RalphJ wrote:
You're kidding, right? You alone have spotted focus issues on a camera that only a select few professionals have been able to shoot with, and none of them reported focus issues, but you think the camera might have "serious AF trouble" based on a few web-sized jpgs you saw?
Did you have a chance to look at those photos? Do you think most of them are OOF? They are NOT web-sized by the way.
I am not jumping to any conclusions, too early for that. Just asking for opinions.
I am actually looking forward to buying this camera eventually. Just like everybody else, I am anxious to find out how it performs. May be a little impatient (after all, I waited 5 years to upgrade).
meeus wrote:
They are supposedly taken by a serious pro, however, 90% of them (!) are clearly out of focus. Was he in a hurry? Or is this a sign of a serious AF trouble?
Please comment.
---------
Here is an update to this web page:
---------
Update: Please remember these shots were taken with a beta release camera on launch day. I took them on-the-fly whilst demonstrating the camera to press and distributors so yes the focus might be slightly out on one or two. I’m happy with the look of these images which are consistent with my style. I am not looking for absolute sharpness and so applied no additional sharpening to the images in production. Please accept these images for what they are which is a demonstration of the new camera’s amazing high ISO performance and don’t try to read too much into pixel-level sharpness. We all want to see what the camera can do with our normal RAW-based workflow but that will have to wait....Show more →
Perhaps it's an optical illusion, but to me it always looks like the parts of an image which are in focus have less noise than the parts which are OOF.
fraga wrote:
iso 25600 seems pretty useless to me.
More of a gimmick than anything.
One has to consider though, that expecting good iso 25600 at present is, at least in my opinion, a bit unrealistic. Maybe in a few years.
On the other hand, having the possibility of shooting at that iso is better than not having that option, even if I think that I will never use it.
Why?
Because one day there might be a rare occasion where I might actually need it...
get better quality by using ISO1600-3200 and pushing it
Radiohead wrote:
I agree. The lack of detail smacks of NR to me.
I would gladly agree with both of you if there was not at least one pic (at ISO 800) which looks sharp to me. In fact it is just great. Well, maybe NR is not the same accross ISO range?
thw2 wrote:
I don't understand the above statement.
The 5D2 pixel density is the same as the 20D.
The same lenses that work well on the 20D should perform equally well on the 5D2 except for the thinner DOF. But in terms of absolute resolution, they should be equally outstanding.
ward1066 wrote:
I dont think the bride pics are out of focus, I think it is the agressive in camera NR that accounts for the softness.
there are some with camera shake and some oof, maybe some NR too (although the DPR ones dont show nearly so much resolution loss so i think it has to be more focus and shake)
dcmiller wrote:
Canon has made a few video cameras in their day. The only issue is that there may be some added noise after shooting video due to a warm sensor.
Canon hasn't made any camcorders with this type of sensor before, so it's actually a good question. One would assume that they've considered this problem and came up with a solution, but mistakes have been made in the past. Anything's possible as they rush a new idea to market.
Maybe they have a way of turning off half the sensors when in video mode, or even 3/4 of them. You certainly don't need 21 mp to shoot HD video.
?
