Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: innesfoto on September 27, 2008, 11:41:37 am
-
Hi to all you would be 5d mk 2 owners.
I am just back from Photokina, where I was one of the first through the door and onto the Canon stand to get my hot sweaty hands on the new 5d mk2.
What can I report? Well, firstly let me say that if you are reading this thread you have probably already read all the speck on the camera anyway. We all know it is 21MP and does HD video. has chip cleaning and has a wide ISO range.
I will leave other people to comment on those aspects of the camera as they will be reported on over the coming months in the minutest details by every photo site and magazine.
What I am hoping for here is what people really think of it, what it has, and what it doesn´t have. and what affect will it have in the 1ds mk3 spec and its pricing.
Firstly let me say the camera feels almost identical to the old 5d. Not a bad thing, and not a brilliant one either. The viewfinder looks almost the same as well. The focus system has ( at least as far as I could see) not been updated. That is not a good thing!
In as much as a 9 zone AF system with 4 assist points often struggles to lock focus on tricky subjects. The shutter on the other hand does feel completely different. When you fire the camera it is very balanced and makes a much softer click action. this may be due to the new secondary metering and focus mirror and the added dampening mechanism. Either way a big improvement on the old model, and good for at least 100,000 cycles.
As a landscape photographer I was very interested in a mirror lock, which is not located within the custom function menu. Now, I do not have an answer as to whether
they have relocated it or if it still resides in the CF menu, I do know that there is the option to have a mirror lock via the self timer but that is frankly of almost no interest to me. So if anyone out there knows if the mirror lock has been added to the function buttons, I would love to hear about it. I did ask the guys on the Canon desk, but no one could give me an answer.
Another niggle for me on the 5d was the CF card door, which I always found a bit light weight and could at the very least have done with a spring mount or an interlock to hold it closed. Well no change there I´m afraid. Also no ability to back up files with a second CF card like in the NIkon D3.
Now there may be many of you out ther like me who have read that the Canon 5D mk2 will write GPS data to the exif data. Well, after much asking about on the Canon stand, I managed to find someone who could give me some full info on that.
You need to get the WFT-E4 file transmitter grip that bolts on to the bottom of the camera and a GPSi hand set and connect the two via a USB lead.
Now, this would be okay if my GPS could communicate with the grip via an IR link or digital radio link, but USB! Do me a favor! this grip costs €1200,00 and it is the only way to connect to GPS, even though the camera already has a USB socket installed, it can´t be used, as it needs the WTF-E4 as an interface.
So my advice is to go with one of the third party systems, until Canon sorts this out.
They cost a fraction of this price and work just as well.
I have now said what I think is bad about this Camera, now I will say what I think is good, 21MP can not be ignored, and will be without doubt a real pisser for anyone who has coughed up €6500.00 for a 1DS MK3. Along with 50-25600 ASA with very little noise, Chip cleaning, dust recognition software, 3.9 FPS, and lets not forget HD video. All for €2400.00
For anyone who thought they would do the wait and see game on what Canon would come out with, you will not be disappointed. I know it is not perfect, and lets face it
what camera is? The D3 is nearly there, But no chip cleaner! what were they thinking? the 1DS mk3 The camera equivalent to Laura Croft but with a price tag that could be grounds for a divorce from your partner, I never saw it as a clear winner. But the 5d MK2 Looks like Pamela Anderson, (Well Specked) goes like a barn door in a hurricane and at €2400.00 even Lehman brothers could afford it.
So, an all round winner then? not quite, There is Sony bitting at its heals with the Alpha 900 which I have also seen, which handles very well, has a higher MP count and Zeiss T* Lenses. Okay not quite such a high spec as the Canon but a good machine never the less. Its biggest downfall is the Focus, I could not detect an improvement over the Minolta 7D focus system. Its slow and struggles to find focus on low contrast scenes. But apart from that a great camera.
But wait, there is one more shoe to drop, The Nikon D3x, Yes, that old chestnut.
If it appears this year and prices itself within €1000.00 of the Canon 5D Mk2 I think Canon will have a fight on their hands. If on the other hand they price closer to the 1DS mk3 price the 5D mk2 will have the market to itself, and for a very long time.
So as a verdict, will I be buying one? I will wait until November-December to see what Nikon do, and let the price settle down to about 20% off its launch price, And then if Nikon don´t react with something even better then Canon you will have another €2000.00 of my hard earned.
Keep the comments coming, chaps, and if anyone can tell me more about the mirror lock I would like to hear it.
Andy
-
I am guessing their firmware wasn't complete; with all previous Canon models the mirror-up feature was part of the custom functions. With my 5D I tied this to the Custom mode on the dial and I expect the same can be done on the 5D II (now there are 3 custom modes instead of 1).
