eosfun wrote:
You don't seem to get it. It's pure logic. No pixels, no good images, so no pixels, no EOSfun.
My good man, you seem ready to switch brands and start experiencing 24 Mp SonyFun.
I think the the regulars on Sony SLR fora are trembling in anticipation of your messianic missives.
eosfun wrote:
Bookmark your post and look back to it three years from now. It will look silly you resisted against progress. Or even better: show this post to your wife now! She will help you remind you don't need the new camera! In the meantime make a resolution: have EOSfun
Don't you mean make a 21MP resolution?
I'm actually quite excited for the MK II. I haven't owned my 5D even 2 months, but I'm upgrading day one. Why?
1.) I have to imagine Canon have defeated the overabundance of viewfinder dust that drives me nuts.
2.) 98% coverage is better than 96%, even if it's hardly noticeable. I wear glasses, so the bigger the BETTER.
3.) That new high-res 3" LCD is going to be a joy for checking focus.
4.) Live view is....well.... I'm sure I'll find a use for it?
5.) Anti-dust shaker will certainly help the huge sensor (not that it worked that well on my 40D, but still....)
6.) 1080p video recording is just amazing on an SLR. No, I won't use it all the time, but super handy to have it there in a body that weighs the same as the 5D (810g). Imagine all professionals having this option. Let's say something big is going down right NOW, near where you're located. Do you snap just photos, or do you take video as well? I know I'd be doing both, in HD 1080p!
7.) Micro adjustment for lenses = less time sending back lenses to Canon for calibration.
8.) Probably an extra stop cleaner than the 5D, perhaps more, at higher ISOs. AWESOME.
9.) 33% faster burst rate. Sure, 3.9fps isn't blinding fast, but it's still quite significantly faster than the 5D MK I.
10.) I'll finally use the print button (to enable Live View, of coure)
11.) LOVE the new high-res revamped menu system. And all the extra little options and the bigger information display in the viewfinder, and.... and....
12.) 21MP = awesomesauce. This means I can shoot at sRAW at 10MP for the most part, and for big prints or extreme crops I can use the full 21MP RAW capability. Fantastic.
*hearts 5D MK II*
So there you go. I want one. Those who keep nay-saying before the body is out are insane. You KNOW Canon has a reputation to uphold. There's no denying the "old" 5D is a remarkable camera, and by naming the new one the MK II, it simply has to uphold this tremendous legacy and I believe Canon have nailed it. And for $2700 it's a steal.
Etadam wrote:
Twice the MP means
- at least twice the memory usage (depends on processing)
- CF card capacity virtually divided by 2
- twice the storage space (disk)
- twice the time to process the image (more: depends on algos)
- twice the time to transfer the image etc...
eosfun wrote:
Bookmark your post and look back to it three years from now. It will look silly you resisted against progress. Or even better: show this post to your wife now! She will help you remind you don't need the new camera! In the meantime make a resolution: have EOSfun
I hope in 3 years from now I'll buy a 21MP camera when the 5DIII will be 40MP*.
Actually 21MP is too much for me, but the 10MP sRAW mode is really attractive... I'll wait for the reviews comparing the 5D2 and the D700 (...) before to take a decision.
*While I don't think the next race will keep being MPs above 30MP (for most photogs). The DR race is also a challenge ; linked to the DR - and it is not underlined enough - the algorithms strengh race is also very important (was under-estimated) ; they make a huge difference in image quality (the human perception of an image), and processing time, etc...
eosfun wrote:
It's features or image quality. Bells and whistles or megapixels. Guess what makes EOSfun? Megapixels. There is no substitute for megapixels.
Bullcrap. For marketing to the ignorant masses, you got it right, witness the current election going on here in the U.S.
For photographers trying to take it to the next level, resolution is only part of the story, and only for some of the people. 10 MP will print a very nice 13x19" print, and I daresay 90% of the people out there with DSLRs rarely print larger than 8x10". Few people truly needed a 5D MkIII with more than 16MP, just as few 50D users 'needed' (term used loosely) much more than 12MP. It's getting truly ridiculous, but I'm glad that you're happy with the 5D MkII. Ridiculous chest-thumping marketing campaign prior to its release, I might add. I guess the Evolution is video, which could admittedly make the wedding shooters happy.
You are spouting the marketing drivel that is clearly driving Canon to pursue resolution (read: sell cameras) at the expense of the quality of the file (read: make better images). The 5D MkII does indeed look like a fine camera, the specs of which are truly required by about 0.9% of the people who will buy it. I'll bet they'll sell millions of them!
