What to call this camera?

[joe mama]

1) 5DII sensor and same size body
2) 11 AF points, all high precision
3) Half the shutter lag of the 5DII
4) "Real" Auto ISO
5) Sensor IS (since no primes below 300mm, save the 200 / 2L IS, have IS)


I'd like to call such a camera a "5DX", but I think a more accurate name would be "fiction". : )

[sapearl]

I only have the "old" 5D, but what do you mean by shutterl lag? Not only is mine instant, but I would figure the the MkII to be at least as good if not faster ;).

1) 5DII sensor and same size body
2) 11 AF points, all high precision
3) Half the shutter lag of the 5DII
4) "Real" Auto ISO
5) Sensor IS (since no primes below 300mm, save the 200 / 2L IS, have IS)


I'd like to call such a camera a "5DX", but I think a more accurate name would be "fiction". : )

[joe mama]

I only have the "old" 5D, but what do you mean by shutterl lag? Not only is mine instant, but I would figure the the MkII to be at least as good if not faster ;).


I, too, have the 5D. I don't know if you got a magical one, or I got a dud, but there most definitely is a lag between depressing the shutter and capturing the image. Mind you, this lag is measured in fractions of a second, but much of my imagery is captured in those fractions.

[sapearl]

Seriously Joe, I don't believe mine is magical.... just normal, not even fractions ;).

Now that being said, I do have some lag when I can't get a solid auto-focus lock. But that is by design. If I'm not metering subjects with good contrast, or if at a very dark wedding venue - processional at some dim churches - it will hunt and "lag" until I get a lock.

I, too, have the 5D. I don't know if you got a magical one, or I got a dud, but there most definitely is a lag between depressing the shutter and capturing the image. Mind you, this lag is measured in fractions of a second, but much of my imagery is captured in those fractions.

[joe mama]

Seriously Joe, I don't believe mine is magical.... just normal, not even fractions ;).

Now that being said, I do have some lag when I can't get a solid auto-focus lock. But that is by design. If I'm not metering subjects with good contrast, or if at a very dark wedding venue - processional at some dim churches - it will hunt and "lag" until I get a lock.


That's not what I mean by "shutter lag". That's focus speed, and I would like to see an improvement there, especially with the outer AF points in lower light. "Shutter lag" is the time differential between when the shutter is depressed and the image is captured. This is especially noticable when subjects are moving and you are shooting extremely shallow DOFs, as I do.

[eror11]

1) 5DII sensor and same size body
2) 11 AF points, all high precision
3) Half the shutter lag of the 5DII
4) "Real" Auto ISO
5) Sensor IS (since no primes below 300mm, save the 200 / 2L IS, have IS)


I'd like to call such a camera a "5DX", but I think a more accurate name would be "fiction". : )

Call it Sony alpha

I wouldn't buy that camera.

[joe mama]

Call it Sony alpha

I wouldn't buy that camera.


I don't know how the Sony A900's AF compares to what I'm asking for. As for their sensor, it's supposedly the best at low ISO but the worst at high ISO. I prefer the 5DII's compromise.

[maverick678]

5D++

[nuffi]

I think I'd call it Bob.

[Daniel Browning]

5D mark too awesome.

[Perry Ge]

I only have the "old" 5D, but what do you mean by shutterl lag? Not only is mine instant, but I would figure the the MkII to be at least as good if not faster ;).
Stuart, I only have the "old" 5D too, but joe is right, there is some shutter lag and the 5DII has exactly the same amount as the "old" 5D. Admittedly, I didn't notice it at first, but after I owned the 1D/1DIIN/1DIII (all sold now), it was really apparently. Those cameras fire instantaneously, and it actually shocked me a little because, being used to the 5D, their shutters go off before I expect them to go off :lol:.

[nicksan]

If it were up to #4, I would have said 5D MKII Should-have-been Edition.
Don't think they would implement sensor IS looking at the lens lineup.


1) 5DII sensor and same size body
2) 11 AF points, all high precision
3) Half the shutter lag of the 5DII
4) "Real" Auto ISO
5) Sensor IS (since no primes below 300mm, save the 200 / 2L IS, have IS)


I'd like to call such a camera a "5DX", but I think a more accurate name would be "fiction". : )

[Yohan Pamudji]

I would call it "My Dream Camera".

