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
Ever heard of sarcasm? Meaning: not a serious comment
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Screw the artists, they're just a bunch of drug addled freaks, no one cares about them and their mothers hate them - they deserve nothing but disdain. No eosfun for artists
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 →
You should send your 1D3 in for a service then, as that is not my experience at all. My 1D3 and subsequent 1Ds3 both focus extremely well and quickly in very low light. There is a limit, of course, but for me it's the 5D which sat in the bag.
Mike Hatam wrote:
I saw somewhere (I think on Rob Galbraith's site) that Canon is claiming 1 - 1.5 stops improvement from the original 5D to the new 5DII.
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.
Tad means bit. Tad bit means bit bit. Get get me me?
I am going to love the image quality and iso noise levels.
I am going to love the build quality and added weather sealing.
I'm going to have my doubts about the af, the viewfinder blackout/shutter lag until I have tested them ok, or found them to be not-perfect but within limits
I'm sorry if this has been discussed but I couldn't find it.
What is the shutter lag on the new camera? Also, the viewfinder blackout? The original 5D was quite clunky in these areas and I'm just hoping they've been improved.
Also, in terms of auto ISO... any improvements there?
James Cripps wrote:
I'm sorry if this has been discussed but I couldn't find it.
What is the shutter lag on the new camera? Also, the viewfinder blackout? The original 5D was quite clunky in these areas and I'm just hoping they've been improved.
Also, in terms of auto ISO... any improvements there?
New auto ISO
Same (totally unchanged) viewfinder blackout and shutter lag. (weird priority from canon imo).
I disagree with the statement that the feature set of the 5DII is in keeping with the intent of the 5D: "image quality at a low price". If that were the case, the money spent on including video would have been spent instead on improving the AF.
Maybe Canon was so focused on finding and fixing the problems with the 1Dx3 AF fiasco that they really didn't have anything in the pipeline to improve AF - so they put in video instead?
Don't misunderstand my position - the 5DII isn't a "bad" camera, and I'm sure it will satisfy some. But as an owner of two 5Ds, what I was looking for (better AF) does not appear to be there in this release. Maybe the next model. I don't need 21 mp, I don't need or want video. I do want my shots to be sharply focused, and that means also with lenses slower than f/2.8. And "LiveView" coupled with manual focusing won't cut it with many of the shots I take. Not all my shots are of stationary subjects with the camera on a tripod.
harrygilbert wrote:
I disagree with the statement that the feature set of the 5DII is in keeping with the intent of the 5D: "image quality at a low price". If that were the case, the money spent on including video would have been spent instead on improving the AF.
Including video in the 5D should actually LOWER costs. It will likely generate A LOT more sales overall for the camera. So whatever costs are increased because of (a) increased R & D, and (b) increased equipment or manufacturing per unit costs, are very likely substantially outweighed by the lower per unit cost based on manufacturing a lot more units.
I also would have liked improved AF on the 5D and would have been paying more for a camera with that feature, but I think you're wrong on your assumption that adding video increases per unit costs.
What about heat? D90 users report that the video mode does generate a "lot" of heat to the camera, what is that going to do to the electronics over the long run since Still camera and video camera electronics are optimized for different things. Will the heat issue (if there is one) degrade AF and other systems over time?
?