dave chilvers wrote:
The 5d2 is not the replacement for the Mk3`s, how could it be it was launched at 1/3rd the 1 series price..... If you need the ultimate for all situations then (as good as it can be and want a Canon) then you buy the camera that is aimed at that market and that is the 1 series. ...
Dave
The problem is that there are many of us however who want FF and better AF in a 5D sized body.
I trust my 40D's AF more than my 5D's which is understandable, but I would expect the 5D mkII's AF to better my 40D and from what I've read I don't think it does, which is quite sad, IMO.
burychka wrote:
On a full frame, the 400mm will only be good for turkeys up close. The rule on birds is that you always need a longer lens. That has been the case with the 20D and 40D and 500F4, where we usually need the 1.4xII extender. With a full frame, the 500 + 1.4x is barely adequate, so I would have little hope for a 400mm.
Also, I have the 100-400 LIS. I have never fully understood the appeal of the 400 with the same F5.6 max aperture and NO image stabilization. The 100-400 is handy, though, for other stuff.
FWIW.
You can crop image from 5dm2 and get the same as you would with 30d. So I don't think one looses anything with FF now-a-days. 8MP is still less than 15MP of 50d but you getting very nice FF for other uses besides birding.
Point of the thread is to find out if there is any difference between the MKI and MKII, not whether or not the camera can focus for portraiture...it's known the 5D can do that. AF with any camera is easy to use when the subject is stationary...Now if you show me a mobile subject while shooting at a wide aperture, <f/2, using the outer AF points close to MFD then I'd be impressed.
michael49 wrote:
The problem is that there are many of us however who want FF and better AF in a 5D sized body.
I trust my 40D's AF more than my 5D's which is understandable, but I would expect the 5D mkII's AF to better my 40D and from what I've read I don't think it does, which is quite sad, IMO.
Michael
1 series AF (on the outer points) in a 5D body, yes I agree is the ultimate(although me personally experience is that centre point is very usable and off centre very good) Are there some model variations I`m now asking myself?
As far as the 40D goes, i had one but never really bonded with it but from memory AF wise seemed very like the 5D2 but I say again my type of photography doesn`t see me pushing the off centre Af to it`s limits.
It will be a real shame if the off centre Af of the 5D2 puts people off from buying it because it really is a superb camera in so many ways. It sits ready in my general bag with my contax 35-70 on it, my 21 2.8 Contax and 70-200 f4 IS + 1.4 in the pockets. I suppose I`m off the older school before we had off centre AF points and got used to focus on subject, re-compose and shoot (slower than modern ways but pretty foolproof when stopped down a couple.) I do use off centre Af more and more now but not on the type of subjects that require something like an 85 f1.2 lens and maybe that is where the crunch comes. I struggle on any of my cameras when using my Ziess 85 1.4 (it`s the eyes
i remember having this discussion on this forum when i still had my canon gear.
on the one hand, people are saying: "look, this is what canon has, take it or leave it." on the other hand, people are saying, "i expected more [from AF]." both sides are right. personally, i bought the d700
the great thing about this is that the market will speak, especially when peoples' discretionary funds are low (due to economic conditions). if enough people expected a better AF system and don't buy the 5dII because of that, then canon will be forced to respond.
dave chilvers wrote:
Michael
1 series AF (on the outer points) in a 5D body, yes I agree is the ultimate(although me personally experience is that centre point is very usable and off centre very good) Are there some model variations I`m now asking myself?
As far as the 40D goes, i had one but never really bonded with it but from memory AF wise seemed very like the 5D2 but I say again my type of photography doesn`t see me pushing the off centre Af to it`s limits.
It will be a real shame if the off centre Af of the 5D2 puts people off from buying it because it really is a superb camera in so many ways. It sits ready in my general bag with my contax 35-70 on it, my 21 2.8 Contax and 70-200 f4 IS + 1.4 in the pockets. I suppose I`m off the older school before we had off centre AF points and got used to focus on subject, re-compose and shoot (slower than modern ways but pretty foolproof when stopped down a couple.) I do use off centre Af more and more now but not on the type of subjects that require something like an 85 f1.2 lens and maybe that is where the crunch comes. I struggle on any of my cameras when using my Ziess 85 1.4 (it`s the eyes
Where I find the 40D better is with the off center AF points. With the 5D I use mainly the center AF point, because its the only one I trust. I use focus/recompose but with fast primes this is prone to problems. Thus I often find myself cropping shots because I couldn't get the compostion that I wanted in the first place. I think if the 5DII's off center AF points were as good as my 40D's then I'd be happy, but as things stand I'm in no hurry to upgrade from my current 5D to a 5D II.
