philber wrote:
It seems that most of the disapointment about 5D2 centers around Canon "not doing a D700". Meaning the VF, the AF, the fps.
It was pretty clear to me that Canon would never do that.
First, because they are the market leader, and, thus, do not put their feet in anybody's steps.
Second, because their take on who their target audience is and what camera best suits them is not the same as Nikon's. Different priorities are evident throughout the range.
Third, because, somehow, Canon and Nikon have, so far, fastidiously avoided direct head-to-head confrontation. Rather, their offerings are staggered at intermediate price points. 450D is more than D60 but less than 90D. 90D is less than 50D. 50D i less than D300. Etc... In the case of D700 Vs 5D2 the price point is s close as to be the same, but the target customers of both cameras are quite different.
So, if any any point, one feels that there is a camera the specs of which fit one's needs perfectly (D700 in this example), it might be best to buy it, 'cause a clone from the rival company is just not going to happen.
Now, of course, we can all wish to have the best of both worlds. So much for wishes......Show more →
Rightly or wrongly many hoped Canon would follow Nikon's lead with the 5D II and deliver a FF 3D. That they didn't wouldn't upset many people if they had given them an alternative that had different priorities, heck even a 1.6x cropper with excellent AF, something that you didn't have to spend $4K on to get great AF would have been welcome. Nikon has the D300 and D700, so it's not unreasonable to think Canon could at least offer something similar.
5D II for it's intended use is obviously brilliant, but it necessitates a two camera approach for many of us that shoot many types of subject matter. I have no problem with that, but at the moment they still haven't given me an alternative to my 4 yo 1D II in light of the 1D III fiasco. I'll be using my 1D II for another 12 months by the looks of it. Still a great camera but I would like some of the new features, higher MP count and better high ISO.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Once people have them in their hands and see the IQ they will soon forget any perceived issues, unless they are trying to shoot swallows or swifts in flight
but swallows (unladen) and swifts (fast moving, zig-zaging, tiny BABY) in flight are my speciality
it's about the only thing i EVER shoot.
skibum5 wrote:
but swallows (unladen) and swifts (fast moving, zig-zaging, tiny BABY) in flight are my speciality
it's about the only thing i EVER shoot.
bob_wfmc wrote:
It's nice to see that some people "get it"... This was never designed to be an action camera - you can use it for that purpose but there are better choices. If they had make the AF considerably better, then the reason(s) for spending 2-2.5x on a 1DsMkIII would be very few. For landscapes and even slow moving action this will be a terrific camera. The video is icing on the cake.
That's why I would have preferred the 50D autofocus.
Give me all cross style points so that One Shot is decent.
mchahn wrote:
You got that a bit wrong. 10MP is obviously 50% the file size of 20MP, and it will have 70% the resolution (1 over square root of two). All in all a great trade-off.
I think you are mixing up MP's (megapixels) with MB's (megabytes) here
RAW = 21MP's (about 22MB's)
sRAW1 = 10MP's (about 15MB's)
The file saving will be about 5MB's in this case. So a 25% file space gain with a 50% resolution loss. Not so economical IMO.
Daan B wrote:
I think you are mixing up MP's (megapixels) with MB's (megabytes) here
RAW = 21MP's (about 22MB's)
sRAW1 = 10MP's (about 15MB's)
The file saving will be about 5MB's in this case. So a 25% file space gain with a 50% resolution loss. Not so economical IMO.
The numbers are off a bit.
From Canon's 5D mkII specs, we get:
21 MP = 25.8 MB
10 MP = 14.8 MB
These are both 14 bit files.
So the file saving is actually 11 MP, not so small after all. 25.8 is 74% larger than 14.8. 14.8 is 57% of 25.8.
So, no matter how you look at it, it is a big saving in file space.
The resolution of 10 MP is 31% less (lines per mm), the resolution of 25.8 MP is 45% more, approximately, though the number of pixels for 10 MP is about 48% that of 21 MP.
So the file saving is actually 11 MP, not so small after all. 25.8 is 74% larger than 14.8. 14.8 is 57% of 25.8.
So, no matter how you look at it, it is a big saving in file space.
The resolution of 10 MP is 31% less (lines per mm), the resolution of 25.8 MP is 45% more, approximately, though the number of pixels for 10 MP is about 48% that of 21 MP.
Right, I should have said number of pixels instead of resolution
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Where did the 38MP rumour come from? That's just extrapolating the 50D pixel density to FF. I don't believe it and don't want to see it. They should work on MF if they want that sort of pixel count and let 35mm max out at 30MP. The quality of a huge print froma 38MP image forma 35mm FF will never match that from a MF sensor of the same pixel count. If you really are wanting to make prints that large you be very discerning about such issues, and the MF glass is much better. No free lunch IMO.
