Breitling65,you're right,I don't own one,especially because of his antique and poor AF; I own 2*30D bodies and a 40 D. i SUGGEST you find someone with a 30D and run a test between 30D and 5D MK2(I did it with 24-105mm which I also own side by side with my brother in law's 5D MK2,because I was interested myself in having one).I cannot by a camera with so many OOF shots,since a 2006 camera (30D) is way better (I mean the AF matter,not talking about IQ).So I think there is no point to try it with some very bright prime(50 1.4 or 135L)since it can't focus too good with a f/4.0 zoom (24-105L).
gabimaster wrote: Breitling65,you're right,I don't own one,especially because of his antique and poor AF; I own 2*30D bodies and a 40 D. i SUGGEST you find someone with a 30D and run a test between 30D and 5D MK2(I did it with 24-105mm which I also own side by side with my brother in law's 5D MK2,because I was interested myself in having one).I cannot by a camera with so many OOF shots,since a 2006 camera (30D) is way better (I mean the AF matter,not talking about IQ).So I think there is no point to try it with some very bright prime(50 1.4 or 135L)since it can't focus too good with a f/4.0 zoom (24-105L)....Show more →
Whatever, I guess you need to read above as well. Check samples maybe, people posted especially for you...
yeah,I saw it,very nice(probably you think :"another guy with a bad technique is placing his opinion here;I'm using Canon cameras since the film era and I think I have some experience;I don't know what to say,maybe that copy had some AF issues;but it's a fact that many 5D MK2 owners are complaining about 5D MK2'a AF,too many to call it user error.Too bad for Canon.
George.ML wrote:
The past two generations of the 1D series have had the same number of megapixels and have been based on the same technology as the xxD series – the 1DII and the 20D/30D had 8mp/12bit sensors, and both the 1D3 and the 40D had 10mp/14mp sensors.
It is logical to assume that the 1DIV might be based on the same technology as the 50D.
Hopefully, though, Canon are ready with their next generation technology and will be able to increase the resolution without making the ISO worse – as was the case with the 50D.
Again, two entirely different sensors. Does the 1DIII perform similarly to the 40D? No.
And BTW, neither the 1DIII or 40D has a 14mp sensor.
That was a typo - meant to say 10 megapixel, 14-bit sensors.
Yes, the 1D and the xxD obviously use different size sensors - but of the same technology generation.
The 1D sensors are not sprinkled with magical dust. They are basically scaled-up versions of the smaller sensors - the same way the 5D classic had a scaled-up version of the 1DII sensor.
Again, the 40D and 1DIII sensors are not the same.
However, if the 10->15mp jump in the xxD line is any indication, there are reasons to be concerned that a 15mp 1DIV might be noisier that the 10mp 1DIII - the exact same way the 50D is noiser than the 40D.
With the xxD line, Canon could not find the magic ingredient to both substantially increase resolution and reduce noise.
Hopefully they have it found now for the 1D series.
(And hopefully that clears things up for you wrt the 50D references).
George.ML wrote:
That was a typo - meant to say 10 megapixel, 14-bit sensors.
Yes, the 1D and the xxD obviously use different size sensors - but of the same technology generation.
The 1D sensors are not sprinkled with magical dust. They are basically scaled-up versions of the smaller sensors - the same way the 5D classic had a scaled-up version of the 1DII sensor.
Point is if you based what the MKIII does off what the 40D does you would be way off in terms of performance at any level let alone high ISO performance. The very same applies to basing what the MKIII replacement, assuming it is 15/16mp, would do off what the 50D does. Two different sensors, two different level bodies. Again, I'd like to stress the fact that Canon did something incredible with the 50D by adding 5mp and still keeping ISO performance at a similar level to a camera that had 50% less mps. That is impressive.
In my opinion, if they are able to improve sensor technology just enough that a large increase in pixel density results in about the same noise performance then they would be better off using that same improvement in sensor design without increasing the density.
In my poll of exactly one person, better noise performance at the same mp is far better than having more mp with identical noise performance. Your mileage will of course vary.
Um...according to DPReview, the 50D has more noise than the 40D with very little increase in resolution. I don't find that to be impressive or incredible at all. It just proves that Canon has passed the point of diminishing returns. The best thing Canon could do would be to drop the resolution back down to 12Mp and concentrate on getting the noise under control, but they've already painted themselves into a corner by offering 15Mp. It's a shame because I'd love to have a 50D as a second/backup body to my 1D-MkII, but since I do most of my shooting at 800-1600 ISO (out of necessity), the 50D is out of the question.
M Vers wrote:
Point is if you based what the MKIII does off what the 40D does you would be way off in terms of performance at any level let alone high ISO performance. The very same applies to basing what the MKIII replacement, assuming it is 15/16mp, would do off what the 50D does. Two different sensors, two different level bodies. Again, I'd like to stress the fact that Canon did something incredible with the 50D by adding 5mp and still keeping ISO performance at a similar level to a camera that had 50% less mps. That is impressive.
