Canon EOS 5D Mark II update in eight months ??

[luminosity]

I know very well what I'm talking about, thanks. You may disagree with what I've said, but I know what I speak of.

At any rate, everyone has their own stuff and ways of doing things. Mine works for me and clearly other people do just fine as well.

 

[jtopp]

To the OP. I bought a 5dkii this july and I must say I am totally satisfied withe the camera. It is my first dslr and I initially bought it for its video capabilities. I took some photographs and I must say that I was blown away.

I know the the 5dmkiii will be out in a year so I do not mind as much because I will use that as my second camera for video and photography and equip it with a different lens and alternate between the two as needed. As a person that wants to go pro, I think most photographers esp at weddings have 2 cameras.

I did not want to play the wait till next year game because if I had to wait till it is announced, released and I could find one in stock, it would have taken me a year (assuming it is released in the spring 11" or so. You can always wait and wait but you will not be able to enjoy, learn and hone your skills in the meantime.

I love my 5dmkii though...

 

[mdwsta4]

No, you don't. You know what you've read online or heard from a few people. Have you owned a 5D2 or had extensive use of one? Hell, have you even touched one? If you've owned more than 1 5D2 body and experienced the issue on both of them, then I would believe you. If you're simply going off what you read from someone or heard a friend of a friend's camera had this problem, then you don't. Fact.

I know very well what I'm talking about, thanks. You may disagree with what I've said, but I know what I speak of.

At any rate, everyone has their own stuff and ways of doing things. Mine works for me and clearly other people do just fine as well.

 

[luminosity]

That's simply not true at all. You make it sound like the only people who post (which would by extension include you) do so in the same way. There are very intelligent, thoughtful people who share their experiences in an articulate manner. I read these posts and do my best to interpret what they say.

By your way of thinking, there's nothing to be gleaned from what people intelligently have to say. How many things in life do we depend on other people's writing because we have not and often cannot experience them for myself?

I have most definitely picked up and taken some shots with a 5D Mark II, and my personal view is that it borders on feeling cheap and too plasticky. Obviously, people's mileage can and does vary, as this thread makes clear. The feel of the body does not really have a lot to do with performance (not inherently, at least), so this is just a superficial judgment on my part. I know that it's enough that it would keep me from ever shooting it or anything like it, though.

A plain reality of life is that a lot of people (yourself among them, no doubt) read and interpret things that other people say and do that we have not done ourselves, so that we can be a little more knowledgeable about those things. I have not said anything definitive beyond a basic fact that several photographers I know have abandoned Canon because of problems with their 5D Mark II. I didn't say how many or that it was a ridiculous number, just that I've read several intelligent accounts of people growing increasingly frustrated and leaving Canon and switching to Nikon as a result. It doesn't mean Nikon is better, because it isn't. Just that people switched to Nikon. You are assuming a value judgment on my part that isn't there.

I am a pretty discriminating reader. I pay no mind to people who stupidly switch and and forth because of problems that are clearly the result of user error and/or general incompetence. That's not Canon, Nikon or any camera company's problem. That's a personal problem. What I do pay attention to are stories of people who have sent their cameras to the manufacturer at least once, sometimes twice or more and have been unable to get a resolution to their problems.

I'm not stupid, and I'm not a Nikon fanboy. Canon has tremendous equipment and certainly their DSLR video is the best in the DSLR business right now. They have great lenses and clearly the 5D Mark II is a terrific camera for a lot of photographers.

Just don't confuse those facts with another fact, which is that not everyone is happy and it isn't always because of user error. Sometimes, people have gone to great lengths to solve technical problems and have ultimately given up and switched to another camera brand. If they've been pleased about it, they sometimes post about it, and that's what I read. I don't read and pay attention to every Uncle Bob story about the problem they were having with their Rebel XTi or D40 and isn't Canon stupid for this or isn't Nikon stupid for that.

.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Which is a long way of saying that you've never owned a 5D Mark II and are representing impressions you're getting from the internet. If you really want to paint yourself as unbiased and admiring of Canon equipment, then you'll stop with the hearsay and stick with opining about stuff you actually own. Otherwise, you can be assured that folks here will continue to be dismissive of you.

 

[luminosity]

This is not a courtroom, and anyone ought to be welcome to mention what they've heard. I will continue to do so, and people can take it as they will. I certainly would not mention anything I wasn't confident in. I never mentioned the banding issue, and I wouldn't do that. That's long since past and mentioning it is pointless and counterproductive. The old autofocus system in the 5D Mark II is very relevant, though. It's good enough for a lot of people, but when there are problems with the camera, it seems to invariably involve the autofocus in some way.

Anyone with a decent amount of intelligence can sort through what's worth mentioning and what's best to leave out. I've done that, which is why I stick to the one thing I've seen mentioned repeatedly. Not banding, to be sure, or video stuff. Just the autofocus.

Also, I fail to see why I would need to stick to speaking only about that which I have used extensively in order to be an admirer of Canon's stuff. That's nonsense.

 

[compuwar]

Slow AF?

The old 5D managed to track this quite well......

A high contrast target moving across the frame is hardly an AF challenge. The AF module in any camera from the 80's forward should track that just fine. It becomes a different beast when it's a low contrast target in bad light and it's moving towards you. Heck, I could nail that shot on manual focus at least 99 times out of 100. My 90's era film body's AF system would nail it 100 out of 100.

Nikon seems to think some people do, given the D3(s), D700, and D300(s), all of which have a 51 point autofocus system. Based on sales, it seems they're right.

I don't think I've set my D3x to 51 points more than twice. They're all clumped in the middle too- no manufacturer gets it all right all the time. I also don't think the number of AF points drives sales much.

Is it any better elsewhere? The D3x is the only choice for a "high MP" Nikon body, and it's 8k.

People who need "high MP" and "fast AF" are shooting on the very forefront of camera technology, and it is not unreasonable to expect that they need to pay a substantial premium for that ability. People who don't "need" it but want it, should also be expected to pay up for the luxury.

Simply put, seems as if everyone wants an ultra high MP camera with ultra fast AF but don't want to pay the ultra high price.

It's $7500, and yes- if you need the feature set it or the equivalent Canon aren't cheap per-se, but that's still $125/month on a 5 year average lifespan. If I hadn't needed the ability to crop heavily, I certainly wouldn't have paid that premium without a lot more ROI calculations.

Are there quirks about the A/F system? I don't think so...and I shoot with both the 1d and 7d models...I guess I'm used to shooting with it...but my first trip out this summer with my new 70-200v2 was to the Blue Angels and an air show...I shot over 1200 pictures and got some amazing shots! Lots of fast shots that were totally reliant on A/F. Not a load of misses, but a ton of amazing hits. Again...my thoughts of those that continuously bring up that tired A/F argument of the 5d2...really should head out and do some photography instead of sitting behind a keyboard knocking the supposed "archaic" A/F system. It's a bad argument against this...dare I say, Evolutionary camera body!

I grew up on Air Force bases, and shot airshows pretty-much every year since I was 8 years old to when I left the military at 23. I can tell you that the Blue Angels are not a difficult AF target (I've shot them since they and the Thunderbirds both flew F4s back before AF.)

You're shooting in full daylight, most of the time the planes aren't heading towards you, they're big and you don't have to get their eyes in focus. If that's your measure of challenging AF, then it's a weak measure.

I also help to moderate a professional-only photography forum, and I can tell you for sure that some of the best wedding photographers I know have either switched or strongly considered switching because of AF issues in poorly lit churches with people moving towards the camera- it's as much of an issue as Nikon's poor high-ISO performance was a few years ago when lots of pros switched over to Canon. Unlike shooting airshows, reliable AF is important during portions of most wedding ceremonies, so poor venues which produce unreliable AF are important to that segement of the photography world. When someone who's been making a full-time living at photography for more than 30 years has issues, then changes to a different camera *for a day* and has zero misses that's an issue.

I've just read the accounts of a lot of former Canon shooters who abandoned the 5D Mark II because of focusing issues. They couldn't trust it and it wasn't reliable. They did fine when they moved to a D700, and so I believe it wasn't a lack of skill.

Many of the full-time wedding pros I know are very frustrated with AF on the 5DII- some of them went the D700 route and some the 7D route. Others are toughing it out or bypassed that body completely- but none of them seem to have no issues in poorly-lit venues. It doesn't seem to be a problem for most of the other pros I know- just the wedding folks, but for them it's definitely a hot-button issue.

Which is a long way of saying that you've never owned a 5D Mark II and are representing impressions you're getting from the internet. If you really want to paint yourself as unbiased and admiring of Canon equipment, then you'll stop with the hearsay and stick with opining about stuff you actually own. Otherwise, you can be assured that folks here will continue to be dismissive of you.

Are you really saying that one should dismiss the issues that full-time professional photographers have with specific bodies? Do you think the original D200 didn't have banding issues if people didn't experience it for themselves? Canon's AF issues are real-- and just like the D200's banding issues, they manifest under some specific shooting conditions- conditions that many folks don't ever hit and that some folks hit every weekend. I don't need to own a 5DII to know that it's a poor choice for some of what I like to shoot- I did the math in switching over and it wasn't a huge drain even with five figures worth of gear- but low-light, low-contrast moving targets coming towards the camera are a big soft spot for that body- and birds move faster than brides.

Every camera purchase decision needs to be made with usage in mind to get the best tool for the job. But that doesn't mean there's a lot of over-hype in all directions- for instance, most people don't need more than 12MP for 98% of their shots- but they're all agog about the megapixel numbers- most folks don't need weather sealing, they never take their camera out when it's raining- but they're touting that spec too.


Paul

 

[Phrasikleia]

Paul, please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[compuwar]

Paul, please don't put words in my mouth.

I was making a point that simply calling something hearsay doesn't change the validity of the information if it's from a reliable source. I apologize if my style of writing made it seem like I was trying to misqoute you rather than make my point, and I apologize that I couldn't figure a better way to make my point.

Paul

 

[Phrasikleia]

Ugh. More of the same. This thread is really starting to epitomize all that I hate most about the internet. I don't know why I keep rubbing my own nose in it. The point that a number of us are trying to make is that posts like #35 are really unproductive--and more importantly--that the camera in question hits just the right combination of features and value for a whole lot of people, some of whom are right here vouching for that fact out of personal experience.

 

[luminosity]

Ugh. More of the same. This thread is really starting to epitomize all that I hate most about the internet. I don't know why I keep rubbing my own nose in it. The point that a number of us are trying to make is that posts like #35 are really unproductive--and more importantly--that the camera in question hits just the right combination of features and value for a whole lot of people, some of whom are right here vouching for that fact out of personal experience.

I have absolutely no doubt that all those vouching for it are right. It's just that what I've indicated can also be true. In that way, both sides are right. The 5D Mark II is a terrific camera, and certainly works for most who use it. There are those who have issues with it that are the result of fundamental design choices on Canon's part, not photographer error. That's mostly what I've been attempting to say.

This is not a mutually exclusive deal.

 

[firestarter]

I have absolutely no doubt that all those vouching for it are right. It's just that what I've indicated can also be true. In that way, both sides are right. The 5D Mark II is a terrific camera, and certainly works for most who use it. There are those who have issues with it that are the result of fundamental design choices on Canon's part, not photographer error. That's mostly what I've been attempting to say.

This is not a mutually exclusive deal.

Perhaps if you found more reasonable ways of expressing yourself than "They'll have to update the autofocus on it or it will go from being archaic to being a joke", then you wouldn't risk being seen as someone intent on derailing the thread.

 

[luminosity]

Perhaps if you found more reasonable ways of expressing yourself than "They'll have to update the autofocus on it or it will go from being archaic to being a joke", then you wouldn't risk being seen as someone intent on derailing the thread.

