Looking to get into full-frame...

I think people who buy the 5D don't care that much about fast AF. Personally what I want is big photosites, also the various reviews give a clear advantage in IQ vs the D700.

Heck, if someone were to release an affordable 6x6 16Megapixels sensor for my medium format body, I'd be overjoyed!
 
jonneymendoza said:
The 5dmk2 has terrible AF comparable to my 400d! woever says 5dmk2 has awsome AF is false.
Click to expand...

Tried it out good today with my 5Dmk2.
AF is definitely better than a 400D, quicker and more accurate. FPS is not as fast as my 40D but oh the FF and Bokeh goodness. It makes me go woooo and ahh over the colours too.

Yes spec to spec the 5Dmk2 can't beat Nikon's D700 but I ultimately stayed on Canon due to my invested kit and the prospect of getting a Canon 24-70L is heck of a lot better than Nikon's very expensive lenses for money.
 
Mr Jones said:
Yes spec to spec the 5Dmk2 can't beat Nikon's D700 but I ultimately stayed on Canon due to my invested kit and the prospect of getting a Canon 24-70L is heck of a lot better than Nikon's very expensive lenses for money.
Click to expand...

Nikon's 24-70 is £200 more or so new today than the Canon but it's the best standard zoom money can buy (for a 35mm SLR etc...). If you accept it's going to be heavy and bulky (but still less heavy and bulky than the Canon) then there's basically nothing wrong with it. It's quite phenomenal.

Nikon have issues with primes - the cost of the 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 are prohibitive and absolutely performance could be questioned for such expensive glass. The 24/1.4 shows Nikon have the ability to make excellent fast primes but it's £1600. That's Nikon's problem lens wise - the primes aren't good value for money in comparison. The zooms might be 15% more than Canon but in the 14-24 and 24-70 they're probably good enough to justify it.
 
BusError said:
Here is a reasonably balanced review of the 5DmkII I read before I bought mine.. Of course I'm nowhere near the style of that guy, but he seemed to be "not unhappy" with the AF generally... http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/5DIIreview.shtml
Click to expand...

That's about the truth to be honest, you'd could never honestly say it's fantastic but it's alright and most people will be 'not unhappy'.

I had trouble with it in a demanding scenario if I'm honest, trying to track relatively fast moving subjects coming towards me against a confused background in less than bright sunshine. The whole setup screams 'give me a D3s' so it reflects well on the D700 that it manages rather than reflecting poorly on the 5DII.

For all that I've heard people say the Nikon focuses better in low light I've never had trouble with the 5DII in dimly lit bars and the like myself. It's a good camera and has different strengths (which is why I own a D700 and my other half owns a 5DII as it goes, suits our different styles...).
 
D.P. said:
The fact that you focus and recompose tells a lot about your level of technical expertise. Why have such a camera if you are not going to get the best out of it?

This is a truely terrible idea.Amazing how many people do this withotu relaising the consequences.
Click to expand...

I do it because it's quicker that selecting a focus point and then focussing. Personally, I only EVER need one focus point.
 
Mr Jones said:
Tried it out good today with my 5Dmk2.
AF is definitely better than a 400D, quicker and more accurate. FPS is not as fast as my 40D but oh the FF and Bokeh goodness. It makes me go woooo and ahh over the colours too.

Yes spec to spec the 5Dmk2 can't beat Nikon's D700 but I ultimately stayed on Canon due to my invested kit and the prospect of getting a Canon 24-70L is heck of a lot better than Nikon's very expensive lenses for money.
Click to expand...

did u use the same lens attached to your 400d? if not then its not a fair comparison as i bet u tried the 5dmk2 with a L lens.

i tried a 24-105L on a 5dmk2 and the AF wasnt any better thenn my 400d attached to a 70-200mm f2.8 mk2 lens.

the AF system on the 5dmk2 is quite old. as old as the 400d if not longer i heard as the 5dmk2 and mk1's AF are very similar.
 
Yes and what higher specs u use over the 1000d? thats the point of the other guy. why buy a near £2k camera if u DONT use most/all of the higher spec features of a so called camera?
 
jonneymendoza said:
Yes and what higher specs u use over the 1000d? thats the point of the other guy. why buy a near £2k camera if u DONT use most/all of the higher spec features of a so called camera?
Click to expand...

Thats really ridiculous. It's like claiming I should do 120mph with my BMW, otherwise I should stick to a Volvo.

it's also equivalent to saying I should use the "Picture Styles" on the camera, just because they are there.

Some people don't give a damn about AF. In fact, I only used MF lens on my 5D in the month I got it. Oh I do have L glass all right, I just decide not to use it. What I want from the 5D is IQ, the gizmos I leave for people who care more about them than what's on the other side of the camera.

