Hmm. So it's a 5D Mk II with modern autofocus(about time!) and one stop better high ISO performance(which is to be expected of a newer generation sensor at the same resolution, I'm not impressed).
That shadow noise at ISO 100 certainly did not look appealing. (See sample a few pages back).
Also I must agree with Chris here, Ralph you should read through your posts and try to look at them from a reasonably objective viewpoint, because to me you seem like a horse with blinds on.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
What are you getting out of derailing every single Canon thread with blinkered nonsense that stalls and reroutes every single debate? I'm sure you're a lovely guy, but this is just ridiculous, I'm 98% sure Canon could present us with the Canon EOS Gilded Turd Mark 1TS and you'd still defend their decision to charge 18k for it.
Why do you derall every single "I am happy with Canon" thread with blinkered nonsens about how horrible Canon is? My debate is I work with Canon. And they deliver great tools, that helps me to make money. I am not happy with everything, but I do not understand people like you, who do not seem to be happy with anything and make Canon responsible for. They are not No. 1 in camera sales, because their gear is such a pain and all people using it are stupid. Why are you here? Is ist a pleasure for you to tell anybody how unhappy you are with Canon gear?
Do not missunderstand me. I do not need a direct print button either. But if I need high ISO and Nikon kicks my ass (in this way) and licks yours ... okay. But why you fight me, when an asslick is not enough for me? I am here because I am interessted in gear and Canon provided me, what I was asking for the last 8 years. If they did not for you, you are much to long here, in my opinion. But I do not have a problem, that you stay and still hope. I have a problem that you fight ME because you are unhappy. That is not my fault. It is not Canons. It is your responsibillity.
RZetter wrote:
Hmm. So it's a 5D Mk II with modern autofocus(about time!) and one stop better high ISO performance(which is to be expected of a newer generation sensor at the same resolution, I'm not impressed).
That shadow noise at ISO 100 certainly did not look appealing. (See sample a few pages back).
Also I must agree with Chris here, Ralph you should read through your posts and try to look at them from a reasonably objective viewpoint, because to me you seem like a horse with blinds on.
Yes, I am. I am blinded by my needs. This is my number one. I do not say sorry for that. Neither for that Canon provides it. But in vice versa: I do not see Chris needs. Neither yours. What do YOU want?
The price is about right. I paid $3,499 for the original 5D. The 5D Mark II was actually a surprise as far as price, I think the new AF and the extra 3fps, plus the dual card slots are worth the extra money.
Ralph, Chris,
Is the whole thing here enough to increase your blood pressure that can lead to other, more undesireable consequences? It is not worth it. We need to just kick back, look at the whole situation from a distance and just let it go.
I was hoping the price rumor would be wrong, but its not and thats fine. I'm only a hobbyist and will upgrade when the price lowers. Its technology, the price will come down in due time.
Canon released what they released. If you are happy with the camera, awesome, please shoot great photography when you start using it! If you aren't happy, then don't buy it or wait to buy it.
jbfaulconer wrote:
The price is about right. I paid $3,499 for the original 5D. The 5D Mark II was actually a surprise as far as price, I think the new AF and the extra 3fps, plus the dual card slots are worth the extra money.
Sven Jeppesen wrote:
yes it's funny with all those home made experts on prices and camera technology
As you appear to be wiser than the rest of us not happy with the price, care to explain how Nikon have managed to get a highly specc'ed D800 out for a lot less money than Canon have managed with their offering? Doesn't take an expert to know when someones tickling your donut
It also doesn't take an expert to know that you will (should do) sell a lot more units if they are priced competitively, thereby offsetting the lower profit margin, crucially gaining goodwill among your client base and maybe "stealing" customers from competitors. I'm just one person who didn't place their pre-order today purely based on the UK price. I'm sure I'm not alone....
AGeoJO wrote:
Ralph, Chris,
Is the whole thing here enough to increase your blood pressure that can lead to other, more undesireable consequences? It is not worth it. We need to just kick back, look at the whole situation from a distance and just let it go.
It still is just gear. You are right, AGeoJO (hell, what a difficult name).
I think, I will purchase one.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Yes, I am. I am blinded by my needs. This is my number one. I do not say sorry for that. Neither for that Canon provides it. But in vice versa: I do not see Chris needs. Neither yours. What do YOU want?
R.
What I want?
I'm much like the OP, I don't use higher ISO than 3200 or 6400 and then those pictures will only ever been seen at Web sizes. So high ISO is not a priority, the 5D Mk II I have is good enough, apart from when you have to lift shadows much. Autofocus I don't care much about as long as it's reasonably reliable and I get magnified Live View. To me dynamic range at base ISO and resolution is much more important, and the Nikon D800 upped the ante is that category. Canon doesn't have a worthy rival in either the resolution or DR department.
One thing I'd hope both Canon and Nikon would get better at is viewfinders. Though I guess that's too expensive with expensive glass and small tolerances since simply upgrading the electronics periodically seems to be enough to sell cameras, so why would they?
So there's another side to the coin(which is quite an odd coin, since it has more than two sides).
eosfun wrote:
Now just wait until it's available Ralph, and then have EOSfun
YES! It is exactly what I wished it to be. Okay, some AF points to much. Needless fps enhancement. BUT: ISO6400 (what I saw is like ISO 1600 before). Great! Fantastic. The only negative thing I see is additional 10 % for the grip! - That is a joke! Like the additional afford for some L lenses collars.
Ralph Conway wrote: It still is just gear. You are right, AGeoJO (hell, what a difficult name).
I think, I will purchase one.
R.
Call me by my name then: Joshua . I have one on pre-order as well; I am happy with the specs. Of course, the price could be less and I know it will be less down to $3,000 fast. Let the nay-sayers have their field days for the next several days. It is more a knee-jerk reaction and let them digest the specs. If they still don't like the specs, then they still can go to Nikon. No big deal. It will be nice and quieter here .
When I purchased my 5DII in Dec 2008 for $2,700 (actually $2,430), I felt the price was something that I could handle. After using it for a while, I would have gladly paid something more for better AF. I picked up a 7D for $1,700 when it was released. Now I am looking at $3,500 for the 5DIII. Unlike some here, I don't have harsh words for Canon. My daughter has worked for Canon for years and I have a lot of respect for the company. I don't know if the 5DIII is overpriced. I guess we will have to see how fast the price declines after its introduction to understand that issue. One thing I can say is that it may be overpriced for me. It is my first photography purchase that I am really reluctant to discuss with my family. Even worst, the latest introductions 600EX, ST-E3, 24-70, etc. also have the same type of feel to them ... expensive. All very nice products, but the prices are just a little punishing. I'm sure that I will probably find a way to pickup what I want, but i don't know how much longer I can justify pursuing this hobby at this level. I'm sure that there are many others in the same situation.
You can defend them. I'm allowed to think that at 3500, this camera is priced to high. we are allowed to have different opinions.
7Ds ISO is not mine
1D MK III same.
1D 4 much more expensive here (in germany)
D700 mediocre resolution, lower IQ - AF is not trustable compared to 5D II
Ralph Conway wrote:
(D700) AF is not trustable compared to 5D II
R.
haha, oh come on Ralph, you've gotta keep a kernel of believability if you're to have any chance of convincing the uninitiated that your Canon vs Nikon comparisons hold any water
of course it's overpriced cuz many street/wedding photographers are overpaid, so Canon wants to get their share too.
I forgot. And the ISO and IQ.