RDKirk wrote:
A two dollar part is a quite significant cost factor in the economics of mass production.
Which 1-Series features would be merely a matter of firmware to introduce into the 5D2?
recording voice notes?
an at least semi-usable Auto ISO in stills mode?
more AEB range?
AF sensitivity tuning?
manual control in video they DID end up going back and adding it, which was very nice indeed, but withotu the tons of screaming that might've remained on the list, thankfully canon did listen, was nice.
40D could've had with firmware alone:
manual focus adjust
full-level image review
at least 1-series-like autoiso
more AEB range
AF sensitivity tuning
i'm sure i'm forgetting stuff
so of course they leave stuff out that they have already programmed for higher models
how would a "force of argument" by people such as yourself convinced the AF is "utterly effective" make up for the FACT that many, many, photographers (& current/former 5D owners) know otherwise?
disagreeing does not make a zealot.. it requires turning a blind eye, pure ignorance &/or unadulterated spin
Pelao wrote:
I love these comments. If you should happen to agree with some things, or diagree with others, you are marked as a zealot, which somehow negates your thoughts and opinions to some lower level. Rather than battering people, or throwing names around, it might be more usefiul to change or open minds by force of argument.
From my perspective, which is based on the uses to which I put my 5d, the autofocus has been utterly effective. Plenty of professionals seem to feel the same. Awesome photographs are made, livings and reputations are enhanced.
it's sad. I mean if they scaled back the 1D af system & crippled the the ring servo logic to only use the 19 cross sensors NO ONE in their right mind would bitch & moan if that was in a $2500 camera.
but to put essentially the 20D AF system into the 5DmkII with some "hidden" extra center points is not something any canon shooter can champion with a straight face.
how many frikin af points do you need in the center 10% of a viewfinder/photo anyways?
it's especially frustrating given the lens selection canon has at all price ranges.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Sorry Glen around here as soon as you mention better AF the fanboys immediately say you want a 1Ds III for 5D II money. Every single time; there's no middle ground, it's black or white. Quite ludicrous and probably how Canon gets away with it, having implicit support.
That was when Canon released the EOS 10S with three focusing points. Until then, there was no focusing aid anywhere except the center. Were people unable to take pictures before then? Are there no pictures from before that primitive time?
And manual focusing with my F-1 cameras back in the 70s wasn't "all that and a bag of chips," either. It took practice, practice, practice, like playing a violin to learn how to focus accurately and quickly. Sports shooters who could follow-focus on a moving subject with a 30mm f/2.8 were virtuosos.
We focused and recomposed 95% of the time, and we framed to the very edge.
This stuff is so incredibly easy today. People ought to be laughing every time they raise the camera to their eye, but it's just whine, whine, whine.
"My camera won't expose right. My camera won't focus right. My camera gets nose grease." Bunch of crying babies.
So very true! I remember incredible wildlife photos taken by people who focused manually and literally lived in birds colonies instead using 10 fps cameras (with multiple focusing points) and 800 mm lenses. I got my first (external) exposure meter quite a few years after getting my first SLR camera - before that, it was just "feeling the light" approach.
RDKirk wrote:
It has nothing to do with being a "zealot."
Was photography not possible until 1990?
That was when Canon released the EOS 10S with three focusing points. Until then, there was no focusing aid anywhere except the center. Were people unable to take pictures before then? Are there no pictures from before that primitive time?
And manual focusing with my F-1 cameras back in the 70s wasn't "all that and a bag of chips," either. It took practice, practice, practice, like playing a violin to learn how to focus accurately and quickly. Sports shooters who could follow-focus on a moving subject with a 30mm f/2.8 were virtuosos.
We focused and recomposed 95% of the time, and we framed to the very edge.
This stuff is so incredibly easy today. People ought to be laughing every time they raise the camera to their eye, but it's just whine, whine, whine.
"My camera won't expose right. My camera won't focus right. My camera gets nose grease." Bunch of crying babies.
Please: this argument is both foolish and irrelevant. Once the technology becomes readily available, the floor is raised. I had magazine-published photos using pushed 320 speed tungsten film 20 years ago that would be considered technically unacceptable today. Someone who could track focus with a 300/2.8 back in the day was a virtuoso. Well, nowadays, if the photographer next to you has gear that accurately tracks focus, and you don't, then you're not in the game very long, are you?
Yeah, we did what we could with the gear available to us at the time. What does that have to do with Canon not improving the AF system in a $2700 camera today, when not only the competition offers better, but Canon itself offers better in lower priced models I have a 5D2. The outer focusing points - which I would like to use to focus on subjects that aren't sitting still - do not work as well as the outer points on my 40D. That shouldn't be the case on a new camera costing 2.5 times the price! Cross type sensors in all nine positions should have been a given on the 5D2. A few more AF points, turning the diamond into more of a rectangle, would have been a huge step forward. How much could that have added to the manufacturing cost?
Film cameras were easier to manually focus, too, don't forget that.
It would be useful to have the input from a qualified product engineer on this.
He would tell you that the cost of manufacturing a unit for a company like Canon is small in relation to the final selling price......and that the marketing department will determine the functionality rather than the development engineers.
