Don't forget, this camera is mainly for "prosumers", folks. I admit, I am their target market, and I want it and am glad I waited for it.
21MP, full frame sensor, 4 fps, and hopefully great low-light shooting like the original...I'll take it (down the road after its been tested a bit). This camera pretty much allows prosumers to get some of the primary benefits of the 1dsIII without the cost and unneeded features.
This should complement my 40D pretty well, and I can even leave my Panasonic HD videocam at home with the 5DII (blasphemy, I know, for most posters!).
Maliketh wrote:
I am amazed at the folks saying that they are going to keep their current 5D camera(s) and wait for something better to come along than the new 5D MarkII. Don't wait - it's here. Saying that 10-12mp is enough for what you do is such a stupid thing to say.
Not everyone shoots commercially...many people are highly skilled in photography but don't make a dime from photo work so the cost of a camera upgrade can be difficult. I can not afford $2700 for the 5DII so If I hadn't purchased a discounted 5D earlier this year I would not have a FF camera with very high IQ. I believe alot of shooters are in this same predicament. It wasn't that long ago when the very best film cameras were under $2000 and 'high-end prosumer' cameras were well below $1000...with digital it is alot more expensive and with new cameras/features being introduced annually it is difficult for me (and others) to upgrade. Lenses however are a different story...upgrading to premium lenses makes ANY camera better.
I know the EOSfun is under your hide me list so you won't probably read this but anyway...I expected a little more trust and a little less of astonishment from a former member of the team of moderators. Of course it works. Fred and Richard know their job! You should know that!
I'm hoping that Canon just put out the Mark II to calm the crowds. The Mark II is just a small upgrade just like all the other Mark II that have come out in the 1D bodies. I haven't seen a Mark II that has been radically changed other then the II to III. Then wait 18 months to put out a different body like a 3D or 7D similiar to the D700, dual processors more AF points, dual card slots etc...etc...
Maliketh wrote:
I am amazed at the folks saying that they are going to keep their current 5D camera(s) and wait for something better to come along than the new 5D MarkII. Don't wait - it's here. Saying that 10-12mp is enough for what you do is such a stupid thing to say. Why wouldn't you shoot at higher resolution if you could?
No, actually, it is not a stupid thing to say. My output format happens to be web size, and frankly, I don't need anything over four megapixels. Of course, stock photography benefits from resolution, but you seem to overlook that not everyone shoots stock "almost exclusively".
I have mentioned (on other forums) how the 5D2 can not be defined as a success or a failure based on its feature set alone. If the camera fails to deliver what it promises, then it could be judged a failure. Just because someone doesn't like the feature set of the camera does not mean that Canon did a poor job with it. Our expectations do not dictate reality.
For the record, I do not plan to purchase a 5D Mark II. Like Jeff, I was hoping that Canon would release a compact, rugged body with high ISO capability, full frame, and professional autofocus (as well as other features I won't bore you with). In short, I wanted a D700 with an EF mount. Obviously, my wishes did not come true, but I will not bash the 5D2 because it doesn't fulfill my ideals.
esanchez wrote:
I'm hoping that Canon just put out the Mark II to calm the crowds. The Mark II is just a small upgrade just like all the other Mark II that have come out in the 1D bodies. I haven't seen a Mark II that has been radically changed other then the II to III. Then wait 18 months to put out a different body like a 3D or 7D similiar to the D700, dual processors more AF points, dual card slots etc...etc...
I don't know why, but I get the feeling that Canon is intending to release another FF camera below the 1D--most likely it will be released after the 1D MkIV.
I'm at a point where I really need to buy some new bodies as my present 5D's have had almost constant use for several years now. The new 50D looks good but frankly aside from flash units going to cropped bodies is almost like changing systems. I often produce 24x36 prints for trade shows and have been very happy with 12.8 megapixel. The thought of processing, storing and burning CD/DVD's from a 21 megapixel camera does not seem that appealing as I'm already knee deep in hard drives.
I guess will have to see how the new 5D stacks up after some early reviews, maybe auto WB is better, or flash metering but I'm thinking I should look for some 5D mark 1's while there still available. I'll save a couple thousand dollars try not to ponder the dark side.
So you really NEED a smaller body? Buy an Olympus E3. It's small and it looks professional. If you NEED some specific properties in a camera there is more than just EOSfun. This is a free market with lots of opportunities, no need to blame one of the manufacturers for the fact that they don't get you. They don't need to get everybody you see. They want the customers that know and appreciate the EOSfun
Because I've invested heavily in glass - Olympus weren't contenders a few yeas ago - never even looked at them - and it's full frame that I want.
I'm very much in the "meh" camp on the 5d2. nice innovations but still some basics that should have been improved, like AF, lag times, 100% vf with on-demand grid etc. etc. To me these are all basics that should, frankly, be a given in any camera costing more than $1500.
