In my opinion!
These are some of the highs and lows for Canon in 2008. Agree or disagree, it was a year that sparked a lot of conversation.
*Note: Some things may have been announced in late 2007, but didn’t reach mass market until 2008.
Best New DSLR Camera 2008
1. 5D Mark II (* The firmware will fix the issues.)
2. Rebel XSi/450D
3. Rebel XS/1000D
The 5D Mark II is producing fantastic images (black dots aside) and the movie mode is quite spectacular. A worthy upgrade from the 5D.
Worst New DSLR Camera 2008
1. 50D
I don’t think it was much (if any) of an upgrade over the 40D. Canon needs to seriously rethink the xxD line.
Best Point & Shoot Camera of 2008
1. G10
2. SX110 IS
3. SD790 IS / SD990 IS
I’m not all that excited about Canon’s P&S offerings in 2008. The G10 is a very solid camera, but isn’t a great camera. It’s coming to the time where Canon needs to step up in this market as well. My favourite P&S on 2008 was infact the Panasonic LX3, I only wish it was larger in size.
Worst Point & Shoot of 2008
1. E1
What the heck were they thinking? Grossly overpriced, no special feature set and frankly one of the ugliest cameras ever created. It will sit nicely next to your TX1.
Best New Lens of 2008
1. EF 200 f/2 IS
2. EF 800 f/5.6 IS
3. EF-S 55-250 IS
The first 2 are probably tied for first. Everything I’ve seen from the 2 lenses is remarkable. The 55-250 shocked me with its image quality, it’s a great budget telephoto zoom.
Worst New Lens of 2008
1. EF-S 18-200 IS
It costs a lot and has below average build quality, no USM and mediocre image quality (A trait of most superzooms). It has a list price of $699 and is being dumped by retailers at $499 now. That tells us it isn’t selling.
Best Third Party Lens of 2008
1. Sigma 50 f/1.4
2. Carl Zeiss ZE 85 f/1.4
3. Sigma 200-500 f/2.8
I love the first 2 lenses (if you get a good copy of the Sigma), both produce some great images. I only put SigZilla on because it’s just cool. I’ve never used one!
Worst Third Party Lens of 2008
1. Tamron 18-270
Maybe I just hate superzooms. =D
Best New Feature of 2008
1. 1080p Movie Mode in the 5D Mark II
Worst New Feature of 2008
1. Continuing the more megapixel nonsense in DSLR’s and more annoyingly in compacts.
cr
|
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Here's how it works. |
Amen brother!!
100% agree with you on the love & hates :)
Best dslr 5dmkII? “A worthy upgrade from the 5D”? canon changed nothing except adding pixels and movie mode. Calling this a worthy upgrade is a joke, mate.
regards
Well, while I do agree with you on some of your listings, I strongly disagree with you on others:
1. Best DSLR: I still think of the 5D2 as *seriously* “broken by design”, the current quality issues go on top of that. I’d rather let it compete with the 50D over the first place in the “Worst DSLR” list.
2. In my opinion, roughly the same stands true for the G10 – stuffing almost 15MP in a Point & Shoot seems like pure madness to me.
3. Best Lens: Although I tend to agree with you on the list, I think it is only true due to lack of better alternatives. Without doubt the 2/200 and the 5,6/800 are very fine lenses – however, I think both lenses are only good for special uses and have a *very* high price tag on them.
For those of you who think the G10 is bad, I guess you’re comparing it to the Panasonic LX3. I suggest you take a look at the ACTUAL sensor performance comparison at DXOMark. You’ll be surprised. It shows how you guys are easily deceived by the Panasonic jpeg engine.
The same goes for the 50D sensor.
@dope
There is more than that to the 5D2
– Improved IQ
– Improved ISO Performance
– Better VF (should be 100%)
– Much better LCD (5D had a terrible LCD)
– Better AF (in theory)
– DIGIC IV
– 1080P Movies
– Much improved Menu System
– Software Upgrades.. HTP, ALO, Microadjustments, etc etc
– Some Weathersealing
– Battery Info
– Custom Settings
– Ergonomics Improvements
If I owned a 5D, I would buy a 5D2. Although none of the above may matter to some.
