| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2008 08:56:39 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would think the video was aimed specifically at the wedding photog who doesn't do video already. |
I would think this new surge of video capable DSLRs are aimed towards keeping the digital camera viable for photojournalism as well. With many of the new camcorders able to pull print worthy stills and many news outlets relying more on the internet for video and stills for their stories, this at least keeps DSLRs capable to do both. Just a thought. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 09:07:59 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would think the video was aimed specifically at the wedding photog who doesn't do video already. |
I would think this new surge of video capable DSLRs are aimed towards keeping the digital camera viable for photojournalism as well. With many of the new camcorders able to pull print worthy stills and many news outlets relying more on the internet for video and stills for their stories, this at least keeps DSLRs capable to do both. Just a thought. |
Your thought is probably spot on the mark! |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 09:08:49 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Where are we getting the idea that a FF $2500 camera is for "higher end amateurs"? What do the pros use?
|
read the review and said it was a "high end amateur" to "pro" camera ... was being lazy and only wrote the first part. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 09:26:52 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would think the video was aimed specifically at the wedding photog who doesn't do video already. |
I would think this new surge of video capable DSLRs are aimed towards keeping the digital camera viable for photojournalism as well. With many of the new camcorders able to pull print worthy stills and many news outlets relying more on the internet for video and stills for their stories, this at least keeps DSLRs capable to do both. Just a thought. |
But OTOH, does a serious PJist use a camera that shoots at 3.9fps? |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 09:36:42 PM · #80 |
Canon might have put the ST-E2 on board. But since I use some Nikon strobes not ST-E2 compatible that does not matter, I suppose. The flash sync is still 1/200 - desirous of faster. Shutter is focal plane still and rated at 150,000 - desirous of more. But OK...
|
|
|
|
09/17/2008 10:09:12 PM · #81 |
| Looks like a perfect camera. Way over kill for stock but fine art, portrait and weddings a perfect match. I've been lucky enough to sell lots of high priced stock and also doing well with HD video stock. What a combination, digital and HD video. I do not believe it will come close to replacing a Canon XH-A1 HD video camera but there are times when all I might have with me is the 5D. Very positive move for stock, weddings, news/reporters. WOW just think of Paparazzi use ;) |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 10:22:57 PM · #82 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by jdannels:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I would think the video was aimed specifically at the wedding photog who doesn't do video already. |
I would think this new surge of video capable DSLRs are aimed towards keeping the digital camera viable for photojournalism as well. With many of the new camcorders able to pull print worthy stills and many news outlets relying more on the internet for video and stills for their stories, this at least keeps DSLRs capable to do both. Just a thought. |
But OTOH, does a serious PJist use a camera that shoots at 3.9fps? |
isn't the 5D known for being a photojournalist's camera? Heard it being referenced as the camera that showed north Americans Africa's plight. or some jazz like that. |
|
|
|
09/17/2008 10:48:09 PM · #83 |
More samples found in an obscure zip file somewhere on DPReview.
IMPORTANT NOTE: These are obviously taken by some guy who stuck his card in during a trade show and took crappy hand-held shots. They are NOT Canon approved. But they are real-world, high-ISO samples. =)
ISO 250 and 500 look incredibly smooth to me. Like ISO 100 on my XT.
ISO 12800 and 25600 are noise city, but there's still detail, and they honestly might work in small print format.
ISO 6400 looks moderate. Like my XT at ISO 1600.
There isn't a 3200, but I'm guessing it's totally usable.
Let me know if the link breaks and you're dying to see them.
Enjoy! |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 12:14:51 AM · #84 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
Another smashing job at providing decent samples, Canon. =P |
LOL. So true.
Do you remember when the first 5D samples were provided by Canon? There was a HUGE uproar over detail smearing on a landscape.
If the 5DII samples look like they were not taken with a Kodak Brownie by a gibbon with Parkinson's then we are likely to be happy with the IQ of the camera. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 12:18:27 AM · #85 |
Originally posted by bradshaw:
But OTOH, does a serious PJist use a camera that shoots at 3.9fps?
isn't the 5D known for being a photojournalist's camera? Heard it being referenced as the camera that showed north Americans Africa's plight. or some jazz like that. |
If you are a sport photog/ PJ then buy the 1DMIII. The 5D has never been the ultimate speedster, but it works just fine for landscapes and weddings.
