I will have to agree with you. I was thinking the same thing actually, but trying to cling to any hopes that it may be better. The 1D/s will probably have a gapless sensor with 30+ megapixels and dual Digic IV. Depends too on what Nikon announces at Photokina.
rscheffler wrote:
The Canon Japan 5DII website seems to indicate that only the center point is a cross sensor and that the other eight points are horizontal sensitive, which to me sounds like they are not cross sensors.
Here's the exact Canon quote: "Nine AF points — eight horizontal-line sensitive at f/5.6 and one cross-type, vertical-line sensitive at f/2.8 — combine with six invisible Assist AF points to provide speedy and precise focusing of even fast moving subjects."
It does not puzzle me why Canon did this. Just as they've done in the past, it's to segment the market and leave enough of a marketing difference between the 5DII and the eventual 1DsIV, which must be coming relatively soon. There is no way Canon will produce a $2600 21MP camera and leave the top end of their pro line undercut feature-wise for a long time.
I'm very curious to see what Canon will do with the 1D(s) series to justify maintaining a ~$5000 price point. It'll have to be one hell of a camera, but then, Canon with their incremental upgrades could still disappoint...
fugu wrote:
If you look at the 1DS or any other FF camera, the points are all grouped in the middle too. There's a comparison, and the points aren't much farther out. I think it's some kind of limitation with the mirror and the size of the AF array or something.
Yes, I believe the size of the cmos AF chip determines the max spread of the AF points. To have AF points covering the entire viewfinder would require a AF chip the size of the imaging sensor.
One point that isn't mentioned much anymore is that the AF sensor benefits from the same technology improvements as the main sensor.
Canon with their incremental upgrades could still disappoint...
Incremental upgrades are good for you. Destined evolution. No revolution. It makes a company and it's products predictable and it's policy reliable. It's better than no upgrades like so many manufacturers. How many people do understand what kind of investments, R&D, marketing, support and service etc. are involved in these 'disappointing' upgrades. Did it come to your mind that a lot of big players from the past can't keep up the incremental upgrading that Canon and Nikon dictate to the market? I mean, where is the Fuji upgrades. Did you notice what happened to Contax, Rollei, Kodak, Agfa, Minolta, Konica, Hasselblad, Bronica, Yashica, etc. I could even mention Pentax and Olympus even though they're still in the market their market share in the 35mm segment is almost invisible. Really the pace of innovation is by far not what I would disappointing gradual. Keep them coming Canon! We want incremental upgrades (but asap ) Try to have EOSfun!
On the brighter side Canon has added this technology that is sure to improve focus accuracy.
To provide accurate focus under various types of illumination, the EOS 5D Mark II automatically corrects for shifts in the focus point caused by different light sources.
Canon claims that (at the moment) the 5D Mk II produces the best image quality of any of their cameras. That could mean it will finally retire my Mamiya RZ67 cameras.
Focusing? It focuses faster than my RZs, and more accurately than my old eyes can focus the RZs.
Weather resistant? It's certainly more weather resistant than my RZs.
The only two things it lacks compared to my RZs is the delicious pop-focus effect of a long "normal" lens (without being as touchy about it as my 4x5), and the sheer client impact the RZ has ("Wow, that's an awesome camera!").
Yes, I believe the size of the cmos AF chip determines the max spread of the AF points. To have AF points covering the entire viewfinder would require a AF chip the size of the imaging sensor.
According to Chuck Westfall, it's an angle of illumination thing, with degrees off-axis being the limiting factor. He had an explanation a few months ago on his monthly question-and-answer column on www.digitaljournalist.org
I think Canon and Nikon are taking towards two very different marketing approaches and that is what is driving their product lines from a features content perspective. It is obvious that Nikon is intent on regaining their status as "THE" pro camera to own and Canon doesn't particular care about that label. Nikon hasn't gotten there yet but I think at some point Canon is going to regret their decision.
Hrow wrote:
I think Canon and Nikon are taking towards two very different marketing approaches and that is what is driving their product lines from a features content perspective. It is obvious that Nikon is intent on regaining their status as "THE" pro camera to own and Canon doesn't particular care about that label. Nikon hasn't gotten there yet but I think at some point Canon is going to regret their decision.
Yes, they do have different views of their primary markets, and those views don't appear to have changed much since Nikon went full-bore after the PJ market in the late 50s with its "F" and Canon entered the professional market in 1973 with its "F-1."
Nikon has always considered its SLRs to be the epitome of PJ cameras, and we see even today that their cameras are fully slanted in that direction.
Canon, OTOH, has always had an edge in electronics and has always been higher-tech than Nikon. Their F-1 cameras seemed to be very cold-weather oriented, but they've always seemed to be aimed at more of a commercial market than strictly PJs.