I would put money of the fact that when Canon released the G10 they had already developed the G11 but held back production because the G10 would do the job ( i.e. sell) for now. The G11 could have been the G10 basically.
As for the autofocus question......the EOS 3 had the same autofocus system as the 1V but the 3 was half the price. It is probable that the focusing system was a very small part of the maunfacturing cost of either camera...and in fact by using the same system in both cameras unit costs were actually lower.
I suspect however that Canon learnt a lesson here......don't market two exceptional and very similar cameras at the same time where one cost 50% less.....
Come on guys... Canon released the 5D2 only about a month and a half after Nikon released the D700. I doubt they had any knowledge of what Nikon was going to put into the D700 before the announcement and even if they wanted to, I don't think they had enough time to make any substantial change to the 5D2 specs to match the D700. Heck, they might have already started production just before the announcement.
Canon hasn't made any big announcement for their DSLR gear yet so please, stop beating the dead horse. Wait for the announcement, you might have another fresh horse to beat to death and beyond.
n0b0 wrote:
Come on guys... Canon released the 5D2 only about a month and a half after Nikon released the D700. I doubt they had any knowledge of what Nikon was going to put into the D700 before the announcement and even if they wanted to, I don't think they had enough time to make any substantial change to the 5D2 specs to match the D700. Heck, they might have already started production just before the announcement.
Canon hasn't made any big announcement for their DSLR gear yet so please, stop beating the dead horse. Wait for the announcement, you might have another fresh horse to beat to death and beyond....Show more →
Jim Levitt wrote:
I have a 5D2. The outer focusing points - which I would like to use to focus on subjects that aren't sitting still - do not work as well as the outer points on my 40D. That shouldn't be the case on a new camera costing 2.5 times the price! Cross type sensors in all nine positions should have been a given on the 5D2. A few more AF points, turning the diamond into more of a rectangle, would have been a huge step forward. How much could that have added to the manufacturing cost?
That's dependent on what you are shooting. I agree, the outer AF points on the 40D are more sensitive in low light and being 'cross-type' sensors, are able to lock focus more quickly regardless of the orientation of the subject's contrast boundaries.
On the other hand, my 5D (and I have no reason to believe that the 5D2 is any different) has shown in repeated tests against my 40D that it can track moving subjects with greater accurace - a tribute to the 6 "assist" AF points, I suppose. My tracking tests were done using the center AF point, since that is the way I use the camera for that function.
The sad part of my comparisons is that the copy of the 1D3 I had at the time of comparison could not compete in AF Servo mode, bringing a lower percentage of "keepers" than either of the other 2 bodies. Perhaps the AF issues Canon was having at the time contributed to the decision to put the old, but proven, scheme in the 5D2 when it was new. Once those things are set, they don't get changed.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
If I were Nikon, I would release a D750, with 16.5MP, HD video, 97% VF, dual card slots, 6fps, and a few other tweaks (improved noise maybe), but everything else the same as the D700. No need for 24.6MP and this could easily sell at $5D II money.
i think it would be cheaper for Nikon to reuse either the D700's sensor or the D3X's, rather than develop a whole new one and a processor to go with it.
a D700s is the most likely iteration coming up, as we haven't seen a D300X yet, and the video upgrade would probably be much cheaper for Nikon to cram in than the fancier sensor.
as expected... the old "i walked to school uphill, both ways in the snow spiel".
not a good attempt at sidetracking the obvious facts.
Now, just how do you MF with the 5D? ROTFLMAO.
Sorry but your manual focus cameras HAD MUCH BETTER VIEWFINDERS & SCREENS. i know, because i used them too. nice of you to conveniently leave that out.
plus then there was the fact that everything you looked at was on PRINT which is more forgiving or slides. Even shots downrezzed for the web are less forgiving.
Cars got 12MPG 30 years ago should we not strive for more today? They got people from place to place. That is your argument & canon defense.
RDKirk wrote:
It has nothing to do with being a "zealot."
Was photography not possible until 1990?
That was when Canon released the EOS 10S with three focusing points. Until then, there was no focusing aid anywhere except the center. Were people unable to take pictures before then? Are there no pictures from before that primitive time?
And manual focusing with my F-1 cameras back in the 70s wasn't "all that and a bag of chips," either. It took practice, practice, practice, like playing a violin to learn how to focus accurately and quickly. Sports shooters who could follow-focus on a moving subject with a 30mm f/2.8 were virtuosos.
We focused and recomposed 95% of the time, and we framed to the very edge.
This stuff is so incredibly easy today. People ought to be laughing every time they raise the camera to their eye, but it's just whine, whine, whine.
"My camera won't expose right. My camera won't focus right. My camera gets nose grease." Bunch of crying babies.
Canon knew the 5D AF system (regurgitated into the mkII) was less than ideal and did NOTHING for 3 years in it's design.
the D700 has NO BEARING on the 5D and 5DmkII insufficient AF system.