Well sure. I didn't realize (though I should have) that it would turn into what it has. I'm not a one-note poster, I promise. I can get all kinds of detailed and thoughtful if necessary.

 

[mdwsta4]

You can't be serious. If a 5D2 feels plasticky, what does Nikon feel like? Or any other camera manufacturer?! This right here lost credibility for you. Perhaps you were handling a T2i and thought it was a 5D2.
Unsubscribing from this thread now. Nothing worthwhile is coming from it.

I have most definitely picked up and taken some shots with a 5D Mark II, and my personal view is that it borders on feeling cheap and too plasticky.

 

[akdj]

Man...I tried to stay away...did my best, cause I do feel for folks like jbg232. They just want to open a thread and read about What the OP asked about in the first place!!! Man, how these threads degenerate.

Paul...once again...where to start????

"I grew up on Air Force bases, and shot airshows pretty-much every year since I was 8 years old to when I left the military at 23. I can tell you that the Blue Angels are not a difficult AF target (I've shot them since they and the Thunderbirds both flew F4s back before AF.)"

My best friend's father flew for the Angels...I've flown in Jet #7 (media flight), and grown up next door to Elmendorf AFB in Alaska (30 years), a base that every other year is visited by either the Angels or the ThunderBirds...and this year, the Canadian SnowBirds. I can tell you that the Angels absolutely ARE a difficult target if you're shooting anything less than bright blue sky and ZERO background...we are surrounded by mountains with a strikingly similar contrast as the blue jets! Greens, blues, and yellows in the background absolutely DO test the AF system of ANY body! Not to mention, if you've been shooting jets and air shows since you were 8 years old Wouldn't that make you an "Experienced" air show photographer??? Perhaps that's why you find it so "Not that difficult?" Honestly partner, being around both the Air and Army bases my whole life as well...I've seen many, many more crappy air shots than good ones. And in Alaska...we aren't blessed with a whole lot of bright blue days...Typical summer day in Alaska, as well as the two days I shot the Angels this summer...are gray skies, low clouds, and not as "Contrasty" as you'd like to think!

"You're shooting in full daylight, most of the time the planes aren't heading towards you, they're big and you don't have to get their eyes in focus. If that's your measure of challenging AF, then it's a weak measure."

I simply mentioned my FIRST shoot when I got a new lens. I wasn't highlighting the end all AF system test...just anecdotal evidence that there isn't the issue that is so tiresome to read about by non-users. And again, read above...I wasn't under the most optimum of conditions WHILE testing the new lens! Gray skies, mountainous backgrounds, etc.

"I also help to moderate a professional-only photography forum, and I can tell you for sure that some of the best wedding photographers I know have either switched or strongly considered switching because of AF issues in poorly lit churches with people moving towards the camera- it's as much of an issue as Nikon's poor high-ISO performance was a few years ago when lots of pros switched over to Canon."

Really? Which forum? I'm curious...because I'm really, really intrigued by all these "Best" wedding photographers that have switched or strongly considered switching. I shoot video of weddings...pay my mortgage certain months of the year doing just that. I shoot along side many photographers, several that are absolutely phenomenal! 3 of which are Canon 5d2 shooters (always carrying two bodies), one is a Nikon junkie. I've NEVER, I repeat, NEVER heard ANY of these guys complain of focus issues to the extent they would EVER consider dumping their gear to switch. I'm honestly blown away by how OVER-Blown this subject is! It's pitiful...ANYONE that has shot in low light with decent glass (the 5d2) knows this is an over embellished FACT! I can't have the only 3 5d2 bodies in this world that don't have issues!!! The first one I bought was only a month after release...the second two came 6 months apart...they all have different born on dates.


"Unlike shooting airshows, reliable AF is important during portions of most wedding ceremonies, so poor venues which produce unreliable AF are important to that segement of the photography world."

