Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: BruceHouston on September 17, 2008, 12:02:42 am
-
Here is the link to the announcement as reported at DPR:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091705canon_5dmarkII.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091705canon_5dmarkII.asp)
Best,
Bruce
-
Here is the link to the announcement as reported at DPR:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091705canon_5dmarkII.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091705canon_5dmarkII.asp)
Best,
Bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[span style=\'font-size:14pt;line-height:100%\']P.S. $2700 (U.S.)[/span]
-
God I want that.
The 24mm f1.4L II USM to go with it.
-
Here is the link to the announcement as reported at DPR:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091705canon_5dmarkII.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091705canon_5dmarkII.asp)
Best,
Bruce
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221898\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Did somebody say home run or what. I have been checking this site every few hours for the news.
drgary
-
God I want that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Me too man, me too.
-
God I want that.
The 24mm f1.4L II USM to go with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Just tell me what retailer will have it first, and when.
-
Canon's web site is being destroyed right now.
In theory sample video page ...
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/02.html#01 (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/02.html#01)
In theory sample image page ...
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/e...2_sample-e.html (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/eos5dm2_sample-e.html)
-
Canon USA has it already on their site, but it appears their site just blew up
Key Specifications:
New 21.1 Megapixel CMOS sensor with improved EOS Integrated Cleaning System (E.I.C.S.)
New Full HD 1080 resolution movie recording
3.9 frames per second continuous shooting
High performance DIGIC 4 providing superb image quality
Maximum 310 large JPEG images in a single burst with a UDMA card
3.0” VGA (920k dots) Clear View LCD
ISO 100-6400 (expansion from 50 up to 25,600)
9 AF points + 6 Assist AF points
-
I have been pouring over the specs...
EF-S lenses are supported!!!!! Yay; I can keep my EF-S 10-22mm.
-
Canon USA has it already on their site, but it appears their site just blew up
Key Specifications:
New 21.1 Megapixel CMOS sensor with improved EOS Integrated Cleaning System (E.I.C.S.)
New Full HD 1080 resolution movie recording
3.9 frames per second continuous shooting
High performance DIGIC 4 providing superb image quality
Maximum 310 large JPEG images in a single burst with a UDMA card
3.0” VGA (920k dots) Clear View LCD
ISO 100-6400 (expansion from 50 up to 25,600)
9 AF points + 6 Assist AF points
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jeess.. dont forget the direct print button! Phew! Im glad they kept that!
-
The video shot with the 15mm fisheye looks like some sort of IMAX filming!
-
The video shot with the 15mm fisheye looks like some sort of IMAX filming!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221921\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mentally I have been pooh-poohing all the convergence hype, but the sample videos are beginning to get me excited.
-
The landscape photo is interesting. It only took about 30 minutes to download. I can't get the portrait to download.
-
Mentally I have been pooh-poohing all the convergence hype, but the sample videos are beginning to get me excited.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221923\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hopefully zooming will not be disabled in video mode. I cannot find any reference to that; but the manufacturers seem to do that often.
If zoom is not disabled in this 5D Mark II, RED may need not bother with their rumored convergence model offering.
-
Hopefully zooming will not be disabled in video mode. I cannot find any reference to that; but the manufacturers seem to do that often.
If zoom is not disabled in this 5D Mark II, RED may need not bother with their rumored convergence model offering.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221925\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How on earth can zooming be disabled in a camera where zooming is accomplished my manually shifting the lens elements with a mechanical zoom ring (i.e. all current dSLRs)?
-
How on earth can zooming be disabled in a camera where zooming is accomplished my manually shifting the lens elements with a mechanical zoom ring (i.e. all current dSLRs)?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Excellent point. Having video in a DSLR is so new to me that I am probably confusing it with P&S technology.
-
Try this link for a quick portrait sample image download:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/d.../1_portrait.jpg (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/1_portrait.jpg)
-
Try this link for a quick portrait sample image download:
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/d.../1_portrait.jpg (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/1_portrait.jpg)
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=221930\")
And landscape:
[a href=\"http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/downloads/2_landscape.jpg]http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/d...2_landscape.jpg[/url]
-
I have been pouring over the specs...
EF-S lenses are supported!!!!! Yay; I can keep my EF-S 10-22mm.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221919\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hmm, not certain about that, as DPReview says:
• Canon EF lens mount (does not support EF-S lenses)
-
Can anyone find any availability statement?
Canon USA lists availability of the new lens as October, but I do not see the Mark II availability.
-
Hmm, not certain about that, as DPReview says:
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221936\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
See the specs/features on the Canon USA website.
It appears that EF-S lenses cannot be used in video mode.
-
EF-S lenses cannot be used PERIOD.
-
EF-S lenses cannot be used PERIOD.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=221939\")
Did you look at the Canon USA website as I suggested, or are you just spouting off "randomly" as my teenage daughter would say?
[a href=\"http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17662#ModelFeaturesAct]http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...odelFeaturesAct[/url]
-
Are there any sites that had a pre-release model, with initial impressions posted?
-
The 24mm f1.4L II USM to go with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221907\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If the IQ is there, the new 24mm is REALLY tempting.
Paul
-
Rob Galbraith has a good write-up up. Essentially new sensor, processor, LCD and old body / shutter / AF, albeit with minor improvements. And, of course, video.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_p...cid=7-9316-9603 (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-9316-9603)
-
Are there any sites that had a pre-release model, with initial impressions posted?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221941\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I doubt it, since DPR says that they were just handed their copy at the release and promised to post their "hands-on review" later today.
-
for clarification.
from the linked Canon USA site.
Shooting and Sharing Made Easy.
Compatible with over 60 Canon EF/EF-S lenses and most EOS System accessories.
EF & EF-S Lenses
The EOS 5D Mark II is compatible with all Canon lenses in the EF lineup, ranging from ultra-wide angle to super telephoto lenses. Canon lenses employ advanced optical expertise and micron-precision engineering to deliver unprecedented performance in all facets of the photographic process. Special optical technologies, such as Aspherical, ultra-low dispersion, or fluorite elements are featured in the universally acclaimed L-series lenses. And Canon's Optical Image Stabilizer technology is featured in select lenses to minimize the effect of camera shake. Through Canon lenses, photographers can truly maximize the quality and liberating performance of the EOS 5D Mark II.
not sure if that is entirely clear. the two bold sections seem to be midly contradictory
also on the .jp site (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/04..html#01) the lenses only specify 50 EF* lenses compatible. then later in the page it says "* Except EF-S lenses"
so no EF-S lensess i don't think
-
for clarification.
from the linked Canon USA site.
not sure if that is entirely clear. the two bold sections seem to be midly contradictory
also on the .jp site (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/04..html#01) the lenses only specify 50 EF* lenses compatible. then later in the page it says "* Except EF-S lenses"
so no EF-S lensess i don't think
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Canon US info on the 5DII seem to be all over the place. Bad cut-and-paste work from the 50D IMO.
-
Did you look at the Canon USA website as I suggested, or are you just spouting off "randomly" as my teenage daughter would say?
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...odelFeaturesAct (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17662#ModelFeaturesAct)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bruce, as far as I can tell, there is absolutely no mention of 5DII compatibility with EF-S lenses in the document you reference or anywhere else I've read so far.
In fact, under "specs" for the 5DII Canon says says:
Compatible Lenses
Canon EF lenses
(35mm-equivalent focal length is approx. 1.6x the lens focal length)
Lens Mount
Canon EF mount
(Although it looks like they mistakenly mixed in a bit of the 50D announcement with that mention of "35mm-equivalent focal length is approx. 1.6x...")
The only thing I can think of is that you're looking at specs for the EOS 50D?
Paul
-
Can anyone find any availability statement?
Canon USA lists availability of the new lens as October, but I do not see the Mark II availability.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221937\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Availability end of November, per Galbraith. Jees, now that they've announced it, they have to go figure out how to build it by the bizillions.
-
Bruce, as far as I can tell, there is absolutely no mention of 5DII compatibility with EF-S lenses in the document you reference or anywhere else I've read so far.
In fact, under "specs" for the 5DII Canon says says:
Compatible Lenses
Canon EF lenses
(35mm-equivalent focal length is approx. 1.6x the lens focal length)
Lens Mount
Canon EF mount
(Although it looks like they mistakenly mixed in a bit of the 50D announcement with that mention of "35mm-equivalent focal length is approx. 1.6x...")
The only thing I can think of is that you're looking at specs for the EOS 50D?
Paul
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221950\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Paul,
The link that I posted should take you to the "features" tab of the 5D Mark II on the Canon USA website.
Click on the link for the last feature in red, "Compatible with over 60 Canon EF/EF-S lenses and most EOS System accessories."
-
for clarification.
from the linked Canon USA site.
not sure if that is entirely clear. the two bold sections seem to be midly contradictory
also on the .jp site (http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/04..html#01) the lenses only specify 50 EF* lenses compatible. then later in the page it says "* Except EF-S lenses"
so no EF-S lensess i don't think
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221947\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right. But I believe that the "* Except EF-S lenses" is located under a video mode description. I could be wrong, though (and usually am).
-
I think we can confidently declare that Canon have risen to the challenge of asserting their status as Numero Uno in relation to Nikon and Sony.
The 5D MkII hasn't got everything, however. I don't see auto ISO in relation to a specified aperture and shutter speed. The lack of such a feature has sometimes got me into trouble when, for example, I'm trekking along a mountain track with camera in 'aperture priority' mode, and a Tibetan horseman races around the corner.
I've got no time to change ISO to accommodate a higher shutter speed and the opportunity for a sharp shot is missed.
I shall appreciate the HD video a lot. I've often wondered why manufacturers of DSLRs have not included such a feature.
In these times of impending recession and financial turmoil, I think Canon have positioned themselves well. This camera will sell like hot cakes.
-
I think we can confidently declare that Canon have risen to the challenge of asserting their status as Numero Uno in relation to Nikon and Sony.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Depends one one's criteria, doesn't it Ray? You want MPs and video, fine (IQ and High ISO quality to be seen). You want AF, responsiveness, shooting features (including properly implemented auto-ISO as you point out) and PROVEN High ISO quality, no.
We are living in interesting times at the moment and the one thing I can say is that noone can say who's Numero Uno at the moment (probably noone IMO)
-
Right. But I believe that the "* Except EF-S lenses" is located under a video mode description. I could be wrong, though (and usually am).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221954\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
See also the Galbraith article:
"A vignette control (Canon calls this "Peripheral Illumination Correction") that adjusts the amount of edge and corner brightening it applies to in-camera JPEGs based on the Canon lens attached. Canon has profiled the vignette characteristics of 82 lenses past and present (of about 125 Canon EF and EF-S lenses developed to date); the camera can store up to 40 such profiles, and the camera will come already loaded with 26."
-
See also the Galbraith article:
"A vignette control (Canon calls this "Peripheral Illumination Correction") that adjusts the amount of edge and corner brightening it applies to in-camera JPEGs based on the Canon lens attached. Canon has profiled the vignette characteristics of 82 lenses past and present (of about 125 Canon EF and EF-S lenses developed to date); the camera can store up to 40 such profiles, and the camera will come already loaded with 26."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221958\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is the standard description of the 'PIC' function. Not necessarily applicable verbatim to the 5DII.
Look, the reason EF-S lenses have not been compatible with Canon's non-APS cameras has always been the fact that they intrude in the mirror box (as 1.3 and FF cameras require a larger mirror than APS). So, unless someone comes up with a reasonable explanation of how Canon have managed to overcome this limitation I will choose to believe that Canon US have screwed up on the info they have put on their site.
-
Depends one one's criteria, doesn't it Ray? You want MPs and video good (IQ and High ISO quality to be seen). You want AF, responsiveness, shooting features (including properly implemented auto-ISO as you point out) and PROVEN High ISO quality, no.
We are living in interesting times at the moment and the one thing I can say is that noone can say who's Numero Uno at the moment (probably noone IMO)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221957\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, everything depends on one's own criteria, and I agree it's early days for definitive conclusions.
However, the 3 year wait for a 5D upgrade has been worth it. I'm a bit dismayed at incremental improvements in camera technology which encourage one to keep up with the Jones' and essentially waste money. I'm pleased my current 5D has had good use. It's been repaired once. I'm close to the 100,000 shutter activations. I'm ready for an upgrade, and here it comes. Just in time .
-
This is the standard description of the 'PIC' function. Not necessarily applicable verbatim to the 5DII.
Look, the reason EF-S lenses have not been compatible with Canon's non-APS cameras has always been the fact that they intrude in the mirror box (as 1.3 and FF cameras require a larger mirror than APS). So, unless someone comes up with a reasonable explanation of how Canon have managed to overcome this limitation I will choose to believe that Canon US have screwed up on the info they have put on their site.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You could well be right. Could the references to "half mirror" in the write-ups have anything to do with this subject?
-
You could well be right. Could the references to "half mirror" in the write-ups have anything to do with this subject?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221963\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No.
-
Yes, everything depends on one's own criteria, and I agree it's early days for definitive conclusions.
However, the 3 year wait for a 5D upgrade has been worth it. I'm a bit dismayed at incremental improvements in camera technology which encourage one to keep up with the Jones' and essentially waste money. I'm pleased my current 5D has had good use. It's been repaired once. I'm close to the 100,000 shutter activations. I'm ready for an upgrade, and here it comes. Just in time .
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221962\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If Canon had come up with a 20Mp camera with video and with IQ, AF, responsiveness, features and build comparable to the D700 at that price then I think that no-one would be hesitant to say they are the undisputed champs at the moment. But I believe they haven't. So it depends on one's criteria.
-
Did you look at the Canon USA website as I suggested, or are you just spouting off "randomly" as my teenage daughter would say?
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controll...odelFeaturesAct (http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17662#ModelFeaturesAct)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221940\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think you realize that the US Canon site is full of mistakes.
They're obviously wrong, since the specs for the 5DII also state that there is a 1.6x crop factor with *EF* lenses, which is wrong, of course.
-
I think we can confidently declare that Canon have risen to the challenge of asserting their status as Numero Uno in relation to Nikon and Sony.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For those more concerned about owning a status symbol than taking a photograph, I guess that would be the most important consideration.
-
If Canon had come up with a 20Mp camera with video and with IQ, AF, responsiveness, features and build comparable to the D700 at that price then I think that no-one would be hesitant to say they are the undisputed champs at the moment. But I believe they haven't. So it depends on one's criteria.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The problem is that Canon works a bit differently than Nikon.
While Nikon is willing to add "pro" features to a sub-$3,000 camera, Canon works a different way.
The "5D" series, whether in 2003, 2008, or 2018, has been introduced because of one reason: To *economically* put out a camera with a full-frame sensor with an attractive amount of megapixels, with outstanding image quality (or the best image quality, according to most people) and some basic features.
Weather sealing, Pro-AF, high-speed FPS? Maybe that's reserved for another camera coming soon.
Those who need it can only hope. Otherwise, for people who aren't picky, the 5D series = Win.
-
I don't think you realize that the US Canon site is full of mistakes.
They're obviously wrong, since the specs for the 5DII also state that there is a 1.6x crop factor with *EF* lenses, which is wrong, of course.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221969\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This is not wrong. EF-S lenses either have a 1.6x crop factor of they have unacceptable peripheral light fall off.
-
This is not wrong. EF-S lenses either have a 1.6x crop factor of they have unacceptable peripheral light fall off.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221975\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Huh?? That's a very convoluted way of thinking (but then, it's you Ray ) . Seriously, isn't it easier to think that Canon US have screwed up their 5DMkii announcement?
-
So, unless someone comes up with a reasonable explanation of how Canon have managed to overcome this limitation I will choose to believe that Canon US have screwed up on the info they have put on their site.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221960\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suspect that if they had accomplished such an engineering feat, it would be included in the hype. I am also in the doubters camp.
-
And this is not wrong either:
5DII specs:
Canon EF lens mount (does not support EF-S lenses)
• No field of view crop (1.0x)
-
Huh??
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221976\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
EF-S lenses project a smaller image circle than FF 35mm. There's no sudden cut-off, just severe vignetting, on full frame. Didn't you know that?
-
EF-S lenses project a smaller image circle than FF 35mm. There's no sudden cut-off, just severe vignetting, on full frame. Didn't you know that?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221979\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, pls. stop being yourself for once
-
For those more concerned about owning a status symbol than taking a photograph, I guess that would be the most important consideration.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221973\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tony,
It would indeed. But what you seem to have missed is that those who don't give a stuff about owning a status symbol, like me, will also be very attracted towards this camera.
-
Take a look at the Landscape, a lot of CA !
And 3.9 frame/second what was the rate of the EOS 5D ?!
Wait for a complete review and test.
What will be more interresting, a comparison with the D3 for Dynamic Range !
Hope we've one soon !
Thierry
-
Take a look at the Landscape, a lot of CA !
And 3.9 frame/second what was the rate of the EOS 5D ?!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thierry,
From memory, I think the 5D is rated at 2.9 fps. There appears to be a simultaneous increase in both frame rate and resolution in the 5D MkII. Nothing to complain about there .
-
I know this have been discussed early but now I can't find the post, anyway I will ask it again: 2700$ are 1896€ on today current change, what are the 600€ diference for the 2500€ european price?
Arnau
-
I know this have been discussed early but now I can't find the post, anyway I will ask it again: 2700$ are 1896€ on today current change, what are the 600€ diference for the 2500€ european price?
Arnau
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221993\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Taxes?
-
I think this is the price without them, if not 600€ in taxes seems an awful lot to me.
Canon should make an international warranty, camera bodies are the ONLY thing I don't buy in USA. On the other hand there may be some differences that makes the price higher, see for example the extended 2 years warranty in europe for 1ds.
Arnau.
Taxes?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
I think this is the price without them, if not 600€ in taxes seems an awful lot to me.
Canon should make an international warranty, camera bodies are the ONLY thing I don't buy in USA. On the other hand there may be some differences that makes the price higher, see for example the extended 2 years warranty in europe for 1ds.
Arnau.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Pls. let's not turn this thread into another 'why product X costs less in the US than in the rest of the world' thread. Get over it, this is how things are. There are many reasons for this and I can list a few
- Taxes
- Cost of doing business
- Economies of scale due to uniform mass market
- warranty differences
- legal protection
- long term estimates about currency fluctuations
- because they can
and I'm sure somebody more business savy than me can come up with a few more, but, honestly, I'm getting bored of this discussion which leads nowhere. If you need to do something about it complain to the respective regional HQ of each company and vote with your money, but pls. no more of this moaning.
-
New question to throw into the pot...Rob G's site states: "the array of red, green and blue coloured filters over the sensor have been made more transmissive"
Will we get, for instance, a good enough blocking of red and blue light from leaking into a green pixel i.e. higher transmission of all colours rather than just the colour being sampled. The issue here could be smaller colour gamut and poor colour definition. Do we gain high ISO and dynamic range and loose the ability to distinguish colours properly? Something for the reviews to tell us perhaps.
-
I think we can confidently declare that Canon have risen to the challenge of asserting their status as Numero Uno in relation to Nikon and Sony.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221956\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The 5DII is certainly a valid upgrade for Canon shooters. I am not really sure how it differentiates from the Sony A900 for photographers (meaning those not interested in video capabilities), but that won't be an issue for many invested in Canon lenses.
As far as the #1 position, it certainly will keep fluctuating a lot in the coming months and years. My view is that the days where significant differences were present are gone forever.
Speaking of competition, what are the odds that 2 companies supposedely not talking to each other release video support in DSLRs within weeks of each other?...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Someone in an earlier post asked why zooming during video may not be supported when lenses have manual zooms. I think the issue is that focus changes slightly when you zoom on most lenses and, generally, the mirror needs to be down to autofocus. However, there are hybrid systems out there now so we'll see how it works, I guess. I'd imagine sound quality may not match picture quality either!
Anyhow, looking good! The original 5D has stood up to time better than any other digital camera, as I see it and it looks like all changes have been genuine improvements.
Don.
-
The 5DII is certainly a valid upgrade for Canon shooters. I am not really sure how it differentiates from the Sony A900 for photographers ......[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222009\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Bernard,
Live View, higher maximum ISO and, I predict, lower noise and better resolution at ISO 1600 and above.
However, you are right that no single model of DSLR will excel in all aspects. I still harbour in my breast a certain envy for a good anti-shake sensor that will provide up to 4 stops of IS with any lens (as in the A900), customisable auto-ISO and a good ultra-wide angle lens like the Nikkor 14-24/2.8.
I'm not too fussed about the lack of a dedicated MLU button .
-
If Canon had come up with a 20Mp camera with video and with IQ, AF, responsiveness, features and build comparable to the D700 at that price then I think that no-one would be hesitant to say they are the undisputed champs at the moment. But I believe they haven't. So it depends on one's criteria.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221965\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I suppose that's one way to look at it ...
Another, perhaps more realistic, way to look at it is this: Nikon has (in the D700) a camera that can't in any way compare to the new 5D MkII ... except (maybe) for some speculative "build quality." In other words, Nikon is essentially offering a only a 12.1 mpx camera for $500 more than what Canon's is offering with its new 21 mpx camera. From image quality, to low-light capability, to video I don't believe there is going to be a contest.
