PDA

View Full Version : Canon 5D Mark II Announced



Actaeon
09-16-2008, 10:51 PM
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/02.html

- 15-point Autofocus (AF) sensor with nine selectable AF points plus six additional Assist AF points
- three center AF points sensitive to f/2.8 lenses)
- reduced noise and expanded the sensitivity of the CMOS sensor up to ISO 25600
- 3.0-inch Clear View LCD screen with 920,000 dot/VGA resolution
- 21.1-megapixel CMOS sensor
- DIGIC 4 image processor
- viewfinder providing 98 percent coverage
- AF microadjustment
- HD and SD Video Capture
- Live View Shooting
- Peripheral Illumination Correction
- Auto Lighting Optimizer
- Canon's New Creative Auto Mode
- Two Small RAW Formats
- Silent Shooting in Live View
- EOS Integrated Cleaning System
- 150,000-cycle shutter durability

What do you guys think?

I already have my opinions on it, but I'll hold back for now.

Rooz
09-16-2008, 10:58 PM
looks great so far.

movie mode: check
FINALLY a decent canon LCD: check
AF micro adjustment: check
LV: check
Price: DOUBLE CHECK !!!

the AF system is probably the main weakness here. to a lesser degree the fps is pretty average too, but this is not supposed to be a speed machine.

i hope canon do a much better job in controlling noise than the a900 does given the huge pixel count. i'm more interested in the DR than all that other stuff. one thing is for damn sure, after a noticeable absence, canon have come to play goddamit !

oh an one more thing...RIP a900. lol

K1W1
09-16-2008, 11:45 PM
PM me and let me know how much you want for the D300. Maybe your "advice' has a silver lining after all. :D:D

Rooz
09-16-2008, 11:49 PM
lol i dont think so.
regardless of whether i go with a 5dMkII or d700...the d300 stays. :p

$2700USD means the d700 will have to come down to around that mark at least pretty soon, so my wish about it coming in at under $3k by xmas looks pretty real.

K1W1
09-17-2008, 12:20 AM
$2700USD means the d700 will have to come down to around that mark at least pretty soon, so my wish about it coming in at under $3k by xmas looks pretty real.

And we can all pretend that that will have a flow on affect through the rest of the range.

Actaeon
09-17-2008, 01:18 AM
I picked my D700 up for $2699 + Tax (10% off coupon at a local B&M store was great)... would have been nicer without the tax, but its definitely better than paying full price for retailers online or locally for the going price at the time.

Anyway, I'll go ahead and put in my 2 cents.

Price - Excellent value at $2700. I'd rather have the 5D Mark II than the A900.
Autofocus - My biggest gripe with this camera. The basic autofocus is disappointing. Seems very lightly changed from the original 5D.
ISO - I saw one shot at 6400, but it was a bit too small in resolution to see any of the fine details. Can't wait to see the higher resolution high ISO shots... hopefully noise control is better than the A900.
LCD - Likely a wonderful LCD, I'm glad Canon has finally put it into the 50D and 5D Mark II
Sensor Resolution - Nice high 21MP sensor, hopefully it doesn't create too much noise at high ISO, but at low ISO, it should look amazing. 21MP is a bit high for me ( I even think 12 is quite large), but it does allow flexibility in prints and cropping, so it would be important for those who need it.
Processor - DIGIC 4 is a nice plus.
Viewfinder - Nice large viewfinder, would be nice at 100%, but its better than my D700's 95%
AF Microadjustment - Nice
Video Mode - Nice feature. I honestly don't crave it in an SLR, but there is nothing wrong with having an additional feature. It certainly is better than not having it at all.
Live View - Same as Video Mode, nice feature, but I don't care for it. It is better than not having it at all.
sRAW - Nice feature. Not something I've been craving (12MP RAW files are manageable) but again, it is certainly better than not having it at all.
Cleaning System - Nice, no big deal nowadays, but certainly not a bad feature to have.
Shutter - Not bad, on par with the rest of the industry.
Speed - My 2nd biggest issue with the camera, shutter blackout is quite a bit longer, and it only shoots at 3.9fps.
Pop Up Flash - Lack of popup flash is subjective, I know several are disappointed, and others are happy there is no pop up flash. I kind of toss it in with live view. I don't plan on using it, but it may come in handy one day. More features is better.
Body - I'm not going to comment on layout or controls, as that is subjective to each person, but this body is not weather sealed like the D700. For some, not a big deal but for others, its a necessity. That said, you can't argue that its having a non-weather sealed body is better than a weather sealed one. Well, I suppose you could, but it probably wouldn't make much sense.

My Conclusion - Great value for the money. 21MP is very nice and allows for very large prints. This definately seems more like a landscape camera than one for photojournalism or sports. I'm not sure if I'd call it a direct competitor with the D700. Both share full frame sensors, but the D700 shoots twice as fast with the grip, has much better autofocus with 3d tracking, likely better noise performance (sensor has less MP to cope with), and thus is more orientated to fast shooting and low light situations. The weather sealing is also nice for those adventurers. The 5DMkII can't touch the D700 in fast shooting in sports or other action orientated photo jobs.

