If you support Obama or McCain in the U.S. presidential race, you're not likely to chnage your views. The same holds true in the Canon debate. Some love the new 5DMII, others hate it. It will never change no matter how long this debate goes on. Personally, I'm glad the camera is coming out. For my shooting needs, it will be a GREAT upgrade from my current 5D. My clients have wanted me to upgrade to the 1DsMIII so they can get even larger prints, but now I don't need to spend an extra $5000 to get features I don't need. If others need more than the 5DMII offers, then buy what you need. Personally, I'm keeping my eyes on RED... Given a few years, their pressure on the big guys will help push along Canon, Nikon, and everyone else. It's happened on the video/film side and we're next.
gabimaster wrote:
I see you are talking about the ability of tracking moving objects of the 5D MK2;what about tha ability to focus right in low light(a church for example-I 'm taking this example 'cause I shoot mostly weddings) ,beside the center AF point,the others are almost useless(in really low light-situation that is very comon in the ortodox churches from Romania).What can I do with an exceptional IQ if the picture is not sharp!!! I think CANON is LAUGHING about US!!!! The same very,very old AF sistem. And you now what? D700 is now 2730$ on AMAZON! Tell me that you aren't tempted to MAKE THE MOVE!!!!!...Show more →
My 5D works well in low light conditions. I haven't seen people here complaining about that.
BubbaJon wrote:
Yep. Telling that's all they can find to bitch about. They gave up on trying to sound sincere about too many megapixels and how it doesn't matter, or how the lenses aren't up to anyway.
Me - I would have loved to see a couple new innovations like Nikon's artificial horizon. Love to have that instead of my little bubble level that I loose every so often...
It's not accurate.
Apple's iPhone/itouch uses a similar system with more sensors to detect two directions. The accuracy varies slightly from phone to phone. There is no built-in way to adjust this.
But I have a level program that does allow you to adjust its accuracy for the program itself. It's called Tilt Meter.
I mention this because the Nikon also has no built-in way to adjust it, at least from what I've read in a couple of reviews where they mentioned that it didn't always work properly.
AF is the only bone of contention for the 5D II. I think most people either accept or welcome the 21mp sensor. I know I do, as I am fond of cropping ... yeah, because I am such a bad photographer - whatever!
A good/sophisticated AF system is more important in a film camera than a digital SLR. Why? Because there is no preview and you don't really know if you've got the shot. With a film camera it's mostly a hit-and-miss. And because film is so darn expensive you ordinarily cannot afford to shoot 100 rolls at a time unless someone else is willing to pay for it.
With a DSLR you can afford to shoot a gazilleon frames as it won't cost you anything. And with an amazing 3" VGA screen you have a virtual Poloroid back, so you know when you've got the shot. A 50-100 point AF system would be really annoying to me, and it won't make me a better photographer.
Most film shooters have had to settle for 1 lousy AF point that is not of the cross type. For years I was happily shooting MF-Contax with focus-confirmation and I was extremely happy with that. Multiple AF points should be less important with a DSLR for the reasons mentioned above, and yet people are crying blue murder because the 5D II comes with an antiquated/ancient 3-year-old 9-point AF system with only some minor tweaks/improvements.
Sheesh!
Daan B wrote:
Is this thread still going on about the 5D2's AF? Amazing...
bobbytan wrote:
AF is the only bone of contention for the 5D II.
What about exposure when making a movie? It seems to be only automatic (ie it continuously adapts to the quantity of light and cannot be fixed - see Vincent Laforet's video credits).
If true, this is a problem...
Etadam wrote:
What about exposure when making a movie? It seems to be only automatic (ie it continuously adapts to the quantity of light and cannot be fixed - see Vincent Laforet's video credits).
If true, this is a problem...
I don't see 1080o as mattering. It's an addition, a bonus.
It also works much better than the 720p in the D90. so of the two, the 5D wins hands down.
But I doubt anyone will care much if they are buying the camera for its traditional role of taking high quality still images.
From Rob Galbraiths site:
We're not certain about what the range of exposure controls on the 5D Mark II in video mode will be, though a few things are clear: shutter speed will be set automatically (between 1/30 and 1/125), any lens aperture can be selected, brightness can be locked prior to the commencement of video capture, or brightness can be controlled automatically by the camera. What facility there will be for adjusting exposure during recording, if any, we don't know. Nor have we been able to find out whether Canon has implemented the camera's automatic brightness control in a way that avoids the flickering brightness effect that shows up in some Nikon D90 video clips (and which disappears completely with that camera by locking the exposure)....Show more →
I almost forgot. Also from Rob:
Various still image processing settings are honoured in video capture too, including Picture Styles, Highlight Tone Priority, Lens Peripheral Illumination Correction and more.
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.
That was me behind that manual-focusing F-1, not my grandfather (although I am a grandfather).
I'm part of a very large group of professional photographers who had been shooting medium format film rather than (or in addition to) digital. Having been a Canon shooter since 1973, I stuck with Canon (although I was mad at them for about a decade after they dumped the FD mount).
I had a 10D, a 300D, and a 20D. They were okay up to 16x20, but I certainly wasn't going to give up my Mamiya RZ cameras, not for a 1Ds that cost 'way too much just to replace the medium format film cameras that were already well-ensconced into our workflows. Nor were most of the portrait photographers I gabbed with at PPA meetings.
