EOS 5D Mk. II Upgrade Wishlist Poll -- taking suggestions

Dylan Couper · March 15th, 2009, 12:55 AM

How about autofocus in video mode?

Daniel Browning · March 15th, 2009, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

How about autofocus in video mode?

For clarification, you are probably suggesting either faster contrast-detect autofocus or an on/off instead of "hold down the button" activation. (Since the 5D2 already has contrast detect and face detect autofocus, but you have to hold down the button, and they're too slow for live usage.)

Jose A. Garcia · March 15th, 2009, 06:44 AM

Make it simple please... Only upgrades which are possible with a new firmware or by adding very simple physical changes.

There's no point in asking for things like an image stabilization mechanism on the sensor or any other feature which involves drastic changes in the main structure of the camera because that's not the way a big company like Canon has in mind when they think of an upgrade. A firmware upgrade like the one that's suposed to take place in April will be limited by the actual hardware that the camera has now.

Think of software updates. All big changes and hardware upgrades will be kept for future models.

Dylan Couper · March 15th, 2009, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

For clarification, you are probably suggesting either faster contrast-detect autofocus or an on/off instead of "hold down the button" activation. (Since the 5D2 already has contrast detect and face detect autofocus, but you have to hold down the button, and they're too slow for live usage.)

Yes, should have been more clear. Thanks!

Thanasis Grigoropoulos · March 16th, 2009, 01:56 AM

Hey Jose!

My proposal was for an actual 5D II upgrade, not a firmware upgrade in April. I thought this was what Chris asked for initially.

I am definitely not an engineer and I cannot assess how difficult or "body altering" would be to include image stabilization on the sensor. I also have no way of knowing whether Canon has already worked on a similar solution and is ready to implement it on its future cameras or not.

All I know is that I would really like to see in-body image stabilization in a future 5D upgrade for use on hand held shooting with non-stabilized lenses (there is lot's of them!)

If a mechanical solution would be too much to ask for, how about an optional electronic image stabilization solution? My understanding is that this works by cutting off the edges of the image and then utilizing this extra "real estate" to stabilize electronically the image in the processor. Also, from what I gather, 5D already crops 2 out for 4 edges of the sensor (top and bottom), due to the 16:9 aspect ratio being smaller than the actual sensor size.

I understand that EIS degrades the image in a small - chip camera but since we are having this nice big sensor here, would it still be a serious problem? Or is it something that someone could live with, in case he had to?

I don't know.

But if it were of acceptable quality, it would be a fantastic option to have as a firmware update and be able to switch it on or off according to your needs.

So, let me rephrase my previous proposal: "Add some kind of good quality in-camera image stabilization, easily switchable on or off." They could even make it work only when the camera is set in video mode, so that it does not eat up on their lens sales for photography purposes.

Fair enough?

Jose A. Garcia · March 16th, 2009, 04:52 AM

Personally I could live without an image stabilization system. In fact I prefer not to have it. Thanasis, please don't take this as a personal attack, but I really hope Canon isn't thinking of a software IS for this cam. Basically because they're already "playing" enough with the image to add more cropping and stretching, so if they're thinking of adding such a feature, I hope it's selectable.

I read the first post again. It certainly doesn't limit the changes to software but it does say "simple body changes". So we can say some of the the requests in this thread may be aimed at a firmware update coming soon, and the rest could be left for the next 5D Mark III. Anyway I still think physical image stabilization would mean a big body change. If they're thinking about it it may go to the 1D line.

Thanasis Grigoropoulos · March 16th, 2009, 06:04 AM

No worries Jose!

I don't feel personally attacked :-)

But, I do hope for an updated 5D with good quality in-body image stabilization (plus good auto-focus, full manual control, less (or no) aliasing, better audio (and audio control), headphones jack and 25p).

Also, how about the ability of setting iris, shutter and ISO limits and let the camera adjust ISO automatically within these limits without visible "stepping"?

I could certainly find good use of a camera packaging all these!