Regarding build quality, the old 5D has held up better, and longer, at the professional level than probably any other digital camera ever made, despite the fact that "on paper" its build quality might not be the best out there. The camera has stood the test of time unlike any other I can think of. So we have no reason to suspect that the 5D Mark II is going to be any different.
My guess is that, when all is said and done, Nikon's sales (and prices) for the D700 are going to be dropping out there in the real world, not Canon's, just as Nikon's D300 prices have already dropped over $250 since the 50D came out ...
Any bets on that? I'll take 'em all
Jack
.
-
I really wish I hadn't bought my D700 now. 21MP would make a viable landscape camera.
-
From the Canon Australia CPS announcement:
"... Compatible with Canon’s range of EF lenses (excluding EF-S lenses),..."
-
Man, if Nikon doesn't respond to this in a hurry my money might go to Canon....
I'm not invested in an lens-collection, so these are frustrating/exiting times.
I sure hope Canon is working on its wide-angles (besides the new 24mm), also I hope someone will review the 24mm II quickly...
-
I suppose that's one way to look at it ...
Another, perhaps more realistic, way to look at it is this: Nikon has (in the D700) a camera that can't in any way compare to the new 5D MkII ... except (maybe) for some speculative "build quality." In other words, Nikon is essentially offering a only a 12.1 mpx camera for $500 more than what Canon's is offering with its new 21 mpx camera. From image quality, to low-light capability, to video I don't believe there is going to be a contest.
Regarding build quality, the old 5D has held up better, and longer, at the professional level than probably any other digital camera ever made, despite the fact that "on paper" its build quality might not be the best out there. The camera has stood the test of time unlike any other I can think of. So we have no reason to suspect that the 5D Mark II is going to be any different.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well, I'm replying to this although I'm not sure I should because we're starting to sound like dpr here.
Nikon is offering in the D700, 99% percent of its flagship camera used by pro's all over the place, for a fraction of the price. Canon hasn't. Isn't this 'another realistic' way of looking at it?
Only build quality you say? What about photographic responsiveness?
Photographic responsiveness is not only fps. It's AF, shutter delay, blackout time and a host of other tangibles and intangibles that not everyone can appreciate (more so if one has not had a taste of them) but whoever can he can't do without them.
It's obvious where one comes from when he can so easily disregard these important issues in a comparative comment.
IQ remains to be seen vs proven very high IQ. Mp are good for somethings irrelevant for others.
All in all, this discussion about which one is the best camera is absolutely silly as it all depends on one's priorities.
-
Well, I'm replying to this although I'm not sure I should because we're starting to sound like dpr here.
Nikon is offering in the D700, 99% percent of its flagship camera used by pro's all over the place, for a fraction of the price. Canon hasn't. Isn't this 'another realistic' way of looking at it?
Only build quality you say? What about photographic responsiveness?
Photographic responsiveness is not only fps. It's AF, shutter delay, blackout time and a host of other tangibles and intangibles that not everyone can appreciate (more so if one has not had a taste of them) but whoever can he can't do without them.
It's obvious where one comes from when he can so easily disregard these important issues in a comparative comment.
IQ remains to be seen vs proven very high IQ. Mp are good for somethings irrelevant for others.
All in all, this discussion about which one is the best camera is absolutely silly as it all depends on one's priorities.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
As I understand it, the D700 has no performance features that exceed those of the D3.
I get the impression from reading the specs and press release for the 5D MKII that this camera does exceed in some respects the performance of the 1Ds3. Here's a quote from the press release.
Although the individual pixel dimensions of the EOS 5D Mark II camera are the same as the 21.1-megapixel CMOS sensor used in the EOS-1Ds Mark III digital SLR, the new sensor incorporates an improved output amplifier and a more advanced color filter that improves light transmission while retaining excellent color reproduction.
By applying the same kind of advancements in sensor design and image processing technology as the recently introduced EOS 50D camera, but at higher resolution and with larger pixels, the EOS 5D Mark II achieves the highest level of image quality of any EOS Digital SLR released to date.
-
Pdn has posted a consise specs too. Easy to decipher.
http://www.pdngearguide.com/gearguide/cont...8604cada830e4a8 (http://www.pdngearguide.com/gearguide/content_display/news/e3ie896e11cd20b334388604cada830e4a8)
-
Any comments on this one?
Water resistance: 10 mm rain in 3 minutes
Is that better weather sealing then the 40/50D or is it the same?
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/ (http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos5dmarkII/)
-
Well, I'm replying to this although I'm not sure I should because we're starting to sound like dpr here.
Replying? I do believe you initiated this "DPR"-like dribble, did you not? The original post by Bruce just spoke of the realease of this camera, not of any kind of comparison.
Nikon is offering in the D700, 99% percent of its flagship camera used by pro's all over the place, for a fraction of the price. Canon hasn't. Isn't this 'another realistic' way of looking at it?
Nikon is offering, for $500 more money, a camera that cannot take anywhere near as good a photographs as the 5D Mk II. And, as was just pointed out, the 5D Mk II can do many things that Canon's flagship camera can't, for a fraction of the price.
Only build quality you say? What about photographic responsiveness? Photographic responsiveness is not only fps. It's AF, shutter delay, blackout time and a host of other tangibles and intangibles that not everyone can appreciate (more so if one has not had a taste of them) but whoever can he can't do without them.
I am sure what you are saying is true, but at the end of the day if your camera can't take as good a photo as this camera, what do you have, really? And for $500 more to boot
It's obvious where one comes from when he can so easily disregard these important issues in a comparative comment.
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, but if you want to look down your nose at someone, an ideal candidate can be found in your mirror---for acting like "such behavior" as camera comparisons is beneath you, when in fact you initiated them, LOL
Where I come from, I try to get the most bang for my buck, and so to compare features in natural. I am just not hypocritcal about it.
IQ remains to be seen vs proven very high IQ. Mp are good for somethings irrelevant for others.
I agree, IQ has yet to be seen, though I am not sure you have the IQ to appreciate my joke
All in all, this discussion about which one is the best camera is absolutely silly as it all depends on one's priorities.
No, what's absolutely silly is the fact you initiated this comparison, and then later raise your nose at the idea of "camera comparisons." I believe you are doing this simply because the Nikon is looking like a pretty crappy buy, when all is said and done, by such comparison.
The fact is, only a complete moron would spend $2500 - $3000 on something without making some comparisons first. Perhaps this is why every camera site in the universe offers comparisons
So since it was you who brought up the subject of these "silly" comparisons, if you think the Nikon offers "more" in its D700 than what the Canon offers in this new upgrade, then why don't you take me up on my bet? LOL For the majority consensus will be revealed in whose prices go down ... and whose prices stay level ... and my bet is that the $2500 5D Mark II will stay at this price for a long, long time ... because it offers the most camera for the money ... while the price for your hallowed D700 will begin to plummet as soon as the 5D Mk II comes out.
So speaking of money, would you care to put any where your mouth is?
Jack
.
-
Does it AF in video mode?
-
Does it AF in video mode?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222049\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
looks like it.
-
This is not wrong. EF-S lenses either have a 1.6x crop factor of they have unacceptable peripheral light fall off.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221975\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The Dpreview review is quite clear about the fact that it will not accept EF-s lenses.
"Lens Mount
The EOS 5D Mark II has a standard metal EF lens mount, because it has a full-frame sensor it can't support EF-S lenses which are designed to work with APS size sensors (and hence produce a smaller imaging circle). Because of its full-frame sensor a 50 mm lens on the Mark II produces the same field of view as it would on a 35 mm film camera, there is no 'field of view crop'."
Diane
-
The Dpreview review is quite clear about the fact that it will not accept EF-s lenses.
"Lens Mount
The EOS 5D Mark II has a standard metal EF lens mount, because it has a full-frame sensor it can't support EF-S lenses which are designed to work with APS size sensors (and hence produce a smaller imaging circle). Because of its full-frame sensor a 50 mm lens on the Mark II produces the same field of view as it would on a 35 mm film camera, there is no 'field of view crop'."
Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222053\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes. It appears there is a mistake on the USA Canon website. However, I don't think this is a big disadvantage. The 5D2 has the pixel density of the 8mp 20D. I shouldn't think there would be many photographers who would be disappointed because they cannot turn their 5D2 into a 20D, considering there's a 15mp alternative in the form of the 50D.
The difference in sensor resolution between the 50D and 5D2 is greater than the difference in sensor resolution between the 20D and the old 5D.
-
From what I have read so far this is a bit more than refreshed electronics in an old body: they seem to have taken build and sealing to a higher level.
A question: there is still no dedicated mirror lock-up button (as on the D300 and D700). How is mirror luck-up activated on the MK II? Is it a simple process?
-
From what I have read so far this is a bit more than refreshed electronics in an old body: they seem to have taken build and sealing to a higher level.
A question: there is still no dedicated mirror lock-up button (as on the D300 and D700). How is mirror luck-up activated on the MK II? Is it a simple process?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222075\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If it works like on the 1DsMk3 it should be around 1-4 seconds depending on how fast you can press a few buttons.
-
...what you seem to have missed is that those who don't give a stuff about owning a status symbol, like me, will also be very attracted towards this camera.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I didn't miss your point about appreciating the upgrade that the 5DII represents over your well-used 5D. I am also appreciative of what Canon has done, not because I plan to buy a Canon, but because I can now expect Nikon to bring a 21-24MP DSLR to market for $3000 or less. However, whether you buy a 5DII, an A900, an eventual Nikon 21+ MP DSLR, or any other camera, the fact that it's better than another brand's similar offering is not a valid consideration; the primary considerations are that it does what you want it to do.
I'm not too fussed about the lack of a dedicated MLU button.
I would be, big time.
Nikon is offering, for $500 more money, a camera that cannot take anywhere near as good a photographs as the 5D Mk II.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222040\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Where do you come up with $500? Initially, here in the United States, I see a difference of $300 and now that has already dropped to $200 and by the time you can actually buy a 5DII the D700 may cost the same.
If you are simplistically referring to resolution, then up to 13x19 at or near base ISO I doubt anyone will be objectively agree with you. The lens will become the more important consideration at this level and investing in more megapixels will be a waste of money for many who never print larger than a desktop printer.
On larger prints extra resolution will be good, but under many conditions AF and fps can be more important. The D700 with its optional grip can shoot twice as many fps as the 5DII. The 5DII AF appears less capable than the 1DsIII or the D700. Out of focus shots or shots not taken are not "anywhere near as good".
The fact is, only a complete moron would spend $2500 - $3000 on something without making some comparisons first. Perhaps this is why every camera site in the universe offers comparisons.
That's funny, I think only a moron would take those camera site's comparisons seriously since they are universally based on out of camera JPEGs.
-
... Nikon has (in the D700) a camera that can't in any way compare to the new 5D MkII ... except (maybe) for some speculative "build quality."
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222020\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The D700 and 5DII are "incomensurable": each has clear advantages over the other so that which is best depends greatly on what one wants from the camera.
In particular
1. the D700 is far better suited to action photography:
- up to 8fps with vertical grip (5fps without) vs 3.9fps in the 5DII
- the same 51 point AF system as in the D3, with 15 of them cross type,
compared to the 5DII's 15 focus points (9 selectable, 6 "hidden"), with only the center point being cross type. [Edit: some sources say that the nine main AF points are all cross type. Not that it matters, since John Koerner seems to believe that getting accurate focus in action photography is not relevant to IQ!]
2. The 5DII is far better suited to making huge prints destined for close viewing, due to its higher pixel count, and might even win on visible noise when images are displayed at equal size and viewed from equal distance.
No comment on movie mode vs pop-up flash!
-
Replying? I do believe you initiated this "DPR"-like dribble, did you not? The original post by Bruce just spoke of the realease of this camera, not of any kind of comparison.
Nikon is offering, for $500 more money, a camera that cannot take anywhere near as good a photographs as the 5D Mk II. And, as was just pointed out, the 5D Mk II can do many things that Canon's flagship camera can't, for a fraction of the price.
I am sure what you are saying is true, but at the end of the day if your camera can't take as good a photo as this camera, what do you have, really? And for $500 more to boot
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, but if you want to look down your nose at someone, an ideal candidate can be found in your mirror---for acting like "such behavior" as camera comparisons is beneath you, when in fact you initiated them, LOL
Where I come from, I try to get the most bang for my buck, and so to compare features in natural. I am just not hypocritcal about it.
I agree, IQ has yet to be seen, though I am not sure you have the IQ to appreciate my joke
No, what's absolutely silly is the fact you initiated this comparison, and then later raise your nose at the idea of "camera comparisons." I believe you are doing this simply because the Nikon is looking like a pretty crappy buy, when all is said and done, by such comparison.
The fact is, only a complete moron would spend $2500 - $3000 on something without making some comparisons first. Perhaps this is why every camera site in the universe offers comparisons
So since it was you who brought up the subject of these "silly" comparisons, if you think the Nikon offers "more" in its D700 than what the Canon offers in this new upgrade, then why don't you take me up on my bet? LOL For the majority consensus will be revealed in whose prices go down ... and whose prices stay level ... and my bet is that the $2500 5D Mark II will stay at this price for a long, long time ... because it offers the most camera for the money ... while the price for your hallowed D700 will begin to plummet as soon as the 5D Mk II comes out.
So speaking of money, would you care to put any where your mouth is?
Jack
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222040\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Really? I thought Ray started it (but Ray is excused because he's always like that) and you picked it up for real.
Comparisons are good when they take one's priorities in mind when one compares two quantities whose features do not exactly overlap.
The fact that you don't realize either what qualities other than IQ mean in a camera (and the fact that you don't even get my oblique statement about this) just shows you are just a very inexperienced user to put it mildly (most probably a P&S shooter).
Now you would have been welcome if you had stated that for YOU this feature is important while another is not (just as Ray did) but you haven't. Instead you just made a statement about which camera is the best. This is no comparison, it's fanboyism in my book.
BTW could you care to substantiate your statement that the D700 (or the D3 for that matter) 'cannot take anywhere near as good a photographs as the 5D Mk II' ?
If you were any serious and not a complete joker you would have reserved any comments about IQ until some decent production samples where out there. the fact that you didn't just shows you're just a guy looking for good fight.
Also, last time I looked the difference in RRP prices was $300 not $500 as you state.
I'm not even going to bother with your resorting to personal insults as this just reflects your personality.
Lastly, why don't you return to the forum where you obviously belong?
-
One cross type sensor is a little poor.
I like my 5D. The only problems I frequently have is with AF.
I´m a people/portrait photographer and I often shot aperture open.
So there is no use for me for a 5DMkII. It would only give me higher resolution, but the same high amount of poorly focussed pictures.
Bernd
-
Please don't give John large multiline posts to respond to line by line. Michael isn't back until the 23rd.
*Chomp*
-
One cross type sensor is a little poor.
I like my 5D. The only problems I frequently have is with AF.
I´m a people/portrait photographer and I often shot aperture open.
So there is no use for me for a 5DMkII. It would only give me higher resolution, but the same high amount of poorly focussed pictures.
Bernd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222087\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Initially it looked like it had the 40D's AF. DPreview indicates that it is the same as the original 5D. The only two improvements I can see are the dedicated AF-ON button and the micro adjustments for up to 20 lenses.
-
Edit: The following quote is in reference to no MLU button.
I would be, big time.
Live view provides essentially the same thing. Plus you get a last check on framing. Provided, of course, you have contrast detect AF turned off in LV.
-
Please don't give John large multiline posts to respond to line by line. Michael isn't back until the 23rd.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222090\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I think you're right. Point taken.
-
I thought this was an interesting post by iliah borg...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29359634 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29359634)
-
Nikon is offering, for $500 more money, a camera that cannot take anywhere near as good a photographs as the 5D Mk II.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222040\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a pretty big assumption for a camera who's output we really haven't seen yet. And, believe it or not, for some more MPs actually means a worse photo. Shocking, I know. </sarcasm> There are many more factors that play into the quality of a photo beside the sensor.
I'll have to take it on faith, given your number of posts, that you aren't a troll.
-
That's a pretty big assumption for a camera who's output we really haven't seen yet. And, believe it or not, for some more MPs actually means a worse photo. Shocking, I know. </sarcasm> There are many more factors that play into the quality of a photo beside the sensor.
I'll have to take it on faith, given your number of posts, that you aren't a troll.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
well there are even some people claiming there 1DsMk2 is better than a Mk3 ... I don't really have to comment such BS
Nikon is doing great, they are just still missing more MP. I don't say we need 21 but 12 is far behind. The difference can already be seen at 16x24 and there is a huge difference at 20x30 inches. For bigger fine art printing Nikon is "NOW" offering nothing. I can shoot with the great speed of a Nikon at 8fps, which does not help me a bit in producing bigger fine art prints.
I'm not saying Nikon is doing something wrong, I'm just saying they are aiming at different users. Would I be shooting sports I wouldn't have bought a P45 and I would not buy a 5D Mark2...
-
So there it is... alas, the "solutions to non-existing problems" - remark appears to have come true.
Bigger resolution, higher iso: for me this is nice to have, not _must_ have.
But, did we get a
- better viewfinder? Nope, or hardly so. Still smaller than my 1975 cheapo Nikkormat-brick.
- dedicated iso wheel? Nope. Press button, simultaneously turn wheel.
- dedicated mirror lock-up? Nope. Press menu, scroll, press, scroll, press, scroll etc
Bummer. Look forward to looking through the VF: maybe, just maybe the 3% increase has a bit of a wow-factor...
But hey, we DID get loads of features we don't need!! Hurray!!
-
That's a pretty big assumption for a camera who's output we really haven't seen yet. And, believe it or not, for some more MPs actually means a worse photo. Shocking, I know. </sarcasm> There are many more factors that play into the quality of a photo beside the sensor.
I'll have to take it on faith, given your number of posts, that you aren't a troll.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222106\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have to admit that I was trolling ... it is just funny to me that all the Canon users seem so happy and hopeful right now ... while all the die-hard Nikon fans seem to be so negative and upset right now (just look at the tone of all Nikonian posts, LOL) ... that I thought I would stir the bees' nest a bit
I personally think Tony Beach showed the right attitude, for a Nikonian, in confidently waiting for the next Nikon step to be taken. This is exactly true!
I believe within a year or two that all of these $8000-$10,000 cameras are going to be $2000-$3000 cameras, with twice the quality of their predecessors. Take desktop computers for example: In 1998 I bought the top Dell power desktop for like $5,000. Today, I have a 10x better desktop for $700
I think the prices for digital SLRs are teetering on their own massive collapse right now, with more and more great options for less-and-less price. It will very soon be (if it isn't already) a "buyer's market," where these companies are going to start giving away their impressive technologies, where before you had to hit your hip pocket and buy them due to their exclusivity. Lasy year, you had to fork out almost 10G for 21 mp; this year only $2,600. Soon you will get all that the 5DMkII offers---plus 9 fps, plus weather sealing & other advancements---for the same $2500 or so. This is why I can't see any reason to be glum (unless you just spent $3000 and wished you hadn't).
Me, I am just an amateur who enjoys the heck out of a simple point-n-shoot, LOL. I am nowhere near as smart as most of you folks. But I am very glad I waited, and waited, and waited for what seems to be a great time to pick up a ground-breaking professional-level camera for about 1/3rd of what the (lesser) technology would have cost two years ago ... but I am still going to wait for a few reviews, and of course after Christmas
Jack
.
-
Canon have delivered the camera an existing 5d owner would like to own. For good reasons the 5D has an exceptionally loyal following and I'm sure this was key to Canon's Mk II strategy. Provided it delivers on it's specification most users will be very satisfied. All weather performance. In bad weather the 5D didn't always inspire complete confidence. If the 5D Mk II proves to be more robust, landscape photographers will be very happy indeed.
Interestingly, 5 pages and very little discussion about video features. Does this imply the landscape photographer hasn't yet found relevance in this new technology?
Many will be made, but I'm not sure that a direct comparison between the D700 and 5M Mk II is particularly helpful or relevant. The 5D Mk II's feature set lends itself to specific photographic segments, the D700 has broader appeal. It's is clear that while there is some cross over they are serving different markets.
-
Canon have delivered the camera an existing 5d owner would like to own.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222125\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nope!
Bernd
-
Nope!
Bernd
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222127\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ok then 'most'
-
Well, there's people who know what they want, and then there's people who gladly have a manufacturer tell them what they want. Most people fall in the second category.
But yes, the price is amazing.
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/200809...ck-e870a33.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/20080917/ttc-exclusive-canon-engineers-held-back-e870a33.html)
-
Well, there's people who know what they want, and then there's people who gladly have a manufacturer tell them what they want. Most people fall in the second category.
But yes, the price is amazing.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222135\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
There's also people who own and run companies and make things happen ... and there's the rest of us who sit around and "watch" things happen ...
There is also the needs of "most people" a company has to consider ... versus the needs of a select few that don't add up to as much ...
And, finally, there's also people who appreciate the new great things they have ... versus the people who forever complain about what they "don't" have ... LOL
There are lots of ways to divide things up
.
-
- better viewfinder? Nope, or hardly so. Still smaller than my 1975 cheapo Nikkormat-brick.
- dedicated iso wheel? Nope. Press button, simultaneously turn wheel.