-
Just punch the live view button. The mirror is now locked up.
-
I think you duplicated a thread that is already white hot on the same topic in the same forum.
-
I think you duplicated a thread that is already white hot on the same topic in the same forum.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225137\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I haven´t read the other thread yet, but will get on it.
Thanks by the way for the suggestions, but what if I don´t want to be in live view, and I just want mirror lock up, and want to hold it there for say 5 exposures.
-
I thought I would help some of you out by posting this link on Sample shots off the 5D MK 2 I know it is to a rival site but it is interesting to see the quality never the less.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/page14.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/page14.asp)
If these shots are anything to go by, I reckon the Canon "L" Zoom optics are already pushing the limits on this new body, and it is also my opinion that unless you are using a tripod for maximum stability you are not going to get anything like the best quality out of this camera. Almost all of these shots viewed at 100% show what looks more like minute camera shake more than optical unsharpness. It must also be said that these shots come off a Beta version Camera, and we also don´t know if the micro lens adjustment was used to fine tune the camera.
Andy
-
I thought I would also add this link for all you would be film makers, who want to see what this camera is capable of. Now this is impressive! All shot on a 5D MK2 at
3200 ISO Check it out!
http://www.vincentlaforet.com/ (http://www.vincentlaforet.com/)
-
You guys are duplicating all the information in the other OLDER 5D2 thread.
-
Sorry if you think that DWDALLAM
But I hadn´t read your thread, ether way it does´t really matter. we are not in competition with each other here.
As I have actually had my hands on this camera I am happy to share what I know with the other people on this site.
-
Sorry if you think that DWDALLAM
But I hadn´t read your thread, ether way it does´t really matter. we are not in competition with each other here.
As I have actually had my hands on this camera I am happy to share what I know with the other people on this site.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225447\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thank you Andy, for the information and your opinion about the 5d mk 2, good and less good sides.
(don't pay attantion to people who don't respect your efforts to share your point of view on the 5d mk 2).
I use my 1DS M3 set (live view) button, for the mirror lock up, even for 5 shots one after the other, with no problem. Why doing so in the 5d mk 2 can be a problem?
Best regards.
Menachem Reiss www.reiss.co.il
-
Thanks for that Menachem,
It´s always good to get a bit of good advice from someone who is actually using the gear. How do you feel about the 5D MK2 having bought the 1ds mk3?
I have been waiting to see what happened this year at Photokina before I went for the 1ds, Which if I might add is without doubt one beautiful camera and can not be compared to the 5d mk2 in its build quality or handling or weather sealing for that matter. But as for its price, thats on another planet. As for the final results I doubt there is much between them.
What I can also add is that for all the tests they did on the Nikon D3 and the 1ds mk3.
I took out a D3 for the day and tried it against my 5D and there was NO difference in the quality at all ISO speeds below 400. after that the Nikon sped away on its own.
But for me as a landscape photographer the camera is always on its lowest ISO settin
for maximum quality.
I can also say I have used the 1DS MK3 and just the image size alone leaves the Nikon standing. But as far as Canon lenses are concerned, Canon have nothing to compare with the 14-24 f2.8 Nikon. That is one bloody amazing bit of glass, and it is that, that is holding me up from going for more Canon gear before the D3X is announced.
The Canon 17-40 f4 is OK, and I own one, but is no great star. the Canon 16-35 f2.8 mk2 is most certainly not worth twice the price, and the 14mm f2.8 is also a nice bit of glass, but at €1800.00 forget it!
For all out there who are interested in these kind of wide angles check out this review.
Look at the Chromatic problems on the Canons at the edges!
This buy the way, will most certainly show up at 21MP on your new 5D MK2 so be aware.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24...n14_24mm_a.html (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html)
keep the comments coming.
Andy
-
So you are disappointed with the AF not changing much, but did you actually try it? In low light? It is supposed to have improved a lot even though it's the same amount of selectable AF points, etc.
I have never had an issue with the 5D AF. I use then a not for daylight fashion work and just about everything is sharp, even in relative darkness...
-
So you are disappointed with the AF not changing much, but did you actually try it? In low light? It is supposed to have improved a lot even though it's the same amount of selectable AF points, etc.
I have never had an issue with the 5D AF. I use then a not for daylight fashion work and just about everything is sharp, even in relative darkness...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Lisa
Regarding the AF
Yes I did try it, and it was in fairly low light, and I can say, I could see no difference between this 5D and the old one. But what I can say is it is a damn sight better than the Sony Alpha 900, and not as good as the Nikon D700, or D3.
