Peter Gregg wrote:
The 40D and 50D use the Digic 4 processor for the entire pipeline of the camera, where the 5D Mark II has an additional processor to the Digic 4 processor which is dedicated for the focus system and at the upper level the 1D Mark III cameras use 2 full Digic 4 processors.
Peter
did they change this additonal chip though?
if they left it the same as the 5D one then how would digic iv do anything to speed up the AF over the old 5D?
skibum5 wrote:
did they change this additonal chip though?
if they left it the same as the 5D one then how would digic iv do anything to speed up the AF over the old 5D?
skibum5 wrote:
but it's warping our minds to know that IF the zeiss distagon COULD actually do auto-focus that it could've been able to do it better if they had even done a tad bit of work over the past three years. This is a very serious issue. It's very terible to think what the AF could've been like if the zeiss had had AF. Imagine how fast it MIGHT have been able to lock onto an f/9 landscape shot.
I never understood the need for AF on superwides. Someone needs to show me.
IMO, the Nikon 14-24 is still a better lens for most people, even with an adapter and manual stop down.
skibum5 wrote:
did they change this additonal chip though?
if they left it the same as the 5D one then how would digic iv do anything to speed up the AF over the old 5D?
I read that the additional chip is for video conversion. That makes sense, considering how incredibly dsp-intense that conversion is.
For anything serious, just record the audio separately and sync in post. It's not like this camera is going to be used for videoing sporting events with it's time limitations (among other things). But if shooting shorts, etc.. It could work very well as you get the DOF, rack focus ability, etc of much higher end video cameras that you cannot get on your typical $4000 Sony HD Cam. With short films, etc... you'd be shooting scenes in short segments, recording audio either boomed or submixed and then editing in post. For this type of application, I think it'll work just fine and the production value of having interchangeable lenses shooting full HD will be very nice and differentiate you from most "video look" camcorders.
dcmiller wrote:
The 5DII should be similiar at low ISO and better at higher ISO. Canon makes it clear that it has an upgraded version of the 1DsIII sensor.
actually themore detailed comments from them say that is DOES NOT use the new gapless tech of the 50D, uses same HW sensor as the 1dsmkiii, onyl mention about better micro lenses was when it said the gaps were smaller than on the old 5D's sensor, it never says they are smaller than on the 1dsmkiii's. It said they made the color filters a little weaker to let in a little more light (which much also reduce color discrimination as a side effect though) and imrpoved some of the read electronics. So it should have a little less noise and more DR than the 1dsmkiii but i woudln't expect a miracle since they didnt update the sensor itself to gapless. perhaps the 1fps less will make it read a tad cleaner from that too. i would bet it will have slightly worse color fidelity due to the weaker color filters.
Sorry if it has been talked about already, but how much better should i expect to see in noise between the 5d2 and 5d? Can I expect 1 stop? maybe 2? I guess we won't really know until it comes out.
xichlo wrote:
It's funny, I found my 5D using one center focus point focus more accurately in low light than my 1D MKIII. Usually during the wedding, in many cases of the dark room at the reception when the light was dim for dancing, or when I need to take portrait in the low light with my 85 f1.2, my 1D MK3 cannot focus fast enough. I lost confidence with the MKIII so it sit in the back as the backup.I was very supprise about the 1D MKIII focus ability, until I read the acticle from Chuck Westfall . In short, with wedding or portrait photography, the 5D MKII with current focus design will provide sufficient focus ability to any photographer. ...Show more →
In my experience, the center point on the 5D is very, very good and I have no complaints about it at all. My problem with the 5D AF is that the other 8 AF points are essentially worthless for the kind of work I do. All I really wanted from the 5D2 AF was a 3 point AF where each point was as good as the center of the 5D.
apdieb wrote:
For anything serious, just record the audio separately and sync in post. It's not like this camera is going to be used for videoing sporting events with it's time limitations (among other things). But if shooting shorts, etc.. It could work very well as you get the DOF, rack focus ability, etc of much higher end video cameras that you cannot get on your typical $4000 Sony HD Cam. With short films, etc... you'd be shooting scenes in short segments, recording audio either boomed or submixed and then editing in post. For this type of application, I think it'll work just fine and the production value of having interchangeable lenses shooting full HD will be very nice and differentiate you from most "video look" camcorders.
