Another point on the 5D and *very * good news : the 5D has an ISO reading in the viewfinder, but only when you press the ISO button and change it, so it is not a full time visible element...
I say perfect! The biggest weakness about the 20D was it's tiny litttle viewfinder, 1.6X cropped sensor, small 1.8LCD, and useless pop up flash. Well, the 5D addressed all those weaknesses and added a better built more uniform grip. Is it worth $1,900 more? YES!!!!!!
The FF sensor alone would do it for me....the rest is icing on the cake.
calvillo wrote:
It could be that Arhi is thinking the same thing a lot of 1D II owners are, why isn't this sensor in the second pro body as well as the 5D? I'm sure the 5D will sell very well, it has all the res. I wanted when I was shooting my 20D and now when I'm shooting my 1D II. The problem is Canon left a lot of pros w/ 1D II's on the outside looking in with this. Shooters who don't want to trade, build, superior AF, and handling for FF and don't want to take out a loan for a Ds II. ...Show more →
I disagree with your line of thinking. Disregarding all the techno-geek 'internet shooters' with too much money who may have bought the 1DMkII, the camera was designed as a sports and PJ camera. Most of these photographers would hate the large files they'd have to deal with, and the resolution would be complete overkill for what they do with their images. Remember the original 1D? Plenty of pros got double-truck spreads out of that sensor. Put a FF 13MP chip in the 1D, and then what's to distinguish it from the 1DsMkII? Little.
Your whole line of argument smacks of conspicuous consumption, and I'd guess that anyone that actually used their 1DMkII as it was designed to be used would be horrified to lose their 'small' files and frame rates for the higher-res sensor.
calvillo wrote:
Photographers in general face increased costs from everything from rent, to gas, to gear prices, and with digital just starting to mature, we've had to upgrade more often because equipment life/depreciation is much shorter.
Show me a photographer who has abused their digital SLR into submission, and I'll show you a photographer who has done the same to their film cameras. Depreciation is all in your mind! My 1Ds is still 'worth' what I paid for it, despite being antiquated and depreciated!
I disagree with your line of thinking. Disregarding all the techno-geek 'internet shooters' with too much money who may have bought the 1DMkII, the camera was designed as a sports and PJ camera. Most of these photographers would hate the large files they'd have to deal with, and the resolution would be complete overkill for what they do with their images. Remember the original 1D? Plenty of pros got double-truck spreads out of that sensor. Put a FF 13MP chip in the 1D, and then what's to distinguish it from the 1DsMkII? Little.
Your whole line of argument smacks of conspicuous consumption, and I'd guess that anyone that actually used their 1DMkII as it was designed to be used would be horrified to lose their 'small' files and frame rates for the higher-res sensor.
There are many photographers whose needs are best met with a 13 mp or 16 mp sensor, but there are also many others here at FM who have convinced themeselves that they need that resolution, whether they do or they don't. What is worse, though, is that some of them think they know what is the best for all of us and that there is something wrong with others who have come to the conclusion that a different camera might meet their needs better.
Les
joeisayo wrote:
"5D is is essentially a 20D with a FF sensor"
I say perfect! The biggest weakness about the 20D was it's tiny litttle viewfinder, 1.6X cropped sensor, small 1.8LCD, and useless pop up flash. Well, the 5D addressed all those weaknesses and added a better built more uniform grip. Is it worth $1,900 more? YES!!!!!!
The FF sensor alone would do it for me....the rest is icing on the cake.
Josef
You forgot a few things, the small buffer (only 6 RAW images), no spot meter, no interchangeable focus screens.
EllitoGuy wrote:
16mm on FF isnt NEARLY as distorted as 10mm on 1.6X
You do know that makes no sense whatsoever ... a 10mm lens with an APS-C sized image circle on an APS-C sized sensor will show exactly the same distortion as a normal 16mm lens on a fullframe sensor, lens quality being equal. It's exactly the same physics.
One reason why this forum in particular is so frustrating - opinion with no evidence.
Gibbonx wrote:
You do know that makes no sense whatsoever ... a 10mm lens with an APS-C sized image circle on an APS-C sized sensor will show exactly the same distortion as a normal 16mm lens on a fullframe sensor, lens quality being equal. It's exactly the same physics.
One reason why this forum in particular is so frustrating - opinion with no evidence.
I am not sure exactly what ElitoGuy meant by distorted. However lens quality will probably not be equal.
Have you all thought about the AA filter. The 5D might still have a stronger AA filter than the 1DS and 1DS MK II. I still think the 1DS will give more detail than the new 5D.
Just cause it has more megapixels, dosn't mean it will capture fine detail as good as the 1DS or 1DS MkII.
