I wonder what could someone have in his/her mind and with a Bad copy of a camera tries to convince all the others that ... yes the blah blah series of camera has major flaws
You are correct. I have been using the 5D II with the RC-1. To use it however, you have to be in the self-timer mode - otherwise you cannot activate the remote. Also, the remote has to face the sensor that is on the front - so you can't activate the remote from behind the camera - the remote must have a line of sight to the sensor. Minor inconveniences, but otherwise it works like a charm, and the remote is cheap compared to the wired version.
CurtPick wrote:
Am I reading the Manual right. On page 102 it states you can now use the RC-5 or RC-1 remote withe the 5D II ?
And you are not alone. With the exception of fast-action photography, the 5D and 5D II AF system is very reliable, dependable, and accurate. If it isn't, the 5D would not have sold as many copies as it did in the last 3 years .... and the 5D II would not have been so darn hot right off the bat.
jamato8 wrote:
Unless the 5DII has a different focus system from the 5D, which we know it doesn't, I have shot many thousands, well over one hundred thousand, shots with the 5D and any problem with focus is so small that it is no issue. I had shots I had to get and I got them. The only problem was normally with me and not the camera. This was in all types of shooting conditions and situations.
jamato8 wrote:
Unless the 5DII has a different focus system from the 5D, which we know it doesn't, I have shot many thousands, well over one hundred thousand, shots with the 5D and any problem with focus is so small that it is no issue. I had shots I had to get and I got them. The only problem was normally with me and not the camera. This was in all types of shooting conditions and situations.
if the main cpu is different the focusing speed could be different and if the algorithms are not the same it could act totally different, there is a lot more to the AF than the just the AF sensor chip
kkdd wrote:
But my point is this, you don't buy the higher MP cameras to make smaller images. You buy all that resolution so you can print larger with good quality, without having to upscale a small MP image. This is the primary benefit of more resolution, to print larger without quality loss, especially detail and sharpness. This is one of the benefits of medium format and those insanely high resolutions.
Apparently, you are comparing cameras with sensors covering the same 24x36mm area but with different resolution.
However, in your reasonings, you are comparing cameras with sensors covering different areas (eg 35mm vs medium format).
Different MP does not equal different format. You are on the topic of the same format (24x36mm) but different MP(21vs12MP).
kkdd wrote:
For this reason, 100% crops of the higher resolution sensor should look the same, or better, compared to the lower resolution sensor. Otherwise, if you expect to make bigger prints with the higher resolution files, you will be able to see the extra noise and lower quality of the image at the larger size.
Another example is when you crop. If the 21MP image has more noise per pixel than the 12MP image, when you crop the 21MP to a smaller size, you will end up with more noise compared to the 12MP image. If you would take a 12MP sample out of the 21MP image, comparing that with the other 12MP image, it would then be clear that the 12MP crop from the 21MP file contains more noise than the 12MP file.
For this reason, the 21MP image viewed at 100% should have the same amount of noise, or less, compared to the 12MP image viewed at 100%. ...Show more →
Your argument is only valid if you compare 5D2 and 20D. Different format (24x36mm vs 15x24mm) at different MP (21 vs 8MP).
If you want to understand the difference in quality between a Hasselblad and a Minox, then make a 10x8" print from each. If you don't want to understand the difference, then make a 6x4" print from the Minox, and a 60" print from the Hasselblad. You can marvel at the huge print all you like, but you still have no idea how well the Minox image would print at that size. To compare two cameras, you need to ask how well each performs A PARTICULAR TASK, otherwise it's not a comparison, it's a refusal to compare.
I often wonder just how many posters on these forums are actually carrying out a viral marketing policy. These days, it would be much more effective to employ 50 people to spam the web with nonsense, some of which, regardless of accuracy, will stick, than it would be to undertake a traditional marketing campaign. Especially in a market where people research the products on these forums before they buy. Some scaremongering, ill-reasond, ill-informed posts would go a long way to detrmining what some people purchase.
Justin D wrote:
I often wonder just how many posters on these forums are actually carrying out a viral marketing policy. These days, it would be much more effective to employ 50 people to spam the web with nonsense, some of which, regardless of accuracy, will stick, than it would be to undertake a traditional marketing campaign. Especially in a market where people research the products on these forums before they buy. Some scaremongering, ill-reasond, ill-informed posts would go a long way to detrmining what some people purchase.
In the case of the new higher megapixel cameras from Nikon, Canon and Sony, I think the reverse is true. Literally tens of thousands of people on the web are failing to compare the results from these new cameras with lesser cameras in a methodologically fair way, because 100% crops are easy to view, and few understand how they handicap the newer cameras. As a result there is an overwhelming received wisdom that these cameras are noisier and less sharp than they really are. If I was in marketing at Canon or Nikon I would have the company release an official statement warning customers to beware of making that simple magnification error during comparisons. What's viral is this brain-dead received wisdom, and the bad method comparisons on sites like DPReview.
brainiac wrote:
If you want to understand the difference in quality between a Hasselblad and a Minox, then make a 10x8" print from each. If you don't want to understand the difference, then make a 6x4" print from the Minox, and a 60" print from the Hasselblad. You can marvel at the huge print all you like, but you still have no idea how well the Minox image would print at that size. To compare two cameras, you need to ask how well each performs A PARTICULAR TASK, otherwise it's not a comparison, it's a refusal to compare.
If, Brainiac, the final product is actually the goal.
We've been told earlier in this thread that at least one correspondent chooses the camera first for its own engineering merits, and after that, his goal is to make the best possible prints from that camera.
Justin D wrote:
I often wonder just how many posters on these forums are actually carrying out a viral marketing policy. These days, it would be much more effective to employ 50 people to spam the web with nonsense, some of which, regardless of accuracy, will stick, than it would be to undertake a traditional marketing campaign. Especially in a market where people research the products on these forums before they buy. Some scaremongering, ill-reasond, ill-informed posts would go a long way to detrmining what some people purchase.
I'm sure there are some. With all the fan boy noise it's hard to determine is Canon and Nikon are doing it, but Sigma almost certainly does. There are a handful of people that come out of the woodwork to vehemently defend and promote new Sigma products (cameras in particular) and aren't heard from otherwise. They are as predictable as clockwork and show up on all the photo sites doing exactly the same thing. Just wait until the SD15 hit the shelves, then there will be a deluge of Sigma threads and post from these guys (probably saying that it's better than a 5D Mkll), it will last a week or two them disappear -- until, of course some one dares to say something negative about it.
While I have no experience with the sigma "fan boys", I do really, really wish that their sensor had been adopted by the industry as a whole and fleshed out to larger yields by all parties. It's so clearly a superior way to capture photons, the beyer layout is a "hack". I would assume the "fan boys" are just caught up that same dream.
That's par for the course in this and every industry. Isn't the in-camera anti-shake technology licensed as well? I'd argue that this is exactly where patents actually *work*. But the improvement must be marketable.
So I'm sure it's really market driven choices here, since the public is sufficiently satisfied with mega pixel wars instead, which do get closer to hiding the beyer deficiencies. Why take a leap forward if most people can't see the difference?
I love Fake Chucky