Canon 5D announced !

On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 12:52:20 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

It won't be a Happy New Year if you discover that better lenses
are needed, pushing the loot meter back up around $8k.

The vast majority of Canon lens 24mm or longer will be fine on the 5DII.

So the only lens needed here is the Zeiss 18/3.5.

Brett may not need any new glass at all.

Could be. He'll just have to check out his lenses if he gets a
5DII. But even if we assume that all of them are not only FX lenses
but also do well in the corners, the long lenses won't have the same
reach. On top of all this, getting a 5DII is unlikely to quench his
existing lens lust. How many photographers do you know that don't
want more than they need?

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Rita Berkowitz wrote:

I think smart money is
going to be well spent on this body when using it with Nikkors and adapters.

Would you prefer Nikon's 70-200mm f/2.8 over Canon's for the 5D Mk II?

From what I've read, the 5D Mk
II's AF module is extremely slow and cumbersome,

And where would you have read such a thing? (URL, please)

And for serious studio and
landscape photographers that want to squeeze every drop of detail and
resolution from their kit's performance aren't concerned about AF.

They use large format cameras, or at least medium format
digibacks ...

You could be right about overaggressive in-camera processing since the
firmware of this beast is already at V3.6.1 and the camera isn't even
released to the public.

So they don't start counting at zero, or adapt well working
and well known firmware from their other offerings.

-Wolfgang

Annika1980 wrote:

I've never felt shorted by my current lenses. Sure, I'd love a faster
long lens like the 400 f/2.8L IS or even the longer reach of the 800 f/
5.6L. The Zeiss 18mm Distagon would be nice, but I don't shoot too
much wide angle and when I do I usually end up stitching the shots.

One _big_ advantage of Canon is that many of their mid-range lenses have
L quality optics, and are just a little less well constructed than the L
equivalent. With Nikon you're not getting the higher quality glass in
their mid-range lenses. Even Nikon aficionado Ken Rockwell admitted as
much in his reviews of the extreme wide-angle zoom lenses (Canon 10-22,
Nikon 12-24, etc.).

It's understandable why those familiar only with Nikon would be
concerned about the lens optical quality on high-resolution full frame
D-SLRs (when Nikon comes out with one, as is expected soon). They'll
essentially have to buy a whole new set of lenses unless they already
have the highest end Nikon glass.

On 9/21/08 9:25 PM, in article
,
"Annika1980" wrote:

On Sep 21, 8:01*am, Robert Coe wrote:

: If you think about it, get two.

And send you one of 'em, right? *;^)

Zactly!



Jeez, Bret, I figured you'd lunge at the 50D. But you're going upscale on us,
eh?

I've always lusted after the 1DsMKIII, but I knew I'd never be able to
afford the $8K price. Now Canon is giving me something even better
for $2700. And HD Video to boot! I predict it will be a Merry
Christmas at the Annika Estate.

The only drawback I see is that you have to use the Live View screen
the shoot the video. I'm gonna look like one of those P&S dorks
holding the cammy out in front of me and looking at the LCD.
"Smille for grandma!"

"grandma"?

Something we don't know about, Bret?!?

In article , SMS
wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:

I've never felt shorted by my current lenses. Sure, I'd love a faster
long lens like the 400 f/2.8L IS or even the longer reach of the 800 f/
5.6L. The Zeiss 18mm Distagon would be nice, but I don't shoot too
much wide angle and when I do I usually end up stitching the shots.

One _big_ advantage of Canon is that many of their mid-range lenses have
L quality optics, and are just a little less well constructed than the L
equivalent. With Nikon you're not getting the higher quality glass in
their mid-range lenses.

not only do you get higher quality glass in nikon's mid-range, but in
the low end too. nikon uses ed glass throughout the line where
appropriate. even coolpix compact digicams use ed glass.

Even Nikon aficionado Ken Rockwell admitted as
much in his reviews of the extreme wide-angle zoom lenses (Canon 10-22,
Nikon 12-24, etc.).

ken rockwell is hardly a credible source. he readily admits his own
site is a work of fiction.

It's understandable why those familiar only with Nikon would be
concerned about the lens optical quality on high-resolution full frame
D-SLRs (when Nikon comes out with one, as is expected soon). They'll
essentially have to buy a whole new set of lenses unless they already
have the highest end Nikon glass.

what a load of crap.

In article , Me
wrote:

It did, but you can hardly consider the 5D Mk II a competitor to the D90.

Why not?

Apart from sensor size and number of megapixels - which makes a small
difference to image quality, the feature sets of the two cameras
(amateur AF systems, non pro VF, movie mode, low burst rates etc) are
quite similar.

but the the price is quite a bit different.

nospam wrote:
In article , Me
wrote:

It did, but you can hardly consider the 5D Mk II a competitor to the D90.
Why not?

Apart from sensor size and number of megapixels - which makes a small
difference to image quality, the feature sets of the two cameras
(amateur AF systems, non pro VF, movie mode, low burst rates etc) are
quite similar.

but the the price is quite a bit different.