The 5DMkII is still selling well and remains sold out everywhere despite its AF deficiency. High demand will continue through this month, so Canon has a winner. Canon can then introduce a 5DMKIII with a new AF and something that is a new technology in a DSLR to repeat the process over again.
M Vers wrote:
Point of the thread is to find out if there is any difference between the MKI and MKII, not whether or not the camera can focus for portraiture...it's known the 5D can do that. AF with any camera is easy to use when the subject is stationary...Now if you show me a mobile subject while shooting at a wide aperture, <f/2, using the outer AF points close to MFD then I'd be impressed.
Agree I tried off center AI servo and find good but not more enough shots to get a firm result. I will find a chance to do this in actual test (lucky my son is a good testing tool ) but I can only use 300/4 since this is the most shallow DOF lens I owned now. Or borrow my friend's 70-200 shoot at 200/2.8 with a distance 2.5 meters
burychka wrote:
On a full frame, the 400mm will only be good for turkeys up close. The rule on birds is that you always need a longer lens. That has been the case with the 20D and 40D and 500F4, where we usually need the 1.4xII extender. With a full frame, the 500 + 1.4x is barely adequate, so I would have little hope for a 400mm.
Also, I have the 100-400 LIS. I have never fully understood the appeal of the 400 with the same F5.6 max aperture and NO image stabilization. The 100-400 is handy, though, for other stuff.
FWIW.
5dmkii actually has the same exact reach as a 20D/30D (and not far off from a 40D) and more than the 1dmkiin and 1dmkiii so there is no FF vs. APS-C/APS-H talk here (unless you get into the 50D which does have a good deal more reach than the 5dmkii)
but recall that a pro film 35mm camera was only about $1000 more than a consumer level one (and it needed not jsut better shutter/mirror but also much faster film pull motor, etc.) and now days the pro bodies are like $2000-$4000 more than the upper mid-range....
so believe us when we say they could put in pro AF module and even a second digic for all that many more hundreds and still be making money on every body sold. They could still make the 1 series with the integrated grip, bit better build and even faster fps, 100% viewfinder, etc.
that said, so far the center point appears to be better than the xxD's though....
never touched a 5D so no even prelimnary clue there....
dave chilvers wrote:
The 5d2 is not the replacement for the Mk3`s, how could it be it was launched at 1/3rd the 1 series price. People are just angry because they wanted a pro camera at consumer prices. I`m not a sport or wedding photographer and see only plus signs when ever I use the 5d2 in every way over the older mk1 (people used and raved over the original 5D and still do) so whats changed? If you need the ultimate for all situations then (as good as it can be and want a Canon) then you buy the camera that is aimed at that market and that is the 1 series. There are no free lunches in the world so something has to give a little (although as I`ve said I haven`t seen much given away with the 5d2) and surely the thing at the top of the list must be IQ and the 5D2 has it in bucket loads. For specialist work you need a camera aimed at it.
I pick up the 5d2 most of the time now but there are times when I know I`m gonna need that bit of extra performance/ weather proofing etc in certain areas so grab the mk3. There`s no point buying a VW Golf and complaining that it doesn`t perform in all areas like an Audi TT and if it did we would all be driving VW Golfs wouldn`t we?
(I`m not knocking VW golf`s BTW before anyone flames me) I`ve owned both and like the cameras they are different beasts that show their strengths in different ways ( mainly your bank balance) but both get you where your going.
People on these threads act like they have a gun to their head being forced to purchase products that are not right for them.
BTW from reading many threads around the web it`s starting to look like the early American deliveries are where the most problems are, our deliveries in the UK were a few weeks behind the USA in general from a different factory maybe?
