People,

From reading all discussions on the 5D-2, there have been a lot of debates on this new product launch. Some good; some not so good. I recall in the past, whenever Canon have new product launch, people¡¦s usual reactions were uuuuh¡¦s and aaaaah¡¦s followed up by ¡§I can¡¦t wait to get my hands on this puppy!¡¨ But this no longer holds true for 5D-2. You start to heard comments like ¡§Just couple more good primes from Nikon, I am OUT OF HERE!¡¨ Is Canon losing its touch w/ its pro and pro-sumer customers? Do you guys get this impression? Or am I just imagining things

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/688389

And the consensus was that the 30d was much, much more debated/complained about.

dragonview wrote:
Or am I just imagining things

Yes

Like has been said over and over again by posters who can follow the logic of product lines...

Some were expecting a 1Ds Mark III in a smaller box. This is not going to happen - why would Canon make a professional level camera and place it so far under the III at that price point?

I would actually like to know what people were expecting, because I really think the future 5D Mark II owners are getting a lot for their money. I won't personally be buying one because I don't want or need full frame, but I'd like to hear your reasons.

Ben Stewart wrote:
Like has been said over and over again by posters who can follow the logic of product lines...

Some were expecting a 1Ds Mark III in a smaller box. This is not going to happen - why would Canon make a professional level camera and place it so far under the III at that price point?

I would actually like to know what people were expecting, because I really think the future 5D Mark II owners are getting a lot for their money. I won't personally be buying one because I don't want or need full frame, but I'd like to hear your reasons.

No one was expecting a 1Ds III in a smaller box and certainly not for $2700. So stop spreading fallacies.

Yes I agree the 5D II is a good value camera and does offer a lot for the money and the landscape/macro/architecture/wildlife (slow) side of me is very happy with the improvements made over the 5D. I never expected a 5D branded camera to be a speed machine or have 1 series AF, but I did expect an effort to be made to improve the AF. Things as simple as a greater coverage, better AI servo, and probably a hybrid of the 40D and 5D AF at the least. Nothing radical and of benefit to every style of shooter.

However, a lot of noise about the 5D would vanish if Canon would stop refusing to offer a very good AF in a non 1 series camera. Many would have given up several features for this. I'd have been happy if the 50D for example was just a 40D with a new AF engine and then it would make a great partner to a 5D II.

A lot of these people have probably been willing to fork out for the 1D III except for fear of being burnt. I also find the 1D III now lacking in features compared to the latest offerings, and having too few pixels for my needs. Waiting 3 years and only seeing the 1D II go from 8.2Mp to 10.1Mp was very disappointing as was the LCD and first gen liveview - to see the 40D only a few months later come out with a much better version is galling. I am personally waiting now for the next 1 series as it is patently obvious Canon cannot bring themselves to offer pro AF below several thousand dollars. There will be no mythical 3D. I can afford a 1 series (and have one), but many cannot and Canon seem to care not one iota, yet Nikon allows this now in a $1500-1600 D300 and $2700 D700.

Canon's motto is we can give you 1Ds III IQ and pixels, but not pro AF - can anyone reconcile that?

A lot were expecting the 5DmkII as a D700 with a Canon badge. They should have put a better AF, 50D's yes. But then more you bitch about that.

What I personally don't get about all these complaints is that - do we know for sure that the AF performs exactly the same way as the older generation, original 5D?? Sure it's got only 9 points and 6 assist and whatnot... but perhaps the algorithms have been updated to perform better?!?
I think the 5DII looks great on paper and I expect IQ to be as good or better than the first gen. and that will be enough for the market the 5D has at present. As far as crossing over to other segments, perhaps not.

The camera will still be a top selling unit. Less so than the original 5d but only because there is an alternative from Nikon and they have to take up a reasonable section of the market, or increase it.

There will always be complaints but most that have arisen for the 5D2 appear to be emotive and based upon speculation of how good something will or will not be. Little more than having a hissy fit but it won't effect sales on any significant scale at all.

This is all really simple and applies almost universally to all consumer products, not just Canon cameras.

First, you can't have it all. All designs are compromises. There is no car with the performance characteristics of a Ferrari that can hold 5 passengers comfortably and can also carry three quarters of a ton of manure in the back. This principle is why there are two one series top-of-the-line no compromise Canon camera designs.

Second, the better the product the more it costs. Inversely, if you want to pay less, you are not going to get the very best. And this relationship is not linear. It always costs the much more to get the very best, even when the very best is only a little bit better than second best.