The 5D changed that--dramatically. It was barely more expensive than a new medium format camera and provided the same IQ as medium format film for most of our uses. At this point, if you leaf through Rangefinder, Studio Photography, or Professional Photographer magazines, the single most used camera is the 5D...to the great loss of Mamiya's market more than any other.
Focus points? We went from a manual focus camera to an autofocus camera. Mirror blackiout? We went from a camera with a full one and a half second mirror blackout (with electric winder) to a camera with a 0.03 (or so) mirror blackout. In other words, the 5D was nothing but positive. We made oodles of money with the 5D.
The only thing we lacked was the IQ to get up to 30x40 and 40x50. The 5D2 comes right at the point we've amortized our 5D's. The 5D2 would have been a professional bargain even at its old price. I'm pre-ordered for two 5D2 cameras.
Would it have been nice to have a fancy new AF system. Sure...if it didn't screw up anything the 5D already had. But was it necessary to do anything more than Canon did to get my money? Nope. They had me at "21 megapixels."
Just be thankful that you have HD video that is 1080p and 12 minutes or 4GB clips with no jello effect! C'mon people .... what else do you want? How about a 30 x 45mm sensor?
Etadam wrote:
What about exposure when making a movie? It seems to be only automatic (ie it continuously adapts to the quantity of light and cannot be fixed - see Vincent Laforet's video credits).
If true, this is a problem...
ulrikft wrote:
What is up with all the untrue statements about those that are not religiously defending the 5d mkII
"you just want a 1ds mark III for 2000"
"they don't care about art, they are just gadgetfreaks"etc..
Is it so hard to understand that different people have different needs and wants and that this will reflect upon how people will like this camera?
No - not hard to understand that folks have different needs. What I struggle with on *both* sides of the fence are those who choose to "religiously defend" or also "religiously declaim" the 5D for it's purported superiorities and/or deficiencies. It is what it is and all the bitch-n-moan or rally-the-troops-to defend-our-honor in the world won't change that. You either accept it or reject it. Arguing about it for 75 pages is friggin pointless.
BubbaJon wrote:
No - not hard to understand that folks have different needs. What I struggle with on *both* sides of the fence are those who choose to "religiously defend" or also "religiously declaim" the 5D for it's purported superiorities and/or deficiencies. It is what it is and all the bitch-n-moan or rally-the-troops-to defend-our-honor in the world won't change that. You either accept it or reject it. Arguing about it for 75 pages is friggin pointless.
maybe, if we are lucky, it will be more improved than we think.
if it has a faster startup time then it likely has a faster main CPU and then likely faster AI servo AF.
someone claimed they have a 5D and tried the 5DMkII and that the mirror blackout was noticeably less.
anyway, odd that canon would not mention faster AF and less mirror blackout, etc. but maybe they just got so gun shy after the 1dmkiii stuff they are afraid to even mention the word mirror-box or AF??
Mel Gross wrote:
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. ...Show more →
since more people pixel peep or print, with perfect digital replication at larger sizes, i think it's more important on digital.
and try again doesn't work for those one of shots be it sports or candid or mockingbird attacking hawk.
bobbytan wrote:
AF is the only bone of contention for the 5D II. I think most people either accept or welcome the 21mp sensor. I know I do, as I am fond of cropping ... yeah, because I am such a bad photographer - whatever!
A good/sophisticated AF system is more important in a film camera than a digital SLR. Why? Because there is no preview and you don't really know if you've got the shot. With a film camera it's mostly a hit-and-miss. And because film is so darn expensive you ordinarily cannot afford to shoot 100 rolls at a time unless someone else is willing to pay for it.
With a DSLR you can afford to shoot a gazilleon frames as it won't cost you anything. And with an amazing 3" VGA screen you have a virtual Poloroid back, so you know when you've got the shot. A 50-100 point AF system would be really annoying to me, and it won't make me a better photographer.
Most film shooters have had to settle for 1 lousy AF point that is not of the cross type. For years I was happily shooting MF-Contax with focus-confirmation and I was extremely happy with that. Multiple AF points should be less important with a DSLR for the reasons mentioned above, and yet people are crying blue murder because the 5D II comes with an antiquated/ancient 3-year-old 9-point AF system with only some minor tweaks/improvements.
Mel Gross wrote:
I don't believe in change for changes sake. If something works well, it doesn't need to be scrapped.
No, it doesn't need to get scrapped--but given Canons seemingly endless resources it could sure as hell be improved. The current 9 AF point layout is lacking IMO, and while some of you claim you can focus and recompose at MFD wide open with the 85L successfully, every single time for the rest of the world its not the case. If I'm going to pay 3K for a body it should at least offer more points than a 1.5K body, and those points should also enable quicker AF (specifically locking speed) especially when the competition offers it. It is clear the 5DII is a step up from xxD bodies and a step down from 1-series and I believe the AF should reflect that. Whether some of you think the current system is 'enough' is negligible--it still doesn't change the fact that others share my stance on the issue and that the system is 3 years old. If stagnancy is OK with you then so be it, use the current 5D--I prefer advancement and given Canon's standing in the market they have no excuse to provide its user base with these advancements. Remember, I'm not asking for 45pt pro AF--rather MKII-like AF with a 13pt. array. Something middle ground, something that offers MORE. Its not impossible...
