Etadam wrote:
I had not so bad results with my 10D simply by redirecting the light to the ceiling, or a piece of paper in front of the flash to soften the effect (+ some exposure adjustment). To be honest, I never used an external flash...
Anyway, according to the [macromedia!] flash from canon posted in this thread, it doesn't seem the new mk ii will have a built-in flash... so I'm just ready to answer the first post titled "official: 5d2" to reply "5D2 it is, D700 it'll be"
[depends on the price also, of course... but i doubt we'll have a cheap new 5d]...Show more →
What you really want is a built-in softbox which pops up like an airbag.
Anything we see, we will be impressed. Those who dont use canon gear will say its nothing.
I have seen too much info saying there will be multiple bodies.
aside form the usual expectations of their difference, i expect 1of them to be an EF/EF-S mount.
I say that many of the specs are likely accurate, the bad ones are pretty obvious. FF with popup flash?? nah dont think so... We need to start a sticky post for the "common sense says likely" and "prudence says no way"
If you really believe that the 5D mkII will have a 100% VF then I'll concede you your point, fact is it won't anyway as we know....
It's all immaterial anyway, the reason why the Nikon on board unit can justify itself, and IMO very well, is that it's a wireless master, the day canon gives that kind of functionality to an on board instead of requiring you to buy a 580ex is the day the 5D mkII will be able to compete in any way with the D700 on anything but pure megapixels.
Actually, it's the D700 that's competeing with the Canon 5D, not the other way around. The D700 is still very new to the market and doesn't seem to be selling as well as Nikon hoped.
So are you saying that the D700 is better because it has a newer spec list (eg live view) and a built in wireless master? Or maybe it's the addion of the pop up flash?
From my observations of the D700, the 5D at lower iso values (say sub 400) is sharper and clearer than the either the D3 and D700. At the moment, the Canon 5D is the better camera for pure IQ. The 5DII is rumoured to have a weaker AA filter, so that would hint at it being even better in terms of clarity and sharpness.
tayo wrote:
I'm not sure a small hotshoe flash would need to be more bulky and heavy and inconvenient than a built-in one. Maybe it takes a quarter inch more height etc, but for me, this argument seems to work in the other direction, since then you are asking everyone to take this additional weight and bulk, however small it is.
There seems to be a lack of on-hotshoe options, maybe that is the problem. Why not build a mini hotshoe flash which has its bulb closer to the lens?
Maybe even another one for the situation which brainiac describes, which holds 3 mini-bulbs in a triangle around the lens, like a mini-ringflash, avoiding shadows altogether, having the two on the side as low as possible, so one can still put the camera on the table. Ok, I'm not so sure about that one... ...Show more →
Well, if Canon or Metz or anyone else can make a flash that is HALF the size of this SB-400 with a much lower profile, I would be absolutely thrilled:
Pixel Perfect wrote:
That's so rude it's not funny. Toyotas have no redeeming features whatsoever, they are the last bastion of those that cannot drive.
What, longevity, reliability, great gas mileage, and reasonable prices are not good features?
gazzajagman wrote:
Actually, it's the D700 that's competeing with the Canon 5D, not the other way around. The D700 is still very new to the market and doesn't seem to be selling as well as Nikon hoped.
So are you saying that the D700 is better because it has a newer spec list (eg live view) and a built in wireless master? Or maybe it's the addion of the pop up flash?
From my observations of the D700, the 5D at lower iso values (say sub 400) is sharper and clearer than the either the D3 and D700. At the moment, the Canon 5D is the better camera for pure IQ. The 5DII is rumoured to have a weaker AA filter, so that would hint at it being even better in terms of clarity and sharpness.