Put these two ideas together and you can start to understand the 5DII. There are two basic strategies Canon can use to reduce the price of their cameras (besides decreasing profits). First approach is they can reduce the performance equally in all categories, or, second approach, they can hold to top of the line performance in some categories and significantly reduce performance in other categories. Each approach has merits and drawbacks. The 50D and the Nikon D700 look like examples of the first approach. The 5D holds the line at offering top of the line IQ at significantly lower cost. Something has to give, or the cost goes up. The result – you can think of the 5DII as either the new IQ King – or you can think of the 5DII as a significantly unbalanced camera design. Both thoughts would be correct.

I for one am very pleased with the new design. It shows that the Canon camera designers feel that top flight IQ is really important to them and that they are willing to offer a value camera that is tops in IQ. Others wish Canon had taken a more balanced approach and offered a more balanced camera design trading off the higher IQ for more pro features. I can understand this feeling, but for me and lots of devotees of the original 5D we want the very highest IQ for the dollar. We’d trade the LCD display on the back of the 5DII for a lower cost or a slight bump in IQ. It was the IQ of the 5D combined with its relatively low price that made the 5D the first DSLR classic. Given the advanced advertising (destined evolution) I’m mystified as to why anybody would be surprised that the 5DII is anything other than the new IQ value King that it would appear to be.

Here we go again. I thought we wore this out in my thread and the follow-up "walkin'" thread...

Pixel Perfect wrote:
Ben Stewart wrote:
Like has been said over and over again by posters who can follow the logic of product lines...

Some were expecting a 1Ds Mark III in a smaller box. This is not going to happen - why would Canon make a professional level camera and place it so far under the III at that price point?

I would actually like to know what people were expecting, because I really think the future 5D Mark II owners are getting a lot for their money. I won't personally be buying one because I don't want or need full frame, but I'd like to hear your reasons.

No one was expecting a 1Ds III in a smaller box and certainly not for $2700. So stop spreading fallacies.

Yes I agree the 5D II is a good value camera and does offer a lot for the money and the landscape/macro/architecture/wildlife (slow) side of me is very happy with the improvements made over the 5D. I never expected a 5D branded camera to be a speed machine or have 1 series AF, but I did expect an effort to be made to improve the AF. Things as simple as a greater coverage, better AI servo, and probably a hybrid of the 40D and 5D AF at the least. Nothing radical and of benefit to every style of shooter.

However, a lot of noise about the 5D would vanish if Canon would stop refusing to offer a very good AF in a non 1 series camera. Many would have given up several features for this. I'd have been happy if the 50D for example was just a 40D with a new AF engine and then it would make a great partner to a 5D II.

A lot of these people have probably been willing to fork out for the 1D III except for fear of being burnt. I also find the 1D III now lacking in features compared to the latest offerings, and having too few pixels for my needs. Waiting 3 years and only seeing the 1D II go from 8.2Mp to 10.1Mp was very disappointing as was the LCD and first gen liveview - to see the 40D only a few months later come out with a much better version is galling. I am personally waiting now for the next 1 series as it is patently obvious Canon cannot bring themselves to offer pro AF below several thousand dollars. There will be no mythical 3D. I can afford a 1 series (and have one), but many cannot and Canon seem to care not one iota, yet Nikon allows this now in a $1500-1600 D300 and $2700 D700.

Canon's motto is we can give you 1Ds III IQ and pixels, but not pro AF - can anyone reconcile that?


plus some don't like 1 series size bodies since they are a pain whenver doing non-sports.

I'm sure Canon's marketing analysis has led them to some conclusion, but to me, there is an obviously large, previously unserved market that wants a camera like the D700. I'm one of them. Why Canon can't (or won't) make that camera is beyond me. I've read many a post begging for Canon to make a 3 in digital for 4 years now...I think we're tired of waiting, and confused by Canon's product lineup (at least I am).

dragonview wrote:
Is Canon losing its touch w/ its pro and pro-sumer customers? Do you guys get this impression? Or am I just imagining things


All I know is that Canon's recent offerings are not that appealling when comparing them to recent offerings from the competition.

Daan B wrote:
dragonview wrote:
Is Canon losing its touch w/ its pro and pro-sumer customers? Do you guys get this impression? Or am I just imagining things


All I know is that Canon's recent offerings are not that appealling when comparing them to recent offerings from the competition.

Hmm, I find Canon's latest increasingly appealing and Nikon paling a bit. But ain't it good we have a choice. You can't be all things to all people.

Gochugogi wrote:
Daan B wrote:
dragonview wrote:
Is Canon losing its touch w/ its pro and pro-sumer customers? Do you guys get this impression? Or am I just imagining things


All I know is that Canon's recent offerings are not that appealling when comparing them to recent offerings from the competition.

Hmm, I find Canon's latest increasingly appealing and Nikon paling a bit. But ain't it good we have a choice. You can't be all things to all people.


Very true...