I don't know a SINGLE air photographer that would agree with you. That reliable AF is an unnecessary ingredient to shoot an air show. On the flip side, I WOULD agree that reliable AF performance is definitely important in dark venues.

"When someone who's been making a full-time living at photography for more than 30 years has issues, then changes to a different camera *for a day* and has zero misses that's an issue."

This is BS...If you're talking about the 5d2. There is NO camera in the world that is going to give you ZERO misses if you can't hit with the 5d2. Period. Again, the last part is important. If a photographer with 30 years experience can't hit with the 5d2, he/she is a CRAPPY photographer. Not a pro. Sorry, but that is the truth. I know a lot of Canon and Nikon photographers that are pros. Give either an hour with the other brand and they'll be off to the races and shooting great shots, with lots of hits. Hell, give 'em an iPhone and they'll come back with good files!


"Many of the full-time wedding pros I know are very frustrated with AF on the 5DII- some of them went the D700 route and some the 7D route. Others are toughing it out or bypassed that body completely- but none of them seem to have no issues in poorly-lit venues. It doesn't seem to be a problem for most of the other pros I know- just the wedding folks, but for them it's definitely a hot-button issue."

I'd really love to see the evidence. One or two does not constitute "Many". I also own a 7d..the difference in files is evident. The 5d2 is definitely the leader in IQ...if you know wedding shooters dropping their FF 5d2 for an 8fps APS-C 7d...Please, enlighten me with a link. I need to slap them around

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrasikleia

"Which is a long way of saying that you've never owned a 5D Mark II and are representing impressions you're getting from the internet. If you really want to paint yourself as unbiased and admiring of Canon equipment, then you'll stop with the hearsay and stick with opining about stuff you actually own. Otherwise, you can be assured that folks here will continue to be dismissive of you."

"Are you really saying that one should dismiss the issues that full-time professional photographers have with specific bodies? "

He hasn't linked a single piece of evidence that professional photographers are having ANY of these said issues! None. He admits next to zero experience with the body....why in the world should any potential buyer put ANY kind of weight into these responses???

"Do you think the original D200 didn't have banding issues if people didn't experience it for themselves?"

What in the world are you talking about here? What does the 200 have to do with anything???

"Canon's AF issues are real-- "

No they're not. If a professional uses the camera, he/she will learn how to overcome any "issues" the body may have. A/F is not one of them. The high rez LCD and focus assist allows incredible precision with focusing...so many great attributes to these bodies go "un" discussed because of this so called A/F system "issue". I hate the cliche...but if Ansel had any kind of A/F system....never mind


"and just like the D200's banding issues, they manifest under some specific shooting conditions- conditions that many folks don't ever hit and that some folks hit every weekend. "

Oh gotcha...here we go...if you shoot in the dark, with a 60watt Tungsten bulb over your left shoulder and the moon light through the window comes in at anything less than a 57 degree angle....whatever. Come on!!! Who cares about the D200's banding issues. ZERO relevance. Period. The 5d2 is a HUGE leap from the D200. Not even the same league. And why in the world would the OP give a hoot?

"I don't need to own a 5DII to know that it's a poor choice for some of what I like to shoot- I did the math in switching over and it wasn't a huge drain even with five figures worth of gear- but low-light, low-contrast moving targets coming towards the camera are a big soft spot for that body- and birds move faster than brides. "

So there ya go...you moderate a professional forum, you don't own the camera...so you are source of sage wisdom on the purchase of this camera? Why??? Because a couple of very good "Pro?" shooters told you so? Come on...you aren't that gullible, are you?

"Every camera purchase decision needs to be made with usage in mind to get the best tool for the job. But that doesn't mean there's a lot of over-hype in all directions- for instance, most people don't need more than 12MP for 98% of their shots- but they're all agog about the megapixel numbers- most folks don't need weather sealing, they never take their camera out when it's raining- but they're touting that spec too."

