[quote name='mst' timestamp='1300965545' post='7066']
jenbenn talks about looking at images at 100% (pixel level).
5D II: 21 MP
D700: 12 MP
So, magnification is considerably higher with the 5D (at pixel level!).
-- Markus
[/quote]
OK! Understood. Wasn't very clear though! <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
8
03-25-2011, 10:58 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-25-2011, 11:06 PM by wim.)
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1301004684' post='7081']
That is a very good way to choose. May I ask how do you find the AF of the 5D2? One of the reasons I could not get along with my 5D1 (same AF system as 5D2) is the bad AF performance once you are not in the central AF point.
[/quote]
I am not vollframe, but since I have shot both, and still have the 5D II <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />....
My experience is that it is very good, be it not the fastest around. But then, shooting at 400 F/5.6, with stuff racing at you at 40+ mph, in dusk conditions, it does get a little tricky regardless.
However, when objects are moving slower, it works very well. I use it for (serious) low light photography all the time. Does it get it wrong sometimes? Yes, any camera does, if you don't use additional illumination below the official levels where the AF system is supposed to operate.
As with any camera, it is a matter of learning to know how it reacts, and adapt accordingly.
BTW, contrary to popular belief, it does not have the same AF system as the 5D. It is similar, as in, it has the same number of AF points, but the specs and internals have changed considerably, and it generally works a lot more precise and also much better under difficult lighting consitions (mixed light, low light, etc.).
HTH, warm regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
8
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1300581707' post='6954']
Autofocus speed of both is very fast, it mostly depends on the lens how fast the combination focusses. If I remember correctly, the Nikon 50mm AF-S is actually quite a slow focussing lens. Its bokeh is not very pretty.
The Canon 50mm f1.4 has nicer bokeh, but it is not the most study lens.. one can actually damage the motor too easily.
The 50mm f1.2 L USM from Canon is a nice lens, but you have to learn how to use it due to a focus shift when closing down a bit.[/quote]
Nope. You're not up-to-date on this.
Quote:The Sigma 50mm f1.4 is a good lens, when you get a good copy.
The Nikon 50mm f1.8 is a surprisingly good lens, and a steal for its price.
Nikon does not have a 17-40 N VR. Nikon's AF-S 16-35mm f4 VR is maybe the lens you mean, what I do not like about it is the quite heavy barrel distortion (I am not a fan of "coorecting" distortion in post processing as you lose either filed of view or sharpness). The Canon 17-40mm f4 USM is quite comparable in resolution, and has less barrel distortion. It lacks image stabilization. It is less heavy than the Nikon.
The Canon 16-35mm L USM II is a good lens for its type, about the weight if the f4 lens from Nikon. Its Nikon equivalent had quite a few fans (the Nikon AF 17-35mm f2.8).
Tokina now has a new contender in this field, and image samples I have seen are very impressive (it even has nice bokeh for such a lens)... the Tokina 16-28mm f2.8. Downside is that it has a protruding front element, not allowing the use of filters if desired.
The D700 has a higher possible frame rate and more AF points, making it a bit more suited for sports photography. The 5D mk II has higher resolution, so it is preferable if bigger print sizes are important. The 5D mk II also has a better implemented live view and a better movie mode (if that at all is important to you). The 5D mk II has a bit more noise at higher ISO on pixel level, but on image/print level they are quite comparable (due to its smaller pixels).
Both camera bodies are good, it is up to you to decide which features actually matter and which don't.
It looks like Canon has been able to fix all the production problems with the 50 F/1.2.
And they also fixed mine, three or so years ago already.
Regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1301093890' post='7095']
I am not vollframe, but since I have shot both, and still have the 5D II <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />....
My experience is that it is very good, be it not the fastest around. But then, shooting at 400 F/5.6, with stuff racing at you at 40+ mph, in dusk conditions, it does get a little tricky regardless.
However, when objects are moving slower, it works very well. I use it for (serious) low light photography all the time. Does it get it wrong sometimes? Yes, any camera does, if you don't use additional illumination below the official levels where the AF system is supposed to operate.[/quote]
Are you referring to the outer AF points as well?
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1301093890' post='7095']
As with any camera, it is a matter of learning to know how it reacts, and adapt accordingly.[/quote]
Undoubtedly, but after extensively using the outer AF points of the 40D and 7D the performance of those of the 5D were simply pathetic.
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1301093890' post='7095']
BTW, contrary to popular belief, it does not have the same AF system as the 5D. It is similar, as in, it has the same number of AF points, but the specs and internals have changed considerably, and it generally works a lot more precise and also much better under difficult lighting consitions (mixed light, low light, etc.). [/quote]
I thought it was only the processor. In [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-dslr-digital-camera-review.aspx"]TDP[/url] Bryan states that "The AF system in the Canon EOS 5D Mark II is the same as that in the 5D (which I also found to be accurate) but now with a DIGIC IV processor driving it".
Also, In DPR's what's new pages [url="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page3.asp"]here[/url] and [url="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page4.asp"]here[/url] the only AF changes mentioned are the ones related to LV, which of course was not present in the 5D Mk I.
Posts: 1,597
Threads: 22
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
8
Hi Yakim,
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1301131857' post='7101']
Are you referring to the outer AF points as well?[/quote]
Yes.
Quote:Undoubtedly, but after extensively using the outer AF points of the 40D and 7D the performance of those of the 5D were simply pathetic.
Strange. I owned a 40D and 5D simultaneously, and they were about equally good IME. The 7D is likely to be better, as it has a much more advanced AF system.
Quote:I thought it was only the processor. In [url="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/reviews/canon-eos-5d-mark-ii-dslr-digital-camera-review.aspx"]TDP[/url] Bryan states that "The AF system in the Canon EOS 5D Mark II is the same as that in the 5D (which I also found to be accurate) but now with a DIGIC IV processor driving it".
The only thing that is the same is the number and type of AF points, and their placement.
Quote:Also, In DPR's what's new pages [url="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page3.asp"]here[/url] and [url="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/page4.asp"]here[/url] the only AF changes mentioned are the ones related to LV, which of course was not present in the 5D Mk I.
This is not entirely correct, and doesn't correspond to my own testing and experience either.
Essentially, from the 50D and 5D mk II onwards, Canon introduced the use of several spectrum bands (well, two actually) for AF, rather than just one as they used in the older systems. Canon alluded to this in one of their technical papers, and this does make a tremendous difference in accuracy, especially under more difficult and mixed lighting conditions. F.e., closeups under 50 Hz fluorescent lights were a hit and miss affair with 40D and 5D, not anymore with 50D and 5D II from my experience. Furthermore, the AF algorithms were improved as well. I don't have a single problem with the 5D II, or the 50D I played with for a while, whereas the 40D and 5D did miss on occasion, even under good daylight conditions (and the 40D more so than the 5D).
Whenever I miss with the 5D II I do know it is user error, not camera error - I do analyze why I miss focus if and when I do. The problem is that the camera doesn't do what the human eye does, one has to take that into account. Use a good contrast transition for focusing, and it gets it right all the time. Just don't expect it to be a speed demon, that's all.
Even so, AF with the 5D II is faster than I can achieve manually anyway.
HTH, kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
Good to know. I never knew that. But it still doesn't tickle my pickle. I'm glad that it's working for you though.
|
