Quote from: qwerty on January 07, 2011, 09:44
.........as I've never used a 1d/1ds Mkxx  I don't have a problem with the AF system except live view. 

Going from the 1Ds range to 5D the only difference I noticed was a massive drop in quality of the autofocus. On the Ds I could confidently use autofocus in the studio in any situation, I'd never have the same confidence with the 5DmkII.

I hope they are not upgrading soon, I just bought me another 5D mk II so that I would have my old one as a backup....

I would like to see:
-Just a bit more megapixels
-More (and faster / more accurate) AF points
-Still a bit less noise

I want:
off camera flash control, weather proofing, better sensor cleaning, couple extra mp

Quote from: leaf on November 28, 2008, 13:11
December 22, 2012 Update
Well here's an update with no real updates...

No-one's to blame, I know time flies so quickly 

Quote from: ErickN on January 07, 2011, 13:27

Quote from: leaf on November 28, 2008, 13:11
December 22, 2012 Update
Well here's an update with no real updates...

No-one's to blame, I know time flies so quickly 

haha.. thanks.
fixed.

I spoke with a Canon Rep a couple weeks ago and asked what he thought.  He said if there was something in the works that no one would know about it as their confidentiality agreements are off the charts if they really want to keep a secret.  He speculated that it would be a while before it's upgraded as the 5DMarkII is still flying off the shelves as fast as they can deliver them.

Quote from: MatHayward on January 07, 2011, 17:46
He speculated that it would be a while before it's upgraded as the 5DMarkII is still flying off the shelves as fast as they can deliver them.

It would make sense for Canon to have a Camera 'on hand' ready for when the sales start to slump, constantly upgrading the specs of what the camera will have inside until it is finally announced.  Then when the sales slow down.. tada we have a new camera ready.

Quote from: leaf on January 07, 2011, 22:04
It would make sense for Canon to have a Camera 'on hand' ready for when the sales start to slump, constantly upgrading the specs of what the camera will have inside until it is finally announced.  Then when the sales slow down.. tada we have a new camera ready.

Trouble is realistically, who actually needs more camera the the 5D MkII already is? The various pro specialists are already catered for by the 1D range and the 5D MkII is really aimed at the generalist pro (i.e. stock), or maybe as a second body, and the up-market hobbyist.

How do you significantly improve, with stuff that is actually useful, a camera that is virtually perfect and that has to stay within a certain price-point ... whilst also not intruding into the territory of the 1D range?

I think we'll get a replacement 1Ds MkIV long before a 5D MkIII. The new technology is always introduced first to the top-end models and then trickles down over time __ same with everything. I was intrigued by the Red One claim of having a dynamic range of 13 (?). That's better than the human eye. Imagine no more shadow recovery, etc. Maybe that's the new technology that we'll see on the new top models.

post deleted

Quote from: RT on January 07, 2011, 09:53

Quote from: qwerty on January 07, 2011, 09:44
.........as I've never used a 1d/1ds Mkxx  I don't have a problem with the AF system except live view. 

Going from the 1Ds range to 5D the only difference I noticed was a massive drop in quality of the autofocus. On the Ds I could confidently use autofocus in the studio in any situation, I'd never have the same confidence with the 5DmkII.

Yep!  5d2 only works with the centre-point AF and frankly I am not too impressed with my D3X, AF points either.

I have the original 5D and the MK2. To be honest the original has less noise at 100 ISO and is a tad sharper straight out of camera.

I don't need more megapixels to clog up my post processing speed, thank you very much.
What would compel me to upgrade would be better dynamic range and more + more accurate focus points.

The array of focus points is not wide enough in the 5D series.
If I am in portrait orientation and use the top point to focus on a models eye for instance, then there is a ton of frame left over above the models head that I have to crop out later.
If I focus and recompose, I risk losing critical focus on the eye unless shooting at f16 or greater.

Also shooting action is really not the forte' of the 5D bodies. Need to go to a 1D or a 7D to shoot action.
Maybe that's my solution. A 7D for action and a for portrait work?

Are you listening Canon!?

Quote from: nosaya on January 09, 2011, 16:20
I have the original 5D and the MK2. To be honest the original has less noise at 100 ISO and is a tad sharper straight out of camera.

I don't need more megapixels to clog up my post processing speed, thank you very much.
What would compel me to upgrade would be better dynamic range and more + more accurate focus points.

