New Canon full frame?

An Exception · 1 Aug 2012 at 11:53

bigredshark said:
On the basis of knowledge at least, people who actually own the camera are pointing out it works just fine for them in the real world. I think you're on a hiding to nothing trying to argue that and I don't understand what the point is...

There is also a number of people who feel the opposite, so there seems to be conflicting opinions. I have used Canon camera's with the same/similar/better af (550D + 50D), and the AF at wide apertures simply wasn't good. Consistency was a huge issue for me personally, call me crazy but I like to be able to depend on my camera to focus accurately.

An Exception · 1 Aug 2012 at 11:55

Raymond Lin said:
I mean centre. Typo.

80% is in the realms of acceptability imo.

Raymond Lin · 1 Aug 2012 at 12:01

What I see now is a debate between people with little or no experience of using the 5Dii talking about how bad it is based solely on stuff they have read online vs people who have used it for yearsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss with their own experiences.

How utterly pointless.

I don't need other people tell me how good, bad or ugly the AF is, I can shoot with it and get the shots I want with it, at crucial situations. As for those that can't, they either using it wrong or simply ran out of talent. It is so easy blaming the gear than admitting one suck. Human nature.

An Exception · 1 Aug 2012 at 12:09

Raymond Lin said:
What I see now is a debate between people with little or no experience of using the 5Dii talking about how bad it is based solely on stuff they have read online vs people who have used it for yearsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss with their own experiences.

How utterly pointless.

I don't need other people tell me how good, bad or ugly the AF is, I can shoot with it and get the shots I want with it, at crucial situations. As for those that can't, they either using it wrong or simply ran out of talent. It is so easy blaming the gear than admitting one suck. Human nature.

No my 550D and 85 1.8 sucked. No human error there else I would have had the same experience with my D7000. Yes some cases will of course be user error.

ElDude · 1 Aug 2012 at 14:21

Raymond Lin said:
Your arrogance is sickening.

Slightly off topic, but the thread's a disaster anyway, so I thought I'd say that I really like the simplicity of this photo

CameraObscura · 1 Aug 2012 at 23:14

Op's post was referring to this from Canon Rumours. Maybe it's worth discussing the possible spec of the proposed new camera rather than a slanging match about autofocus points. Possibly a 6D would be a better name for it as opposed to 7D Mark II?

'Fall 2012
Once again, we hear about a new “entry level” full frame camera being added to the Canon lineup in the fall. The specs for the camera have been quite broad, which is normal when there are various prototypes out and about. Below are the most talked about specifications, and probably the closest to the actual camera.

Specifications

22mp (Same sensor as 5D3)
19 AF Points
4fps
ISO 100-51200
3″ LCD
Smaller than the 5D Mark II
More Plastic than metal in the construction
Pop-Up Flash (On at least one prototype)
$1999 USD at launch
Launched with a new non-L full frame kit lens (Undisclosed what the lens is)
Compatible with full frame STM lenses' (from Canon Rumours site)

CameraObscura · 1 Aug 2012 at 23:19

ElDude said:
Slightly off topic, but the thread's a disaster anyway, so I thought I'd say that I really like the simplicity of this photo

Agreed, it's just a lovely photo.

CameraObscura · 1 Aug 2012 at 23:21

Raymond Lin said:
What I see now is a debate between people with little or no experience of using the 5Dii talking about how bad it is based solely on stuff they have read online vs people who have used it for yearsssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss with their own experiences.

How utterly pointless.

I don't need other people tell me how good, bad or ugly the AF is, I can shoot with it and get the shots I want with it, at crucial situations. As for those that can't, they either using it wrong or simply ran out of talent. It is so easy blaming the gear than admitting one suck. Human nature.

Fair point Raymond I'm on the point of buying the 5D Mark II, a truly groundbreaking camera. Just holding off to see how the new entry full frame shapes up.

The_Abyss · 1 Aug 2012 at 23:29

Please, please, please just go to a pub, buy a few jugs of beer, and have a conversation.

Maybe photograph it, just for amusement value.

Stuff · 1 Aug 2012 at 23:47

Wow, this thread is stupid

Raymond takes some seriously amazing photos of a high, professional quality. There's no way you could describe anything about the 5DMkII as useless. Sure, some of it might not be thee best, but it's still bloody good! Maybe it's the person behind the camera that's struggling... Blaming the tools 'n' all that jazz.

jonneymendoza · 1 Aug 2012 at 23:59

Stuff said:
Wow, this thread is stupid

Raymond takes some seriously amazing photos of a high, professional quality. There's no way you could describe anything about the 5DMkII as useless. Sure, some of it might not be thee best, but it's still bloody good! Maybe it's the person behind the camera that's struggling... Blaming the tools 'n' all that jazz.

give it a rest. the discussion looked set dead and you had to take a swipe and resurrect it again :rolleyes:

londonbairn · 2 Aug 2012 at 18:01

Is the 5D MKII that bad? I am toying with the idea of getting one to compliment the 7D, seems not bad value for £1,500 or so, or might wait a few months and see what happens with the MKIII...

jonneymendoza · 2 Aug 2012 at 18:06

The 5d2 af won't be as good in terms of features and performance the same your 7d but the 5d2 will have better iq and noise handling then your 7d.