But hey, Who makes a perfect camera? and Canon need to leave room for the 5D mk3 I guess, otherwise there would be nothing left to improve.
Please don´t misunderstand, the 5D MK2 is a mighty fine little beast, and if truth be known has (as far as I can see) no competition in the market at the moment.
And at 21MP eating squarely into medium format territory at a blinding €2400.00
what a bargain!
But it is not perfect, and for all you sports and wildlife photographers out there, I doubt that the focus system on this EOS will cut the mustard.
As a Landscaper it makes no odds to me. If you want top AF performance then you have to go with the 1D series, or the Nikon D700, or D3,
Andy
-
Thanks for that Menachem,
It´s always good to get a bit of good advice from someone who is actually using the gear. How do you feel about the 5D MK2 having bought the 1ds mk3?
I have been waiting to see what happened this year at Photokina before I went for the 1ds, Which if I might add is without doubt one beautiful camera and can not be compared to the 5d mk2 in its build quality or handling or weather sealing for that matter. But as for its price, thats on another planet. As for the final results I doubt there is much between them.
What I can also add is that for all the tests they did on the Nikon D3 and the 1ds mk3.
I took out a D3 for the day and tried it against my 5D and there was NO difference in the quality at all ISO speeds below 400. after that the Nikon sped away on its own.
But for me as a landscape photographer the camera is always on its lowest ISO settin
for maximum quality.
I can also say I have used the 1DS MK3 and just the image size alone leaves the Nikon standing. But as far as Canon lenses are concerned, Canon have nothing to compare with the 14-24 f2.8 Nikon. That is one bloody amazing bit of glass, and it is that, that is holding me up from going for more Canon gear before the D3X is announced.
The Canon 17-40 f4 is OK, and I own one, but is no great star. the Canon 16-35 f2.8 mk2 is most certainly not worth twice the price, and the 14mm f2.8 is also a nice bit of glass, but at €1800.00 forget it!
For all out there who are interested in these kind of wide angles check out this review.
Look at the Chromatic problems on the Canons at the edges!
This buy the way, will most certainly show up at 21MP on your new 5D MK2 so be aware.
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24...n14_24mm_a.html (http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html)
keep the comments coming.
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225498\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hi Andy
I enjoy working in advertising and fashion with the 1ds mk3. The 5D MK2 is not a replacement even if the results are the same. I too, have the Canon 17-40 f4 that in my case is superb in sharpness to the edges (with small Chromatic aberrations to fix in PS). I am waiting for the "Nikon G > Canon EOS Adaptor" to arrive, for using with the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 . I must tell you the superiority of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 compare to Nikon glass of the same focal lens. My advice is to check other Nikon glasses before moving to Nikon gear.
Best regards.
Menachem Reiss www.reiss.co.il
-
Hi Andy
I enjoy working in advertising and fashion with the 1ds mk3. The 5D MK2 is not a replacement even if the results are the same. I too, have the Canon 17-40 f4 that in my case is superb in sharpness to the edges (with small Chromatic aberrations to fix in PS). I am waiting for the "Nikon G > Canon EOS Adaptor" to arrive, for using with the Nikon 14-24 f2.8 . I must tell you the superiority of the Canon 70-200 f2.8 compare to Nikon glass of the same focal lens. My advice is to check other Nikon glasses before moving to Nikon gear.
Best regards.
Menachem Reiss www.reiss.co.il
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225746\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would love to see what sharp to the edges means. When I tried this lens it was just horrible. It was like that already on a Mk2, but perhaps it is just the question of what one expects.
-
So you are disappointed with the AF not changing much, but did you actually try it? In low light? It is supposed to have improved a lot even though it's the same amount of selectable AF points, etc.
I have never had an issue with the 5D AF. I use then a not for daylight fashion work and just about everything is sharp, even in relative darkness...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd also say that 9 focus points are enough, and as they are still nine doesn't say it's the same autofocus system. Couldn't really imagine Canon would put a three year old system into a brand new camera.
-
I have the Canon Brochure here, and it only says that the AF is slightly more receptive when using 2.8 lenses in low light. Thats it. So as I said, I could detect little if no difference.
Compare it to the Nikon D700 with I think a 51 point AF system, I think this could have been a serious point for improvement for Canon.
But anyway, look at all the other great stuff its got. And who would have thought it 21MP
I would have been certain that it would be a 16MP FF body possibly using the 1ds mk2 sensor, what what a bonus!
I wonder if this means we will see an update to the 1DSmk3 at PMA, maybe an "N" version or something. Lets face it, for that kind of money it should be running on Digic 4, have a 920,000 dot display, and a wider dynamic range sensor, just for starters.