You proved my point, canon only bother to compete on megapixels. A 4X5 will blow my 5D out of the water for IQ but I still won't shoot a wedding with it. There gets to a point where you have enough megapixels and are fed up compromising with a camera that only allows you to actualise that IQ under good-perfect conditions but not under the trying conditions that the features of the Nikon's will allow. I shot two weddings in the rain last week. During the second some water got into the lens contacts and the lens stopped communicating until I gave it a thorough clean. 12 Megapixels is enough quality. I'm fed up of shooting with my coat over my cameras and not over myself, fed up of only one useable focus point and fast lens focusing with f2.8 or faster lenses only in low light at a price point that I should not have to compromise at, given the features offered by the competition at a quality that is perfectly sufficient and without needing to buy the top tier camera system. At present what is tying me to canon is the 17-40L, 70-200f4L IS and the 85mm 1.8 USM lens. That's it.
bobbytan wrote:
And that is the reason why Japanese cars sell better than German cars .... because you get a lot of extra features at no cost. Nikon has gone that route with their D700 and I expect Canon to follow suit .... if they want to remain competitive and reclaim the market share they once had.
On average, Toyota have sold ca. 752400 Corollas a year, since production started in 1966.
On average, VW have sold ca. 735300 Golfs a year, since production started in 1974.
The difference is ca. 17.100 cars.
The cheapest version of Toyota Auris (1.4 petrol) (Toyota hatchback in Europe) costs at Toyota DE 16,180 €.
VW New-Golf costs with a 1.4 petrol 16,500 €. The difference is 320 €.
I wouldn’t be surprised the Auris would come with more additional equipment, but after five years, I think the VW will be worth more.
Personally, I find it more comfy to be in a Golf than in a Corolla/Auris, on the roads.
I think that it is again becoming obvious that the needs of professionals (who have to get a picture) and hobbyists (who go for quality and fun) are different. The emotional connection to the equipment and taking pictures (for the fun of it) is different too. Like it or not, in any hobby the emphasis is not on practical aspects of the activity. I use completely different computers at work and for fun. Even a case for my fun computer matters and costs a lot more.
Beni wrote:
.....................
You proved my point, canon only bother to compete on megapixels. A 4X5 will blow my 5D out of the water for IQ but I still won't shoot a wedding with it. There gets to a point where you have enough megapixels and are fed up compromising with a camera that only allows you to actualise that IQ under good-perfect conditions but not under the trying conditions that the features of the Nikon's will allow. ....................
Without question there are price/performance benefits to Nikon that make the brand a better choice for some shooters. That's how they hope to regain market share. We are seeing the beginning of Canon's response with the 50D. But unless Canon's market share is eroding rapidly on the high end, Canon's going to avoid competing on price as much as possible.
Canon has the 1dIII for you. That is their answer. You may not like that answer, but there it is. The 1DIII makes enlargements at least as good as the 5D.
As you probably know there are very high end wedding photogs who use the 5D.
David, you are probably right - if you are looking at European car sales - but in the USA Toyota is undoubtedly #1 and the VW Golf is almost unknown here.
If you really believe that the 5D mkII will have a 100% VF then I'll concede you your point, fact is it won't anyway as we know....
It's all immaterial anyway, the reason why the Nikon on board unit can justify itself, and IMO very well, is that it's a wireless master, the day canon gives that kind of functionality to an on board instead of requiring you to buy a 580ex is the day the 5D mkII will be able to compete in any way with the D700 on anything but pure megapixels.
Ahh, part of the problems with internet forums; things get confused without tone, inflection, and context
I actually don't believe the 5d2 will have a 100% VF. I think it's going to be just like the 5d was, a consumer camera with a FF sensor, or in this case, a 50d with FF sensor (but I'm just guessing).
I also agree with you completely and if Canon were to actually make the flash useful as a master, ala Nikon, then I would support it as it would be an incredibly useful too. But this is Canon we're talking about.
It's insane for me, or anyone, to argue about meaningless points on a possibly non-existent camera. Talk about wasting time and energy. Uggg. But in a few days to few weeks, all the mystery will be gone and we can begin speculating on the real Canon products, also called the 1 series.
bobbytan wrote:
David, you are probably right - if you are looking at European car sales - but in the USA Toyota is undoubtedly #1 and the VW Golf is almost unknown here.
Hey Bobby!
I understand what you mean, didn’t completely register that you’re all from the US, American Toyotas are no Japanese Toyotas, really! You have some interesting Corollas there!
