gazzajagman wrote:
...I think I'd have been happier with less NR, less MP and faster fps. The Nikon D700 has set the bar at 5fps. Canon has dropped the ball here. They should have offered us a camera with 5 fps and 20mp. That would have been a far better choice. I'm also stunned by the lack of an AF upgrade.
Ditto on basically all of this.
gazzajagman wrote:
I can't help but wonder if Canon's AF department are in utter dissarry after the 1DIII fiasco. Causing Canon to stick to an old and pedestrian AF system (and consequently needed to slow the fps down so the AF could keep up). .
gazzajagman wrote:
From what I've seen of the poorly taken jpeg's from the 5DII is very low noise and as a consequence, not a lot of sharpness or detail. I could be the JPEG engine. It could be over use of NR. It could be that the 21mp is just showing what the lens can resolve....in which case I'll stick to sRAW. It could be something else. But so far, this cam isn't really impressing me compared to the stunning output that the current 5D can offer.
Could be all of the above. We just have to wait until reviewers are able to process the RAW files from the 5D II. Most people who are interested in the 5D II will be shooting in RAW or sRAW mode anyway.
gazzajagman wrote:
From what I've seen of the poorly taken jpeg's from the 5DII is very low noise and as a consequence, not a lot of sharpness or detail. I could be the JPEG engine. It could be over use of NR. It could be that the 21mp is just showing what the lens can resolve....in which case I'll stick to sRAW. It could be something else. But so far, this cam isn't really impressing me compared to the stunning output that the current 5D can offer.
I'm still at a loss to understand why this new cam is so sluggish. Digic 4 offers 100mps, this camera is only offerng us 21x3.9=81.9
I think I'd have been happier with less NR, less MP and faster fps. The Nikon D700 has set the bar at 5fps. Canon has dropped the ball here. They should have offered us a camera with 5 fps and 20mp. That would have been a far better choice. I'm also stunned by the lack of an AF upgrade. I can't help but wonder if Canon's AF department are in utter dissarry after the 1DIII fiasco. Causing Canon to stick to an old and pedestrian AF system (and consequently needed to slow the fps down so the AF could keep up). The 5D's AF is proven and works and so far no one has really complained about it. ...Show more →
Well, the 800 ISO image at the link below looks pretty detailed to me.
1. Excellent choice for enthusiast upgraders with mid-tier bodies.
2. But not much of an upgrade for current 5D owners unless you want video.
3. Wait 'n see on the actual AF & IQ until it's released...
WilliamG wrote:
Gaaaah there's SO NO pleasing anyone. I'm completely pumped/stoked/thrilled/excited. I want my 5D MKII yesterday.
I'd like one too, but at least I would like to ensure that the AF will be near 80% the accuracy of the Nikon D700. I don't think that's too much to ask. It may be better to wait to see how this turns out before jumping the gun.
rsg_1 wrote:
I'd like one too, but at least I would like to ensure that the AF will be near 80% the accuracy of the Nikon D700. I don't think that's too much to ask. It may be better to wait to see how this turns out before jumping the gun.
The only thing i don't understand is how you comparing the new 5D with the D700
the 5D is for the wedding , landscape and portrait photographer
Canon cameras are made for specified use If you want to get a nice and quick AF
you have to move up to Mark III
For sure i don't want to use a full frame camera to shoot little birds flying around 4 fps and 21 mp Worth the files
Most of us don't care much about the FPS, but want the 5DMkII AF to be considerably more accurate than original 5D. The D700 is a full frame camera, but is limited to 12 MP resolution; however, it has a fantastic AF and we want something that will be nearly as accurate.
So, if I am getting about 98% of my photos in focus with my 5D, but that performance is only 80% of the D700's performance, does that mean if I switch to a D700 my percentage of infocus shots will increase to 122%
If my 5DII is "improved" over my 5D and I can get 98.5% of my shots in focus is that "nearly as accurate" as a D700?
People are not making sense. Has anybody ever tried any kind of objective or even subjective test comparing the autofocus performance of the various models? The only convincing tests I've seen were the RG test of the 1DIII vs the IDIIn.
^^^ The BIG question is what will the high ISO low light to do a AF four years old.
The D700 isn't the type of camera Canon put forth with the 5D and now 5DmkII, but at least an improvement of the AF should have been done. At least the 50D's should have been shoved in it. But Canon Marketing Dept said no, give us MEGAPIXELS, so we get the AF that was introduce for the first time in the 20D.
I find a lot of what the 5DII is offering is very appealing - high iso capabilities, and crop-ability, which allow a lot of creative opportunities to shoot in bad light. Coming from a 5D though, the decision to upgrade is difficult but having comparable IQ to a 1DsIII is very tempting...
rceres wrote:
So, if I am getting about 98% of my photos in focus with my 5D, but that performance is only 80% of the D700's performance, does that mean if I switch to a D700 my percentage of infocus shots will increase to 122%
If my 5DII is "improved" over my 5D and I can get 98.5% of my shots in focus is that "nearly as accurate" as a D700?
People are not making sense. Has anybody ever tried any kind of objective or even subjective test comparing the autofocus performance of the various models? The only convincing tests I've seen were the RG test of the 1DIII vs the IDIIn. ...Show more →
If you don't have moving subjects, then the 5DMkII is great.
If you have moving subjects such as ballroom dancing or wedding receptions indoor and outdoors, you need a little more.
Canon is basically forcing people like myself to go to the 1DMkIII, but I'm apprehensive about it after all of the problems its had.
monochrome wrote:
^^^ The BIG question is what will the high ISO low light to do a AF four years old.
