orangefirefish wrote:
I think many of us are just a bit surprised as the least they could have done is put the 40d's 9 cross type in there. Instead they kept the old, 3 year old AF system in there.
I would have also like to see an increase in frame rate when shooting in lower resolutions. That would be convenient and nice. You figure, the frame rate is only so high because the data that has to be processed is immense.
The upcoming 50D would then have been just a step (albeit about 800USD?) below the 5DII, and when HD video and full frame are thrown into the mix it's going to hard for people not to think "hey, I'll just save my cash for a little longer and get a camera that's much better in every regard".
I sell cameras as a part time day-job and often find people even considering the 5D1 over the 40D! because even though it's at least 1000AUD difference here, people figure "in for a penny in for a pound".
That is probably why canon crippled the 5DII - and let's be honest it would NOT have cost much more to put the more advanced AF or a faster framerate at sRAW in this body but it would have killed their 50D sales, which who knows, may be a more profitable body for Canon on a per-camera basis.
What they've done is the same they've always done, filling each market segment with a few standouts (the 5D being one and now this 5DII is one as well I believe) that offer slightly better value for money. This is why Canon are so successful and why their R&D is often ahead of the competition. More profits equal more R&D equals better cameras, more competition has the same effect and Nikon still offering some better (and some worse) features is good, means more choices for the consumer. Maybe this time we'll see a shorter life-span for the full-frame compact-body slr product or a segregation of that segment for canon with another faster lower res body coming later.
Also, this is the 1st time I can remember that Canon provided hard numbers for water resistance. This is a step in the right direction.
That's still a BS specification. If Canon (or Nikon) was willing to get real, they'd use the Japan Industrial Standards ratings, as Sekonic does for their light meters. But by using bull manure specifications, they prevent any realistic testing or comparisons.
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..." ...Show more →
Interesting take.
The question then becomes: Why put a 'more advanced' AF system in the 50D? Your theory actually addresses that question quite nicely. I certainly hope it is not Canon's reality, because if so, they are forked up beyond belief, even more so than my 1D MkIII experience led me to believe.
eosfun wrote:
As much as I like to get the EOSfun out of Canon, I have to say Nikon's AWB is at least as good. Especially under Tungsten Nikon's AWB seems to be more 'neutral'. I have found the way people like Canon or Nikon colour rendering is for a great part a matter of taste, because objectively the differences are relatively small and careful chosen compromises by Canon and Nikon engineers.
The overall color rendering is definitely a matter of personal taste. I shot a D3 and 1D3 side by side for about a week a while back. I thought the AWB of the D3 was better in tungsten lighting and the 1D3 AWB was better in daylight.
Don't think any of these cameras are particularly good but I see in my profession (wedding) that the nikon shooters are getting very accurate facial colours from their jpgs. I shoot RAW so it's relatively immaterial but the AWB on my 5Ds are usually just as bad as those samples on the last page. Just horrible.
And nobody probably will deny I nowhere read he was not allowed to express himself, it's just Ocean7 again who seems to be fond of reductio ad absurdum Probably an allergic reaction to the EOSfun of others. I have always highly respected Jeff for his contribution to this forum and feel the need to repeat that explicitly while Ocean again tries to put words into someones mouth he never used!
eosfun wrote:
And nobody probably will deny I nowhere read he was not allowed to express himself, it's just Ocean7 again who seems to be fond of reductio ad absurdum Probably an allergic reaction to the EOSfun of others. I have always highly respected Jeff for his contribution to this forum and feel the need to repeat that explicitly while Ocean again tries to put words into someones mouth he never used!
I wasn't talking about you Mister. Take your pills. And stop your monologue, please try to respond to what people say to you.
I shot a D3 and 1D3 side by side for about a week a while back. I thought the AWB of the D3 was better in tungsten lighting and the 1D3 AWB was better in daylight.
We seem to have the same taste I recognize your qualifications of AWB of those cameras. Have EOSfun!
bobbytan wrote:
On the other hand I think the D700's AWB sucks - based on the images I have seen on the internet.