CameraObscura · 2 Aug 2012 at 18:42

rafster said:
Is the 5D MKII that bad? I am toying with the idea of getting one to compliment the 7D, seems not bad value for £1,500 or so, or might wait a few months and see what happens with the MKIII...

You'd be better putting the 7D on evilbay. It's about to become obsolete.

An Exception · 2 Aug 2012 at 18:43

Yeh I'd put the 7D on the bay, and get a mk 3 off digital rev or something, then you only need one body instead of two...

James J · 2 Aug 2012 at 19:06

rafster said:
Is the 5D MKII that bad? I am toying with the idea of getting one to compliment the 7D, seems not bad value for £1,500 or so, or might wait a few months and see what happens with the MKIII...

Its not bad at all. People on here just love to make out that that its useless due to its AF system due to reading into things far too much instead of actually having a proper play with the camera. The second hand value of the 5D mk ii still makes it an attractive proposition, but I wouldn't buy a new one now as the mk iii should continue to fall in price throughout this year. If you are prepared to stump up £1500 for a new mk ii, you might as well wait and get a mk iii

jonneymendoza · 2 Aug 2012 at 19:21

Get the mk3 . There is no benefit of getting a mk2 over mk3. Only the price is a benefit but barely

dannyjo22 · 2 Aug 2012 at 19:21

One thing that needs to change before this can even be an option (cheaper FF) is the price of the 24-70mk2. Almost 2k, which is the mother of all jokes even by Canon standards.

How can they even think of releasing a cheaper FF camera with the lens most would want to pair it with at such a high premium.

I was looking at it today, I'd like to get a cheaper FF or even the 5d3 early next year which would then mean only getting rid of my 17-55 2.8 which I adore.

Even the 2nd hand prices of the mk1 has been driven up to almost what they cost new. Optics quality I see the 24-70 as a decent replacement for my 17-55 but almost 2k.

**** that. I wish I'd picked up a new 24-70 mk1 before it was replaced

James J · 2 Aug 2012 at 19:32

jonneymendoza said:
Get the mk3 . There is no benefit of getting a mk2 over mk3. Only the price is a benefit but barely

Barely a price difference? Can get a second hand 5D mk ii for around £1000 now and for that price its a bargain. If the cash is available though or wanting to buy new, the Mk iii is the no brainer.

dannyjo22 said:
One thing that needs to change before this can even be an option (cheaper FF) is the price of the 24-70mk2. Almost 2k, which is the mother of all jokes even by Canon standards.

How can they even think of releasing a cheaper FF camera with the lens most would want to pair it with at such a high premium.

I was looking at it today, I'd like to get a cheaper FF or even the 5d3 early next year which would then mean only getting rid of my 17-55 2.8 which I adore.

Even the 2nd hand prices of the mk1 has been driven up to almost what they cost new. Optics quality I see the 24-70 as a decent replacement for my 17-55 but almost 2k.

**** that. I wish I'd picked up a new 24-70 mk1 before it was replaced

I agree the price is a joke, but sadly canon have adopted a daft price policy with the launch of the 5D mk iii which forced the prices of the newest lens releases up by crazy amounts also. Some good third party lenses are starting to come through though. The tamron version is meant to be a nice piece of kit, even on FF cameras and is a fraction of the price. Just depends if you want a red ring on the end of the lens I suppose!

D.P. · 2 Aug 2012 at 19:40

dannyjo22 said:
One thing that needs to change before this can even be an option (cheaper FF) is the price of the 24-70mk2. Almost 2k, which is the mother of all jokes even by Canon standards.

How can they even think of releasing a cheaper FF camera with the lens most would want to pair it with at such a high premium.

I was looking at it today, I'd like to get a cheaper FF or even the 5d3 early next year which would then mean only getting rid of my 17-55 2.8 which I adore.

Even the 2nd hand prices of the mk1 has been driven up to almost what they cost new. Optics quality I see the 24-70 as a decent replacement for my 17-55 but almost 2k.

**** that. I wish I'd picked up a new 24-70 mk1 before it was replaced

Buy the rumored Nikon D600 and then the wonderful Nikon 24-70 is a relative bargain (I paid a little over 900GBP for a brand new 24-70 from an online electronics store in Switzerland when I lived there)

I say that in jest but the price differences does make one think!

On the Nikon said of the budget FF camera rumorus, Nikon have already released the Nikon AF-S 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 VR, which has pretty good IQ, this is certainly going to be the kit lens. Many here will dismiss the idea of a variable aperture but its there loss if they have such preconceptions. Nikon also have a 28-300mm VR full frame lens, not the cheapest but it is remarkably sharp for such a super zoom and is an option. The canon version is far heavier and has worse image quality, it is also far more expensive so is not really an option for budget Canon full frame.

Both Canon and Nikon have 24-105/120 IS/VR f/4.0 of the same quality and price which is always an alternative.

The thing is though the only real reason to go full frame is to get the shallow DoF or the improved low light performance. Putting slower lenses on a FF makes no sense. The Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is a wonderful lens, moving to a budget canon FF with a 24-105 f/4.0 wont get you that much.

hence, as I said before, there is always a place for crop sensor cameras.