The new 5D

[Epphoto]

Originally Posted by Gbee

Personally I was very excited about live view, but my 1DMKIII does not have any AF in live view, totally useless for my application.

One of the things I like to do is get arm reach high shots, AF is usually essential as it often indoors at wide apertures, framing is just luck and some experience, I was really hoping 'Live View' would stack the odd of a better frame, but without AF the odds were shifted to getting a sharp image ~~ I really need the AF ~ the frame, you might get lucky and its so much easier to move the camera around than try and focus it.

'Life View' is also proving to be a superior AF routine for a static and still life ~ a studio aid ~ I've proved that myself, but I hardly do any studio anymore.

Canon make the 3 professional cameras for the Pro
did you ever see a Pro using the live view like a point-and-shoot cameras??
It will be funny to see Mark III get the same treatment like the point a shot cameras

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

I think we're getting to a point where the innovative "jumps" are starting to slow down or flatten out (if one were looking at a graph). Megapixel differences between 8 and 10 to 12 really aren't that big of a deal now. Jumps even from 16 to 21 seem to be less impressive lately, especially with the advances in digital medium format.

I agree, and I think it's time for the prices of high-end cameras to start coming down, way down. I don't see demand for high-end units justifying the prices that the manufacturers put on these things. 7K for a camera when 7 years ago a high-end film camera cost 2K? I have always predicted that high-end digital would one day sell for no more than high-end film cameras did, and I for one can wait until that happens before putting out big bucks on a "pro" model when so many other options exist.

[Gbee]

Well, in a matter of speaking, yes.

Professionals often tether their cameras to computer and large screens ~ albeit in the studio for the art director and client to discuss and approve ~~ live view adds a another element to that.

But in the matter of using it like a compact, yes again actually. But I do take your point ~ this is one use of 'live view' which Canon is implementing in the XSi in a direct attempt to attract compact customers, some or many of whom never held an DSLR or SLR before ~~

Live View has a place in many aspects, but Canon's 1DMKIII implementation is weak and needs improvement, it's a single application feature and probably should not be called 'Live View' as it does not really work like a compact does anyway.

Originally Posted by Epphoto

Canon make the 3 professional cameras for the Pro
did you ever see a Pro using the live view like a point-and-shoot cameras??
It will be funny to see Mark III get the same treatment like the point a shot cameras

[JDArt]

Originally Posted by Harry

"Live View", I really have a hard time wrapping my mind around that.

I not only had a hard time wrapping my mind around it, but with the 40D I owned I had a hard time even finding out how to activate it! It certainly wasn't obvious. Of course, I realize I could have read the manual, but heck, who likes to do that?

[Gbee]

Yup! They make you un-understand things you used to know.!!!

Originally Posted by JDArt

Of course, I realize I could have read the manual, but heck, who likes to do that?

[HuBBaTheMan]

well. i do hear a lot of scorn for live view, but for one of my application (macro & close up photography of textiles and fabrics) its an absolute godsend.

The AF totally goes bananas, and its not always possible to use the viewfinder. but either smack on the liveview and manual focus, or use the live view tethered and its super easy to set the focus exactly where you want it.

[aam1234]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

A 20D still shoots as well as it did when it was first designed. NOTHING CHANGED.

That's true,and that's the issue at the same time. Digital photography is new, so the next model usually brings better technology, which leads to better IQ. It's all relative.

You have a 20D & 40D. I'm sure you noticed a difference between the two models (a guess here).

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by aam1234

That's true,and that's the issue at the same time. Digital photography is new, so the next model usually brings better technology, which leads to better IQ. It's all relative.

You have a 20D & 40D. I'm sure you noticed a difference between the two models (a guess here).

I've noticed a big difference in certain conditions. In others, I don't really see much difference at all. But it still doesn't change the original design specs or IQ of the older camera. That was my point.

[aam1234]

No it doesn't. But relatively speaking, it makes the old model...well, old, in terms of IQ.

I saw a big difference between 20D and 5D. Not apples to apples, but the idea still stands, imo.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by aam1234

No it doesn't. But relatively speaking, it makes the old model...well, old, in terms of IQ.

But it doesn't make the old model's IQ WORSE than it was prior to the new model release.

[Max@Home]

Originally Posted by brian.austin

But it doesn't make the old model's IQ WORSE than it was prior to the new model release.

...I hear what you are saying, but sometimes the new model release ups the Standard, and by the New Standard, the IQ of the old model might fail the test...

...which does not imply that any amateur should follow 'The Standard', but some professionals might need to...

...*my* €0.02...

Kindest regards!

Max@Home

[Paul Shields]

I'm with Max on his earlier poust. Just tipex out the D700 and write in '5DMKII' for the 5D replacement .

Seriously, I think Canon will have to do something a bit beyond their usual model refresh to inject new life into the 5D. Things move so fast in this area. I wouldn't put it past them to come up with something awesome though.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by Paul Shields

I'm with Max on his earlier poust. Just tipex out the D700 and write in '5DMKII' for the 5D replacement .

There aren't a lot of upgrades if you took the brand names off of the two. The D700 is 5fps vs 3fps for the 5D. The D700 has some more advanced processing capabilities but I'd expect that for a camera that's 3 years newer. More AF points on the D700. Flash sync at 1/250 on the D700 vs 1/200 on the 5D (minimal improvement in my book). ISO range when "pushed" goes down to 50 on the 5D vs 100 pushed on the D700.

Overall, though, these are minimal changes when compared to the meat of the body: the sensor. The 5D's FF sensor is three years old yet has the same MP as the NEW D700's. That in itself is a big difference. Upgrade the 5D's capabilities to that on the 40D (except maybe 7fps), slip in the FF sensor (upgraded for better DR) from the 1DsMkII, leave the extended ISO range down to 50, and you'd have a heck of a 5DMkII. Nothing on that body is particularly new and improved. It's just a mixture of what they're doing now. Price it under $3,000 and D700 sits in second place again.

[Paul Shields]

I think the introduction of sensor cleaning (if it works) is a big plus compared to the 5D. Having owned a few 5D's it was my one major irritation with that camera. The pop-up flash would be handy too.