Jman13 wrote:
I find it interesting that in the first few pages, there's a ton of complaints about the lack of weathersealing. It is then revealed that it has fairly substantial weather sealing (not quite 1 series, but pretty darn close from the sounds of it) and now it's just glossed over as unimportant. Speaks to a lot of things, in my opinion.
Mostly weather sealed, ok keep out Most of the rain... Yes I have seen the areas that have been done, it should have seemed simple to complete the task... I think this is most complained about lacking feature, yes people will complain, but this one I think is quite justified. It's cheap, and was a greatly demanded feature. I think canon could have spent an extra 10 bucks to finish the job, and I am sure most people wouldn't have flinched at an extra 50 for it.
People trying to shoot sport with broken 1D3's weren't having any EOSfun at all. They were in eosHell. You can have all the eospixels in the world, but if there's no way to get the camera to project an appropriately focussed image onto them to get the picture you wanted, then that's eosdumb. Canon needs to forget about sensor development for a while and devote its formidable engineers to the problem of focus acquisition. Meanwhile I'll take a couple of 5D2's, because they are the first full-frame camera with face detection.
If EOSFUN moves over to the SONY/nikon brand, I will pay the clown 500 billion-gazillion dollars..to leave the canon forums. We have had too much EOS-funk reading his posts.
Eosfun
you are trying to sell us a not so good product by wraping it in megapixels..!
If the picture is not in focus your 21 megapixels are useless...!
keep your Eosfun and give us a camera that focus as it should..!
eosfun wrote:
No it's not. EOsfun is about having fun and shooting with your EOS camera
Read your own post Mister, you seem to contradict yourself.
eosfun wrote:
It's features or image quality. Bells and whistles or megapixels. Guess what makes EOSfun? Megapixels. There is no substitute for megapixels.
If EOSFUN moves over to the SONY/nikon brand, I will pay the clown 500 billion-gazillion dollars..to leave the canon forums.
Like the guy who paid Ben Horne for his lost bet? It won't happen. Let me put it straight man: even if I would disappear from here, this would still be the place where you would be able to find EOSfun! Skip my posts if you don't like them. Gear-collector.
BennyR wrote:
When shooting in the sRAW modes, does it just use the center portions of the sensor? I would imagine that's the approach.
No, it uses the whole sensor, but, as I understand it, it averages out either 2 or 4 pixels to form each pixel in the saved file. It is a great feature, allowing you to shoot raw files at varying resolutions. With a 21 megapixel camera it's a godsend, because frankly, computers haven't kept up with Canon's pace of sensor development.
I quite often shoot my 1Ds3 in sRaw mode (~5 megapixels). Some people around here seem to think that's odd, but you don't always want or need to use your camera at its utmost resolution. For instance, shooting a 24-70 at f2.8 for low light or depth of field would allow you to switch down to a lower rez, since the lens isn't sharp enough at that aperture to use all the pixels. The same can be true at f22, or at high isos. Sometimes the pictures are just a bit of eosfun, and a lower resolution is adequate and efficient.
I believe that the sites that originally stated "9 cross-type AF points" (including Canon's various national sites) were guilty of cutting-and-pasting from the 50D description, and have been corrected.
The thing that is completely maddening for me, as a (primarily) wildlife shooter, is that Canon, in its efforts to not give non-pros too many features, now has two similar AF systems in its semi-pro lineup, and seems to be claiming that each one is better than the other, as marketing dictates. If the 5D's AF system is better than the 40D/50D's, why isn't it in those cameras? It's been out for three years, is based on the 20D/30D (with the 6 "helper" AF points), and seems to track well via the center point. The 40D is nice, but its tracking is suspect. What's the problem here? After three years, surely the cost can't be prohibitive?
The 5DII is clearly is not a performance camera: 4fps, limited AF.
It's not really fair to complain that a 5 series camera is not good for sports. Canon has clearly targeted the 5 niche and this should surprise no one.
But if I were a performance shooter wanting more than the 50D I would be thinking about switching to Nikon. Canon is starting to look plodding and somewhat miserly. Canon has done close to the bare minimum since 2005. That's 21 years in dog years.
I'm a sensor/file quality guy, however. It's easy to stay with Canon for what I shoot and my expectations.
eosfun wrote:
Like the guy who paid Ben Horne for his lost bet? It won't happen. Let me put it straight man: even if I would disappear from here, this would still be the place where you would be able to find EOSfun! Skip my posts if you don't like them. Gear-collector.
Heck, I'll kill eosfun for 500 billion-gazillion dollars. Message me.