Are you stating that: Bounce flash is useless, All flash diffusers are useless and that off camera flash in general is useles... AND expect to be taken serious? Or are you still trying to make some point?
No - I'm saying that bounce flash works in a narrow set of circumstances:
1) the bounce surface is bright enough
2) the bounce surface is near enough
3) the bounce surface is of neutral colour
4) the bounce surface is continuous and not interrupted by glass-covered pictures or mirrors
5) the bounce surface is in the right direction to illuminate your subject matter appropriately
6) the photographer like the look of bounced flash
I find that at least half of the time (6) and at least one of the others fail. I don't like to suck the life out of my pictures by wasting my subjects' time.
As for diffusers, as I said, the micro-apollo is the only one that manages to spread the light beyond an effective point source, and frankly it's a nuisance as it's always getting knocked into. The omni-bounce, or small white diffusers and reflectors do virtually nothing, because they don't spread the light source. It's not bouncing the light off or through a diffuser that helps, it's how broad the light source is as seen from the subject's point of view. Doubling the light source width from 3cm to 6cm, when it is 6 feet away from the subject achieves so little that it is barely possible to tell the difference between direct flash and diffused flash. At normal shooting distances like 6 feet, the light would need to spread over at least a foot or two to see any significant diffusing effect. Most modifiers fail to do that.
Off camera flash:
Off camera flash, if used with diffusers can look OK, but otherwise all it does is to produce harsh and long shadows across faces or under noses and chins. It's not nearly as practical if you have to keep moving and have a lot of ground to cover. Two undiffused off-camera flashes just cast double shadows, as any studio photographer can tell you.
What it boils down to is that if you need to shoot social stuff professionally, whether it be for press or weddings or what have you, ring flash is the most flattering (almost) practical option, while built-in pop-up flash is the next best, by virtue of the flash bulb being close to the lens. Anything else is a bit student, and interferes with your ability to respond, and capture the ephemeral heart of the event.
Edited by brainiac on Sep 06, 2008 at 06:49 PM GMT
Yet we don't even know if it focuses better or worse than the 50D. It does have fewer pixels and costs more than 2x the 50D.
Specs and features are fine when they work and are useful.
Another feature is that IQ of the D700 isn't as good as the three year old 5D. I may thinking crazy, but I'm kinda interested in IQ in a digital camera.
Etadam wrote:
(my best-off ...
* Image Sensor Cleaning (vibration) *
* ISO 200 - 6400 (with boost up to ISO 25600 and down to ISO 100)
* 14-bit A/D conversion, 12 channel readout
* New Kevlar / carbon fibre composite shutter with 150,000 exposure durability *
* Multi-CAM3500FX Auto Focus sensor (51-point, 15 cross-type, more vertical coverage)
* Auto-focus tracking by color (using information from 1005-pixel AE sensor)
* Auto-focus calibration (fine-tuning), fixed body or up to 20 separate lens settings
* Scene Recognition System (uses AE sensor, AF sensor)
* 5 to 8 frames per second continuous with auto-focus tracking* * 3.0" 922,000 pixel LCD monitor
* Live View with either phase detect (mirror up/down) or contrast detect Auto Focus
* Virtual horizon indicates if camera is level (like an aircraft cockpit display)
* HDMI HD video output
* 'Active D-Lighting' (adjusts metering as well as applying D-Lighting curve)
* Detailed 'Control Panel' type display on LCD monitor, changes color in darkness
* Magnesium alloy body with connections and buttons sealed against moisture ))
and cheaper or =, I'll be happy
[but honestly i don't think it'll have all of that] ...Show more →
mfurman wrote:
Do you drive a Toyota? I somehow doubt it.
No, I don't drive a Toyota. I drive a 2000 model Acura RL which is also Japanese. No other car at that time had GPS as a standard feature! For the price that I paid for it ($45,000 then) there is just no way that I could have bought a BMW or Merc with a comparable feature set. And after 8 years and clocking 150,000 miles, I have not had a single problem .... touch wood!
