this camera needs the obvious stuff like 16mp, digic 3, 14bit, live view, sensor cleaning, true iso 3200 expandable to 6400.. but it also needs 6fps, 1d AF and weather sealing otherwise why wouldn't someone just buy a 1dsmk2? it would also be nice if it had usable auto iso and a mirror lockup button. those who say fps is irrelevant because its not a sports camera, i'm so tired of this thinking, its a camera, period. the reason the 5D is not used for sports is because it has a piddly 3fps, if it originally came with 6 fps i guarantee a LOT of people would have purchased one over a cheaper crop body since most people don't shoot sports exclusively. you can make up for reach when you need it (longer lens, TC, better position), you can't make up for speed. throw in pro AF and weather sealing and you've got one hell of a nikon killer.
Edited by fred mitcham on Apr 05, 2008 at 11:27 AM GMT
fred mitcham wrote:
this camera needs the obvious stuff like 16mp, digic 3, 14bit, live view, sensor cleaning, true iso 3200 expandable to 6400.. but it also needs 6fps, 1d AF and weather sealing otherwise why wouldn't someone just buy a 1dsmk2? it would also be nice if it had usable auto iso and a mirror lockup button. those who say fps is irrelevant because its not a sports camera, i'm so tired of this thinking, its a camera, period. the reason the 5D is not used for sports is because it has a piddly 3fps, if it originally came with 6 fps i guarantee a LOT of people would have purchased one over a cheaper crop body since most people don't shoot sports exclusively. you can make up for reach when you need it (longer lens, TC, better position), you can't make up for speed. throw in pro AF and weather sealing and you've got one hell of a nikon killer. ...Show more →
My problem with higher FPS is that I'm not so sure it's feasible for the price. Granted I'm no engineer, but surely to get 6fps with a 16MP FF sensor is gonna need a lot of processing power, which is fine in a high-priced 1D body but not so fine in a compact body. I'm not sure we're gonna see dual Digic III chips in a 5d2 priced at $3K (ish), so I'm not expecting much better fps rate than the 1ds2.
With all the new-gen features, compact body size and for the price I think a 5d2 is still gonna be more sttractive to many people (and still cheaper) than an older-gen, used 1ds2, even without 45-point AF.
"you would spend $3000+ upgrading to a new 5D for that?!? wow"
Yep, I photograph static subjects like architecture using a tripod and cable release etc. For me autofocus is definitely inferior to manual focus using Live View set to a mag of 10x. Since Live View arrived I think I've had 100% perfect/critical focus (on my 40D). For me the existing 5D is dependent on autofocus, which I don't trust to be honest.
I have a thing about dust on lenses/sensors, perhaps I am a little anal about crap on my sensor. My 40D hasn't needed a sensor clean since I got it last autumn, and I expect the same performance from a three grand body. I said to myself years ago that I would never buy a digital camera without a sensor cleaner, and I won't.
Of course I would really be paying for a beautiful full frame sensor, and I would definitely pay three grand for that, I am desperate to go full frame again so that my wide lenses become wide again.
John Power wrote:
What is the #1 improvement or change you are hoping for on the 5D2.
In no particular order:
-- A smaller spot meter;
-- AF points that are spread out further away, not bunched up in the middle.
-- At least 3 selectable AF points that are high precision @ f2.8;
-- User-customizable focus precision adjustment, notably absent from the 40D.
-- A built-in flash that can serve as an AF Assist Strobe, as well as a fill flash. If the Olympus E-3 and Nikon D300 can have one, why shouldn't the 5D?
-- Auto ISO that has been implemented properly.
-- Ability to process and delete JPEGs in-camera, after the shot has already been taken in RAW format (like the Pentax K10D).
-- 640x480 resolution on the LCD like the D300, not 320x240 like the Digital Rebels.
-- Picture-in-picture capability on the LCD while using Live View. This would let people zoom in for manual focus, yet still have a thumbnail to keep an eye on the composition.
-- Direct Print Button customizable for other functions, such as MLU.
Tom_W wrote:
If Canon does that, they'll have to enlarge the projected image circle of many of their full-frame lenses.
I don't think this is necessary.
1. Sony has AS with a FF sensor. I have not heard they plan to do that to their FF lenses.
2. All companies which have AS and APS sensors are doing just fine with APS lenses.
Yakim Peled wrote:
I don't think this is necessary.
1. Sony has AS with a FF sensor. I have not heard they plan to do that to their FF lenses.
2. All companies which have AS and APS sensors are doing just fine with APS lenses.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
From reading Canon's "Lensworks III" book, they have stated that their projected image circle is 43.2 or 43.3 mm, which barely covers the corners of a 36 X 24 mm frame (full frame). Any movement of the sensor, even 1 mm will put a corner or two outside of that circle and will present physical vignetting. And one would expect the sensor movement needed to correct for shake to be considerably more than 1 mm when using a long lens, since the correction is far from the optical "fulcrum" or null point of the lens.
I have no idea how others apply in-camera IS to an APS-C lens - Nikon doesn't do it. Perhaps they designed their lenses to allow for a slightly larger sensor than needed.
A possible solution might be to use a slightly smaller frame, say 33 X 22 mm, to allow sensor movement for stabilizing purposes. Or use an optical device ahead of the sensor. Pure electronic stabilization might be a future alternative, though I'd want to see it perfected in a cheaper point-and-shoot before being applied to a DSLR.
Or better yet, leave the IS on the lens where it is the most effective, especially with longer lenses where it's use is most needed.