@Sebastian
Everything I’m being told about the 5D2 issues is that they can be fixed with firmware. I don’t think anything is “broken”. I will stay of that opinion until I hear otherwise, and lets hope we don’t!
I do agree Canon does need to work on their QC issues in a big way.
@Gusto
I’ve written off DxO and their testing methods, as my own eyes regularly find their results incorrect. I’m not the only one who’s experienced that. They do make for good fodder though.
@sgemu
– Thanks for pointing out the typo
Thanks for reading everyone!
I think it’s become popular to knock Canon’s 50D, but all the criticisms seem weak-minded and deceptively slanted. In fact, the 50D is truly a splendid camera that demands that the user complement it with lenses worthy of itself. Many of today’s lenses need serious overhauling. If anything, it is poor lens development that is holding back the cropped sensor camera.
It is important for people like you, who run websites, not to let the manufacturers escape their true failings. Canon has neglected their lenses. They have very few modern, reasonably priced lenses that can perform to the level of their better cameras. And the 50D is certainly a better camera. Are you aware that the 50D can outresolve Nikon’s D700 at normal ISOs?
I print and sell my work to galleries. Often the size I print exceeds 48-inches in length. The 50D has become a welcome addition. It’s producing excellent large prints for me. So get it right: the 50D is a huge improvement over the 40D in many ways and deserves better comments than “worst of the year.” That’s nonsense.
I’ve printed large (24×36) with both the 40D and 50D using high end L primes. The 50D did not perform any better. I will stand by my opinion.
The 50D felt like an upgrade cash grab and not a step forward in the xxD heritage.
Whilst I see the point being made that the 50D isn’t much of an upgrade from the 40D, I recently upgraded from a 20D and couldn’t be happier!
I suppose it all comes down to where you upgrade from…
Happy New Year folks!
@CR:
Just to put this right: by “broken”, I don’t mean the quality issues (not primarily, at least). I wrote “broken by design” an by that, I mean the whole camera concept. To put it short: Combining a 21MP sensor (which is way more than most users currently need) with an outdated AF system a too-low frame rate and (judging by the-digital-picture.com’s test) a high iso performance that isn’t better than the 3 years old 5D1’s.
These are all issues no firmware update can cure, I’m sure. ;)
@Richard:
Your comment on lenses was about what I meant to adress by my “due to lack of alternatives” in my first comment.
24×36 prints are still too small to see the difference between the 40d and 50d. The prints I’m talking about often have more than twice the area. If you held a 24×36 next to a 32×48 or a 40×60, you’d see the difference. And it’s not important that you print that large now. What is important is that you have the capability to do so when your customer asks for that large mural. It would truly be a shame to lose a big sale because your stored image can’t be enlarged to sufficient size.
Truthfully, I personally feel the XSi and XS–while still better than the XTi and XT, still are not great cameras at all. Their ergonomics are all off.
Agreed on the E1
I’ve heard a lot about the 50D–I personally feel it was meant for wildlife photographers.
5D mkII is probably the best thing they’ve put out this year for photojournalists like me needing an all in one package. You’re going to see modular systems coming out from Canon and possibly Sony with Nikon falling behind because they don’t have a video dept.
What’s with the hate on superzooms?
@Sebastian
The purpose of the FF sensors is a lot of megapixels. So I don’t knock the camera for 21mp. The AF is sufficient for most users of this camera. It is in essence for wedding and landscape photographers. I’ve never had issue with the 5D or 40D AF systems, so I think it gets unfairly knocked. The framerate is an increase from the 5D, and it was rare I heard anyone complain about the 3fps.
@Richard
Fair enough.