Jay Adeff wrote:
Um...according to DPReview, the 50D has more noise than the 40D with very little increase in resolution. I don't find that to be impressive or incredible at all.
You may not now, but this is only the beginning. And FWIW try not to use DPR as a defining source.
I'm pretty sure Canon will keep the H sensor, but only as a way to shave costs (assuming they're still limited by FF dual masking/pass requirements).
If they simply made a 16.5MP FF sensor (approx) there would be NO loss in pixel density compared to a 1D3. There would be NO advantage to those still whining about "reach". Instead, they would get the ability to crop and many of those shots that were ruined by the subject/object moving out of the frame would/might be viable. Keeper rate goes up while costing nothing but a little storage space.
They could drop the H fab line, standardize FF production processes, and remain competitive. If they choose to produce something "less" then once again Nikon will eat their lunch when it does what most sports shooters would probably like. IOW, a fast, 16-18MP FF camera.
Would it kill the 1Ds3? Sure, but so what? That's yesterdays news anyway. No technical product lasts forever, nor would we want one to do so.
gabimaster wrote: Breitling65,you're right,I don't own one,especially because of his antique and poor AF; I own 2*30D bodies and a 40 D. i SUGGEST you find someone with a 30D and run a test between 30D and 5D MK2(I did it with 24-105mm which I also own side by side with my brother in law's 5D MK2,because I was interested myself in having one).I cannot by a camera with so many OOF shots,since a 2006 camera (30D) is way better (I mean the AF matter,not talking about IQ).So I think there is no point to try it with some very bright prime(50 1.4 or 135L)since it can't focus too good with a f/4.0 zoom (24-105L)....Show more →
not saying the 5D2 AF is perfect but it definitely was better thna that on either of my 20ds
Jay Adeff wrote:
Um...according to DPReview, the 50D has more noise than the 40D with very little increase in resolution. I don't find that to be impressive or incredible at all. It just proves that Canon has passed the point of diminishing returns. The best thing Canon could do would be to drop the resolution back down to 12Mp and concentrate on getting the noise under control, but they've already painted themselves into a corner by offering 15Mp. It's a shame because I'd love to have a 50D as a second/backup body to my 1D-MkII, but since I do most of my shooting at 800-1600 ISO (out of necessity), the 50D is out of the question.
well according to all my test shots I noticed a lot more detail on some branches on far off trees shot from teh same spot with a 40D and a 50D, with the 50D
the 50D doesn't really do any worse, normalized, at high ISO (altough it certainyl doesnt do the claimed 1-1.5 stops better either)
jamesf99 wrote:
I'm pretty sure Canon will keep the H sensor, but only as a way to shave costs (assuming they're still limited by FF dual masking/pass requirements).
If they simply made a 16.5MP FF sensor (approx) there would be NO loss in pixel density compared to a 1D3. There would be NO advantage to those still whining about "reach". Instead, they would get the ability to crop and many of those shots that were ruined by the subject/object moving out of the frame would/might be viable. Keeper rate goes up while costing nothing but a little storage space.
They could drop the H fab line, standardize FF production processes, and remain competitive. If they choose to produce something "less" then once again Nikon will eat their lunch when it does what most sports shooters would probably like. IOW, a fast, 16-18MP FF camera.
Would it kill the 1Ds3? Sure, but so what? That's yesterdays news anyway. No technical product lasts forever, nor would we want one to do so....Show more →
agree
(plus it wouldnt at all kill a 1Ds4 at 30-35MP)
and it would open room for the 5d2 to evolve into a 3D, a small body, 1 series AF, no 100% VF, no weather sealing or any of those little extras, at 21MP and 6.3fps.
if they keep the 1D4 at APS-H then I am afraid they won't be able to make a 3D until after the 1d5 so we are talking a long way out then, maybe not until fall 2013, since they would end up stepping over all sorts of toes and they seem to hate doing that, thing is I think Nikon may well do that by late 2010 or early 2011 at the latest and I kinda fear Canon may really tank for a number of years and lose lots of pros and people moving to DSLR for the first time, etc. although they probably won't get hurt really badly and will come through it it ok in the end.
but it just seems a little odd to me that they may go for only FF player in town to the farthest behind in FF bodies within 12 more months....
They will keep the H sensor only to keep the sports guys happy.
The 1D is and always will be about half the resolution of the 1DS because they keep the information throughput per second is about the same. 1ds does 5 fps at twice the resolution of the 1d which does 10fps.
They have the sensor problem tackled, its the data throughput that is now constraining.
So unless there is a paradigm shift or improvement in data transfer in cards, they will give the glamour guys twice the resolution as the sports guys.
