timbowles

<p>Thanks again for all the great insight. I think the 5D2 is the smart choice for me and my needs/current lenses. I still have 2 other film bodies (Elan 7 and EOS 3), and I think a DSLR will be a good compliment to my current set-up. As said by Mark, I don't see it as a film or digital because I still think each are better suited for different purposes. That's why I think I have to go against Tom's recommendation. I've waited this long to by a DSLR because I haven't really needed one and I haven't seen one I was happy enough with to buy and use for many years to come. Once I buy one, I'm not the type of person or one with enough money to get into the upgrade game. I was waiting for the 5Dmk3 because I think it will be the camera I would use until one of us dies. It sounds like the 5D2 may be that camera and I need not wait- if the money comes through, we'll see. Again, thanks everybody.</p>

<p>That's why I say "a good possibility". I just wanted to educate myself before some decisions have to be made (probably this week). Looking at my policy and talking to my camera store who has done this kind of thing before, I have the option of taking a cash equivalent for up to 2 years or "replacement" for 6 months. I spoke with my adjuster (and the camera store) and "replacement" seems to mean with something currently available. As film cameras are no longer made, the replacement is digital. My store did up an estimate and I sent it to my adjuster- I'm just waiting to talk to her now (when I called friday, she had gone home sick). I had no idea how much the stuff was worth when it first happend, and considering my deductible and claims free discount (which takes 3 years to regain) I wasn't even going to make a claim. Out of curiosity, I searched current prices for the camera and lenses. Then I woke up in a cold sweat when I realized that I had transferred a bunch of filters, etc to that bag about a week or two prior (my car bag, whos contents was always changing). Even with only cash value, I could afford a 7D.....</p>

<p>Thanks for the further clarification. I thought I was missing something major in these high end cameras- I know a lot of digital shooters and I've never heard of this red channel issue. So, the way I understand it, the 7D's advantage is to recognize the red channel overexposure and automatically underexpose the entire image. But, if you recognize that the possibility is there before you take the picture and plan to compensate for it, that feature is really of no use.<br>

There is so much on Google regarding this red channel clipping, I don't know where to start reading! As far as I can understand, to correct for it all you need to do is underexpose the initial shot then use post processing. But how exactly do you adjust in post? Channel mixer to balance B&G to the R then levels or brightness to bring them all up equally?<br>

This is a bit off topic, but I want to make sure I know what instances to look for:<br>

1) A lot of green and any amount of red in a scene- the red tends to blow out. The more red, the worse the effect<br>

or 2) a little bit of blue and any amount of red in a scene, same as above.<br>

So although the red channel is more sensitive to blue, it's more likely to see this effect in nature due to green because of the abundance of foliage. It seems to me that you are describing more of a color shift due to the presence of blue (going purplish), not an overexposure so I'm a bit confused over scenario #2. I'm also wondering about the orange flower going yellow. Are these color shifts due to loss of red input when it blows out (red no longer, now white)? I imagined red clipping to be more of a bright red blob with no detail, vs a shift in color.</p>

<p>Thanks guys- this is all great info. This real- world experience is exactly what I was after. I should have used different terminology in my previous post- I didn't mean flash sync, but rather synchronous control to external flashes.....<br>

I've never heard people "complain" about the 5D Mk1 or 2, but who's going to after spending that kind of $, right? It's reassuring to know that 1) the MK2 kit can easily satisfy my indoor needs- my kids aren't race cars after all ;). I only question my ability to catch the candids where they see the camera and turn away :P I don't think the camera body is going to make a big difference there though, by the sound of it. and 2) the improved meter in the 7D may not be that important of a difference if I know what I'm doing. I'm so in the habit of taking incident light readings with my hand-held I was second guessing this one anyway for outdoors and "slow moving objects". I do tend to rely on the camera and flash to get it right without my help indoors with quick candids though.....So I may call that one a draw. On the other hand, it's not like the 5D mk2 has an inept metering system- I know it's good. I just feel it could be better for a camera in that price range. That just leaves the off-camera flash control, and well, although it could be creatively useful it's not something I would be looking for in a camera as a high priority. It just seemed that the 7d was my perfect package except for the cropped sensor. However, it sounds like I may not be sacrificing *too* much (not enough to make it worthwhile, anyway) in getting the 5D2 over the 7D. But I would be getting a much better camera in other ways. It sounds like this should be the way for me to go.<br>