The 50D isn’t a bad camera, it’s quite good. It was just a disappointing upgrade. Of the 4 DSLR’s released from Canon this year, it was my least favorite. So it won the prize for worst DSLR of the year.
@Chris
I’m a bit of a self admitted prime snob. However, I find superzooms have mediocre at best IQ (outside of the 28-300L) and promote some bad habits with technique. Yes, they have a million uses for a lot of people. I’m just not a fan.
Sometimes I wish I could just give some people a 50mm for 30 days and nothing else, a lot of people would improve greatly. Just a generalization, obviously people have taken great photos with superzooms. I just think at times they make people lazy.
XSi/XS will be seeing ergonomic upgrades. The jog wheel should appear in the next incarnations.
Thanks again.
Personally, I’d put the 5D2 with the 50D.
There’s nothing that makes it stands out from the pack, all those added functions are what becoming a standard features in cams.
@CYRN
You’re right about the feature set becoming standard. Canon seems to be all about conservative upgrades at this point. I had to go with what I was given for best & worst. I hope in the next 24 months we see Canon come back to market leader of innovation.
@CR
Well… lets hope what you posted about the 60D is what Canon is really considering… and hope that the rest of their lines will take queue from there.
@Richard:
If you can’t see any difference between the 40D and the 50D in 24×36 prints, then the difference is completely meaningless, since both the 40D and 50D are the wrong tools for printing 24×36 and larger.
Completely agree with the CR ratings (except maybe for the G10).
The 50D is a step in the wrong direction and deserves all the negative press that it’s getting (and its dropping price).
Here’s the thing: ask any 5D owner and they will tell you that a 1.6x crop sensor will never have the image quality of a FF sensor.
And look what happened – the 50D, with 3 more megapixels, still does not have the same (let alone better) image quality than the 5D. See for example:
http://wyofoto.com/EOS_IQ_shootout_2008/EOS_shootout_2008.html
Also see the CameraLabs resolution tests, which show the 50D to have the same resolution as the 12mp Nikon D700:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_50D/resolution.shtml
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D700/resolution.shtml
See also the DPreview resolution tests which show that the 50D has actually less resolution than the 12mp 450D (rightfully ranked second best by CR).
So, not only that the 15mp 50D does not resolve more detail than 12mp cameras (both FF and 1.6x crop) but ISO performance also suffers because as a result if the extra megapixels.
Canon badly misjudged the market for the 50D.
The buyers impressed by the 15mp spec are obviously not the ones willing to spend extra for the premium price (that Canon wanted to charge for the 50D).
And the buyers that know what 15mp mean in a 1.6x crop body are not the ones buying the 50D.
My free advice to Canon – create a 12mp D300 equivalent that has the same ISO performance as the 5D. Then charge ~$1,600 and watch this camera fly off the shelves.
@GeorgeML, Your free advice is good advice. I’d also like to see an upgrade AF system, well I guess we all would.
@ Canon Rumors
I totally understand where you’re coming from–but when you’re a photojournalist like me you’d like to carry as little gear as possible and a superzoom can help you–especially the 18-200mm
To everyone else calling the 5D mkII a bad camera–consider the effects of it. It’s a major game changer and allows photojournalists like me to carry less gear. Additionally, it takes amazing photos we have to keep in mind that photography as we know it is evolving tremendously. We will possibly see it evolve even more at CES or PMA.
Sure, it’s got its flaws like no headphone jack, the black dot issues which is fixed, and its slow and could use a design update to accommodate photojournalists–but for what it does it’s excellent.
The 50D and XSi/XS on the other hand almost made me switch to Nikon this year. I’m an Olympus shooter right now that left Canon–though I still use canon camcorders. I’m possibly leaving Olympus soon as I predict that Panasonic will buy them and Leica out.
In general though, Canon still needs to step up their game because Nikon is catching up to them very quickly and Sony is going to start to as well. Additionally, Micro 4/3rds will too.
I totally agree with CR.