Gibbonx wrote:
You do know that makes no sense whatsoever ... a 10mm lens with an APS-C sized image circle on an APS-C sized sensor will show exactly the same distortion as a normal 16mm lens on a fullframe sensor, lens quality being equal. It's exactly the same physics.
NOPE! A 10mm lens with an APS-C sized image circle on an APS-C sized sensor will show exactly the same distortion as a 10mm lens on a full frame sensor, cropped to the size of an APS-C sized sensor (or 1.6x conversion, as most people call it). The same distortion? ... Maybe. (A very big maybe). The same perspective? Definitely NOT! You have to remember, it's only a CROP! The sensor is still at the same distance from the lens mount, still at the same focal plane. A 16mm lens WILL offer a different perspective to a 10mm lens!
A 16 mm lens will have less DOF for a given aperture, for one thing... etc, etc.
Jeff wrote:
I disagree with your line of thinking. Disregarding all the techno-geek 'internet shooters' with too much money who may have bought the 1DMkII, the camera was designed as a sports and PJ camera. Most of these photographers would hate the large files they'd have to deal with, and the resolution would be complete overkill for what they do with their images. Remember the original 1D? Plenty of pros got double-truck spreads out of that sensor. Put a FF 13MP chip in the 1D, and then what's to distinguish it from the 1DsMkII? Little.
Your whole line of argument smacks of conspicuous consumption, and I'd guess that anyone that actually used their 1DMkII as it was designed to be used would be horrified to lose their 'small' files and frame rates for the higher-res sensor.
Show me a photographer who has abused their digital SLR into submission, and I'll show you a photographer who has done the same to their film cameras. Depreciation is all in your mind! My 1Ds is still 'worth' what I paid for it, despite being antiquated and depreciated!
(And, it still works like the day I got it...)...Show more →
Thank goodness you're here to explain what a DII was designed for (though you sound sort of snotty/condescending doing it)!!!
I'm on my third digital body, second generation (traded up from a 20D to a DII). I was a late adopter because I didn't feel the earlier gear was worth the money, and that I could get better quality with film. I use my DII for everything from ad work to covering college sports. I'm not sure which part of that story makes for conspicuous consumption, and don't really care.
Also, your file size arguement is bogus. The DII doubled the file size of the D, PJ's still bought the DII. I'm also of the opinion, that PJ's would be bright enough so shoot a smaller jpg when file size was a handicap.
My third point wasn't really worded properly. By depreciation, I was driving more at camera/technology lifecycle. I know several guys here in PDX who on on their 6th or 7th generation digatal backs/bodies. As I mentioned I'm not one of those.
Don't understand you attitude because my opinion is that Canon should have offered the same 12.8/FF to DII users, but you're certainly entitled to it.
I disagree with your line of thinking. Disregarding all the techno-geek 'internet shooters' with too much money who may have bought the 1DMkII, the camera was designed as a sports and PJ camera. Most of these photographers would hate the large files they'd have to deal with, and the resolution would be complete overkill for what they do with their images. Remember the original 1D? Plenty of pros got double-truck spreads out of that sensor. Put a FF 13MP chip in the 1D, and then what's to distinguish it from the 1DsMkII? Little.
Your whole line of argument smacks of conspicuous consumption, and I'd guess that anyone that actually used their 1DMkII as it was designed to be used would be horrified to lose their 'small' files and frame rates for the higher-res sensor.
Les, not sure if your statement is aimed in my direction or not, but I don't suggest I know what's best for anyone other then me. Further, from the posts I've seen there are quite a few guys who don't feel the D IIN is worth upgrading to, and I believe this would be different if the new/larger sensor was in the D IIN.
As far as resolution/file size is concerned, I've never worried about having too big a file, rather the opposite. Granted that's probably because I'm not a PJ. Instead, my concern is giving my client enough image so they can crop the way they want, or may decide they want later, and still have the size/resolution they need!
calvillo wrote:
Don't understand you attitude because my opinion is that Canon should have offered the same 12.8/FF to DII users, but you're certainly entitled to it.
You made your opinion clear before the introduction and told us all how foolish we were to think that Canon wouldn't put the 5D sensor into the 1DIIN, stating that if they didn't they wouldn't sell anymore 1DIIs. Canon have said they will introduce a combined 1 series, so they probably will. In the meantime I'm sure their current lineup will continue to sell well and provide most people with bodies suited to what they desire.
Now let's see, what was your line, something to the effect of "there's no use arguing with the man with all the answers." The lineup is what it is right now, so you have two options: buck up, or wait. Arguing your inability to comprehend why the linup is what it is would be better received at another 3 letter site.