Also if anyone can give me an answer to this one I would be greatfull.
Can you bracket expose in liveview, keeping the mirror held up for all three frames?
It´s very useful for HDR, for minimum movement and maximum speed between frames. Maybe a 1ds mk3 or a D50 user might have the answer.
Andy
-
Hi Lisa
Regarding the AF
Yes I did try it, and it was in fairly low light, and I can say, I could see no difference between this 5D and the old one. But what I can say is it is a damn sight better than the Sony Alpha 900, and not as good as the Nikon D700, or D3.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=225547\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not sure how low the light was were you were shooting, but the A900 shouldn't be that far off of the 5Dii in lowlight AF. In normal light, the A900/A700 is the fastest camera around. What lens was on the camera? Was the camera set to AF: slow mode?
-
I'm not sure how low the light was were you were shooting, but the A900 shouldn't be that far off of the 5Dii in lowlight AF. In normal light, the A900/A700 is the fastest camera around. What lens was on the camera? Was the camera set to AF: slow mode?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=226128\")
Allegedly, the 5Dii is similar to the AF in the 5D. The A900 is allegedly slightly improved over the A700. Here are Pop Photo's stats for the 5D and A700 AF. Pop Photo switched to a graph system by the time the A700 was reviewed, so I did my best to show the approximate values:
5D:
EV 12: .52 seconds
EV 7: .62
EV 6: .64
EV 3: .77
EV 1: .95
EV -.5: 1.5
EV -3: NA
A700:
EV 12: .24 seconds
EV 7: ~.34
EV 6: ~.36
EV 3: ~.87
EV 1: ~.85
EV -.5: ~1.16
EV -3: ~1.39
This might provide some idea of the performance of the two cameras AF, but I realize we don't know what tweaks the 5Dii and A900 have in relation to their older siblings.
[a href=\"http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4724/camera-test-sony-alpha-700-vital-statistics-page3.html]http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/4724/camer...tics-page3.html[/url]
http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/1603/meet-...s-5d-page2.html (http://www.popphoto.com/cameras/1603/meet-the-new-boss-the-canon-eos-5d-page2.html)
-
Very Interesting about the A900 AF.
I had a good long go on the A900, at Photokina under the hall lighting, and I can tell you the AF on the Sony is not good at all. I was a main Minolta dealer in London for nearly 20 years, and I can tell you this AF is next to no improvement on the 7D, The Minolta fit lenses are still by far the slowest focusing of the main brands.
On paper you can make anything look good but in practice it is often something else.
I tried the 16-35mm 2.8 , the 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 All of which where nice lenses well made and great optics, but the focus speed on the 70-200mm 2.8 was very slow, and not very accurate. the other two were better but no match for the Canon or Nikon systems.
Apart from that I thought the Sony was a really top grade Semi pro Camera, that handles very well and seems well put together with a very high spec, and certainly worth looking at as an alternative to the Canon.
Andy
-
Very Interesting about the A900 AF.
I had a good long go on the A900, at Photokina under the hall lighting, and I can tell you the AF on the Sony is not good at all. I was a main Minolta dealer in London for nearly 20 years, and I can tell you this AF is next to no improvement on the 7D, The Minolta fit lenses are still by far the slowest focusing of the main brands.
On paper you can make anything look good but in practice it is often something else.
I tried the 16-35mm 2.8 , the 24-70mm 2.8 and the 70-200mm 2.8 All of which where nice lenses well made and great optics, but the focus speed on the 70-200mm 2.8 was very slow, and not very accurate. the other two were better but no match for the Canon or Nikon systems.
Apart from that I thought the Sony was a really top grade Semi pro Camera, that handles very well and seems well put together with a very high spec, and certainly worth looking at as an alternative to the Canon.
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=226350\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't doubt your experience, and I appreciate the feedback, but something isn't adding up. There must have been a problem with the camera, because the massive increase in focus speed is a major reason why many Minolta 7D users purchased the A700. There is a focus "SLOW" setting for the Alphas in the menus, and I'm beginning to wonder if that was switched on by someone prior to you using the camera, because the A900 (which current users are saying is slightly faster than the A700) should blow the 7D out of the water. Strange indeed.
-
Hi there and thanks for your post,
I can not say for sure that that is not a possibility that the slow focus was engaged, as I didn´t have that much time with it due to the huge queue of people behind me waiting to get their hands on it as well. Certainly I found it to be slow and not very precise. But if there are people out there who have also done a hands on I would love to hear what they think.
