In the arguably short time that Canon had to put out the 5D II to compete against the D700, Canon had the choice of either retaining and tweaking the 9-point AF system of the 5D, or use the D50's AF system which (by some accounts) have some issues. They chose the safer route and went with the former - and I am glad they did. Sure, a better/different AF system would be real sweet - but if it has not been extensively tested, I would rather not have a new AF system with possible issues.
M Vers wrote:
No, it doesn't need to get scrapped--but given Canons seemingly endless resources it could sure as hell be improved.
Maybe the OP should rename this thread "The 5D Mk II and it's crappy sub-par AF system".
Mr. prejudice, why not give it a chance? You already made up your mind without any field test or hands on. Guys like you have a total lack of EOSfun and already know on forehand that Canon brings crappy sub par stuff, sans expertise yourself.
bobbytan wrote:
In the arguably short time that Canon had to put out the 5D II to compete against the D700...
Excuses, excuses left and right with you. 3 Years is a short amount of time? Wha wha what!? The 1DII AF technology was already there--whats wrong with that? Tweak that a bit...develop a new AF point array and there you have it. I'm sorry I can't proudly boaster my 'I S2 Canon' shirt around at all times all the while vehemently defending its every short coming.
Why would it be such a problem, if the camera were under warranty? After all, Canon did take care of you for the 1d3 issue, yes? bobbytan wrote:
In the arguably short time that Canon had to put out the 5D II to compete against the D700, Canon had the choice of either retaining and tweaking the 9-point AF system of the 5D, or use the D50's AF system which (by some accounts) have some issues. They chose the safer route and went with the former - and I am glad they did. Sure, a better/different AF system would be real sweet - but if it has not been extensively tested, I would rather not have a new AF system with possible issues.
EOSFun .... you have been sleeping. I have been the one "defending" Canon and telling people to give the AF a chance to proof itself. I am NOT one of those bashing the 5D Mk II. Wake up, my friend!
eosfun wrote:
Mr. prejudice, why not give it a chance? You already made up your mind without any field test or hands on. Guys like you have a total lack of EOSfun and already know on forehand that Canon brings crappy sub par stuff, sans expertise yourself.
MVers .... I will say this once and for all, just to get this out of my system. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR ANTICS AND WHINING! Go whine someone else .... and may I suggest DPR .... as they need members like you!
M Vers wrote:
Excuses, excuses left and right with you. 3 Years is a short amount of time? Wha wha what!? The 1DII AF technology was already there--whats wrong with that? Tweak that a bit...develop a new AF point array and there you have it. I'm sorry I can't proudly boaster my 'I S2 Canon' shirt around at all times all the while vehemently defending its every short coming.
bobbytan wrote:
MVers .... I will say this once and for all, just to get this out of my system. I AM SICK AND TIRED OF YOUR ANTICS AND WHINING! Go whine someone else .... and may I suggest DPR .... as they need members like you!
Maybe if you had any logic you can differentiate between whining and reasonable disappointment . Better yet, you can try to take off your Canon fan boy hat in an attempt to make sense out of my (and others) posts. If anyone is fit for DPR it is yourself and your 'Canon can do no harm' mantra
I have said that I am also very disappointed that there is no significant change to the AF .... or maybe you missed that. But it's a done deal and no amount of bitching and whining is going to help any of us. I have also stated that I am NOT a Canon fan boy. I am reasonably happy with the 5D Mk II, so I am getting one. If you are not happy, just move on .... maybe to Nikon.
M Vers wrote:
Maybe if you had any logic you can differentiate between whining and reasonable disappointment . Better yet, you can try to take off your Canon fan boy hat in an attempt to make sense out of my (and others) posts. If anyone is fit for DPR it is yourself and your 'Canon can do no harm' mantra
RDKirk wrote:
That was me behind that manual-focusing F-1, not my grandfather (although I am a grandfather).
I'm part of a very large group of professional photographers who had been shooting medium format film rather than (or in addition to) digital. Having been a Canon shooter since 1973, I stuck with Canon (although I was mad at them for about a decade after they dumped the FD mount).
I had a 10D, a 300D, and a 20D. They were okay up to 16x20, but I certainly wasn't going to give up my Mamiya RZ cameras, not for a 1Ds that cost 'way too much just to replace the medium format film cameras that were already well-ensconced into our workflows. Nor were most of the portrait photographers I gabbed with at PPA meetings.
The 5D changed that--dramatically. It was barely more expensive than a new medium format camera and provided the same IQ as medium format film for most of our uses. At this point, if you leaf through Rangefinder, Studio Photography, or Professional Photographer magazines, the single most used camera is the 5D...to the great loss of Mamiya's market more than any other.
Focus points? We went from a manual focus camera to an autofocus camera. Mirror blackiout? We went from a camera with a full one and a half second mirror blackout (with electric winder) to a camera with a 0.03 (or so) mirror blackout. In other words, the 5D was nothing but positive. We made oodles of money with the 5D.
The only thing we lacked was the IQ to get up to 30x40 and 40x50. The 5D2 comes right at the point we've amortized our 5D's. The 5D2 would have been a professional bargain even at its old price. I'm pre-ordered for two 5D2 cameras.
Would it have been nice to have a fancy new AF system. Sure...if it didn't screw up anything the 5D already had. But was it necessary to do anything more than Canon did to get my money? Nope. They had me at "21 megapixels."
Etadam wrote:
It depends ; if the 5D2 didn't have video, my next camera would certainly be a D700.
If video is that important to you then yes. But why is the video that important to you?
Is there some reason why you would prefer using this than one of Canon or Sony's small Hi def camcorders. They're pretty small these days, take very good video, and don't even cost that much. You can also use it as a video camera, without the limitations that this one has.
