yes this one is a nice sample indeed. I do not think we can deduce a lot from these pre-production samples however (ie ref to sharpness since we know nothing of the NR level used). Nevertheless, clearly noise level is outstanding (ie 800 is just noiseless), and for me the most important aspect is that even the high iso samples show a very nice film-like noise... No doubt this camera will be an amazing tool for portraits and weddings.
"I do not think we can deduce a lot from these pre-production samples"
Agreed, same goes for the sample images released from the new full frame Sony. I can't wait to read some comparative reviews of these cameras over the next few months.
My decision to purchase is penciled in my diary for Jan 2009!
Shouldn't we just wait until the review(s) and then judge the AF system?
From RG: Somewhat surprisingly, Canon has not adopted the 40D/50D's AF system which, on paper, is superior, given that all nine of its AF points are cross-type. Canon USA's Westfall says the reason for that is the "6 Assist AF points plus center point were deemed to provide a higher level of performance for AI Servo AF than the center point-only arrangement of the [40D and] 50D." Given that we've previously found the overall autofocus performance of the 5D to be decent, while the 40D's tracking capability has been erratic at best, Canon has likely chosen the better of the two AF systems for the 5D Mark II.
The 5D and 5D Mark II share one other notable AF hardware similarity: both utilize a dedicated 32-bit RISC microprocessor to perform AF calculations (in contrast, Canon's Mark III models utilize DIGIC III for this).
This should mean the speed of autofocus will feel about the same as before, with one caveat: because the 5D Mark II's main CPU, DIGIC 4, is much faster than DIGIC II in the 5D, certain functions of the new model may end up enjoying a slight speed boost, even if they don't directly depend on the DIGIC processor to perform their specific function. Autofocus speed could well be one such function that is improved in this way, though whether any speed jump is noticeable or leads to a higher percentage of in-focus pictures is impossible to say without actually using the camera.
The 5D Mark II does include two more obvious changes in its AF system, relative to the 5D: it now has the ability to detect scene colour temperature and light flicker, then incorporate that as part of the camera's autotofocus calculation, plus AF Microadjustment, to compensate for focus calibration error in the camera body or combination of body and attached lens, has been added.
High ISO pics look soft. Experts is it because of mis-focus, NR or lens not being good enough?
My experience with previous Canon models (NOTE: I am no expert and I have never owned a full-frame camera, 1d bodies etc) says that RAW files are always sharper than Jpegs. Now in this case if DIGIC 4 is doing its magic, I would like to see how much noise is there in the RAW files and where is this softness coming from. I am pretty sure part of it is because of focus and part of it is because of NR.
ALSO there should be two parts to any AF system. One is the actual physical sensor and the other one is the software that goes with it. Even if you go to DIGIC 4 or any other 32-bit/64-bit controller, the sensor won't change. Yes a decision to acquire focus can be achieved quickly but if low-light focusing was bad in 5d because of the stupid sensor, no matter how sophisticated your processor is, it can only work on what the sensor supplies so low-light focusing won't improve.
snooked123 wrote:
ALSO there should be two parts to any AF system. One is the actual physical sensor and the other one is the software that goes with it. Even if you go to DIGIC 4 or any other 32-bit/64-bit controller, the sensor won't change. Yes a decision to acquire focus can be achieved quickly but if low-light focusing was bad in 5d because of the stupid sensor, no matter how sophisticated your processor is, it can only work on what the sensor supplies so low-light focusing won't improve.
I have never found low-light focusing with the 5D to be bad. Even in situations where you need IS 3200 it does well. But, I use primarily center point focus and reasonably fast, f2.8 or faster, lenses.
I have read so many posts about the 5DMII that I can't remember where I read it, but someone said that the demand for the 5DMII was going to be so high that a person might not be able to get one for a year. We are going to Mexico for a week early January. I would like to have one before I go. I am planning on pre-ordering one on Monday.
When the 1DMIII first came out I tried several times to get one from B&H but they were always out of stock so I bought a 40D instead. Although I really like the 40D, after using a friends 1DMIII for a day I wish I had waited. I won't make the same mistake again.
I've been sitting back for sometime just reading thread after thread how the 5D II is great, not so great and so on... My thoughts are why video? I'm sure many of you have camera and video capabilities on your cell phone. How many of you use your cell phone to take photos or video? When I first started my interest in photography it was video. Oh I thought it was so cool to do it. Then it was so cool to "edit". Well from what I'm reading Canon is NOT supplying any video software. How do you think you will edit your video? How will you make those cool transitions? Video editing got to be a pain. Sure the computers then weren't as powerful as they are today but, still who has the time and resources to do a lot of editing?
I think the camera companies are throwing us bones to pick thru. Am I the only one that thinks computer technology is advancing at a faster pace? That cell phone technology is though the roof? I think it's all about coming up with something that sells. Are they running out of ideas? Is a better and faster auto focus system not a "seller"?
Me I love still photography and will remain that way. Video through whatever lens does not excite me.
How do you feel? Are you excited about sitting down for hours doing video editing? Let us know....
It's actually not that bad of a concept and atm its implementation is rather crude, but the feature has promise in its future. Obviously its not for everyone--then again neither is face detect, automode, liveview, AF, IS, etc etc...
I actually started a thread on this a little while back.
I'm not excited about sitting down for hours doing video editing, but I'm still excited about having video capability in my DSLR, especially since it can do 1080p and has auto-focus.
I think using software such as Ulead Video Studio should make the editing process not too painful. I think Canon is not supplying software because the video can be watched through Quicktime directly, it's not like AVCHD where you have to process the file before watching.
Think of video as a bonus that comes with the camera. I would have been happy with the 5D2 if it didn't have video, but having it is even better.
I was thinking about this after reading Vincent's blog, is this what photography is coming to? Taking a vid and then selecting a screengrab later for your photo? If you have a mac it is kinda exciting, maybe thats why Vincent likes this camera so much, hes a mac lover.
I can see using it for video, but I'm sure it will be crippled by its implementation. I would eat this up as an amateur film maker if it isn't horribly blocky and compressed, and if the cmos-shutter-roll isn't noticeably "jello" in most conditions. HD video on a 35mm sensor with true manual focus, interchangeable lenses, and the ability to output to a larger, hooded screen while recording? For 2700? this would be a dream come true... Hell, this would be a dream come true at sub $7,500, or even more. Right now, the RED is the only thing that can achieve that (albeit at 2x HD res)
There just isn't much you can do to simulate the low DOF and selective focus you can achieve with big sensors (and great high ISO performance), compared to the TINY sensors even most multi-thousand-dollar HD DV systems use.
remember that DSLR video is in its infancy still. as the technology matures, it becomes more user friendly (AF, in-body IS), and people (industrious as they are) find new applications for it (youtube, weddings, virtual release forms, etc.), we'll see a general acceptance of it. remember how cell phones started as impractical, cumbersome briefcase-like things.
i could easily see myself in three or four years using a DSLR for video for vacations and other events, with an external mic hooked to the front for stereo sound. it would greatly add to a powerpoint presentation or slide show.