I do see the 5DMkII blowing away the D700 with its resolution for landscapes and portraits where speed isn't an issue. Under good lighting conditions where ISO can be put at a lower level, the high resolution sensor should shine. The D700 does do a decent job at landscapes and portraits, but the 21MP sensor does have its advantages and would make for some excellent large prints. The video mode is quite nice, and I can't wait to see what creative minds will do with it.

I do not see them as direct competitors, but rather each one suits a different type of photographer and their needs. Weddings are subjective due to the often low-light situations involved. Until we see how the high MP sensor from the 5DMkII handles noise, its hard to say one is better than the other. We have seen from the original 5D that 12MP did great at weddings, but a higher resolution certainly wouldn't be a bad thing to have as long as the noise is manageable.

So who does the 5DMkII compete with then? I'd say the 1DsMkIII and the A900 are its direct competitors. Yeah, the 1DsMkIII can shoot faster, better AF, better body, but its over twice the price, has an older sensor and processor and doesn't have video. I'd be slightly irritated if I had 1DsMkIII at full price compared to the features the 5DMkII has for much less money.

The A900 seems very similar in its phototaking feature set compared to the 5DMkII, high resolution sensor, and each one had slightly different advantages the other hasn't, but in the end, they're still competing for the same market. I suspect the Canon guys who were envious of the A900 last week won't bother switching over because the 5DMkII is so comparable, but the A900 fans will still love their cameras. Very comparable to each other.

Well, that was my 2 cents, or by the looks of how long my post was, more like 10 cents.

Jonathan

downtrodden
09-17-2008, 01:26 AM
I've already ranted about the 5d MkII over in the Canon forum so I will spare you guys, all i will say...

I really think I may jump ship and go with Nikon. I was seriously looking at the D300, but I really like the D700, especially when compared to the 5D MkII. I can't wait to see what kind, if any, price drop Nikon will throw in to sweeten the deal.

I may be here asking you guys for lens advice soon.

Actaeon
09-17-2008, 01:35 AM
I've already ranted about the 5d MkII over in the Canon forum so I will spare you guys, all i will say...

I really think I may jump ship and go with Nikon. I was seriously looking at the D300, but I really like the D700, especially when compared to the 5D MkII. I can't wait to see what kind, if any, price drop Nikon will throw in to sweeten the deal.

I may be here asking you guys for lens advice soon.

I've seen a lot of Canon owners upset about the 5D Mk II, I'm sure it'll be a decent camera, but I can why, depending on their type of shooting, not be 100% satisfied with it.

I'll go over and read your rant tomorrow morning.

In regards to lens, thats easy... :)

14-24 f2.8
24-70 f2.8
New 70-200 f2.8 rumored to be released soon.
300 f2.8
Possible new AF-S primes coming soon as well.

Jonathan

Turn
09-17-2008, 01:47 AM
that is so amazing

Canon were obviously letting Nikon/Sony announce their stuff and get their applause and then drop the bomb with this camera

and the G10/SX10 IS and SX1 IS to back them up in the ultrazoom market

downtrodden
09-17-2008, 01:48 AM
Jon: yeah, my rant basically is about the FPS... i just think it would have benefited Canon to do like Nikon did with the D700, if you're not going to make it shoot fast for whatever reason, at least let us who want a faster FPS PAY FOR IT... and make a battery grip that upgrades FPS... I'd much rather have 8FPS or even just 6FPS vs. a video mode- but both could have been incorporated, i mean 30FPS video and that slow burst rate?

the rest is just minor complaints... but something i didn't mention in my other post because i didn't realize the D700 had this- On board flash would've been nice.

K1W1
09-17-2008, 01:49 AM
I may be here asking you guys for lens advice soon.

Just don't ask where you can get silver bodies. :D:D

Welcome in advance.

downtrodden
09-17-2008, 01:54 AM
Just don't ask where you can get silver bodies. :D:D


Spray paint. :eek:

I don't know, the more i think about it, the more disappointing the 5D MkII becomes and the more I want to jump ship.

Rooz
09-17-2008, 02:34 AM
werent there rumours of 2 new canon FF bodies ? i wonder if canon has a 3d up their sleeve which will be say a 15mp FF which is faster.

if rumours are correct that nikon are going into medium format, (MX to add to their FX and DX), for their high MP models early next year it could see FF bodies plummet even further.

Turn
09-17-2008, 04:16 AM
Nikon into the Medium Format

now that is groundbreaking

Rooz
09-17-2008, 04:50 AM
I may be here asking you guys for lens advice soon.

heres my advice for the crusty lens' you got now. :p:D

http://gizmodo.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/09/zoom-lens-mug.jpg

rawpaw18
09-17-2008, 06:08 AM
I want one!!!!

cvicisso
09-17-2008, 08:50 AM
Isn't free-market capitalism great? While it lasts, that is... now that U.S. mortgages and insurance have all been seized and nationalized...

Anyway, this son-of-5D is interesting to say the least. I was somewhat surprised to see the number of 'thinking of jumping ship' posts in some of the Canon forum sites. I think that if Nikon hadn't trumped them first with the D700 (and D90 too), Canon users would have been much happier with the announcement today. I mean, a short while ago "21MP, FULL FRAME, UNDER $3K, 1080P VIDEO" would have started all kinds of 'neener neener neeeeeners!' coming our way from the Canon camp. Let's face it, this (5D-II) is a pretty remarkable camera! Sure, the burst rate and x-sync is puzzling, but for being a 'Mark-II' and not a '6D' this is a really BIG improvement over the 5D (IMHO).