Are you saying the the HD for 12 minutes, without most camcorder features is what you need?
not criticizing, but I am very interested in knowing.
skibum5 wrote:
why not? a bulky 1-series monster is a real pain for most situations.
the D700 squeezed a D3 into a small body.
the EOS 3 did too.
Not really. but remember that Nikon has a lot of ground to make up vs Canon. they are taking risks. It could cost them greatly. A friend of mine, Lloyd, from Digitallloyd, agrees with me that the 5D mkII is going to hurt the D700 sales terribly. He feels that Nikon will have to lower the price.
I also think that the D3 sales will be impacted.
Nikons choice to almost meld the two cameras could backfire.
M Vers wrote:
No, it doesn't need to get scrapped--but given Canons seemingly endless resources it could sure as hell be improved. The current 9 AF point layout is lacking IMO, and while some of you claim you can focus and recompose at MFD wide open with the 85L successfully, every single time for the rest of the world its not the case. If I'm going to pay 3K for a body it should at least offer more points than a 1.5K body, and those points should also enable quicker AF (specifically locking speed) especially when the competition offers it. It is clear the 5DII is a step up from xxD bodies and a step down from 1-series and I believe the AF should reflect that. Whether some of you think the current system is 'enough' is negligible--it still doesn't change the fact that others share my stance on the issue and that the system is 3 years old. If stagnancy is OK with you then so be it, use the current 5D--I prefer advancement and given Canon's standing in the market they have no excuse to provide its user base with these advancements. Remember, I'm not asking for 45pt pro AF--rather MKII-like AF with a 13pt. array. Something middle ground, something that offers MORE. Its not impossible......Show more →
I believe in advancement as well. If Canon had been able to put a "better" auto focus system in, I wouldn't demand that they take it out.
But with camera differenciation, this model works just fine. I really don't ubderstand why a few guys don't think so. It really does seem to me that they dont have the camera. Almost everyone who says they do have is are satisfied with the auto focus.
That's what's so weird about the argument.
The fact that the basic design of the auto system is three years old doesn't bother me. We'll see how well the improvements do.
I have been the one "defending" Canon and telling people to give the AF a chance to proof itself.
Then why ask Fred to change the header of this topic in that stupid negative prejuduced header? I just don't understand that. IMO you are feeding the trolls. There is already too much stupidity around of people who are telling us the 5DmkII is less sharp than the 5D, or the video is useless, or the AF is a stinky source of frustration. All comments based on prejudices instead of facts and a total lack of EOSfun. I can tell you, I had the camera in my hands at the Kina and I am convinced we are going to see lots of fine picture here and in the presentation boards from the beginning of november. Lot of the complainers are gonna eat crows.
stanj wrote:
Why not? Because Mel is the referee in this thread about what is acceptable as far as requirements, expectations and criticism.
Is it official then? I get to decide?
Really though, I'm the one whose interested in giving people the choice, not an all in one disaster.
Go and ask the pro sports photographers what they prefer, and with those long, heavy lenses, whether they care about another few ounces in the body. Pro sports photographers have been putting heavy motors on their cameras for a long time. We even used to put those clumsy 33 foot film backs on so we wouldn't have to change film in the middle of something.
If you're going to put a 1D auto focus in here, you will then want the high speed sequence shooting ability as well, because thats what it's all about.
Mel Gross wrote:
Not really. but remember that Nikon has a lot of ground to make up vs Canon. they are taking risks. It could cost them greatly. A friend of mine, Lloyd, from Digitallloyd, agrees with me that the 5D mkII is going to hurt the D700 sales terribly. He feels that Nikon will have to lower the price.
I also think that the D3 sales will be impacted.
Nikons choice to almost meld the two cameras could backfire.
Why should Canon follow suit?
how did putting those featues in hurt it?
suppose they had out the D700 sensor in the 5dmkii body that would sell better than the D700?? more fps and better AF and less lag time HURT the D700?
If they had not put in those features there would be ZERO reason to get it over a 5DMkII, for anyone and absolutely less than zero reasons to get a D300 over a 40D (as it is, it's somewhat debatable to say the least).
Maybe it hurt the D3 and maybe the slightly lesser profit margin on the D700 and
lost D3 sales will bring them down more than any increased sales, but that i snot for sure and even if it is, the fact that have it set like that might've brought some over and kept others in their camp which might outweight any loss in the other sense.
and if the 5dmkii will hurt the sales terribly how much would a $200 worht better parts in the 5dmkii have hurt it? there would be almost no point in the D700 in that case.
and does it make sense to let nikon catch up so much? maybe canon will squeeze more out this way and come out ahead in $$ in the end, but if they cary things too far and annoy too many, especially with the 1dmkiii stuff, slowly maybe they will sorry.
does seem like they could've at least made the center point f/2.8 in BOTH directions without any worry of messing things up and certainly over three years time that is not too much of a drain on resources!
sometimes i wonder if they hadn't planned to put in a lesser version of the new system, but ti didn't work out yet and they jumped to the old sensor again quickly last minute.
anwyay, whatever.
and yes many people will be very happy with the 5dmkii.
and myabe the IS somewhat better AND as fast as in a 40D and maybe fps is the only place where it lags a bit.
we'll see.
M Vers wrote:
Excuses, excuses left and right with you. 3 Years is a short amount of time? Wha wha what!? The 1DII AF technology was already there--whats wrong with that? Tweak that a bit...develop a new AF point array and there you have it. I'm sorry I can't proudly boaster my 'I S2 Canon' shirt around at all times all the while vehemently defending its every short coming.
how do you know it would be just a tweak?
It's just as likely it would require the entire auto focus system to be scrapped. possibly the manual system as well, as they are interrelated.