Hammerli wrote: You made your opinion clear before the introduction and told us all how foolish we were to think that Canon wouldn't put the 5D sensor into the 1DIIN, stating that if they didn't they wouldn't sell anymore 1DIIs. Canon have said they will introduce a combined 1 series, so they probably will. In the meantime I'm sure their current lineup will continue to sell well and provide most people with bodies suited to what they desire.
Now let's see, what was your line, something to the effect of "there's no use arguing with the man with all the answers." The lineup is what it is right now, so you have two options: buck up, or wait. Arguing your inability to comprehend why the linup is what it is would be better received at another 3 letter site....Show more →
I notice you didn't link my alleged crimes.
You should probably reread what I posted instead of twisting things. Foolish is your word, not mine.
Finally, have you missed the threads where posters have said that they didn't feel the D IIN upgrade was worthwhile? Apparently, I'm not alone.
As far as the lineup being what it is, all I can say is there are a couple of us who are disappointed. Endless apologies if that bothers you!
Edited by calvillo on Aug 24, 2005 at 09:17 PM GMT
calvillo wrote:
Don't understand you attitude because my opinion is that Canon should have offered the same 12.8/FF to DII users, but you're certainly entitled to it.
Hammerli wrote: You made your opinion clear before the introduction and told us all how foolish we were to think that Canon wouldn't put the 5D sensor into the 1DIIN, stating that if they didn't they wouldn't sell anymore 1DIIs. Canon have said they will introduce a combined 1 series, so they probably will. In the meantime I'm sure their current lineup will continue to sell well and provide most people with bodies suited to what they desire.
Now let's see, what was your line, something to the effect of "there's no use arguing with the man with all the answers." The lineup is what it is right now, so you have two options: buck up, or wait. Arguing your inability to comprehend why the linup is what it is would be better received at another 3 letter site....Show more →
calvillo wrote:
I notice you didn't link my alleged crimes.
"The thing I can't imagine, is a 12.8 megapizel full frame pro-sumer camera, with no 1 series equivalent. If there is a 5D @ 12.8 & 3 fps and it comes out at the $2,500 - $3,500 price point, then the 1D II and any 1D IIN are DOA."
1) Where's the everyone is foolish part?
2) What's offensive about thinking the same sensor in the D IIN would make a great machine? There's precedent for it as the D II mirrors the 20D?
3) I'll give you the last line, shouldn't have said it, and I apologize.
calvillo wrote:
1) Where's the everyone is foolish part?
You're right, that's my word and I apologize. Your exact phrasing was that it was unimaginable "The thing I can't imagine...", and later "but I can't see..." so as you took the liberty of stating in that thread that "I've been told I'm full of it..." even though no one actually said that, it was pretty clear what your tone and inference was; but again you didn't so much as say foolish.
calvillo wrote:
2) What's offensive about thinking the same sensor in the D IIN would make a great machine, when the D II mirrors the 20D?
As my Mother used to say, "it's not what you said, it's your tone." The "I know you are but what am I" isn't becoming, oh, sorry it was "I'll refrain from saying what you sound like."
William L wrote:
Have you all thought about the AA filter. The 5D might still have a stronger AA filter than the 1DS and 1DS MK II. I still think the 1DS will give more detail than the new 5D.
Just cause it has more megapixels, dosn't mean it will capture fine detail as good as the 1DS or 1DS MkII.
From the Canon samples, we can guess that the amount of oversampling in the 5D would correspond to something betwen the 20D and 1DII.
The 1Ds at 4064 pixels (long side), and the 5D at 4368, one wouldn't expect a big difference anyway. However, after the complaints of moire from the 1Ds (when shooting clothes), Canon has chosen to now do adequate oversampling. I suspect there is a relationship here!
On the popular review sites you will likely see the 5D test a just a few lp/mm more than the 1Ds. However, the 5D will be usable at low light levels!
rudiphoto wrote:
NOPE! A 10mm lens with an APS-C sized image circle on an APS-C sized sensor will show exactly the same distortion as a 10mm lens on a full frame sensor, cropped to the size of an APS-C sized sensor (or 1.6x conversion, as most people call it). The same distortion? ... Maybe. (A very big maybe). The same perspective? Definitely NOT! You have to remember, it's only a CROP! The sensor is still at the same distance from the lens mount, still at the same focal plane. A 16mm lens WILL offer a different perspective to a 10mm lens!
A 16 mm lens will have less DOF for a given aperture, for one thing... etc, etc. ...Show more →
The lens isn't the same distance from the sensor, that's the whole point of EF-S lenses
It's at a closer distance (through a shorter back focus) to give the same FOV. That's what the EF-S mount allows.
As I said before, the physics are exactly the same, just on a different scale.
