photogenix wrote:
One of the bodies will reside with Michaels until approx the end of October, the other should be back in the hands of Canon now, so top-level staff can familiarise themselves with it then train others in service areas and the like before the rollout.
Even though they appear similar, the previous-generation BP-511A batteries are not interchangeable with the new LP-E6 battery pack, and cannot be exchanged for one another. The new EOS-5D Mark II requires the LP-E6 battery pack, and cannot accept the older BP-511A or similar Canon batteries. Likewise, the new LP-E6 cannot be used in the previous EOS 5D, or other EOS bodies which accept the BP-511A battery pack.
One of the reasons I wanted for a 5D was that I could use the same batteries as I do in the 40D. I really don't want a new charger that's camera specific and more batteries that only work in a 5D Mk II. More junk to carry around more batteries to buy. ...Show more →
This is a much more powerful battery, and is also more useful as far as information goes.
In addition. I wouldn't be surprised if most all of Canons new cameras move to it.
Mel Gross wrote:
In addition. I wouldn't be surprised if most all of Canons new cameras move to it.
I agree, I'd say this is the "new BP-511". For ages there have been OEM equivalents to BP-511 which excel the original in almost every way. Perhaps BP-511's days have been numbered and this is the time for it to be reborn in a different form. I'm not convinced this is change for the sake of change, I have a keen eye for that and my suspicion hasn't been aroused about this issue. I have used BP-511's in my G2, 10D and 5D and hoped it would continue, but am philosophical that a change was going to occur sometime and, with the extra demands of video and a larger brighter LCD, perhaps this was going to be when it happens.
photogenix wrote:
I agree, I'd say this is the "new BP-511". For ages there have been OEM equivalents to BP-511 which excel the original in almost every way. Perhaps BP-511's days have been numbered and this is the time for it to be reborn in a different form. I'm not convinced this is change for the sake of change, I have a keen eye for that and my suspicion hasn't been aroused about this issue. I have used BP-511's in my G2, 10D and 5D and hoped it would continue, but am philosophical that a change was going to occur sometime and, with the extra demands of video and a larger brighter LCD, perhaps this was going to be when it happens....Show more →
That's exactly it. Video has added to the burden batteries have to bear.
But the bright side is that it will add oodles of capacity to the still photo side. Less need for the higher capacity battery grip, unless you want it for other reasons.
This means less weight, smaller size, and less money spent.
Mel Gross wrote:
If you take the linear difference in the file, that will be the difference in sharpness. The increase isn't as much as you would think.
For example, in order to have a 100% increase in sharpness, you would have to have a linear difference of 100%.
1,000 pixels to 2,000 pixels.
But this means the file size will increase by 400% - 1,000 x 1,500 to 2,000 x 3,000.
So, going from 12 mp files to 21 mp files doesn't result in almost a 100% increase in resolution. It results in a 32% increase in resolution.
4256 x 2832 vs 5616 x 3744
How does this relate to noise?
Well, when the pixel is smaller on the print, its less obtrusive. In the same size print, or in two prints at different distances, so that they appear to be the same size, the higher rez image will appear less noisy.
If the prints are too far away to resolve the pixels, they will appear to be about the same. ...Show more →
Hi Mel,
Thanks for your response - sorry for the long delay - Yom Kippur intervened.
I know that I'm dense about this (actually, a chronic condition), but let me put the question slightly differently. If I 1) print two otherwise identical photos taken on the 5D and the 5DII at the same print resolution (so that the 5dI print is 32% larger than the 5d print), and 2) look at them from the same viewing distance - which is most likely to be the case - would they appear equally noisy?
i would bet, somebody right now is writing a script for a small movie, with the intent on shooting the entire movie with this camera. first movie shot with it would be a marketing hit and get a lot of attention. good way for a budding director to show his skills and creativity. much like that popular animation movie made with the 1d2 when it came out.
Thanks for your response - sorry for the long delay - Yom Kippur intervened.
I know that I'm dense about this (actually, a chronic condition), but let me put the question slightly differently. If I 1) print two otherwise identical photos taken on the 5D and the 5DII at the same print resolution (so that the 5dI print is 32% larger than the 5d print), and 2) look at them from the same viewing distance - which is most likely to be the case - would they appear equally noisy?
Thanks again,
Phil
Interesting question.
If both cameras were equally noisy, then they would appear equally noisy in those prints, if viewed from the same distance.
But the 5D mkII is supposed to be from 1 to 1.5 stops LESS noisy than the older 5D (in addition to having higher resolution), so it could appear less noisy, even at the larger, but same dpi, print size, when viewed at the same distance.
I hope that isn't confusing, but some conditions must be met when viewing.
I'm not convinced this is change for the sake of change, I have a keen eye for that and my suspicion hasn't been aroused about this issue. I have used BP-511's in my G2, 10D and 5D and hoped it would continue, but am philosophical that a change was going to occur sometime and, with the extra demands of video and a larger brighter LCD, perhaps this was going to be when it happens.
There was also the the 20D power management issue that caused Canon Inc to issue a serious Japanese "mea culpa" (which as you know, Canon Inc does not do readily) and an effective recall. I suspect that situation evoked a "Never let that happen again" management edict finally resulting in this new battery management system.