There is a large number of not-so-good D700 images posted here and there. On the other hand, there are also outstanding pictures, showing that the camera can deliver.
But the quality ratio is - imo - lower than the one of the 5D for instance, in average.
If my perception is correct, I wonder what is the main reason:
- The photographers (don't think so, the "level" in average should be similar for both makers)
- Nikon NX2 soft is not free and may discourage people from using it (while it has been reported it produces fantastic images).
...
Could someone humor me and project the spacing of the 50D's AF system onto a 5DII's viewfinder? I'm thinking it might help a few people appreciate why they don't use the 50D's on the 5D replacement--the spacing would be even worse than the present system.
Also, I see nothing wrong with a $2600 replacement using the same AF hardware: no other SLR uses that system, so they're getting the benefit of using an already amortized process ($$ saved), that is well known, characterized and probably running quite tightly in production (all good things). With the additional computer processing, it may be that much better.
Lastly, and maybe I'm weird, but why would wedding pros, landscape dudes (liveview is probably best here), etc need an absolutely crushing af system? It's not like these things are moving that quickly, so why not use MF and place the focus where you want? The center point in AI-Servo works great for action stuff, where you're more likely to want to keep things in the middle (as to capture them) and crop in post.
I say this as a 5D user who primarily uses the cam for landscape and portraiture and uses MF a lot to that end. The 5D's AF system is more than sufficient for the job at hand and I cannot imagine it will go backwards with some extra processing power + af adjust.
Beni wrote:
Don't think any of these cameras are particularly good but I see in my profession (wedding) that the nikon shooters are getting very accurate facial colours from their jpgs. I shoot RAW so it's relatively immaterial but the AWB on my 5Ds are usually just as bad as those samples on the last page. Just horrible.
After having shot with a 1D3 for nearly a year, I added a 5D to my kit and yes the AWB is pretty terrible with the 5D. I never noticed it when I used to own the 5D before but now its obvious. I will say that in terns of color reproduction, with the new beta profiles for ACR I get fantastic consistent colors from my all my Canon bodies, especially skin tones.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Yikes, the AF points are are already too widely spaced. But I think you mean larger coverage, which would mandate more AF points. I think for FF 15 points (not 9 + 6) is a minimum.
When would you need them to be more closely spaced? Just for super exact composition or for something else?
But indeed, it is larger coverage I'm after and I think my 1D2 has to little coverage as well. Personally I don't need them super tightly spaced tough. But you're right, for what I think is a reasonable coverage you would probably also need at least 15 points.
Looks like this new cam will have some reasonable weather sealing. I have twice in my (relatively) limited experience shooting with an XT been forced to pack it up due to rain, and once due to the camera being splashed by an unexpected wave on a pier (No permanent damage, but camera shut off and I stopped shooting for the day to be safe). If this new sealing let me play in the rain a little and not be knocked out by an inadvertent splash, I'd be happy. I don't need to shoot for 4 hours in a downpour, but at the same time I don't want some rain to send me packing.
I digress, though. Seems like there are a lot of people disappointed by the specs, but we really haven't seen the camera perform aside from a few supplied images.
Like someone else mentioned several pages back, seems like there are many complaining that we haven't been given a $3000 5DII with 1-series sealing, af, and framerate.
For someone who wants to skip the XXD upgrade and go straight to full frame, and maybe someday make a little cash to support the photography habit, this looks like a great camera. I'll certainly be saving my pennies so I can pull the trigger when rebate time comes around. Until then, I'll be patiently waiting for a few test reports to see if this camera lives up to the specs. If it doesn't... well, there's always the lower priced 5D!
Either way it'll be eosfun.
(Also wondering about, but doubting a third body release at PK...)
orangefirefish wrote:
I sell cameras as a part time day-job and often find people even considering the 5D1 over the 40D! because even though it's at least 1000AUD difference here, people figure "in for a penny in for a pound".
Umm.. I got the 5D and sold my 40D just 2 months ago. Don't regret it for a second.
I nowhere read he was not allowed to express himself, it's just Ocean7 again who seems to be fond of reductio ad absurdum 