Flav wrote:
[Anyway, this is a very valid question: will shutter/mirror be endangered by high usage of live-view and video mode?
No.
When using live view and taking movies, the mirror flips up, and the shutter opens and stays that way. The video uses electronic shuttering, not the camera shutter. One problem is that the use of live view generates more heat in the sensor than just a single exposure.
The newer camera sensors use less power and do not heat as much as older designs, so it shouldn't be a problem. The heating is a well known hurdle to overcome, and all camera manufacturers have improved their sensors to deal with it.
skibum5 wrote:
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)
since some were taken with the 70-200 IS, I doubt camera shake. I still think most were taken in a neutral picture style with 0 sharpening to maximize the noise reduction. I still thik we should wait until the RAW files become availabe to judge noise or sharpness,,,Its really difficult to judge shapness/ noise off of a jpeg out of camera because the 1ds3 files do require a fair amount of sharpening due to the AA filter.
tayo wrote:
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.
I'd expect that. Remember that noise is random signal that is normally well below the amplitude of actual detail signal. If there is no detail signal, the noise becomes more obvious.
Incidently, the file of an image with more noise is also larger than an image with less noise.
"To cut the story short because of the larger sensor of the 5DMk2 AF accuracy is already better than those found in crops like the 50D. While cross sensor itself is better but test by Canon reveals having all 9 cross type AF actually make things worst by complicating the 6 invisible assist AF points making tracking less useful.
However Digic 4 plus improved sensitivities wil actually make this camera AF extrememly fast and accurate."
Cableaddict wrote:
YOU'RE kidding, right? Ever shoot alternative glass?
I am talking about the ability to manually set min shutter speed along with maximum ISO and you are talking about alternative glass. The two having nothing to do with each other. Try thinking outside of the box, this implementation of Auto ISO is dumbed down at best, which really sucks because IMO this is an excellent feature.
RDKirk wrote:
C'mon. This is not the first time photographers have been able to compare "sensors" of significantly different resolutions behind the same lenses. We tested and compared Kodak Technical Pan (which is still yet higher resolving than the 5D2) in the same cameras as far lower resolving films, and guess what: Images taken with higher resolving films were always sharper and clearer and had better enlargeability than with lower resolving films.
Nobody ever used a low-resolving film in fear of CA or diffraction or any other lens issue. People used lower-resolving films because they were faster or had better tonality, but not to avoid seeing lens faults....Show more →
I used to shoot H&W high contrast copy film developed in a low contrast developer at asa 32. The resolution with my 90 or 50mm dual range Summicron was astounding. I could blow up the image to over 30 inches and still have detail. This with a lens made in the early 1960's. So what can the combination of the new II do with a good prime? I am looking forward to it.
Yeah, I remember H&W. We went to great lengths for quality back in those days. Today, kids just wait for the next new model camera or the next version of Photoshop. And then still gripe.
I could blow up the image to over 30 inches and still have detail.
Sunny Sra wrote:
how many have preordered it yet? are any of the "AF sucks..blahblah..blah" going to buy it and test it out or are they just here to fill up the forums with text.
if AF sucks so bad on paper...you know your choices...go to teh Nikon forum and fill that forum up with "Switching from Canon..." ..PLEASE
Good thing fred doesn't charge for text like AT&T does for text messages....
Check out the prices for a text message plan on AT&T, the exclusive carrier of the iPhone 3G in the United States. AT&T wants twenty cents ($0.20) per text message if you don’t sign up for a plan. A text message is nothing more than 160 bytes of data. The max is 160 characters, and one character equals one byte of data. Great.
Again, AT&T is charging you twenty cents for 160 bytes of data. To illustrate how absurd that is, consider the following.
If 160 bytes of data costs twenty cents then 1MB (1,048,576 bytes) of data would cost 131,072 cents, or $1,310.72.
In other words, if AT&T charged data downloads at the rate they charge text messages downloading 1MB of data would cost you $1,310.72.
[/quote
I never thought of it that way, but you're 100% correct...good post! ...Show more →
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.
Some of them are in focus, some of them not. For example, the fourth sample on the page has the focus on the edge of the left eye while it should have been on the right eye. Maybe the photog did this deliberately, but I don't think so. IMO What we see here is the same crappy outer AF point behaviour I had with my 5D's...
davewolfs wrote:
I am talking about the ability to manually set min shutter speed along with maximum ISO and you are talking about alternative glass. The two having nothing to do with each other. Try thinking outside of the box, this implementation of Auto ISO is dumbed down at best, which really sucks because IMO this is an excellent feature.
Dave,
I just don't understand your point. The Canon auto-iso makes it's calculations in part based on the lens's FL. (maybe you missed that?)
With alt glass, unless you have a chipped adapter, the camera doesn't know what FL you are using. It usually CAN read exposure, so the auto-ISO thing is potentially possible with a chipped adapter, since SOME chips tell the camera what FL you are using. (they can be programmed.)
-but Canon could also have easily told the electronics to ignore anything that doesn't look like full Canon data. That might cause some folks to decide on a Canon lens, vs some Zeiss-Contax lens. We shall see.
Understand?
If you have a valid counterpoint to that, I'm absolutely listening. - but "You must be kidding" is not an argument.
Also - what specifically is "dumbed down" about it? Because we can't choose our own minimum shutter speed? If that was your point, then I certainly agree. (maybe they want everyone to buy IS lenses. Oops, there I go again with my conspiracy theories.)
yep I was kidding) to make a point... to never judge IQ based on web-sized images.