Please not the serious risk you are taking when using the AF system of this camera.
please note that you are seriously picking out the worst bits and avoiding mentioning all the good bits like how you say it looses to the A900 for detail and looses to the D700 for noise how about the more truthful it slightly looses to the A900 for detail but handily wins for noise and totally trumps the D700 for detail and looses by only a little bit for noise?
not that i totally disagree since I think they should've upped the performance a bit and charged a little bit more for it and stuff like crippling autoISO, not allowing audio notes, 24fps, manual video control, is so protective of 1 -series acting as to be childish (and i think foolish), not one of those last few things i mention would even cost a single cent in production costs.
also it appeared to do pretty well at the one half of a soccer game i tried with it (although the action was mostly not too close and it was only a half so hard to say for sure)
Love mine, yes the AF is better on center point and evebn a little better on outer points.....I don't expect it to be as good AF as my 1 series bodies, it's a 5 series, not a 1 series, but, I will say that the IQ beats any body I've used so far.
Good points all around on this thread, great topic, predictable yet interesting still
Exactly. This is why I don't get people excusing the autofocus on the 5Di/ii and saying if you want better trade up to a 1 series. The EOS 3 had fantastic 45 point autofocus (and a wonderful big bright viewfinder to boot) and still cost less than half of the cost of a 5d.
Maybe we'll see that in the mk-iii.
Guy
skibum5 wrote:
but recall that a pro film 35mm camera was only about $1000 more than a consumer level one (and it needed not jsut better shutter/mirror but also much faster film pull motor, etc.) and now days the pro bodies are like $2000-$4000 more than the upper mid-range....
so believe us when we say they could put in pro AF module and even a second digic for all that many more hundreds and still be making money on every body sold. They could still make the 1 series with the integrated grip, bit better build and even faster fps, 100% viewfinder, etc.
that said, so far the center point appears to be better than the xxD's though....
never touched a 5D so no even prelimnary clue there....
dalek53 wrote:
Exactly. This is why I don't get people excusing the autofocus on the 5Di/ii and saying if you want better trade up to a 1 series. The EOS 3 had fantastic 45 point autofocus (and a wonderful big bright viewfinder to boot) and still cost less than half of the cost of a 5d.
Maybe we'll see that in the mk-iii.
Guy
Yes dalek, but the 3 was a film camera! more like comparing a horse and cart to a car.
At the end of the day you either buy it or you don`t and just carry on using your mk1 till the mk3 or 4 comes out. I`ll also buy the mk3 or 4 and have enjoyment using the mk2 in the mean time.You weren`t going to see all the things you want till the 1dsmk4 hits the shelves.At least you probably won`t have as long to wait for the 5Dmk3 as you did for the 5D2. A very good bit of advice is to grab a 1dsmk2 while they are still around for the same amount of money. a bit of extra weight but problem solved.
dalek53 wrote:
The EOS 3 had fantastic 45 point autofocus (and a wonderful big bright viewfinder to boot) and still cost less than half of the cost of a 5d.
miccullen wrote:
Sitting still in good light, using the centre point? What's that supposed to be showing, exactly?
Since I saw many negative post talking about how bad the 5D2 AF and someone claimed that even some simple shooting situation (like my photos shown) the AF cannot do the job, like a 1st gen. AF, so I just want to show that the AF of 5D2 is not that bad, it can fullfill a lot shooting situation.
I have mine 5D2 shooting for action kids, protrait, sport, .... for a month with over 10,000 shots, I don't think I need to upgrade it to 1D series or D3 or something like that or keep my 40D for sport.
Read a lot of comment on 5D2 AF but I can't find a practical test or more scientific test, AB test etc, in the web showing comparsion of the AF limit between 5Dseries, 1D series, D series from Nikon. Appreicate if someone can share this information.
AF is more accurate for me except for one situation...backlight.
I've noticed that in some backlight situations the AF will be completely off, not even close, using center focus point (not sure if the same would be true for outer focus points, didn't try it). The AF seems to hunt briefly and then it locks in focus but when you review the image the subject that the focus point was on is completely blurred. Anyone else notice this?
Backlit situations are problematic situations for AF systems in general- I've noticed no better results with my 1D3 so I wouldn't ding the 5d2 on that. The AF system is perfectly fine for its general audience. hopefully you're not trying to shoot sports with this because that's not what it's intended for.