If the D700 wasn't announced that doesn't change the facts. It just made Canon look MORE out of tune with photographers & probably caused them to lower the mkII initial price (compete with lower price not features)
n0b0 wrote:
Come on guys... Canon released the 5D2 only about a month and a half after Nikon released the D700. I doubt they had any knowledge of what Nikon was going to put into the D700 before the announcement and even if they wanted to, I don't think they had enough time to make any substantial change to the 5D2 specs to match the D700. Heck, they might have already started production just before the announcement.
RDKirk wrote:
It has nothing to do with being a "zealot."
Was photography not possible until 1990?
That was when Canon released the EOS 10S with three focusing points. Until then, there was no focusing aid anywhere except the center. Were people unable to take pictures before then? Are there no pictures from before that primitive time?
And manual focusing with my F-1 cameras back in the 70s wasn't "all that and a bag of chips," either. It took practice, practice, practice, like playing a violin to learn how to focus accurately and quickly. Sports shooters who could follow-focus on a moving subject with a 30mm f/2.8 were virtuosos.
We focused and recomposed 95% of the time, and we framed to the very edge.
This stuff is so incredibly easy today. People ought to be laughing every time they raise the camera to their eye, but it's just whine, whine, whine.
"My camera won't expose right. My camera won't focus right. My camera gets nose grease." Bunch of crying babies.
Glen_C wrote:
Canon knew the 5D AF system (regurgitated into the mkII) was less than ideal and did NOTHING for 3 years in it's design.
the D700 has NO BEARING on the 5D and 5DmkII insufficient AF system.
If the D700 wasn't announced that doesn't change the facts. It just made Canon look MORE out of tune with photographers & probably caused them to lower the mkII initial price (compete with lower price not features)
Ideal? Ideal for what? I think it's more than adequate for portrait, landscape and macro. You do realise that not everyone shoots action like sports or BIF or car races, etc. Just because it's not ideal for you, doesn't mean it's not ideal for others, and just because it's ideal for others, it doesn't make them a zealot or ignorant or blind.
As the competition, what Nikon releases DOES have some influence on what Canon releases. What did Nikon have before D700 as compact 'pro' FF DSLR to compete with the 5D? Nothing, and when did Canon start producing the 5D? 2005 wasn't it? It took Nikon 3 years to respond.
Maybe Canon got complacent thinking they had no competition in 5D market so they didn't worry about putting "pro" AF. Maybe if Nikon released their D700 a year earlier, the 5D2 might've had better AF. Who knows...
For now, why not wait for Canon's September announcement before you start sharpening your pitchfork again?
n0b0 wrote:
Ideal? Ideal for what? I think it's more than adequate for portrait, landscape and macro. You do realise that not everyone shoots action like sports or BIF or car races, etc. Just because it's not ideal for you, doesn't mean it's not ideal for others, and just because it's ideal for others, it doesn't make them a zealot or ignorant or blind.
At this point the horse has been beaten to JELLO but what the H, may as well continue the beating. The 5D is used a lot, if not mostly, by wedding and event photographers--it's high ISO performance being one of the reasons for this. The problem with the 5D was always it's focus speed and accuracy when using peripheral points at wide apertures...this is where the 5D fell short of 'ideal'. Landscape, macro and portraiture can be, and for some is, done using 100% MF. Not only is AF speed/accuracy a downfall for the 5D but so is the AF point spread...or better worded 'cluster'. I feel the point many seem to be missing in regards to the 5DII's recycled AF system is the fact that it took three years to release a successor to the 5D, that's three years of technological advancement, yet the 5DII carried on a legacy a lot of 5D owners wanted to forget--it's AF system. Obviously there are those who can overlook this, but why shouldn't the upgrade have been a complete upgrade? Canon pissed in the coffee and while some don't mind it, it has left a very bitter taste in the mouths of many others.
M Vers wrote:
.. The problem with the 5D was always it's focus speed and accuracy when using peripheral points at wide apertures...this is where the 5D fell short of 'ideal'. Landscape, macro and portraiture can be, and for some is, done using 100% MF. Not only is AF speed/accuracy a downfall for the 5D but so is the AF point spread...or better worded 'cluster'. I feel the point many seem to be missing in regards to the 5DII's recycled AF system is the fact that it took three years to release a successor to the 5D, that's three years of technological advancement, yet the 5DII carried on a legacy a lot of 5D owners wanted to forget--it's AF system. Obviously there are those who can overlook this, but why shouldn't the upgrade have been a complete upgrade? Canon pissed in the coffee and while some don't mind it, it has left a very bitter taste in the mouths of many others....Show more →
Agreed.
Many have suggested that the 1DmkIII's AF issues caused Canon to become "gun-shy" about putting a new AF in the 5DmkII. Does anyone here agree with this or do you think it was purely a marketing decison?
I have a 5D2. The outer focusing points - which I would like to use to focus on subjects that aren't sitting still - do not work as well as the outer points on my 40D. That shouldn't be the case on a new camera costing 2.5 times the price! Cross type sensors in all nine positions should have been a given on the 5D2. A few more AF points, turning the diamond into more of a rectangle, would have been a huge step forward. How much could that have added to the manufacturing cost?