Pixel Perfect wrote:
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.
although if you follow certain style ones there going back to pre-40D days a few of those technical peaks at the future of canon rumors there have all proven to be pretty close to the mark in the end
complete nonsense that the 5D is not a sports camera
I have used the 5D for car racing, volleyball, birds in flight, swimming, and other sports.
The 5D focus is good with the 6 extra focus points enabled
The 5D II looks like a fine camera. Especially with the extra benefit of the high quality video. A nice bonus to go with the impressive 21.1 megapixel images.
Yeah, you are right. If the Leica S2 is for landscape photographers, then the 5D Mk II is designed for both still and fast moving subjects. 9 is 8 more focus points than 1. The Leica S2 is simply no match for the 5D II in auto-focus!
abqnmusa wrote:
complete nonsense that the 5D is not a sports camera
Landscape and studio portrait photogs, I'm sure--but there is no need to make it seem like the majority were satisfied. Anyhow, It was a decent AF at the time but its been two years, lets get serious instead of directly insulting the consumer.
Canon has said the 5D was designed to ween well-heeled Japanese "enthusiast" amateurs from film. I would guess they asked them.
bobbytan wrote:
If you care about quality you shouldn't be shooting past ISO 6400.
But do you honestly believe the average person can tell if you shot at 6400? If you've got a shot of a couple kissing--they are not going to be concerned with the sharpness or amount of noise as long as the image does not look like a bowl of noodle soup--and telling from the 5DII ISO6400 sample images I doubt you would hear any complaints. The point is the 5D tends to hesitate a bit when locking focus in low light, and for the most part when using wide aperture lenses a photographer could use AF points on parts of the frame where there are none (as opposed to making an attempt to focus and recompose)...adding a few points and researching better layouts wouldn't be such a bad idea--in fact its only logical. I for one wouldn't mind paying an extra $500-1K for '1-series like' AF, and I am positive I am among a large portion of those who agree. Either way I will most likely end up picking a 5DII up--but if the AF is identical to the current 5D I will feel a bit cheated. If I had the extra 3K, it would be a different story.
RDKirk wrote:
Canon has never reacted in that way to any salient by another manufacturer. Even when the autofocusing Minolta Maxxum 7000 made every other SLR obsolete, Canon still released the T-90 a year later and took an additional year before releasing their first AF camera. Canon doesn't turn on a dime, never has, never will.
Abso-doggone-aye-lutely.
Yes, it is unreasonable. They never have. While it's possible for someone to do something surprisingly different from what they've done before, it's always a poor risk to bet on it, unless you have genuine evidence that they will.
There was no actual reason to expect Canon to "react" to Nikon--hence, it was "unreasonable." "High hopes" is not evidence....Show more →
Hmm! I never thought that the Minolta 7000 made every other SLR obsolete. It was a good model, one of the best they ever did, but it had plenty of other flaws. Being made by Minolta was one of them. Minolta never captured the imagination of the public at large the way Canon and Nikon did. Sometimes being first, or innovating wildly, something Minolta did more than once, is a very bad thing for a company to do. The evidence for that is that Minolta became first known as Konica-Minolta, and now, simply Sony.
If they had stuck to business, they might have still been around. Canon has learned this lesson well. Innovate when needed, in a proper way. That;s why they are number one.
Yohan Pamudji wrote:
Your post was 3 sentences long. I read it all. And I read it again. What did I miss? Or was I supposed to read between the lines?
Did I say they made 35mm sensors? No, I didn't.
If you've been following this, you would have also seen my other posts that were very recently made. In them, I mentioned the 36 x 48mm sensors that Hassie, and Phase one ARE making. I said that they are 60 MP sensors. I also said that those sensors are twice the size of a 35mm FF sensor, and that therefor, it works out to a 30 MP 35mm FF sensor equivelent.
M Vers wrote:
That sounds like a complete cop-out to me. The 5D's AF is so good it did not need an update? If anything is complained about the 5D it is the AF...
Ditto.
My 40D's AF smokes my 5D's, which is to be expected, but if my 40D's AF smokes the 5DII's AF, well that would just be pathetic, IMO.
I agree, I'm excited about this camera but if they truly did simply re-use a several year-old AF system then it's a little less than "evolution." But, let's wait until the hands-on reviews have had a chance to compare the results of the "tweaking" ...
If the 1ds mark II had iso-capacity close to to this or the mark III (s), it would be an easy choice, but I guess life never is supposed to be easy... :P
vmar wrote:
Nobody, or my questions are stupid and don't worth an answer?
New TV's can accommodate NTSC or PAL/SECAM signals and will play 24,25 and 30fps video. It is an issue if you have a old TV as converting the video on your pc say to a 25fps version can cause ghosting and degrade the video quality. Still it should have been allowed to choose the format in camera.
If this is true then we have an AF system that is better than the 5D.
