ulrikft wrote:
I think iso 12800 is more than good enough for web atleast:
Absoultely. Looking at 100% crops I'd say the 5D2 is at least 2 stops better than the 5D. Once you take into account that it has twice as many pixels, that amounts to a 3 stop gain in sensitivity which is pretty impressive. Probably in practice I'd end up using mostly ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 in low light, but the 5D2 is dramatically lower noise at those settings than on the 5D.
For me, the most remarkable of your samples is the ISO 1600 because I wouldn't hesitate to blow it up to 16x24. Being able to shoot for art prints at ISO 1600 with the 24-105/4IS will create some remarkable new opportunities because in many situations I'll be able to leave my tripod at home.
I look forward. I wouldn't always want 21MP, big storage needs but what a great way to get high resolution files. The 5D and a 5DII will suit me fine. Now that I see more and more about the weather sealing of the II, I think they have done a pretty good job and with all the cross hairs for each focus point, well this should be a pleasure to use.
ulrikft wrote:
I don't know if this is news for you, but most manual focus glass have AF-confirm, both the new Zeiss glass and that which is used with adapters
That is what we need when using a Zeiss with xxxDs and some of the old xxDs. Bcause you/one (I) can not see the focus in the VF. In focussing manual you are free and do not have to need a confirmation by ANY focus sensor placed always in the wrong position. First thing one would exchange using manuel Lenses is the focus screen.
LiquidAir wrote:
Absoultely. Looking at 100% crops I'd say the 5D2 is at least 2 stops better than the 5D. Once you take into account that it has twice as many pixels, that amounts to a 3 stop gain in sensitivity which is pretty impressive. Probably in practice I'd end up using mostly ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 in low light, but the 5D2 is dramatically lower noise at those settings than on the 5D.
For me, the most remarkable of your samples is the ISO 1600 because I wouldn't hesitate to blow it up to 16x24. Being able to shoot for art prints at ISO 1600 with the 24-105/4IS will create some remarkable new opportunities because in many situations I'll be able to leave my tripod at home. ...Show more →
Hrow wrote:
All in all, this is about what I expected and for the money it looks like a pretty decent camera for those who need and /or can live with its feature set. The problem that both Nikon and Canon now have is how to introduce cameras of this level and not just totally wipe out their top-of-the-line products. Personally, the 5D II doesn't meet my needs but I am also having a tough time seeing where there are $5K more in extra goodies in my 1DsMkIII which is less than 6 months old.
I think top of the line may turn into a heavy duty version of the middle line. A maturing market drives prices down, assuming no major sensor technology improvements.
Your 1DsIII may be expensive, but to date you have been able to take 100% more shots than the 5DII. Who knows, maybe Canon will give 1D owners a coupon on the IV series.
I mention it only because of this closing sentence:
"The camera, which will ship in November, will sell for $2,699 for the body alone. For $3,499, Canon will throw in the newly updated 24-105 series II all-purpose zoom lens."
I assume "newly updated" does not mean updated this year.
dcmiller wrote:
A Five series camera would never have all pro features.
If you feel that Canon should produce a pro small body camera, why complain about it in a 5D thread?
I didn't say I wanted a small pro body with all pro features. I would like small full-frame body with improved AF. Would sacrifice many of the bells and whistles ( weathersealing, 21MP, video) for that type of camera. Nikon happens to make exactly such a camera, the D700, and I think it's totally appropriate to talk about it in this thread. I am not interested in switching systems, but if Canon made something equivalent, I would buy it. Thanks.
I would like a small pro body. Much like what the F1 and the like were. I never realized how small they were until comparing to the pro cameras of today, though extremely obvious that those past cameras didn't have anything of the abilities of the pro cameras of today except that they did take pictures and came with a stock 50mm lens, which was often one of those very fast 1.4 jobs.
That is why I am happy 