paulhodson wrote:
And then the 5D Mk III will become the one you should have waited for.
Yes Paul. I have no problem admitting I will continue to upgrade until the *image quality* stops improving. I'm not especially interested in the new bells and whistles (although the new idea of a mirror-free and potentially silent slr is very interesting) but a 21 meg 5DII will give superior results to a 13 meg 5D, at least for my work it will, and it's a nice small body too.
Personally, I am hoping for a 1D Mark 4 with live view, HD video, working AF, full frame, 16+ mp, 10 fps. The 5D Mark 2 sounds great, but i really need a camera that can shoot sports too.
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. 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....Show more →
I don't understand the point of your post. Is it to say the 5D II is useless for you? Well great, but you wouldn't be the only one. I'm sure there are many people in your situation. At the same time, there are also those who do find importance in the benefits of the 5D2. Noone is forcing you to upgrade if you don't find it's worth your while, I'm sure many people will fit into the same boat
As for me, I won't buy a 5DII at this time only because I have no money
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. 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....Show more →
As a landscape shooter, I'm sure you must know that having every ounce of detail possible is very important. The extra resolution is a huge advantage. It will allow you to have higher quality prints. When I went from the 5D to the 1DsIII, there was a very noticeable increase in detail. If you don't think this is important, and you feel that the 5D is good enough, then so be it. However, if you are serious about landscape shots, I don't see how you could simply write off the need for more resolution.
Gyroscope wrote:
I get extremely high quality images that I can print even up to 40" with very good sharpness and resolution.
I guess that's all pretty subjective. 40" prints with my 5D (mirror lock-up etc.) are pretty lacking in detail, sharpness and resolution. I'm not looking at my prints at some cop-out "appropriate viewing distance" but as I would examine any print. And I doubt I'm doing something significantly different than you are. Maybe it's a matter of expectations. If you don't expect too much from a 40" 5D print, you'll be happy with what you get. Acceptable perhaps at a distance, or if you don't have other options, but I don't find 40" prints from a 5D to be adequate for my needs or what I expect out of a 40" print.
Gyroscope wrote:
What possible benefit would I get from the 5DII other than being able to print to a size which I don't need anyway.
How about just printing higher quality 40" prints? On top of that, there are the other benefits of the new body already mentioned by others.
Doesn't anyone look up information for themselves anymore? How many time have I done this already?
I want to apologize to all of you that had to read over my question that was truly not suitable for the forum. My laziness and inability to find the answer that I was looking was unacceptable and I’m glad that Mr. Mel Gross set me strait. I hope he will forgive me for being so inferior and uninformed. I will in the future keep my questions and thoughts to myself and not bother you on the forum.
Kamera wrote:
I want to apologize to all of you that had to read over my question that was truly not suitable for the forum. My laziness and inability to find the answer that I was looking was unacceptable and I’m glad that Mr. Mel Gross set me strait. I hope he will forgive me for being so inferior and uninformed. I will in the future keep my questions and thoughts to myself and not bother you on the forum.
You don't have to take it to an extreme. My point was simply that much info is easily looked up. A very quick trip to Google, Canon's own website, or several of the other sites that most here already read is just about as easy, and often faster, than posing the question here.
I don't really mind doing this, or I wouldn't. That's pretty obvious. But this is all easy to do. It took me all of one minute.
I guess that's all pretty subjective. 40" prints with my 5D (mirror lock-up etc.) are pretty lacking in detail, sharpness and resolution. I'm not looking at my prints at some cop-out "appropriate viewing distance" but as I would examine any print. And I doubt I'm doing something significantly different than you are. Maybe it's a matter of expectations. If you don't expect too much from a 40" 5D print, you'll be happy with what you get. Acceptable perhaps at a distance, or if you don't have other options, but I don't find 40" prints from a 5D to be adequate for my needs or what I expect out of a 40" print....Show more →
I've been shooting medium and large format portraits alongside 35mm since the early 70s. It wasn't until using a 5D could I seriously consider 24x36mm as being comparable to larger formats. Even with print sizes as small as 4x5 and 8x10, the difference between the formats with film was as plain as a bug on a plate.
With the 5D, I could actually hang a 16x20 portrait from a 24x36mm image next to one from my Mamiya RZ67 cameras without apology. That was a major development. I'm amazed every day at how easy it is to pull high quality enlargements out of the 5D--compared to how difficult it was to get anything that could challenge larger formats out of 35mm film.
I tried APS-C formats, and found them lacking at 11x14. I've found that with photographs, viewers tend to get as close as physically possible, so "rules" about "appropriate viewing distances" simply don't appy. You can expect viewers to get to within reading distance of any photograph if it's physically possible--viewers expect a photograph to reveal more and more detail as they move closer, so they will.
I wonder if the contrast detection AF used in video mode any slower than the AF you have in most video camcorders? My experience has been that AF in video cameras is relatively slow.
Correction, AF in video cameras suck, even for the high end ones, don't do it. The reason why it appears to be in focus is that there is nearly no DOF on current video cameras.
jerrykur wrote:
I wonder if the contrast detection AF used in video mode any slower than the AF you have in most video camcorders? My experience has been that AF in video cameras is relatively slow.
it's pretty slow, but I think it might be faster than the 5dmkii on some of them.
i don't think any pro uses it though since the hunting in out method looks really bad for any movie sort of shot scene be it a landscape, person or animal.
they use MF mostly
and they also miss .
seriosuly even on primetime TV shows and even hollywood movies you'll notice at times that the focus is not quite on someone's eyes or face (sometimes you see they correct it cuatiosuly after a few seconds, but not in a hunting sort of distracting way)
on tv dramas it's really not all that uncommon at all to have focus a little soft, especially at first
even iin 9x6 prints I see the difference between an 8MP and a 16MP shot.
RDKirk wrote:
I've been shooting medium and large format portraits alongside 35mm since the early 70s. It wasn't until using a 5D could I seriously consider 24x36mm as being comparable to larger formats. Even with print sizes as small as 4x5 and 8x10, the difference between the formats with film was as plain as a bug on a plate.
With the 5D, I could actually hang a 16x20 portrait from a 24x36mm image next to one from my Mamiya RZ67 cameras without apology. That was a major development. I'm amazed every day at how easy it is to pull high quality enlargements out of the 5D--compared to how difficult it was to get anything that could challenge larger formats out of 35mm film.
I tried APS-C formats, and found them lacking at 11x14. I've found that with photographs, viewers tend to get as close as physically possible, so "rules" about "appropriate viewing distances" simply don't appy. You can expect viewers to get to within reading distance of any photograph if it's physically possible--viewers expect a photograph to reveal more and more detail as they move closer, so they will....Show more →