[joe mama]

If it were up to #4, I would have said 5D MKII Should-have-been Edition.


:D:D:D


Don't think they would implement sensor IS looking at the lens lineup.


I see it exactly opposite. By that, I don't mean that they will implement sensor IS -- I agree that they won't -- but not because of the lens lineup. Let me explain. The only FF zooms with IS are the 24-105 / 4L IS and the 70-xxx zooms (as well as the 100-400 IS), which are all either slow, large, or both. All other IS lenses are long primes (save the 200 / 2L IS).

For longer focal lengths, there is a definite advantage to the stabilized viewfinder, so I think people might still prefer to spend more for those lenses even if the body had sensor IS. However, save the 24-105 / 4L IS, there are no shorter lenses with IS, and the advantages of lens IS are minor for such shorter focal lengths. And being able to get IS on all my lenses at once, as opposed to IS versions of the lenses I own trickling down over the years, if ever, would be very welcome. And, since the Sony A900 has shown that it can be done, without any major expense, there's no reason not to do so.

Then again, where was the reason not to implement items 1-4 on the list? Protection of the 1-series DSLRs? Seems lame, and, perhaps, even counterproductive. The reason I say that is because for all those who puchase a "5DII should-have-been" over a 1-series DSLR, they would likely spend their other disposable income on glass, so Canon gets their money either way.

But even that is short-sighted thinking. The goal is to attract as many people to your brand as possible. So even if those who chose the "5DII should-have-been" over 1D bodies choose to save their money, Canon would instead make more money off of those who now chose Canon instead of Nikon or Sony. Not only would they get the money from the bodies, but the money from all the glass these people would buy.

[Yohan Pamudji]

I know that for me personally I had cash in hand ready to go on the 5DII until the specs came out. $2700 for no significant improvement in AF (some claim faster CPU = faster AF) when that was clearly one of the weak points of the 5D? Not what I was looking for. And since then Canon haven't gotten a single red cent from me--not cameras, lenses, flash. Nothing. Not out of spite or anything; just haven't seen the need. My 5D is doing just fine, and an upgrade to a 5DII would've been mostly about unnecessary perks that I wouldn't turn down but aren't worth the upgrade without the essentials. Not at $2700 anyway. Once it gets into the $1800-1900 range like the 5D did at the end of its cycle I might revisit it, but I expect more out of a $2700 camera in terms of AF. I feel like I'm in the minority with all the 5DII hype and so many people lining up to buy one, but I know I've done what's right for my situation.

Meanwhile I'm looking at Pentax because their tiny primes fascinate me and they have a body coming out to complete the well-equipped, small form-factor concept. So for this one user at least, Canon dropped the ball and lost certain revenue because of their 5DII direction, and might end up handing that money over to another company.

It'll be interesting to see the 5DIII. I'd like to see if Canon intend to continue with the large-sensor-with-a-prosumer-feature-set concept, or if the 5D line will finally include concessions like pro AF to stem the tide of people giving the Nikon D700 a serious look. A D700 with a Canon mount would've been just the camera I was looking for in the 5DII, and there's still hope for the next version. At the very least some kind of in-between AF that has all cross-type sensors and a better layout.

[matonanjin]

Stuart, I only have the "old" 5D too, but joe is right, there is some shutter lag and the 5DII has exactly the same amount as the "old" 5D. Admittedly, I didn't notice it at first, but after I owned the 1D/1DIIN/1DIII (all sold now), it was really apparently. Those cameras fire instantaneously, and it actually shocked me a little because, being used to the 5D, their shutters go off before I expect them to go off :lol:.

Shutter lag on the 5D is something like 75 ms, if memory serves, and it rarely does anymore. I have no clue what it is on a 1Dnnn but it is significantly less.

[griptape]

Call it the 5DII Mk II

[joe mama]

A D700 with a Canon mount would've been just the camera I was looking for in the 5DII...


I think that's what everyone was expecting.


, and there's still hope for the next version. At the very least some kind of in-between AF that has all cross-type sensors and a better layout.


If the next version has another 3-4 year cycle, one would hope for a lot more.

