Beni:
More of this crap? the 5D gives an 18X12" at native resolution and makes a great enlargement
I am more and more convinced that pros are looking at equipment only from very practical perspective. They also work completely differently. I may often take a few shots just in case the focus is not perfect but on the other hand, I crop quite a bit.
I do not understand why it cannot be accepted that 5D mkII may not be meant for professionals (journalist and sports shooters in particular)
Did you know that if I were to print a maximum size of 8x10, a 2 megapixel camera is all I'd need? At 12.8, I can print 20x30" very very easily. You know how many times that size is printed? Very rarely. 12.8 megapixels is already overkill for weddings. Not a lot, just a bit, and that's just the way I like it.
mfurman wrote:
One more thing: what is it about those wedding photographers who do not want more resolution? Do people want only 4x6 or 8x10 (8x12)? I do not know, I am asking.
All this talk of cropping ability......whatever happened to people getting it right in camera? Even kinda getting it right in camera only takes minor cropping.
cineski wrote:
All this talk of cropping ability......whatever happened to people getting it right in camera? Even kinda getting it right in camera only takes minor cropping.
If you never get the cropping wrong in-camera you are a remarkable photographer.
Pro's need all the advantages we can get, it's about earning money, sometimes we get it wrong and being able to crop can make the difference between a shot working and not working.
It gives much more flexibility in post processing too.
jerrykur wrote:
I don't understand the complaints about the weather sealing. The 5DMK2 is rated to handle the same amount of rain as a 1 series. What is the issue?
Some peoples reaction is bizarre. Ask for a feature, get it, then behave as if the request was ignored.
I find the "what's new" section for this camera on DPreview has a lot of cool stuff. I don't get the attitude that it's a 5D with a bigger sensor. I'll admit that the AF choice seems cheap on Canon's part. But other than that the camera looks great.
Not impressed by this camera, personally. I would've liked USEFUL features, like a better AF system.
And for me, 21mp is overkill.
Good luck to all the 17-40 owners.. you're gonna have to upgrade your lens as well.
I've run across a few 'good enough for me' comments. I guess it's like girls one guys fox is another guys bowser. I guess the perfect camera is still to come.
Tim Speciale wrote:
What the hell where you guys expecting? What else do you want from your camera?
I said this yesterday. It's a *5D* replacement, not a 1-series upgrade. As such it's pretty good, very good in certain areas, not perfect. There's just a lot of people here who have got themselves very worked up, because thats what they choose to do.
If the MkII has gained a full ISO stop in quality (if 1600 looks like the current 800) or more than I'll be having a hard time to wait more than 6 months let alone be able to skip this upgrade and wait for the MkIII or 3D(?).
This and the other improvements over the original 5D make it an interesting upgrade.
It is a shame that Canon failed to significantly improve / change the AF system (especially the number of AF points and their spacing). This I see as a major failure, that reduces the MkII to an evolutionary upgrade unlike the revolutionary one they could have released.
OTOH, it does make one wonder if they have a "3D" planned, that does feature an improved AF system and a number of slightly better specs. But it could just mean they want to go forward in small steps and/or maintain a significant difference between it and the pro bodies.
rhorta wrote:
OTOH, it does make one wonder if they have a "3D" planned, that does feature an improved AF system and a number of slightly better specs. But it could just mean they want to go forward in small steps and/or maintain a significant difference between it and the pro bodies.
cineski wrote:
Did you know that if I were to print a maximum size of 8x10, a 2 megapixel camera is all I'd need? At 12.8, I can print 20x30" very very easily. You know how many times that size is printed? Very rarely. 12.8 megapixels is already overkill for weddings. Not a lot, just a bit, and that's just the way I like it.
I regularly print at a size of 80cm x 120cm, roughly 2.5' x 4', so I welcome 21 Mp without having to pay the 1DsIII price. At the same time, for weddings and events I can use sRAW1 for the same 10 Mp as my 1DIII has. You won't hear me complaining about the sensor!
OTOH, better placement of the AF-points would have been extremely welcome - where they are now they are hardly usuable. Should they not all be cross-type, that would be another shortcoming. Easily as important, I miss a second memory card slot. And, minor issue, I'd prefer not to have a mode dial but buttons instead like the 1D series so I won't accidentally change the shooting mode.
My complaints won't keep me from buying though. Still debating wether to sell my current 5D or just add the 5D2. Having two FF cameras plus a 1DIII would be handy every now and again but total overkill 95% of the time...
Because apparently once sensors start out resolving lenses, the quality of images from those lenses magically drops below it was before. The FM logic seems to be that if you have a bad lens on a good sensor you get a bad image. but if you have a bad lens on a bad sensor you get a good image somehow. It's ok, i don't exactly get it either.
Daan B wrote:
The "outer" AF points are definetely not cross type. The 5D2 AF uses the same hardware as the 5D AF.
You're probably right but I've seen so many links to websites saying yay or nay that I'll wait until the white-papers hit the street before being sure about what's in or isn't...