And I seriously don’t understand most of the 5dmkII criticism. Okay, so everyone is pissed because of the still-broken firmware and yes, it’s time for a new AF system, but other than that: It’s a solid camera that should please almost everyone except maybe sports shooters who need high fps. The image quality is excellent, it has all of the current checkbox-features (vga-screen etc.) and even real weather-sealing (not just a sealed battery- and CF-compartment like the 40d). Movie mode is a nice bonus.
Most importantly, the 5dmkII is a step forward in image quality. The 50d is a step backwards.
The 21mp sounds extreme but given the sensor size it’s actually not that much. It’s the same pixel density as a ~8mp crop-sensor (interestingly, think about how good the 50d could have been if Canon had developed an apc-c-sensor using that technology).
@GeorgeML
I have no idea where you’ve come up with the notion that the 50D is not suited for larger prints, but you’re totally wrong. It’s not only a suitable piece of equipment, but its also very cost effective. My two 50Ds have already paid for themselves several times over. And the work is just beautiful. You should give it a try. I think you’ll be amazed at how good a 60 inch print can look. I’m very pleased with them. And, at this price range, you can update every 12-18 months, if you wish.
@ Richard
Everyone have different ROI from their cams… :(
Had a little discussion over @ DPR on an article on LL
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1019&thread=30519734
50D do have advantage over 40D… but is that worth the effort for everyone given the drawbacks of the increased resolution?
IMHO the worst new DSLR Camera in 2008 is:
1. 5D mk II
– the same AF as 3 years old model
– VF without 100% cover
Personally I would have been more than happy with a 5D mark 1 with the addition of a dust shaker, a bigger LCD and a faster drive.
Comments on your comments
– Improved IQ : you’re kidding. Only just!
– Improved ISO Performance : 5D has awesome high ISO performance. In fact at 3200, they are pretty much the same in Raw. Who shoots jpeg?
– Better VF (should be 100%) : big deal
– Much better LCD (5D had a terrible LCD) : You don’t own a 5D, so how do you know?
– Better AF (in theory) : No. Same AF. Crap.
– DIGIC IV : Big deal. More NR in jpeg. Again, who shoots jpeg?
– 1080P Movies : very nice feature.
– Much improved Menu System : very nice feature
– Software Upgrades.. HTP, ALO, Microadjustments, etc etc : very nice feature
– Some Weathersealing : could do better
– Battery Info : makes little difference
– Custom Settings : nice feature
– Ergonomics Improvements : original is good enough thanks
@CYRN
I read several available reviews on the 50D before buying. But now I can base my opinion on my own experience with the camera.
(Your attached link was a good read…thanks)
I guess the bottom line is that every camera model has its requirements, but if you know what you’re doing, you can make each work for you. I make the 50Ds work for me. It fits well in my hand. It’s comfortable and well built.
Are there better cameras for the work I create? I don’t really think so. I really think Canon did a good job with this model, and fortunately, I have several great lenses that make it the perfect tool for me. It’s small, light, fast, tough, inexpensive and handles all my best lenses.
I’ve sold my two 1DsMkIIs and replaced them with 50Ds. They ‘ve done the job. Is the 5dMkII a better camera? Maybe, but with these two little cameras, I don’t ever have to find out.
.
BTW, I used the Canon 24-105 with the 1DSMkII for three weeks several years ago and had to sell it at a loss. It was terrible on the corners. Don’t bother using that lens on a 50D either. The camera will just show it up for what it is.
I agree with most except the 5D Mark II. I think it would the top spot for 2008 except that I have yet to know anyone who can get one. I have been on back order for 3 months.
Good grief… I’m so tired reading about the “crappy AF” on the 5D.
All the people who keep commenting on how disappointing the 5DmkII is should actually use it for a bit, rather than simply regurgitating what they’ve read in various forums on the Internet.