A question for Steven- this may sound naive but I'm coming from a film background where light goes into box and excites everything equally. When you say the 7D meter is using color info, is it exposing different colors differently on the sensor to keep them from clipping? Is it just the red sensors that tend to overexpose (I've read that the 1D does a "better job" of keeping the red channel under control). If you see clipping in the red channel on the RGB histogram, how do you adjust for it? Is there a function that allows you to change exposure to different color channels? If so, this blows my mind as to the control and creative possibilities it would allow. I'm used to "EV13 in the light?- here's your shutter speed for that aperture" kind of control.</p>

<p>Thanks for the thoughts.<br>

I'm not too concerned with maintaining the ability to go wide if I got the 7D, as I still will be using my film bodies (EOS 3 and Elan 7. May add the 1V as well) pretty heavily for outdoor work. I guess I'm trying to decide whether going FF is worth giving up the AF, metering and flash sync of the 7D. I feel I would really use those 3 things. My biggest concern with the 7D is losing my go-to indoor/ low light lens (the 50/1.4). I would largely be getting the 7D over the 5D MK2 to photograph my kids who are often in low light situations indoors but I won't be able to reasonably use this lens. I have the 580 EXII, so I won't even need to go to high ISO's necessarily- I'll just lose the fast, sharp, quick focusing, shallow DOF lens of choice..... If the 35 f/2 is slow to focus, it may not cut it for this purpose and by going that direction I shot myself in the foot by not just getting the 5D2.</p>

<p>There is a very good possiblity that I will be getting some insurance money for some film camera equipment that was stolen. It seems I have to get "today's equivalents". It also seems that I will have the money to buy the camera I want, but unfortunately it is not made yet (the 5D MK3). I was really hoping the Mk2 was going to have the features the new 7d has, but I was diappointed. I am not in a huge rush to jump into digital photography, so I figured I'd wait for the MK3 (heck, I'd already waited for the MK2). I like everything about the 7D except for the cropped sensor. I don't really need long reach and I want to be able to use my current lenses (17-40 f/4, 50 f/1.4, 100 f/2.8 macro, 70-200 f/4 and 1.4 tele-xtender). I have also been pining for the 24-105 that comes almost half price kitted with the 5D to use as my walking around lens.<br>

I shoot mainly landscape, still life/abstract etc- Stuff the 5D thrives at. But, I also have a young child and another one coming plus 2 Golden Retrievers. I need a lot of fast focusing ability now. I have been contemplating a DSLR mainly because I am fed up with shutter lag in my P&S when trying to get photos of my 2 year old..... And tired of wasting film or missing the shot. She's FAST! So the 7D is attractive in that respect. Plus playing with the on camera synced to off camera flash could be interesting. Shooting rates are not overly important to me (being a methodical film shooter), but image quality and sharpness is paramount. I shoot LF as well, so if I was thinking I'd enlarge something special (past 16x22) I'd probably be getting out the view camera. Easily said though- once I start snapping a DSLR, my tune may change.<br>

So I'm debating between biting the bullet and getting the 5D mk2 with my coveted 24-105 and then selling it to upgrade to the Mk3 when it comes out or getting the 7D. A problem with the 7D is that I don't want to start collecting EF-S lenses, and I want to be able to shoot hand-held in low light with a normal lens. I'm thinking my option would be to purcahase the 7D with the 28 f/1.8. Pricey, and redundant considering I have an excellent lens already that covers this focal length. Also, I see more long than wide for normal so the 35 f/2 would be a better visaul fit. Problem here is redundancy again, and is the 1 stop in speed really worth it over the 17-40? I've never shot digital, so I don't know if I can make up for the speed loss by just increasing the iso a bit- apparently the 7D performs well even at IS0 800. Another question is how the 17-40 would perform on the cropped sensor- I've read that it may not be as sharp, as it wasn't designed for that purpose. I guess I'm just spoiled by my 50/1.4. My 3rd option is to get the 7D then sell it when the 5Dmk3 comes out if I feel it would better suit my needs. I don't want to buy the 7D with the 24-105 becasue spending all that extra money just doesn't seems worth it..... I may still eventually get the 5D MK3 kit and woiuld feel like a moron if I bought the lens now for more money. Again, I've gone this long without it.....I'd have to say that the biggest benefits I see in the 7D is the superior AF system (points and speed) and new metering system. Other than the cropped sensor and its associated benefits, the 7D seems like the superior camera. I keep talking myself in a circle between these 2 cameras, because I don't know enough about either of them.<br>