Chris Hurd · March 16th, 2009, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanasis Grigoropoulos

I do hope for... good quality in-body image stabilization

Not likely to happen, since Canon builds image stabilization into its EF lenses, not on the sensor. If you want IS, you simply choose an IS-equipped lens. Thanks for your other suggestions, though!

Jose A. Garcia · March 16th, 2009, 06:20 PM

That's something I was going to point out. Why not going for an IS lens? You've got them already.

Panasonic offers an IS zoom with the new GH1. It's another option.

Jon Fairhurst · March 16th, 2009, 09:52 PM

Canon had a nice demo of its IS technology at CES. It showed the circuit/motors in action, and showed how they had refined/shrunk it over the years.

Thane Brooker · March 17th, 2009, 04:34 AM

If I could have just one thing that should be achievable with a firmware update:
I want to be able to select x5 view when recording (or better still 1:1 which I think is just under x5).
Or, have picture-in-picture so I could check both framing and focus simultaneously. I'd want to be able to move the p-i-p focus area around the screen while recording, just like in the current x5 and x10 views.

If I could have another:
A live histogram (both pre recording and while recording).

Because even 24fps footage looks bad when out of focus and incorrectly exposed.

Thanasis Grigoropoulos · March 17th, 2009, 05:07 AM

My arguments for in-body IS:

1) Regarding existing in-lens IS technology: It was invented to help photographers shoot with slow shutter speeds - totally different use than video IS. Therefore current photo IS lenses are:

a) Noisy (mic picks up the noise)
b) Slow or relatively slow (can't use in very low light situations)
c) Usually big and heavy (difficult for hand held videography)

2) Regarding Canons' self-interest to implement in-body IS for video:

a) Competition. If they don't, Sony will! People seem to have put a lot of expectations on Nikon lately. But Nikon has a lot of catch up to do re video (just look at D90). Sony is already there. I believe the next big step in FF video DSLRs might come from Sony. If not for any other reason, just because Sony has already made a managerial decision to challenge Canon in the DSLR arena. The A-series is the living proof.

b) In-body Canon IS does not need to substitute lens IS. It can be video-only. This will INCREASE Canon non-IS lens sales to videographers. But it will not decrease IS lens sales: they will still be needed for photography.

c) Ability to use smaller, faster lenses for hand held videography = increased camera portability = more camera uses = more camera sales.

The reason I insist so much is because I shoot mostly hand held, "run-n-gun" documentaries, under completely unpredicted environment conditions. So, the ability to have a light, un-intimidating, autofocusing camera producing *useful* hand held images in any light condition is too much to resist!

We are in new territory here. The game is changing. If good in-camera IS for video is technically achievable then, honestly, I don't see why Canon would not want to implement it.

So... ask and you may receive :-)

Dylan Couper · March 17th, 2009, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanasis Grigoropoulos

My arguments for in-body IS:

1) Regarding existing in-lens IS technology: It was invented to help photographers shoot with slow shutter speeds - totally different use than video IS. Therefore current photo IS lenses are:

Let me burst your bubble.

Canon will *never* build image stabilization into their high end DSLR bodies. Yes, we all agree it would be fantastic... because if they did, us photographers could stop spending $500-$1000 more on the IS version of Canon's lenses! And thus the problem. Regardless of what the micro market of DSLR video might want, Canon will never let their lens market take a hit like that. They aren't going to implement an in camera IS system just for video mode, just for this micro market, and leave it disabled for photography lenses. That would leave the other 99% of their market screaming bloody murder (and rightfully so).

The reason other manufacturers have, is because they don't have a huge lens market to undercut.

You got to have a dream... but you might want to pick a more realistic one.

Or buy a monopod. I think you are putting way too much importance on IS for "small" lenses and run n gun anyway. Plus, there really isn't that much size difference. Is an extra 2oz of lens really ruining your shoot?