And yet you jump in to this thread to defend a couple of posters that are totally clueless and spout this BS about the Focusing being archaic and evident banding in bright light? Why? I would argue (being in Alaska), that IF the 5d2 had a drawback...it would be one of those two things you just mentioned...I definitely COULD use the weather sealing!!! And double the megpixels??? Makes it easier to shoot the Angels and reframe in post

Jer

 

[compuwar]

My best friend's father flew for the Angels...I've flown in Jet #7 (media flight), and grown up next door to Elmendorf AFB in Alaska (30 years), a base that every other year is visited by either the Angels or the ThunderBirds...and this year, the Canadian SnowBirds. I can tell you that the Angels absolutely ARE a difficult target if you're shooting anything less than bright blue sky and ZERO background...we are surrounded by mountains with a strikingly similar contrast as the blue jets! Greens, blues, and yellows in the background absolutely DO test the AF system of ANY body! Not to mention, if you've been shooting jets and air shows since you were 8 years old Wouldn't that make you an "Experienced" air show photographer??? Perhaps that's why you find it so "Not that difficult?" Honestly partner, being around both the Air and Army bases my whole life as well...I've seen many, many more crappy air shots than good ones. And in Alaska...we aren't blessed with a whole lot of bright blue days...Typical summer day in Alaska, as well as the two days I shot the Angels this summer...are gray skies, low clouds, and not as "Contrasty" as you'd like to think!

I spent eight years of my childhood in the UK- trust me, Alaska doesn't have a monopoly on cloudy skies, but they're not that challenging an AF target- I shot on manual focus for my entire childhood because guess what? There were no AF cameras- it's just not that difficult- not that shots of any aerobatic team against anything other than a blue sky look good. My ~1992 Nikon 8008s could AF the Angels all day long, and I hadn't shot an airshow in ~7 years when I used that camera. My Fuji S2 Pro with a non-HSM Sigma 50-500 missed a total of three shots in Oregon (that's f/6.3 at the long end wide open!) Seriously- I'm not talking about just blue sky shots with the center AF point in action- I give my planes room to fly into the frame, and with any f/4 lens or better it's difficult to miss with any AF module. So tell me, how many of your in-focus low-contrast shots were with a focus point other than the center one?

I simply mentioned my FIRST shoot when I got a new lens. I wasn't highlighting the end all AF system test...just anecdotal evidence that there isn't the issue that is so tiresome to read about by non-users. And again, read above...I wasn't under the most optimum of conditions WHILE testing the new lens! Gray skies, mountainous backgrounds, etc.

But there is an issue- if there weren't folks who own the gear wouldn't be complaining about it. Seriously- go shoot in a dim church that won't let you use flash- the AF problem is there and it's real. Now, I don't own a 5DII- so you'll have to live with the "hearsay-" but once you get off the center AF point in low contrast situations it misses a lot- it's been a known issue since the original 5D, and Canon chose not to address it.

Really? Which forum? I'm curious...because I'm really, really intrigued by all these "Best" wedding photographers that have switched or strongly considered switching. I shoot video of weddings...pay my mortgage certain months of the year doing just that. I shoot along side many photographers, several that are absolutely phenomenal! 3 of which are Canon 5d2 shooters (always carrying two bodies), one is a Nikon junkie. I've NEVER, I repeat, NEVER heard ANY of these guys complain of focus issues to the extent they would EVER consider dumping their gear to switch. I'm honestly blown away by how OVER-Blown this subject is! It's pitiful...ANYONE that has shot in low light with decent glass (the 5d2) knows this is an over embellished FACT! I can't have the only 3 5d2 bodies in this world that don't have issues!!! The first one I bought was only a month after release...the second two came 6 months apart...they all have different born on dates.

It's called TheProfessionalPhotogrpahyForum.com.

Now, after digging some more, I'm pretty-sure I know what the 5DII wedding AF problem is. The last time I shot in a church, the place was probably around -1 EV- fortunately, I had my studio strobes and they had built-in video lights, but I can definitely see where wedding photographers have problems with "no flash" priests. Fortunately, I was shooting the choir and the priest was happy to turn on the video lights and pose.