However, I do agree that the 5D2 is an innovative camera. It's the ONLY full-frame SLR with HD video. It remains the cheapest current FF body available. And it is class-leading in several other areas (liveview implementation, for example, IMO).
So Canon can still proudly claim to have a class-leading camera, even if it doesn't meet the needs of everyone. IMO we should look for a 1D4 early next year that raises the bar still further in terms of price and performance.
Kind of mixed feelings here. I currently have a MkIII, 40D and 5D which seem to be all that I need for my current use. I use the MkIII and 40D for wildlife and almost always have a 100-400mm zoom on one and 400mm or 500mm on the other. I use the 16-35mm and 24-105mm almost entirely on the 5D. 10 mp seems to be plenty enough for all that I do so the major benefit I can see is in the high ISO capabilities, not the 21 mp. I have been more than satisfied with my current 5D in this regard. If I do any upgrading it will probably be from the 40D to 50D.
Well look what I missed while on the road! After a quick 1-2 read through, I'm a bit at a loss with this one. This seems more like a doctor/lawyer toy than a photographer's camera. Take that with a bit of salt, please, but there's a few things that really stand out as honest mistakes to me. First, 21 megapixels? Huh?!? 98% of people buying this camera don't need it. I shoot weddings and commercial work. With weddings, 12.8 is PERFECT. You don't need anything bigger than this at all. For commercial work, the top 30-40% needs 21 megapixels. But that's why we have the 1 series camera! So, way too many Megapixels. Second, once again, we have 1/200th flash sync speed, which will probably translate to 1/160th sync with pocketwizards. Third, HD video. I'm sorry, but I'm a photographer, and a photographer takes stills. If I wanted to do digital cinematography, I'd buy a darned video camera. This option probably added a few hundred to the price. I don't care about a few hundred, but put it to use where I'm going to use it. I'll place a bet that the 1Ds series will never see HD capture. So, the lawyers and doctors will be happy, but the pro photographers, at least myself included, think it's a waste. What else.......? The auto focus on my 5d's are great. Could it be better in accuracy? I'm sure, but I'm happy. What sucks is the fact that those 9 focus points are clustered in the center of the viewfinder! Points being, if my 5d had 14 bit images I'd never need another camera. Once again, we have the 5d that's crippled and enhanced in places photographers don't need. Initial reaction: Pass and get a 1Ds3 for my commercial work. If the image quality and high ISO performance is really that stellar, then I'll consider.
cineski wrote:
Third, HD video. I'm sorry, but I'm a photographer, and a photographer takes stills. If I wanted to do digital cinematography, I'd buy a darned video camera. I'll place a bet that the 1Ds series will never see HD capture.
I'm with you on the "I'm a photographer, not a videographer" part, but I think it's just a matter of a few years before all SLRs have video (and Live View). Photojournalists will be among the first adopters at the upper end of the camera-buying market.
gene A. wrote:
I'll bet that photojournalist don't have a need for 21 megapixels either. Newsprint and 8.5x11 magazines were probably good with 6 megapixel cameras.
Photojournalists need to crop sometimes. Plus it's much better for photo libraries etc.
I am very happy with it. I cannot understand those expectations to have 1D class camera for <$3000. It is not going to happen - Canon segments its cameras differently that some here would like. Fortunately, there are other companies to chose from.
The only two "complaints" I have, are 1/200 s flash sync and movie mode (I do not like the concept)
One more thing: what is it about those wedding photographers who do not want more resolution? Do people want only 4x6 or 8x10 (8x12)? I do not know, I am asking.
More of this crap? the 5D gives an 18X12" at native resolution and makes a great enlargement, especially on canvas. Why the heck would you need more megapixels unless you shoot group shots like Braniac.
Many, many years, almost a decade, ago I defined my ideal digital camera. And now, finally, it's there. It's even better than that. It all depends where you're coming from. I'm doing mainly fine art stuff. IQ is of top priority to me and the 5DmkII promises to deliver that. I guess I don't need the 21Mp (I would have settled for 16 as well), but I'm sure there will be occasions I'll appreciate it.
So I don't need the photo journalist specs. If you do, buy a 1D series. fps? Irrelevant to me. The AF? I have been able to live with a 20D for quite some time. I made it a habit to use just the center AF point. And on many occasions, I just focus manually...
The only setback for me is the 1/200 sync speed. That will limit my ambient/flash balance control. Or....would the live mode include an electronic shutter as well?? If so that would be great.
I think the cropping argument is VERY valid. 21MP, while overkill in terms of file size, is fantastic when you want to crop. On my 40D, and to a lesser extent my 5D, I tended to do portraits with people filling the frame considerably as the detail drops off when cropped. But the jump to 21MP means you don't need to worry about that so much.
I sort-of wish the MKII were 26MP, though, so that sRAW would be 13MP-or-so. 10MP is a little below what I'd like in sRAW format.
You should know that!