I have had the 5D for 3 years now and don't have a single complaint about the AF. I have said elsewhere before that the AF is a HUGE improvement over the 20D that I had previously.
And I am willing to bet that the 5D II's AF is MUCH better than the $30,000 Leica S2. Any takers?
WebDog wrote:
According to an interview made by a Swedish photo journalist, at PhotoKina, he asked about the auto focus on the new 5D2.... and the answer was: Canon had got very good feedback from users of 5D, in fact the satisfaction on this model (regarding focus) were amongst the best, and hence they felt the money spent on developing the new 5D2 were better spent on improving other things i.e. sensor and video...But they addmitted that focus algorithms were tweaked and should beeven better than the old model!
BTW, the new 5D2 can keep track of up to 6 different batteries and tell you which has the most capacity left.... and the reason for having a different battery on this new camera is due to video mode that consumes a lot more than an ordinary camera
Mel Gross wrote:
Actually, the site has more than rumors, just like this one. Canon has stated where they intend to go with their sensor technology. Northlilight has put that online. No problem with that.
Several years ago, Canon told me that they were intending to go to the largest number of pixels that were theoretically possible for all of their formats. I believed it then, and I believe it now.
I was part of the early discussions here, when people were dreaming that Canon might come out with a 15, or at most, a reworked 1Ds mkII 16.7 MP sensor for the new 5D mkII. How did that work out?
There are a lot of technologies that can still be used to increase overall IQ with much higher pixel densities.
Look at Hassie's new camera. It's 60 MP. the sensor is double a 35mm sensor - 36 x 48mm. That gives them 30 MP per 35mm FF sensor size. So Canon, and others, have a ways to go to even meet that obviously attainable level. And Hassie is claiming a very high IQ, as you would expect. The same for the new Leica with its 37.5 MP 30 x 45mm sensor chip.
Does anyone here truly have any doubts that these medium format producers will come out with 80 MP models? Or even 100 MP models?
If you do, you had better wake up.
And anything they can do, Canon and Nikon can do as well. We WILL see fully half the number of pixels on a Canon FF sensor that we will see in a 36 x 48 medium format sensor. Have no doubts.
Why would 99.9% of people need a 50MP camera 400MB 16 bit tiff files. Who cares that they can make it, what's the actual point? And if you really need that res, you'll want MF or LF IMO. Canon's lenses haven't a hope in hell of coping with that res, it'll reveal every flaw. So what if MF goes to 100MP, do you think again more than 0.1% photographers would care about a $50K system? They make great talking points like a Ferrari, but we can't afford them and then get on with our real lives. It's like putting a 2000hp engine in a Toyota, sure every body will say they want one, but 0.01% will actually be able to use that power.
I've already woken up and I think for 35mm system we are close to enough already, maybe a bit more res, but I would hope they would focus on important things like better AD converters that can really allow true 16 bit capture, big huge improvments in DR, huge improvements in AF, WB, a move away from Bayer, updating the lenses to accommodate the new sensors.
ulrikft wrote:
If the 1ds mark II had iso-capacity close to to this or the mark III (s), it would be an easy choice, but I guess life never is supposed to be easy... :P
They should have made a 1Ds IIn, with better LCD, improved ISO, 5fps and it would be a killer.
RDKirk wrote:
Yes, it is unreasonable. They never have. While it's possible for someone to do something surprisingly different from what they've done before, it's always a poor risk to bet on it, unless you have genuine evidence that they will.
There was no actual reason to expect Canon to "react" to Nikon--hence, it was "unreasonable." "High hopes" is not evidence.
Let me see Canon didn't offer spot metering, but everyone else did in every model and then finally the 30D added a spot meter and now even the 450D has it. Why would they do that, if they were so philosophically opposed to that feature for so long in non 1 series cameras. Surely the competition influenced them? You cannot expect me to beleive Canon live in a vacuum and are unresponsive to what the competition do. People forget that for a long time Canon could get away with purile features sets because at the end of the day they were miles ahead on IQ; the others offered features to compensate. Well those days are over and the field is lot tighter and they can no longer cruise along. They are slowly getting it though; the 400D was quite a way behind the D40x in features, yet the 450D was a real surprise for Canon and actually leapfrogged the D60 in features. If they can do it at the entry level they can do it at any level. The silly thing is they have very little to do to get there, now. Of course when the next round of updates come out and the Canon's truly match the Nikon's for features watch the back pedalling around here.
bobbytan wrote:
And I am willing to bet that the 5D II's AF is MUCH better than the $30,000 Leica S2. Any takers?
What the heck does the S2 have anything to do with the 5DII? Is there a direct correlation I'm missing here? Or is this just a stab in the dark to get further off topic? And of course the 5D has better AF than the 20D--it should. On another note, the 5D was released in 2005, its now 2008 and Canon is basically going to tell the world that AF hasn't been improved in the mean time? Gimme a break. Stop trying to defend something that is otherwise defenseless.