Back to free markets... what I read in this announcement is further confirmation of Rooz's sage predictions... :D And more specifically, my future D800 will undoubtedly have video (let's hope for 1080P w/stereo), will be cheaper than I ever imagined, and that I can therefore relax and use the hell out of my [soon-to-be-acquired] D90 in the meantime. Life is good. :) Now let me just sell my AIG stock so that I can buy the D90... :eek:

cvicisso
09-17-2008, 08:52 AM
Does anyone know if it autofocuses in video mode? I couldn't find that anywhere.

Turo
09-17-2008, 09:23 AM
Excellent! Specs look amazing! The only thing missing to make it my perfect camera would be a faster fps, even if it is in some "cropped" mode, and/or without a grip. But hey, you can't have it all. And that will be one kick-ass camera, especially at that price!!!

Now let's see some high iso shots!

Turn
09-17-2008, 10:10 AM
Excellent! Specs look amazing! The only thing missing to make it my perfect camera would be a faster fps, even if it is in some "cropped" mode, and/or without a grip. But hey, you can't have it all. And that will be one kick-ass camera, especially at that price!!!

Now let's see some high iso shots!

I agree B2 :D

if they announce a "lower end" FF with lower mp but faster fps then they have a dual winner on their hands

downtrodden
09-17-2008, 01:15 PM
Does anyone know if it autofocuses in video mode? I couldn't find that anywhere.

Yeah, autofocus works with the video in the Mk II

Persoonally I still don't want to pay for a video capability in my camera, no matter what way you slice it. After Nikon announced the D90 I was hoping Canon wouldn't follow suit with the Mk II and i'm disappointed they did. If I wanted a cam corder, i'd buy one. I'd much rather Canon had focused the engineering somewhere else. Like weather sealing, frame rate, vari-angle LCD's, on-board flash... just small stupid stuff like that would've made me beyond happy.

Video seems more sensible for the 50D or an XSi type of camera... not a FF photo machine...

I do really hope Canon announces another, more sensible, less gimicky FF camera soon.

To those of you that have found a nice camera you think you can fall in love with, I am happy for you and I hope the Mk II delivers the goods you're hoping for!

Rooz
09-17-2008, 01:42 PM
1/200s flash sync.
no PUF, (or AF assist lamp obviously)
the same AF system as the original 5d which is 3 years old
slowish responsiveness and shutter blackout
same body/ ergonomics of the 5d
no wireless flash,(why is that ?? does nikon have some copyright over this ??)
less bracketing options (+/-2EV vs 9 frames)
spot metering only available on central AF point, not on each selectable point
lack of customisable function buttons on body, esecially the front end.
no support for crop lens'.
looks to me like the internal battery and battery door need to be removed to insert grip rather than simple screw-on.

this ones probably not for me. d700 it is.

downtrodden
09-17-2008, 01:46 PM
this ones probably not for me.

Amen Roozy-Boy!

Rooz
09-17-2008, 01:51 PM
cameras cant be al things to all people though. while it may not suit us, i suspect the specs will be perfect for others. take michaelb for example who shoots alot of landscape and static objects...for him it looks like the perfect body.

cant please everyone. :)

downtrodden
09-17-2008, 02:00 PM
I agree. but why can't a camera just be a camera?

I think it'll be a nice addition to anyone's camera bag, but do the people who really want to use this camera for senior portraits, landscapes and static objects *REALLY* need/want/desire video? Why not drop this feature into the 50D and make the MkII a Killer all around? Or keep it and make a batt. grip available to boost the FPS?

Tsk tsk tsk. I guess I will stop ranting about it now, starting to sound like a broken recrod and complaining isn't gonna change the MkII's specs just to make me happy. :X

PS: I already know why a camera can't be just a camera and it has to be a camcorder too- i'm just bitter Canon didn't upgrade the things that are really important FIRST- THEN work on Video.

Rooz
09-17-2008, 02:11 PM
well, i guess the opposite can be true. while imo nikon have created the perfect aps-c camera in the d300. in FF land, the d700 could be criticised as being a jack of all trades but master of none. doesnt have the frame rate or durability of the d3/ MkIII so there is a better PJ/ sports camera and it doesnt have the resolution of the 5dMkII/ a900 so there is a better studio/ landscape/ portrait camera.

what the d700 does is appeal to people like you and i who want it to do everything really well but dont need it to do one thing perfectly. some people will need one or the other perfect.

if i was so inclined, the new 5d would be my perfect body. it just doesnt suit me. as for video, i dont think its a gimick, as i said when th d90 was released, imo, movie mode is the new "must have" in dslr. i think its here to stay and imo, thats a good thing.

TheWengler
09-17-2008, 02:48 PM
Downtrodden, if Canon gave this camera a higher burst rate don't you think that'd undercut their more expensive models? I don't really care too much about burst rate anyway though. I mean, my camera can only take 3 RAW pictures in a row which is pretty pathetic, but I never use it anyway(not sure what the rate is). I'm with you on the video, I'd rather not pay for it. For the most part the people demanding it are the people buying the entry level cameras who want a super P&S. I might use it occasionally if I had it, but I don't miss not having it.

jcon
09-17-2008, 03:11 PM
.......
In regards to lens, thats easy... :)

14-24 f2.8
24-70 f2.8
New 70-200 f2.8 rumored to be released soon.
300 f2.8
Possible new AF-S primes coming soon as well.

