After you explain that, tell it to Hassie and Phase One, as their high end sensors are already over that size limit by a fair amount.
Ummm you're forgetting that the FF 645 sensors are 40.4mm X 54.9mm? I'm talking about the FF 135s@ 24mmx36mm... Physical limitations aren't limited to just sensors, but what's also in front of it, the glass. I don't think you'd be picking nose hairs out of a person in a LARGE group picture of 100 or more, even @210 MP. Heck, I can't do it from an 8x10 large format, which is about 203.2mm x 254.0mm and when compared to a 135, you have about 100 times the area. It doesn't take a degree in physics to know that.
So what you are saying essentially is that the 5D II is doomed to fail as "the vast majority" will not accept an AF system that is supposedly only slightly better than the 5D. We will find out in about 3 months time. We will know then if the 5D II is a major marketing disaster for Canon.
I personally think the 5D II will be an astonishing success story .... much like the 5D was, the garbage AF notwithstanding.
M Vers wrote:
ONE good AF point may be all YOU need, but to the vast majority, it wouldn't cut it with the dull backside of a butter knife.
bobbytan wrote:
So what you are saying essentially is that the 5D II is doomed to fail as "the vast majority" will not accept an AF system that is supposedly only slightly better than the 5D. We will find out in about 3 months time. We will know then if the 5D II is a major marketing disaster for Canon.
I personally think the 5D II will be an astonishing success story .... much like the 5D was, the garbage AF notwithstanding.
it will be a success, even with the mediocre AF system. there's a significant enough market that likes the 5d II feature set. however, adding a better AF to the 5d II would not have hurt anyone. ti would make happy the segment that feels neglected- the ones that wanted a "d700". that way, everyone would have been happy and the camera would sell even better
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.
Thanks for proving my point, I had forgotten that example. Canon eventually got around to it, in their own good time, after pushing through the five-year-plan they were already working. Canon has no history of turning on a dime in "reaction" to anything.
Who doesn't want a better AF system? EVERYBODY does. I was SO hoping for at least a 19-point AF with 9 cross-type points i.e. a hybrid of the 5D and 1D. It didn't happen. I was SO hoping to see a 3D. It didn't happen either. But I am still thrilled with everything else about the 5D II and I didn't hesitate to pre-order one. What's the point in whining and moaning after the fact? Nothing can be done. If you are not happy, look elsewhere. We are spoilt for choices.
simonella_viru wrote:
it will be a success, even with the mediocre AF system. there's a significant enough market that likes the 5d II feature set. however, adding a better AF to the 5d II would not have hurt anyone. ti would make happy the segment that feels neglected- the ones that wanted a "d700". that way, everyone would have been happy and the camera would sell even better
Just making the point that ONE good AF point is all that you need .... and that even super-high-end DSLRs offer only 1 AF point.
if the entire world were in a studio or if everything were static, then 1 a one-point AF system would be superb! as a matter of fact, even MF would be king.
Back in the old days when all we had was one AF point, nobody ever got anything in focus. Ever. Those are still known even today as "The Blurry Years."
If you go back even further, before autofocusing...why, photography just plain didn't exist before autofocusing. Just a few cave paintings.
We did dream of being able to photograph an actual moving subject, though. Can't keep a kid from dreaming, y'know.
I think the 5D AF system is fine. I've used two of these cameras in very low light situations for almost 3 years. Works well and accurately for me.
I do, however, share the desire that many here have for a full frame "EOS 3D" or compact 1-series body. Canon must be aware of this interest, and I suspect they will meet the demand eventually.
The one major disappointment for me about the Mark II is that (according to Robg) it appears to retain the longish shutter lag / mirror blackout time of the 5D, a camera which feels very sluggish (to me). It's only the FF image quality that's kept me with this camera for so long.
Clearly, the original 5D forumula was a huge success for Canon and they chose to continue this focus on IQ and resolution rather than shooting performance. Retaining the existing shutter/mirror helps to hold down the price, but I would have gladly paid $500-1000 more for this camera if they had put a modified 1Ds Mark II shutter/mirror in the camera so that it felt *fast* to shoot at 4fps. Then, it really would be the spiritual successor to the EOS-1V.
RDKirk wrote:
Back in the old days when all we had was one AF point, nobody ever got anything in focus. Ever. Those are still known even today as "The Blurry Years."
All sarcasm aside, if you read what some of the great photographers say (such as Laforet, since he's been quoted here in this thread before), the yield rate was far worse with 1-point AF, or with MF.
Personally I don't see anything wrong with demanding better and more. When you look at the upgrade to the camera overall and then see the AF standing still, it is a wee bit odd, if not disappointing. I don't think it's an excessive reaction.
M Vers wrote:
Would you consider that a large improvement? Let me rephrase...would you consider that an improvement 3 years in the making? Better yet, would you call that an improvement that sticks up to the relative competition? I'd say--no, no...and no.
Again it all comes down to what the camera is indended for.
Are you telling us that Canon has no right to market its cameras the way it sees fit?
No one camera is ideal for everything. Like a lot of others here, I'm pretty satisfied with the auto focus on my 5D, any improvement over that is great. Sometimes subtle improvements in the technical sense can make a big improvement in the quality of the final result.
You seem to think that every camera must be able to shoot raceway work. It doesn't.
