OT - 5DII (Canon)

this is technology and competition is fierce.

Just my opinion though. I think that goes with the "someone is not paying attention to taking photos with the perfectly working equipment they already have."

thebard37 said:

. .. that complaint is merited.

Releasing a camera that similar in spec at 40% the same cost within
a year of each other is a little cruel.

But if Canon had released a 16MP 5dMkII the Sony would have flattened
it.

I heard a rumor that part of the delay was that such a beast existed
and was scrapped and what we see now is a rush job of splicing a 50D
and 1Ds together to avoid a blood letting.

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

Click to expand...

--
Raist3d (Photographer & Tools/Systems/Gui Games Developer)
Andreas Feininger (1906-1999) 'Photographers — idiots, of which there are
so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a Leica, I could make great
photographs.” That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard in my life. It’s
nothing but a matter of seeing, and thinking, and interest. That’s what
makes a good photograph.'

OK Big Ga I'll bite!

I haven't looked at a lot of E420 images but I am considering picking up either a E410 or E420 as a light system to take on hikes/bike rides and to have something for my daughter when she wants to use something better than her Nikon point and shot.

She scared me half to death the other night thinking about coming over during my soccer team's shoots to "borrow" my back up E1. She just doesn't really care for the E330.

Any how is the E420 straight out of the camera picts "as good" as the E3's? For the E3 I do minimal post processing and have the camera set to portrait saturation. I basically keep a close eye on the highlights taking care not to blow them out...to date if needed a little shadows adjustment in CS3 (5 - 10%) has been enough to bring up the details in the blacks if needed.

Seriously thanks for your opinion...and as Louis said I think most folks know where the extra $'s are going from the E3 to E420...weather sealing, IS, faster fps, etc...I had also figured a little better image quality since the E410 seemed to be plagued with a few issues.

Dan

kennett said:

I owned the original 5D and was very happy with image quality.

I am considering the second version as I have a few lenses still, but
also considering a D700.

Click to expand...

I met this friendly fellow in Chief Whitecap Park, when we were both walking our dogs, and we marveled that the stuff I had in my little Adorama Slinger (E-3, 50-200, 12-60 and 50 f2) had as much reach and almost the same speed his wagonload did.

For me, the whole point of photographic equipment is portability and convenience. That actually was the reason that little 35mm Leicas and their Nikon and Canon copies replaced Speed Graphics, etc. The weight-reduction in the newest C&N&S bodies is impressive - its nice to see photography move away from dreadnoughts that are seven to ten times as big as the image they produce- , but most of their lenses, especially the high range (somewhat?) splashproof ones are still real bricks!

While I - like countless others - wish the E-3 were 4 or 5 ounces lighter, the overall kit still comes out way ahead in versatile, all-weather portability. And Olympus engineers did talk about "future proofing" the sensor technology in their "episodes". Let's hope the demonstrate what they meant in the next weeks and months.
--
erichK
saskatoon, canada

http://erichk.zenfolio.com/

http://www.fototime.com/inv/7F3D846BCD301F3

Sony have proved in he video market they can do it, but in stills market I see a lot of optically average lenses at mad prices. Maybe later. Now? You must be joking.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

Are you kidding me Louis? Zeiss is putting on a clinic in Alpha mount over the last year and a half.

Go to SLR gear.com.

The Zeiss Alpha 24-70 essentially spanks both the Nikon and Canon 24-70 lenses.

Photozone called the 135 Zeiss Sonnar and 85 Sonnar the best they have tested at those focal lengths in a pool very crowded with top performers.

If the Zeiss 16-35 and 70-400 test as well as these three then you could easily state a substantial claim for Zeiss making simply the best glass available for 35mm capture.

But then you should expect that, because they are Zeiss.

I understand if the extra couple $100 dollars is too much, but mediocre overpriced glass???

(And no, I ma not referring to the middling Alpha crop glass, but the real stuff that was essentially built for this 25+megapixels).

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=29393883

Well, in this one case at least anyway.

HI Louis,

There will always be complainers but on the whole the disappointment from "reasonable" Canonites is that many of us where hoping that Canon would release a D700 competitor, a lower resolution FF but with better AF, body, higher frame rate compared to the 50D.

We know that Canon can make a rugged body similar to the EOS 3 film body, put the 1Dmk2 AF system on it, upgread the 12 MP, to be gapless, Digic IV, the usual 3in high res LCD, AF adjustment, live view AF., 8fps. That's easy for Canon but Canon hasn't yet done it. Maybe they have something else up there sleeves as many are hoping for a 3 and 7 series FF offering. For some people, this is low hanging fruit but Canon isn't biting.