Jonathan


Where have you heard this rumor?

downtrodden
09-17-2008, 03:20 PM
Right, a higher frame rate may cut into higher end sales, but those cameras still have many more and better AF points- and 6FPS is not going to cut into a sports photographer's 10FPS, especially not if you have to buy an optional battery grip to get it. I'm sure a sports photographer would even appreciate video more than say... a portrait photographer... or landscape photographer.

I'm not saying video in SLR's is a bad thing, i just don't think the upgrading of other features should be sacrificed to work video into a camera. I don't work for Canon though, So I can't make those decisions, i can just hope a 3D is in the works or buy a D700.

I'll try to stop ranting now.. i promise i will try :X

Visual Reality
09-17-2008, 03:38 PM
The drop in framerate is almost surely a bi-product of the super high resolution. There is much more data to process - almost 2 times more than 12MP sensors. A battery grip may not even help in that department...but only the engineers know for sure.

Rooz
09-17-2008, 04:06 PM
Where have you heard this rumor?

the rumour has been around since the D3 was released due to the sub-par performance of the 70-200 on FX format.

K1W1
09-17-2008, 04:35 PM
Isn't it interesting to see fortress Canon starting to crumble.
For years us Nikonians have been the butt of endless jibes from the Canon camp. Quite a few people have gone from Nikon to Canon but virtually nobody has made the opposite journey.
When the D300 / D700 and D3 were released there started to be a trickle of comments from Canon owners suggesting that there "might" be some worthwhile features in the new Nikons.
That trickle seems to have become a fast flowing stream lately we aren't at tidal wave or even river proportions but it now seems perfectly acceptable for Canon owners to publicly admit to be considering a switch to the dark side and it will be interesting to see what the resale values of Canon gear are like in months you come.

Visual Reality
09-17-2008, 05:15 PM
There's really only one thing left to make me want a Canon - the nice f/4 lenses like the 70-200. I'd love to own one.

Come on Nikon!! This lens would be an absolute home run.

The 5D Mark II sounds like a great camera, but in the end its still Canon's system, with the menus and controls and all, which isn't what I prefer.

cvicisso
09-17-2008, 05:26 PM
Persoonally I still don't want to pay for a video capability in my camera, no matter what way you slice it.Then you should buy as many dslrs that fit your needs as you can today and stockpile them. As you wear through them over the years, you can pull out a dslr body from your closet and sell the old one as a collector's item. That's the only way you're going to avoid buying a dslr without video in the next few years. :D

Video seems more sensible for the 50D or an XSi type of camera... not a FF photo machine...I agree with you. Currently, video on dslrs is merely a novelty. But have you seen some of those D90 videos? Camcorders just aren't capable of doing that (and by 'that' I'm thinking uber-shallow DOF). Sure - there's a lot be desired, but this was just the first shot across the bow. The 5D-II video (on paper) is even more impressive (auto focus, 1080p(!!), etc.). Most wedding photographers I've seen in the recent past have been shooting 5Ds for all the reasons we already know. It won't be long before a few of the more ambitious (or starving/hungry!) ones start including a DVD in their portfolio - shot in HD with fast lenses and set to appropriate music. It won't be long after that before clients start expecting those DVDs from their photographers. Remember - you CAN'T do this with a camcorder (but just wait for RED Scarlet to arrive - then the game changes again). And we're right back to capitalism and free markets. Gotta compete or die.

I expect that the camera manufacturers look at it like this: for every guy like you who doesn't want to pay for the video features being built into the cameras (and BTW - you have every right to object to it and I'm not saying it's wrong or anything), there would be twenty more guys who would have complained about NOT having video.

That being said, I totally understand your point and can even sympathize. I never use the cruise control in my car, but yet I had to pay for it because it came with the package.

Rasidel Slika
09-17-2008, 05:34 PM
The drop in framerate is almost surely a bi-product of the super high resolution. There is much more data to process - almost 2 times more than 12MP sensors. A battery grip may not even help in that department...but only the engineers know for sure.
hey - drop in framerate? compared to what? the 5D2 has a faster rate (3.9) than the 5D (3).

Visual Reality
09-17-2008, 05:38 PM
Not necessarily a drop, more of being "inadequate" to satisfy a lot of people here, which its seeming to get a lot of criticism over.

It most certainly has much more powerful electronics than the camera it replaces, if it can increase framerate while nearly doubling picture size.

TheWengler
09-17-2008, 05:40 PM
There's really only one thing left to make me want a Canon - the nice f/4 lenses like the 70-200. I'd love to own one.

Come on Nikon!! This lens would be an absolute home run.

I completely agree with this. I'd want the 17-40 too.

Rasidel Slika
09-17-2008, 05:41 PM
oh ok. I too was disappointed to see the framerate was 3.9, I was expecting I dunno, 5-6 or so. But given the almost double MP and the fact that this is not intended to be a sports shooter, it's not too bad. But it would have been nice to see a faster fps in the sRAW modes.