The array of focus points is not wide enough in the 5D series.
If I am in portrait orientation and use the top point to focus on a models eye for instance, then there is a ton of frame left over above the models head that I have to crop out later.
If I focus and recompose, I risk losing critical focus on the eye unless shooting at f16 or greater.

Also shooting action is really not the forte' of the 5D bodies. Need to go to a 1D or a 7D to shoot action.
Maybe that's my solution. A 7D for action and a for portrait work?



Are you listening Canon!?

dont know how you can say the original 5d gives less noise then the MII and at base-ISO. It must be your camera. My MII, is almost as good as my D3X, with the exeption of AF.
Superb IQ and extremly sharp straight out of camera.

^^
I say it because it is true in my case, for my bodies.
Two bodies, same lenses (85mm1.8, 28-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L IS), same software.
I believe that there is a stronger anti-aliasing filter on the MK2 accounting for a slight softness in the out of camera images.
PS- I only shoot RAW, so there is no in camera sharpening going on.

The noise is only in the darker areas of the image and easily cleaned up.
This is a known problem and complained about vociferously on DP Review.
Thank goodness I don't also have the banding issue.
At any rate I have learned to always expose to the right on the MK2 whereas with the MK1 I had a but more leeway.

Quote from: nosaya on January 09, 2011, 16:20
I have the original 5D and the MK2. To be honest the original has less noise at 100 ISO and is a tad sharper straight out of camera.

You should really first resize the images to the same size to compare this. If you upsize a mkI file to 5606 pixels on the longer side, do you still consider it sharper than a mkII file?

Of course mkII will appear softer if you don't have the absolute top of the line lenses (There are prime lenses that outperforms your zooms) and shoot at medium apertures. More megapixels doesn't help if your lenses aren't up to the task.

Hey Perry, got any recommendations for the best primes?

Quote from: nosaya on January 09, 2011, 22:30
Hey Perry, got any recommendations for the best primes?

I have no idea. I know that (stopped down) 100/2.8L macro is very sharp, as is 135/2L.
Some say the (discontinued) 200/1.8 is the sharpest one, and that 85/1.2 is great too, but I have no experience with those (they aren't exactly cheap!)

Even 50/1.4 should be sharper than any zooms.

Have you done sharpness comparisons with 85/1.8 at f/8...f/11 ?

I only have prime lenses, because of the better image quality and speed. At the edges of the frame or in the corners, most zooms can't come even close to the primes. I say most zooms, because there are few exceptional lenses which can compete with fixed focals. For example the Nikon 14-24mm, the Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 II.
My latest zoom was a 17-40, I happily exchanged it with a prime a month ago.

I can't say I am ready to buy a new camera but I am still thirsty for news

Yeah, same here Leaf. I love my 5DMII so the vIII would need to have some major upgrades to squeeze any microstock pennies out of my wallet.  Better focusing system tops my list for photos and especially video. Better jpegs would help. Articulating LCD. Wireless. Better Auto-ISO.

I have a feeling that vIII will have a big price increase because vII was such a hot seller and probably ate into higher priced model sales. I'm guessing $3,000 - $3,500 for a vIII body. If it does go up that much I'll probably hold off.

Canon Rumors latest info suggests multiple 5Ds

I hope the hype it up like hell, and the technomasturbators will be selling almost unused 5D mkIIs en masse.

here's a little (fake.. it was a school project for a kid to make a commercial) commercial for it
Canon EOS 5D Mark III Commercial

fun none the less

Quote from: lthn on July 08, 2011, 20:34
I hope the hype it up like hell, and the technomasturbators will be selling almost unused 5D mkIIs en masse.

Sorry will keep my MarkII as a back-up ;-)

I can't imagine what a Mark III would have that would make me want to upgrade.

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 13, 2011, 21:19
I can't imagine what a Mark III would have that would make me want to upgrade.

Better AF (faster more cross points), weather sealing (good for some people), flash control from the body, more video modes with higher bit rate, gps, wireless connectivity for viewing on a laptop while shooting, few extra megapixels, higher fps... lots of things could be improved or added to make it better.

Quote from: traveler1116 on July 13, 2011, 22:09

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on July 13, 2011, 21:19
I can't imagine what a Mark III would have that would make me want to upgrade.

Better AF (faster more cross points), weather sealing (good for some people), flash control from the body, more video modes with higher bit rate, gps, wireless connectivity for viewing on a laptop while shooting, few extra megapixels, higher fps... lots of things could be improved or added to make it better.

Nothing there that would prise another $3,000 out of my pocket.