[anyscreenamewilldo]

go full frame, you'll never look back - gear too heavy??, go to the gym, lift those weights - you'll never look back

[Rainer]

[quote name='wojtt' timestamp='1293698650' post='5272']

I believe AF shortcomings, if there are any at all with the 5D, can be dealt with proper technique like using the central Af point and reframing instead of using peripheral af points; I used a borrowed 5D (mark I) in the studio once and I didin't notice any shorcomings in AF performance - just different ergonomics compared to what I was used to..

[/quote]



Well there is one thing which is related to the AF of the 5D (MkI ... not sure about the MkII) ... and that is the quite central position of the AF sensors. It seems, the same AF module is used in the 5D1 as is used in some crop 1.6 cameras. Obviously, due to the nature of fullframe, the position within the frame is more central in a FF camera than in a crop 1.6 camera. If you're used to use one of the outer sensors on an eye for a portrait shot, the 5D can be somewhat anoying. ... Nevertheless, using the central AF point and reframe never caused real problems to me, so yes there are some shortcomings (less so with the AF accuracy, but with the layout of the sensors in the frame), but once one is used to that, it doesn't mean a handicap.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Rainer' timestamp='1293707159' post='5275']

Well there is one thing which is related to the AF of the 5D (MkI ... not sure about the MkII) ... and that is the quite central position of the AF sensors. It seems, the same AF module is used in the 5D1 as is used in some crop 1.6 cameras. Obviously, due to the nature of fullframe, the position within the frame is more central in a FF camera than in a crop 1.6 camera. If you're used to use one of the outer sensors on an eye for a portrait shot, the 5D can be somewhat anoying. ... Nevertheless, using the central AF point and reframe never caused real problems to me, so yes there are some shortcomings (less so with the AF accuracy, but with the layout of the sensors in the frame), but once one is used to that, it doesn't mean a handicap.

[/quote]

ALL full frame cameras have the SAME "central position" of the AF fields, there is no exception (Canon, Sony, Nikon). All FF cameras... if you want AF points to be closer to the edge, you will need to stay with APS-C.

[backcountryskier]

Why not buy a 1Ds mk 1. They are very affordable on the used market. Big viewfinder, excellent AF, great image quality.

[popo]

Have some random thoughts... I've only used 5D1 and own a 7D for reference.



If you have a "decent" AF system do you need the viewfinder? I was underwhelmed by the 5D1 when I bought it. I didn't mind the AF, as it was similar to the 50D I also had before. But the extra points on the 7D does make it a little easier to AF without recompose. For shallow DoF that can help prevent focus errors, although you're still limited by the AF accuracy. Going full frame to me is mainly to achieve shallower DoF than is easily attainable on smaller sensors. When I got it, I found I didn't need it after all... it ended up being too shallow for my uses. So I didn't end up keeping the 5D1 for long.



Ill suggest thinking a little more and try sorting out what are the true *needs* and what are only *wants*. See if that points you in the right direction.

[wim]

I don't see why the 5D II isn't reactive enough. I think it is a matter of getting to know it well enough, and anticipate if possible.



This was with 5D II, 100-400L at 400 and F5/6, in miserable light. Slightly cropped (about 5 % on two sides).







And yes, another camera would probably make it easier. However, from a view finder POV it either is a FF camera, or a 1D series camera, how heavy it may be. I find that the 7D has the worst tunnel vision of all Canon cameras, and I can't actually see the whole frame in one go either, which makes it worse for me. Note however that I am a spectacle wearer who can't do without his spectacles.



Kind regards, Wim

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1293804498' post='5295']

I don't see why the 5D II isn't reactive enough. I think it is a matter of getting to know it well enough, and anticipate if possible.

[/quote]

We all know about who likes to blame their tools...



5D II, 600mm f/8, not cropped, manual focused, not stabilised, single shot, straight out of RAW (no selective retouching)



http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4427818563/



5D II, 600mm f/8, not cropped, manual focused, not stabilised, single shot, straight out of RAW (no selective retouching)



http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/4428389667



5D II, 200 f/2, not cropped, straigt from RAW (no selective retouching)



http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/3929455576/



GTW

[toni-a]

genotypewriter I don't get your point

I was complaining about the autofocus capabilities of 5D MKII, you post manally focused pictures.....



Anyway, january and february I am only shoting local hiking trips and for those trips even my loyal 300D is doing fine, Iam using oldy 18-55 while 17-55 stays ome.On such a sensor I can't spot a differene.

I am happy with my downgrade, upgrade postponed

[genotypewriter]

[quote name='toni-a' timestamp='1294091175' post='5324']

genotypewriter I don't get your point

I was complaining about the autofocus capabilities of 5D MKII, you post manally focused pictures.....

[/quote]

Sounded like you were also referring to the fps and the lag times of the 5D2.



The 5D2's AF is very reactive... it hasn't failed me. The last picture above and the shots in the following sets are all AF'ed. Open the images and look at them big:



http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/sets/72157618412366421/



http://www.flickr.com/photos/genotypewriter/sets/72157622226917908/



There's a lot more in my stream by they're not grouped by AF/MF...



GTW