I wonder how well the video can be edited with Canon camcorder footage. Canon camcorder footage certainly has its own look.
As far as sound, it's pretty easy to sync an external source, even without a time sync. Just a visible hand clap. The sample rate isn't a big issue either. Proper use of external mics is what makes the difference.
As far as the 12 minute 1080p time limitation I think people are going to be amazed at how long of a stretch of time that is, especially handholding.
dcmiller wrote:
I wonder how well the video can be edited with Canon camcorder footage. Canon camcorder footage certainly has its own look.
As far as sound, it's pretty easy to sync an external source, even without a time sync. Just a visible hand clap. The sample rate isn't a big issue either. Proper use of external mics is what makes the difference.
As far as the 12 minute 1080p time limitation I think people are going to be amazed at how long of a stretch of time that is, especially handholding.
Agreed. I came from a long video background prior to moving to stills (kinda opposite of many). I always envied those nice shallow DOF shots that you could pull off with very nice lenses...Perhaps now I'll get back into experimenting with short films again. I still have all my ENG equipment and even a Sony VX2000... Never did make the switch to HD...(Actually, HD is what made me get out of the business...Too much $ to retool for the ROI - At least I thought so).
skibum5 wrote:
actually themore detailed comments from them say that is DOES NOT use the new gapless tech of the 50D, uses same HW sensor as the 1dsmkiii,
Canon's press release does say this about it. "New CMOS sensor
The EOS 5D Mark II’s newly designed full frame 21.1 Megapixel CMOS sensor features ISO sensitivity from 100-6400, expandable to 50, 12,800 and 25,600. Large 6.4µm2 pixels have been redesigned to capture more light and yield a better signal to noise ratio to ensure lower noise images throughout the ISO range."
When they say "new" do they mean "new" or is that just code for "old"? Or how new does it have to be before it can be considered "new"?
dpreview.com's" preview of thje 5DII says this about the "new" sensor: "21.1 megapixel full frame CMOS sensor
The EOS 5D Mark II delivers an 8.3 megapixel jump in pixel count from the original 5D. This new sensor is said to be based on that of the EOS-1Ds Mark III (indeed it has exactly the same pixel count) but has several small changes, the hint being that it's actually slightly better."
In my book on the English language "based on" is not the same as "the same". "Several small changes" does indeed mean it is a new and different sensor and a hopefully improved sensor. Every new design is based on something that came before it that you are trying to improve on in some way. It is reasonable and logical to assume here, therefore, that Canon's new 21mp sensor in the 5D improves on -- but is not the same as -- the old sensor in the 1DsMkIII.
dcmiller wrote:
Well crap. Did they literally use the same parts? That seems kinda cheap.
aside from the color filters, some read electronics and the digic iv circuit board, some sealing bits and the outer casing and prism i think ti's all the same parts as a 1dsmkiii or the old 5d, same af chip/sensor/mirror/shutter of 5d and same sensor as 1dsmkiiii.
i think it mightve done 4.5 fps vs. 3.9 if they had used new shutter/mirror box parts.
but i could be wrong about some of this
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Now that is the biggest porky I've heard in my life - a G9 at ISO 12800 would produce nothing more than a surrealistic smear even at an avatar sized 80x80 pixels
i saw some web pics of the G( at ISO1600 i think and you could already see more noise than the (larger) 12,800 5dmkii that posted here
dcmiller wrote:
I wonder how well the video can be edited with Canon camcorder footage. Canon camcorder footage certainly has its own look.
As far as sound, it's pretty easy to sync an external source, even without a time sync. Just a visible hand clap. The sample rate isn't a big issue either. Proper use of external mics is what makes the difference.
As far as the 12 minute 1080p time limitation I think people are going to be amazed at how long of a stretch of time that is, especially handholding.
yeah, i think people forget hwo rarely they ever approach a 12 minute continuous clip unless it is of a speech or something and then you can always restart it and continue with another 4GB file after a second-long pause.
