Ha Ha .... looks like we are both a little cock-eyed. Left to my own devices, I consistently end up with a 1-2º clockwise slant, so the grid screen saves me some Photoshop time. What I also like about the Canon grid screen (apart from it being inexpensive) is that the lines are so fine you won't even know it's there most of the time. The Brightscreen's grid screen that I had is annoyingly fat and conspicuous i.e. the grid lines were very distracting to me.
picnic wrote:
I concur about the grid screen. I bought it for use primarily for use with the TS lenses. It also helps me in handheld shooting since I apparently 'tilt' a bit . It makes no difference in focusing AFAICT but I like it and its not meant for 'field replacement'
orangefirefish wrote:
For those that are griping about the 5d focus, here's something I found interesting today after rereading Rob Galbraith's 1d3 August update. Maybe it will make you rethink wanting the latest 45 point focus in the cam, and why Canon maybe decided not to use the 1d focus...
Why would Canon have to use the 1DIII 45pt. AF system and who in their right mind would expect them to? Either redesign the AF system using a 13-21pt array or just modify the mirror box to utilize the 1DII AF system. As I stated prior...Canon has the means (and time) to do so and they have little excuse not to have. How can anyone attempt to defend Canon for using 3 year old technology in what is supposedly an "evolution" of the 5D family? As Andy Rooney would say...GIVE ME A BREAK.
Just read in the latest Outdoor Photographer about full frame cameras and they mentioned that the original 5D tracked birds better than the 30D. I own a 30D and use it mostly for aviation and its AF is pretty fast. The 5D Mark II AF should be fine but I would like to see more testing before I take the dive.
herve wrote:
Not exactly about the 5D performance itself, but do you think that a 4GB RAM with intel core duo processor will do a good job of fast-processing PS editing with it, or worth it to wait for 6 or 8 RAM generation of comps.
In short: Is 4 GB RAM (or 3 even?) plenty already for a 21 MB image?
I am currently operating from an HP laptop bought in 2005, 1 GB RAM if I recall, and little to complain with speed editing 40D full sizes images. But too bulky for travel at 17 inches,
bobbytan wrote:
The grid screen is nothing more than just that - it's not meant to assist you in manual focussing. I've used Brightscreen's ground glass screen before and they are horribly expensive and didn't help much either. I sold all my old Zeiss lenses because of that .... but I am really excited about the new ZE offering from Zeiss. As I understand it, there is audio and visual confirmation when you hit the focus zone - and that is all that I need. Critical focussing can be achieved in live view mode.
When I do macro (a fair amount of time) I like to focus manually. None of these current screens are great for that.
I've read this post from the beginning. I can understand the main frustrations about the 5DII: "old AF" and only 3.9 images/s.
But the real 'targets' for the 5D are studio/wedding photographers and landscape photographers. Of course, it's always possible to make some nice "sporty' images with the 5D (or 5DII) but keep in mind that the most important feature of the camera is ... the man/woman behind the lens.
You don't like the AF system of the 5D(II), buy a 1D camera series and play with ... of course if you want a nice AF system and a lot of Mpx go for the 1DsIII and don't blame the 5DII for your personal frustration 'cause this camera isn't for you. The 5DII will offer me more Mpx but do you think it will improve my photographer's skills ?
As I'm working for stock agencies, and the more Mpx you offer the more money you have in your pocket. So my choice is simple: I will take more and more pictures trying to improve my skills and of course ... to earn more money. That's all!
So ladies and gentlemen play with your camera and take pictures and pictures that's the only way to improve your photographer's skills.
skibum5 wrote:
now someone said something about slower lenses perhaps not working as well with dual f/2.8 1/3 DOF sensors and whether that is the case or not I don't know.
I said that, and I should explain a bit.
The light bundle is at a different angle for fast lenses than for slow lenses (and for tele vs wide, but that's different). As that angle changes, the focus ability of the sensor changes.
So they have a sensor that works best for lenses at 2.8 to 1.2, and another for lenses from 2.8 through 5.6.
Most people are using zooms these days. The fastest from Canon are 2.8. The rest are down to 5.6.
So that 5.6 sensor is very important. Substituting another 2.8 for it would result in poor focus with slow lenses.
orangefirefish wrote:
For those that are griping about the 5d focus, here's something I found interesting today after rereading Rob Galbraith's 1d3 August update. Maybe it will make you rethink wanting the latest 45 point focus in the cam, and why Canon maybe decided not to use the 1d focus...
