Any Other 5D MKII Owners Feel A Bit Cheated?

[Daniel Browning]

Anybody else feel a bit cheated that Canon didn't include the new AF and other features (dual processors etc) that are in the 7D, into the 5D MKII?

No. On one level, I am a little annoyed that margins are all out of proportion with cost. (Nikon uses megapixels to justify a $3,000 premium of the D3X over the D3, where as Canon uses other features to justify a $3,500 premium of the 1Ds3 over the 5D2.) But even taking that into consideration, there isn't any grounds to feel cheated, because in order for me to have purchased it, I must have found the value sufficient.

If Canon claimed the 5D2 had an improved AF, dual digic, etc., and I later found out it wasn't true, then I would feel cheated. But I knew about its features before I bought it.

I don't know if they were too anxious to get the 5D MK II to the market or what,

I hope they were. It had been three years since the 5D, and I was sick of waiting. []

but personally, I wish they would have waited if they needed to in order to include the 7D's AF system, dual processors, artificial horizon etc, etc into the 5D MKII.

The 5D2 frame rate is limited by mechanics. Wear and tear is something like the cube of the speed of the two parts. If the 5D2 (4 FPS) was as fast as the 7D (8 FPS), that's 16 times more wear and tear. That means Canon would have to build it 16 times better, or it will break 16 times sooner.

Furthermore, the mechanical frame rate is affected by the size of the mirror. Vibration goes up with the fourth power of mirror height. That gives the 5D2 five times more vibration at the same frame rate, another source of engineering difficulty.

It would be nice if Canon came out with an answer to Nikon's D700, but it would be a real change in pricing strategy.

[soundhound]

Good point about the shutter - something I've not realized. Let me be clear - I am very, very satisfied with my 5D MKII: it takes stunning images. I guess there's just something in the back of my mind that wishes that the 7D's features were also in the 5D MKII, even if I personally don't have use for them much.


My occupation is in the professional and consumer audio industry, and it's almost weekly change in technologies is frustrating. Maybe I'm naive in hoping that camera technology would be somewhat "stable". I guess that thinking is so "last-week!". In the early 1970s, I bought a Canon TL 35mm camera while I was in the Army, and it still works fine (providing I can find film for it!).


Oh well.......


Thanks everybody for putting up with my rant!

[Colin]

My occupation is in the professional and consumer audio industry, and it's almost weekly change in technologies is frustrating. Maybe I'm naive in hoping that camera technology would be somewhat "stable". I guess that thinking is so "last-week!". In the early 1970s, I bought a Canon TL 35mm camera while I was in the Army, and it still works fine (providing I can find film for it!).
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

As if it wasn't bad enough with DTS coming out with endless formats BEFORE HDMI audio transmission, and HDMI versions 1._______ to whatever. Just make the freaking thing work all the time and not take forever with the handshaking, and screw the unintentional power automation.... Jerks.


I feel you. But, I wish I had a mkii to complain about. My plain old 5D, though, still gets me by, and I love it.

[SupraSonic]

Bring Back the EOS 3 Series.

[Feanor]

The 5D2 frame rate is limited by mechanics. Wear and tear is something like the cube of the speed of the two parts. If the 5D2 (4 FPS) was as fast as the 7D (8 FPS), that's 16 times more wear and tear. That means Canon would have to build it 16 times better, or it will break 16 times sooner.

Furthermore, the mechanical frame rate is affected by the size of the mirror. Vibration goes up with the fourth power of mirror height. That gives the 5D2 five times more vibration at the same frame rate, another source of engineering difficulty.

It would be nice if Canon came out with an answer to Nikon's D700, but it would be a real change in pricing strategy.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I was thinking about this the other day while looking at Nikon gear out of curiosity. I don't really understand how you can say that the mechanics are the limiting factor to framerate on the 5DII when the D700, which is also full-frame and therefore has the same physical limits, is capable of such fast framerates. Now since the cameras cost about the same it could be said that Canon, instead of spending money on the mechanics of a fast shutter speed, have spent money on a higher resolution sensor. And that this sensor would also need far a far more powerful processor to compete with the D700's shutter speed.


But, to me, this is a question of emphasis - rather than limits. I think this might be what you were saying but I originally read your post as saying that it would be prohibitively difficult to design a full-frame mirror that can move that fast. The point is that the D700 is also a compromise - because they have compromised on the resolution of the sensor.


So it comes down to cost, rather than mechanics - not to mention Canon's desire to ensure to ensure that the people still buy the 1D series cameras (I believe many Nikonains don't see any point in spending the extra cash on the D3).


And so, IMO, the question of whether we really want 21MP in a camera or whether we'd have preferred the same emphasis of functionality as the D700 remains.