You’d think that everyone suddenly became an extreme sports photographer overnight with all the moaning about the shortcomings of AF system. Was there such an uproar over the original 5D’s AF system? Not a bit (and see for yourself – search through the archives of the gearhead photo forums, and you’ll find precious few complaints from actual 5D owners until a couple of months ago – odd considering the 5D has been out for over 3 years, isn’t it?) But now? Suddenly it’s a “deal breaker” on the camera? Gimme a break.
If you’re shooting still life/portraits/weddings/street photography/concerts/etc., the 5DmkII AF works like a charm. If you’re having trouble with the AF system in these situations, you’re either using a horrible and slow lens, you’re shooting with the equivalent of the light from a single candle 5m away, or your focusing technique just really sucks.
On the other hand, if you’re shooting Formula-1 races from track side, or cheetahs chasing down antelopes in the Serengetti with AI Servo, then sure, a 1D series is your best choice for AF. So just buy that instead of a 5D. Sheesh.
I’ve been shooting with the original 5D for 3 years, and the only time I’ve grumbled about the AF has been in extremely low light. Any camera will have trouble with that. But the solution is remarkably simple: slap a Canon speedlight on the hotshoe, and use the AF assist (whether you engage the flash or not – those little red lines of the AF assist work magic in low light).
Oh, and use fast glass. It’s right there in the owners manual: the best performing AF algorithm is only available with lenses of f/2.8 or faster. If you’re using an f/5.6 lens, you’ll get crappy AF results. And if you’re unsure as to why the lens choice makes a difference, you probably shouldn’t be discussing AF publicly until you do…
On a less-ranting note, if you’re an existing 5D owner, and happy with that camera, you’ll be thrilled with the 5DmkII (as I am – over the years, in the digital realm, I’ve upgraded from the 20D, to the 5D, and now the 5DmkII). I’ve had the mkII now for 3 weeks, and it has been a fantastic upgrade. The new menu system is a welcome upgrade. For casual shooting in varying lighting, auto ISO is surprisingly liberating.
Now, concerning the new LCD and Live View… if you use tilt/shift lenses, you will be in heaven. If you don’t use T/S lenses, you won’t know what I’m talking about, but believe me, this alone is worth the upgrade. There’s no need to shoot tethered anymore to check the focal plane adjustments. It’s now a joy to use T/S!
But the best part is the image quality. I did a studio shoot two weeks ago that involved a dry ice fog with a black seamless background (for an 80’s style heavy metal band – yeah, they wanted pure cheese… :-). In post, I was absolutely stunned at how much detail I was able to tease out of the fog. Just with the highlight recovery and black sliders in Lightroom. I was able to get it to look like cotton candy, there was so much fine tonal detail. There is no way I would be able to push it nearly as far if I took that with the original 5D. It was jaw-dropping. I was expecting to get just a typical fog look, and was completely surprised at the amount of detail in the RAW file. Considering 90% of the test shots out on the Internet right now are of Christmas trees, no wonder people are not impressed with the IQ improvements – there’s no “wow” details to tease out (that, and if anyone posts a test shot that isn’t “non-sharpened, straight RAW conversion” they’ll get hounded out of the forums with pitchforks and torches). So, yeah – the test shots look just like, well, boring test shots, and pretty much look the same as the original 5D. All I can say is that you have to shoot a subject with a lot of tonal subtlety (like fog or clouds), and then explore the details in your favourite RAW converter. Absolutely stunning amounts of detail. I’ve been staring at the original 5D RAW files for 3 years now, and I can tell you, the 5DmkII has a lot more detail in the tones.
Oh, and the extra resolution is, of course, very welcome. The pixel density is still low enough to not be a diffraction problem with softening at small apertures, so that’s not an issue. The nice bit is that you can get an apparent stop or two of even better high ISO performance if you’re resizing down for the web.
As for the “black-dot” problem, I haven’t seen that myself, but I then I don’t think I’ve taken any photos yet that would trigger the problem. I’m trusting that the new firmware will be out before I run into that problem (and if not, I’ll guess I’ll have to deal with it using a despeckle filter in PS).