I shot football games many years ago with myF1. I don't remember any auto focus then. It's quite amazing that we came up with so many great shots.
I guess the art of knowing when to press the button is lost due to motor drives and auto focus built into every camera these days.
Some of the worlds best "moment" shots were made with pre WWII Leicas, and they were really terrible.
And by the way, for those comparing this to the 40/50D, my 5D follow focuses much better than my daughters 40D.
I don't see anything wrong with that either. I suspect that Canon had not paid too much attention to the AF feature, and the 5D II was put together somewhat hastily .... and they just couldn't take the risk of putting out a brand new AF system that has not been thoroughly tested. They cannot afford another 1D III blunder as their reputation will do down the toilet, so they went with a proven system and loaded up the Mk II with other features instead, to make it attractive and desirable .... and I think it worked, judging by the mostly positive response to the 5D II.
stanj wrote:
Personally I don't see anything wrong with demanding better and more. When you look at the upgrade to the camera overall and then see the AF standing still, it is a wee bit odd, if not disappointing. I don't think it's an excessive reaction.
stanj wrote:
All sarcasm aside, if you read what some of the great photographers say (such as Laforet, since he's been quoted here in this thread before), the yield rate was far worse with 1-point AF, or with MF.
Personally I don't see anything wrong with demanding better and more. When you look at the upgrade to the camera overall and then see the AF standing still, it is a wee bit odd, if not disappointing. I don't think it's an excessive reaction.
But, as I showed earlier, it hasn't stood still. There are improvements.
I really don't understand why some people are so quick to criticize before the camera is out so that enough can see for themselves.
Mel Gross wrote:
But, as I showed earlier, it hasn't stood still. There are improvements.
I really don't understand why some people are so quick to criticize before the camera is out so that enough can see for themselves.
I am not just criticizing. I am #1 on a list. I am a big fan of this camera, actually. However, you haven't seen or used the camera either, so your saying that it's better is as accurate as me saying that it's not good enough / not as good as it could be. Granted, as an owner of a 1Ds3 I have high expectations, but this world would be still in a cave if at least some people didn't have high expectations.
stanj wrote:
I am not just criticizing. I am #1 on a list. I am a big fan of this camera, actually. However, you haven't seen or used the camera either, so your saying that it's better is as accurate as me saying that it's not good enough / not as good as it could be. Granted, as an owner of a 1Ds3 I have high expectations, but this world would be still in a cave if at least some people didn't have high expectations.
There's a difference though. Canon has told of improvements. Therefor, we should expect it will work a bit better.
Those knocking it are assuming that there have been no improvements. this has been said many times in this thread, and its just not true.
What I've been saying is that the focus is fine already, as most 5D owners (I'm one) have been saying, even here. Just on this very page, more have said that.
So, to say that the focus isn't good, as some have been saying, is strange. I suspect that from the comments, most of them do not have a 5D.
Then, they extrapolate, without acknowledging that improvements have been made, that the focus of the 5D mkII will also be "bad".
I'm saying that as we know that some improvements have been made, we should wait before knocking the focus on the new model. Until we actually know, the best that can be assumed is that focus will be a bit better in a camera that most owners think already has fine focusing abilities.
Should it be as good as that of a much more expensive model? Not really. That's one reason the 1Ds costs so much.
There's nothing else we can really think at this point that would be fair.
Abou the AF system of this new camera its too early for any critisism .... but I think that a good point of positive AF results is the 1st version of 5D that seems to be a very reliable AF system.
Another matter is white balance
We have no info about the white balance in video recording mode does this camera has the right controls for full manual control on white balance in those new modes of these DSLR.
simonella_viru wrote:
it will be a success, even with the mediocre AF system. there's a significant enough market that likes the 5d II feature set. however, adding a better AF to the 5d II would not have hurt anyone. ti would make happy the segment that feels neglected- the ones that wanted a "d700". that way, everyone would have been happy and the camera would sell even better
I too believe the 5D Mark 2 will be a success, however I was one of those waiting for a body such as this with AF closer to that of the 1D series, or even the AF of the 1 series, a la Nikon D700. It would have made a perfect compliment and 2nd/backup/studio body to my 1D3. Oh well. Here is to hoping the 1D Mark 3 replacement, hopefully at PMA, will provide a higher resolution sensor, 12-14MP, as it should have had in the first place if you ask me.
bobbytan wrote:
So what you are saying essentially is that the 5D II is doomed to fail as "the vast majority" will not accept an AF system that is supposedly only slightly better than the 5D. We will find out in about 3 months time. We will know then if the 5D II is a major marketing disaster for Canon.
I personally think the 5D II will be an astonishing success story .... much like the 5D was, the garbage AF notwithstanding.
Look the 5D AF is fine for anything but fast action and in normal everyday use especially one shot it's quite good and does very well in low light IMO. Majority won't have issues with the 5D II AF.
RDKirk wrote:
Back in the old days when all we had was one AF point, nobody ever got anything in focus. Ever. Those are still known even today as "The Blurry Years."
If you go back even further, before autofocusing...why, photography just plain didn't exist before autofocusing. Just a few cave paintings.
We did dream of being able to photograph an actual moving subject, though. Can't keep a kid from dreaming, y'know.
Just because your grand daddy had it tough doesn't mean we should still have it tough. That's the point of progress, work smarter not harder.