BTW Why do most people seem to overlook Sony? Maybe they aren't there yet with their new a900, but Sony is a very big company with some very wild plans.

i'm trying to think up my own idea for a thread, so i can have my own 5 minutes of recognition. this 5DMkII controversy might be just the vehicle to propel me to stardom for 3 or 4 minutes.

I see it this way. Before Nikon had a revival, Canon essentially dominated the field of DSLRs. Thus customers pretty much had to love whatever new product Canon released, because that was as good as it got. Even though one could, of course, wish it to be better, there was nothing concrete to hang your hat on.
But now that Nikon are once again in full swing, and that Sony have joined the fray consumers have reference and comparison points. That explains why you see so many posts saying in essence " I want the best Canon usually offer, meaning world-leading IQ, PLUS the best of Nikon (AF etc...). At no increase in cost, of course.
I am pretty sure that Nikon customers now loath the D700 viewfinder, which "only" offers 94% coverage, because the Sony Alpha 900, a direct competitor, offers a wonderful 100% viewfinder, and the fact that theirr D700 does not offer video like te Canon 5DII, and even like the lower Nikon D90. And Sony customers rue the fact that it does not offer livewiew, like its Nikon and Canon competitors, as well as the lower-priced Alpha 300 and 350...
More competition is good for consumers, but a negative side-effect is that it highlights that nobody offers everything at the same time. Or else, there is soon no competition...

BTW Why do most people seem to overlook Sony? Maybe they aren't there yet with their new a900, but Sony is a very big company with some very wild plans.

Over the past couple decades I've owned a lot of Sony products from pro DAT to Walkmans to HDTVs. And I must say product reliability, sound quality and service weren't great and got worse with each year. I've gone elsewhere for my pro audio and consumer audio and am very pleased. I suspect many have similar experiences and figure why should they "consider" a company with a checked past when Canon and Nikon are so darn good. If both Canon and Nikon disappeared, I'd rather visit Pentax or Oly...

Gochugogi wrote:
BTW Why do most people seem to overlook Sony? Maybe they aren't there yet with their new a900, but Sony is a very big company with some very wild plans.

Over the past couple decades I've owned a lot of Sony products from pro DAT to Walkmans to HDTVs. And I must say product reliability, sound quality and service weren't great and got worse with each year. I've gone elsewhere for my pro audio and consumer audio and am very pleased. I suspect many have similar experiences and figure why should they "consider" a company with a checked past when Canon and Nikon are so darn good. If both Canon and Nikon disappeared, I'd rather visit Pentax or Oly...

Look, I am not going to defend Sony... Especially not regarding audio equipment. I have had similair bad experiences 20 years ago. It wasn't trying to praise Sony in any way. It is just that it seems the a900 is a closer competitor to the 5D2 than the D700. In any case when you compare features (apart from the HDVideo). IMO Canon tailored the 5D2 to go against the a900 more so than to go against the D700.

Daan B wrote:
. It is just that it seems the a900 is a closer competitor to the 5D2 than the D700. In any case when you compare features (apart from the HDVideo). IMO Canon tailored the 5D2 to go against the a900 more so than to go against the D700.

I agree, Daan.

-But I won't bring up the mythical 3D again. Nope, not me!

Ben Stewart wrote:
Some were expecting a 1Ds Mark III in a smaller box. This is not going to happen - why would Canon make a professional level camera and place it so far under the III at that price point?

I would actually like to know what people were expecting, because I really think the future 5D Mark II owners are getting a lot for their money.

Nooooo, people were actually expecting a D700-like camera, which really has nothing to do with the 5DII, except for the fact that Canon shot themselves in the foot by not having a mythical '3D' available when the 5DII was released. Thus, the 5DII took heat for not being two cameras that were formerly absent in Canon's product lineup (i.e. the '3D' and the long-awaited successor to the 5D). Nikon did it, why can't Canon?

I think the only thing that 5D owners were expecting was perhaps upgraded AF, to answer your question.

Cableaddict wrote:
Daan B wrote:
. It is just that it seems the a900 is a closer competitor to the 5D2 than the D700. In any case when you compare features (apart from the HDVideo). IMO Canon tailored the 5D2 to go against the a900 more so than to go against the D700.

I agree, Daan.

-But I won't bring up the mythical 3D again. Nope, not me!

Well, since Canon now has an answer to the a900, we can only assume they will have an answer to the D700 any time soon... Or can't we?

A while ago, right after the launch of the 50D, there were some reports (coming from Canon) saying that we should expect al least two more releases this year... Or did they mean the 5D2 and G10 by that?

My 5DmkI does fine for sports using the center point, with expansion on in Servo mode. Still would like a mythical 3D that can boost the frame rate with a battery grip ala D700 but I am still going to upgrade to the 5DmkII once the AF gets tested by RG and others.