The D700 isn't the type of camera Canon put forth with the 5D and now 5DmkII, but at least an improvement of the AF should have been done. At least the 50D's should have been shoved in it. But Canon Marketing Dept said no, give us MEGAPIXELS, so we get the AF that was introduce for the first time in the 20D.
I was hoping that Canon would have given 11-12 AF points laid out differently with at least 3 AF points that were cross-type sensors. Canon is perfectly capable of doing that, but realized it would eat into the sales of the 1Ds.
Buying a new 1DMIII, I think the problem is over. I have one of the SN before the blue dots, and it has worked fine. I did have the AF "fix" done to it and still really no problems. I'm still learning the camera, SO MUCH to do so.
"Not much of an upgrade" is relative. To me, these additions represent a HUGE upgrade (of which HD video is just one of them) but obviously you disagree.
21.1 megpixels new sensor
Digic IV image processor
Reduced microlens gap
14-bit A/D converter
ISO 100-6400 (Expanded 50-25600)
High-def 1080p video/movie
98% viewfinder coverage
ISO display on top plate
New/improved 1800 mAh battery
Partial weather sealing
AF micro-adjustment <20 lenses
2 silent modes
3" VGA screen with auto brightness
Self cleaning sensor
Live view mode
150,000 exposure shutter life
Image copyright metadata support
4 frames per second
2 sRAW modes (10 or 5mp)
3 custom modes/presets
Auto lighting optimization
Supports UDMA CF cards
HDMI connector
And more ....
alfarmer wrote:
So what it appears to be, in summary:
1. Excellent choice for enthusiast upgraders with mid-tier bodies.
2. But not much of an upgrade for current 5D owners unless you want video.
3. Wait 'n see on the actual AF & IQ until it's released...
I doubt it's a problem. Canon makes several HD pro cams right now, and I have an idea they've taken the 100% sensor duty cycle into consideration. It might take a few minutes after a 12 minute shoot to get back the low noise performance at high ISOs, but that's probably about it.
I can't believe the uproar over what amounts to one frame per second - 4fps (3.9) sucks and 5fps is great... really?
If, as you say "The 5D's AF is proven and works and so far no one has really complained about it" why are you "stunned by the lack of an AF upgrade"?
Wow...you think that image as a lot of detail? Man there's someting wrong with your current work flow! There's a lot of NR smearing in her hair. Her veil is a swash with smears. My 5D pics look like crystal compared to this image. The pixel quality of the current 5D is far better.
Yes, I'm aware that it's a pre-poduction and yes it's a JPEG. But that image didn't really impress me much at all.
My comments about the 5D AF system are still valid. It's an antequated AF system. It's centre AF point is f2.8 in only one vertice of it's cross and boy do i feel the difference with an 85L. I generally have to use MF and an Ee-s screen to ensure that I get accurate focussing...and this camera is supposed to be EOS?
Over 20 years of EF/EOS/AF development and it's latest and greatest camera has a luddite AF system that is inaccurate if you hold the camera in a portrait orientation and use top pro glass? It's no wonder there's a lot of photographers migrating from 5D to Nikon D700's.
Actually 3fps to 5fps is a big jump. 3 fps to 4fps isn't so great and that's that Canon have offered us. They have held back. May be because they don't want us to have a 5DmkX to ever have 5fps, that's reserved for the 1DsX. Either way, we're not getting in the 5DII what the Digic 4 chip is capable of. The 50D seems to utilise the chip better; 6.3x15.5=97.65mps, where as the 5DII comes in at a lowly 82.29mps. That's 15% less. We could have had 5 fps for that or 25mp.
Sure, there's a lot right about the new 5DII, but it's VF black out time, AF and fps is a serious dissapointment. It's also unsettling to know that this camera probably won't get a re-fresh for another 3 years.
gazzajagman wrote:
From what I've seen of the poorly taken jpeg's from the 5DII is very low noise and as a consequence, not a lot of sharpness or detail. I could be the JPEG engine. It could be over use of NR. It could be that the 21mp is just showing what the lens can resolve....in which case I'll stick to sRAW. It could be something else. But so far, this cam isn't really impressing me compared to the stunning output that the current 5D can offer.
I'm still at a loss to understand why this new cam is so sluggish. Digic 4 offers 100mps, this camera is only offerng us 21x3.9=81.9
I think I'd have been happier with less NR, less MP and faster fps. The Nikon D700 has set the bar at 5fps. Canon has dropped the ball here. They should have offered us a camera with 5 fps and 20mp. That would have been a far better choice. I'm also stunned by the lack of an AF upgrade. I can't help but wonder if Canon's AF department are in utter dissarry after the 1DIII fiasco. Causing Canon to stick to an old and pedestrian AF system (and consequently needed to slow the fps down so the AF could keep up). The 5D's AF is proven and works and so far no one has really complained about it. ...Show more →
yeah, i don't know if they limited it to 3.9fps so as to lower read noise (trying to make up for not going gapless), because they didn't want to spring $50 for an update shutter/mirror (they said they use the same parts as in the 5D, can those parts really go faster than 3.9fps, sometimes I fear the 3.9fps limitation might be due to something as ridiculous as this), because marketing said it must be less than 4fps to save 1DsMkIII face (another sad reason, if so), the AF group is in such disarray and so fearful of another mistake that when early tests of new system came back and were not perfect they ditched it for more tuning () and the old one can only go at 3.9fps??, 5dmkii does fancier jpg processing that takes more time?
anyway, had they given the 100Mbs and an improved AF it's amazing to think how universally and wildly praised this cam would've been instead of the mixed praise. Seems kinda silly to carry the cam sooo far and then skimp on these last two little bits. Anyway, still rather nice for anyone doing still stills or video.
But I fear it will be totally out of date within 9 months because of some of the choices. Maybe even 5-6 depending upon pricing of 1dmiv.
