jamesf99
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
brainiac wrote:
The 3.9 fps is because that's the max rate they could get from one digic blah. 98% viewfinder is fairly standard in cameras of this class, e.g. D700. The 1Ds3 came out before the D3 and D700, and was probably planned before them too, since it is typically a derivative of the 1D line. Canon's 1D3 came out six months before the D3. I don't think any of these limitations are that important, and I don't think they are necessarily a result of deliberate decisions to weaken the product. The 5D2's AF system looks much more like a deliberate decision to limit the camera with a sub-par feature and protect the higher-priced cameras, since much cheaper cameras already had better AF systems....Show more →
Actually, the 1Ds3 was released in Aug, 2007. The larger LCD was not only available, but it was provided on Nikon's D3 as well as the mid-level D300, both coincidentally released in August, 2007 (3 days later to be exact). Since Canon is one of Sony's largest customers for LCD screens and sensors, it seems more than reasonable that the LCD was made available to them, yet they declined. Nikon, on the other hand, accepted the offer and included it in both their new cameras. I had a discussion with a Canon employee about this; he tried to convince me that the lower res one was "just as good"... Hmmm. Me thinks not. Especially since I had both cameras side by side. 
The 5d2's 3.9 FPS is just a firmware limitation and not because that was Digic's processing limit. I will acknowledge that there may be other limitations. A possible candidate is the support IC's, such as one controlling the poor AF; it may not have been able to keep up with even 4 FPS, which is demonstrably possible as it often fails at 3FPS on the 5d.
Now the 98% VF is just a 'close, but no cigar" move, as more than adequately demonstrated by the 7d. I will concede that the 7d's 100% VF is smaller than the one required for a FF sensor, and also takes less skill to align it at the factory. They can simply make it a little larger than it needs to be, use low tolerance installation specs, and voila! it still works....
PS - yes, it's true the VF is a major hot button for me in the studio, so I carp about when using any non-1 series. I'll say that in canon's favor, the 5d2's VF at 98% is better than the 95% in the D700.
I also want a professional level camera that can be used in the studio, outside the studio, professionally or casually. If I have to buy multiples of the same body, fine, but I no longer want several different bodies for different purposes if I can help it. I guess I'm living in the past when the 1V ruled the roost. It could go anywhere, do anything, with grip or without. No compromises.... Ahhh, the good ol'days....
Edited on Feb 08, 2010 at 09:52 AM · View previous versions
|
It's as if making it shoot at a full 4 FPS would not have been insulting enough so they dropped it to 3.9 just to make sure that at least 80% of the users would be able to recognize what was done. The VF at 98% insures it doesn't reach proper VF size of 100%; they want to insure you can't accurately frame your image without guessing how that other 2% will look in the final image.