Real world experienced people would be great here<br>

Opinions?</p>

<p>Can't wait to see the 5DMK3. Hopefully the 7D is a stepping stone to mastering the 5D line without making it even more expensive. It was certainly needed to restore some confidence in what they're doing, as far as I'm concerned.</p>

I have faith it will be rectified in relatively short order, but I think I'll wait closer to 6-12 months though rather than jumping in next month like I was originally thinking. Unfortunately for you and others, there is more of a time crunch.

<p>I agree with Steve May- I've also lost interest in this camera until Canon owns up and fixes the problem. The response on the dpreview link that says the images from iso 100-400 look great is bunk. The guy needs to get his head, well, you know..... and look at the posts. I surely would not spend that money on a camera that's boasting 21 MP but not be able to take advantage of them while enlarging due to a camera flaw. A big benefit to this camera is its low light useability. Guess what- there are usually hotspots in those situations! I don't know enough, or care to know enough about PS to make scripts to solve a problem I shouldn't have to solve. And don't tell me I'm therfore not serious enough to own a camera like this then, as I'm sure some people will think. This camera is supposed to make your workflow easier, not add to it. I learned a long time ago- never buy v1.0 of anything..... I too want a power button on my TV!</p>

"Although those 45 flashing AF points are cute, the 5D has better AF. I don't want EOS 3 AF in the 5D_. 5D AF is better. My 5D AF is much better: more dependable and more accurate. The EOS 3 really struggles with slow zooms like the EF 100-400 L USM. No problems on the 5D."

 

Umm, ok then... Thanks. It may not be how I interpreted the EOS 3 system, but it's good to hear your experience with the two cameras. This is why I posted- I don't feel like buying a camera that expensive to test my theories.

Michael. Paul G, Paul B, and Chris- thank you for your insightful opinions. They have been useful to me- it sounds more like the 5D system is a trade-off, but generally has been an improvement. I would still have liked to have those thirds junctions covered, but I guess that's not to be.

"Yes, but you don't work for Canon. They decide these things, not you. If you want state of the art pro AF, you have two choices: 1Ds IIII or 1D III. The 5D series was originally designed for gentleman amateurs and the portrait/studio market. With that said, I've always thought the 5D actually nailed focus better than my EOS 3 (not faster, just more accurately). The EOS 3 is especially useless with F3.5 or slower optics."

 

Wow- obviously I've offended you. So, you're telling me that an old system in the EOS 3 can't be used in the 5D becuase it's not a pro body? For the price discrepancy, I don't think this reason flies. What is the cost to Canon to put in an old tried and true system in a new camera? What was the cost of a new EOS 3 the last time it was on the shelves compared to the 5D or 5D MkII?

I was wondering if somebody has some factual information as to why the 5D and now the MkII version have what

appears to be an inferior focus and metering system when compared to the EOS 3. My thought is that the 3 is the

5D's film equivalent in the advanced amateur/semi pro class. I don't understand why Canon would apparently go

backward when they made the 5D and still not improve it with the MkII when the tech is already there in an

equivalent class and less expensive camera. I use an EOS 3 and really like how it is set up. I also have an Elan7

and really *don't* like how it is set up in comparison. The 5D is better than the Elan7 setup, but it doesn't look like

much (point spacing wise, not regarding accuracy- I know the invisible assist points help). I'm hoping that people

who have used both the 3 and 5D will share their opinions and impressions on the 5D's system. Do you see it as a

step backward, or does it actually work better? The most obvious fall back is the fewer cross sensor points, and

there doesn't appear to be any coverage on the lines or at the junctions of thirds. I really like them for off center

focusing. As a

prospective buyer of the 5D mkII, I don't know why I would spend that much cash on what I perceive to be an inferior

system. There are many reasons why it's a great camera, but this is important to me as a user (which is why I'd

appreciate hearing if my perceived drawbacks are really all that bad). I wonder if Canon will ever go to an EOS 3 type

system, or do they truly think this is better and are going to stick with it for the MkIII. I have no problem waiting for

the MkIII, but I was really hoping to get the MkII as I now have applications for it.

