never might use it) I expect a much better over all AF in the next camera generation. Especially I expect higher density in darkness. Capability of great possible ISO 25K images do not make much sense when AF does not lock.
DmitriM wrote:
Why would you even want to upgrade? Studio/landscape/architecture photography is shot at low ISO and high f-stops. AF or ISO is not an issue. You ain't trying to nail a shot of a moving target @ ISO 3200 in a dark reception hall, while using 85mm 1.2 lens...
There are two markets for a FF body split almost 50/50, but more people have voted for the 18MP sensor with a faster fps since this poll started so you guys are the minority : https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1076256
Bottom line is, Canon needs to release two compact FF bodies. One being the lower MP sensor with enough speed to be a sports cam (3DX), and the other a very high MP sensor for the landscape/architecture crowd (5DX).
No one knows for sure (except EOSfun) but it appears Canon might be releasing a camera that won't make either camp really satisfied, but will be "good enough". I personally think a 3DX and 5DX would make a great pair and I would be thrilled to spend more $$ to acquire them than the cost of a 1DX...
But if it's a hybrid of the two with nothing better than 7D AF and less than 8fps, I'll probably settle and replace one of my 5D's so I can have decent outer points, and continue looking elsewhere for a compact FF sports cam.
There is really only ONE reliable AF point in the 5D II. I don't know if the center AF point of the 5D II is more reliable/consistent than the 7D but when I had a 7D (twice) I loved the AF system and I (along with many here) would be happy to have the 7D AF system on the 5D III. Of course I would be thrilled if Canon gives us something even better, but I would be more than satisfied with the 7D AF system.
okafoja wrote:
I know but not exact 7D AF. For what I shoot I trust my 5DII AF way more than 7D AF.
Upgrading the AF is not the same as simply putting 7D AF in it. I find the 5D center point better than any single 7D point. My preference is that they would put a few more points of that quality in and concentrate on accuracy. 1D focus points (at least some of them) have twice the light sensitivity of non-1D points. If the center and 4 outer points of the current 5D had the sensitivity and accuracy to reliably handle the fast L primes, a lot of the criticism would be silenced. If the sensitivity is increased, adding spot focusing would require no additional sensor area and little additional electronics. I'd also like to see the center horizontal three have the invisible AI assist areas so one could lead action a bit off center.
M Vers wrote:
This, IMO, is where Canon dropped the ball with the 5DII. If the 5DII replacement recycles the 5D AF all over again they will fail even more epically than they had before. The Camera desperately needs an AF update.
I'm quite certain the 5d2 is not an epic failure. For a camera with 1 good AF point, it seems to do pretty well commercially... and you can't argue with the IQ
Those polls might be EOSfun to some, but every marketeer knows that there is a significant gap between what people say they would like and what they really want and spend their money on. Canon knows this like no other company. The best selling cameras have also been the cameras that got the most critique. The XXd XXXD and XXXXd series are selling in amounts of a multiplier of the Xd series. From these the 5D series has always been a better selling camera than those of the competition, be it Nikon, Sony, Pentax, you name it, even though nobody seemed to like the AF, the lack of weather sealing, ergonomics, the speed, high ISO performance/banding, etc. It still was the camera with the best overall image quality in the enthusiast 'affordable' class. I also read that in Timbop comment, and think that is illustrative for how many photographers look at the 5D. It's not perfect, but it's giving incredible bang for the buck for someone who is photographer with high demanding quality standards of the image quality. The truth is Canon got it right with their specs and market segmentation, better than the competition. So far..... The landscape is gonna change ..... but it's coming from a different corner most are expecting it to come from.
Obviously cleaner high iso is desirable but if I was getting 12800 that's as clean as 3200-6400, I really wouldn't be worrying about much more (for my uses).
I can see why others would like 128,000,000 iso but in reality workable 12.8k or 25.6k would be more than fine.
So the first rant before introduction of a new camera is already a fact. It seems to be a repetitive pattern.
It won't be a week after the new camera is in users hands, before complaints come flooding in. The only real difference is that you substitute "5DX" for "5DII".
Those polls might be EOSfun to some, but every marketeer knows that there is a significant gap between what people say they would like and what they really want and spend their money on. Canon knows this like no other company. The best selling cameras have also been the cameras that got the most critique. The XXd XXXD and XXXXd series are selling in amounts of a multiplier of the Xd series. From these the 5D series has always been a better selling camera than those of the competition, be it Nikon, Sony, Pentax, you name it, even though nobody seemed to like the AF, the lack of weather sealing, ergonomics, the speed, high ISO performance/banding, etc. It still was the camera with the best overall image quality in the enthusiast 'affordable' class. I also read that in Timbop comment, and think that is illustrative for how many photographers look at the 5D. It's not perfect, but it's giving incredible bang for the buck for someone who is photographer with high demanding quality standards of the image quality. The truth is Canon got it right with their specs and market segmentation, better than the competition. So far..... The landscape is gonna change ..... but it's coming from a different corner most are expecting it to come from....Show more →
+1 on the poll numbers and your theory on making the 5D "good enough"...but what's wrong with trying to hit a home run and really please your customers to stop all the negativity? Its' not like they didn't have the AF technology for the 5DII. It would be the differenc between having your customers cheer lead your product for you with high praise, or continue to complain about sub-par features and possibly promote Nikon to others.
bobbytan wrote:
There is really only ONE reliable AF point in the 5D II. I don't know if the center AF point of the 5D II is more reliable/consistent than the 7D but when I had a 7D (twice) I loved the AF system and I (along with many here) would be happy to have the 7D AF system on the 5D III. Of course I would be thrilled if Canon gives us something even better, but I would be more than satisfied with the 7D AF system.
I use center focus 90% of the time and my 5DII center is as good as my 1DsII but a little faster and far more consistent and reliable than 7D. Honestly if Canon put three year old 7D AF on 5DIII that will be it for me.
Trusting a camera one shoots with is very important. I need something that works and not something that looks good on paper. It is about time Canon stop playing with our intelligence.
eosfun wrote:
The truth is Canon got it right with their specs and market segmentation...
I agree with EOSfun on this. When I upgraded my 5Dc to the 5D2 it was mainly for the video and the dust shaker so I'd feel more confident changing lenses in the field. But the 5Dc was too good to sell. After several years of using both I find the 5Dc adequate for most of my needs so it usually sports the 24-105. I took advantage of the CLP to get a 7D and while its great for birds and other action stuff for most of my wildlife needs the 5D2 yields better quality images. The extra "reach" of the 7D just doesn't gain that much over the 5D2, for me, in my use. The 5D2 is now my goto telephoto, ultra wide, or macro body.
My post above about AF is aimed at satisfying professionals like BobbyTan who need the outer points for their portraiture work and want a lighter body than a 1DX. Professionals like Robert Lynn are probably going to have to use a 1DX if they want FF action. For the vast majority of us non-professional 5D users I don't see what new features could be critical enough to upgrade again. Perhaps when I wear my 5Dc out.
I'm much more interested in the G1X that might upgrade my G10 to imagery closer in quality to the 5Dc with 24-105. If it gets close enough, then it will save me a lot of bulk and weight while traveling. This is just me, but I'm happy to see digital cameras getting to be more like computers where new models are incrementally better rather than revolutionarily. I like using good tools but I also want them to last a while.
me neither. Seeing you that exited, I mean! It is just a rumor, Robert! 