"Rounding out the list of static focus troubles we encountered before the firmware updates is a problem with the Mark III series autofocusing on low or no contrast stationary subjects. This would sometimes translate to the camera misfocusing without ever finding the correct focus, or not autofocusing at all. During a full day of shooting at a local conference centre, in mostly lousy light, the camera struggled or failed to focus perhaps a dozen times. To make it through the event, it became necessary to swap the EOS-1D Mark III for an EOS 5D........................
After a few minutes of struggling with the camera, and with the light going away, engaging Live View mode and then manually focusing saved the day. While we might have chalked the autofocus problem up to light that was simply too tough for any camera's AF, a 5D mated to the same lens accurately autofocused the same scene without incident during scouting a few evenings earlier, plus a Nikon D300 attached to an AF-S VR Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G IF-ED, set up alongside the EOS-1Ds Mark III at the actual shoot, was able to autofocus and get the distance right on the first try."...Show more →
It won't change the minds of some here either.
No matter how many 5D mkI owners post here saying that the autofocus is just fine, there are a few here who will refuse to believe it.
All of these statements have been ignored, and so will Galbraith's. I've posted other things he's said, and they won't comment on it.
I decided to do a few calculations based on focus-recompose problems, since I'm a bit bored and it's sunday evening
If the target is 1 meter from me and i focus at the face, and then recompose 40cm on the person (not a very realistic example), the difference in distance is 7cm, that means that you might get focus problems if you use f1.2-f2.0, but the actual recompose distance is more like 10-15cm, and in that case, the difference is as small as 1.1cm, no problem in other words, most subject/camera movement will be larger than this number in most cases.
In most real life examples I can imagine, focus recompose should therefore NOT be a problem.
That is not the same as "one focus point is enough". Focus recompose takes time and should be a unnecessary hassle. That said, I used my 30d on a concert shoot this weekend and i often used the outer points in different lighting.
How can anyone attempt to defend Canon for using 3 year old technology in what is supposedly an "evolution" of the 5D family?
Easy defense: Their market research showed them that they would reach their sales objectives without changing the system. That's the fact of corporate decisionmaking: If it won't either cut costs or increase sales or both, then it will either increase costs or decrease sales. Companies don't change for the sake of change, they change to make more money.
Every change always has a bad consequence--any change costs money and time. That means it has to result in a greater benefit that its cost, or it shouldn't be done.
I suspect that Canon will achieve its sales goals with the 5D2 just as they've delivered it.
ulrikft wrote:
In most real life examples I can imagine, focus recompose should therefore NOT be a problem.
That is not the same as "one focus point is enough". Focus recompose takes time and should be a unnecessary hassle. That said, I used my 30d on a concert shoot this weekend and i often used the outer points in different lighting.
Focus and recompose is only an issue when your subject is close to the camera. I did those same calculations when I discovered how useless the outer focus points on the 5D were and concluded that I only need to worry about focus and recompose if my focus point is closer to the camera than 1m. In practice the only time I have seen serious focus and recompose errors have been shooting with the 35/1.4 where I often am quite close to my subject. What I really wanted from the 5D2 (but knew I wasn't going to get) was 3 good AF points: 1/3, 1/2 and 2/3 along the long axis of the frame. Using the closest of those 3 points can essentially eliminate focus and recompose errors.
On slight tangent, with the the digital ink being wasted on AF these days, I recently picked up my EOS-3 after years of neglect. Honestly, for the kind of shooting I do (low light, shallow depth of field, single shot), the EOS-3 AF is not all that great. While it has lots of AF points, none of them are either as fast or as accurate as the center point on the 5D. For me if I had to choose between lots of so-so AF points and one good one, I'll pick one good one every time.
jerrykur wrote:
You definitely do not want to be changing screens in the field. You need a clean, well lit, dust free environment. Some place you do not mind having the lens off for a few minutes. Also, you want to have your blower handy to get clean the dust off the focusing screen and SI plate.
Obviously! I am basically saying that it is not as complicated as one would think
orangefirefish wrote:
"Rounding out the list of static focus troubles we encountered before the firmware updates is a problem with the Mark III series autofocusing on low or no contrast stationary subjects. This would sometimes translate to the camera misfocusing without ever finding the correct focus, or not autofocusing at all. During a full day of shooting at a local conference centre, in mostly lousy light, the camera struggled or failed to focus perhaps a dozen times. To make it through the event, it became necessary to swap the EOS-1D Mark III for an EOS 5D........................
It's hard to know how much of this was due to the HW sub-mirror problem present in Rob's early test cameras vs. the (real) tendency for jitter with stationary subjects in the original Mark III AI-Servo algorithms. Regardless, the later issue improved with subsequent firmware and was fixed completely in my camera by the last firmware release.
. It makes no difference in focusing AFAICT but I like it and its not meant for 'field replacement'