- dedicated mirror lock-up? Nope. Press menu, scroll, press, scroll, press, scroll etc
Bummer. Look forward to looking through the VF: maybe, just maybe the 3% increase has a bit of a wow-factor...
Well, in fairness, the custom menu settings (same as on my 1Ds Mk III) are pretty slick, and make the MLU relatively easy to use - for shooting landscapes I use it together with LiveView, and it works pretty well.
Also, 98% coverage is good enough for me, but the magnification is a little too small. 1.00x would be my preference, course
-
For a moment lets forget about all the bells and whistles, features and such; forget about GPS this, infrared that.....
Lets get down to where the rubber meets the road: Image Quality ONLY.
And if the 5D Mark II provides better enlargements, lower noise, more details (after anti-noise in-cam processing) then the competition, then regardless of lacking any feature, the 5DM2 is the better camera.
I would not be surprised if the 5DM2 is the best camera of any make, any price, just like the 5D was just a few years ago.
I suspect (not seen any pics yet) that the 5DM2 provides the best IQ of ANY Canon body....time will tell of course.
Boys, lets not get hyped up with features...at the end of the day it's about the picture, the image quality. In other words if the 5DM2 shows to have just half of the kewl bells and whistles of the other models, but provides the best IQ, then it is the best DSLR, barr-none, and period, and end of story.
-
True, and there's grumpy people and then there's the rest... I'm in the first category, today. Never mind. Happy with my 5d, usually (Geeezzz... a camera that can only take pictures, how lame is THAT???)
John/Jack: Marketeers have more power over what consumers _want_ than you grant them.
Using Live View for focus is, well... another example of 'let's take a fairly simple thing and make it 100x more complicated'. A good, I mean a reaaally good viewfinder would make it moot, no? Okay maybe in some pitch-black situations, that usually don't make for such photogenic stuff either. I do have trouble manual focusing sometimes with a wide angle, even with the EE-s screen. I can imagine an optical VF with an electronically enhanced image, now that would satisfy the engineers and the geeks, and me too!
But you make do with what you have.
Flatline, I understood the dsIII viewfinder was a big step forward? Not enough for you, apparently? Did you change the focusing screen?
Lovell, true but you'll need a computer twice as fast. Or wait twice as long between every click in photoshop.
-
I would not be surprised if the 5DM2 is the best camera of any make, any price, just like the 5D was just a few years ago.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
More resolution than a H3D, better noise in bad light than a D3/D700, and all presumed without any firsthand or even secondhand experience -- wow, now that's fanboyism.
-
Wait for a complete review and test.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221985\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What a novel concept.
It says "Canon" on the body so it has to be good, right? We lemmings just assume that it's going to be "better" in every regard than the axe we're currently swinging.
I hope they have the AF sorted out.
Ken
-
True, and there's grumpy people and then there's the rest... I'm in the first category, today. Never mind. Happy with my 5d, usually (Geeezzz... a camera that can only take pictures, how lame is THAT???)
John/Jack: Marketeers have more power over what consumers _want_ than you grant them.
Using Live View for focus is, well... another example of 'let's take a fairly simple thing and make it 100x more complicated'. A good, I mean a reaaally good viewfinder would make it moot, no? Okay maybe in some pitch-black situations, that usually don't make for such photogenic stuff either. I do have trouble manual focusing sometimes with a wide angle, even with the EE-s screen. I can imagine an optical VF with an electronically enhanced image, now that would satisfy the engineers and the geeks, and me too!
But you make do with what you have.
Flatline, I understood the dsIII viewfinder was a big step forward? Not enough for you, apparently? Did you change the focusing screen?
Lovell, true but you'll need a computer twice as fast. Or wait twice as long between every click in photoshop.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222163\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nah, the old same PC I process on will handle those big 21mp files...no need to upgrade so long as one's PC has lots of ram and ram is cheap...As to LiveView, will you forget how helpful it will be for shooting over a fense, a crowd, any shooting where you need to hold the body up high, and yes, I 've needed that many times. PJ's will love the LiveView and for these reasons. Why you call it "complicated" is beyond me....how is it complicated? Even a retard can use it, yea?
-
More resolution than a H3D, better noise in bad light than a D3/D700, and all presumed without any firsthand or even secondhand experience -- wow, now that's fanboyism.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222164\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tony, you really need to do something about your reading comprhension problem, sir. Did you notice all the "ifs" in my statements? If it is lower in noise. If it provides higher IQ...see what I mean.
But I got your point...there are others that post here that use the affirmative voice, and are "so sure" yet have never seen any test pictures nor read any endepth reviews..and I agree they are talking out of their ah, you know ;-)
-
Are you sure you live in California? Ouch.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222171\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't know...I'll have to consult my astrologist....
-
Tony, you really need to do something about your reading comprhension problem, sir. Did you notice all the "ifs" in my statements? If it is lower in noise. If it provides higher IQ...see what I mean.
If.
I.
F.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222170\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Perhaps you should do something about your writing skills. You wrote that the 5D was at one time the "best camera of any make", well that was not true. If pigs could fly, then that would be amazing, but they don't and the 5DII does not have more resolution than the H3D and is very unlikely to out resolve it. Now granted, you mentioned "best camera", and "best DSLR" in your post, and"best IQ of any Canon camera"; if you had just stuck with the last pronouncement with all of its qualifiers then I would not have responded -- but at several points in that post you let your enthusiasm run unbridled.
-
How did all you guys escape from dpreview?
-
Perhaps you should do something about your writing skills. You wrote that the 5D was at one time the "best camera of any make", well that was not true. If pigs could fly, then that would be amazing, but they don't and the 5DII does not have more resolution than the H3D and is very unlikely to out resolve it. Now granted, you mentioned "best camera", "best IQ of any Canon camera", and "best DSLR" in your post; if you had just stuck with the last pronouncement with all of its qualifiers then I would not have responded -- but at several points in that post you let your enthusiasm run unbridled.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222174\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tony, the 5D (meaning mark I) was the best DSLR ever made in regard to image quality until only after the release of the 1D Mark III & 1DS Mark III. Before those models were released, the 5D provide the best IQ of ANY Canon body out at that time and of ANY DSLR of any make. The 5D bettered even the 1DS Mark II except for resolution. The 5D showed less noise.
It was only after this year that the 5D was eclipsed in IQ when these were released:
Canon 1D Mark III
Canon 1DS Mark III
Nikon D300, D700
Nikon D3.
Not bad for a 3 year run, yea?
Now I suspect this latest 5D Mark II will be the body that provides the best IQ of any model and make....or in other words, I would not be surprised if this is found to be true.
This, from an owner of a 1DS Mark II, 1D Mark II and IIn, and three 5D Mark I's.
-
How did all you guys escape from dpreview?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Indeed. This forum has been devolving into yet-another rumor-mongering and flame-baiting board lately.
-
I would be, big time. (In relation to dedicated MLU button)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tony,
You should realise by now, although Canon still does not have a single button designated for MLU on its cameras, in practice it does have a single button which enables MLU. It's called Live View.
On the 40D, a single button on the back of the camera flips the mirror up.
-
EF-S lenses project a smaller image circle than FF 35mm. There's no sudden cut-off, just severe vignetting, on full frame. Didn't you know that?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221979\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Ray, EF-S lenses are just not usable on the EF bodies.
In the Nikon and Sony mount, you can physically mount the APS-C lenses on a FF body, but you will get severe vignetting.
But in the Canon mount, the EF-S lenses are designed in a way that will cause damage, if you "hack" them and manage to even physically mount them on an EF body. The reason is due to the short back-focus on EF-S lenses. The rear element of the EF-S lens, will impact with the swinging mirror of the EF body, if you try to mount them on an EF body.
-
lovell, I meant complicated in a technical sense, not practical. Technically Live View is quite sophisticated compared to an optical viewfinder, and in my book that's not necessarily a good thing. And wouldn't you want it to swivel to really work over your head?
With a 21mp average raw file a 16-bits psd with a couple of layers will easily jump the 400mb mark. Now let's stitch a couple of those together...
-
In bad weather the 5D didn't always inspire complete confidence. If the 5D Mk II proves to be more robust, landscape photographers will be very happy indeed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222125\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You know as an owner of one, the 5D plainly does not cut the mustard in high winds, especially in dry climates, where dust is flying.
The new dust removal system is nice, but i dont get why all weather sealing would not be standard now. Considering how dust on the sensor is our enemy...and the manufacturers know this, just not to inlcude it because "we cant make the 1DsIII look redundant" is dumb.
Now as some have pointed out here, the resolution seems to be impressive and the fps not as good as the Nikon and thus conclusions made that it will better suit landscape style shooting for large prints etc etc. Well, if i want to take this out into the landscape, i want to know that while i trudge through 5 days of hiking in Torres del Pine that the weather sealing is up to the task. Last time i went there, i came back to post-process and was stunned at the dust spots.
I was psyched about the lead up to this, but am not so sure i am sold. Going to wait on this one.
-
Ray, EF-S lenses are just not usable on the EF bodies.
In the Nikon and Sony mount, you can physically mount the APS-C lenses on a FF body, but you will get severe vignetting.
But in the Canon mount, the EF-S lenses are designed in a way that will cause damage, if you "hack" them and manage to even physically mount them on an EF body. The reason is due to the short back-focus on EF-S lenses. The rear element of the EF-S lens, will impact with the swinging mirror of the EF body, if you try to mount them on an EF body.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222184\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, I realise that EF-S lenses have never been usable on FF bodies for the reason you mention. But that does not necessarily means that it's impossible to design a FF body with a mirror that lifts in a different manner in order to accommodate EF-S lenses.
However, I accept that Canon USA have most likely made an error in their specifications.
In any case, I have no particular desire to use EF-S lenses with a full frame sensor that would produce a less detailed result than the same lens on a 50D. I always travel with a cropped format DSLR as both back-up and extender for my longest telephoto lens.
EF-S lenses also tend to lose that advantage of the cropped format which, with the larger format lens, produces generally sharp corners.
-
You know as an owner of one, the 5D plainly does not cut the mustard in high winds, especially in dry climates, where dust is flying.
The new dust removal system is nice, but i dont get why all weather sealing would not be standard now. Considering how dust on the sensor is our enemy...and the manufacturers know this, just not to inlcude it because "we cant make the 1DsIII look redundant" is dumb.
Now as some have pointed out here, the resolution seems to be impressive and the fps not as good as the Nikon and thus conclusions made that it will better suit landscape style shooting for large prints etc etc. Well, if i want to take this out into the landscape, i want to know that while i trudge through 5 days of hiking in Torres del Pine that the weather sealing is up to the task. Last time i went there, i came back to post-process and was stunned at the dust spots.
I was psyched about the lead up to this, but am not so sure i am sold. Going to wait on this one.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222207\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I get the impression that some of you folks want a camera that's as good as or better than the 1Ds3 and D3 in every respect, but at a price below US$3,000.
This will no doubt eventually happen with future models, but Canon have to try to make a profit as well as being competitive in the market place. They seem to me to be offering exceptionally good value for the features that are included in the 5D MkII, more than some people predicted.
Faster frame rates, more sophisticated autofocussing, tighter weather sealing, fully customisable auto-ISO, 7 shot +/- 3 stops exposure bracketing etc. would all be worthwhile improvements, but I think one has to accept that such additional features would raise the price of the camera considerably and most definitely blow the 1Ds3 out of the water at its current price.
I would also like the HD 1920x1080p video to consist of binned pixels. That would mean each pixel, instead of being 6.4 microns in pitch would be effectively about 20 microns in pitch for tremendous dynamic range. How much do you think that would add to the price?
-
I would not be surprised if the 5DM2 is the best camera of any make, any price, just like the 5D was just a few years ago.
That is a very common misconception about the 5D. I suppose if another Canon is your only other option, it may be true.
-
Tony, the 5D (meaning mark I) was the best DSLR ever made in regard to image quality until only after the release of the 1D Mark III & 1DS Mark III. Before those models were released, the 5D provide the best IQ of ANY Canon body out at that time and of ANY DSLR of any make. The 5D bettered even the 1DS Mark II except for resolution. The 5D showed less noise.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222178\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What you wrote (and I objected to) was, "I would not be surprised if the 5DM2 is the best camera of any make, any price, just like the 5D was just a few years ago."
That means better at everything (low noise and resolution) than everything else. Now if you want to amend that to mean among DSLRs, and as regards ISO performance for the older 5D and we'll see about ISO and resolution for the newer 5D, then fine, but that's not what you originally wrote. Frankly, I think the D3/D700 will still be better at high ISO, especially in bad light.
Tony,
You should realise by now, although Canon still does not have a single button designated for MLU on its cameras, in practice it does have a single button which enables MLU. It's called Live View.
On the 40D, a single button on the back of the camera flips the mirror up.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222181\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why should I realize that? I shoot Nikon and I would sorely miss both the ability to dial in to and out of MLU from outside the menu and the second dial by my thumb that I use to change shutter speed in Manual shooting mode. I would also miss 45 AF points and the 6.5 fps I get with my D300 -- YMMV.
I get the impression that some of you folks want a camera that's as good as or better than the 1Ds3 and D3 in every respect, but at a price below US$3,000.
This will no doubt eventually happen with future models...
This is already the case with the D3, it's exactly what the D700 represents with the only appreciable differences between the two being features and a built-in vertical grip. This entire question of advances in features and performance at lower prices is a moving target, although many do have unreasonable expectations.
-
Faster frame rates, more sophisticated autofocussing, tighter weather sealing, fully customisable auto-ISO, 7 shot +/- 3 stops exposure bracketing etc. would all be worthwhile improvements, but I think one has to accept that such additional features would raise the price of the camera considerably and most definitely blow the 1Ds3 out of the water at its current price.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222214\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Fully customisable auto-ISO and 7 shot +/- 3 stops exposure bracketing would have close to zero impact on cost.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
EF-S lenses also tend to lose that advantage of the cropped format which, with the larger format lens, produces generally sharp corners.
Yeah, but the real reason why people talk about either EF-S lenses or EF lenses in the "cropped mode", is the ability to get say a 8-10MP image (RAW and JPEG), when shot in the APS-C cropped mode, specifically when you don't want to shoot with the full 21.2MP resolution. The saved files (RAW and JPEG) are considerably smaller (obviously).
The Nikon D3/D700 (12.2MP FF) and the Sony A900 (24.6MP FF) have this "APS-C crop" mode but only the A900 and the 1DSMKIII/5DII, truly have the ability to make the "crop mode" viable, due to the higher pixel density. In case of the Sony A900, the "APS-C crop mode" (1.5x) is around 10.7MP.
-
Why should I realize that? I shoot Nikon and I would sorely miss both the ability to dial in to and out of MLU from outside the menu and the second dial by my thumb that I use to change shutter speed in Manual shooting mode. I would also miss 45 AF points and the 6.5 fps I get with my D300 -- YMMV.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222220\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tony,
Okay! Fair enough! You don't use Canon. I find it difficult to appreciate the difficulty that anyone might experience due to a lack of a dedicated MLU button. Before the Live View feature was introduced, it's true that one had to press a couple of buttons and turn a dial a couple of times to enable MLU, but that was no big deal considering that MLU is usually (in my case always) used only when the camera is on a tripod. In those circumstances one usually has more time to compose the shot. However, it could happen that one might miss the moment due to a 4 second delay in enabling MLU.
With Live View, it's no longer a problem. Pressing just one button flips the mirror up, and pressing it again flips it back down.
This is already the case with the D3, it's exactly what the D700 represents with the only appreciable differences between the two being features and a built-in vertical grip. This entire question of advances in features and performance at lower prices is a moving target, although many do have unreasonable expectations.
The D3 is heavier and presumably more robust. It's good for more shutter actuations, isn't it? Just like the 1Ds3 in relation to the 5D2.
I'm not aware that the D700 has any image quality improvements over the D3. However, the 5D is claimed to have a few features the 1Ds3 doesn't have, such as contrast AF in Live View mode, HD video capability, higher (supposedly real) ISO settings, newer processing engine (Digic 4), improved transmission of light through the color filters, and improved on-chip pre-amplifiers at each photosite, which are (presumably) at least partly responsible for the 5D2's higher ISO capability.
All in all, a tremendous achievement from Canon. There's a lot there for Nikon owners to be envious of, but the D700 still retains a few advantages, so no need to feel too despondent .
-
I get the impression that some of you folks want a camera that's as good as or better than the 1Ds3 and D3 in every respect, but at a price below US$3,000.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222214\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
No not at all. I don't expect it all, but i expect my camera to be weather sealed if the technology allows it.
Did people have dust issues with film? Probably not the way they are having issues with digital cameras - look at the new technology for dust removal. That in itself is the paradox. Canon has the technology to weather seal it aka 1DsIII....but wont include it, instead we get the removal feature. Well, i would not need the removal feature had i the best weather sealing. Why allow the dust to get on there in the first place, and risk scratching the sensor?
If a camera allowed dust into it that resulted in scratching the film, there would be a riot. My 1980 Hasselblad has no such issues.
It makes no sense?
-
Yeah, but the real reason why people talk about either EF-S lenses or EF lenses in the "cropped mode", is the ability to get say a 8-10MP image (RAW and JPEG), when shot in the APS-C cropped mode, specifically when you don't want to shoot with the full 21.2MP resolution. The saved files (RAW and JPEG) are considerably smaller (obviously).
The Nikon D3/D700 (12.2MP FF) and the Sony A900 (24.6MP FF) have this "APS-C crop" mode but only the A900 and the 1DSMKIII/5DII, truly have the ability to make the "crop mode" viable, due to the higher pixel density. In case of the Sony A900, the "APS-C crop mode" (1.5x) is around 10.7MP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222224\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Hey! This is just nit-picking. With 64GB compact flash cards, 320GB pocket external drives that plug into one's laptop, 2 Terabyte, affordable desktop external hard drives, and 50GB recordable Blu-ray discs, who has to worry about storage nowadays?
-
No not at all. I don't expect it all, but i expect my camera to be weather sealed if the technology allows it.
Did people have dust issues with film? Probably not the way they are having issues with digital cameras - look at the new technology for dust removal. That in itself is the paradox. Canon has the technology to weather seal it aka 1DsIII....but wont include it, instead we get the removal feature. Well, i would not need the removal feature had i the best weather sealing. Why allow the dust to get on there in the first place, and risk scratching the sensor?
If a camera allowed dust into it that resulted in scratching the film, there would be a riot. My 1980 Hasselblad has no such issues.
It makes no sense?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222235\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Makes sense to me. I've taken nearly 100,000 shots with my 5D in all sorts of dusty places as well as in light rain. Never had any problem with dust that wasn't easily removed with a blower brush. However, it's true I haven't taken the camera into a dust storm in the Simpson desert. If I intended doing that, I'd be looking at a more expensive camera.
I've spent far, far more time removing spots and scratches from just a few 100 scanned slides, over the last 10 years or so, than I have spent removing blotches and marks from my DSLR images.
-
Fully customisable auto-ISO and 7 shot +/- 3 stops exposure bracketing would have close to zero impact on cost.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222223\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
How can you make such an assertion, Bernard? Maybe Canon have designed their circuitry in such a way that the inclusion of those features would entail not only a significant redesign, but create certain difficulties in other areas, the overcoming of which would indeed entail some significant cost.
One has to presume that the engineers designing Canon cameras are rational people who are not totally divorced from the needs of photographers.
-
This is why I can't see any reason to be glum (unless you just spent $3000 and wished you hadn't).
Jack
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Jack, I'm a gonna keeeeeeel you!
I just bought the 1DS3 in April. Think about that for glumness. If the 5D2 isn't much better than the 1DS3 in image quality or high ISO noise, or any better, then I'll still be happy with it, but if I were on the market now, I would probably go with the 5D2--pending reviews of course. On the other hand, if the 5D is superior in image quality to the 1DS3, I'll not be happy with Canon at all. I think that's S&^%$ on their part getting 8K out of people and then barely two years later offering a 2600.00US camera that gives better image quality. Horrible business practice in my mind.
If that is true, then I'll tell you all one thing: People will become very, very wary about buying UP the next time the buy Canon, which could hurt Canon sales in the long run.
-
Anyone wanna trade a new 5DMKII + 2000.00US for a 1DS3 bought in April 2008 with less than 3K shutter releases?
-
I just bought the 1DS3 in April. Think about that for glumness. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222246\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
DWDallam,
April to November is a long time. By then, you'll have had the use of the 1Ds3 for over 7 months. The 1Ds3 is also twice as durable as the 5D2; 300,000 shutter actuations as opposed to the 5D2's 150,000. That makes the resale value of the 1Ds3 higher.
However, if you are not making any money as a professional photographer, I can sympathise with your frustration.
The most expensive camera I ever bought in my entire life was my first DSLR, the Canon 6mp D60. Even the 5D was slightly cheaper. When I upgraded from the D60 to the 20D, I calculated if I'd taken the same number of shots on 35mm film as I'd taken with the D60, and got the film processed at K-Mart, I'd be ahead financially .
-
Anyone wanna trade a new 5DMKII + 2000.00US for a 1DS3 bought in April 2008 with less than 3K shutter releases?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222249\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So your happy to give up all of the following just because the 5DMKii is cheaper?
Full weather sealing
1/250 x sync instead of 1/200th
300,000 shutter rated life instead of 150,000
Better build quality [much better]
100% viewfinder coverage instead of 98%
Built in grip
Better Auto Focus than the 5D
Far greater customisation
and the list goes on....
I wouldnt swap my 1DSMK3 for a 5DMKII - even if the offer was trade+$4000.
-
I've had mine for three months at this stage... Personally I won't be trading it for a 5D2... for added reasons... Even though I'm a little suprised that they've released something that feature packed for so little in relation... Surely it doesn't cost an extra 5K for the 1DsIII to be made. ^_~
Dual card slot
Funky blue backlighting (Hey if Nokia could originally charge an extra $200 bucks for blue LED's, why can't Canon? ^_~)
Sexy curves.
Microphone documentation feature (30 seconds sound recording)
Significantly better CF/SD door. ^_~
Compatibility with old focus screens.
As well as previously stated reasons.
EDIT: Not to downplay the camera either... Just wait until you get your hands on one... I'm not dissapointed with the 1DsIII... but I am dissapointed with Canon for keeping the price so high from the start when they released this so quickly.
As an amature photographer, it was a dream to own a 1 series camera (actually more as a technophile) to aid me in my journey of photographic discovery yet it hurt me financially to delve into it (especially in Australia). With our dodgy rate of exchange at the moment, we're not getting any breaks either.
EDIT2: Further to that, lets say, three months ago, I didn't fork out the money, and just waited... Would I now buy a 1Ds III with knowledge of the 5D II at the price they're asking? Not me. No way... I'd wait, though I'd still buy one even if it was 2K higher then the 5DII.
Personally, I'd expect Canon to release something along the lines of an N upgrade for the current 1 series... but then, we've seen a new Digic, that has 30% extra bandwidth over the Digic3.... It's anybodies guess at this point I'd say.
-
Jack, I'm a gonna keeeeeeel you!
LOL, why is that? It's not my fault you suffered from premature ephotolation
I just bought the 1DS3 in April. Think about that for glumness.
Ah, don't feel bad. When I was selling cars, some poor sod came in to trade his 3-year-old Mercedes SL500. We offered him $33K for it, and he went to screaming and hollaring about how he paid $88K for it three years ago. We welcomed him to the world of depreciation ... and how a man can lose over $50,000 in value just in the span of 3 years
The smart customer was the fellow who came in and bought that same Mercedes SL500 for about $37K (as well as the salesman who made the $4K commissionable gross profit)
If the 5D2 isn't much better than the 1DS3 in image quality or high ISO noise, or any better, then I'll still be happy with it, but if I were on the market now, I would probably go with the 5D2--pending reviews of course.
LOL, you're still suffering from premature ephotolation
Be happy with your camera and forget about that other one. Like I said, I myself am probably going to get the old 5D right after Christmas. Again, one thing I learned in the car business, is the smart buyers purchase the 3-year-old used cars: 1) by then the best models have clearly been identified; 2) because the greatest depreciation occurs within the first 3 years of purchasing a new vehicle, but after that depreciation levels-out substantially; and 3) you still probably have about 20,000 miles left on the 4-year drivetrain warranty
With the 5D, for all the nitpicking, it is still a fantastic camera that takes wonderful photo, and soon it will be had for a fraction of the price.
On the other hand, if the 5D is superior in image quality to the 1DS3, I'll not be happy with Canon at all. I think that's S&^%$ on their part getting 8K out of people and then barely two years later offering a 2600.00US camera that gives better image quality. Horrible business practice in my mind.
Nah, this is the way of all technology, which means it was just a horrible purchase practice
Given the way technology changes so fast, it would have been best to have bought the camera you have when the upgrade to it came out
If that is true, then I'll tell you all one thing: People will become very, very wary about buying UP the next time the buy Canon, which could hurt Canon sales in the long run.
Nah, too many people are always trying to "keep up with the Joneses" ... everyone will always flock to go get the new item, just because it is new and exciting. "The grass always looks greener on the other side of the mountain ..."
Just remember to appreciate the grass you have growing now, as as soon as you got rid of your 1Ds, and shot a few frames with the 5DMkII, you would soon be wishing you had your 1Ds again
Enjoy the camera you have ... and let the new busy-bodies enjoy their 5DMkII ... everybody just likes to have that "new camera feeling" LOL
Me, I am going to enjoy my new 5DMkI, and the feeling that I got it for about half of its original price
Jack
.
-
OK since people are griping...
I have a 5D2 on order, and look forward to it greatly.
BUT, given it's video capacity and built in mic, how come there is no voice annotation feature? This was something I really wanted to use and will have to pay the extra 5K for a 1Ds3 - or do without.
Still, gotta love 21mp for <3K.
-
.......Ah, don't feel bad. When I was selling cars,....yada,..yada...
Jack
.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222265\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, but finally after reading all your posts, this one does summerises it. So you are a used car salesman, now trying to get into Photography via trolling.
-
I have nothing to add to the prolonged exchange on the relative merits of the 5D2 versus its predecessor or Nikon/Sony competitors. But I am interested in pricing. Judging from the press release, I guessed the 5D2 would be in the region of £2000 at online retailers in the UK (the 5D is now down to £1300 or less) However, I now see that the Nikon D700 is selling at less than £1700. If we accept for a moment that the 50D is broadly in the same niche as the D300 (which is c£930) and the 5D2 is equivalent to the D700 (although biased towards different users), then Canon’s indicated pricing in UK pounds seems a bit optimistic. They need to get the 50D below £1000 and the 5D2 in at less than £1700 in my view. I think Sony, lacking currently a presence in the pro market, will have to price their full frame offering at the same level, even if the spec is higher than the Nikon/Canon competitors.
-
I have nothing to add to the prolonged exchange on the relative merits of the 5D2 versus its predecessor or Nikon/Sony competitors. But I am interested in pricing. Judging from the press release, I guessed the 5D2 would be in the region of £2000 at online retailers in the UK (the 5D is now down to £1300 or less) However, I now see that the Nikon D700 is selling at less than £1700. If we accept for a moment that the 50D is broadly in the same niche as the D300 (which is c£930) and the 5D2 is equivalent to the D700 (although biased towards different users), then Canon’s indicated pricing in UK pounds seems a bit optimistic. They need to get the 50D below £1000 and the 5D2 in at less than £1700 in my view. I think Sony, lacking currently a presence in the pro market, will have to price their full frame offering at the same level, even if the spec is higher than the Nikon/Canon competitors.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222308\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think the price will be aimed at the D700. It will more likely be aimed at the a900.
-
I'm not sure about that. While the 5D2 is not directly in competition with the D700 (except for a relatively small market segment of pros who find something in one or other that makes the business case to swap or duplicate systems), but I for one would be miffed if I had to pay significantly more than people who have Nikon lenses have to pay for a new FF body. And that can lead to consumer resistance.
I would think it unwise for Canon to peg to A900 price, which I think will be c.£2000. I don't think Sony expect to sell that many A900's. Its main role is as an image maker to attract sales of the A200/A300/A350. Why? Well Sonu UK say they don't yet expect many pros to buy, for obvious reasons. They are targetting advanced amateurs, who almost by definition are already locked into one system or other.
Having said that I do think Sony is here to stay and can be regarded as a very serious player - they just need a few years to achieve the market penetration at the upper echelons.
-
I'm not sure about that. While the 5D2 is not directly in competition with the D700 (except for a relatively small market segment of pros who find something in one or other that makes the business case to swap or duplicate systems), but I for one would be miffed if I had to pay significantly more than people who have Nikon lenses have to pay for a new FF body. And that can lead to consumer resistance.
I would think it unwise for Canon to peg to A900 price, which I think will be c.£2000. I don't think Sony expect to sell that many A900's. Its main role is as an image maker to attract sales of the A200/A300/A350. Why? Well Sonu UK say they don't yet expect many pros to buy, for obvious reasons. They are targetting advanced amateurs, who almost by definition are already locked into one system or other.
Having said that I do think Sony is here to stay and can be regarded as a very serious player - they just need a few years to achieve the market penetration at the upper echelons.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222328\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
We will see what the plan really is. I to think, that Sony should be taken seriously and that we can expect great things from them. They will just need a little more time. I personally am very happy if I get a 5DII at around 2400EURs, which soon should be possible.
-
Sorry, but finally after reading all your posts, this one does summerises it. So you are a used car salesman, now trying to get into Photography via trolling.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222306\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wow, you read all my posts?
I guess I have my very own online fan then
To think, here I have had my entire life story summarized (summerises, is that a word?) into a one-liner ... by a genius who uses words that don't exist and who misspells them too
Another thing you have wrong is that I am not trying "to get into" photography as a profession either; I just enjoy taking nature photos as a hobby
Regarding my vocation, I have had many. I was an insurance fraud investigator for 12 years. I was a repo man for 5 years. I got into the car selling business for a couple of years, because it was different and because a buddy of mine was making $10K/month doing so. I liked the idea of meeting new people and learning how to sell. I learned a lot of valuable things doing this, actually, one of which was the error of buying new vehicles. The other thing I learned was how long the damned hours were, LOL
When I first got into photography last year, I was totally caught-up in wanting "the latest and best" in cameras, but quickly applied what I'd learned in cars (that it's smarter to buy the old, proven model at a good price), and thought I'd share the analogy to help some people not make knee-jerk purchase decisions and waste their money.
Is that my "trolling"---or is that you just not seeing the value of what was said? Of course, one could argue that with a 5DMkII, we're only talking about a thousand bucks, so I may buy the new model after all But for just a fancier wanting something like a 1Ds, I certainly would wait for it to become yesterday's model before purchase.
Speaking of trolling, maybe you'd care to share the lesson or contribution to be learned in your post
Oh, and by the way, what do you do for a living (now that we have ruled-out anything having to do with proficiency in the English language)?
Jack
.
-
Hey Jack-John or whatever your name is,
Why don't you take my advice and bugger off to dpreview where you belong? You'll get much of what you're looking for in there. Everybody will be happy then.
-
Hey Jack-John or whatever your name is,
Why don't you take my advice and bugger off to dpreview where you belong? You'll get much of what you're looking for in there. Everybody will be happy then.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Interesting to see this kind of aggression show up sooner or later. Certainly reminds one of dpreview. One word: schoolyard.
-
There's a lot there for Nikon owners to be envious of, but the D700 still retains a few advantages, so no need to feel too despondent.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222234\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am not despondent at all about the 5DII, actually I'm thrilled for everyone. For me there is only one thing to be envious of about it, 21 MP for under $3000. I own a D300 and not a D700 and I specifically passed on the D700 in anticipation of an FX DSLR with higher resolution for around $3000. With the A900 and 5DII announcements that is looking more likely to happen sooner rather than later (probably first half of next year). I have been bemused by 5D owners whining about an upgrade. The camera takes the same images today that it took when it first came out and the only thing that has changed since then is that some people's DSLRs can shoot at higher ISO settings, the prices of features and image quality has gone down, and you can pick up a 5D for a lot less than it cost new.
I think such discussions about this or that camera have things exactly backwards; you start with what your needs are, then you decide on the lenses and work your backwards to the camera. I've got great Nikkor lenses, and my D300 makes them sing, you will not see me whining about an upgrade to my D300. It's great that Canon has announced this camera, but I would consider it foolhardy to jump ship from one's current camera to run out and buy the 5DII just because it has more resolution than their old camera -- in fact, even for Canon users the price of a used 5D undoubtedly just got a lot cheaper and might not be a bad idea for many.
-
If the 5D2 isn't much better than the 1DS3 in image quality or high ISO noise, or any better, then I'll still be happy with it, but if I were on the market now, I would probably go with the 5D2...
Each camera has its own target market. If you feel the 5D2 has a feature set that fits your needs better than the 1Ds3, then that's the camera for you. A careful study of both camera's feature sets will reveal what you really need for your work. Just because one is more expensive than the other doesn't mean it's universally a better tool.
For example:
Will you use the HD video feature? There is no quality sound capture with it.
Will you use the higher ISO settings?
Will you buy the Wi-Fi grip to transmit images to a base computer?
Will you use the IR receptor that is designed to work with Canon Speedlights?
Just these features alone tell me Canon has designed this camera for the wedding & event photographer. It appears to be able to provide an excellent workflow for someone in that business.
-
Interesting to see this kind of aggression show up sooner or later. Certainly reminds one of dpreview. One word: schoolyard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222363\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're right. But you are addressing your comment to the wrong person. If you had cared to read the posts above mine that should have been clear.
-
Will you use the HD video feature? There is no quality sound capture with it.
I don't pay much attention to such things but since I'll likely have one of these I have to ask what qualifies as quality sound capture and how far away is the 5D from that?
-
For example:
Will you use the HD video feature? There is no quality sound capture with it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Two points:
1. I don't think the 5d2's sound quality has yet been established.
2. I imagine whatever the sound quality turns out to be, it is adequate for recording a SMPTE time-code track for synchronization with whatever audio recording equipment you're using.
-
Each camera has its own target market.
For example:
Will you use the HD video feature? There is no quality sound capture with it.
Will you use the higher ISO settings?
Will you buy the Wi-Fi grip to transmit images to a base computer?
Will you use the IR receptor that is designed to work with Canon Speedlights?
Just these features alone tell me Canon has designed this camera for the wedding & event photographer. It appears to be able to provide an excellent workflow for someone in that business.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222374\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well that's a double edge sword. I don't fit into this supposed group.
For me
I don't need HD video
Higher ISO - great
Wi-fi grip - good for tethered
IR receptor - neither here nor there
21mpix full frame - fantastic
Mirror lock up ?
Weather sealed ?
8fps ?
oh..thats the 1DsIII which can't afford. It seems that some of these features are flag ship features, yet simple, functional and most common work flow option are neglected!
-
According to phil askey the recording is at 44.1 16-bit stereo.
Provided you don't use the bulit in mic.
Two points:
1. I don't think the 5d2's sound quality has yet been established.
2. I imagine whatever the sound quality turns out to be, it is adequate to record a SMPTE time-code track for synchronization with whatever audio recording equipment you're using.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222397\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
-
Well that's a double edge sword. I don't fit into this supposed group.
For me
I don't need HD video
Higher ISO - great
Wi-fi grip - good for tethered
IR receptor - neither here nor there
21mpix full frame - fantastic
Mirror lock up ?
Weather sealed ?
8fps ?
oh..thats the 1DsIII which can't afford. It seems that some of these features are flag ship features, yet simple, functional and most common work flow option are neglected!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222398\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd have to hunt it down (I believe it was a Dpreview staff member post in their forums) but supposedly the weather sealing is improved quite a bit on the 5D mk II with canon reps actually talking about something like 10ml of rain in some short time period. So, you can't dunk it but you can shoot in the rain.
Not that the 1D series worked out all that well for people on MR's last Antarctic trip if I remember the reports correctly.
And for the umpteenth time there is an effective mirror lockup button on all the canon dslr's with live view. Punch 1 button to go into live view. Boom. Mirror locks up.
-
Hey Jack-John or whatever your name is,
Why don't you take my advice and bugger off to dpreview where you belong? You'll get much of what you're looking for in there. Everybody will be happy then.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222358\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Nikos-Nikon or whatever your name is.
Why don't you just pipe down about me period? You aren't in a position to give me advice, and if we were able to conduct this discussion personally, I promise you would be a much more pleasant individual towards me. You keep trying to come at me on a personal level, and I am not sure why. All because I originally spoke to you about how the 5DMkII would hurt the sales of the D700? Was that really something so terrible over which to keep crying to me incessantly? My big troll and transgression here was I that made a playful offer to bet you "who's prices" would in fact drop, now that this 5DMkII camera has come out---Canon's or Nikon's---and you have been making this personal ever since.
Is this something really to get personal with me about, my opinion that Nikon's price will go down? Does the thought of this hurt you so much that I must be "banished forever" to DPReview for suggesting it?
I am a pretty happy-go-lucky person, and I thought I had placed enough "smiley-faces" on all of my posts to indicate a light-hearted take on all this (which, after all, is just some gossip about a new camera and nothing to get riled-up about). My original intentions were nothing but harmless fun and interest about this new camera. However, judging by every one your own "dour, sour-puss posts" you don't seem to have a sense of humor or that you will be happy with much of anything regarding this new camera or a discussion about it.
Now, as far as I can tell, you are the one who keeps piping-up to me, so maybe you should take your own advice and go on over to DPReview, since you seem to know its climate so well.
If you don't want to do this, then kindly pipe-down, sir. Just ignore me and I will ignore you. If you're in this "upper class" you seem to think you are, then let's see if you are mature enough to keep this discussion only about this camera (or its potential rivals), and if you really do have the strength to do this. Because I myself would rather discuss (or read others' comments about) this camera than your incessant, childish, crybaby whining at me, just because I made a bet to you about whose sales I thought would plummet now. Please get over it and stop snivelling. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings so; I was just being playful.
Thank you---and here: have a Lifesaver
Jack
.
-
The 1Ds3 is also twice as durable as the 5D2; 300,000 shutter actuations as opposed to the 5D2's 150,000. That makes the resale value of the 1Ds3 higher.
A replacement shutter costs what ? $250 ?
Not bad for such a "discounted" price !
-
Even though I'm a little suprised that they've released something that feature packed for so little in relation... Surely it doesn't cost an extra 5K for the 1DsIII to be made. ^_~
As I mentioned in the other post prior to the release of either the A900 or the 5DII, the ONLY reason for Canon coming out with a 21MP 5D, is the long shadow cast on it, by the A900, which obviously comes with I.S in the body (the 50mm, the 85mm, the 135mm primes and the 24-70 f/2.8, the 35mm primes, the 16-35 f/2.8 etc are all stabilized), 100% viewfinder that is larger than even the Nikon D3 or Canon 1DSMKII, Dual-memory slots (CF and MS) and the presence of ultra-high-end Carl Zeiss Auto-focus lenses in the range.
Canon simply did not want to rest on their past laurels, since they know that if they leave a model like the 5D (introduced during the 20D era, with single Digic II chip, no less !), with absolutely no change for 3 long years (since then 30D, 40D and 50D have come into the APS-C range, since there was APS-C competition around), the competition will not treat them too nicely. Bottomline, competition spurs innovation and also price reductions.
No, it does not cost an extra 5K for the 1DSMKIII to be made. That kind of pricing is history and will not work for future models - you can take that to the bank, since that was the precise reason why Sony announced 7-8 months in advance that their Full-frame body will come with a 24.6MP Sensor......which means the body would need a much more robust and expensive data pipeline, high-end processors to process such massive amounts of image data and up the FPS to say 5FPS and so on. It was intended to force Canon's hand to introduce a 5D for rougly similar specification....and hurt the 1DS business. I think they succeeded, based on the angst I see around here from 1DS owners.
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/200809...ck-e870a33.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/20080917/ttc-exclusive-canon-engineers-held-back-e870a33.html)
-
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/200809...ck-e870a33.html (http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/20080917/ttc-exclusive-canon-engineers-held-back-e870a33.html)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222487\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Did you mean to add something to this or are you just reposting this?
-
I have to ask what qualifies as quality sound capture and how far away is the 5D from that?
Standard DVD playback quality is 48kHz @ 24 bit. Professional recording quality is 96kHz @ 24 bit for location work, 192kHz @ 24 bit for studio work. Canon's website doesn't state what the audio A/D conversion rate is, but the camera does have a 1/8th inch microphone jack.
-
Nikos-Nikon or whatever your name is...
Hey Jack-John or whatever your name is...
Just go to your user preferences for this website (in My Controls) and set your prefs to ignore each other. It's a great way to filter out the noise.
-
Did you mean to add something to this or are you just reposting this?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222488\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, I missed your earlier post (#95), and I may have missed any replies to that post as well (although a quick search didn't reveal anyone alluding to "techdigest"). Probably it would have made more sense to start another thread so we can parse various aspects of this wide ranging discussion; indeed, some participants here could use their own thread on the topic of "Trolling and DPR Style Discourse."
Now that I have reposted the link, I guess I would add that I do think it is notable what a Canon engineer has to say about noise, megapixels, and the 5DII. While I have posted more than once that I am happy the 5DII's specifications and price because of the pressure that puts on Nikon to deliver the same; I am actually a little surprised too because it seems that Canon has abandoned the niche that the 5D occupied and ceded that ground to Nikon (D700). If you are shooting in dimly lit venues and your 5D isn't quite cutting it, well Nikon has two cameras for you and Canon has left you behind for the time being.
-
Canon already stated that the 5D will be superior to the 1DS series in image quality and noise vs high ISO. Yeah, I'm a little bent that I spent 5, 000US more on 2.1 fps some better weather sealing, and autofocus, only to give up better image quality. I feel like I got ripped off actually. And as one poster said, Canon will no longer be getting 8K for any camera as long as Sony and others offer what they have been, especially after this stunt!
As a photographer not doing sports, image quality and high ISO usability are the holy grail for me, along with MPs for cropping and large printing.
I could care less about a video camera. Gimikie to me.
I would definitely buy the 5D over the 1DS3 at this point, if I were on the market.
I think the 5D2 at 21MPs and BETTER image quality than the 1DS3 surprised a lot of people, and pissed off a lot of people who recently forked out 8K for the 1DS3.
