bobbytan wrote:
To all those who think their 12mp 5D is plenty good, think again. It's been said that the D3 does not do justice to the high-res Nikon 14-24mm lens, and that this lens on the 1Ds Mk III is a match made in Heaven. Check out these images for a sampling of what you can get on a high-megapixel body:
Kamera wrote:
Does anyone know if while shooting a moving object using the video, does the cameras use the servo focus or how does that work?
From rob Galbraith's site:
Autofocus is functional both before and during recording, but as it's the contrast detect type it will be slow (essentially, autofocus during recording acts the same as when using contrast detect autofocus in Live View generally: the camera incrementally steps the autofocus until proper focus is achieved). The lack of true tracking autofocus will limit its usefulness during capture. That said, the fact that the camera can be refocused without first stopping the capture or resorting to manual focus is a step up from no autofocus at all.
Ralph Conway wrote:
For me its still unbelievable, how somebody can connect 21 Million little dots with a pair of wire to catch that information each single pixel collects ... :-/
That's exactly where I am on all of this. I just don't think I can appreciate the magnificence of it. But, keep it coming, Canon.
I've been away from these forums for a while so forgive me if I am going over ground that has been covered already. I was checking out the specs of the new 5DII and while Canon seems to have done a great job with it (although I think live view and video is a bit gimmiky) I find myself thinking why would I bother? I have the original 5D and I use it to shoot exclusively landscape from a tripod with mirror lock-up. I get extremely high quality images that I can print even up to 40" with very good sharpness and resolution. What possible benefit would I get from the 5DII other than being able to print to a size which I don't need anyway. Afterall the things that make or break my photo's I find are composition, content and good post-processing not the megapixels. Hell my photo's are taking up enough hard disc space as they are - I'm not sure I would want to double it. Just my 2 cents.
Gyroscope wrote:
I've been away from these forums for a while so forgive me if I am going over ground that has been covered already.
It has been covered already... You have missed out on some pretty spiced up discussions about the 5D2 features and posted sample pics and videos... But it is always nice to repeat the whole thing again... Fasten your seat belts
There are always some shooters who will upgrade for the sake of it and others who will find new features better suited to their needs or they simply need a new camera.
If the new camera offers you nothing that you need then why spend money. For those of us wh either need, or just want the new camera it's going to be fantastic.
For one, the higher ISO shooting may be beneficial to some especially if the noise levels are better than the original 5D (at the same ISO). There are a whole host of other improvements which may or may not be a reason to upgrade to you. I know that the VGA screen is one reason I would like to upgrade...
I think the answer then Gyroscope is not to bother then
I used the 5D professionally since it came out and I now have a 1Ds3 as well and I probably will upgrade. If you haven't seen a 21 meg file up close it's really boggling, there's just so much there.
I think the 5D upgrade is the camera I should have waited for, but didn't. I will probably buy a couple in due course
Gyroscope wrote:
....(although I think live view and video is a bit gimmiky)...
That is exactly what people said about auto exposure in the 70s, Auto focus in the 80s etc.
Live view is most certainly NOT gimmicky if you are taking macro shots. It's absolutely brilliant.
Video is most certainly NOT gimmicky if you want to take real 1080p video (which I do) - something you can't do one any other piece of reasonably priced equipment - DSLR or HDV Video camera. Some people seem to be moaning about the length of shots you can take, but in reality, with all professional things, what the 'consumer' wants is not always what is used in a professional field. Limiting the shooting time to about 12 mins is really no big deal. Try getting a stop watch out and timing the scenes in a movie, and by that I mean cut-to-cut, not the entire scene with 100 cuts in it! Then there is the high ISO capability (something of a problem normally for video), and ability to change lenses for extreme telephoto, wide angle or just plain shallow DOF. The 5D2 is pretty much a revolution in this area - not a 'gimmick'.
Not wanting a feature yourself, or not seeing the value of a feature yourself does not mean that no one else wanted it, and certainly does not make it gimmicky.
There are lots of other things on cameras I don't use (like scene modes etc) but I don't go around condemning them as gimmicky just because I don't feel the need for them. Other people use them a lot, and find a great satisfaction from having those features there.
If I upgrade to it, its for the new high iso capability's 12,800 and 25,600, the home and away hockey rink I shoot at is so poorly lit this is my only hope. The rest of the stuff they could have left off.
The higher iso is precisely what has me really hoping I can resist the upgrade. The thought of what I can shoot wide open at iso 25,600....oh my! Right now, with the 5d my low light shots are just barely possible. 3 more stops, I would be spoiled for choice!
DaveEP wrote:
That is exactly what people said about auto exposure in the 70s, Auto focus in the 80s etc.
Live view is most certainly NOT gimmicky if you are taking macro shots. It's absolutely brilliant.
Video is most certainly NOT gimmicky if you want to take real 1080p video (which I do) - something you can't do one any other piece of reasonably priced equipment - DSLR or HDV Video camera. Some people seem to be moaning about the length of shots you can take, but in reality, with all professional things, what the 'consumer' wants is not always what is used in a professional field. Limiting the shooting time to about 12 mins is really no big deal. Try getting a stop watch out and timing the scenes in a movie, and by that I mean cut-to-cut, not the entire scene with 100 cuts in it! Then there is the high ISO capability (something of a problem normally for video), and ability to change lenses for extreme telephoto, wide angle or just plain shallow DOF. The 5D2 is pretty much a revolution in this area - not a 'gimmick'.
Not wanting a feature yourself, or not seeing the value of a feature yourself does not mean that no one else wanted it, and certainly does not make it gimmicky.
There are lots of other things on cameras I don't use (like scene modes etc) but I don't go around condemning them as gimmicky just because I don't feel the need for them. Other people use them a lot, and find a great satisfaction from having those features there. ...Show more →
thats exactly how I feel, I very much welcome the video features. If people dont want it, then dont use it.