[Daniel Browning]

I was thinking about this the other day while looking at Nikon gear out of curiosity. I don't really understand how you can say that the mechanics are the limiting factor to framerate on the 5DII when the D700, which is also full-frame and therefore has the same physical limits, is capable of such fast framerates.

As I think you surmised, there are two separate issues here:

• What limits the frame rate of the 5D2? (Answer: slow mechanical parts.)
• Why have slow mechanical parts in the 5D2? (Answer: marketing strategy.)

I was commenting principally on the former, but I'll discuss the latter now.

Now since the cameras cost about the same it could be said that Canon, instead of spending money on the mechanics of a fast shutter speed, have spent money on a higher resolution sensor. And that this sensor would also need far a far more powerful processor to compete with the D700's shutter speed.

My guess is that's what the manufacturers want us to think, but I'm not sure if it's really the case.

I think this might be what you were saying but I originally read your post as saying that it would be prohibitively difficult to design a full-frame mirror that can move that fast.

I hinted at what I thought was the reason when I said "It would be nice if Canon came out with an answer to Nikon's D700, but it would be a real change in pricing strategy." In other words, I think the reason why the 5D2 lacks fast mechanical parts is due to pricing strategy (specifically, margin maximization through product differentiation).

Let me illustrate the difference in strategy between Nikon and Canon. The Nikon D3X ($8000) has the exact same body and features as the D3 ($5,000); you pay $3,000 more just to get more megapixels. Nikon wants you to think that it costs $3,000 for the resolution.

The Canon 1Ds3 (around $6,700 at the time of the 5D2 introduction?) has the exact same resolution as the 5D2 ($2,700); you pay $4,000 more to get a better body (autofocus, build, etc.). Canon wants you to think that it costs $4,000 for all those features.

See the conflict there? I think the reality is that neither of those features cost anywhere near $3k or $4k -- they just need an excuse to capitalize on photographers that can afford high margins. The fact that they chose different excuses proves (according to my limited understanding) that they're both bogus.

Of course, if you're not in that high-margin category, you might actually appreciate that Canikon are doing it this way. By exploiting higher margins from the $8k buyers, they can offer cheaper cameras to the rest of the customers. (Kind of light progressive tax.) The downside is that everyone loses access to those features which would have been cheap to implement in low-end cameras if they weren't used for product differentiation.

I'm hoping that eventually Canikon will start using features I don't care about to differentiate their high-margin products. They could give the $3,000 cameras all the important features (body, autofocus, resolution, etc.), and try to fool the rich folks with some useless feature, like "platinum-coated alloy results in better autofocus" or something. I'm not holding my breath, though.

[Brendan7]

I was thinking about this the other day while looking at Nikon gear out of curiosity. I don't really understand how you can say that the mechanics are the limiting factor to framerate on the 5DII when the D700, which is also full-frame and therefore has the same physical limits, is capable of such fast framerates.

The nikon EXPEED processor is better.


Also, it only has to process 12 mpix images. This makes for a faster burst. you could technically make a FF camera that shot 20 fps at 3 mpix (daniel can correct me on that.) The canon shoots 21 mpix images and so has a slower burst. The 7d has 2 processors so it shoots 18 mpix at 8fps.

[HiFiGuy1]

I think Daniel was addressing the mechanical aspect of speed limitations and reliability more than the data processing aspect. It isn't so much a processing power issue. The 1D Mk IV has a larger mirror than a 7D and a 16 MP sensor, but can still comfortably process 10 fps, whereas the 7D is rated at about 8 fps, so the 1D Mk IV seems to be built to a higher standard. As it should be for $5k. They both have dual Digic IV processors, if I am not mistaken, so the differences lie elsewhere.

[adamj]

Even before the 7D was launched, I was disappointed that the 5D II didn't get an improved AF system. I've always been unhappy with the AF capability of
the Canon bodies I've owned (all sub-1 series), particularly in Servo mode. So, my hands will remain in my pockets until Canon introduces the 5D III which I feel sure will get the 7D-style AF system its price warrants.


I don't care too much about frame rate, nor about the 5D II's user-unfriendly video functionality (the 7D's controls appear much better). The AF really is the only killer for me.

[apersson850]

The nikon EXPEED processor is better.

Better? Because it's neither capable of a frame rate that can scare even an entry level camera nor capable of 1080p video? As soon as you use the full image recording capability of the camera (14-bit RAW), they drop to rates in the 1.8-2.5 frames/second range, where the Canon cameras always provide 14-bit conversion, without loosing their frame rate.


Different, sure, but better?


A Canon 3D would probably incorporate the high full frame resolution and at least 40D-ish frame rate, probably coupled with some more advanced autofocus and some other goodies, but at a cost approaching the 1D Mark IV.