I carry a camera to make photographs, even if that involves blue tacking the bottom of a bottle to the camera if I feel like it to make the image I want. Or carry around a 8x10 inch camera /that is not even digital and has zero gizmos/ if I feel like it.
 
ThePirateHulk said:
I do it because it's quicker that selecting a focus point and then focussing. Personally, I only EVER need one focus point.
Click to expand...

I used to be a focus recomposer back when I started out with my 550D, that changed though when I went to a better AF system (although the 550D AF probably would have been fine). I personally find it quicker and more accurate to select the focus point first, rather than focus recompose.

To speed up the selection of focus points, I usually just use 11 so I can flick between them quickly. The real benefit of choosing a focus point for your composition, is if you are taking more than one image, it can save allot of time, and just makes the whole experience easier, allowing you to concentrate on something more important in front of the camera.

You also spend less time cropping etc.
 
jonneymendoza said:
did u use the same lens attached to your 400d? if not then its not a fair comparison as i bet u tried the 5dmk2 with a L lens.

i tried a 24-105L on a 5dmk2 and the AF wasnt any better thenn my 400d attached to a 70-200mm f2.8 mk2 lens.

the AF system on the 5dmk2 is quite old. as old as the 400d if not longer i heard as the 5dmk2 and mk1's AF are very similar.
Click to expand...

Used a bog standard 50mm f1.4 USM.
Closest focus to a distance object and then refocus on the closest object.

5DMKII in real world don't show any slack to my 40D.

Don't have my 400D any more but the last time I've tried using that with my 40D as a paired combo, my 400D was much slower, especially indoors.

There are real world use, and in my real world, indoors and outdoors, close and distance focusing needs to be quick, the 5D2 does what I need. Yes it's not as fast as my friend's 7D focusing, but hey-oh, I have full frame, I have even creamier depth of field using e.g. 50mm f1.4 than the same lens on a cropped sensor (dispite even narrower DoF). So for me, the 5D2 is enough, along with my invested lenses/flash in Canon camp.
 
BusError said:
Thats really ridiculous. It's like claiming I should do 120mph with my BMW, otherwise I should stick to a Volvo.

it's also equivalent to saying I should use the "Picture Styles" on the camera, just because they are there.

Some people don't give a damn about AF. In fact, I only used MF lens on my 5D in the month I got it. Oh I do have L glass all right, I just decide not to use it. What I want from the 5D is IQ, the gizmos I leave for people who care more about them than what's on the other side of the camera.

I carry a camera to make photographs, even if that involves blue tacking the bottom of a bottle to the camera if I feel like it to make the image I want. Or carry around a 8x10 inch camera /that is not even digital and has zero gizmos/ if I feel like it.
Click to expand...

a car and a camere is completetly different. a car u judge by comfy inside, leg room at the back? engine? reliability, build quality etc etc.

for camera's u usualy judge by IQ, ISO quality and AF. maybe a couple more but point is that u cant compare a car to a camera and my points still stand i.e if u don print larger then A4/A3 and don shoot high ISO, why u using a 5dmk2?
 
I'm usually in the camp of either focus and recompose (for weddings) or centre point for bird in flight or aircraft flight photography.

I find the comments above that you are somehow a lesser photographer if you are still focussing and recomposing and not taking 'advantage' of all the focus options available to you laughable and rather insulting if I'm honest.

At the end of the day, you buy whatever kit you like, and you use it any way you like/are comfortable with.

I've tried all the various focus modes on my cameras, but I still like to be in control of what my camera is focusing on, hence my preference. Of course, I sometimes manually select focus points on the camera (on the DXXX bodies it's easy enough to switch between single/17/51 point) for macro work etc, but that's hardly technical rocket science...

I don't understand why photography is one of those hobbies where everybody is happy to jump on in and tell you you're doing it wrong or that you own kit far beyond your capabilities (which I probably do! :lol: ).
 
Tooks said:
I'm usually in the camp of either focus and recompose (for weddings) or centre point for bird in flight or aircraft flight photography.

I find the comments above that you are somehow a lesser photographer if you are still focussing and recomposing and not taking 'advantage' of all the focus options available to you laughable and rather insulting if I'm honest.

At the end of the day, you buy whatever kit you like, and you use it any way you like/are comfortable with.

I've tried all the various focus modes on my cameras, but I still like to be in control of what my camera is focusing on, hence my preference. Of course, I sometimes manually select focus points on the camera (on the DXXX bodies it's easy enough to switch between single/17/51 point) for macro work etc, but that's hardly technical rocket science...

I don't understand why photography is one of those hobbies where everybody is happy to jump on in and tell you you're doing it wrong or that you own kit far beyond your capabilities (which I probably do! :lol: ).
Click to expand...
never said that did i. all i said is if your not using the advantages of a camera why get it it?
 
^^^
You kind of have a point, but they will argue they bought the camera to take advantage of other features other than AF, such as ISO or MP's, which is fair enough I guess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom