New Canon full frame?

bigredshark said:
+hundreds

This utter rubbish is exactly why I lost interest in this forum for photography, too much obsessing pointlessly about technology and far too little appreciation for the real world. A real shame as this used to be an interesting sub forum.

Seriously, think about how ludicrous people sound arguing about how awful the AA filter is rather than actually being creative in some way (I mean, you're interested in photography for a reason right?). Go look at the shots people took with the D2 and the like and grasp the fact that just maybe your photography might be most improved by actually improving your photography rather than moaning about esoteric technical points.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, the obsession with small technical details that have an even smaller smaller impact on the actual photography is sad to see. I just don't get the need for some to continually bash the capabilities of a camera\system when they have never even used it either. You can see it coming in thread after thread and it's just tiresome. Any way as Peter Jones would say, "I'm out".
 
Last edited:
Rojin said:
Couldn't agree more, the obsession with small technical details that have an even smaller smaller impact on the actual photography is sad to see. I just don't get the need for some to continually bash the capabilities of a camera\systek when they have never even used it either. You can see it coming in thread after thread and it's just tiresome. Any way as Peter Jones would say, "I'm out".
Click to expand...

Wait up !!! (i am really leaving this time, hands keys to the door to JM)
 
An Exception said:
Well I'm reading hit rates of 30-50% with a 5dii?

Maybe at F4 it's hard to miss, but I spend allot of time a 1.4.
Click to expand...

I didn't see the specific post but is that on AF grounds alone? If I got 40% hit rate on photos taken overall I'd be very happy indeed (composition, exposure, expression etc are all going to affect the overall hit rate).

If you shoot at wider than f/2 much you're going to see a lower hit rate at the end of the day I think, even where the AF system is up to scratch there's a trade off between accuracy and speed in the AF drive itself. As you've alluded to yourself, you need to know your kit and make choices about what gets you the best result - you can't always have everything you want, particularly with less than top of the line kit.

ie - for a fast moving subject in a dark environment, even with a D4, a fast prime isn't the right choice, something like the 24-70 with it's super quick AF-S is what you want ideally...
 
Last edited:
I'm actually getting drawn in now, because at some level it is interesting. But it's not worth arguing over and it doesn't really matter. Everybody has their own kit, sets it up their way and uses it as best they can.

There's likely no ideal camera, there are good ones for some things but that's not to say you can't do the job as well with others.

The 5Dii AF isn't state of the art, wasn't when it was released. But it's on a par with the old Nikon D2 AF, and two olympics ago that was the camera a lot of pros were using, go back and look at their photos. Go look at the brochure for that camera, there's some good shots in there.

Unless you've inherited a fortune, you likely have to make decisions about your priorities and what suits you best. The 5Dii is a hell of a camera still, lots of pixels and video at a reasonable price without much competition if you need those. The AF is functional, it's not a 1Dx or D4 but it's slightly less expensive too. Make your choice and live with it, no point moaning...
 
An Exception said:
Apparently 30-50% was the hit rate of 'in focus' pictures.
Below is the link that RL posted.
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/for...d.php?t=411077

From what I'm used to, I'm almost certain before every shot that my 85 will be in focus at 1.4 (no need to check back of screen), however my 35 will miss on the odd occasion at 1.4. in tricky lighting.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I find it difficult to comment as I shoot skiing and mountain biking and 20% keepers overall is an excellent day. I don't really keep track of why I discard, just general feel I guess.

It's always going to depends on how you shoot, get up close and snap away a 1000 shots in a couple of hours and you'll have a lower hit rate than those who hang back and shoot more conservatively and selectively.

I think it's basically impossible to make a real comparison, you need the same photographer working the same way in the same circumstances with equal experience of both cameras.

I also believe it doesn't matter because you look at Raymond's work and who cares how many shots he throws away when he gets what he does? Maybe not your or somebody elses style but you can't argue with the results. Likewise, you look at your favourite photographer and think how many of the shots they've taken have you ever seen, commercial guys will shoot 2000+ frames for a half dozen final shots the client uses.

If you're keen not to post process and sort through photos more than you have to then that's your call but it's not appropriate to assume that approach is better or right for everyone.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Up until last week i didn't know that in a Nikon, to overexpose a shot with the dial, you dial NEGATIVE (in Canon's system), as in to the left.

Everything else in the world start with smaller number on the left. Ruler, measuring tape, or simply handwriting, you begin on the left.



That to me would be totally counter intuitive, so I would get it so wrong for the first few shots.

Then I have to figure out how to dial it the other way round.
Click to expand...

bigredshark said:
That is a little odd, I've never found out why it's that way either...my girlfriend is a 5Dii user and it's a mistake she makes quite often using my camera....
Click to expand...

That's because Nikon is clever. :p

When you increase either the aperture value or shutter speed you physically rotate the dial to the right. When you decrease either of these you rotate it to your left. The meter reflects this; so over-exposure is towards the left, as in decreasing shutter speed or aperture value, and underexposure is to the right, as in increasing aperture value or shutter speed.

So when you see the meter reading is on the left (overexposed), you instinctively know that you need to increase something, so you instinctively rotate the dial to the right to increase aperture value or shutter speed.
 
Last edited:
^^^ this,you rotate the dials to move the pointer to the center, feels natural but if you think in terms of positive and negative it appears reversed.
 
James J said:
Just asking that means you obviously dont do macro lol.
Click to expand...

Sounds that way...;)


Also I wonder if he realises a crop sensor with more densly packed pixels is better for macro work too because you can pull out more detail and get closer into the subject due to the crop factor.

Just to add a video as he likes videos and a Nikon fan to the extreme, I will let that Nikon guy explain to him why crops and macro are great together too.



Guys can we get back on track on this thread. I just want to say thank you all that added to the topic of the 7D here as I am wanting to buy one and many of you here have set my mind at rest and have made me realise it's not even a big issue the AA problem or none problem. Thanks again, hoping to get the camera ordered soon.
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
uhh?

So explain why most people and reviewers complain about the af then?

come on explain then.

that very same thread u linked on showed many people having issues with the AF system.
Click to expand...

I never claimed it was perfect.

You claimed it was "useless".

You asked for one photo.

I posted at least 5.

It is not useless.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You have never used it in prolong periods or even used it at all?

You are reading stuff off the net and take it as gospel.

You are trolling.

A gentleman would at least admit when he is wrong. It's okay if you are not one.

As for those people, they need to work on their technique. Reuter's top 100 photos in 2011, it illustrates the camera used, I think there were like at least half with a 5D mkii. I think Nikon had like 10% of the total, there was a single Sony in there somewhere.

How about that, professional journalists pulling off once in a life time shots all over the world with a useless AF system, in war zones and the like.

You need to stop believing everything you read and actually seeing what it can do by people who knows what it can do.
 
Last edited:
Raymond Lin said:
I never claimed it was perfect.

You claimed it was "useless".

You asked for one photo.

I posted at least 5.

It is not useless.

You don't know what you are talking about.

You have never used it in prolong periods or even used it at all?

You are reading stuff off the net and take it as gospel.

You are trolling.

A gentleman would at least admit when he is wrong. It's okay if you are not one.
Click to expand...

I agree they should.. including you, but shall we leave personal feelings/insults out of this thread and all agree to be a little more classy.. like a gentlemen would?

As for the term 'useless', people mostly use this expression to describe something that is crap and doesn't perform well, rarely do they mean it literally as you well know.
It would be like me saying a blind squirrel is useless, and then you claiming that I'm wrong, because sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

Therefore if this thread is to remain off topic, I think we would all be better off trying to add knowledge and actual user experience, then just point scoring and arguing for the sake of arguing.
 
An Exception said:
I agree they should.. including you, but shall we leave personal feelings/insults out of this thread and all agree to be a little more classy.. like a gentlemen would?

As for the term 'useless', people mostly use this expression to describe something that is crap and doesn't perform well, rarely do they mean it literally as you well know.
It would be like me saying a blind squirrel is useless, and then you claiming that I'm wrong, because sometimes even a blind squirrel finds a nut.

Therefore if this thread is to remain off topic, I think we would all be better off trying to add knowledge and actual user experience, then just point scoring and arguing for the sake of arguing.
Click to expand...
Well said. That is the term I used when I said it was useless but this guy took it out of context. The outer points are useless in most situations. That was what I really meant.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Well said. That is the term I used when I said it was useless but this guy took it out of context. The outer points are useless in most situations. That was what I really meant.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry man, I'm a Nikon user and I have not much love for the 5Dii's AF personally (and lots of experience of it as my girlfriend uses one) but you're talking rubbish here.

Like Raymond I could dig out a dozen photos taken with the 5Dii on outer AF points which show they're far from 'useless', I won't because he's already done this and you seem intent on arguing anyway. I believe there are people here who shoot rugby and the like with a 5Dii and as pointed out, award winning photographers have used them in all sorts of conditions.

The AF system is not useless. It's not state of the art and others are superior today. But the existence of a better system doesn't make it useless. And actually every *respectable* review I've seen says basically that - it's not amazing but it's perfectly functional for most things.
 
30-50% hit rate isn't what I call respectable in my opinion, if I came back from a wedding with that hit rate I would be ***** and the camera would take a swift trip to NPS.
If the camera couldn't be fixed, it would be binned or more likely become backup to a backup, and I would get a new one.
I don't know how people with a 30-50% hit rate cope, I know they do, but every time I see an amazing image that's fuzzy, it's like a stab in the heart, if it was happening 50-70% of the time, photography would be MUCH less fun, and I would likely ensure I stopped down a little for the critical moments like those PJ's that likely keep their lens at 2.8 or above.

But sure it's not useless, but it's a little less than 'not state of the art', as I have experienced personally. A hand full of pictures in focus don't tell us anything other than 'it's possible', which doesn't tell us much in a practical or 'real-world' sense.
 
Last edited:
bigredshark said:
I'm sorry man, I'm a Nikon user and I have not much love for the 5Dii's AF personally (and lots of experience of it as my girlfriend uses one) but you're talking rubbish here.

Like Raymond I could dig out a dozen photos taken with the 5Dii on outer AF points which show they're far from 'useless', I won't because he's already done this and you seem intent on arguing anyway. I believe there are people here who shoot rugby and the like with a 5Dii and as pointed out, award winning photographers have used them in all sorts of conditions.

The AF system is not useless. It's not state of the art and others are superior today. But the existence of a better system doesn't make it useless. And actually every *respectable* review I've seen says basically that - it's not amazing but it's perfectly functional for most things.
Click to expand...

IMO its useless in half if not most cases. Sometimes you only get one chance to nail that killer shot. would you rest all that once in a life time shot on the outer points when its a 50/50 chance it will fail?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom