5D Mark II Finally Announced - Official Discussion Thread

Splog said:
4. OK genuine answer - With Lunar or Planetry if you take a high number of shots at high speed i.e. 15 - 30 fps you will capture the clear moments between any turbulance in the atmosphere :) you can then (with free software) split all the avi into individual frames and stack only the best shots, this increases detail and and gives incredibly sharp resuls without blowing out detail FYI an equivelant astro cam would cost in the region of £800 :)
Click to expand...

Oooh, thanks for explaining. Shame you're not getting the full 21megapixels to play with then.
 
CT said:
You'd be better off with the 50D by miles, and with the 40D by a small margin. The crop advantage which applies to long lenses also applies to macro.
Click to expand...

CT
Hope you don't mind the question but I can't understand why the 1.6 crop cameras are an advantage when all you need to do is crop the image from a ff camera to get the same result :thinking:

Steve
 
ranarama said:
Oooh, thanks for explaining. Shame you're not getting the full 21megapixels to play with then.
Click to expand...

That's true, but at the 5d Mk11 resolution in video it will (in theory) still produce excellent results for astro :D also forgot to mention the higher ISO and lower noise from the sensor (y)
 
Splog said:
That's true, but at the 5d Mk11 resolution in video it will (in theory) still produce excellent results for astro :D also forgot to mention the higher ISO and lower noise from the sensor (y)
Click to expand...

Looking forward to seeing the new Hubble Splog Telescope delivering some good astro images soon then (y)
 
Splog said:
CT
Hope you don't mind the question but I can't understand why the 1.6 crop cameras are an advantage when all you need to do is crop the image from a ff camera to get the same result :thinking:

Steve
Click to expand...

Of course I don't mind. :)

I know this stuff causes bleeding from the ears if you think about it too much. :D

If you can fill every bit of that full frame with your subject matter at 21mp then yes the result will be awesome, but you seldom can, and some cropping is nearly always involved with macro.

What matters is the size of the full file at 1:1 viewing and the pixel count, or put another way, the number of pixels left to constitute the image of that ant when you've finished cropping.

Due to the increased FOV of the full frame sensor, you'll crop a substantial amount just to get to the same FOV as a 1.6 sensor. When you do the rest of the cropping with both images to fill the frame as you'd like, you'll find that the crop sensor retains the most pixels and will return the better quality image. You'll waste a lot of pixel real estate with the full frame sensor.

Hope that helps. The easiest way is to prove this for yourself by interpolating an image to the size of a 21mp file, then doing the crops with the 21mp image and the original image for comparison.
 
ranarama said:
Looking forward to seeing the new Hubble Splog Telescope delivering some good astro images soon then (y)
Click to expand...

:LOL: I thought we were discussing a camera :LOL:
 
mole2k said:
I would of thought photographers would of quite liked the idea of a 35mm sensor video mode so they can capture small videos with nice narrow dof which you cant get with consumer HD camcorders.
Click to expand...

The idea is great. I used the video mode on my G9, set to macro for increased depth of field, to film my hamster the night before I had to put him down. As good as a photo is I'm really glad I have this video. But saying that, when I'm out I'm a photographer first.
 
CT said:
Of course I don't mind. :)

I know this stuff causes bleeding from the ears if you think about it too much. :D

If you can fill every bit of that full frame with your subject matter at 21mp then yes the result will be awesome, but you seldom can, and some cropping is nearly always involved with macro.

What matters is the size of the full file at 1:1 viewing and the pixel count, or put another way, the number of pixels left to constitute the image of that ant when you've finished cropping.

Due to the increased FOV of the full frame sensor, you'll crop a substantial amount just to get to the same FOV as a 1.6 sensor. When you do the rest of the cropping with both images to fill the frame as you'd like, you'll find that the crop sensor retains the most pixels and will return the better quality image. You'll waste a lot of pixel real estate with the full frame sensor.

Hope that helps. The easiest way is to prove this for yourself by interpolating an image to the size of a 21mp file, then doing the crops with the 21mp image and the original image for comparison.
Click to expand...