And yes I do understand that this is technology and price coming down for ever increasing IQ and image quality, but I never, ever expected it to happen at this steep of a curve. It even beats out PCs move between price and performance, which was largely predictable--every two years or so your PC will become obsolete, at least for high end CAD and graphics work and gaming. That was expected. And when you upgraded, you would pay about the SAME for a much better computer. In short, you expected it because it was predictable.
On the upside, perhaps the future flagship Canon cameras will be in the 4500 range.
Last, I'll bet the price of the 1DS3 just fell about 3, 000 US. What I mean is that most likely very few people will now choose to buy a 1DS3 at 8, 000 US. I suspect that it would need to drop to around 4500 to be of much interest, and maybe even much more. (This assumes that you don't need the very few features where the 1DS3 outperforms the new 5D.)
-
Standard DVD playback quality is 48kHz @ 24 bit. Professional recording quality is 96kHz @ 24 bit for location work, 192kHz @ 24 bit for studio work. Canon's website doesn't state what the audio A/D conversion rate is, but the camera does have a 1/8th inch microphone jack.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222501\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The quality of the sound from the 5D2 will depend on the quality of the microphone attached to it. One cannot expect good qhality sound from built-in mics, and this goes for all videocams.
The digital sound encoding used by the 5D2 was the standard for most music CDs for years (44khz @ 16 bit) and was capable of capturing a sound quality that hi fi enthusiasts would drool over, provided everything else in the chain was right (good quality mics, good placement of mics, good quality playback equipment etc).
Later developments, such as increasing the bit depth to 20 bit, 24, bit and 48 bit, and the sampling rate from 44kHz to 192kHz, have advantages for mixing, editing and general signal processing, much the same way that working on images in Photoshop in 16 bit as opposed to 8 bit can be advantageous.
In general, the sound quality specification of the 5D2 would suggest that it's perfectly adequate for all who are not trying to produce state-of-the-art or multi-channel sound.
-
Canon already stated that the 5D will be superior to the 1DS series in image quality and noise vs high ISO. Yeah, I'm a little bent that I spent 5, 000US more on 2.1 fps some better weather sealing, and autofocus, only to give up better image quality. I feel like I got ripped off actually. And as one poster said, Canon will no longer be getting 8K for any camera as long as Sony and others offer what they have been, especially after this stunt!
As a photographer not doing sports, image quality and high ISO usability are the holy grail for me, along with MPs for cropping and large printing.
I could care less about a video camera. Gimikie to me.
I would definitely buy the 5D over the 1DS3 at this point, if I were on the market.
I think the 5D2 at 21MPs and BETTER image quality than the 1DS3 surprised a lot of people, and pissed off a lot of people who recently forked out 8K for the 1DS3.
And yes I do understand that this is technology and price coming down for ever increasing IQ and image quality, but I never, ever expected it to happen at this steep of a curve. It even beats out PCs move between price and performance, which was largely predictable--every two years or so your PC will become obsolete, at least for high end CAD and graphics work and gaming. That was expected. And when you upgraded, you would pay about the SAME for a much better computer. In short, you expected it because it was predictable.
On the upside, perhaps the future flagship Canon cameras will be in the 4500 range.
Last, I'll bet the price of the 1DS3 just fell about 3, 000 US. What I mean is that most likely very few people will now choose to buy a 1DS3 at 8, 000 US. I suspect that it would need to drop to around 4500 to be of much interest, and maybe in much further. (This assumes that you don't need the very few features where the 1DS3 outperforms the new 5D.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222512\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
What a whining diatribe.
Firstly, I will bet you wont be able to pick a 5D from a 1DSMK3 file without looking at the EXIF data and secondly, as posted numerous other times, there are quite a lot of differences between the 5DMKII and the DSMK3. If you don't feel these differences are worth the cost to you - fair enough, but honestly, there is no need to go on whinging about it in post after post.
Either use your DSMK3 and be happy with it - or sell it and move on.
'Gets off soap box.'
-
This new 5DII is GREAT news for creative photographers, as the price of a 5D will now fall even further!!!
Let's face it, the digital SLR has pretty much reached it's watermark as far as IQ is concerned...and it did so, at least in a more affordable incarnation, in the 5D.
I know there are "pros" that will say they need this and that and that they would love an SLR to compete with their Medium Format Digital backs. The reality is that this "professionalism" is largely based on perception...having the big expensive toys to show off to a client, thus ennuring a certain confidence to that client (because you must be "pro"/serious to have spent such a large amount of money on gear). This has nothing to do with actual "IQ". Real IQ is lighting and composition....not discerning megapixels with a loupe.
I think any of these improvements we see in current, and future SLR's will only be relative to (an ever growing) community of SLR buyers that, like most modern consumers, gage the quality of a tool less on it's practical use, and are more dazzled by the ever expanding specifications.
Seriously...save the extra money and spend it on a plane ticket, an art history course, a bicycle, a case of good wine, a spa retreat...et al. I bet you'll see the "IQ" of your existant SLR increase dramatically.
Indeed..good news...I bet I can get a back-up 5d for $1200 in a few months.
-
Now that I have reposted the link, I guess I would add that I do think it is notable what a Canon engineer has to say about noise, megapixels, and the 5DII. While I have posted more than once that I am happy the 5DII's specifications and price because of the pressure that puts on Nikon to deliver the same; I am actually a little surprised too because it seems that Canon has abandoned the niche that the 5D occupied and ceded that ground to Nikon (D700). If you are shooting in dimly lit venues and your 5D isn't quite cutting it, well Nikon has two cameras for you and Canon has left you behind for the time being.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222510\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here's a quote from that article you linked, Tony.
"The image quality on the 5d1 was so good that it's still as good as the new NikonD700 even though the Nikon is 3 years younger. I was hoping (...) for two new cameras. One would be a 'reheated' 5D1 with a same megapixel count but a slight redesign in sensor combined with new processor and all the gadgets like micro autofocus adjustments, vignetting control, dust reduction, better weather seals and an upgrade to the autofocus."
The image quality of the 5D1 was so good that it's still as good as the new Nikon D700......??
Now where have I heard that sentiment expressed before... or something similar? Err! Could it be on this site?
One has to accept that as pixel count increases there are more pixels to read and therefore total read noise in the image will inevitable increase to some degree without compensating new technology.
It seems that Canon always strives to provide that compensatory technology to reduce, and perhaps even cancel any increase in total image noise. In the case of the 5D2, I get the impression these improvements include; improved transmissiveness of the color filters; reduced gap between the microlenses; improved amplifiers at each photosite; improved Digic processor.
I'm very confident that any image from the 5D2 at ISO 3200 will have less noise than an image of the same scene under the same conditions from the 5D1 at ISO 3200, when the images are compared at the same size.
If it doesn't, I'll eat my hat.
-
Sorry, I missed your earlier post (#95), and I may have missed any replies to that post as well (although a quick search didn't reveal anyone alluding to "techdigest"). Probably it would have made more sense to start another thread so we can parse various aspects of this wide ranging discussion; indeed, some participants here could use their own thread on the topic of "Trolling and DPR Style Discourse."
Now that I have reposted the link, I guess I would add that I do think it is notable what a Canon engineer has to say about noise, megapixels, and the 5DII. While I have posted more than once that I am happy the 5DII's specifications and price because of the pressure that puts on Nikon to deliver the same; I am actually a little surprised too because it seems that Canon has abandoned the niche that the 5D occupied and ceded that ground to Nikon (D700). If you are shooting in dimly lit venues and your 5D isn't quite cutting it, well Nikon has two cameras for you and Canon has left you behind for the time being.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222510\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think there was any discussion of the topic. I thought it was interesting. It was also one of those things you kind of hope isn't happening but you know probably is. I mean I've been commanded to make more than one idiotic product because marketeering wanted it...
I think Thom Hogan on Dpreview said that right now he couldn't point to a single camera company making a camera with their eye on ultimate picture quality. (Or something like that.)
-
I think such discussions about this or that camera have things exactly backwards; you start with what your needs are, then you decide on the lenses and work your backwards to the camera. I've got great Nikkor lenses, and my D300 makes them sing, you will not see me whining about an upgrade to my D300. It's great that Canon has announced this camera, but I would consider it foolhardy to jump ship from one's current camera to run out and buy the 5DII just because it has more resolution than their old camera -- in fact, even for Canon users the price of a used 5D undoubtedly just got a lot cheaper and might not be a bad idea for many.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222364\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Wow! This thread seems to be moving along.
I understand what you are trying to say, Tony, but it doesn't quite work out like that. I imagine that even professionals have trouble working out what they need. Do they really need that MFDB system or is it just to impress their clients? Will the increased cost of doing business pay off with more sales or higher prices?
For amateurs, needs don't come into it much. We're a consumer society. People buy what they want, what attracts them and what advertisers sometimes succeed in convincing them they need.
One can't assume that people who drive big cars have big families, or that people who drive SUVs and 4-Wheel drives are rugged outdoor types who frequently need to cross flooded rivers over unsealed roads or negotiate sand dunes in the desert.
We know that's not the case. If people confined their buying habits to only what they need, the economy would collapse. (Dear me! That was an unfortunate expression. I'll put it another way.)
If people confined their buying habits to only what they need, there wouldn't be an economy to collapse.
As for choosing a camera system by starting off with the quality of lenses available, that's as good a starting point as any and would be my preference, but it seems we're both locked into our respective systems. There's only one lens that Nikon produce that I want badly, and that's the 14-28/2.8, but I just can't justify spending over double the price for that lens and carry two camera systems around with me.
What happened to Mark Welsh's promise of a Nikon/Canon adapter?
-
I think we are getting close now to the situation we had when many of us used 35mm film - in disposable cameras or in F5 Nikons, 1V Canons and R8 Leicas. We bought the body/lens combinations with the expectation that the difference in output quality had a lot to do with our ability and lens quality, bearing in mind we could put a really expensive film in a really cheap camera and still get good results.
Within a given sensor size (and even across it to an extent) there is less and less to choose between cameras and it is the other features which will make the difference, such as ergonomics, build quality, frame rate, etc. etc. I'm thinking that the 5D and 5DII will be a similar size, weight etc. and both will produce similar 8 x 12 prints to a 1D MkIII or D3 in most situations in which a good photographer will find himself.
I think, now, there is no real need to feel cheated because a new sensor has come out on a cheaper camera because pretty much all the sensors out there are good. I say this because I use an Olympus E3, which has a sensor which is often mocked on internet fora by people who use bigger sensors, yet I regularly produce huge, detailed, rich prints which people go "ooh, ahh" over, even in less than ideal light.
Sensors will continue to improve, just as film did, but we're reaching the time when a good sensor is a given and other features are what we pay our money for. Thank God! Personally, I think much harder about my lenses already, just like in 35mm days.
Don.
-
I think we are getting close now to the situation we had when many of us used 35mm film - in disposable cameras or in F5 Nikons, 1V Canons and R8 Leicas. We bought the body/lens combinations with the expectation that the difference in output quality had a lot to do with our ability and lens quality, bearing in mind we could put a really expensive film in a really cheap camera and still get good results.
Within a given sensor size (and even across it to an extent) there is less and less to choose between cameras and it is the other features which will make the difference, such as ergonomics, build quality, frame rate, etc. etc. I'm thinking that the 5D and 5DII will be a similar size, weight etc. and both will produce similar 8 x 12 prints to a 1D MkIII or D3 in most situations in which a good photographer will find himself.
I think, now, there is no real need to feel cheated because a new sensor has come out on a cheaper camera because pretty much all the sensors out there are good. I say this because I use an Olympus E3, which has a sensor which is often mocked on internet fora by people who use bigger sensors, yet I regularly produce huge, detailed, rich prints which people go "ooh, ahh" over, even in less than ideal light.
Sensors will continue to improve, just as film did, but we're reaching the time when a good sensor is a given and other features are what we pay our money for. Thank God! Personally, I think much harder about my lenses already, just like in 35mm days.
Don.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't quite see it that way. My interest in Photography gained momentum before I bought my first digital camera. I was using a Minolta 35mm film camera, and later switched to a Canon film camera, and scanned the developed film with a Nikon scanner.
With the ability to examine at any degree of enlargement the results from any film type, it became apparent that there was a trade off between fine grained film with the potential for higher resolution, and coarse grained film with a higher ISO which allowed for faster shutter speeds.
Fine grained films were preferred by me, and at the time I bought my first DSLR, Royal Gold 25 was my favourite film. The major drawback was the difficulty in getting a sufficiently fast shutter speed with that film type, hence my interest in Canon's IS lenses which were the major attraction when I switched from Minolta to Canon.
A high pixel count sensor is roughly equivalent to a fine grained film which allows for push processing.
The differences in sensors of equal size and pixel count can be compared with the differences in various fine-grained film types with regard to push processing. Some produce better results when underexposed than others.
I know from experience that the 5D produces a slightly degraded image at ISO 1600, not only in terms of DR, but also in resolution. Comparisons I've seen so far between the A900 and 1Ds3 show that the A900 resolution is less than the 1Ds3 at ISO 1600. We don't know for sure if this will be the case in a production model A900 when a RAW image is processed in the latest version of Camera RAW, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were the case.
Comparisons in the final analysis should always be made between equal size images, not equal (native) pixel count images.
-
I understand what you are trying to say, Tony, but it doesn't quite work out like that. I imagine that even professionals have trouble working out what they need. Do they really need that MFDB system or is it just to impress their clients? Will the increased cost of doing business pay off with more sales or higher prices?
For amateurs, needs don't come into it much. We're a consumer society. People buy what they want, what attracts them and what advertisers sometimes succeed in convincing them they need.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=222541\")
[a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29322638]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29322638[/url]
Let me quote the pertinent parts:
"I'd be perfectly happy to print "large" portraits from a 6mp camera (Fujifilm S5 Pro), but might not be fully satisfied with less than 50mp for landscapes."
> Also I can Not afford $5000 for a D3x or D4, but maybe something between $2500 - $3500...
"Then I have to ask: do you really think that you're going to print and sell something really large with something less capable than those that do that for a living use? Are you going to enter the Indianapolis 500 with a Mazda Miata? This is not to say you can't create a 24" print with a D300 (can't say about the D90 yet, see above). But I really have to say that if your aspirations are large, then, unfortunately, your budget is likely to need to reflect that. Let me phrase that a different way (and I hope Nikon is reading this, because I'm about to be very blunt): if I had to make my living solely off my images right now--and remember this is the context of a landscape photorapher--I almost certainly wouldn't be using Nikon at this moment in time. However, I doubt that I'd be using a Canon or Sony, either. While I've been able to create some mammoth and impressive large images via stitching (156 images is my current record), you simply can't rely upon stitching for every situation."
At the end of the lengthy post he writes:
"Actually, I've long felt that 16-18mp FX is about the right answer (balance) for a DSLR-type camera. That's bigger than a desktop inkjet can print, with reasonable DR and noise. When you start going higher (21mp or now 24mp) it's a little bit like shooting at a higher ISO all the time (e.g., a 24mp DSLR is going to have noise and DR at ISO 100 is going to have noise and DR more akin to a 16mp DSLR shooting at ISO 200. At base ISOs this isn't always a big deal. But consider this: with f/2.8 glass (400mm VR) I was generally shooting at ISO 800 in Denali, especially towards the edges of the day."
- Thom Hogan
I would add that if the AA filter is stripped out of a well executed 18 MP FX DSLR, with proper technique the results will be superior to what the Canon 5DII is likely capable of accomplishing: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29378457 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29378457) There has been much discussion lately about noise and resolution and how Canon has accomplished some sort of breakthrough by putting weaker BFA filter on the 5DII, but this comes at a cost: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29379192 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29379192) What this suggests to me is that even if you took the AA filter out of the 5DII, its resolution is still compromised.
If people confined their buying habits to only what they need, there wouldn't be an economy to collapse.
Not meaning to go OT, but rampant profligacy (or unfettered consumerism) is what is leading the United States into a downward spiral of deficits: government spending and future obligations running into the tens of trillions of dollars, personal debt exceeding savings, and a massive and growing trade deficit. All those SUVs you allude to that were bought mostly as status symbols (sound familiar to what we are discussing here about megapixels?) have saddled this country with a fleet of gas-hogs that will be polluting the environment and consuming precious oil for years to come. All this leads the United States to maintain a military larger than perhaps the next ten largest nations in the world, which makes us an empire not unlike Rome and that empire lasted centuries while we may see ours end in mere decades.
Coming back to the topic at hand, buying more megapixels just to be able to say you have more megapixels is going to end up costing you more than just the price of the camera. You will need more RAM, probably a faster CPU, and more storage (bigger memory cards, hard drives, and more archival media). To justify having those megapixels you will be making massive prints which will also cost dearly; otherwise you will just be throwing all those megapixels away.
You know, it won't be terribly long before revolutionary rather than evolutionary technological developments leave BFA DSLRs in the dust. Then we will start this upgrade cycle all over again, and the economy will continue to churn out newer, better cameras and provide jobs to workers in poorer nations and profits to corporations in richer nations. I like megapixels and I look forward to the future too, just like you do; but at some point I have to wonder when enough is enough.
The image quality of the 5D1 was so good that it's still as good as the new Nikon D700......??
Now where have I heard that sentiment expressed before... or something similar? Err! Could it be on this site?
Please, that's a Canon engineer speaking, do we really expect him to say the 5D is not as good as the D700? What is missed (perhaps deliberately) in that statement is that in daylight the two cameras are probably indistinguishable, but the D3 and D700 have been optimized for unnatural lighting, and at that they excel like no other camera currently available: http://www.bythom.com/nikond3review.htm (http://www.bythom.com/nikond3review.htm)
Quoting the part of that article pertinent to this discussion:
the D3 simply blows away any DSLR Nikon has previously produced.
The big surprise for me was my dimly lit basketball gym. To date, I've not found any DSLR that I'm 100% comfortable shooting at ISO 3200 in that gym (and you have to in order to get even a modestly usable shutter speed at f/2.8). Well, not any more. The D3 does just fine in that gym"
It seems that Canon always strives to provide that compensatory technology to reduce, and perhaps even cancel any increase in total image noise. In the case of the 5D2, I get the impression these improvements include; improved transmissiveness of the color filters; reduced gap between the microlenses; improved amplifiers at each photosite; improved Digic processor.
You are more confident than the Canon engineer. Note that "improved transmissiveness" has already been addressed above in this reply -- there is no free lunch, and the price will be reduced color resolution.
I'm very confident that any image from the 5D2 at ISO 3200 will have less noise than an image of the same scene under the same conditions from the 5D1 at ISO 3200, when the images are compared at the same size.
Then under those circumstances you could just shoot with a 5D and save money.
-
What a whining diatribe.
Firstly, I will bet you wont be able to pick a 5D from a 1DSMK3 file without looking at the EXIF data and secondly, as posted numerous other times, there are quite a lot of differences between the 5DMKII and the DSMK3. If you don't feel these differences are worth the cost to you - fair enough, but honestly, there is no need to go on whinging about it in post after post.
Either use your DSMK3 and be happy with it - or sell it and move on.
'Gets off soap box.'
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You're just jealous because you don't have a 1DS3 to whine about
-
You're just jealous because you don't have a 1DS3 to whine about
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222574\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually I do, as well as a 5D and a G9 and a slew of other gear.
My 1DSMK3 is my far my most used camera.
-
I'm very confident that any image from the 5D2 at ISO 3200 will have less noise than an image of the same scene under the same conditions from the 5D1 at ISO 3200, when the images are compared at the same size.
If it doesn't, I'll eat my hat.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm very confident too because Canon already said it would. In fact, he said it would be better than the 1DS3, which is about equal in noise to the 5D1. So what were getting from Canon is a 21MP camera that produces BETTER image quality than its 1DS3 plus has less noise than the 1DS3, which means it will have less noise than the 5D.
And for those saying that "a little less noise at high ISO isn't that big of a deal" I would suppose you have never had the liberty to shoot almost noiseless images at ISO 1600, which I can do with the 1DS3 with a good exposure, much less at !SO12000+ which the Nikon D3 can do. It's quite liberating. I guess for me, after seeing examples of the D3s almost noiseless and sharp images at 12000+ ISO, which is a 2+ stop over 1600 made me literally "see the light" behind high ISO low noise capability. And to be sure, if you under expose a 1DS3 at ISO 1600, you just got a nice fat noisy image. ISO and low noise headroom like the D3 has is a very useful tool.
Likewise, if the 5D2 can come anywhere near the D3 in noise control vs ISO, that's gonna be a knockout punch in many ways, since it's 21MPs to boot.
It will be interesting to see comparisons between the D3, 5D2, and 1DS3.
For those of you who haven't seen the capability of the D3 to generate ultra low noise and tack sharp images at high ISOs, like 6400+, you should treat yourself.
-
I don't think there was any discussion of the topic. I thought it was interesting. It was also one of those things you kind of hope isn't happening but you know probably is. I mean I've been commanded to make more than one idiotic product because marketeering wanted it...
I think Thom Hogan on Dpreview said that right now he couldn't point to a single camera company making a camera with their eye on ultimate picture quality. (Or something like that.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I read somewhere that Canon didn't want to have a huge MP war, but they did their research and found out that when consumers buy cameras, that's the top priority. They said this translates to pros and prosumers too because they get better large images and have lots of cropping room. Thus, Canon choose to have an all out battle of teh pixel. And here we are. The article said that Canon already has technology to produce a FF 50MP camera. Their simply bettering that technology and waiting for the competition to push it.
-
Actually I do, as well as a 5D and a G9 and a slew of other gear.
My 1DSMK3 is my far my most used camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222576\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Dammit!
Joking aside, I will keep my DS3 because I do like it's pro weather sealing and build quality. It will last me for a very, very long time. I don't plan on buying anymore cameras for a long time either. I have a 5D and DS3 and that's a pretty good kit. If I came into lots of money, I "might" buy the new DS4 in two years IF it has superior noise and image quality and 30% higher resolution than the 1DS3, and if I could get a decent price for my 1DS3. Barring those "ifs," I'm not on the market for another camera anytime soon.
-
Let me quote the pertinent parts:
"I'd be perfectly happy to print "large" portraits from a 6mp camera (Fujifilm S5 Pro), but might not be fully satisfied with less than 50mp for landscapes."
Tony,
I do have a wide format printer (the Epson 7600) and I do like to look at large prints on my wall. Paintings are generally large and I like my photographic prints to be generally large.
Coming back to the topic at hand, buying more megapixels just to be able to say you have more megapixels is going to end up costing you more than just the price of the camera. You will need more RAM, probably a faster CPU, and more storage (bigger memory cards, hard drives, and more archival media). To justify having those megapixels you will be making massive prints which will also cost dearly; otherwise you will just be throwing all those megapixels away.
I never, ever, ever, buy more megapixels just to be able to say I have more megapixels. In fact I often feel a little embarrassed walking around in locations where I stand out conspicuously with all that Canon jewelery around my neck.
As already mentioned, more RAM, a faster CPU and bigger storage is provided as time goes by. No problem there.
Also, wide-format printers use large rolls of paper. The ink comes in large cartrides for each color, about the size of a video tape cassette, and the prints cost far less per unit area than prints from small printers.
You are more confident than the Canon engineer. Note that "improved transmissiveness" has already been addressed above in this reply -- there is no free lunch, and the price will be reduced color resolution.
I don't know the credentials of the so-called Canon engineer or his motives, but I know what I know. Of course there's no free lunch, but I don't expect to receive my 5D2 for free, although, with all the plugs I've been giving the 5D2 one might think that Canon should offer to give me a free 5D2 .
One shouldn't presume that the statement 'improved transmissiveness' necessarily means reduced color resolution. Canon is not obliged to reveal in full detail every aspect of their improving technology, which is no doubt the subject of pending patents.
For all I know, the Digic 4 processor might take care of that. We'll have to wait to see the full comparisons.
-
"Then I have to ask: do you really think that you're going to print and sell something really large with something less capable than those that do that for a living use? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes! The first print I ever sold was one such. It was one foot high and 8 feet long, printed on an Epson 1200. I sold it to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. It consisted of 13 vertical 35mm Ectachrome images taken with a cheap 70-300mm Tamron zoom, stitched with Panavue Image Assembler.
I was rather proud of the fact that this panorama of the city of Brisbane was probably much higher resolution than a single cropped image taken with an 8x10" field camera.
-
One shouldn't presume that the statement 'improved transmissiveness' necessarily means reduced color resolution. Canon is not obliged to reveal in full detail every aspect of their improving technology, which is no doubt the subject of pending patents.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222583\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why do MFDBs have more noise than DSLRs even when compensating for photosite size? You are suggesting that it's because Mamiya, Hasselblad, et al do not keep up with Canon, Nikon, et al; I think I'll take Iliah Borg's explanation that greater color filter densities (4x to 6x) used to get better color separation are the primary culprit over your explanation. Did you read the link to that explanation in my last reply?
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If a pixel has less acuity, it will suffer more from enlargement than a pixel with greater acuity. I strongly suspect that pixels have been underutilized by Canon's execution of the 5DII and that they could accomplish equal detail with fewer megapixels. Again I have to ask you, did you read the links in my last post, specifically the one about the comparison between the 14 MP Kodak and the 21 MP 1DsMKIII?
Until competent photographers have the various cameras (real and speculative) in hand and can do valid side by side testing, this will all be unsubstantiated and unresolvable debate on both sides.
For all I know, the Digic 4 processor might take care of that. We'll have to wait to see the full comparisons.
One of us doesn't really know what the camera's ASIC does. My understanding is that it processes data coming from the ADC into JPEGs and controls the WB and AF.
-
Yes! The first print I ever sold was one such. It was one foot high and 8 feet long, printed on an Epson 1200. I sold it to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. It consisted of 13 vertical 35mm Ectachrome images taken with a cheap 70-300mm Tamron zoom, stitched with Panavue Image Assembler.
I was rather proud of the fact that this panorama of the city of Brisbane was probably much higher resolution than a single cropped image taken with an 8x10" field camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I see, you want to engage in endless argument. Go back and read Thom's post carefully. Sure it can be done, but not always and especially when the light is changing. Someone with a MFDB could take that pano in fewer shots and print it larger. Now you will get some of the with a 5DII and at a very reasonable price, and I'm not disputing that. What I am concerned about though is attaining the optimal resolution and overall image quality from a given format; according to Thom Hogan that's 12-18 MP for FX, and according to Iliah Borg it can be done better than Canon is currently doing at 21 MP.
-
Why do MFDBs have more noise than DSLRs even when compensating for photosite size? You are suggesting that it's because Mamiya, Hasselblad, et al do not keep up with Canon, Nikon, et al; I think I'll take Iliah Borg's explanation that greater color filter densities (4x to 6x) used to get better color separation are the primary culprit over your explanation. Did you read the link to that explanation in my last reply?
The proof of the pudding will be in the eating......[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222590\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
You seem to be offering explanations as to why something isn't possible. I'm offering explanations as to why, in the absense of the pudding to settle the issue, it might be possible.
I'll take the pudding in preference to any speculative explanations, and I don't want to prematurely spoil the anticipation of enjoying the pudding with unsubstantiated negative speculation.
If your point is that Canon could, if it wanted to, make a 12mp camera with slightly lower noise and slightly better image quality than the D700 and D3 and with an equally fast frame rate, then I would agree.
However, you should know by now, if you've been reading Emil Martinec's contributions to this site, that the quality of the image as a whole is not only dependent upon the quality of the pixels, but also the quantity of the pixels.
To elaborate, a D3 pixel might be better than a 1Ds3 pixel, but the greater quantity of 1Ds3 pixels on the same size sensor ensures that any image will never be worse than a D3 image but sometimes better because of higher resolution (outside of extreme pixel peeping).
By the way, as I understand it, MFDBs have two main advantages over Canon and Nikon's CMOS sensors. They are CCDs with a greater fill factor and have no AA filter. They are different technologies.
-
I see, you want to engage in endless argument. Go back and read Thom's post carefully. Sure it can be done, but not always and especially when the light is changing. Someone with a MFDB could take that pano in fewer shots and print it larger. Now you will get some of the with a 5DII and at a very reasonable price, and I'm not disputing that. What I am concerned about though is attaining the optimal resolution and overall image quality from a given format; according to Thom Hogan that's 12-18 MP for FX, and according to Iliah Borg it can be done better than Canon is currently doing at 21 MP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't have time to read everything. If you want to make a point from someone else's argument, then quote the point they've made so we can all see it. If we don't understand it or think they are not right or think your interpretation is suspect, then we can refer to the article and correct you.
-
Exactly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
You seem to be offering explanations as to why something isn't possible. I'm offering explanations as to why, in the absense of the pudding to settle the issue, it might be possible.
I'll take the pudding in preference to any speculative explanations, and I don't want to prematurely spoil the anticipation of enjoying the pudding with unsubstantiated negative speculation.
If your point is that Canon could, if it wanted to, make a 12mp camera with slightly lower noise and slightly better image quality than the D700 and D3 and with an equally fast frame rate, then I would agree.
However, you should know by now, if you've been reading Emil Martinec's contributions to this site, that the quality of the image as a whole is not only dependent upon the quality of the pixels, but also the quantity of the pixels.
To elaborate, a D3 pixel might be better than a 1Ds3 pixel, but the greater quantity of 1Ds3 pixels on the same size sensor ensures that any image will never be worse than a D3 image but sometimes better because of higher resolution (outside of extreme pixel peeping).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I personally speculate that
1. At pixel level the 5DMKII will be slightly but noticeably inferior with regards to noise from the D3/D700
2. At same size comparisons any noise difference will be virtually indistinguishable. Any processing differences will mask any differences out and will be the main reasons for any observed advantages.
However, I think that observable High ISO noise control is not the only factor which affects IQ. Additionally, I am not totally convinced that increased resolution can succesfully mask many IQ differences. Collective experience with P&S sensors points to that direction.
Subjective comparisons between the D3 and the 1DSMKIII (and not only at High ISO) performed by many trusted experts also seem to point to that direction (although, of course, there is as always a multitude of opinions). These people seem not to agree with your assertion about the IQ differences between the D3 and 1DSMKIII expressing a strong preference for the former (for applications where output size is not the limiting factor with regards to the D3).
Dynamic range, colour tonality, colour separation, perceived local contrast are image attributes which seem to be also very important and are not always readily explained by the presence or absence of observable noise.
Iliah Borg, mentioned above, questions, for example, Canon's decision to use less aggresive RGB filtering in an effort to increase the S/N ratio in the 5DII. What observable effect (if any) this will have on colour response, colour contrast, local luminosity contrast and succesfull demosaicing remains to be seen. RAW conversion quality will play a big role in this also.
Dynamic range is a similar issue. While noise is the limiting factor on its floor, it is well saturation which puts the cap on the other end. Whether this is affected by the size of the pixels and any attempts to improve the S/N I cannot comment on.
What is certain is that, despite all advances in dSLR sensor technology, MFDBs still seem to retain their advantages at base ISO in terms of IQ (and I'm not talking about sharpness or resolution here), a somewhat intangible fact that is not readily explained either by simplistic explanations of noise characteristics or the pixel size.
As both you and Tony said, the proof is in the eating, so we will have to wait.
-
I read somewhere that Canon didn't want to have a huge MP war ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I read somewhere that the G10 jumps to 14.7MP from 12.1MP in the G9 of just one year ago , the 50D jumps to over 15MP from the 10MP of the 40D from only one year ago, and the 5DMkII jumps to 21.7MP from the 12.7MP of the 5D. And I read many people (including you!) declaring the superiority of the 5DMkII of the D700 without citing a single photographic comparison, based it seems mostly on the virtues of that high MP count.
So I suppose I agree: whatever good intentions are stated, Canon is running as hard as anyone in the MP race.
As far as I can see, the only time that Canon or any company talks about the virtues of being conservative with pixel counts is when some one else temporarily has a higher MP count in a competing model. And given the NR and DR benefits possible from downsampling when not so much resolution is needed, I am not nearly as worried by this as some people. I await 5DII vs D700 vs A900 high ISO speed comparisons based on images viewed at equal size.
The 5DMkII sensor is simply a smart, cost effective design approach, requiring relatively minor updates to the existing excellent 1DsMkIII sensor design rather than a complete new development project. The two chips can probably be made on the same production line, even if the later stages of adding CFA's and micro-lenses are different.
-
Iliah Borg, mentioned above, questions, for example, Canon's decision to use less aggresive RGB filtering in an effort to increase the S/N ratio in the 5DII. What observable effect (if any) this will have on colour response, colour contrast, local luminosity contrast and succesfull demosaicing remains to be seen. RAW conversion quality will play a big role in this also.
This is actually my biggest question about the camera. Right now anyway.
Actually took the glacier sample image and printed it. (After fixing the CA.) I'm pretty enthused about the quality right now. I'd like to see what the middlin sraw mode looks like at high iso.
-
By the way, as I understand it, MFDBs have two main advantages over Canon and Nikon's CMOS sensors. They are CCDs with a greater fill factor and have no AA filter. They are different technologies.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
So you don't know why MFDBs have more noise than DSLRs. What's more egregious is that you offer completely wrong answers after I have given you the right one.
I don't have time to read everything. If you want to make a point from someone else's argument, then quote the point they've made so we can all see it. If we don't understand it or think they are not right or think your interpretation is suspect, then we can refer to the article and correct you.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Right, you want to argue with something I cited without investigating it. The biggest difference between how you have approached this discussion and the way I have is that when I write something I back it up and when you write something it's mostly your unsubstantiated opinion. For example, your arguments about MFDBs compared to DSLRs is totally flawed and demonstrates that you do not know what
You have time to read marketing hype but not adult discussion, and that's the way you want it because you want to savor your pudding before eating it.
I'm hesitant to write that I'm done here now, because usually when I write that in a contentious thread someone rabbit punches me on my way out the door. Nonetheless, I hope you and I are done here since you want to dispute my arguments without investigating them. Frankly, I don't have time to give considered replies to someone who doesn't afford me the same in return -- so unless you go and read those linked posts and digest what is being written then I will bid you good day and I sincerely hope you enjoy your 5DII.
-
Dammit!
Joking aside, I will keep my DS3 because I do like it's pro weather sealing and build quality. It will last me for a very, very long time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
See thats precisely the point.
What i wanted in this 5dII upgrade, was a camera i could have for 10yrs with the knowledge i dont need to upgrade. What happened to build quality these days.
its the same for everything we buy in the consumer society. buy it for a couple of yrs and then chuck it.
I want something that will last. I want a camera system and series of lenses that will do the job the way some of the film cameras used to. Like my Hasslebald c1988.
-
I think this thread is starting to get a bit hot and heavy, with some of the statements getting a bit personal !
All of us need to take a deep breath and back away from all the heat that is starting to emerge in the discussions.
-
See thats precisely the point.
[...] What happened to build quality these days.
its the same for everything we buy in the consumer society. buy it for a couple of yrs and then chuck it.
I want something that will last. I want a camera system and series of lenses that will do the job the way some of the film cameras used to. Like my Hasslebald c1988.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Amen!
-
So you don't know why MFDBs have more noise than DSLRs. What's more egregious is that you offer completely wrong answers after I have given you the right one.
Right, you want to argue with something I cited without investigating it. The biggest difference between how you have approached this discussion and the way I have is that when I write something I back it up and when you write something it's mostly your unsubstantiated opinion. For example, your arguments about MFDBs compared to DSLRs is totally flawed and demonstrates that you do not know what
You have time to read marketing hype but not adult discussion, and that's the way you want it because you want to savor your pudding before eating it.
I'm hesitant to write that I'm done here now, because usually when I write that in a contentious thread someone rabbit punches me on my way out the door. Nonetheless, I hope you and I are done here since you want to dispute my arguments without investigating them. Frankly, I don't have time to give considered replies to someone who doesn't afford me the same in return -- so unless you go and read those linked posts and digest what is being written then I will bid you good day and I sincerely hope you enjoy your 5DII.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222679\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tony,
You are being childish. How old do you claim to be?
Sometimes I feel as though I'm having a sensible conversation with someone on a forum, then suddenly he comes out with statements that cause me to wonder if all along I've been talking to a know-it-all teenager.
It's for this reason I tend to stay away from dpreview forums.
-
I am happy that the new 5D mkII might be a nice upgrade to my current 5D. I always thought wouldn't it be nice to buy a body that would last for some time and upgrade the sensor/memory/processor every few years like a PC. (i.e. put a better roll of film in it)
Marc
-
Tony,
You are being childish. How old do you claim to be?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I see, when you have no facts to support your arguments then you resort to ad hominem attacks. Do me a favor, put me on your "Ignore User" list, because that's what I'm doing with you -- I have no time to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
-
Tony Beach said to Ray,
"Right, you want to argue with something I cited without investigating it. The biggest difference between how you have approached this discussion and the way I have is that when I write something I back it up and when you write something it's mostly your unsubstantiated opinion."
No disrespect, but isn't this exactly what you are doing Tony, offering unsubtantiated opinion? On page 8, post 155, you said, " it seems that Canon has abandoned the niche that the 5D occupied and ceded that ground to Nikon (D700)." What ground has the 5DMkII 'ceded' to the D700? The 5DMkII has left the D700 in the dust on virually every respect, except mayby fps and sealing. The D700 can't even cover the ground the 3-year old 5DMkI on image quality, so how in the world is it going to compare to the upgrade 5DMkII?
Tony, I also noticed you were quick to quote this mysterious Canon engineer, to undermine some of what Canon's doing, and yet in the same breath you said, "Please, that's a Canon engineer speaking, do we really expect him to say the 5D is not as good as the D700?" So basically, Tony, you're going to pick and choose what you believe then, is that it? The negative comments are "true" but the positive comments are "false," is that it?
You then went on to say, "I strongly suspect that pixels have been underutilized by Canon's execution of the 5DII and that they could accomplish equal detail with fewer megapixels."
"Strongly suspect?" What does that mean? Where are the actual facts you told Ray that you always stuck to? All of your rhetoric, Tony, basically boils down to exactly a bunch of "unsubstantiated opinion" on your part, nothing more. That is all you are really doing here: poo-pooing something without any facts at all. The comical part is your motive is transparent as hell, so let me spell it out for you. Since you used the word "fanboyism" on me, let me return the favor: all the schooling, education, and professionalism aside ... that really what you are youself---a Nikon fan---and all this rhetoric from you is nothing but you refusing to believe that Canon might have hit a home run in this camera. From what I can see, that's pretty much all there is to your posts here, is you refusing to believe that this 5DMkII isn't a home run by Canon.
You (and another prominent Nikonian) are offering nothing but a bunch of "unsubstantiated, negative speculation" to make yourselves feel better about what appears to be one helluva new camera offering by Canon. In fact, your cohort Nikonian said, "I personally speculate that 1. At pixel level the 5DMKII will be slightly but noticeably inferior with regards to noise from the D3/D700."
This is utterly ridiculous and nothing but "anti-fanboyism" from two diehard Nikonians
And that's all that this is ...
I think your previous enthusiasm for what this might mean for Nikon, where their next move might be to come out with something really positive themselves, is a lot more mature and realistic way to address this new camera offering than the previous "negative, boo-hoo, it-can't-be-better-than-Nikon" babbling.
The truth is, even the remedial cameras are all so good now (compared to the very best of just a few years ago) that the now-best cameras have nowhere to go but down in price. To me that's the most exciting and positive "speculation" that should be going on here about the whole camera market and industry now.
Jack
.
-
On page 8, post 155, you said, " it seems that Canon has abandoned the niche that the 5D occupied and ceded that ground to Nikon (D700)." What ground has the 5DMkII 'ceded' to the D700? The 5DMkII has left the D700 in the dust on virually every respect, except mayby fps and sealing. The D700 can't even cover the ground the 3-year old 5DMkI on image quality, so how in the world is it going to compare to the upgrade 5DMkII?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222788\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You really are a "fanboy". I already cited Thom Hogan's review of the D3 and quoted what he wrote about how it performed in a poorly lit gym where he tests all the cameras he has handled (and that's pretty much all of them). The 5D did not do as well as the D3 or the D700 there. The niche being abandoned by Canon is a camera that provides optimal image quality under poor light, and with enough resolution for the vast majority of user's needs with files that are not going to bring your computer to a crawl. The 5DII and A900 occupy a niche I'm more interested in, putative medium format resolution; there's nothing wrong with that, but to claim as you and Ray seem to be that this makes those old, 12 MP DSLRs obsolete is to parrot marketing BS. I considered doing this before, and yours and Ray's posts here have convinced me to start using this "Ignore User" feature more than I have been; you guys really do belong at DPR's Canon Forum, because that's where "we're Numero Uno again" and "our camera leaves yours in the dust" type of remarks resonate.
-
Well, thanks John for your support and for picking up on a few points which were obvious to me also.
In the absence of more factual information and detailed comparisons, I decided there was no point served in responding to Tony. However, I think it's another example of childishness when people use the ignore button.
In my view even the ignorant and uninformed sometimes have something useful to say, and no-one is right all the time or wrong all the time.
-
You really are a "fanboy".
As are you Tony
The difference is, you lack the self-awareness to realize everything you've posted here has been nothing but fanboyism. Go re-read everything you've posted. In fact, if you cut-n-paste them and send them to Thom, I'll bet you get your very own set of Nikon pom-poms delivered to you before Christmas
I already cited Thom Hogan's review of the D3 and quoted what he wrote about how it performed in a poorly lit gym where he tests all the cameras he has handled (and that's pretty much all of them). The 5D did not do as well as the D3 or the D700 there.
See what I mean?
Tony, that's the old 5D. What does this have to do with the new one? And besides, Thom is a Nikon guy. Didn't you just question the bias of the Canon engineer yourself, and yet you think the Nikonian preaches the gospel? LOL
You're funny Tony
The niche being abandoned by Canon is a camera that provides optimal image quality under poor light, and with enough resolution for the vast majority of user's needs with files that are not going to bring your computer to a crawl.
Actually, the new Canon 5D is supposed to be superb in low light.
The 5DII and A900 occupy a niche I'm more interested in, putative medium format resolution; there's nothing wrong with that, but to claim as you and Ray seem to be that this makes those old, 12 MP DSLRs obsolete is to parrot marketing BS.
Well, Polly, would you like a cracker? Because all you have done here is parrot Thom and an unknown Canon engineer yourself.