What I can say about the Alpha is it has a very nice feel, great viewfinder, and very nice lenses. What I didn´t like was lack of weather sealing, very basic top display, and very cluttered layout. But if it´s true that Nikon will have the 24MP Sony chip in the new D3X
and they retain the D3 layout and spec with an anti dust feature, at a sensible price. Nikon will rule the roost.
Also the Sony is well over priced, It is considerably more expensive than the 5D mk2,
Yes it has 24MP and not 21MP, but that is frankly next to nothing. And the 5D MK2 blows it out of the water on spec. What I don´t understand is why it took Sony so long to get this camera on the Market, and why they think they can market it at more than the leading brands, if Sony had come in to the Market with the A900 at €1800.00 they would have a very salable product, but €1000.00 more than that is just stupid. Also they are charging a massive premium on the lenses because they have the Zeiss name.
These are not Carl Zeiss Germany, these are Carl Zeiss Japan and made under license,
the others are all re-badged Minolta lenses. Not a bad thing, just not worth having to pay extra for.
Andy
-
Hi there and thanks for your post,
I can not say for sure that that is not a possibility that the slow focus was engaged, as I didn´t have that much time with it due to the huge queue of people behind me waiting to get their hands on it as well. Certainly I found it to be slow and not very precise. But if there are people out there who have also done a hands on I would love to hear what they think.
What I can say about the Alpha is it has a very nice feel, great viewfinder, and very nice lenses. What I didn´t like was lack of weather sealing, very basic top display, and very cluttered layout. But if it´s true that Nikon will have the 24MP Sony chip in the new D3X
and they retain the D3 layout and spec with an anti dust feature, at a sensible price. Nikon will rule the roost.
Also the Sony is well over priced, It is considerably more expensive than the 5D mk2,
Yes it has 24MP and not 21MP, but that is frankly next to nothing. And the 5D MK2 blows it out of the water on spec. What I don´t understand is why it took Sony so long to get this camera on the Market, and why they think they can market it at more than the leading brands, if Sony had come in to the Market with the A900 at €1800.00 they would have a very salable product, but €1000.00 more than that is just stupid. Also they are charging a massive premium on the lenses because they have the Zeiss name.
These are not Carl Zeiss Germany, these are Carl Zeiss Japan and made under license,
the others are all re-badged Minolta lenses. Not a bad thing, just not worth having to pay extra for.
Andy
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=226531\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've got to disagree with you about the price. The A900 is as good or better spec'ed than the 5Dii as a still camera, but it seems the video function of the 5Dii is glazing people over. As far as being still camera, the A900 trumps the 5Dii in most categories:
-5 fps vs. 3.9
-1/250 flash sync vs. 1/200
-Best VF of any DSLR (and that includes 1DsIII. many who've tried them together would agree)
-24MP vs. 21MP (really not much difference.)
-AF: your findings contradict others, so right now this is a draw
-IR AF assist light
-intelligent preview vs. live view (no conclusion here)
IMO, the above features are more important than HD video for my work. Sure, I would think it cool to have the video, but not at the expense of the above, because those make a real difference in my still photography.
As far as weathersealing, the A900 has seals on every button and for the viewfinder. Weathersealing on all cameras is a bit nebulous, but I know of A700's being used in downpours with no problems, and I know the A900's sealing is it least as good as the 5Dii's, although it looks to be a bit better. The problem with Sony is the lenses aren't sealed, which is unfortunate.
Carl Zeiss ZE,ZF,ZK, and ZA are all made in Japan. The ZE,ZF,ZE are made by Cosina, whereas Sony and Zeiss use a different plant for the ZA. The ZA's are still designed and tested by CZ, and their QC is presides over the manufacturing. Each lens has both a Sony and Zeiss serial number, and the ZA's are just as "Zeiss" as the others.
For my work, I only use 2 lenses 95% of the time, so lens/system loyalty is rather weak for me, because it costs little for me to switch. Dropping a 21MP sensor with HD video into the old 5D isn't the ticket for me, and I'll gladly pay $300 more for the A900. Granted, the VF and higher flash sync are crucial to me, and probably influence me more than it would others. I was actually hoping one of the cameras would do 1/300+, but 1/250 is the absolute minimum for me. Cheers!
-douglas
-
As someone who is probably going to buy either the Sony a900 or the Canon 5D MkII and have been investigating both models closely, I think I have to disagree with some of your (seemingly biased) characterizations.
I agree that the a900 is the better featured camera -- at least from reading the specifications. It's a good reason why the a900 is justifiably $300 more expensive. However to suggest that the new 5D MkII is just the old 5D with a new sensor and HD video is just inaccurate and misleading. The LCD is improved, weather-sealing is improved, the viewfinder is improved, image processing has been improved, 14 bit conversion instead of 12 bit, better user information, new Peripheral Illumination Correction, new "Auto Lighting Optimizer", and other small changes. It seems to me that there are many improvements, and is more than just a sensor and HD video. I don't care a bit about video, but if it's there great, if not, no big deal.
However, in comparisons of the 2 bodies everything I've seen points to superior IQ in the Canon. Comparing Canon jpegs (all that is available) to Sony RAW files (optimally processed in ACR 4.6) that Canon appears to have much better noise characteristics. While they are about even at 100 ISO, noise is apparent in Sony images at 200 ISO, and the differences in noise just get bigger from there. I would say that there is at least a 2 stop difference in noise to the benefit of the Canon. At higher ISO use get cleaner, higher effective resolution, and greater detail out of the Canon. Even down-sampling the Sony files to 12 mp size, the Sony appears to even have more noise than the original Canon 5D. Once we get some RAW files from the new Canon we can see how much the 14 bit conversion means compared to Sony's 12 bit conversion.
I certainly would like to see more samples from both cameras as well as a head-to-head comparisons. I hope to get some time with both cameras next month and compare their handling (Canon, IMHO, typical sucks in this area, but looking at the Sony, I don't hold out much hope that it is much better -- but we'll see).
As it stands, if you do all your shooting at 100 ISO (or anything you do over 100 ISo, doesn't matter), then the Sony might be better due to its marginally better VF, speed (the extra 1.1 fps, however, is virtually meaningless to me), and in-body IS. However, if image quality is important to you in a full range of ISO settings, then the Canon 5D MkII, at least from what we have seen to date, is the obvious choice. Being able to shoot relatively cleanly at 1600 and 3200 ISO, and a quite usable 6400 ISO can be a great benefit in many situations, and dramatically increases the practical usability of the Canon relative to the Sony a900 -- in a way that completely overshadows the modest body feature advantages of the Sony.
But again this is preliminary, based on a comprehensive and detailed look at what's been available to date. It appears, so far, that the Achilles heel (relative to the competition) of the Sony a900 -- even with RAW files -- is noise.
I've got to disagree with you about the price. The A900 is as good or better spec'ed than the 5Dii as a still camera, but it seems the video function of the 5Dii is glazing people over. As far as being still camera, the A900 trumps the 5Dii in most categories:
-5 fps vs. 3.9
-1/250 flash sync vs. 1/200
-Best VF of any DSLR (and that includes 1DsIII. many who've tried them together would agree)
-24MP vs. 21MP (really not much difference.)
-AF: your findings contradict others, so right now this is a draw
-IR AF assist light
-intelligent preview vs. live view (no conclusion here)
IMO, the above features are more important than HD video for my work. Sure, I would think it cool to have the video, but not at the expense of the above, because those make a real difference in my still photography.
As far as weathersealing, the A900 has seals on every button and for the viewfinder. Weathersealing on all cameras is a bit nebulous, but I know of A700's being used in downpours with no problems, and I know the A900's sealing is it least as good as the 5Dii's, although it looks to be a bit better. The problem with Sony is the lenses aren't sealed, which is unfortunate.
Carl Zeiss ZE,ZF,ZK, and ZA are all made in Japan. The ZE,ZF,ZE are made by Cosina, whereas Sony and Zeiss use a different plant for the ZA. The ZA's are still designed and tested by CZ, and their QC is presides over the manufacturing. Each lens has both a Sony and Zeiss serial number, and the ZA's are just as "Zeiss" as the others.
For my work, I only use 2 lenses 95% of the time, so lens/system loyalty is rather weak for me, because it costs little for me to switch. Dropping a 21MP sensor with HD video into the old 5D isn't the ticket for me, and I'll gladly pay $300 more for the A900. Granted, the VF and higher flash sync are crucial to me, and probably influence me more than it would others. I was actually hoping one of the cameras would do 1/300+, but 1/250 is the absolute minimum for me. Cheers!
-douglas
-
I have the Canon Brochure here, and it only says that the AF is slightly more receptive when using 2.8 lenses in low light. Thats it. So as I said, I could detect little if no difference.
Compare it to the Nikon D700 with I think a 51 point AF system, I think this could have been a serious point for improvement for Canon.
But anyway, look at all the other great stuff its got. And who would have thought it 21MP
I would have been certain that it would be a 16MP FF body possibly using the 1ds mk2 sensor, what what a bonus!
I wonder if this means we will see an update to the 1DSmk3 at PMA, maybe an "N" version or something. Lets face it, for that kind of money it should be running on Digic 4, have a 920,000 dot display, and a wider dynamic range sensor, just for starters.
