The biggest gripe is that the outside sensors won't be as sensitive as the 50Ds but as far as the quickness of the AF... here's a quote from someone who's actually handled it...
AF was quick, as was the response to the shutterbutton, but not as blazing fast as the 1D III. As the press-release (Canon's own words) indicated, compared to 1D III and 40D/50D 5DII feels a little 'sluggish', but not annoyingly so.
Here's my viewpoint: Who really needs 21 megapixels? Mostly landscape and commercial photographers. And that requires one, maybe 3 AF points? Maybe sports and wildlife photographers could use 21mp, for cropping? They're going to shoot with 1 series for speed anyways. Shooting weddings and events with 21 megapixels is the peak of inefficiency. Gear geeks may just want 21 megapixels because, which is fine... So for the photographers this camera is designed for, it is perfect. And for the rest of you, you'll probably be able to find your ideal camera somewhere else in Canon's lineup.
Edgar Maguyon wrote:
I read that this is inevitable for video capture using CMOS = shutter-rollover. P&S cameras dont have this problem in video mode because they have CCD sensors.
I have had my 300D for 4 years. I am looking forward to making a major upgrade. My question is 5D mark II vs 50D + Zeiss ZE 21mm f/2.8. I currently have 17-40, 24-70,
35L, 50/2.5 macro, 85 /1.8, 100/2.8 macro, 135L, 70-200 f/2.8 L. Does upgrading to
5D mark II make more sense than 50D + Zeiss ZE 21mm f/2.8? I would love to have
5D2 + Zeiss ZE 21mm f/2.8, but 4000$+...man, that looks like a lot of money.
I'm going to sit and wait to see how this camera performs in the hands of real photographers before making a decision to buy one. If high ISO lives up to what is claimed and the ancient AF system can focus in low light, I'll buy one.
This isn't a camera for sports shooters. It's a landscape, portrait, wedding camera. If it can do the job then this is the type of people who will buy it.
Still, I can't help but wonder why Canon doesn't feel AF is all that important.
wow...0.9fps faster and no graduation from the 9-point AF system. big disappointment on my end i was considering it for some action photography if 5fps could have been reached. oh well. i'm sure the studio photogs, landscapers, and the like will appreciate the other upgrades in this camera...some of which, i.e. the ISO and upped resolution, are quite impressive.
wow, kong. i admire the 300D people who've had the self-discipline to hold off on an upgrade like that.
if i were in your position, i'd do the 5DMkII, rather than the 50D. because you don't have any specifically long glass, i would assume that you're not a birder, and as such might appreciate the FF more.
CanonShooter88 wrote:
wow...0.9fps faster and no graduation from the 9-point AF system. big disappointment on my end i was considering it for some action photography if 5fps could have been reached. oh well. i'm sure the studio photogs, landscapers, and the like will appreciate the other upgrades in this camera...some of which, i.e. the ISO and upped resolution, are quite impressive.
ChrisDM wrote:
Here's my viewpoint: Who really needs 21 megapixels? Mostly landscape and commercial photographers. And that requires one, maybe 3 AF points? Maybe sports and wildlife photographers could use 21mp, for cropping? They're going to shoot with 1 series for speed anyways. Shooting weddings and events with 21 megapixels is the peak of inefficiency. Gear geeks may just want 21 megapixels because, which is fine... So for the photographers this camera is designed for, it is perfect. And for the rest of you, you'll probably be able to find your ideal camera somewhere else in Canon's lineup.
Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com
AF points? I just need an accurate infinity mark.
If thing move the 1DIII comes out.
You've answered your own question - this isn't a camera for sports shooters! Of course Canon knows AF is important .... but you can't expect them to give you everything in one body. If they do, who is going to buy the 1-series?
David Estes wrote:
I'm going to sit and wait to see how this camera performs in the hands of real photographers before making a decision to buy one. If high ISO lives up to what is claimed and the ancient AF system can focus in low light, I'll buy one.
This isn't a camera for sports shooters. It's a landscape, portrait, wedding camera. If it can do the job then this is the type of people who will buy it.
Still, I can't help but wonder why Canon doesn't feel AF is all that important.
It's amazing how many comments there are about the AF when no specs have been released on it's performance in comparison to any other camera, nor has anyone had any hands on experience with it. For all we know the same AF array (if it even is the same) coupled with digic4 might be faster than the 1D3, as a birder commented when using the 50D, though the 50D might have a slightly different AF system from the 5D2.
CanonShooter88 wrote:
wow...0.9fps faster and no graduation from the 9-point AF system. big disappointment on my end i was considering it for some action photography if 5fps could have been reached. oh well. i'm sure the studio photogs, landscapers, and the like will appreciate the other upgrades in this camera...some of which, i.e. the ISO and upped resolution, are quite impressive.
sounds odd, but yes. i've used the 30D ever since it first came out, and found 5 fps to be fine. i also own the 1D Mark II and admit without any hesitancy that the 1-Series are indeed better suited for sports. However, I also spend a LOT of time sitting way up in the stands at college football games with my family, and rather than the typical fan screaming his face red, i'm sitting with as big of a lens that i can sneak in to shoot the game 21.1MP (or even 12.8MP on the Mark I) would work wonders for cropping (a 400mm lens is very short when sitting far away). assignments also come up for high school varsity football, and being that every game begins with a fully black sky, stellar ISO performance is a warm welcome. i suppose i should have added that although action is my business, i also enjoy nature/wildlife when i have some free time, so the Mark II could fit in that category a bit better.
Canon cannot please everyone, obviously. I would rather take 21 megapixels with 4fps any day than 12 megapixels and 5fps .... so I am very happy!
CanonShooter88 wrote:
wow...0.9fps faster and no graduation from the 9-point AF system. big disappointment on my end i was considering it for some action photography if 5fps could have been reached. oh well. i'm sure the studio photogs, landscapers, and the like will appreciate the other upgrades in this camera...some of which, i.e. the ISO and upped resolution, are quite impressive.
21.1MP (or even 12.8MP on the Mark I) would work wonders for cropping (a 400mm lens is very short when sitting far away). assignments also come up for high school varsity football, and being that every game begins with a fully black sky, stellar ISO performance is a warm welcome. i suppose i should have added that although action is my business, i also enjoy nature/wildlife when i have some free time, so the Mark II could fit in that category a bit better.