I'm a PC guy right now, but looking to move to Mac in the next 3 months. Anyone know what the OS10.5 recommended configurations would be?
joekraft wrote:
Adobe is strongly endorsing 64-bit computing as the way to go in their statements and product line, and you need 64 bit to use > 4 Gb RAM. I have 4Gb RAM with a quad-core CPU and LR2 just sputters along on my 5D files. Plus, the features of CS4 pretty much require 256Mb video RAM to work best, So I think 8 Gb RAM, 64 bit OS, 256Mb video will be the baseline setup pretty soon.
Sep 17, 2008 at 09:17 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
deepbluejh wrote:
For heavens sake, what motivation could canon POSSIBLY have for carrying over the crippled, so-so AF of a three year old camera into their brand spanking new $2700 5DII when they have a much better AF already developed and in the $1500 50D?
I think the logic is quite simple or at least its appears so to me. Canon got burned on the 1DMKIII because some quite prominently proclaimed that the new autofocus system was a step backward rather than a step forward. Canon did not want that to happen again and one way to prevent the declaration that the new autofocus system is worse than the old is in the new model just to use the same autofocus system and tweak it just a little with a bit more processing power. That way they can claim to have an improvement even if the improvement is only very small. That way they don't risk the judgment that their autofocus system went backwards again.
Bottom line is that it seems that they have not been able to develop an autofocus system that is clearly better than the old one. I suppose they could have put in the old 45-point system from the 1D MKII and earlier systems, but as we know many have claimed that system is superior to the new system used in the MKIII cameras. I don't think Canon could have handled having the mid-level cameras with a better autofocus system (or even one that is claimed by many to be superior) than the system in the flagship camera. Perhaps, if they wouldn't have screwed up the MKIII autofocus they could have put the MKII autofocus in these cameras, but that we can never know.
I hope Canon gets the autofocus situation sorted out. In these cameras that have just come out they seem to have done a fabulous job with the sensors. Now if only they could make solid progress on autofocus so that the MKIV cameras are clearly better than the old MKII system, then the next generation of these mid-level cameras could at least have the older pro system.
Rubber Soul wrote:
It's difficult to create an AF system that is spread out across a full frame sensor. The layout of the AF systems from Nikon D3, EOS 1Ds3, and Sony A900 aren't any more "spread out" than the 5D's. That's one of the real advantages of using cropped sensor cameras, I guess.
Good illustration - yes, it seems that the "spread" of the AF points isn't much different, at least from side-to-side than on the 1Ds or D3. The 1D2 is more spread out solely as a benefit of it's cropped sensor.
sskoutas wrote:
a serious question for anyone thinking about getting a 5DII or currently shooting with a DsIII... what kind of computing power do you need to effectively use a Lightroom/Photoshop workflow and still be able to manipulate the images from a full day's worth of shooting 21.1MP images?
My system bogs down with my 20D images. What are you guys using to support these cameras from a CPU/RAM standpoint?
This is a very good question. I upgraded to a Mac Pro 2.6GHz in order to cope with my 1Ds3 files. It is still slow and quite aggravating, partly because I am the kind of shooter who comes back from a job with 4000 files. sRaw is a great tool though, and the 5D2's ability to shoot at 10 megapixel will be very useful. It's great to have the ability to switch between two (three) raw resolutions at will, and now that Moore's law seems to have broken down, mRaw is going to be essential. I expect that the speed issue means that most photographers who buy this camera will not shoot at full resolution all the time.
Thank you for your post which I found very helpful. I must say I hadn't appreciated the point you make. All morning I've been wondering why my 40D has a greater distribution of focus points than the 5D2. Guess after reading your post I understand now.
Why fix it when it's not broken? I have not had a single problem with my 5D and 99% of my shots are dead-on. With the 20D that I had, it was a complete hit-and-miss. Sure, I am also disappointed and would like to see, say a 19-point AF array with a minimum of 9 cross sensors .... but as you rightly pointed out - it's not a deal breaker.
Philip L wrote:
The AF thing is a big deal. Not a deal-breaker, but more than a slight disappointment that it hasn't been updated in some way after 3yrs. It's like ordering fries at a restaurant only to find when they arrive the restaurant has no ketchup. No ketchup?? What the ...??
And Nikon is not perfect either by any means. Like no dust shaker on the D3. There's compromises in any system. But to mention them doesn't mean one is being hysterical or a whiner. Just voicing an opinion.