Also if anyone can give me an answer to this one I would be greatfull.
Can you bracket expose in liveview, keeping the mirror held up for all three frames?
It´s very useful for HDR, for minimum movement and maximum speed between frames. Maybe a 1ds mk3 or a D50 user might have the answer.
Andy
Well, you certainly CAN do what you are asking as to live-view with the 40D. I am sure that it will work the same with the 50D. Most of my shooting is done this way, tripod mounted. You set the exposure bracketing steps between shots (In 1/3 ev increments, I believe within the main menu, second tab from the left). I set mine to 1 stop instead of 2 because I may decide to take two or three series of bracketed shots for wider dynamic range. Set drive to 2 second timer, then press set button in center of diall wheel to initiate live view. Now, press x10 button twice to blow up the on-screen live-view image for precise manual focusing. Now press shutter release and all three bracketed shots will fire without mirror movement. If you need more dynamic range, change the exposure time by three full f-stops and press the shutter relasease again.
Best,
Bruce
-
Thanks for the posting Bruce.
That was helpful and I will give it a shot if I go with the 5D mk2. As for the previous posts, I was very interested to read the comments on the Alpha 900.
To be honest I really think it is too early to tell which is better, There where very good points made as to the origin of the lenses which were all quite correct.
And while I agree that the Zeiss lenses produced for the Sony are not the same as the ones produced for the Zeiss Ikon, they are also not the same as the Ones
produced for the Rollei /Sinar / Leaf ( Format difference aside) I don´t know if it still stands but all lens tests were compared to a West German Zeiss Plannar as the benchmark of quality.
Now I don´t know this for sure, but it is my guess that which ever factory was producing the zeiss lenses for Contax is proberbly the ones still making them for Sony.
And I can tell you that the Contax plannar was no where near the quaility of the ones made in Germany.
Not that any of this really matters as the lens technology is changing at such an incredible rate that everything that was made a few years ago is well out of date, and has probably been superseded.
As far as the Sony Body is concerned I have the brochure here and it says in very small text that the body is NOT water proof or splash proof. Now I don´t know about you but I don´t think I want to invest that kind of money in a body that isn´t even splash proof. My guess is that it will be sealed to a certain extent but Sony don´t want to have a load of them coming back from people who were using them in the rain.
Where as the Canon does say that the Camera is weather proofed against several liters of water per minute.
I agree also that a video is neither here nor there to me either, I am interested in a stills camera and nothing else, and to be honest if I could, I would love to have a Camera without all the crap added on.
So Hail to the Leica S2 which would be my choice in a flash if it were not for the astronomical price.
As for the handling on the Sony it is much nicer than the Canon, and has a very well designed grip and vertical Grip. and sits really well in the hand. Also very nice little extras like the VF shutter for closing out stray light on long exposures. I will be very interested to see the comparisons between the two in image quality, and especially Noise, In that I think the Canon will have more than the edge.
As fo my earlier comments on the AF system in the Canon, it would seem to be the case that canon have left in the same AF system as was in the 5D MK1, This they say is because a new one would eat up more space and would affect the cameras size. "So! make it bigger then Canon, we want something good not something small" My opinion is that they need at least something to give the remaining 1DS mk3´s a chance of selling before they upgrade it. weather sealing and AF is all thats left to the poor old chap.
Check out this link to see an interview with the bods at Canon telling the interviewer all about it.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100302...oninterview.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0810/08100302_canoninterview.asp)
It also looks like there is a good chance of the Nikon D3X putting in an appearance in November, if this should happen, I reckon we will see a replacement to the 1DS mk3 by the time PMA starts next year.
And this will be a real Pisser for anyone who forked out full price on a Mk3 because they will have to sell off the remaining stock at a knock down price meaning your investment just took a major dive.
This, I think will not be the case with the 5D MK2, I think it is fairly future proof, at least for the coming 3-4 years. which should also be of serious consideration when buying a new camera. As to what its worth will be in its future resale.
Andy
-
As someone who is probably going to buy either the Sony a900 or the Canon 5D MkII and have been investigating both models closely, I think I have to disagree with some of your (seemingly biased) characterizations.
I agree that the a900 is the better featured camera -- at least from reading the specifications. It's a good reason why the a900 is justifiably $300 more expensive. However to suggest that the new 5D MkII is just the old 5D with a new sensor and HD video is just inaccurate and misleading. The LCD is improved, weather-sealing is improved, the viewfinder is improved, image processing has been improved, 14 bit conversion instead of 12 bit, better user information, new Peripheral Illumination Correction, new "Auto Lighting Optimizer", and other small changes. It seems to me that there are many improvements, and is more than just a sensor and HD video. I don't care a bit about video, but if it's there great, if not, no big deal.