Here's the rub- the D700, D3 series and 1D series are all rated to AF down to -1EV. The 5DII is only rated down to -.5EV. Add in the fact that all the other bodies have more than one central cross-type AF sensor and shoot for long enough that you actually compose each shot and there's the issue.

I can see where the additional .5EV of the D700 could make for the anecdotes of trying one for a day and having no problems. All the Nikon FF bodies and the 1D series AF down to -1.0 EV, the 5DII is only spec'd to -0.5EV, so you get 25% less light and are still in spec if you're not shooting a 5D. Add in faster AF on pretty-much all the competitors and go away from that single center cross-type AF sensor on the 5DII and it's a sure recipe for missed shots.

But hey- you've got a 5DII, so how about showing us some shots from the outside AF points around -0.5EV and -1EV with a moving target coming towards you? Take 100 shots and count the hits- then we can put this all to rest. I'm sure it gets worse as you get further down in light too- at -1.5EV you're .5EV out on the other bodies but 1EV out on the 5D. Come off that center AF point and it's worse for you because it's the only cross-type sensor the 5Ds have. There might be some portrait/landscape orientation issues too given the non-cross AF sensors.

"Unlike shooting airshows, reliable AF is important during portions of most wedding ceremonies, so poor venues which produce unreliable AF are important to that segment of the photography world."

I don't know a SINGLE air photographer that would agree with you. That reliable AF is an unnecessary ingredient to shoot an air show. On the flip side, I WOULD agree that reliable AF performance is definitely important in dark venues.

My point is that shooting an airshow, you don't have to get a specific shot list- you can miss lots of shots and you can shoot as many frames as you like without interrupting the show and still come away with a successful shoot. The same isn't true of most weddings- miss one roll with the Angels or Thunderbirds and there'll be another one soon- miss the bride coming down the aisle with dad and it's a different ballgame, shoot 100 shots of the bride coming down the aisle and interfere with the ceremony...

This is BS...If you're talking about the 5d2. There is NO camera in the world that is going to give you ZERO misses if you can't hit with the 5d2. Period.

Awesome- show me consistent AF hits from a 5D in -1EV of light outside the center AF sensor. My D3x has 15 cross sensors and is spec'd down to -1EV- I'm betting I can get a 100% hit rate in those conditions with a person walking towards me at bride speed on any of those 14 non-central sensors- Canon doesn't spec the 5DII to those conditions, so I'm betting you won't get similar results while many other "cameras in the world" are still in-spec and have more than one cross sensor (such as the 1DIII, D700, D3s, 1DIV.) I'm also betting at -2EV the difference in hit rates would be astoundingly different, and not in the 5DII's favor.

Paul

 

[hleewell]

5D Mark III Spec Rumor

A posting from CanonRumors.com have a funny way of coming true. Although you have to take this with a grain of salt, the following speculation seems plausible to me:

"Specifications (Japanese to English Google Translated)

28megapixel CMOS sensor . Achieved by introducing new technologies such as low-noise photodiode
Sensor Size 36.0 × 24.0mm 1.0x
Wide low-noise ISO sensitivity ISO100 ~ 12800 (extension L: 50, H1: 25600, H2: 51200, H3: 102400)
The six frames * Dual DIGIC4 / s provides continuous shooting.
98 percent of the viewfinder field of view, magnification 0.71 times. With the electronic level
A high-speed AF system. Double Cross Centre, Cross assists 19 points – 26 points. 5 AF point selection mode, types of automatic. Advanced AI Servo AF
63-segment metering. 1920 × 1080 30/25/24 frame Video
Crop video feature. 10X SD, HD four times, three times in full HD."

http://www.canonrumors.com/category/photography/canon-5d-mark-iii/

 

[firestarter]

28megapixel CMOS sensor . Achieved by introducing new technologies such as low-noise photodiode

That's not really very extreme.

If you do the math, the 5DII has a 864mm2 sensor and the 7D has a 332mm2 sensor. The full frame sensor is 2.6* larger.