[rhomsy]

I have a 40D and don't notice any shutter lag (perhaps because I've never used anything better??). Is the 5dmkii worse than the xxD line in this area? If so, then it's not really a FF sensor with prosumer features (xxD line). Rather, it would be a FF sensor stuffed into a consumer body.

I was originally interested in the 5Dmkii, but with an autofocus and fps worse than my 40D, I'd rather just wait to see what the 60D has for features, and spend the extra money on glass. The 5Dmkii doesn't really seem quite worth it to me. I'd rather keep it around 15 megapixels anyway. I just want better IQ and better ISO, which if present, would render my want for a FF body moot. The problem is I am not sure if they can improve IQ and ISO with a crop sensor. I guess I'll keep waiting.

[anthony11]

I have a 40D and don't notice any shutter lag (perhaps because I've never used anything better??). Is the 5dmkii worse than the xxD line in this area? I see a spec of 59ms for the 40D, 75 for the 5D, and 73 for the 5DmkII. (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx). The N-word D700 seems to manage just 40ms. My aging G6 has a shutter lag of something 470ms (plus AF lag), so I have to think that any of the above three will seem instantaneous to me.
If so, then it's not really a FF sensor with prosumer features (xxD line). Rather, it would be a FF sensor stuffed into a consumer body.
To an extent, yeah.
I just want better IQ and better ISO, which if present, would render my want for a FF body moot. The problem is I am not sure if they can improve IQ and ISO with a crop sensor. I guess I'll keep waiting.
The ability to push the ISO cleanly to the point that I can shoot humans indoors is important to me, so if the 60D does a stop better than the 50D there that'd be really great. DoF will remain different between sensor sizes FWIW

[joe mama]

I see a spec of 59ms for the 40D, 75 for the 5D, and 73 for the 5DmkII. (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx). The N-word D700 seems to manage just 40ms. My aging G6 has a shutter lag of something 470ms (plus AF lag), so I have to think that any of the above three will seem instantaneous to me.


In other words, as has been said, what "we" want is a 5DII sensor in a D700 body that accepts Canon lenses. I guess that just ain't happening, though, is it?

[nuffi]

I know that for me personally I had cash in hand ready to go on the 5DII until the specs came out. $2700 for no significant improvement in AF (some claim faster CPU = faster AF) when that was clearly one of the weak points of the 5D?


I am so tired of this line. Simply because they didn't add three thousand two hundred and eighty seven cross type focal points does not mean that the AF wasn't improved, and improved significantly. And it is always trotted out by ppl who haven't done anything to see, too.

Try it. And I don't mean in a shop for 5 minutes. Get your hands on one and go and shoot the stuff that you normally shoot. Especially the stuff where the 5d AF isn't performing how you'd like. Then perhaps go try out the nikon stuff in those very same situations. Then you have an informed opinion.

Most of the people who've done this come back and say that there is a significant improvement in the AF. I know of one highly repected tog who was very happy after swapping back to the 5d Mark II because the AF was better in it than in the d700. Number of focus points ain't all that.

There are people who do this and decide that it isn't significant, but at least then they get my respect.

[Yohan Pamudji]

I am so tired of this line. Simply because they didn't add three thousand two hundred and eighty seven cross type focal points does not mean that the AF wasn't improved, and improved significantly. And it is always trotted out by ppl who haven't done anything to see, too.

You're welcome to exaggerate and be ridiculous, but I consider it reasonable to expect 9, yes 9, cross type points. Not 3287, not 51, not 45, but 9. The much cheaper 50D has that. Heck, the even older 40D has that.

More important than the number of points is the placement. I would be extremely happy with even just 5 cross type points--1 in the middle and 1 in each of the 4 corners at the rule-of-thirds points. In fact, I'd rather not have Canon's 9 points as the diamond layout is awful on FF for off-center compositions.

Try it. And I don't mean in a shop for 5 minutes. Get your hands on one and go and shoot the stuff that you normally shoot. Especially the stuff where the 5d AF isn't performing how you'd like. Then perhaps go try out the nikon stuff in those very same situations. Then you have an informed opinion.I'd love to, but are you going to foot the bill for me to try it? I'm not about to buy it from a store and return it because the AF isn't as good as I want even though it's working properly. I consider that abuse of the spirit of liberal return policies. If I had a buddy nearby who had one, you can be certain I'd try it.