I actually never said the D700 would be obsolete; I said its price would plummet (and it will). So too will all of the higher-end cameras plummet IMO.
I do believe the 5DMkII is going to prove be a ground-breaker and pivotal point in DSLR history. All these prices are going to start coming way down now.
I considered doing this before, and yours and Ray's posts here have convinced me to start using this "Ignore User" feature more than I have been; you guys really do belong at DPR's Canon Forum, because that's where "we're Numero Uno again" and "our camera leaves yours in the dust" type of remarks resonate.
Speaking of DPForum, you're the one who seems to go there, and in fact quote people over there, LOL
Tony, our opinions only bother you so because we're pro Canon. If this identical camera were being offered by Nikon ... and if Ray and I were giving the identical praise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. And you would be singing a different tune.
Self-awareness Tony, try it sometime.
Jack
PS: To be completely candid, I am hoping Nikon does come out with something even more wonderful, for even less money. Unlike you, I think the 5DMkII is the best thing that ever happened to cameras, in terms of what it offers to what it costs, and that this will prove to be a wonderful thing for everybody ... with each company henceforth trying to "offer more, for less money."
.
-
Canon already stated that the 5D will be superior to the 1DS series in image quality and noise vs high ISO.
I rarely shoot anything other than ISO 100, but for sure, many shooter will crave a clean, high ISO image.
-
Despite some amazing bickering, I have found this an interesting thread, mainly in how we perceive what's desirable. Well, today, I saw a new future. I got to play with a Sony A900 and several lenses and my overwhelming impression was "how can a camera this good cost so little?". This is the camera which will go head to head with the 5DII in real terms (as opposed to brand loyalty terms) and if the 5DII is better that will be quite something.
I used my own card for some shots (actually about 1Gb in a few minutes, that's frightening). The detail is a given, but I think probably more than people think because the AA filter is clearly not strong - some visible jaggies at 100%. What is more impressive is the phenomenal dynamic range. Very hard to believe without seeing. Don't ask me about noise as I am not one of those people who shoot at high sensitivity very often so I didn't check, except to say when I recovered a deliberately underexposed shot by 2.7 stops, some light chroma noise showed up. Actually remarkably good for the test.
The anti shake works extremely well. The shutter sound, "feel" and viewfinder are quality. Build is much better than most people would think.
I tried the Zeiss 24-70 and 85/1.4, as well as the "G" 70-200, a 35/1.4 and even two DT lenses (which work in an odd but completely useable way). All easily match Canon equivalents.
Hmmm ..... the next year will be very, very interesting indeed!
Don.
-
And I read many people (including you!) declaring the superiority of the 5DMkII of the D700 without citing a single photographic comparison, based it seems mostly on the virtues of that high MP count.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222663\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Not at all. I based it on what Canon announced--that the 5DMKII will have the the best image quality, including noise, of any Canon camera to date, including the 1DS3.
-
See thats precisely the point.
What i wanted in this 5dII upgrade, was a camera i could have for 10yrs with the knowledge i dont need to upgrade. What happened to build quality these days.
its the same for everything we buy in the consumer society. buy it for a couple of yrs and then chuck it.
I want something that will last. I want a camera system and series of lenses that will do the job the way some of the film cameras used to. Like my Hasslebald c1988.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just would have felt better about longevity buying the new 1DS4. And I'd probably have spent less money!
-
Despite some amazing bickering, I have found this an interesting thread, mainly in how we perceive what's desirable. Well, today, I saw a new future. I got to play with a Sony A900 and several lenses and my overwhelming impression was "how can a camera this good cost so little?". This is the camera which will go head to head with the 5DII in real terms (as opposed to brand loyalty terms) and if the 5DII is better that will be quite something.
I used my own card for some shots (actually about 1Gb in a few minutes, that's frightening). The detail is a given, but I think probably more than people think because the AA filter is clearly not strong - some visible jaggies at 100%. What is more impressive is the phenomenal dynamic range. Very hard to believe without seeing. Don't ask me about noise as I am not one of those people who shoot at high sensitivity very often so I didn't check, except to say when I recovered a deliberately underexposed shot by 2.7 stops, some light chroma noise showed up. Actually remarkably good for the test.
The anti shake works extremely well. The shutter sound, "feel" and viewfinder are quality. Build is much better than most people would think.
I tried the Zeiss 24-70 and 85/1.4, as well as the "G" 70-200, a 35/1.4 and even two DT lenses (which work in an odd but completely useable way). All easily match Canon equivalents.
Hmmm ..... the next year will be very, very interesting indeed!
Don.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222815\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's really interesting. I can't wait for side by side tests of the A900, 1DS3, and 5DMKII plus the D3, except the D3 is a little outclassed here except for it incredible high ISO low noise capability and it's pro and solid build quality. Sony is no new comer to optics either. Now they have all of the Minolta technology too. I wonder if Sony wants to try for the pro camera market, not just the prosumer market?
-
Some of the first allegedly pro samples available. Wedding stuff, full size jpegs out of the camera. I will reserve judgment and comparison until I have seen more.
http://www.prophotonut.com/2008/09/20/cano...tures/#more-724 (http://www.prophotonut.com/2008/09/20/canon-5d-mk2-high-iso-pictures/#more-724)
Edit: Be aware this is said to be 'beta version of the camera'.
-
I just would have felt better about longevity buying the new 1DS4. And I'd probably have spent less money!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222825\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Why? The MKIII you have now is making images and (I hope) making you money. Its a quality camera that will in all honestly still be capable of making great images 10 years from now. It has the image quality, build quality and resolution to do just that. Besides it s AVAILABLE and working RIGHT NOW!
The grass is not always greener....
-
The quality of the sound from the 5D2 will depend on the quality of the microphone attached to it.
I disagree. The microphone is only one element in the audio path. Equally important to the mic is the mic pre-amp, which can cost hundreds of dollars per channel. The next most important element in the audio chain is the A/D converter, which, again, can cost a bundle. An example of an excellent mic-pre and A/D converter it the Manley SLAM! Digital two-channel mic-pre (http://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/SLAMDigital/).
-
Sample 5DmkII images up at dpreview. They look very good through ISO 3200. I'd be happy to use anything up to 12800 (not necessarily for landscape work) but 25600 looks like a gimmick.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092001...rkiigallery.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092001canoneos5dmarkiigallery.asp)
-
I think DPR has shot the high-ISO images with very good ambient light levels, thus proving very little about the real capabilities of the camera, under very little light levels.
Hopefully the users will now start posting some real high-ISO results from production cameras, where the ambient light levels are not this high and truly measures the high-ISO capabilities.
The lower ISO images look really good, however.
-
its the same for everything we buy in the consumer society. buy it for a couple of yrs and then chuck it.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222715\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
But I don't think we have to chuck it. What happens is that something new comes along, the old item is often working just as well, but the new item has more appeal. I have kept my old iPod because I would feel bad about 'upgrading'. I think in the digital camera world the big revolution is now over. Today's cameras will produce superb pictures in 5 years time, and will not be so obsolete as 5 year old cameras today.
-
If you greatly lighten the shadows in the series of shots of the Oly camera with Zuiko lens (in the dpreview samples), you should notice there is a progressive smearing of detail and an increase in chroma noise as one moves from ISO 1600 to ISO 25,600.
ISO 3200 seems perfectly usable though, possibly to the same degree I would describe ISO 1600 as being perfectly usable on the 5D.
I would predict that any image taken with a 5D2 at ISO 3200 will prove to be at least as sharp, detailed and noise-free as an image of the same scene taken with the 5D at ISO 1600, when same physical size images are compared.
In other words, roughly one stop high-ISO-noise improvement over the 5D and roughly 1/2 a stop over the D3, based on factors such as resolution and detail in all parts of the image, and based upon appropriate out-of-camera noise reduction with programs like Noise Ninja which can specifically target chroma noise.
My own tests have indicated that, compared to the D3, 5D images at high ISO have a high degree of chroma noise but better detail. When one balances detail with noise, putting both images through a program like Noise Ninja and making appropriate adjustments so that detail in both images is equal, then the noise advantage of the D3 appears to me to be even less than 1/2 a stop.
If one disregards the importance of detail and resolution, then anything is possible with noise reduction.
-
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29322638 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29322638)
Let me quote the pertinent parts:
"I'd be perfectly happy to print "large" portraits from a 6mp camera (Fujifilm S5 Pro), but might not be fully satisfied with less than 50mp for landscapes."
> Also I can Not afford $5000 for a D3x or D4, but maybe something between $2500 - $3500...
"Then I have to ask: do you really think that you're going to print and sell something really large with something less capable than those that do that for a living use? Are you going to enter the Indianapolis 500 with a Mazda Miata? This is not to say you can't create a 24" print with a D300 (can't say about the D90 yet, see above). But I really have to say that if your aspirations are large, then, unfortunately, your budget is likely to need to reflect that. Let me phrase that a different way (and I hope Nikon is reading this, because I'm about to be very blunt): if I had to make my living solely off my images right now--and remember this is the context of a landscape photorapher--I almost certainly wouldn't be using Nikon at this moment in time. However, I doubt that I'd be using a Canon or Sony, either. While I've been able to create some mammoth and impressive large images via stitching (156 images is my current record), you simply can't rely upon stitching for every situation."
At the end of the lengthy post he writes:
"Actually, I've long felt that 16-18mp FX is about the right answer (balance) for a DSLR-type camera. That's bigger than a desktop inkjet can print, with reasonable DR and noise. When you start going higher (21mp or now 24mp) it's a little bit like shooting at a higher ISO all the time (e.g., a 24mp DSLR is going to have noise and DR at ISO 100 is going to have noise and DR more akin to a 16mp DSLR shooting at ISO 200. At base ISOs this isn't always a big deal. But consider this: with f/2.8 glass (400mm VR) I was generally shooting at ISO 800 in Denali, especially towards the edges of the day."
- Thom Hogan
I would add that if the AA filter is stripped out of a well executed 18 MP FX DSLR, with proper technique the results will be superior to what the Canon 5DII is likely capable of accomplishing: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29378457 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29378457) There has been much discussion lately about noise and resolution and how Canon has accomplished some sort of breakthrough by putting weaker BFA filter on the 5DII, but this comes at a cost: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29379192 (http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29379192) What this suggests to me is that even if you took the AA filter out of the 5DII, its resolution is still compromised.
Not meaning to go OT, but rampant profligacy (or unfettered consumerism) is what is leading the United States into a downward spiral of deficits: government spending and future obligations running into the tens of trillions of dollars, personal debt exceeding savings, and a massive and growing trade deficit. All those SUVs you allude to that were bought mostly as status symbols (sound familiar to what we are discussing here about megapixels?) have saddled this country with a fleet of gas-hogs that will be polluting the environment and consuming precious oil for years to come. All this leads the United States to maintain a military larger than perhaps the next ten largest nations in the world, which makes us an empire not unlike Rome and that empire lasted centuries while we may see ours end in mere decades.
Coming back to the topic at hand, buying more megapixels just to be able to say you have more megapixels is going to end up costing you more than just the price of the camera. You will need more RAM, probably a faster CPU, and more storage (bigger memory cards, hard drives, and more archival media). To justify having those megapixels you will be making massive prints which will also cost dearly; otherwise you will just be throwing all those megapixels away.
You know, it won't be terribly long before revolutionary rather than evolutionary technological developments leave BFA DSLRs in the dust. Then we will start this upgrade cycle all over again, and the economy will continue to churn out newer, better cameras and provide jobs to workers in poorer nations and profits to corporations in richer nations. I like megapixels and I look forward to the future too, just like you do; but at some point I have to wonder when enough is enough.
Please, that's a Canon engineer speaking, do we really expect him to say the 5D is not as good as the D700? What is missed (perhaps deliberately) in that statement is that in daylight the two cameras are probably indistinguishable, but the D3 and D700 have been optimized for unnatural lighting, and at that they excel like no other camera currently available: http://www.bythom.com/nikond3review.htm (http://www.bythom.com/nikond3review.htm)
Quoting the part of that article pertinent to this discussion:
the D3 simply blows away any DSLR Nikon has previously produced.
The big surprise for me was my dimly lit basketball gym. To date, I've not found any DSLR that I'm 100% comfortable shooting at ISO 3200 in that gym (and you have to in order to get even a modestly usable shutter speed at f/2.8). Well, not any more. The D3 does just fine in that gym"
You are more confident than the Canon engineer. Note that "improved transmissiveness" has already been addressed above in this reply -- there is no free lunch, and the price will be reduced color resolution.
Then under those circumstances you could just shoot with a 5D and save money.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The comments from the DPR forums from Eliah Borg and others that decreasing transmissivity of the RGB filters necessarily decreases selectivity of the filters is only true if the efficiency of the filtering materials has not improved. Of these forum discussions degenerate illogically because of potentially invalid assumptions that we seem to be all too eager to make. Some of the invalid assumptions seem to result from:
(1) Comparing the technology in a camera or sensor that is about to be replaced with a recently-introduced competitive camera or sensor; and/or
(2) Failing to give the manufacturers credit for advances in materials science, when in fact they invest huge resources in these areas.
In one of the DPR discussions in which Eliah was involved either he or another participant make the silly assertion that the 5D II is using the same sensor as the 1Ds III. To make such an assertion is to disregard the Canon announcements in which Canon provides detailed technology differences between the sensors used in those two cameras.
Let us at least take the time to read what the manufacturers have to say about their new technologies and give them tentative benefit of the doubt until the camers roll out and can be tested.
-
The comments from the DPR forums from Eliah Borg and others that decreasing transmissivity of the RGB filters necessarily decreases selectivity of the filters is only true if the efficiency of the filtering materials has not improved. Of these forum discussions degenerate illogically because of potentially invalid assumptions that we seem to be all too eager to make. Some of the invalid assumptions seem to result from:
(1) Comparing the technology in a camera or sensor that is about to be replaced with a recently-introduced competitive camera or sensor; and/or
(2) Failing to give the manufacturers credit for advances in materials science, when in fact they invest huge resources in these areas.
In one of the DPR discussions in which Eliah was involved either he or another participant make the silly assertion that the 5D II is using the same sensor as the 1Ds III. To make such an assertion is to disregard the Canon announcements in which Canon provides detailed technology differences between the sensors used in those two cameras.
Let us at least take the time to read what the manufacturers have to say about their new technologies and give them tentative benefit of the doubt until the camers roll out and can be tested.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222980\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I fully endorse Bruce Houston's comment.
-
The comments from the DPR forums from Eliah Borg and others that decreasing transmissivity of the RGB filters necessarily decreases selectivity of the filters is only true if the efficiency of the filtering materials has not improved.
Assuming you meant to say 'increasing transmissivity' (does such a word exist?) rather than decreasing, would you care to elaborate on how what you're saying can be done?
What exactly do you mean by 'efficiency' if you're not referring to selectivity? Are materials currently used for implementing RGB filters of low enough quality that significant improvements can be made to their transmission characteristics even if they were, for argument's sake, 'optically clear' i.e. not filtering'? Do you know that or are you just speculating?
The problem with reading what manufacturers have to say about their technology is that most of the material widely available is marketing material making it difficult for the non-expert to distinguish between scientific fact and marketing bull.
-
I just had a look at the 5DIIs full sized jpgs, and since they're jpgs, I'll also wait to for RAWs. However, the full sized jpgs I saw at ISO6400--of the wedding gilr from Canon--were lower noise than my 1DS3 at 1600.
The catch is that the images were exposed perfectly. There are no shadow shot examples. They still looked incredible at 6400. Very nice. That's two stops better ISO noise then the 1DS3, which is about the same as the 5D1.
-
My opinion?
Too much arguing, not enough shooting.
-
Assuming you meant to say 'increasing transmissivity' (does such a word exist?) rather than decreasing, would you care to elaborate on how what you're saying can be done?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That's a tall order, NikosR. I might ask you a similar question as to why it cannot be done.
Clearly, there is always an element of marketing hype in manufacturers descriptions of processes, and I think we can be fairly certain that the precise description of what is really taking place could only be expressed in scientific jargon unintelligible to the average layman.
Suffice it to say that Canon is claiming there is some improvement over the 1Ds3. Just how much will be apparent when the pudding is eaten.
-
Assuming you meant to say 'increasing transmissivity' (does such a word exist?) rather than decreasing, would you care to elaborate on how what you're saying can be done?
What exactly do you mean by 'efficiency' if you're not referring to selectivity? Are materials currently used for implementing RGB filters of low enough quality that significant improvements can be made to their transmission characteristics even if they were, for argument's sake, 'optically clear' i.e. not filtering'? Do you know that or are you just speculating?
The RGB color filters in the sensor are optical bandpass filters. By designing the filter material with steeper curves at the high and low cutoff points, it is possible to increase the transmissivity of the filter without necessarily sacrificing color accuracy. This reduces the amount of light within the filter's passband that is absorbed by the filter and wasted.
-
Just a thought from your friendly neighborhood layman:
Ten years ago none of his was possible (yet now it is); two years ago what the D3 can do was not possible (yet now it is).
Why is it "hard to believe" that Canon has now increased its technology to the point that the 5DMkII can now do what none of these other older model cameras cannot do?
I realize I do not have the technical training that some of you "educated fools" have, but what I have is the basic horse sense to realise that even the most casual look at the big picture will show an astonishing progression in level of performance and capability these companies keep leapfrogging each other with, in each successive model year.
So why do some people act like time has suddenly stopped, and that Canon's latest technology "couldn't possibly be better" than yesterday's technology?
Jack
.
-
The comments from the DPR forums from Eliah Borg and others that decreasing transmissivity of the RGB filters necessarily decreases selectivity of the filters is only true if the efficiency of the filtering materials has not improved. Of these forum discussions degenerate illogically because of potentially invalid assumptions that we seem to be all too eager to make. Some of the invalid assumptions seem to result from:
(1) Comparing the technology in a camera or sensor that is about to be replaced with a recently-introduced competitive camera or sensor; and/or
(2) Failing to give the manufacturers credit for advances in materials science, when in fact they invest huge resources in these areas.
In one of the DPR discussions in which Eliah was involved either he or another participant make the silly assertion that the 5D II is using the same sensor as the 1Ds III. To make such an assertion is to disregard the Canon announcements in which Canon provides detailed technology differences between the sensors used in those two cameras.
Let us at least take the time to read what the manufacturers have to say about their new technologies and give them tentative benefit of the doubt until the camers roll out and can be tested.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=222980\")
From previously cited post here: [a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29378457]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29378457[/url]
> How do you see that sample, what are in your opinion the possible reasons behind that hazy green?
Poor in-camera JPEG processing, sub-optimal processing in external converters. Not that I expect the different approach to demosaicing will extract resolution one can expect from 21 megapixels, but it can improve the situation dramatically. And of course shooting discipline should take into account that it is a high resolution camera.
> What is your prognosis on the changed Bayer filtering on 5DII based on what you know (seen/heard)?
From the perspective of developing raw converters it poses an interesting and welcome challenge.
IMHO 1DsMKIII is already suffering from weak filtration too much.
Now just to be clear, if I were a Canon user I would be at the head of the line for the 5DII. On the other hand, I would have realistic expectations and not base those on marketing literature. The 5DII and A900 are close to what I want in a DSLR, but I would like a camera with optimized resolution and a fewer pixels because just cramming more pixels into the file to make up for weaker filtration and downsizing to get noise levels in prints equivalent to smaller files causes diffraction issues that will impact my images in very tangible ways, and most likely all I would have to show for those extra megapixels is larger files.
To read some of the posts in this thread (and I have stopped reading several people's posts as a result of this thread) one might believe that the 5DII will deliver MFDB resolution and D3/D700 low light performance -- most likely it will do neither, it's most likely a very good camera with High Definition video capability which I personally would prefer not to have (costs more and adds menu items I will never use).
-
.... one might believe that the 5DII will deliver MFDB resolution and D3/D700 low light performance -- most likely it will do neither ...
Tony, please read my post above ...
Honestly, given the kind of progression that has clearly been shown in the past, from both Canon and Nikon, could you kindly state where in the world you come up with the pure speculation that this new Canon won't be able to deliver the low light performance of the D3/D700?
When Nikon projected its own new low light capability, not even 2 years ago, were you also there on the front lines, poo-pooing this as "marketing hype" from Nikon too, or were you excited to see the new level that Nikon had achieved? We both know where you were on this, as long as the "hype" was coming from Nikon (don't we?)
So aside from the technical jargon, why are you doing little more here than "hoping Canon hasn't advanced beyond Nikon" now? Like I said, even the most casual look at the big picture will show nothing but an astonishing level of progression from these two companies. So I am unclear why you think time has stopped for Canon to where their own progression in low light capability is no longer possible? All you are doing is being negative. There is no basis for your opinions whatsoever.
All your "parroted quote" did was underscore precisely what Canon claims to have done: provide better filtration in this next generation of camera. Why do you believe this is not possible? Quoting the limitations of yesterday's technology is meaningless. Do you have any legitimate knowledge of Canon's brand new technology that causes you to doubt it---or do you in fact know nothing about this new technology?
I do believe, after all is said and done, that you in fact know nothing about Canon's latest sensor or what light or color filtration system they are using. All you really keep doing, essentially, is re-asserting your "hope" that Nikon's D700 low light capabilities have not been eclipsed by the newer Canon model.