 

Thanks.

hah! ;-)

Daniel- If you're talking about the crop above, you've got to take another look at the full pictures. It's all

over the place, especially where the lights are running up the building edges. It's hard *not* to see it

everywhere. And like I said earlier, it's also in the bridge photos, both ISO's (worse as ISO goes higher, but

still there at 100). Look to the side of any of the lights- it's there.

Eric- are you telling me that the autofocus and metering capability of my EOS 3 is worth $4000? Wow I got a bargain then. I certainly haven't missed any photo ops with my current gear, but I can see how a DSLR would make certain work easier. I can wait.....

Scott- better noise reduction, I guess. The reasons I held off from the MKI are still present, other than the presence of a dust system. Too bad for me- I thought it was finally time to buy a dSLR in this one, but it may just not be the case. I now have to seriously think about whether the shortcomings in the MKII are ones I can live with, or do I wait another 3-5 years and see if they finally get it right in the MKIII. I doubt I'm the only one in this (small) boat, so maybe too bad for Canon... It's more likely they will sell so many MKII's that they won't care about the loss of my money and that from a handful of others. Too bad I invested in Canon film bodies, lights and some pretty sweet lenses. If it weren't such a loss from starting over, I'd go to the Nikon D700.

You can see them in the bridge shots as well. Disappointing.

It just blows my mind that Canon can get a 2.8% spot that links to focus point, and a far superior focus system in the "antiquated" EOS 3 but they can't get it into their new state-of-the-art 5DMKII. Why would they not just put this in it? It seems to me they have the perfect camera with these added specs and then just have to build on the high ISO noise reduction fo rfuture renditions.

thanks Matt

Josh, thanks for your review- hopefully we see more of these coming out from the trenches..

 

I'm curious about your statement re cross type focus points- you say the 50D has 9 but the 5DII only has 1. The AF specs for autofocus are the same for both cameras on the Canon site... Are you implying a 50D will focus off-center more accurately than the 5DII, because it seems to me they'd focus the same, based on their specs.

 

Another question re noise at high ISO's. Obviously we'll have to wait for the side-by-side comparisons to come out, but it doesn't sound as if the noise reduction at high ISO is as good as I was maybe hoping, like that of the Nikon D3. Obviously the 5DII is in a different price range, but it was my understanding that the D700 had the same technology and equally good noise absence at high ISO's. I know D3 and a D700 users who say that there is virtually no noise and the photos look like they were shot at ISO 100, even when using beyond 3200 and even 6400. Your results don't sound nearly as promising.

 

Good to hear about battery life. Hopefully the LCD turning off is just a temporary glitch......

 

Tim

Thanks Matt. As I know nothing of video, how would this effect me if I bought this camera and would only be using it for recording the odd home video (only because it's there, not being the reason I would buy this camera)? I wouldn't be editing, only watching on my TV (NTSC) or computer? If I ever decided to edit parts out and burn a collection of clips onto a DVD to watch, would that be possible? It sounds like once you start using an editor, it gets quite complicated.

OK - I'm ignorant- what's 24/25p?

Thomas- I'm curious, you appear to be suggesting this guy's shots are bad, yes? I think they look horrible personally and I hope they are more a reflection of the photographer than the camera....

 

Matthew- just because I haven't purchased a dSLR before doesn't mean I'm ignorant or new to them. I've been following their evolution for years and have used a number of them, as I alluded to in my original post, and have been simply waiting to buy one I was satisfied with features and performance- wise. The 5D line is never going to drop in its price point. My question was whether the x0D line is approaching the quality of the 5D, making the price discrepancy more a status symbol or a true reflection of performance as it has been historically.

-answered my own question reading another post- it's the 1dsMKIII sensor.....