Dylan Couper · March 17th, 2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thane Brooker

If I could have just one thing that should be achievable with a firmware update:
I want to be able to select x5 view when recording (or better still 1:1 which I think is just under x5).
Or, have picture-in-picture so I could check both framing and focus simultaneously. I'd want to be able to move the p-i-p focus area around the screen while recording, just like in the current x5 and x10 views.

I like being able to zoom to 5x during recording for focus checks as well and would definitely add this to the master list.

David C. Smith · March 17th, 2009, 11:08 AM

Forget about hardware upgrades, not going to happen.

Firmware upgrades would be very limited too.

About the only thing that may be possible is full manual control.

Hopefully they can set the frame rate to 29.97 to conform with video standards.

24,25 FPS and variable frame rates are out of the question as it probably requires revision of the hardwired coding in the Digic processor.

Better off petitioning for a reasonably priced video camera with an 11.37mm x 36mm chip that uses the Canon EF mount with all the features you want.

Dave Smith

March 15th, 2009, 12:55 AM	#31
Dylan Couper Wrangler Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Vancouver, British Columbia Posts: 8,314	How about autofocus in video mode? __________________ Need to rent camera gear in Vancouver BC? Check me out at camerarentalsvancouver.com

March 15th, 2009, 06:44 AM	#33
Jose A. Garcia Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sevilla (Spain) Posts: 439	Make it simple please... Only upgrades which are possible with a new firmware or by adding very simple physical changes. There's no point in asking for things like an image stabilization mechanism on the sensor or any other feature which involves drastic changes in the main structure of the camera because that's not the way a big company like Canon has in mind when they think of an upgrade. A firmware upgrade like the one that's suposed to take place in April will be limited by the actual hardware that the camera has now. Think of software updates. All big changes and hardware upgrades will be kept for future models. __________________ Jose A. Garcia - Freelance camera operator, web designer and VFX artist - http://www.sinproblema.net/

March 16th, 2009, 04:52 AM	#36
Jose A. Garcia Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sevilla (Spain) Posts: 439	Personally I could live without an image stabilization system. In fact I prefer not to have it. Thanasis, please don't take this as a personal attack, but I really hope Canon isn't thinking of a software IS for this cam. Basically because they're already "playing" enough with the image to add more cropping and stretching, so if they're thinking of adding such a feature, I hope it's selectable. I read the first post again. It certainly doesn't limit the changes to software but it does say "simple body changes". So we can say some of the the requests in this thread may be aimed at a firmware update coming soon, and the rest could be left for the next 5D Mark III. Anyway I still think physical image stabilization would mean a big body change. If they're thinking about it it may go to the 1D line. __________________ Jose A. Garcia - Freelance camera operator, web designer and VFX artist - http://www.sinproblema.net/

March 16th, 2009, 06:20 PM	#39
Jose A. Garcia Major Player Join Date: May 2007 Location: Sevilla (Spain) Posts: 439	That's something I was going to point out. Why not going for an IS lens? You've got them already. Panasonic offers an IS zoom with the new GH1. It's another option. __________________ Jose A. Garcia - Freelance camera operator, web designer and VFX artist - http://www.sinproblema.net/

March 16th, 2009, 09:52 PM	#40
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	Canon had a nice demo of its IS technology at CES. It showed the circuit/motors in action, and showed how they had refined/shrunk it over the years. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

March 16th, 2009, 01:56 AM	#35
Thanasis Grigoropoulos Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Currently on the move! Posts: 33	Hey Jose! My proposal was for an actual 5D II upgrade, not a firmware upgrade in April. I thought this was what Chris asked for initially. I am definitely not an engineer and I cannot assess how difficult or "body altering" would be to include image stabilization on the sensor. I also have no way of knowing whether Canon has already worked on a similar solution and is ready to implement it on its future cameras or not. All I know is that I would really like to see in-body image stabilization in a future 5D upgrade for use on hand held shooting with non-stabilized lenses (there is lot's of them!) If a mechanical solution would be too much to ask for, how about an optional electronic image stabilization solution? My understanding is that this works by cutting off the edges of the image and then utilizing this extra "real estate" to stabilize electronically the image in the processor. Also, from what I gather, 5D already crops 2 out for 4 edges of the sensor (top and bottom), due to the 16:9 aspect ratio being smaller than the actual sensor size. I understand that EIS degrades the image in a small - chip camera but since we are having this nice big sensor here, would it still be a serious problem? Or is it something that someone could live with, in case he had to? I don't know. But if it were of acceptable quality, it would be a fantastic option to have as a firmware update and be able to switch it on or off according to your needs. So, let me rephrase my previous proposal: "Add some kind of good quality in-camera image stabilization, easily switchable on or off." They could even make it work only when the camera is set in video mode, so that it does not eat up on their lens sales for photography purposes. Fair enough?