However, it looks like Canon release a high MP FF that would be much lower in price compared the the 24MP Nikon that everyone is expecting NIkon to release very soon. The Nikon will be superior in every factors except maybe, myabe the sensor but the 5D2 Canon will be so much less and that will be a big factor, especially with the way the economy is crashing.

The D3/D700 are stellar releases that maybe Canon will take the full 18/24 months to make their replies.

I have Canon, Nikon, Olympus/Pany DSLRs so each brand has a peculiar set of pains and anxieties AND AND JOYS

Agreed,

But, I'll stick of C/Y Zeiss + adapters for now until Sony improves their AF system and all the Zeiss are upgraded to SWS (?) motors. By that time, it'll be what? 30 MP, 8 fps, 12800 ISO.

Now how about a 200 f1.8? It is nice to be talking about glass again. Wouldn't it be something if the main reason for selecting a FF brand would be lens based and not sensor based?

thebard37 said:

Releasing a camera that similar in spec at 40% the same cost within
a year of each other is a little cruel.

Click to expand...

This is now common in many areas of technology. Computers are usually obsolete within months of release.

Yes, here's one

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=29374668

too many gotachas. 16mm is not 14 for example.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

There are not enough sensible lenses, and in most cases there is a catch. The new 16-35 for example is (obviously) a 16-35. That's not a 14-x.

Sony CAN do it, but isn't a range I'd want into yet.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

The expensive bit is speed. At 3.9fps the 5DII is slow (and hence cheap) witha an ged AF system. The 5DII does exactly what the 5D did - put a huge, top end sensor in a cheap, mediocre body for people for whom IQ and price were the main concerns.

Which is why the Canon moaners are barking - sure Canon could, and perhaps should, make a D700 competitor with less MP and more speed. But then it would not be a 5x. "5" means lots of MPs, big sensor, and cheap and cheerful (and hence slow) body.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

...and Oly has a heartwarming cameo in a few of the shots. They can say all they want about the DSLRs but the OM's stature is timeless. And now I want a 35RC all over again.

True, but some people were buying the 1DsIII for the resolution and didn't need the extra speed or AF points. Until the Sony and 5dMk2 hit the shelves there isn't any choice at > 20MP apart from the even more expensive MF options.

but I bought the D3 for the latitude and not the blinding speed, and you don't see me whining about the D700 (which costs much less and would work just as well) and you won't see me moaning when the D700X appears and makes my D3 completely obsolete.

Cameras move on, and people who wait for the perfect one to come out miss a lot of photos.

I'll keep plugging away with my E3 and D3, both of which will be more than good enough for amateur use for many years to come

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam

. . .gets you a bigger buffer, 100% VF, 1 extra FPS and a grip???

Nikon charges an extra $1500-1800 for that.

I understand a lot of the whinging is from silly who basically wanted a 16-21MP version of the d3, but some people who shelled out $8000 are actually a little miffed, and rightfully so, IMHO, because the difference between the twain doesn't equate to that many clams.

But Canon really had no choice but to do it. They never planned on releasing another 12MP 35mm SLR after the 5D, and whatever they were working on in between the 5D and what we know as the 5DmKII obviously wouldn't have sold many copies against the A900.

Otherwise they wouldn't have simply stripped down the 1DsMkIII and had a firesale on its innards.

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

Louis_Dobson said:

Cameras move on, and people who wait for the perfect one to come out
miss a lot of photos.

I'll keep plugging away with my E3 and D3, both of which will be more
than good enough for amateur use for many years to come

Click to expand...

I'm still using a long obsolete e-500 with (obsolete) kit lenses and an also superseded 11-22. Even my FL-36 has been superseded. Oh well, they all still work.

. . . but it actually makes me happy.

Lenses are not really sensible any more, everything is super this and super that.

I would be upset if I thought Canon and Sony were following suit in making 1Kg lenses that don't take filters.

It is comforting (to me) to know that there will be an optically excellent 16-35 that does take filters, and weighs less.

Because I know that Canon's 16-35 simply isn't worth competing, but want no part in a landscape lens that won't let me polarize.

So different strokes for different folks I guess.

--
--
Comments are always welcome.

Zach Bellino

'Nothing, like something, happens anywhere.”
-- from 'I Remember, I Remember'
Philip Larkin (1922-1985)

I still think it is a limited lens range though.

If Nikon announce a replacement 70-200 and / or a 100-400 optimised for FF at Photokina I think they'll have it sussed (for me). As soon as they have a 24MP camera (and that can't be far away) I personally think if one can afford it then Nikon, for most people, will be the FF way to go.

As for filters and UWAs, I use a 20mm f2.8 on the Nikon.

I've bought WAY too many ebay lenses for this thing, half of them I have barely used! I don't think I've shot a single frame with my 24mm! What an idiot... Oh well, it's a hobby.

Think I'll go out today with just primes, and see what I get.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/acam