If you had the same size pixels on the full frame that Canon is putting on it's 7D, you'd have 46.8 megapixels.

So this gives you some idea a/ how far this might go and b/ how it's not surprising that the 5DII gets sharper results than the 7D because it's not pushing lens resolution anywhere near as much.

Sensor Size 36.0 × 24.0mm 1.0x
Wide low-noise ISO sensitivity ISO100 ~ 12800 (extension L: 50, H1: 25600, H2: 51200, H3: 102400)

Not surprising.

The six frames * Dual DIGIC4 / s provides continuous shooting.

Doubtful. The 7D is positioned as the fast camera, the 5D range as the high res camera.

98 percent of the viewfinder field of view, magnification 0.71 times. With the electronic level

Not surprising

A high-speed AF system. Double Cross Centre, Cross assists 19 points – 26 points. 5 AF point selection mode, types of automatic. Advanced AI Servo AF 63-segment metering.

They'll have to do this, if only from a marketing point of view to silence the detractors.

1920 × 1080 30/25/24 frame Video
Crop video feature. 10X SD, HD four times, three times in full HD.

The 5DII already does those frame rates in full HD. The 550D does crop video so yes, that's likely to be in the 5DIII. I think the 5DIII is likely to also get:
- 720p 60/50 (the 7D and 550D has this)
- Full res output on HDMI while recording (I think the 7D has this)

 

[Kebabselector]

Does anyone actually take pictures with their camera or just test them to see what they can do?

 

[igmolinav]

Hi,

@Phrasikleia

I have a 5D Mark II and a 7D. Different tools for different jobs. And they both do those jobs admirably well, provided that the 30 inches behind the camera is functioning well enough.

Would you please be so kind to mention a bit for what jobs you usually use your 5D Mark II, and for what jobs your 7D ??

Thank you in advance, kind regards,

igmolinav.

 

[FX120]

Many of the full-time wedding pros I know are very frustrated with AF on the 5DII- some of them went the D700 route and some the 7D route. Others are toughing it out or bypassed that body completely- but none of them seem to have no issues in poorly-lit venues. It doesn't seem to be a problem for most of the other pros I know- just the wedding folks, but for them it's definitely a hot-button issue.

Are you really saying that one should dismiss the issues that full-time professional photographers have with specific bodies? Do you think the original D200 didn't have banding issues if people didn't experience it for themselves? Canon's AF issues are real-- and just like the D200's banding issues, they manifest under some specific shooting conditions- conditions that many folks don't ever hit and that some folks hit every weekend. I don't need to own a 5DII to know that it's a poor choice for some of what I like to shoot- I did the math in switching over and it wasn't a huge drain even with five figures worth of gear- but low-light, low-contrast moving targets coming towards the camera are a big soft spot for that body- and birds move faster than brides.

What exactly are the issues? The chief complaint I have heard is that the AF system is just "old". The 1DmkIII had issues, real issues. I haven't heard the same about the 5D2.

And the AF system in the original 5D didn't stop it from becoming the go-to camera for umpteen-million wedding photographers in it's day. Why suddenly is the same AF system unacceptable?

 

[luminosity]

What?

Paul explained it in painstaking detail. What part of his explanation did you not understand?

 

[Phrasikleia]

Hi,

@Phrasikleia



Would you please be so kind to mention a bit for what jobs you usually use your 5D Mark II, and for what jobs your 7D ??

Thank you in advance, kind regards,

igmolinav.

igmolinav, I'll be happy to do that and will send you a pm with all that I have to say because I no longer want anything to do with this thread. It's a pity that a couple of people here are hell bent on arguing that a screwdriver makes a lousy hammer, obviously because they own hammers and really hate screwdrivers.

 

[Kronie]

And the AF system in the original 5D didn't stop it from becoming the go-to camera for umpteen-million wedding photographers in it's day. Why suddenly is the same AF system unacceptable?

Look, if you cant track a flying fly inside... in almost complete darkness at 200mm...then your camera is worthless....everybody know that...