RobDickinson wrote in post #11006069
5D2 is unfortunatly a bit of a relic due to its AF system, the one reason I didnt buy one.
Do not agree. The 5D2 AF system is simple, but no relic. Personally I didn't buy one because I think much of the reason it's such a fantastic camera is there in the older version, and I didn't see $4500(ish) as valid money to spend for the occasional times I need bigger files or high ISO.
Potisdad wrote in post #11006100
Exactly why Canon didn't really upgrade the AF in the 5D II.
Once again, I disagree. Anyone who's shot with the original 5D and the current one will know there's a world of difference in the AF performance, even if it's the same layout driven by one processor.
tim wrote in post #11006128
Canon doesn't seem to realise yet that they're not the only game in town. Nikon are taking market share from Canon in some market segments.
True. You Tim, are one of, frankly, a fair few in the past few weeks jumping ship that I've dealt with. Without fail, all those who've come to see me to try out cameras or to discuss their thoughts etc have all done it with legit reasons, most of which centre around reliable image results or AF. That said, in the same rationale, I think both of them are ignorant to the advances Panasonic and Sony are making, and it's only the niche approach or poor processing that prevent them suddenly battling with cameras which comprehensively outgun their traditional approach. Sony are *so* close to getting it right but keep missing, and Panasonic, if they'd decided to do SLR's properly would by now have the fear of god up the big two.
RobDickinson wrote in post #11006142
Now they have the D700/D3 stuff AND new 24,35,50 and 85 primes and a better UWA and a better 24-70 they should be doing well.
Doesn't though, get around the fact Nikon lenses cost a heap more.
Moppie wrote in post #11006176
Any competent photographer should be quite capable if picking up any SLR from either brand and shooting perfectly acceptable images in any situation.
Any brand differences are purely subjective and come from the realm of gear heads who pass their own failings on to the gear.
Both agree and disagree here. Any good drummer could make a set of pots and pans sound amazing you know... That said, and I say this as a friend Moppie as you know, but that last sentence is a bit BS and willy-waving. There's *way* more to it than that.
RobDickinson wrote in post #11006185
Except the 5D2 sucks for focusing?
No it doesn't.
For what it's designed to do, it has one of the simplest and most reliably accurate systems anywhere.
Remember that much of the wailing over 7D AF performance comes from problems related to two camps. 1) It's so complex users not used to the options and adjustability of it, dick around and cock it up til they don't know which way is up. 2) I believe there's a hint of 1D3 about it's performance, as in some bodies smoke it, some don't get it right. And yet that's an AF system 'superior' to most other Canon bodies...
Entirely horses for courses, there's a lot to be said for the more simple, less 'mess-upable' 9 point AF systems.
Moppie wrote in post #11006197
Only if you listen to people who have never used one and don't know what they are talking about... I think those who do understand and those who don't separates the photographers from the gear heads.
Kinda correct again I think, but erm, maybe a bit OTT!
(I know I'm guilty of over-exagerating things at times too...)
RobDickinson wrote in post #11006203
The center point is fine, the others just arnt especialy in low light.
Mevunky wrote in post #11006230
Correct, they hunt really badly in low light. I had forgotten this when using one the other day, was forced to use center point as it just wouldn't lock very well on anything other than the center point (yes yes focus recompose I know...). It's also much slower in general but the high ISO in the dark is really nice so you can't have it all
Nothing to do with gear heads imo, just people use their camera's in different ways and its also hard to see the short comings until you have used a better focus system on a regular basis.
I don't do anything complicated or sophisticated in general but I do want my camera to focus in a practically dark room, pubs and parties in general with whatever focus point I select.
I can see both sides of that argument. Frankly the fact technology brings greater and greater options to the party is obviously a good thing and progression, and I don't think it's wrong to expect some high end spec to actually function properly. The bit I find more allarming is the trend within photography for the tech to be the reliance, and for less and less actual skill to be involved. Call me a luddite if you like (and you'd struggle cos I'm 30 not 70) but frankly you need to ask questions if when the tech's removed the ability to take images falls flat on its face. You move away from having skills then to being an operator.
I saw a photo a few weeks back taken on an M8 Leica, of a dragonfly hovering mid-air shot at f/0.95. That's on a manual focus rangefinder for those who don't know. The photographer was 27, and trained on digital, and had to work backwards into film and older style cameras. The photos was average, the skill was amazing. If having 85 point AF driven by three processors takes away the potential for that kinda skill, then photography is having a bad day.
Some people will laugh at this, but in all honestly I never really open my mouth and spout off seriously, usually only in jest, but I have to say after selling cameras for two many years now, and through stuff from a D30 onwards, to literally every end of the spectrum of users, I feel better placed to comment on this stuff than most.
Truth is any SLR these days is pretty fecking amazing, and allows stuff to be shot in such a convenient way, it shocks most people going back to shooting on a film camera how hard it is. There's merit in needing the performance whatever SLR offers for the few, those whose income or once in a lifetime moments depends upon it, but for most, arguing about noise, AF performance etc is basically irrelevant. Most people who can demonstrate a regular need for the differences between camera X and camera Y are pros or very close, the rest frankly are blowing smoke up whoever's ass it is.
The scary thing is though, genuine talent is being lost more and more with advances in Photoshop and camera tech. People seem to expect more, to be less skilled and propped up more, and the number of people who take their skills from a high level and utilise the advances in tech to push themselves and their images further forward instead of sitting relatively still but making the job easier for themselves is worryingly small.
Oddly photography isn't bound by the need to be the world's best at anything, frankly as much as personally I love to push myself further and further, someone who takes a snap, smiles and doesn't shoot again for six months has just as much right to own a camera as anyone. I just think when arguing the toss about finite details, you might as well argue the toss about the finite details (or lack of them) appearing in the actual photographer and their images too.