I’ve only messed with the video a little bit to see what it’s like, and quite frankly, I don’t really “get” how to shoot video (I’m a stills photographer, after all). When I get some time (and inspiration), I’d like to try my hand at a 5 or 10 minute short, however video is such a different beast than stills, and I’m pretty intimidated to even try… But I have noted with amusement, again on the gearhead sites, complaints of the sound capabilities of the 5DmkII. From what little I know about shooting video (I’ve been the stills photographer on a couple of film sets, so my knowledge is just from observing what was going on and a few chats with the crew), sound is never handled by the cameraman. There’s a soundman who, well, does the sound. Audio is captured by the camera, but it’s only used to sync the “real” audio captured by the external equipment in post-production. I think people complaining about the audio capabilities of the 5D are probably not familiar with how video is shot.
Anyway, sorry for the bit of ranting. I’ve been reading too much of the gearhead forums lately, and I’m tired of reading all the “the 5DmkII is total crap” from people who haven’t even held one in their hands, let alone used it. Specifically, this whole “the AF is crap” meme that’s floating around. Could the AF be better? I suppose – however, it works 99% of the time for me, so that extra 1%, well… I doubt it’ll change my shooting. But then again, I’m pretty new to auto focus (I only had manual focus until I went digital with the 20D a few years ago). Maybe I’m more forgiving of AF errors given my background, but really – the AF on the 5D/5DmkII gets it right for me virtually every time (shallow DOF or not). For what it’s worth, I typically use the centre AF point to achieve focus, then re-compose the frame – same way I did it when I had manual focus screen with a ground-glass ring. That, and I occasionally use the olde timey “pre-focus” technique – anticipate where the action will be, focus appropriately, and hit the shutter at the right moment…
In short, if you liked the original 5D, you’ll love the 5DmkII. I’m finding this upgrade even more satisfying than the upgrade from the 20D to the original 5D. Seriously. The 5DmkII rocks. I can’t wait to shoot more with it…
so according to people the 50D is just like holding a piece of crap to face….
i own a 50D and i find it really good, i didn’t even want to buy the 40D when i heard the 50D was coming out
@ Peter T.
Nice post. I’m also sure that all the people trashing the 5D Mk II haven’t used one yet. I’ve had mine for just under 3 weeks and I am amazed with the improved image quality and low light capability over the original 5D. Last night, I did night shooting after dark shooting at ISO 2500 hand held at 1/15 sec F4 and was astounded with the results. I use to try this with the 5D and got perhaps 30% keepers. I now get 90-95% keepers and the color, saturation, noise, and image quality is WAY ahead of the 5D.
As for the AF, I think it might be better than the 5D with improved processing from the Digic 4 but I won’t be sure until summer when I do my wild bird thing. The old 5D use to have some problem doing fast focusing on fast erratically moving objects with an irregular background. This was probably not the preferred application for the 5D AF but all the same I got over 50% keepers.
On top of the above, the LCD screen is a big improvement over the 5D. The sensor cleaner should be great as my old 5D use to catch dust particles. I’ve only scratched the surface of the video feature but friends are already appreciating the 1080p I’ve shot. I’m also looking forward to the increased frames per second for the wild bird stuff in the summer. I’ve tested it a few times and yes, the extra .9 fps should make a difference.
For all the trashers of the 5D, I bet dollars to donuts they haven’t even laid eyes on a 5D Mk II, let alone trying one out. For anyone who has one, it’s the Camera of the Year and I’ve only had it for under 3 weeks. Simply amazing!
@ Peter.T & EdN
Agree that the 5D AF is good (if just barely for faster subjects)
What most people are doing is benchmarking the 5D with D700 AF. However, most do not have first hand experience with the 2 cams are are just basing their comments on paper specs.