However, in comparisons of the 2 bodies everything I've seen points to superior IQ in the Canon. Comparing Canon jpegs (all that is available) to Sony RAW files (optimally processed in ACR 4.6) that Canon appears to have much better noise characteristics. While they are about even at 100 ISO, noise is apparent in Sony images at 200 ISO, and the differences in noise just get bigger from there. I would say that there is at least a 2 stop difference in noise to the benefit of the Canon. At higher ISO use get cleaner, higher effective resolution, and greater detail out of the Canon. Even down-sampling the Sony files to 12 mp size, the Sony appears to even have more noise than the original Canon 5D. Once we get some RAW files from the new Canon we can see how much the 14 bit conversion means compared to Sony's 12 bit conversion.
I certainly would like to see more samples from both cameras as well as a head-to-head comparisons. I hope to get some time with both cameras next month and compare their handling (Canon, IMHO, typical sucks in this area, but looking at the Sony, I don't hold out much hope that it is much better -- but we'll see).
As it stands, if you do all your shooting at 100 ISO (or anything you do over 100 ISo, doesn't matter), then the Sony might be better due to its marginally better VF, speed (the extra 1.1 fps, however, is virtually meaningless to me), and in-body IS. However, if image quality is important to you in a full range of ISO settings, then the Canon 5D MkII, at least from what we have seen to date, is the obvious choice. Being able to shoot relatively cleanly at 1600 and 3200 ISO, and a quite usable 6400 ISO can be a great benefit in many situations, and dramatically increases the practical usability of the Canon relative to the Sony a900 -- in a way that completely overshadows the modest body feature advantages of the Sony.
But again this is preliminary, based on a comprehensive and detailed look at what's been available to date. It appears, so far, that the Achilles heel (relative to the competition) of the Sony a900 -- even with RAW files -- is noise.
Agreed. I was a little extreme about the new 5Dii, which killed my point. My point was simply that the A900 seems a good price compared to the 5Dii, considering the features. I agree that it's still way too early to tell on IQ. I've seen probably 30+ A900 files converted from RAW, and they are definitely competitive with the 1Ds III in noise and, in some cases, better in detail, which Chausser d'Images' tests agree with. So, if the 5Dii is 1 or 2 stops better than the 1Dsiii, then the same will ring true with the A900. Hopefully detail is still preserved in the 5Dii, because those Laforet images look bad, IMO.
As far as weathersealing, this is such a nebulous topic that it's really hard to compare. I know of A700's that have been in downpours with water literally water wheeling out of the control dial cavities, and they were fine. I think Sony is reluctant to approve any level of weathersealing, which is unfortunate, but I know the camera does really well. Now the lenses, well, I've not tested them, but they should at least have an O-ring. Shame on Sony
-
WARNING. I good friend of mine witnessed last week a Sony going bad after some coffee got spilled over it. He only said it was a Sony Alpha. Maybe the spill was massive, I don't know. Better to be careful.
Eduardo
Agreed. I was a little extreme about the new 5Dii, which killed my point. My point was simply that the A900 seems a good price compared to the 5Dii, considering the features. I agree that it's still way too early to tell on IQ. I've seen probably 30+ A900 files converted from RAW, and they are definitely competitive with the 1Ds III in noise and, in some cases, better in detail, which Chausser d'Images' tests agree with. So, if the 5Dii is 1 or 2 stops better than the 1Dsiii, then the same will ring true with the A900. Hopefully detail is still preserved in the 5Dii, because those Laforet images look bad, IMO.
As far as weathersealing, this is such a nebulous topic that it's really hard to compare. I know of A700's that have been in downpours with water literally water wheeling out of the control dial cavities, and they were fine. I think Sony is reluctant to approve any level of weathersealing, which is unfortunate, but I know the camera does really well. Now the lenses, well, I've not tested them, but they should at least have an O-ring. Shame on Sony
-
WARNING. I good friend of mine witnessed last week a Sony going bad after some coffee got spilled over it. He only said it was a Sony Alpha. Maybe the spill was massive, I don't know. Better to be careful.
Eduardo
Argh. That's unfortunate. I would imagine it was a lower end A100/200/300/350 rather than an A700, but who knows?
-
WARNING. I good friend of mine witnessed last week a Sony going bad after some coffee got spilled over it. He only said it was a Sony Alpha. Maybe the spill was massive, I don't know. Better to be careful.
Eduardo
A photographer I know had an A700 die when Sake splashed on the camera while shooting a Japanese ceremony. (Maybe he should have shot beer? Hell, it's a Japanese camera!)