Heck, the 50D would be a great PJ cam. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 01:26:08 AM · #86 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
More MP - a real value to some, a hindrance to others. |
You see higher resolution as a hindrance? I suppose some people might see the larger file size as a hindrance, but that's the price you pay for high resolution images.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
FF - not sure what the real advantage is here other than a bit shallower DOF and ego. You can get just as wide on a crop body, |
Yes, with special lenses.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
you lose the extra length of a crop body on longer lenses, |
Smaller sensors do not magically give your lens a longer focal length. Essentially, what they do is pre-crop your photos by capturing only a smaller portion of the image projected by a standard lens. With the new 5D's bigger, higher-resolution, large pixel sensor, you could crop the same image as you get from the small sensor and still have a better, higher-resolution image. Looked at that way, the 5D actually gives you more 'extra length' than a cropped sensor camera like the 50D.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
but you would get better fishey and a brighter viewfinder overall. Almost a wash on which is better. Becomes a very personal choice. |
A wash on which is better? I don't think so. To me, it's obvious the 5D's a much better camera.
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
At FF and 21mp cheapo lenses need not apply. I would assume as in the past a crop body would have a slight advantage here. |
IMO, a very minor point, and it's debatable. Besides, if you're going to spend the money to get a great camera like the 5D-Mk2, why would you want to use cheapo lenses?
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Fewer FPS and no built in flash, things one can really use at times. No substitue for FPS either. |
Most serious action/sports photographers will probably have a 1DMk2n or 1DMk3, if not two or three of each. As for built-in flash, does anyone ever use one? I never have. I'm glad my 5D doesn't have one. It used to bug me when the stupid little built-in flash would pop up on my 10D.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 07:57:15 AM · #87 |
POLL: Which new Nikon camera does the new 5D2 compete with? The D3, the D300 or the D700?
Justify your answer (i.e. price, features, quality, be specific).
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 08:26:57 AM · #88 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
POLL: Which new Nikon camera does the new 5D2 compete with? The D3, the D300 or the D700?
Justify your answer (i.e. price, features, quality, be specific). |
I'd rather have a 5D I suppose than my D700 which I just purchased last week. I'm suprised how cheap it is. I do love my camera.
The pixel count is huge and I think that's a great thing. I love the cropping ability and would have liked a few more pixels on my D700. Also the image quality of the D700 isn't as good as on the D3. They're supposed to be the same but they're not. To some the difference might be nickel and dime but IMO the D3 takes a bad-ass picture.
It (the 5d mk...) looks closer to the D700 than the D3 from that comparison chart previously posted.
Mick-Great post. I think you're spot on. The image quality off a full frame is far superior to the smaller frame (D300-to the D700) and the extra control I have over the image in PS or Lightroom, I'm finding a charm.
Here's my D700 images...
New Images
#106 - 110 were taken on my walk home from B&H out of the box and the rest after.
Message edited by author 2008-09-18 08:56:26. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 08:35:21 AM · #89 |
The Canon USA website says that the new 5D/2 is "Compatible with over 60 Canon EF/EF-S lenses and most EOS System accessories." That EF-S reference is erroneous, isn't it?
Click on the "Features" tab and it's the bottom line.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 08:55:45 AM · #90 |
| I don't see EF-S anywhere. They must have corrected it. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 08:56:40 AM · #91 |
Originally posted by nova:
The Canon USA website says that the new 5D/2 is "Compatible with over 60 Canon EF/EF-S lenses and most EOS System accessories." That EF-S reference is erroneous, isn't it?
Click on the "Features" tab and it's the bottom line. |
I don't see anything about being compatable with EF-S lenses
21.1 Megapixel Full-frame CMOS sensor, 14-bit A/D conversion (16,384 colors/each of 3 primary color), wide range ISO setting of 100-6400 (expandable L: 50, H1: 12800 and H2: 25600).
Full HD Video capture at 1920 x 1080 resolution for up to 4GB per clip with HDMI output for HD viewing of stills and video.