Actually, 5D AF is as fast as D700 in cases where all 51points of the D700 AF are turned on and somehow D700 AF seems to have a slight lag before it actually tries to focus, however, D700 AF tracking is simply superior… not to mention more sure of a lock.
@ Richard
Moving from a 1Ds to 50D will give you a slight edge in overall corner-to-corner pic quality simply because your 1.6x cam is using the “sweet spot” of all your lenses. Especially for your case the end result would be similar 15/16MP. So there’s no doubt that 50D is a way to go for you, assuming that since you are already printing big, your techniques would be appropriately as good to use the 50D as mentioned in the LL article that it’s more unforgiving on flaws.
@GeorgeML
If we experts were shown a good 48-inch print today, I doubt any of us could say with any certainty from which of these 12+ MP cameras it came (The D700, D90, XSI, D300, 5D, 5dMkII, IDSMkIII, or 50D). Then all the tests, and all the hype and all the trivia would go out the window along with all our needless bitching and all our tiresome moaning.
Thank you Peter for your involved analysis, it was good to hear from a knowledgeable end-user.
I wish Canon had limited the 5D II to around 15 MP. That probably would have allowed a frame rate of 5 fps or more and better high ISO performance, both of which would have been more useful to me than 20+ MP. Canon would have had a perfect all-around camera and all the xxD owners would probably be rushing to upgrade. I’m envious of Nikon owners with the D700.
If I was starting over today, that’s what I’d buy. Canon has let Nikon jump ahead.
Yes, the 5D II has video, which is interesting/exciting. But its drawbacks result in an “on the one hand…but on the other hand” comparison, rather than the knockout winner it could have had.
I am a Canon user, to be honest, I think canon failed on all fields this ear . . . The first half part of the year they were going pretty good with the 450D. But after Nikon bring out the D700 and D90 Canon totally lost in and quickly pushed some camera on the market that only make things worse. The 50D is a joke … a 40D with more megapixels but at the sametime more noise. The 5d mark II, sure a good thing, but I am sure they should have figure the problems out during a test and fix them before the release. Next year better Canon.
I’m a Canon user (and a tiny share holder), but lately I’ve been intrigued by some of Nikon’s offerings. This is especially true of the D700. I went and looked at one at Best Buy last night, and it’s a thing of beauty. It’s built like a tank, the viewfinder is very nice, and it feels good in the hand. I snapped off a few pictures in the store, and at ISO 6400 the results were very clean. I think this is definitely something that Canon needs to address.
I’ve also been looking around at what people are saying in Nikon-land. While Canon users are clamoring for a body like the D700, the Nikon users seem to be begging for lenses. I have a 24-105mm which I really like…it’s a very nice walk-around lens. There doesn’t seem to be a real equivalent on the other side. It seems like they have lots of DX format lenses for a cropped sensor, some very expensive lenses that are suitable for full-frame, and not very much in between. I also get the impression (could be way off base here) that unless you have the best high-end lenses, the incredible AF system they have is pretty handicapped.
I think Canon definitely needs to come up with something compelling to compete with the D700. I’m not a pro by any means, but when I take a picture I want quality. For me, flexibility is key. A lot of the pictures I take are when I’m traveling. They may be action, they may be landscape, who knows? I don’t need 21mp, but I want good AF. Like a lot of people here, I’d love to see a 12-15mp FF or even 1.3x crop with good high ISO performance. I must admit that movie mode is intriguing, but I’m not sure if I would use it.
I’m curious about how Canon decides what features to put into cameras. Is anybody watching? If so, I think you need to be paying attention to discussions like this. People are looking over the fence, and they’re seeing some very green grass over there. You’ve got the lenses, all you need is a body with the right balance for the enthusiast.
Paul
I totally agree with Paul F, maybe I expected too much from the 50D. I expected that to be my next upgrade since the higher end 5d and 1d are too expensive for me. But because of the bad results of the 50D I am holding back now and wait/hoping that the next iteration will be something worth to invest in. I am also not buying any lenses now . . why ? Nikon is really getting very attractive, if the next iteration of the DXXX is released and make the D700 drops . . Canon better filled in the gap, I think lots of people that haven’t heavy invested in L lenses will definetly take a look at the other side. . .
I am not sure if Canon is watching the forums and website. I expect such a large company to have things planned years ahead . . . and it may take more then 1 year to get to the right path . . but I think more then 2 years will be a bad move.
I own the 30D (with around 90,000 shots), the 40D (with around 65,000 shots) and now the 50D with a couple of thousand already. The majority of these are shot at ISO 800 or greater. Everyone can complain all they want, but I’ve found from experience that the 50D takes better detailed images with no worse noise performance. I shoot mainly wildlife in less than ideal lighting and am more than happy with the 50D’s image quality.
The 5D served well over the last 2 years without a single failure for mostly timelapse photography. Being more of a video than photo guy it was an immediate decision to be on my dealers waiting list and to buy when it came out 4 weeks ago.
The image quality was fine on the 5D1 but the higher ISO and Liveview in a much improved LCD really makes it for me.
From a video-point of view the 5DMK2 just ROCKS!
Just in case Canon is listening: Yes, i DO WANT 24/25P and all the MANUAL CONTROLS and XLR AUDIO INPUTS WITH NO AUTO-GAIN as lots of people do, and maybe it’s coming. Over the last years I have shot 35mm / Super 16 and have messed around with these DOF-Adapters (a $10K mini35 to be precise) but this little DSLR beats them all in quality if you know how to use it right (Again, if Canon is listening: I got me a couple of Nikon adapters and i do use the older Nikons for the video now). But there are lots of other issues. The film or DOF adaptor shoots always required a lot of light. The MK2 in video-mode doesn’t need any of it to get it done, so me and my equipment will drive to a set in a regular car rather than a light truck when shooting.
People are complaining about a FAT32 limitation that allows to record only 12 minutes of HD video at once? How about a 35 mill 400ft roll of film instead (lasting 4 mins at 24fps). And when i just flip through my latest 12 bit scans of a series of 2K film scans: the quality is comparable if not better).
I could shoot anything with the MK2 from documentary to commercial tv spots to corporate internet videos and i will do that along with a seperate audio recorder, a proper frame rate conversion and CC.
I very much thought about getting a REDone but the workflow isn’t really my cup o’ tea. Soon there will be FF videocameras with all the features the MK2 is lacking. In the meantime the MK2 is the best money i spent for the last 2 years.
I agree with most of the original article’s best and worsts EXCEPT for the 5D MkII. Best camera? Definitely not!
A flawed product that should have been much better given the amount of time since the launch of the amazing-at-the-time 5D. I wasted money on getting the 5D MkII and am still waiting on ‘firmware’ to fix image banding and black spot problems. Like most, I never use the video feature (I’d use a real video camera set up if I needed video). As for the increase in resolution, there are 12MP camera pros I work with printing excellent large format work – so the extra MPs amount to less disk space, with little in return for me.
Come on Canon, less of the marketing nonsense, and more of the innovation in 2009 please!
Why is there any discussion between 50D and 40D. Canon is producing MTF-Diagrams witch 30 lines per mm. So lets have fun with a 5D or 350D. Why do anyone expect better pictures if Canon says 30 lines per mm is all Canon is interested in? Zeiss is showing MTF with 10, 20 and 40 lines per mm, what is even not fitting the 450D.
If you want to have a lens with less distortion (for art by example), there is no hint by canon what lens to buy. The support also don’t know anything about that. They can tell you all about the weight an the color of the surface of the lens instead (mostly black).
If canon is coming up with a new 50mm F/1.4, they should really come up with detailed MTF (10,20,40 and 80 lines per mm) and diagrams of distortion and vignetting like zeiss do.
Running after high pixel count thus creating marketing gimmick is Canon’s chronic disease that they are unlikely to recover from despite clear evidences of its uselessness and demerits.