K1W1
09-17-2008, 05:54 PM
I expect that the camera manufacturers look at it like this: for every guy like you who doesn't want to pay for the video features being built into the cameras (and BTW - you have every right to object to it and I'm not saying it's wrong or anything), there would be twenty more guys who would have complained about NOT having video.

Only two years ago the exact same debate was happening about live view. The debates were raging about live view on DSLRs being the death of photography, totally unnecessary and something to be avoided at all costs.
It's strange but that debate seems to have completely vanished and I think the video debate will go the same way very quickly.

cvicisso
09-17-2008, 06:17 PM
Only two years ago the exact same debate was happening about live view. The debates were raging about live view on DSLRs being the death of photography, totally unnecessary and something to be avoided at all costs.
It's strange but that debate seems to have completely vanished and I think the video debate will go the same way very quickly.Yep. I was one of those lunatics who thought it (LV) was a good idea - or at least a 'nice-to-have' for certain situations that inevitably arise.

downtrodden
09-17-2008, 06:29 PM
Live view is what pushed me into buying an SLR in the first place :X

Visual Reality
09-17-2008, 08:01 PM
Live View is amazing on a tripod. No more contorting your body to see through the viewfinder at odd heights/angles.

K1W1
09-17-2008, 08:19 PM
Has anybody else noticed that this thread has way more views and comments that the equivalent thread on the Canon forum?
What say in our new found spirit of superiority we act like caring and sharing individuals and go over there and say some nice things to them?
Or we could just rub their noses in it. :D

Actaeon
09-17-2008, 09:05 PM
Where have you heard this rumor?

Not exactly the most reliable of sources. Just a rumor.

http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/01/3-lenses-confirmed-for-photokina.aspx

I hear its because the current 70-200 has vignetting problems with the FX sensors.

Rooz
09-17-2008, 09:50 PM
this is not intended to be a sports shooter.

correct. the new 5dMkII carries on from the tradition of the MkI. its quite a specialised camera so the pros especially who use it for its intended purpose are gonna love it. people that shoot a wide variety of things arent gonna warm to it so much though.

still...the AF system is pretty crap by todays standards. sorry, but this module is 3-4 years old. this is the main reason video in dslr gets a bad wrap. bear with me here...:D the main argument AGAINST video, (or LV etc), is that its fine so long as it doesnt comprimise the evolution of the body as a photographic tool. well, it could be argued that it just did.

we will never know if the video inclusion in any way hampered the development of the other stuff, but the fact that the other stuff didnt happen always leaves the doubters thinking video killed the radio star.

i reckon if you made the MkII with NO video, made it 15mp, 6fps, 21AF points, (hell even 15 !), FF, more advanced metering, (especially not having selectable spot metering which is a crime imo), then you'd have a best seller on your hands. i still think there will be a 3D coming at PMA that looks like the above spec.

i will suggest this to you if you are considering buying a MkII my good friend...NEVER borrow a d700 for a weekend. hell, dont even hold one in your hands. :p

melgross
09-17-2008, 10:15 PM
still...the AF system is pretty crap by todays standards. sorry, but this module is 3-4 years old. this is the main reason video in dslr gets a bad wrap. bear with me here...:D the main argument AGAINST video, (or LV etc), is that its fine so long as it doesnt comprimise the evolution of the body as a photographic tool. well, it could be argued that it just did.


Actually, the autofocus is pretty good. It's just not intended for sports. I've shot some with it, and it works well enough, but not as well as a true sports camera. But, then again, few cameras out there do well with this, even the newest.

melgross
09-17-2008, 10:18 PM
Not exactly the most reliable of sources. Just a rumor.

http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/01/3-lenses-confirmed-for-photokina.aspx

I hear its because the current 70-200 has vignetting problems with the FX sensors.

The 70 to 200 is known to be soft in the edges and corners, and vignettes.

From what I know, Nikon has been testing a new one that is better in this regard.

melgross
09-17-2008, 10:19 PM
Has anybody else noticed that this thread has way more views and comments that the equivalent thread on the Canon forum?
What say in our new found spirit of superiority we act like caring and sharing individuals and go over there and say some nice things to them?
Or we could just rub their noses in it. :D

In what? The fact that the D3 and D700 have just been surpassed?

Rooz
09-17-2008, 10:20 PM
Actually, the autofocus is pretty good.

pretty good is not good enough on a $2700 state of the art, brand spanking new camera.

Rooz
09-17-2008, 10:24 PM
In what? The fact that the D3 and D700 have just been surpassed?

lol...someone has a complex. did you fel you needed to rush in and defend the 5dMkII from those nasty nikon people ? :p

the 5d doesnt surpass the D3 or D700 at all, (lmao at the D3 comment...rotflmfao), its aimed at something totally different and it does it perfectly.

Actaeon
09-17-2008, 10:30 PM
Actually, the autofocus is pretty good.

Nope, its quite junky. My bud has got a 5D, and its a great camera with excellent image quality, the sensor design and noise control is great even though its 3 years old. BUT the autofocus is quite shoddy.

Lets look at what we have.

Small number of focus points - Check
All of them being grouped pretty close to the sensor - Check
Amateur DSLRs with equal or more focus points for 1/4th to 1/2 the price - Check

Additionally, it should be a basic requirement for a basic DSLR (let alone professional) to spot meter off the selected focus point. The 5D and 5DMkII only meters off the center focus point.

That is hardly "pretty good".

cvicisso
09-17-2008, 10:32 PM
Actually, the autofocus is pretty good. It's just not intended for sports. I've shot some with it, and it works well enough, but not as well as a true sports camera. But, then again, few cameras out there do well with this, even the newest.I don't like the way the Canon AF points are all essentially in the center - I prefer the way Nikon spreads them out across the frame more, and it probably would have served the 5D-II well by having spread-out AF points since it's not aimed at sports shooters. Seems like a lot of potential AF-locking and then shifting the frame for way off-center subjects. But now I'm just nit-picking.

cvicisso
09-17-2008, 10:34 PM
Additionally, it should be a basic requirement for a basic DSLR (let alone professional) to spot meter off the selected focus point. The 5D and 5DMkII only meters off the center focus point.All the AF points are in the center anyway, so you don't need to change the point to spot meter. ;);););)

Actaeon
09-17-2008, 10:39 PM
All the AF points are in the center anyway, so you don't need to change the point to spot meter. ;);););)

Touche! :D

Rooz
09-17-2008, 10:54 PM
i think you'll find that on an FX nikon, the AF points are also far more central than in a DX body. granted theres shitloads more of them but they are not in the extreme corners. FX has a much larger VF than DX but the AF points are in exactly the same position.

achuang
09-17-2008, 10:59 PM
i think you'll find that on an FX nikon, the AF points are also far more central than in a DX body. granted theres shitloads more of them but they are not in the extreme corners. FX has a much larger VF than DX but the AF points are in exactly the same position.

I think that's one thing that may annoy me, but I hope by the time I'm able to afford FX they'll have the AF points more spread out.

melgross
09-18-2008, 10:00 PM
Nope, its quite junky. My bud has got a 5D, and its a great camera with excellent image quality, the sensor design and noise control is great even though its 3 years old. BUT the autofocus is quite shoddy.

Lets look at what we have.

Small number of focus points - Check
All of them being grouped pretty close to the sensor - Check
Amateur DSLRs with equal or more focus points for 1/4th to 1/2 the price - Check

Additionally, it should be a basic requirement for a basic DSLR (let alone professional) to spot meter off the selected focus point. The 5D and 5DMkII only meters off the center focus point.

That is hardly "pretty good".

I've had the 5D for 18 months, and the autofocus is anything but "junky". Perhaps you should use it first.

melgross
09-18-2008, 10:03 PM
I don't like the way the Canon AF points are all essentially in the center - I prefer the way Nikon spreads them out across the frame more, and it probably would have served the 5D-II well by having spread-out AF points since it's not aimed at sports shooters. Seems like a lot of potential AF-locking and then shifting the frame for way off-center subjects. But now I'm just nit-picking.

That's a matter of preference. I don't like them spread too far apart. My shooting works better with them closer.

When they're further apart, I find that they look at items I'm not interested in focussing on. With them closer, I can select one that's on part of the object I'm interested in.

Actaeon
09-18-2008, 10:14 PM
I've had the 5D for 18 months, and the autofocus is anything but "junky". Perhaps you should use it first.

Do you honestly think I just watched my friend play with it the whole time and never used it?

Actaeon
09-18-2008, 10:23 PM
That's a matter of preference. I don't like them spread too far apart. My shooting works better with them closer.


http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/Images/Additional/afpoints.gif

Is that spread too far apart?


When they're further apart, I find that they look at items I'm not interested in focussing on. With them closer, I can select one that's on part of the object I'm interested in.

It is possible just select a single autofocus point if thats your preference. With the newer autofocus on the higher end Nikons, you choose from just 9, 21, 51 and 51(3D). Seems like a nice alternative to just having 9 total.

Rooz
09-18-2008, 10:36 PM
That's a matter of preference. I don't like them spread too far apart. My shooting works better with them closer.

When they're further apart, I find that they look at items I'm not interested in focussing on. With them closer, I can select one that's on part of the object I'm interested in.

stop talking out of your ass. there is NO positive for less AF points. NONE. absolutely ZERO. particularly when you can choose between 11/21/51 points like you can on a d300/d700.

its just such a stupid arguement. if your gonna troll, then at least be either intelligent or entertaining. so far you are neither.

K1W1
09-18-2008, 10:55 PM
Oh good. We haven't had a decent fight around here for ages.

Actaeon
09-18-2008, 11:00 PM
Damn Rooz, you don't hold back!

I guess the word "filter" isn't used in Australia ;).

downtrodden
09-18-2008, 11:02 PM
Blunt, Australian for Roozy-Boy.

:D

Actually...

Rooz, Australian for Smart@$$.

That's better.

XaiLo
09-18-2008, 11:58 PM
Damn Rooz you made me read this whole thread :p Quit pickin on the Canon kid he's got enough problems. Why would you want to give him 42 more. lmao

Rasidel Slika
09-19-2008, 12:02 AM
I like them spread far apart..

wait.. what are we talking about? :)

e_dawg
09-19-2008, 09:12 AM
(@delobbo: LOL...)