Next generation DIGIC 4 Image Processor for faster processing of fine detail and color reproduction as well as reduced image noise.
High performance with 3.9 fps continuous shooting, new shutter with a durability of 150,000 cycles and improved weather-resistant body.
Live View Function for stills (Quick, Live and Face Detection AF modes) and video.
3.0-inch Clear View LCD (920,000 dots/VGA) monitor with anti-reflective and scratch-resistant coatings for improved viewing and smudge protection.
Updated EOS Integrated Cleaning System specifically designed to work with a full-frame sensor.
Compatible with over 60 Canon EF Lenses and most EOS System accessories.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:02:13 AM · #92 |
it actually DOES say EF/EF-S lenses ... then when you click the link it changes to EF only ... I'm guessing the EF-S is a boo-boo by Canon!
Features
21.1 Megapixel Full-frame CMOS sensor, 14-bit A/D conversion (16,384 colors/each of 3 primary color), wide range ISO setting of 100-6400 (expandable L: 50, H1: 12800 and H2: 25600).
Full HD Video capture at 1920 x 1080 resolution for up to 4GB per clip with HDMI output for HD viewing of stills and video.
Next generation DIGIC 4 Image Processor for faster processing of fine detail and color reproduction as well as reduced image noise.
High performance with 3.9 fps continuous shooting, new shutter with a durability of 150,000 cycles and improved weather-resistant body.
Live View Function for stills (Quick, Live and Face Detection AF modes) and video.
3.0-inch Clear View LCD (920,000 dots/VGA) monitor with anti-reflective and scratch-resistant coatings for improved viewing and smudge protection.
Updated EOS Integrated Cleaning System specifically designed to work with a full-frame sensor.
Compatible with over 60 Canon EF/EF-S lenses and most EOS System accessories. |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:04:49 AM · #93 |
Originally posted by pamelasue:
it actually DOES say EF/EF-S lenses ... then when you click the link it changes to EF only |
Not in my browser. It might be cached on yours...? |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:12:18 AM · #94 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by pamelasue:
it actually DOES say EF/EF-S lenses ... then when you click the link it changes to EF only |
Not in my browser. It might be cached on yours...? |
nope, cleared cache, closed Firefox and re-opened ... it's still there ... interesting! |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:14:50 AM · #95 |
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:26:21 AM · #96 |
Then it's almost certainly stale cache data.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 09:33:25 AM · #97 |
This is my dream camera! I'm starting to dabble in video for my blog and having a 2 in one with those specs at that price..... I'd buy 2! I guess I'll have to wait a year now. ;)
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 10:02:14 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Then it's almost certainly stale cache data.
|
My browser must be broken, the last line doesn't appear to be highlighted when I go to look at the page.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 10:08:29 AM · #99 |
A question of high ISO performance versus the smaller photo sites in this sensor came up and it got me to thinking along two lines:
1) For 21mp (to me, that means portraiture), I'll never shoot at anything other than ISO 100 or 200 anyway. So high ISO doesn't matter, here.
2) When I do care about high ISO performance (low light weddings / receptions) the 21mp is going to be overkill. So I'll probably switch to sRaw. At which point I wondered... does sRaw do pixel averaging? And if so, will that automatically hide some of the inherent noise? In other words, will sRaw show BETTER high iso performance than standard raw?
It'll be interesting to find out.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2008 10:35:52 AM · #100 |
Originally posted by dwterry:
A question of high ISO performance versus the smaller photo sites in this sensor came up and it got me to thinking along two lines:
1) For 21mp (to me, that means portraiture), I'll never shoot at anything other than ISO 100 or 200 anyway. So high ISO doesn't matter, here.
2) When I do care about high ISO performance (low light weddings / receptions) the 21mp is going to be overkill. So I'll probably switch to sRaw. At which point I wondered... does sRaw do pixel averaging? And if so, will that automatically hide some of the inherent noise? In other words, will sRaw show BETTER high iso performance than standard raw?
It'll be interesting to find out. |
Would shooting at full-res and then downsizing later help reduce noise any better, I wonder?
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 04:32:30 PM EDT.