Yes.
I'm extremely unsure about welcoming HD video capture in such cameras.
I am planning strategies now so that I have an excuse at hand - so not
to have to endure the result. So far the best I have come up with is
that I have epilepsy triggered by flickering screens. My dog recently
ate some daffodil leaves by mistake and quite promptly threw what very
much looked like an epileptic fit, but recovered apparently unharmed.
I'll keep some in my pocket, in case an aspiring cinematographer becomes
persistent and demands proof.
Still photos are easy - there's always some point of interest in the
crappiest portfolio on which to focus some positive comments.
This has the potential to be at least as unpleasant to the senses as a
rock band talent quest for 14 year olds, but worse - as thankfully they
come only once a year at my son's school.

Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 5:20 AM:

People are taking test photos on the 5D M2 with some pretty poor zoom
lenses. The 5D2 is capable of taking very soft images, if for example
you use a poor zoom lens (would much rather see them using fixed FL
lenses), or you don't focus well, or you shoot with the lens opened
too much, or you have camera shake during the exposure.

Of the sample images I have seen to date from the 5D2 they are over
all pretty poor, but I don't blame the camera. I would really like to
see some sample taken with a 50mm f/1.4 shot at f/8 or f/11.

I'd settle for an image that is soft everywhere
or sharp everywhere. But one that is sharp
in one spot and 200 pixels away it's just mush?
Yeah, right: that can't be the camera...



I don't see the noise you are seeing, as for the colors, as with just
about any DSLR they can be set to what ever you want when converting
the raw files, if you want Rockwell colors you can have them.

I'd settle for natural colours. Like what I see when something
is under direct sunlight. That image was taken under direct
sunlight and it looks like it was in full shade.
That has NOTHING to do with "Rockwell colors".


That is one soft looking image, I am not saying you can't get as soft
with the 5D2, but with a good lens you can get a lot sharper.

Prove it. Don't just talk, Scott: prove it. Provide
a "good lens" and a "lot sharper". And a FULL size
crop, please: not a 400X200 Bret Douglas downress, thank you.
ANYTHING is sharp at that size!

I did
the down sample to 50% and back up, can't tell the difference,

of course you can't: why do you think the original was a jpg?
What does a jpg do to an image? Familiar with the term
"LOSSY COMPRESSION"? That was not one of your best moments,
I'm afraid...

I have
seen 35mm film do better then that.

Prove it, Scott. Once again: all wind, no substance.



Actually I never said that 35mm can’t resolve over 6MP, in fact I
have scans that go well past 6MP for resolution.

That's a novel one! BWAHAHAHA!


But Sharpness and
resolution are tricky kind of things,

of course. So "tricky" that you can't even provide
examples of any...



I have film shots were you can read text and on the digital you can’t,
but when both are printed at the same size the digital still looks
sharper.

Ah yes, the "magic" printing effect...

The noise from a film scan also adds to the soft looking
prints, IMO.

Does it? Actually, I'll bet you can't see the
"noise" in ANY of your prints.


If I want to take a photo to capture text I would shoot film before I
would use a 8-10 MP digital, but if I want a sharp looking print I am
going to shoot digital.

Good for you. I use what's most cost effective.
That's film, at the moment.

That Leica is attractive, though:
I wonder if I can sell one of the houses...

Rita Berkowitz wrote,on my timestamp of 22/09/2008 12:57 PM:

I wouldn't go that far as of yet! True, the original 5D was a totally
awesome sensor wrapped in a **** body, but I think (hope) Canon solved this
problem. And the link to the images I posted a few days ago show that it
has a very slight edge over the D700 in image quality. Hell it should, and
probably a lot more for a camera of twice the MPs. I think smart money is
going to be well spent on this body when using it with Nikkors and
adapters.

It BETTER have a "slight edge" on the D700:
only TWICE the MP? One would think even for Canon
that would be enough?...



This way you get the best of both worlds. From what I've read, the 5D Mk
II's AF module is extremely slow and cumbersome, which is no problem if the
user is using Nikkors since they only MF. And for serious studio and
landscape photographers that want to squeeze every drop of detail and
resolution from their kit's performance aren't concerned about AF.


Narh. I'll wait for it to drop in price, then I'm gonna
get myself one of those bodies - or a Minolta A900,
should have dropped more by then... - and use it as a fast
35mm film scanner with bellows and an enlarger lens.

May God bless Sony for having forced all these *******s
to price FX sensors sensibly! They have been cheap
to make for AGES: it's all been a smokescreen to milk
the market for as long as possible!


You could be right about overaggressive in-camera processing since the
firmware of this beast is already at V3.6.1 and the camera isn't even
released to the public. Then again, maybe Canon decided to hold off on the
release of the 5D Mk III till they got everything right and the consumer
won't need more than one or two firmware updated over the life of the
model.


At the moment, the samples in dpreview do not
augur well: have a look at the one on the tube
station. Crap, I've never seen such digital mush!
And at different focus planes as well!

This thing has SERIOUS processing problems at
the moment, at the very least with jpgs.
Let's hope it's just that...

On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:19:03 +0100, "Focus" wrote:
:
: No mention of pixel increasemend. A lot of bla, bla ba about the fact
: that the battery now increased from 800 to 850.... LOL!
: To me it would be more interesting to see that they finally got the
: light metering right.
: Don't even get started me on the AF.......
:
: I rather pay twice the price for a Nikon D300, then for this ..........
:
: At least the light metering works and the AF is ....... the best you
: can find....
:
:
: Even my Sony 350 runs circles around this.......
:
: AND I get at least as much pics; in general close to 1000.

Are you referring to a particular camera model or just letting your mind
wander?

Bob