This whole train of thought is just a negative spiral downwards, based on nothing but "anti-fanboyism." I would think the prospect of the new 5DMkII should create a positive spiral upwards as to the next move Nikon is going to make. Regardless, I do believe that the forthcoming generations of camera are going to be dramatically-cheaper (and dramatically better) than anything that has been offered to date.
In fact, I think it would be good for everybody to go back and re-read Deep's post on page 10 (post# 193) about the A900: "My overwhelming impression was 'how can a camera this good cost so little?'. For that is truly what is going to be happening, more and more, with all of these cameras. Even Canon's new $1400 50D will be able to take better photographs than the aged 1DMkII, at a fraction of what that older 1D used to cost.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why you, and those like you, keep arguing the negative "impossibilities" ... when all that is around you suggests precisely the opposite ... that many unprecedented advantages and capabilities are here (or are right around the corner) now at only a fraction of the cost.
Jack
.
-
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/...o-our-industry/ (http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/something-very-interesting-is-comingboth-to-this-blog-and-to-our-industry/)
-
Tony, please read my post above ...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223052\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You probably don't realize you are on my "Ignore User" list; and it would be great if I were on yours too. Nonetheless, since I posted a reply to someone else here I took a "peek" at your reply since it was obvious you were going to object. Frankly, I embrace being accused of engaging in "anti-Fanboyism". No, I'm not going to read your post above, I don't think you have the expertise or even common sense to justify my wasting my time with your posts; although I will reply quickly to a couple of points raised in your reply to my last post.
Honestly, given the kind of progression that has clearly been shown in the past, from both Canon and Nikon, could you kindly state where in the world you come up with the pure speculation that this new Canon won't be able to deliver the low light performance of the D3/D700?
Read more carefully, I wrote that it is not likely. Besides that, whatever the advantages new technology offers to smaller photosites, it also offers to larger photosites -- so there is the "all other things being equal..." principle in play here.
When Nikon projected its own new low light capability, not even 2 years ago, were you also there on the front lines, poo-pooing this as "marketing hype" from Nikon too, or were you excited to see the new level that Nikon had achieved? We both know where you were on this, as long as the "hype" was coming from Nikon (don't we?)
You don't know me, so kindly refrain from trying to claim you know what my opinions about the D3 were when it was announced. Despite a huge wave of overwhelmingly positive hands-on reviews, I waited to see back then just as I am waiting to see now; the main thing I was excited about back then was that Nikon had released a larger format than DX. My own evaluations of D3 files demonstrated to me that the D3 produces amazingly robust pixels, and the D300 gives me everything I want in a camera right now (except that I want more megapixels, but not at the expense of diffraction limitations that would make them meaningless for me).
So aside from the technical jargon, why are you doing little more here than "hoping Canon hasn't advanced beyond Nikon" now?
Stop being so careless, even reckless, in how you characterize what I have written. My very first post in this thread was critical of anyone caring who has the "best" camera.
All your "parroted quote" did was underscore precisely what Canon claims to have done: provide better filtration in this next generation of camera.
It is not necessarily "better" color filtration; it is different color filtration (from the 1DsMkIII) with a different objective. By your standards MFDBs have terrible RGB color filtration.
Do you have any legitimate knowledge of Canon's brand new technology that causes you to doubt it---or do you in fact know nothing about this new technology?
Do you? You are basing your enthusiasm on faith, faith in Canon -- that's pretty much the definition of "fanboyism". I reserve judgment on the 5DII at this time, so far I have not heard of anyone producing files from it that reflect the kind of resolution one expects from the 1DsMkIII; indeed, the early reviews have not been effusive on this point (unlike the responses of many to those early ISO 3200 shots from the D3).
All you really keep doing, essentially, is re-asserting your "hope" that Nikon's D700 low light capabilities have not been eclipsed by the newer Canon model.
I don't have any such childish hopes, and I defy anyone to show me where I wrote that I even care. I don't know if Canon made the most out of the 21 million effective photosites they will be using in the 5DII's sensor, I am convinced that Canon could have made a 12-16 MP DSLR with even better DR and high ISO noise characteristics, and I know that the files are going to be nearly twice as large as the files I currently get (and don't tell me I will be able to print twice as large, at best it would be linearly 30% larger). Personally, I would consider all of that tolerable for the greater resolution the 5DII offers, but there will be times when it makes more sense to use a D700 or a D300 because they have more fps, smaller files, and they are perfectly adequate for the vast majority of user's needs and wants. Lower megapixel DSLRs are not going to become obsolete in the near future; actually, all of these BFA DSLRs are going to become obsolete at the same time with new 3 color photosite technology arrives in the not-too-distant future, but it would be foolish to hold out for that and pass up whichever currently available DSLR meets your needs.
This is going to be my last reply to you. I see no value in going around in circles in this thread or responding to the spurious remarks that you make directed towards me or anyone else -- and frankly, your earlier remarks about Thom Hogan in this thread were plainly stupid.
-
You probably don't realize you are on my "Ignore User" list; and it would be great if I were on yours too. [snippety snip]
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223068\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh dear.
-
Tony said,
"You probably don't realize you are on my "Ignore User" list; and it would be great if I were on yours too.
I could tell I was on this list by this big long response of yours to me, LOL. You probably don't realize how laughable it is to most that you just said this, and then offered a nearly 700-word response to me
Tony said,
"Nonetheless, since I posted a reply to someone else here I took a "peek" at your reply since it was obvious you were going to object.
Again, I find it laughable that a full-grown man puts another on an "Ignore" list, and then "peeks" to see what he says
Were you one of those sissies who peaked out of the drapes too, while the bigger boys were out playing
Tony said,
"Frankly, I embrace being accused of engaging in "anti-Fanboyism". No, I'm not going to read your post above, I don't think you have the expertise or even common sense to justify my wasting my time with your posts; although I will reply quickly to a couple of points raised in your reply to my last post.
Tony, I think you misunderstand what I meant by "anti-fanboy": you are an anti-fan of Canon, and you are indeed acting like a little boy (ignoring, "peeking," etc., LOL). You simply lack the self-awareness to realize this.
Same as you lack the awareness to realize the contradiction in saying you're not going to "waste your time" responding to me, and then proceed to write a nearly 700-word response to me.
I agree I do not have the photographic expertise you do, but we disagree as to which of us truly lacks some basic common sense. Again, the phrase "educated fool" comes to mind ...
As regards to this being "your last post," I will take any bets that this will prove to be a lie here also
Tony said,
"Read more carefully, I wrote that it is not likely. Besides that, whatever the advantages new technology offers to smaller photosites, it also offers to larger photosites -- so there is the "all other things being equal..." principle in play here.
Read more carefully yourself: I called what you wrote pure speculation, and that is all that it is.
Tony said,
"You don't know me, so kindly refrain from trying to claim you know what my opinions about the D3 were when it was announced. Despite a huge wave of overwhelmingly positive hands-on reviews, I waited to see back then just as I am waiting to see now; the main thing I was excited about back then was that Nikon had released a larger format than DX. My own evaluations of D3 files demonstrated to me that the D3 produces amazingly robust pixels, and the D300 gives me everything I want in a camera right now (except that I want more megapixels, but not at the expense of diffraction limitations that would make them meaningless for me).
LOL, more Nikon props from the fanboy.
Did you read the post regarding yet another stunning test about the 5DMkII? Are these lies also, or more "paid marketing hype?"
Tony said,
"Stop being so careless, even reckless, in how you characterize what I have written. My very first post in this thread was critical of anyone caring who has the "best" camera.
It is not necessarily "better" color filtration; it is different color filtration (from the 1DsMkIII) with a different objective. By your standards MFDBs have terrible RGB color filtration.
I am being no more reckless than you are. In fact, I would say both the trend, and the initial supporting reviews, show that my optimism is more well-founded than your negativism. And speaking of reckless, now you are throwing in opinions on MFDB cameras that I have never stated. Are you a pettifogger too?
Tony said,
"Do you? You are basing your enthusiasm on faith, faith in Canon -- that's pretty much the definition of "fanboyism". I reserve judgment on the 5DII at this time, so far I have not heard of anyone producing files from it that reflect the kind of resolution one expects from the 1DsMkIII; indeed, the early reviews have not been effusive on this point (unlike the responses of many to those early ISO 3200 shots from the D3).
You're lying to yourself Tony. You haven't "reserved" any judgments. You have plainly stated that you "don't think" this new camera will be able to offer the lowlight capability of the D3/D700. That is not "reserving judgment" that is making premature judgment to the contrary of what this new camera purports to be able to do. It is also contrary to what the fledgling reports are in fact confirming about the 5DMkII.
Tony said,
"I don't have any such childish hopes, and I defy anyone to show me where I wrote that I even care.
The man who "ignores" and "peeks" is going to speak to me about childishness?
And then you "defy" me to show you where you wrote of these things? Hell, just above on Post# 212, you wrote, "one might believe that the 5DII will deliver MFDB resolution and D3/D700 low light performance -- most likely it will do neither," That is "caring" Tony, and it's also passing premature judgment.
For whatever reason, you clearly "care very much" that the 5DMkII just might deliver both the best in image quality and the most capability to photograph in low light. Rather than being excited with seemingly wonderful new technology, you are very obviously feeling threatened by the possibility of it. And this is clearly coming from your "Nikon Fanboy" perspective, to anyone with eyes to see.
Tony said,
"I don't know if Canon made the most out of the 21 million effective photosites they will be using in the 5DII's sensor, I am convinced that Canon could have made a 12-16 MP DSLR with even better DR and high ISO noise characteristics, and I know that the files are going to be nearly twice as large as the files I currently get (and don't tell me I will be able to print twice as large, at best it would be linearly 30% larger). Personally, I would consider all of that tolerable for the greater resolution the 5DII offers, but there will be times when it makes more sense to use a D700 or a D300 because they have more fps, smaller files, and they are perfectly adequate for the vast majority of user's needs and wants.
Once again, your true worry is revealed. No one is suggesting that the D700 and D300 aren't still the good cameras that they are. The suggestion is being made that their prices will soon DROP when this new 5DMkII comes out, not that they still aren't capable of taking excellent photographs or that they don't have their uses. The main thing here, again, should be excitement for the dramatic potential of future cameras, not to worry about yesterday's (or the semi-recent) cemeras ...
Tony said,
"Lower megapixel DSLRs are not going to become obsolete in the near future; actually, all of these BFA DSLRs are going to become obsolete at the same time with new 3 color photosite technology arrives in the not-too-distant future, but it would be foolish to hold out for that and pass up whichever currently available DSLR meets your needs.
Not sure what this has to do with the discussion. No one said they would be "obsolete," but that their prices would go down. Why do you have such a worry for the existence of these cameras, and why do you keep missing the point here? Hell, awhile back I even indicated that the 5DMkII created a condition whereby a person could get these other cameras even cheaper now!
Tony said,
"This is going to be my last reply to you. I see no value in going around in circles in this thread or responding to the spurious remarks that you make directed towards me or anyone else -- and frankly, your earlier remarks about Thom Hogan in this thread were plainly stupid.
Yeah, sure Tony. Now run along, and go back to your "ignoring and peeking," LOL, but I am sure we'll soon see another response from you quite soon
Truthfully Tony, in all seriousness, what I find "stupid" is your whole way of looking at what should be a very positive benchmark for all camera enthusiasts ...
Jack
.
-
Can you two stop f'ing up a nice thread?
-
Can you two stop f'ing up a nice thread?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sorry, I just can't help engaging nay-sayers
Anyway, thanks for posting that link though.
Jack
.
-
Can you two stop f'ing up a nice thread?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'd recommend doing as I did: report them both for abuse. And add to ignore list.
This board is quickly turning into a juvenile pissing contest and noise levels are drowning the signal. Hope moderators take swift and decisive action.
-
This board is quickly turning into a juvenile pissing contest and noise levels are drowning the signal. Hope moderators take swift and decisive action.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223086\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Turning into! This is exactly why this is the first time I've bothered to look at LL forum in 2-3 months. Too many morons who are too lazy to read posts carefully before responding with some innacurate willy waving nonsense spoilt it for me. A shame as they are many sensible people here with useful information to impart or ideas that are worth reading.
And this is the second thread I've looked and and.....
-
The 5DII and A900 are close to what I want in a DSLR, but I would like a camera with optimized resolution and a fewer pixels because just cramming more pixels into the file to make up for weaker filtration and downsizing to get noise levels in prints equivalent to smaller files causes diffraction issues that will impact my images in very tangible ways, and most likely all I would have to show for those extra megapixels is larger files.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223048\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
For the benefit of others (Tony has probably used the 'ignore' button and shall therefore remain in ignorance. Ignore and ignorance are from the same root. An ignorant person is basically an ignorer), downsizing an image does not have any serious DoF consequences, outside of extreme pixel-peeping, in relation to another same-format sensor with fewer pixels.
When downsizing a high resolution image, the differences between the parts of the image that are sharply in focus and the parts that are noticeably out of focus, are reduced, since the lower size cannot accomodation the higher resolution that the sensor with the greater pixel count can record, but it can accommodate the lower resolution of the parts that are out of focus.
Given a suitably sharp lens used at its optimum aperture of, say F5.6, a 5D2 image will appear to have a slightly shallower DoF than the same image from a D700 using an equally sharp lens at the same aperture when both images are displayed at the native resolution of the 5D2 , which of course entails uprezzing of the D700 file.
However, when the 5D2 file is downsized to the same pixel count as the D700 file, both images will have equal DoF. In addition, any noise that was apparent in the 5D2 file before downsizing, will be less apparent after downsizing.
Furthermore, the fundamental reason for the need of an AA filter is because the sensor cannot outresolve the lens. As pixel count increases to the point where no further resolution is apparent, even with a sharp prime at its optimum aperture, then an AA filter will serve no purpose. We haven't reached that point yet.
-
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/...o-our-industry/ (http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/20/something-very-interesting-is-comingboth-to-this-blog-and-to-our-industry/)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223054\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I just read that blog. That's incredible for sure. The pictures on the blog from the beta 5D2 are NOT stills. They are grabs from the video option. Is that crazy or what? Basically noise free in low light shadow situations all the way to ISO 3200.
-
Turning into! This is exactly why this is the first time I've bothered to look at LL forum in 2-3 months. Too many morons who are too lazy to read posts carefully before responding with some innacurate willy waving nonsense spoilt it for me. A shame as they are many sensible people here with useful information to impart or ideas that are worth reading.
And this is the second thread I've looked and and.....
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223093\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You got that right. I never thought I'd see the day where Luminous Landscape forums had a thread with more arrogant, brand defensive content from some (but not all) of the folks participating than anything I've seen in dpreview in a while. Wow. Moderators? - This sucker needs to get closed ASAP - cause it's going nowhere.
-m
-
You got that right. I never thought I'd see the day where Luminous Landscape forums had a thread with more arrogant, brand defensive content from some (but not all) of the folks participating than anything I've seen in dpreview in a while. Wow. Moderators? - This sucker needs to get closed ASAP - cause it's going nowhere.
-m
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'll start a new one in the digital forum.
-
The RGB color filters in the sensor are optical bandpass filters. By designing the filter material with steeper curves at the high and low cutoff points, it is possible to increase the transmissivity of the filter without necessarily sacrificing color accuracy. This reduces the amount of light within the filter's passband that is absorbed by the filter and wasted.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223007\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, but does it increase the total amount of light transmitted? In other words, does increasing the efficiency within the target band by more efficiently cutting the unwanted bands mean it necessarily increases the total amount of light transmitted? I don't think so, it depends on the implementation and what you're comparing it with.
An easier way to increase the total amount of light is the relax the filtering (make the curves less steep). Canon stated have increased the transmission characteristics to increase the S/N ratio. What they have actually done we will probably never know. Results remain to be seen. Nevertheless Borg's reservation remain valid until proven wrong or inconsequential.
-
An easier way to increase the total amount of light is the relax the filtering (make the curves less steep). Canon stated have increased the transmission characteristics to increase the S/N ratio. What they have actually done we will probably never know. Results remain to be seen. Nevertheless Borg's reservation remain valid until proven wrong or inconsequential.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223176\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I would think it would be very difficult to identify what might be contributing to any S/N improvement, and to what degree, should we later determine that the 5D2 does indeed have a lower S/N than both the 1Ds3 and Nikon D700.
There are 3 areas that sound plausible to me, which I believe Canon have mentioned or hinted at. Improved transmissivity of the filters; reduced gap between microlenses (or, did that only or also apply to earlier models?) and improved pre-amplifiers at each photosite.
Unless Canon wish to elborate in more detail about the specific improvements, we're back to 'the proof of the pudding is in the eating'.
-
Moderators? - This sucker needs to get closed ASAP - cause it's going nowhere.
-m
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223161\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
You are aware that Michael is out of town (Botswana).
-
All those bells and whistles... how about giving us more dynamic range? That would be something.
-
All those bells and whistles... how about giving us more dynamic range? That would be something.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223245\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you want more dynamic range, you need to get a larger sensor, don't you?
Alternatively, you could banish all in-camera noise and simultaneously increase the quantum efficiency of the pixels, but I think that's what Canon have always been trying to do, haven't they?
-
Fujifilm's new technology announcements may give an indication of where camera manufacturers are heading in the effort to simultaneously increase resolution AND dynamic range AND colour response.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092210fujifilmEXR.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092210fujifilmEXR.asp)
-
If you want more dynamic range, you need to get a larger sensor, don't you?
Alternatively, you could banish all in-camera noise and simultaneously increase the quantum efficiency of the pixels, but I think that's what Canon have always been trying to do, haven't they?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223251\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes, a larger sensor in a canon SLR frame so we can keep our canon glass and support gear.
-
Fujifilm's new technology announcements may give an indication of where camera manufacturers are heading in the effort to simultaneously increase resolution AND dynamic range AND colour response.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092210fujifilmEXR.asp (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08092210fujifilmEXR.asp)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223263\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
A switchable sensor. Nice article, and promising to see a new direction for competition already in the labs. Thanks for sharing.
-
Yes, a larger sensor in a canon SLR frame so we can keep our canon glass and support gear.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223327\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This would be my preferred option. The only reason why Canon full frame DSLRs cannot use EF-S lenses is a lack of mirror clearance. This obstacle could be removed either by doing without a mirror and using Live View all the time, or redesigning the way the mirror lifts.
The opening in the Canon body is wide enough to allow illumination of a sensor double the area, say 48mmx36mm. Canon's current highest pixel density camera is the 15mp 50D. On a 48x36mm sensor, those pixels would equate to 80mp.
A new set of lenses for the new full frame standard would of course have to be developed, but backward compatibility would ensure that all Canon lenses could be used on the same body, even EF-S lenses which would provide the same quality as the current 50D (or no doubt slightly better with further technological improvements).
This idea is so good, I can't believe Canon are not already working on such a system.
-
This would be my preferred option. ..
This idea is so good, I can't believe Canon are not already working on such a system.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223438\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If not canon, then the competition, and then canon... Either way, we win, sooner or later.
My only reluctance is that canon, being mass market driven, finds more profits in selling compromise vs. ultra high end gear. When you figure that for phase one the chip itself is roughly half the price of the camera (it has to be), then unless you have more than $10,000 invested in lens, the offset of saving a few lenses is mute. Is it enough to consider a complete switch and sell off the old system?
In fact, considering the cost of home scanning tabletop solutions and developing negatives in your kitchen sink, would spending an extra $20K make sense for a low volume shooter? Therefore canon obviously sells a compromise, as the prosumer can have a 21MP, right off the shelf at Best Buy.
Truth is, I can't justify a $25K chipset, as the 40d and 1ds cover 90% of my needs. I can easily purchase a film solution from Ebay for less than my current kit for the few images that I need to print at 30", (and continue to enjoy that unpredictable experience).
So I will wait and get my moneys worth from the 40d, and shoot a little film and maybe in a few more product cycles we'll have something worth upgrade to. More pixels is greats. But it's the same quality image, only larger.
-
If not canon, then the competition, and then canon... Either way, we win, sooner or later.
My only reluctance is that canon, being mass market driven, finds more profits in selling compromise vs. ultra high end gear. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223708\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Tomorrow's compromise is likely to be better than today's state-of-the-art no-compromise. However, in a sense everything's a compromise. DB manufacturers have also compromised in relation to high ISO performance. They've traded off the benefits of the flexibility of the CMOS sensor for the benefits of the greater fill-factor of the CCD.
I'm not convinced that any fundamental image quality improvement of the DB would be worth much when compared to an equivalent CMOS sensor without AA filter. How do you think a P25 would compare to a 5D MkII with its AA filter removed (if that were possible)?
If you think the P25 might still have the edge, how about comparing equal pixel count and equal size CMOS and CCD sensors, both without AA filter?
-
Tomorrow's compromise is likely to be better than today's state-of-the-art no-compromise. ... How do you think a P25 would compare to a 5D MkII with its AA filter removed (if that were possible)?
If you think the P25 might still have the edge, how about comparing equal pixel count and equal size CMOS and CCD sensors, both without AA filter?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=223775\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Exactly why I think it's best to just hold off a few more cycles, as I can see where canon is going. Patience.