I guess you haven't been keeping up with the 1Ds4 rumours then? The 1Ds series has always used Canon's tightest pixel pitches of the current generation of DSLR.
Take a look over at North-Light's page and you'll see that Canon are heading for a 50mp plateau for full frame. The 1Ds4 and 5DII are just cameras in that journey.
Don't knock progress before you've tried it. So far Canon have kept ISO noise to a constant level and more recently push ahead with it, regardless of the MP increase. If Canon can make a 38mp full frame camera with low Iso noise and high sharpness and clarity....then i say, bring it on!
globalkiwi wrote:
This not directed at gazzajagman specifically - I'm just kind of gobsmacked in general. After months of baseless, & at times plain fanciful, speculation, the 5D2 has finally been announced. Predictably it was met with howls of disapproval from those folk who had allowed their expectations to be raised in the preceding weeks & we've now endured a week or two of pretty vitriolic & emotive bickering about whether it was "good enough" or not (AF, pixels, video, sealing, yada, yada). Now, before any of us have even laid hands on the thing, speculation about the 1D4 has begun! I guess in a day or two Fred will initiate a 1D4 rumor thread & the whole cycle will start all over again ...
It's like there's absolutely no collective memory (or learning) here whatsoever!...Show more →
Actually, both the 50D and 5DII were leaked on this forum a long long time ago and I was one of the guys who said that these specs look genuine based on what the Digic 4 processor's through put can do. There was a lot of negativity surrounding those specs but they were proved genuine. There is still a lot of negativity surrounding the 5DII, but there was concearning the original 5D too. I even got spammed on my Pbase account about a month after using one...very bizarre...it's only a camera.
The only real surprise with the 5DII has been with it's very very old AF system. Which I guess isn't much of a surprise when one considers the problems Canon have had with their newer AF systems of late? The 1DIII needs no explaining. But the 40D on paper looks like a better AF system. But I used my 40D and 85L at a wedding reception for the first time on Saturday (I dropped my 135L and couldn't use it on my 5D). The results were a fiasco. The 40D just couldn't handle the f1.2 glass. I have no issues with my current 5D and either the 135L or 85L.
I'm not a regular poster here at Fred Miranda, so please don't list me as one of your "these folk" posts. I am a regular poster on DWF and POTN. But I keep an eye on these forums because some times there are some great threads here.
I prefer DWF becuase they are closer to what I do and I like POTN because I like the higher image postings.
I live in Europe and I'm completely ignorant about video, except that I own a standard definition mini DV camera, that I barely shoot with. Usually my children having sport activities. If I want to playback the movie, I have to connect the camcorder with the tv set and thats it.
What if I do the same with a 5D II? If I connect it to a HD TV set and choose NTSE mode, isn't it going to be the same ?
Furthermore if I create some dvd, using appropriate software (let's assume in NTSE mode) what will be the problem?
I'm writing all these since I can not understand the issue conserning the 30 fps speed mode of the camera and not 25 or 24 fps as a lot of you say is a necessity for europe.
gazzajagman wrote:
I guess you haven't been keeping up with the 1Ds4 rumours then? The 1Ds series has always used Canon's tightest pixel pitches of the current generation of DSLR.
Take a look over at North-Light's page and you'll see that Canon are heading for a 50mp plateau for full frame. The 1Ds4 and 5DII are just cameras in that journey.
Don't knock progress before you've tried it. So far Canon have kept ISO noise to a constant level and more recently push ahead with it, regardless of the MP increase. If Canon can make a 38mp full frame camera with low Iso noise and high sharpness and clarity....then i say, bring it on! ...Show more →
Oh I take north-lights rumours very seriously
You haven't even seen the 50D yet so how do you know how good the noise is? The few shots I've seen weren't great, unlike the 5D II.
38 MP? Uh I think the maximum physically possible before image starts to degrade for 35mm format sensors is 25 MP. People have been making billboard sized images with 6-8 MP cameras for years. We'll have the same problems that have been plaguing P&S cameras due to the size of its sensor and the MPs being pushed beyond its physical limits of what it can physically resolve, which is 3-6 MP. Have any of you ever tried to open, work with multiple, or batching, 150+ MB .TIF files and you have to turn it in the next day? It's not pretty waiting overnight for it or have MAJOR computer hiccups in PP. I don't think it will even be practical for 90% of the pros out there, let alone hobbyists, who rarely prints anything larger than 8x10. More MP=bigger print size=more noise=longer processing time & it's limited by the PHYSICAL size of the sensor & the resolving power of the lens. You will not get anymore details than what's physically possible. The MP war is dead, and manufacturers know about it as well. If you want more MP, go for the medium format. The limitation of the 24mmx36mm is about to hit the ceiling. I'm STILL waiting for a 8"x10" LARGE FORMAT digital (with a FREE golf cart or ATV/snowmobile to go with it).