March 16th, 2009, 06:04 AM	#37
Thanasis Grigoropoulos Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Currently on the move! Posts: 33	No worries Jose! I don't feel personally attacked :-) But, I do hope for an updated 5D with good quality in-body image stabilization (plus good auto-focus, full manual control, less (or no) aliasing, better audio (and audio control), headphones jack and 25p). Also, how about the ability of setting iris, shutter and ISO limits and let the camera adjust ISO automatically within these limits without visible "stepping"? I could certainly find good use of a camera packaging all these!

March 17th, 2009, 04:34 AM	#41
Thane Brooker Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Manchester, UK Posts: 53	If I could have just one thing that should be achievable with a firmware update: I want to be able to select x5 view when recording (or better still 1:1 which I think is just under x5). Or, have picture-in-picture so I could check both framing and focus simultaneously. I'd want to be able to move the p-i-p focus area around the screen while recording, just like in the current x5 and x10 views. If I could have another: A live histogram (both pre recording and while recording). Because even 24fps footage looks bad when out of focus and incorrectly exposed. __________________ Thane Brooker 8Networks - IT Specialists

March 17th, 2009, 05:07 AM	#42
Thanasis Grigoropoulos Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Currently on the move! Posts: 33	My arguments for in-body IS: 1) Regarding existing in-lens IS technology: It was invented to help photographers shoot with slow shutter speeds - totally different use than video IS. Therefore current photo IS lenses are: a) Noisy (mic picks up the noise) b) Slow or relatively slow (can't use in very low light situations) c) Usually big and heavy (difficult for hand held videography) 2) Regarding Canons' self-interest to implement in-body IS for video: a) Competition. If they don't, Sony will! People seem to have put a lot of expectations on Nikon lately. But Nikon has a lot of catch up to do re video (just look at D90). Sony is already there. I believe the next big step in FF video DSLRs might come from Sony. If not for any other reason, just because Sony has already made a managerial decision to challenge Canon in the DSLR arena. The A-series is the living proof. b) In-body Canon IS does not need to substitute lens IS. It can be video-only. This will INCREASE Canon non-IS lens sales to videographers. But it will not decrease IS lens sales: they will still be needed for photography. c) Ability to use smaller, faster lenses for hand held videography = increased camera portability = more camera uses = more camera sales. The reason I insist so much is because I shoot mostly hand held, "run-n-gun" documentaries, under completely unpredicted environment conditions. So, the ability to have a light, un-intimidating, autofocusing camera producing useful hand held images in any light condition is too much to resist! We are in new territory here. The game is changing. If good in-camera IS for video is technically achievable then, honestly, I don't see why Canon would not want to implement it. So... ask and you may receive :-)

March 17th, 2009, 11:08 AM	#45
David C. Smith New Boot Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: United States Posts: 13	Forget about hardware upgrades, not going to happen. Firmware upgrades would be very limited too. About the only thing that may be possible is full manual control. Hopefully they can set the frame rate to 29.97 to conform with video standards. 24,25 FPS and variable frame rates are out of the question as it probably requires revision of the hardwired coding in the Digic processor. Better off petitioning for a reasonably priced video camera with an 11.37mm x 36mm chip that uses the Canon EF mount with all the features you want. Dave Smith