I might not be informed according to your standard, but I do as much research as I can before buying new equipment. The trend with Canon has always been to brag about any improvement in AF no matter how miniscule. In the 50D/5DII white paper the only improvement they claim is accuracy with certain light types (fluorescent, for instance). Nothing about the outer points being faster, more accurate, etc. What am I supposed to take from that other than that the outer points aren't significantly better than the 5D's?

Most of the people who've done this come back and say that there is a significant improvement in the AF. I know of one highly repected tog who was very happy after swapping back to the 5d Mark II because the AF was better in it than in the d700. Number of focus points ain't all that."Most"? Interesting generalization. I've seen reports from also highly respected photogs who have not had the same experience, i.e. the 5DII wasn't a significant improvement over the 5D. And again, I'm not asking for 51 points. I don't care about covering the whole viewfinder with points. See explanation above.

There are people who do this and decide that it isn't significant, but at least then they get my respect.So which one is it? A significant improvement or not?

What often gets lost in the debate is that (for me at least) it's not so much the 5DII vs. the D700. I couldn't care less how the D700 performs, and the only reason I bring it up is because it's the closest realization of what many of us wish the 5D line could be.

No, the real comparison is the 5DII vs. other Canon products. For instance, I have a 5D and a 40D. In anything less than good light the 5D's outer points struggle while the 40D's lock on. The 40D AF overall isn't the greatest, but its cross-type outer points are clearly better than the 5D's non cross-type points. They're also better than the 1DII's outer non cross-type points (I shot the 1DII for a few years). On the 1DII itself, its cross-type points were better than its non. See a pattern here? Cross-type really gives you a big advantage in detecting contrast in low light. There's a reason why on the Mark III 1-series cams Canon spread out the cross-type points instead of clustering them in the middle like they did in the Mark II 1-series.

(And by the way, another reason the D700 is irrelevant except to hold up as an example for what Canon should do with Canon's equivalent tech is that the D700 also clusters all its cross-type points in the middle. It's the idea and essence behind the D700 [pro spec FF in a smaller body] that is appealing, not necessarily the implementation.)

If the 5DII just had all cross-type points, i.e. matching the specs of a camera less than half its price, there would've been a whole lot less complaints about AF. Nobody is saying the AF sucks (well maybe some, but not me). All I'm saying is that the outer points being non cross-type was one of the few major weak points of the 5D, and this wasn't addressed in the 5DII.

Look at it this way: the 5DII is an amazing camera. The fact that I don't consider it a big enough upgrade to get one is a testament to the strength of the 5D, even with its flaws. Canon makes some great cameras and lenses, and I have no desire to switch to any other brand. But the 5DII is a few steps short of greatness, and it's just too bad considering how truly great it could've been.

Here's hoping for an all cross-type 11-point AF in the 5DIII in a better layout. Why 11? Because that's the minimum number Canon can put in and not have it be 9, and if it were 9 they'd just do the diamond thing all over again :)

[Andy_T]

Some shutter lag times...

Model fps Max JPG Max RAW Startup Shutter Lag VF Blackout

Canon EOS 50D 6.3 90 16 .1s 59ms 100ms
Canon EOS 40D 6.5 75 17 .15s 59ms 100ms
Canon EOS 30D 5.0 30 11 .15s 65ms 110ms
Canon EOS 20D 5.0 23 6 .2s 65ms 115ms
Canon EOS 5D 3.0 60 17 .2s 75ms 145ms
Canon EOS 1D Mark III 10.0 110 30 .2s 40-55ms 80ms
Canon EOS 1D Mark II N 8.5 48 22 .2s 40-55ms 87ms
Canon EOS 1DS Mark III 5.0 56 12 .2s 40-55ms 80ms
Canon EOS 1DS Mark II 4.0 32 11 .3s 40-55ms 87ms

Source: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx

So, if shutter lag is a prime consideration for you, rather go for a used 1DsII instead....

Of course, these are pre-focused times, so be sure to put your focus on the * key to get the fastest speed.
If you have AF on the shutter button, it will add 1/2 second.

Best regards,
Andy

[Toneski]

I think I'd call it Bob.

Which as everyone knows is short for Kate....:)