Thanks CT for the explanation (y) my ears are bleeding with this :LOL: but I will figure it all out... eventually :D

Thanks again
Steve
 
To be fair, as I said earlier, at 21mp the new 5D will be a good all rounder for someone who wants to tackle a bit of everything. It will only be marginally behind the 40D in the cropping stakes for long lens or macro work and that can't be bad.

For anyone specialising more in macro or long lenses though, the 50D raises the bar quite a bit.
 
Avast, me Harties! Shiver me timbers, I don't be gettin the problem ye landlubbers have with these video modes, surely it be just firmware? There be nay high cost hardware additions to the body and the only additional production cost involved be the development of the firmware. Leavin it out anit going to make the camera be costin less dubloons or make room for another, more expensive feature, Matey... so why be leavin it out? If you don't like it, just don't be usin it.

Arrrrrrrrrrr!
 
CT said:
Of course I don't mind. :)

I know this stuff causes bleeding from the ears if you think about it too much. :D

If you can fill every bit of that full frame with your subject matter at 21mp then yes the result will be awesome, but you seldom can, and some cropping is nearly always involved with macro.

What matters is the size of the full file at 1:1 viewing and the pixel count, or put another way, the number of pixels left to constitute the image of that ant when you've finished cropping.

Due to the increased FOV of the full frame sensor, you'll crop a substantial amount just to get to the same FOV as a 1.6 sensor. When you do the rest of the cropping with both images to fill the frame as you'd like, you'll find that the crop sensor retains the most pixels and will return the better quality image. You'll waste a lot of pixel real estate with the full frame sensor.

Hope that helps. The easiest way is to prove this for yourself by interpolating an image to the size of a 21mp file, then doing the crops with the 21mp image and the original image for comparison.
Click to expand...


I understand the theory behind this but it is only relevant to shooting primes lenses and macro as you stated.

I try and fill the frame on my 5D exactly the same way as I did when I had a crop camera. So instead of shooting at 50mm I might shoot at 80mm

The 40D has a 95% viewfinder so when you fill the frame in a 40D you are going to get more than you think in the viewfinder and need to crop it to get back to what you want whereas the 5DmkII has a 98% viewfinder and although 3% doesnt sound like a lot its less to crop to get to what you saw through the viewfinder.

Therefore I get more pixels than I would by shooting with a 40D :D

Now this might not make sense to everyone but to me (who uses mostly zoom lenses anyway) it makes perfect sence :thinking: I think.
 
CScottMcQueen said:
I understand the theory behind this but it is only relevant to shooting primes lenses and macro as you stated.

I try and fill the frame on my 5D exactly the same way as I did when I had a crop camera. So instead of shooting at 50mm I might shoot at 80mm

The 40D has a 95% viewfinder so when you fill the frame in a 40D you are going to get more than you think in the viewfinder and need to crop it to get back to what you want whereas the 5DmkII has a 98% viewfinder and although 3% doesnt sound like a lot its less to crop to get to what you saw through the viewfinder.

Therefore I get more pixels than I would by shooting with a 40D :D

Now this might not make sense to everyone but to me (who uses mostly zoom lenses anyway) it makes perfect sence :thinking: I think.
Click to expand...

It does to me, when you switch from APS-C to FF, you don't stand in the same spot and crop it later. You move closer to the subject or use a different lens.

Like if you like the 50mm on the 40D before, you will use a 85mm now, because that will give you the closest result to what you are used to.

With macro work you just have to stand that bit closer.
 
5D MkII Specs from canon site

JPEG: (L) 5616x3744, (M) 4080x2720, (S) 2784x1856,
RAW: (RAW) 5616x3744, (sRAW1) 3861x2574, (sRAW2) 2784x1856
 
But is ISO 25,600 really necessary for an alleged wedding 'tography camera?

It would have come in handy tonight, as I was out in the field waiting for a barn owl which never was, and soon ran out of ISO/fast enough shutter speed, but it'd be useless for what I want it for, given the frame rate..
 
markta said:
But is ISO 25,600 really necessary for an alleged wedding 'tography camera?
Click to expand...