But the 5D mkII is supposed to be from 1 to 1.5 stops LESS noisy than the older 5D (in addition to having higher resolution), so it could appear less noisy, even at the larger, but same dpi, print size, when viewed at the same distance.
But do we know that the "less noisy" boasts are not merely the result of a higher resolving sensor requiring less physical enlargement of essentially the same amount of noise...and keeping in mind that maintaining the same level of noise with a decrease of pixel size is still "less noisy" in an engineering sense.
I think the question is an impractical one.
We are photographers. In the end, the thing that matters is what the picture looks like.
Thanks for the link! Looks like Romy got hold of a 5D2 at least for a little while. He'll put it to good use. I hope he takes a few moon shots with it (he does great with those as well).
Photogenix has done a great job with his rundown, and got to play with it for longer than me, but first thoughts...
The back LCD was good, much nicer than the 40D
The top LCD is really nice, again better than the 40D for clarity, info. Didn't look at the backlight, despite them putting the button for it where I'm used to the ISO button being...
The on/off switch was a bit stiffer than the 40D, but I didn't prefer it or dislike it.
I love grips – got them on my 10D and the 40D – but the 5DMKii was surprisingly comfortable in portrait without it. I figure I'll end up with one anyway.
Noise profile looks fine to me. VERY fine indeed.
AF seemed to be OK, but on the outer sensors it didn't seem to be as snappy as my 40D.
I'll try to have more of a play with it today, get some high ISO stuff with skintones, flash, etc.
RDKirk wrote:
But do we know that the "less noisy" boasts are not merely the result of a higher resolving sensor requiring less physical enlargement of essentially the same amount of noise...and keeping in mind that maintaining the same level of noise with a decrease of pixel size is still "less noisy" in an engineering sense.
I think the question is an impractical one.
We are photographers. In the end, the thing that matters is what the picture looks like.
We do know that there has been an improvement in the sensor unit itself. The lenses have been enlarged, and focus more light on the sensing sites. Improved color filters on the sensor allow more light to pass through. Canon has said that their new sensors have smaller sites, but that the center of the sites which actually are sensitive to light aren't smaller. That, at least holds true for the 50D. It may hold true for the 5D mkII as well, but I'm not certain yet. There might be other minor manufacturing improvements as well.
What it looks like is ALL that matters. But just like hunting down the film with the finest grain, and greatest sharpness, or the highest speed, or the colors that work just right for that image, the camera determines what that picture looks like. We can only work with what we've got, and go from there.
Mel Gross wrote:
We do know that there has been an improvement in the sensor unit itself. The lenses have been enlarged, and focus more light on the sensing sites. Improved color filters on the sensor allow more light to pass through. Canon has said that their new sensors have smaller sites, but that the center of the sites which actually are sensitive to light aren't smaller. That, at least holds true for the 50D. It may hold true for the 5D mkII as well, but I'm not certain yet. There might be other minor manufacturing improvements as well.
What it looks like is ALL that matters. But just like hunting down the film with the finest grain, and greatest sharpness, or the highest speed, or the colors that work just right for that image, the camera determines what that picture looks like. We can only work with what we've got, and go from there. ...Show more →
i'm not sure if the microlenses have been enlarged vs the 1dsmkiii, if you follow all the statements, you can easily read it that they have only been enlarged compareds to the 5D MkI, they definitely are not gapless, and I suspect they may be the same as the 1dsmkiii microlenses. The filter is reduced, which does let in a little more light compred to the 1dsmkiii, but it also makes the color discrimination and saturation a bit worse (and it's a dangerous and unprecedented road to go down i think, although I doubt they have pushed things too far, at least in the model).
skibum5 wrote:
i'm not sure if the microlenses have been enlarged vs the 1dsmkiii, if you follow all the statements, you can easily read it that they have only been enlarged compareds to the 5D MkI, they definitely are not gapless, and I suspect they may be the same as the 1dsmkiii microlenses. The filter is reduced, which does let in a little more light compred to the 1dsmkiii, but it also makes the color discrimination and saturation a bit worse (and it's a dangerous and unprecedented road to go down i think, although I doubt they have pushed things too far, at least in the model).
That's what Canon had said. The lenses are bigger in the newer sensor. The sensing SITES are not gapless, as they are on the 50D sensor.
What do you know about the filters to make such a statement? Filter purity could have been enhanced, allowing lower densities. It's very doubtful that Canon would be so reckless as to simply lighten the filters without the understanding that they would cause color mixing.
Mel Gross wrote:
That's what Canon had said. The lenses are bigger in the newer sensor. The sensing SITES are not gapless, as they are on the 50D sensor.
What do you know about the filters to make such a statement? Filter purity could have been enhanced, allowing lower densities. It's very doubtful that Canon would be so reckless as to simply lighten the filters without the understanding that they would cause color mixing.
if you read carefully i think they only ever meant that they reduced the gaps VS. the 5D. It appeared they were saying that they are bigger in the newer sensor vs. the ones on the old 5D sensor. But it's hard to know, a number of contradictory specs were published the first few days on a number of aspects of the camera.
yeah, good point, hopefully you are correct about the color filters.
I seem to recall that this question was asked from their head honcho, Maeda-san, in his DPR Photokina interview, and he came out very clearly saying that a good AA filter is required to avoid moire. His answer did not suggest that technology would lead to this filter becoming less and less of a requirement