Wow, it's interesting because depending on which forums and people you talk to, a lot of people are very happy and excited about the new 5DII and have proclaimed that the D700's exclusive moment in the sun is now over. I think the 5DII is actually pretty good. Sure, some missed opportunities with the AF and continuous shooting speed, amongst other things. But it's overall very good and to tell you the truth, I am considering getting a 5DII instead of a D700. Some reasons why:

1. The 21 MP sensor is excellent. Everything I've seen from it and heard from field testers who have tried it out (much like when select people were given the D3 and D300 to field test before launching it to the public) show that the 5DII is excellent at high ISO and at least as good as the D700.

Canon has really pulled out all the stops on improving their sensor technology the past year. From everything I've seen, the 50D is better at high ISO than the D300 even with 15 MP on the sensor. Canon applied the same technologies with the new 21 MP sensor except for the gapless design (they couldn't because of the offset microlenses at the perimeter required to control corner performance).

And let's not forget the ability to further reduce noise by downsizing and downsampling 21 MP images to 12 MP. I am very confident that the 5DII will be at least as good as the D700 in this respect.

2. The selection of f/4 lenses. I have been waiting and waiting for Nikon to give us some f/4 lenses, preferably with VR. 70-200/4 VR, 100-300/4 VR, 17-40/4 VR, 24-105/4 VR. Enough with the f/5.6 consumer zooms already. 16-85, 18-105, 18-135, 24-120. And stop wasting time on these PC-E and 60/macro lenses. There are more important gaps to fill in the lens lineup and old lenses to improve (the 70-200/2.8, 24-120/VR, and their wide angle primes just to name a few).

3. Price. I can get a 5DII with the 24-105/L IS for not much more than a D700 body. Nikon was able to price the D700 at that level when there was no competition. Now the 5DII and A900 are here with double the resolution. More megapixels may not mean too much to us after you get to a certain point, but it is an important feature in the market with the public when it comes to justifying the price. (and as long as more MP doesn't come at the expense of high ISO noise, which it won't, then it only really adds benefits)

Now, I am not saying that it is perfect or that it is categorically better than the D700. But I don't understand the disappointment over it and why it is being dismissed as an also-ran judging by the overall sentiment of this thread and the Canon forum.

If Canon put a better AF system and 5 fps on it, it would be absolutely amazing. As it is, it's a pretty darn good camera, and you get access to those wonderful f/4 lenses.

(in other news, I got a D300 recently ;) )

e_dawg
09-19-2008, 09:22 AM
As for the A900, while it does seem somewhat overshadowed by the 5DII especially at that price, it is a pretty decent camera as well. And one thing it has that no other camera has is access to Zeiss ZA lenses. The Zeiss 135/1.8 is simply phenomenal. Come to think of it, their Sony 135/3.5 STF is actually amazingly good as well. The bokeh on both of these lenses are the best I've seen in a while.

Here are some pics from the Zeiss 135/1.8 on the A700:

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/08/09/13/

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/08/09/09/

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/08/09/03/

http://wvs.topleftpixel.com/08/08/28/

Zeiss 135/1.8 on the A900 (from pic 14 onwards):

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/photo.aspx?gallery=sony_a900preview_samples&photo=14

The Zeiss 85/1.4 isn't bad either:

http://www.dpreview.com/gallery/photo.aspx?gallery=sony_a900preview_samples&photo=1

Rasidel Slika
09-19-2008, 10:56 AM
good posts, thanks for the info and explanation. I can't but help feel a bit baffled by Canon's decision to keep the same AF setup. Isn't there some general dissatisfaction with the 5D's AF? But on the other hand, I've had mine for 2 years now, and I have zero complaints about it's AF. It's always done what I've needed it to.

K1W1
09-19-2008, 03:55 PM
(@delobbo: LOL...)
1. The 21 MP sensor is excellent. Everything I've seen from it and heard from field testers who have tried it out (much like when select people were given the D3 and D300 to field test before launching it to the public) show that the 5DII is excellent at high ISO and at least as good as the D700.

Just remember that Nikon have access to the 24MP Sony sensor from the A900 and they could literally fit it into a D700 or D3 body at a moments notice (and I suspect they will when the time is right) so you will get the 24MP sensor image performance with the Nikon focussing and shooting speed advantage. It might make some people who rish to the new Canon have to rethink their purchase. :D

VTEC_EATER
09-19-2008, 04:48 PM
Speaking of focus points, I love the D300's 51, but there are quite a few that just cant focus for $hit. Even with $1000+ Nikkors in excellent lighting. So more autofocus points may be nice, but if only 21 of them are reliable, then the rest are just clutter.

With that said, I think the 5DII could have been even more than it is. A minimum of 11 focus points would be nice, or why not even throw the autofocus system of the 1DmkIII on that thing? Seriously, how hard would that have been? Focusing without needing to recompose is amazing, and I would think that a camera designed for studio work (read: tripod) would require that feature.

Anyways, I'm not concerned with getting a full frame camera. I still like the crop sensors and their extra reach. I think I will be keeping the D300 for a very long time. Its a great camera, and even at high ISO's its very good.

K1W1
09-19-2008, 04:52 PM
Focusing without needing to recompose is amazing, and I would think that a camera designed for studio work (read: tripod) would require that feature.

Surely you could manually focus in that situation particularly if you are using some form of live view or PC control.

fionndruinne
09-19-2008, 05:04 PM
Just remember that Nikon have access to the 24MP Sony sensor from the A900 and they could literally fit it into a D700 or D3 body at a moments notice (and I suspect they will when the time is right) so you will get the 24MP sensor image performance with the Nikon focussing and shooting speed advantage. It might make some people who rish to the new Canon have to rethink their purchase. :D

If Canon users could actually think ahead, that is.

Rasidel Slika
09-19-2008, 06:42 PM
With that said, I think the 5DII could have been even more than it is. A minimum of 11 focus points would be nice, or why not even throw the autofocus system of the 1DmkIII on that thing? Seriously, how hard would that have been?
Why would any company make a semi-pro camera that had almost all the important features of a pro model and sell it for $2,000 less? :p

downtrodden
09-19-2008, 09:00 PM
Why would any company make a semi-pro camera that had almost all the important features of a pro model and sell it for $2,000 less? :p

Progression of technology.

Rooz
09-19-2008, 09:12 PM
the 5dII is what it is cos its made for landscapers, weddings and studios.

if you take it for what it is and what it was made for then its a stunning camera. if you try and fit it into something its not meant to be, then you make it look worse than what it actually is.

there are FF alternatives. if you want to comprimise on resolution for the speed, accuracy, response and ergonomics then get a d700. for some people that will be the logical decision, for others, they will prefer the higher resolution and are not prepared to comprimise on it.

the more you look at the 5dMkII, the more you see its a completely different package to the d700. not worse, just different. what it aimed its sights on was the high MP a900...and it completely destroyed any chance of sonys success.

K1W1
09-19-2008, 09:43 PM
the 5dII is what it is cos its made for landscapers, weddings and studios.

Finally somebody has enunciated the situation sensibly. :)
Whilst it's true that comparing a 5DII and a D3 is like apples with apples in that they are both FX cameras the issue is that one is a Granny Smith and the other is a Jonathan so they can't actually be directly compared in most cases.

e_dawg
09-19-2008, 11:33 PM
Just remember that Nikon have access to the 24MP Sony sensor from the A900 and they could literally fit it into a D700 or D3 body at a moments notice (and I suspect they will when the time is right) so you will get the 24MP sensor image performance with the Nikon focussing and shooting speed advantage. It might make some people who rish to the new Canon have to rethink their purchase. :D

Speaking for myself, i have been tossing this around in my head for a while now, and believe me that I have been thinking of what will be coming down the pipe for Nikon too. Sure, they have access to Sony's 24 MP sensor, and Nikon may put more emphasis on AF and speed, but let's not forget that:

1. Sony's 24 MP sensor just doesn't have the high ISO performance of the Canon 21 MP sensor. This is Canon's 2nd generation 21 MP FF sensor and it puts them back at the front when it comes to high ISO performance from most accounts.

2. Any new Nikon with the 24 MP Sony sensor will be quite expensive. The D700 is already a couple hundred more than the 5DII. Throw in the 24 MP sensor and the D800 is going to be, what, $1,000 more than the 5DII?

3. Part of the speed of the D3 and D700 comes from only having to move 12 MP worth of image data. Nikon will find it difficult to maintain a fast continuous shooting speed with twice as much data from the 24 MP sensor to process. Can they still make it fast? Sure. The D3x will probably be fast. But can they do that for the D800 without raising the price too much?

Speaking for my own situation, I have been waiting for Nikon to give us some f/4 zooms and fill the gaps in their lens lineup for a long time now. My patience is wearing thin. As for the lackluster AF system and shooting speed of the 5DII, that's what my D300 is for, as I need the extra reach of APS-C for sports pictures anyways. So for my needs, the Nikon FX bodies -- either 12 or 24 MP -- may not be the best fit anyways. Is the 5DII a better fit? Possibly. Still thinking about it. Regardless, it is a very good body and shouldn't be overlooked.

K1W1
09-19-2008, 11:49 PM
2. Any new Nikon with the 24 MP Sony sensor will be quite expensive. The D700 is already a couple hundred more than the 5DII. Throw in the 24 MP sensor and the D800 is going to be, what, $1,000 more than the 5DII?

You are completely igniring the law of supply and demand.
When the D700 was introduced Nikon largely had that part of the market to themselves in terms of the feature set of the product and could charge what they wanted within reason.
That market now has price points set by other manufacturers that any new product will have to compete with so there is no way a Nikon equivalent will be substantially different than what the others are in price. One thing Nikon have shown in recent years is that they understand the market and where products fit and they have consistently released product that either sets new benchmarks in specification or fits nicely into an existing market group at a very competitive price or in some cases both.

e_dawg
09-20-2008, 12:07 AM
Well I hope you're right, but I'll believe it when i see the D700's list price drop to the same level of the 5DII and the D800's list price come in within a few hundred of the A900.

erichlund
09-20-2008, 03:53 PM
As has already been pointed out, the D700 and the 5DmkII are different products, so they will not greatly influence each other's price. That and the fact that Nikon is loath to lower the price of their cameras unless the price pressure becomes unbearable. As long as they keep selling, don't expect the price to change.

As for the 21mp Canon sensor, according to Thom Hogan, it's the same sensor as the 1DsMkIII, with some modifications to the AA filter and microlenses (or something like that).