Who alleges that it's solely for wedding use ?

markta said:
It would have come in handy tonight, as I was out in the field waiting for a barn owl which never was, and soon ran out of ISO/fast enough shutter speed, but it'd be useless for what I want it for, given the frame rate..
Click to expand...

It would have come in handy .. but it would also be useless ?
 
Tyrone Shoelaces said:
Who alleges that it's solely for wedding use ?


Apparently Canon do...obviously it can be used for anything, but allegedly the camera was designed with weddings in mind..



It would have come in handy .. but it would also be useless ?
Click to expand...

Yep, the extra ISO would have been good, but with a higher frame rate, hence my original posts on my initial reaction to this new version...
 
sample images from the MkII

HERE

looking at them ISO12800 looks pretty similar to 6400 on my MkIII
 
dod said:
sample images from the MkII

HERE

looking at them ISO12800 looks pretty similar to 6400 on my MkIII
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting, that's exactly what I wanted to see. Looks pretty good up to 6400 then it starts getting ropey at 12800 and 25600 is fairly attrocious and virtually unusable if truth be told. B&W all the way at that end of the scale and make sure there's not much shadow detail you want to maintain
 
Seems like my 30D. 100-800 is fine. 1600 is great for b&w. 3200 is something I never use. So it'll be 50-12,800 which is damn fine :D The watch photos are damn sharp for straight from cam. Fairly standard photos though. What is good is that Canon gave some test models out to good photographers so we should be hearing from them soon. First up is our old olympic friend, Vincent Laforet. I can't wait to see his stuff.

I had it in my hands for less than 72 hours before I had to send it back - but the time I did have with a prototype of the Canon EOS 5D MKII will possibly change the path of my career as well as the photography industry to some degree.
Click to expand...

Thats not from Canon. Its not marketing. Thats a damn good photographer saying that the 5dm2 is a damn good camera.
 
petemc said:
Seems like my 30D. 100-800 is fine. 1600 is great for b&w. 3200 is something I never use. So it'll be 50-12,800 which is damn fine :D The watch photos are damn sharp for straight from cam. Fairly standard photos though. What is good is that Canon gave some test models out to good photographers so we should be hearing from them soon. First up is our old olympic friend, Vincent Laforet. I can't wait to see his stuff.

Thats not from Canon. Its not marketing. Thats a damn good photographer saying that the 5dm2 is a damn good camera.
Click to expand...

Thanks, very interesting indeed!
 
Joe, i think he's referring to the next FF body, 7D/3D/whateverD that is hinted at in that post.
 
Yep, sorry, the 1D Mk 4 or whatever it will be called...

Like other wildlifers, would love the 25,600 ISO but need higher fps with perhaps a little sacrifice in resolution..
 
http://gizmodo.com/5052767/a-taste-of-the-canon-5d-mark-iis-mindblowing-full-hd-video

"best camera ever" that will "redefine the industry."

It's not the camera's still photography performance that Laforet says is a game-changer, as duly impressive as it is
he says it matches what your "natural eye in can see the worst light" which is "a big deal." It's the video, which
he says—only half-jokingly—makes him "never want to shoot another still photo."
 
Just a couple of thoughts on the new 5D. I'm looking forward to it.

That kind of quality from a 35mm style (and size) body? Wow!

The quality of panoramic format cropped images (at any focal length) from it will mean I can sell my Xpan to part fund the new 5D, and carry less weight on my back in the field.

I may not need the 17-40 zoom either as the wide end of the 24-105 should be wide enough on full format for almost all purposes.:)

Any body know what "highlight tone priority" is? Sounds like it could be useful.....
 
jerry12953 said:
J should be wide enough on full format for almost all purposes.:)

Any body know what "highlight tone priority" is? Sounds like it could be useful.....
Click to expand...
It was introduced in the Canon 40D. It is useful, but is only available without the expanded ISO set in the camera.. In very strong light it can help to avoid burned out highlights, and it works very well. Whilst it isn't a deal breaker, I've noticed it does introduce a little more noise though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top