skibum5 wrote:
what i mean is the D700 still kills it for fps and probabyl for AI servo.
and the D800 might also match it on MP.
granted teh 5dmkii kills the D700 on MP
but it's a tradeoff.
if you shoot soccer/basketball.football fps and AF can make a huge difference
Okay. I do not shoot sports. fps does not count for me. And I will be fine with its AF I guess.
If thats your job, actually I think you have the choice between 1D MKIII and D3/D700.
Based on 50D and 5D MK II I am shure there will be two 1D follow ups soon, too. And I hope they will offer, what you need. Next to that I am sure they will be much less expensive. 1D MK III is available at €3333 now, 1Ds MK III at €6666. The follow ups will be much cheaper. 6666 for a pro FF is past.
That comment from Chuck about AI Servo being better with the 5D than 50D is so very sad. I would be willing to bet that 96% of 5D usage is in One Shot and not AI Servo, especially with the low FPS. They could have made cross sensors and the 6 invisible points but just didn't bother. This camera was built to kill the Sony and nothing else, what a waste of time. Canon has gone from innovating to reacting, reacting, reacting.
That lens correction feature doesn't just correct vignetting - and in-camera calibration is nice, too. The prospect of shooting JPEG straight from the camera is HERE. This cuts my workflow into a significantly faster process. If I can get DPP to actually read these settings from the files, I'll shot in raw, import, correct the odd WB here or there and bam - instant jpegs in almost no time at all. This is keeping me from switching to Nikon.
To all the haters: please do not buy the 5D Mark II. Please spread rumours on how the AF is worse than the 1D III in AI SERVO mode, how the IQ sucks compared to your 1Ds II becuase you're concerned it'll fall in value. This will drive the price of the 5D II down so that I can afford to buy one in addition to the 1D III body I am shopping for which is already cheap due to their AF issues! Just copy and paste the following: "the 5D Mark II is a rubbish camera. For the money we should have expected more. A pro AF system, better build and a cheaper price. I'm switching to Nikon". Tell everyone. Please. In fact, maybe I should sign up for image upload to support the nice work these forums alone are doing in reducing the cost of my equipment purchases. It's a sound investment.
To everyon else: the high ISO mode really increases the opportunity to capture more and thus produce better quality work in low light conditions with less compromise. The video mode will help Canon shooters keep up with the changing face of photojournalism. Photojournalists will eat this thing up. Music video production teams will order these by the dozen. And this is the first full-frame 35mm consumer 1080p video decide. Coupled with the low light EF lenses such as the 85 1.2L, 50 1.2 (or 1.0!), 24 1.4, 200 f/2 IS... we're going to see some amazing things in indie video production. I'm more excited than ever.
For me, the lack of improved AF, relatively low fps and no weather sealing is a deal breaker. I don't need the extra megapixels, 15MP's would be fine but I need more fps and weather sealing.
why would the cheaper 40d and 50d has 9x-types and not the latest 5d 2? when i wrote this even dpreview said 9 x-type but now they changed it to center only... gotta wait couple days for confirmation.
1. It has fewer MP. As I don't print big, more MP is just more space on card and HD.
2. It has more AF points.
3. It has more cross type AF points.
4. Spot metering can be linked to the active AF point.
5. It has a build-in flash. While I rarely use it, in the times that I have it saved the shot.
6. It's grip has a joystick to move the AF points.
7. EC + 5. While EC + 2 is often enough, I sometimes wished for more.
8. I can mount the 105/2.8 and get VR in macro. My 100/2.8 is excellent in all aspects but it lacks IS.
9. The 200/2 VR is cheaper than Canon's 200/2 IS.
10. I don't want video.
11. It has higher FPS. Not that I use it much but when I do, I want to have as much as possible.
I am not switching as I simply adore my EF-S lenses so the 40D will stay. I think I'll play it both ways. I hear it's more fun this way….
And of course, if Canon will introduce a 1D Mk IV with a reliable AF system you can through everything I just said to the garbage. I once handled a 1D Mk III and was absolutely flabbergasted but I simply dare not buy it. You see, I want to buy it from someone who does not want to sell it…..
skibum5 wrote:
see that's the thing try it for basketball or soccer or football
or lfying birds
Oh I agree there... The 5D is not a sports body...I don't really think it's marketed that way though... Regardless, I think people need just figure out what works best for them and their needs and move on. Too many people get caught up in measurebating and arguing behind the keyboard. For the record, I am definitely guilty of that on occasion as well.
Oh come on, of course it has 9-cross cross sensors plus 6 assist sensors clustered in the center for AI servo. I've seen these specs at Canon Korea, USA and DCResource. I wish it had build-in flash but that's a typo.
pentool wrote:
why would the cheaper 40d and 50d has 9x-types and not the latest 5d 2? when i wrote this even dpreview said 9 x-type but now they changed it to center only... gotta wait couple days for confirmation.
Because Chuck Westfall says the 6 additional helper points provide better AI servo performance and is basically implying they see this AF as better than the 40D/50D even with their extra 8 x-type points.
Oh come on, of course it has 9-cross cross sensors plus 6 assist sensors clustered in the center for AI servo. I've seen these specs at Canon Korea, USA and DCResource. I wish it had build-in flash but that's a typo.
Just because you want it to be so, it doesn't make it true.
Every single review site now says the same - it has the same AF as the 5D with the addition of micro adjust.
DPReview just changed their website to say one cross type, Chuck Westfall says it's exactly the same unit as in the 5D. Keep on wishing, it ain't gonna happen.
For me, the lack of improved AF, relatively low fps and no weather sealing is a deal breaker. I don't need the extra megapixels, 15MP's would be fine but I need more fps and weather sealing.
Sounds like you need a 1dsMkII. Do people not understand that this camera is not intended to be everything to every body? It is exactly what the 5D was - a high res, slow landscape, non-intensive photo-journalism and portrait camera. And from the specs alone it should do well at all of those things. If that's not what you need, Nikon does offer a lower res, higher FPS/more AF points camera at a similar cost. Go get it. They don't offer a high res/low cost camera, Canon does. It's simply avoiding direct competition in every slot. And just as Canon hasn't filled the hole of a small format body with high fps/af points (they do offer a full size body), Nikon doesn't offer a high res body at all. And nobody's waving their little internet fists at Nikon, are they?
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Because Chuck Westfall says the 6 additional helper points provide better AI servo performance and is basically implying they see this AF as better than the 40D/50D even with their extra 8 x-type points.
Because the 5D is a AI Servo camera right? Pathetic. Instead of making more than 1 focus point useable they pretend that 3.9 FPS makes AI Servo more important for what is a studio/wedding/landscape camera. What a bad excuse for not bothering.
It seems Canon thinks the megapixel race is still on.
Not sure this is appealing to the potential 5d11 buyer. The focus system is really important to me and from what I've read a lot of Canons customers. pity this cam doesn't seem to cater for us. It may well be the worlds best landscape 35mm digi cam though. I wonder if another cam with a different end user in mind is in the works??
Can't help but wish we could pay an upgrade price of $500-1000 for better AF, though.
I think what is frustrating many, me included to a degree, is that it feels like a carrot-on-a-stick approach from Canon that is getting really tired. They seem to be ruining the usefulness of anything less than their 1 series by limiting the AF included.
They had the best AF of any manufacturer for the longest time. What happened?
Seems that the Canon USA site has some possible Typo's in it. They mention EF-s lens in regards to the 5DII which I'm sure was just a carry over from the 50D info.
Justin D wrote:
Sounds like you need a 1dsMkII. Do people not understand that this camera is not intended to be everything to every body? It is exactly what the 5D was - a high res, slow landscape, non-intensive photo-journalism and portrait camera. And from the specs alone it should do well at all of those things. If that's not what you need, Nikon does offer a lower res, higher FPS/more AF points camera at a similar cost. Go get it. They don't offer a high res/low cost camera, Canon does. It's simply avoiding direct competition in every slot. And just as Canon hasn't filled the hole of a small format body with high fps/af points (they do offer a full size body), Nikon doesn't offer a high res body at all. And nobody's waving their little internet fists at Nikon, are they?...Show more →
Because they have enough brain cells to realise that 21 megapixels is only needed for specialist applications and it's seriously diffraction limited anyway. If 12 megapixels is enough and it is for the vast majority of people then for £600 ($1200) less in the UK you can get a camera that really is everything to everybody including IQ!
philber wrote:
And for the less savvy (read more susceptible to marketing blurb) buyers, Canon now offer dramatically higher pixel count than Nikon, who are going to have a huge uphill battle on their hands to explain that "more pixels are bad, not good".
No - most people here already believe that "more pixels are bad", as do the large numbers of people who have been switching to Nikon. It's not an uphill battle, it's easy. Just rely on people's stupidity: take a shot with each camera, and then view at 100% on screen. The lower megapixel camera always looks better. It works every time - that's how Luminous Landscape and DPReview skew their comparisons massively towards lower megapixel cameras like the Nikons. Cluful photographers will do their own comparisons by uprezzing the lower megapixel file so that the crops are viewed at the same magnification, and find that the 1Ds3 is about as good as the D700 at iso 12800, but those looking for basic fairness in tests are few and far between, as the popularity of LL and DPR shows. http://cyberphotographer.com/d700v1ds3/
So in many ways Nikon has already won the "more pixels are bad" fight. Look at the reaction to the 21 megapixel 5D. Does Nikon produce a camera, any camera, with comparable detail and cropability? And what is the overall tone of this thread? "Disappointing compared to the D700".
ulrikft wrote:
Someone please do a comparison of the EOS 3 (film) camera AF to this, 2008 digital slr camera :P
(that said, iso 6400 looks really good!)
Why don't you go get the EOS3 specs yourself and make the comparison?
BTW, the 5DII has the EOS3 beat in almost all specifications (shutter rating, etc.) except the number of focus points. And, FWIW, the 5DII focus system is more sensitive to low light than the EOS 3 focus system, which was quite poor in low light.
People don't seem to remember, or simply are too lazy to look it up, that the EOS 3 was a plastic camera that shot 3 FPS (without adding a power booster.)
Yes, the EOS 3 could do multi-spot metering, though I very rarely used that. Having the exposure comp scale on the side was nice, though any liveview w/histogram has that beat hands down for getting a proper exposure.