One nice thing about this is the 10 MP sRAW...probably will give ISO 6400 the look of ISO 1600 on the 5D.
I saw some preproduction high ISO shots, and 25,600 doesn't look too good. Lots of banding. The 12,800 shots look OK. Nothing spectacular, and still a bit of banding...hopefully they fix that.
ISO 6400 looks pretty darn clean from a general noise perspective, but the shots I saw still showed a little color blotching, which is disappointing. Anything below 6400 looks incredibly clean, though. It'll be interesting to see more shots under a variety of lighting conditions.
george malamis wrote:
On a side note for those wanting smaller files - how would SRaw compare in terms of IQ? I haven't really shot with SRaw and was wondering about the pros and cons.
Good question. I find that the 5 megapixel sRaw on the 1Ds3 punches far higher than the 5 megapixel spec might suggest. They are really crisp and beautiful, because they have come off a 21 megapixel sensor. They enlarge far better than you would expect 5 megapixels to do.
One nice thing about this is the 10 MP sRAW...probably will give ISO 6400 the look of ISO 1600 on the 5D
A lot of the pixelpeepers are probably getting EOSfun out of a comparison with D700 though. They will soon understand: there is no substitute for megapixels. Does my mantra sound different now that THE camera is out?
This is not a valid argument. The AF in question is the 40D's AF which has been tried and proven. It is not the 1DIII AF and does not have any fundamental flaws.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I think the logic is quite simple or at least its appears so to me. Canon got burned on the 1DMKIII because some quite prominently proclaimed that the new autofocus system was a step backward rather than a step forward. Canon did not want that to happen again and one way to prevent the declaration that the new autofocus system is worse than the old is in the new model just to use the same autofocus system and tweak it just a little with a bit more processing power. That way they can claim to have an improvement even if the improvement is only very small. That way they don't risk the judgment that their autofocus system went backwards again.
Bottom line is that it seems that they have not been able to develop an autofocus system that is clearly better than the old one. I suppose they could have put in the old 45-point system from the 1D MKII and earlier systems, but as we know many have claimed that system is superior to the new system used in the MKIII cameras. I don't think Canon could have handled having the mid-level cameras with a better autofocus system (or even one that is claimed by many to be superior) than the system in the flagship camera. Perhaps, if they wouldn't have screwed up the MKIII autofocus they could have put the MKII autofocus in these cameras, but that we can never know.
I hope Canon gets the autofocus situation sorted out. In these cameras that have just come out they seem to have done a fabulous job with the sensors. Now if only they could make solid progress on autofocus so that the MKIV cameras are clearly better than the old MKII system, then the next generation of these mid-level cameras could at least have the older pro system. ...Show more →
I'm probably not as interested in the 5DII as I thought I might have been, but the reasons are the huge file sizes and the relatively slow FPS. That said, I am stunned at the negative reaction to this camera... folks... it's $2700. That is a LOT of camera for the price. The first generation is STILL $2200-2300 (Oh, how I hope that drops down now)
Go read the Nikon forum's reaction. They seem impressed and pleased with its specs.
The important issue will be the IQ... does this Mark II carry on the near legendary tradition of the 5D for stellar IQ. If it does, I think Canon delivered exactly what they should have in the successor.
If the IQ remains comparably ahead of the field, isn't a $400 "upgrade" cost worth it for nearly double the resolution (for those who can use it), 33% faster FPS, liveview, cleaning, 920,000 dot 3" VGA LCD vs. the old 2.5", the addition of 6 assist points, HD Video (again, for those who can use it), Digic 4 vs 2, greater ISO range, etc. Come on... $400 bucks for that? I don't see the reasons for the complaints. IF the IQ is there, that is.
I have a 3.6 ghz dual core 2, 4GB ddr3 1333mhz ram machine, and I can play with 400MB image files quite ok, some minor lag when i get above 150-200MB, but all image files from 10-30 are pretty much just perfect.
The camera is cheap in the US, it is expensive in the UK, much more than $400 too much sskoutas.
£2300
Thats alot of wonga when you can get a D700 for £1700. I know the Canon has more megapixels, but I don't need or particularly want 21 MP - and I suspect that's true for alot of amateur photographers. Maybe by next spring the 5D2 will have reached a sensible price.
, HD Video (again, for those who can use it), Digic 4 vs 2, greater ISO range, etc. Come on... $400 bucks for that? I don't see the reasons for the complaints. IF the IQ is there, that is.