Biggest rumblings are of 21mp for the 5D2...damn.
RELEASE SO I CAN BUY A MK1 ALREADY. My $1000 5D is approaching...
RELEASE SO I CAN BUY A MK1 ALREADY. My $1000 5D is approaching...
Nikon D700
- Thread starter H8R
- Start date
Off topic, but the 5D comment reminded me... I was at a wedding on Saturday. Wind was blowing, we were all outside and the photographer pops his 70-200 off his 5D and walks around with no lens on his camera for about 5 or 10 minutes, chatting with people/his assistants/etc.
Hence the lucrative sensor cleaning product market.Off topic, but the 5D comment reminded me... I was at a wedding on Saturday. Wind was blowing, we were all outside and the photographer pops his 70-200 off his 5D and walks around with no lens on his camera for about 5 or 10 minutes, chatting with people/his assistants/etc.
The title "Professional" doesn't free you from the underlying pinning of "Dumbass".
I considered trudging along in front of him, scuffing my feet and kicking up a dust storm, but I decided to be nice...
there are horror stories on POTN about certain 5D sensors being 'different' than others, so when people use the Copperhill/Eclipse sensor cleaning solution (basically methanol), it deteriorates the AA filter...
i've wet-cleaned my 30D a few times, but am now scared to do anything but the blower w/ my 5D.
btw photokina is in 4 weeks' time. plenty of time left for rumors.
I hear putting your camera in a paint shaker has the same effect as a built-in sensor cleaner.
Hoping for 5d mk2 announcement today! c'mon...money burning hole in pocket here.
srsly. i'm hearing photokina though.
Typical Canonite reasoning. "That feature is stupid 'cause you can make do without!"
They apply the same reasoning to their AF systems - we don' need no steenkin' working autofocus.
I would love 51 pt AF...especially if it went to the very corners. Not having AF points near the corners drives me batty shooting some stuff (bikes in particular actually). I want a head in the corner going right to left and 45degs to the focal plane. Nope, sorry, no can do.
well at least Canon announced a replacement to the 40D already. the 40D was so old...i mean 1 year is ancient..oh wait i forgot about the 5D
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos50d/
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17499
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/canoneos50d/
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17499
show me your toughest BiF challenge that the D300 saved the day on.
More irrelevant reasoning and an irrational "challenge"
More coverage is better. I leave my D300 on 51pt AF all the time because I can place my AF sensor exactly over my subject. That allows me to both autofocus without recomposing AND spot meter very precisely (again, without AE lock or recomposing). Especially useful on a tripod shooting images like the first one I posted in the "post a photo" thread where recomposing is impractical. AF was not used in that shot but spot metering was and I could spot meter right where I wanted to.
You can never tell whether 51pt AF "saved the day" - what, you want me to show you a bird in flight that's in focus and claim it was only because of the 51pt AF? It's simply more functional. Period. End of story. Arguing the point is stupid - if Canon implemented full coverage AF you'd make use of it and be happy.
Last edited:
better placed AF points, yes...51? er, i likely don't need that many.
ansel adams didn't need no stinkin' spot metering.
big viewfinder on tripod = manual focusing.
ansel adams didn't need no stinkin' spot metering.
big viewfinder on tripod = manual focusing.
Uh huh.
OK. You can go back to the dark ages. I'll stick with what works better and faster and more accurately, instead of inventing excuses as to why improvements aren't necessary.
BTW, didn't I just say I used manual focus? I could have sworn...
OK. You can go back to the dark ages. I'll stick with what works better and faster and more accurately, instead of inventing excuses as to why improvements aren't necessary.
BTW, didn't I just say I used manual focus? I could have sworn...
works better and faster....it's all relative, isn't it?
i've seen people w/ kit lenses and entry level bodies which blow my sh!t out of the water.
for a somewhat staged shot like the bug (which was nice, btw), you don't need a whole lot of bells and whistles...
unless you are shooting in extreme conditions, i'd say that composition and photoshop skills are far better served than whatever particular camera one might use.
i've seen people w/ kit lenses and entry level bodies which blow my sh!t out of the water.
for a somewhat staged shot like the bug (which was nice, btw), you don't need a whole lot of bells and whistles...
unless you are shooting in extreme conditions, i'd say that composition and photoshop skills are far better served than whatever particular camera one might use.
What could you possibly be arguing about here? I have the option, if I want it, to have an AF point (and correspondingly, a spot meter) placed literally anywhere on my composition. There are no negatives.
You could take all of your arguments and apply them to every new camera feature in the last 10 years. You don't need AF or IS/VR or advanced metering. But we have them, and they're better. Need is not the issue.
for what I do the 51 point on my D3 and D300 usually works against me when I am shooting people at f1.4 it will often use the background. So I usually just use single with AF lock.
You're referring to auto-area selection, not the 51pt AF itself
I use single-point selection 90% of the time, but there are points all over the frame to choose from, not a small selection in some engineer's idea of a usable pattern.
my point is when does feature become a bell or whistle?
will 85 AF points be 66% better than 51?
i am not arguing that the non-1 series canon AF pattern and number could be improved upon (esp the pattern), but i am skeptical that 51 is the right answer.
all i know is that i will not give up my direct print button.
will 85 AF points be 66% better than 51?
i am not arguing that the non-1 series canon AF pattern and number could be improved upon (esp the pattern), but i am skeptical that 51 is the right answer.
all i know is that i will not give up my direct print button.
Shrinking the AF points wouldn't be beneficial. Covering the sensor with them is the benefit. 51, 65, 39, the number is irrelevant. If 85 points cover the whole sensor, that's great.
Actually, the next feature that will come down the pipeline, mark my words, is one that Sony has been offering in their digicams for a while now: flexible spot AF. Basically you can position the AF sensor (and spot meter) anywhere - virtually infinite number of locations, you just use the touchpad to move it around. And, of course, you can revert back to normal pre-defined positions.
That'll be the end of the AF-point discussions
It's easy to do with contrast AF. Trickier with phase detection but it'll come I'm sure.
I would process my images and put them back on the memory card just to make use of the print button
ok, here's a good illustration of what i was talking about re: 51 AF points.
Nikon's are all clustered around the middle region as well. i could happily live w/ 13 AF points (desired ones filled in red)
Nikon's are all clustered around the middle region as well. i could happily live w/ 13 AF points (desired ones filled in red)
I wish my 20D had more than 9 AF points that weren't all in the center. Why the hell does Canon put them all in the center? 
It's so funny when I jokingly telling Nikon shooters that Canons are way better and they end up with their pantys in bunch.
It's so funny when I jokingly telling Nikon shooters that Canons are way better and they end up with their pantys in bunch.
take a look @ the D700's AF pattern i posted (grey boxes are D700; red squares are the 5D). you don't think that's small, relatively speaking to the entire viewfinder area?
these are the rough dimension of the entire viewfinder area, and the area covered by the AF points:
520 (h) x 775 (w) = 403,000
155 (h) x 440 (w) = 68,200
so there's roughly 17% of the viewfinder area covered by AF points. all 51 of them. that's quite the packing density.
Two things: on a cropped sensor (mine, and the one I was discussing), the AF points cover a pretty large portion of the whole sensor.
Secondly, I stand by my comment: having the option (and again, just an option - you can turn on the pre-defined 9 points if you want to) to blanket the sensor with AF and spot meter points is great. Especially shooting at extremely wide apertures where it's important to not recompose or, as stated, shooting on a tripod where recomposing is impractical.
Secondly, I stand by my comment: having the option (and again, just an option - you can turn on the pre-defined 9 points if you want to) to blanket the sensor with AF and spot meter points is great. Especially shooting at extremely wide apertures where it's important to not recompose or, as stated, shooting on a tripod where recomposing is impractical.
Here, for comparison... Even accounting for a size difference between the 5D's picture and the D700, there's simply better coverage.
D300:
40D:
D700:
5D:
D300:
40D:
D700:
5D:
then start a D300 thread. :biggrin:
for all you Nikon geeks out there...i know its not the D700, but the D3
http://gizmodo.com/5045515/watch-a-5000-nikon-d3-dslr-fire-in-ultra-slow-motion
http://gizmodo.com/5045515/watch-a-5000-nikon-d3-dslr-fire-in-ultra-slow-motion