Back in the 70s, each manufacturer had very strong design personalities--sometimes even individually so, like Olympus' OM-1. In a very un-Japanese-like gesture, the OM-1 was named after it's primary designer, Mr Maitani.
Hrow wrote:
I think Canon and Nikon are taking towards two very different marketing approaches and that is what is driving their product lines from a features content perspective. It is obvious that Nikon is intent on regaining their status as "THE" pro camera to own and Canon doesn't particular care about that label. Nikon hasn't gotten there yet but I think at some point Canon is going to regret their decision.
Well I would agree to a point. There is always the trickle down effect of owning a camera from the Top camera line that people seek out, even if it doesn't really effect the camera they are buying. Who knows though what else Canon has in mind. It would seem that with them admitting that the 5D II has the best image quality that the pro cameras will only be taken to the next level next time around but I guess I am stating the obvious. The 5D II will be fine for my work.
timbop wrote:
Exactly. What good is ISO 6400 or 12800 if the lens just hunts back and forth and gives up? They had 3 years to recognize that all 9 AF points are stuck in the middle and didn't, but at the same time put 9 reasonably well placed cross points in the 40D and 50D. Do these guys even use their own cameras in lower light?
If I wanted a video camera, I'd buy one. I would certainly buy a video camera with more than a 12 minute max record time. I would have ABSOLUTELY NO objection to a 16MP FF camera with well placed cross sensors and ISO 6400+ priced at $3000.
I shoot weddings, and I am frustrated with my 1dm2 because of slow AF response times in poorly lit reception halls. Yeah, that's right - in good light my 1dm2 blows me away, but in piss-poor light I miss enough shots to be annoyed. I'm not going to play a $4000 lottery with a mk3, and the 5dm2 has the same stupid AF as the original 5d....Show more →
Have you owned and shot with a 5D? Just wondering how you thought it work for you in lowlight light for your customers. If you just have a 1D2 and a 20D to back it up, and the 1D2 sucks for you in lowlight. Are you doing a disservice to your customers? Just wondering.
If you're not going to play lottery and the MkII isn't up to your standard, what are you going to do?
fotografur wrote: AF microadjustment (up to 20 lenses individually)
Does anybody know if this only works with Canon lenses?
I was wondering about something like the new sigma 50 f1.4
thanks
d~
It works (at least in my 1Ds3) as long as there is a Canon equivalent. Basically it looks at the focal length and max aperture. For instance, my Sigma 180 macro works because the Canon is also 180/3.5, and it lists it as the 180L. I would guess same applies to the Sigma 50/1.4 since there is an exact Canon equivalent.
eosfun wrote:
What's so EOSfunny about some of these complaints of lack of the AF capabilities; they come from a few photographers who praised heaven they have the ability to mount (manual focus!) Zeiss glass now They shouldn't even care about the use of AF it seems
Pixel Perfect wrote:
hmm that's nice to hear but did Mr Westfall reall say this about the 40D?, So far my 40D has been underwhelming in AI servo, but I am hoping it's just the 100-400L
funny my 30d seemed to work very well with the 100-400 must be that old AF
monochrome wrote:
Have you owned and shot with a 5D? Just wondering how you thought it work for you in lowlight light for your customers. If you just have a 1D2 and a 20D to back it up, and the 1D2 sucks for you in lowlight. Are you doing a disservice to your customers? Just wondering.
If you're not going to play lottery and the MkII isn't up to your standard, what are you going to do?
You are dead on the 20D 30D and Mk II are notorious for being a slugs in low light. The 5D was the first Canon camera that really excelled in Low light. And for the MKIII it is now the king of low light.
brainiac wrote:
I don't think it's legitimate to call people whiners when they complain, even bitterly, about the 5D2's autofocus. There are a great many reasons why 5D users hoping to upgrade are rightly disappointed with the spasmodic behaviour of Canon's AF developments. The solution to complaints about the mk3 and 40D/50D AF systems is to make a better AF system, not go back to a 3-year-old one. A 21 megapixel camera costing £2300 deserves better AF than this, as the Nikon D300 illustrates. I will almost certainly get one of these cameras now, instead of two or three, and it will quite possibly be joined by a D700 or its successor. That's what this marketing-led decision has achieved in my little corner. Canon is failing to meet the Nikon challenge in the semi-pro arena, not because it can't, but because it won't....Show more →
How do we know the tru AF ability yet? the 9pts in the new body is 3 years better than the old one...its not rocket science this should be implied..until one of us get our hands on one with the endless pics of rulers,brickwalls,batteries,beer bottles,flies on beer bottles...geez this thread should be re-named " babies'R us"
) Try to have EOSfun!
