Chris, you are probably right. If I am honest I would love a 40D with full frame, I don't shoot sports, or shoot in the rain. A FF 40D with Live View would be great, but, and its a big but, I need it to be cheap, I would expect it to be alot cheaper than the Nikon D700 which sets the bar at present. Like practically everyone I know I am now obsessed with how to pay my gas bill, photo kit has gone down the priority list like a stone.
(Anyone outside of the Uk can safely ignore that last bit, we're feeling the economic pinch here at the moment. Not a good time for Canon UK to bring out £4000 camera bodies.)
David, I haven't read all this thread, but isn't a 5D (pretty much) a 40D with full frame?
Know what you mean about the gas bill but I will still be in the market for a pair of 1D4 (?) shortly after they are released. At least petrol has gone down a few p as well.
Alistair, the 5D is pretty much a 20/30D with full frame, and we're debating whether the 5DII will just be a full-frame 40D, or whether Canon will be taking a shot at the D700.
If the former I may as well buy a 5D, but what I'd really like is better AF and weather-sealing.
Esquire08 wrote:
You're going to sell off all of your glass and bodies for a significant loss, and move to a more expensive camera and a system that charges considerably more for the same glass? For what? Marginally better pictures at best?
It's not so much the better pictures, both systems will produce incredible images, what I'd like is to be able to take pictures in the rain without my brain telling me "your £800 camera is about to short circuit and die" plus more accurate AF in low light, I'd rather have a lower quality picture in focus than a spanking gorgeous 16MP file that's out of focus.
Of course if we all wanted the same things there wouldn't be such diversity in the world, I'm merely laying out what *I* want for *MY* style of shooting, and at present Nikon seems to be the only one catering for that without me having to drop multi thousands of pounds which I don't have, on a camera with features which I don't need, I'm hopeful that the 5DII will be this camera, but realistically I don't think it will be.
Edited by Chris Beaumont on Aug 06, 2008 at 04:02 PM GMT
Edited by Chris Beaumont on Aug 06, 2008 at 04:03 PM GMT
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Alistair, the 5D is pretty much a 20/30D with full frame, and we're debating whether the 5DII will just be a full-frame 40D, or whether Canon will be taking a shot at the D700.
If the former I may as well buy a 5D, but what I'd really like is better AF and weather-sealing.
I wouldn't say the 5D was a full frame version on the 20/30D's.
Chris Beaumont wrote:
The D700 is calling me quite strongly, a D300 and D700 pair would be almost exactly what I'd want, I hope Canon responds but they seem a little lethargic and complacent these days.
That said I'd be loath to give up my 70-200 f/4L IS, I don't fancy lugging a heavy 2.8 around all day.
I hear you there- I actually tried out a D300 a couple of times but didn't like the high ISO. It'd be fine for outdoor sports and such with the grip.
I find myself wanting a hybrid beast here- I'd like the current Nikon pro bodies, but with Canon Teles and normal primes. And I love my 70-200 f/4L IS... mainly for the weight. Nikon doesn't have a similar lens at all. I'm not very optimistic about the 5d mark II.
Edited by orangefirefish on Aug 06, 2008 at 11:05 AM GMT
Chris Beaumont wrote:
Alistair, the 5D is pretty much a 20/30D with full frame, and we're debating whether the 5DII will just be a full-frame 40D, or whether Canon will be taking a shot at the D700.
If the former I may as well buy a 5D, but what I'd really like is better AF and weather-sealing.
I think what Chris means to say is that the 5d has 20d/30d functionality and controls, with a full frame sensor. Pretty much, the 5d was introduced as a 20d "full frame" version, and was the 20d's contemporary.
rsg_1 wrote:
The D700 will probably be marginally better in handling, but don't expect it to be better in IQ than the 5DMkII. You do gain with the built-in flash and the Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8G, but if you're vested in Canon glass, is it worth it?
That Rob guy who does the 1dMK3 tests was shooting with a Nikkor 14-24 lens on his 1D series, with an adapter. So you only gain the 14-24 if you buy it
This must surely be the understatement of the year. Canon is responding to the D3/D300/D700 challenge this Fall i.e. in less than a year. How long did it take Nikon to release their first FF body after Canon did?
Chris Beaumont wrote:
The D700 is calling me quite strongly, a D300 and D700 pair would be almost exactly what I'd want, I hope Canon responds but they seem a little lethargic and complacent these days.
That said I'd be loath to give up my 70-200 f/4L IS, I don't fancy lugging a heavy 2.8 around all day.
I'm looking forward for the new printer announcement, I hear it will print 5 sheets per second, And up to 8 sheets with the optional paper feed tray attachment!
New printer? Cool! I am in the market for a new printer and have been looking at the Pro 9000 and Epson R1900. I hope it will be better than both of these!
EOS20 wrote:
I'm looking forward for the new printer announcement, I hear it will print 5 sheets per second, And up to 8 sheets with the optional paper feed tray attachment!
What fun... it's been a while since I got to post in another rumor thread
Here's my prediction: Canon comes out with a 7D, which willl essentially be a warmed over 5D with liveview, 14-bit etc. and it sets the price under $2K. Then we'll get to read hundreds of posts about how the D700 trounces the latest Canon cam and how Canon is going to go bankrupt and die a slow painful death by a thousand pecks while all the time ignoring the fact that the Canon cam costs a grand less than the D700 and will therefore sell at a greater pace.
Someone will point this massive price difference out only to be told by hundreds of Nikon fanboyz and Canon apologists that a grand is not a lot of money and it's all about features and, yes, the two cameras can be thought of as competing in the same market segment because, well, they're both compact bodies and full frame, all the while ignoring the fact that we live in a capitalist society (well most of us) where cheap things sell in greater volume.
In other words, either Canon engineers or Canon marketers will die a slow death by a thousand pecks. It's a lose lose situation, except for those not made of money who'll be able to get a nice camera for under $2K.
No. not cynical, But you forgot to think about the 4D coming too, offering all "features", weather sealing, horizon lines and a great new 16 MP-sensor with (nearly) no noise up to 12.800. An additional outstanding ergonomic design done by Lamborgini and am introduction price of 2.999,--. What means 2.599 within 4 month. And Nikon has to create a "new" D3xD700=> D2100 that has all the specs of D700 but only a lower akku to compete agaist 7D. Because they live in capitalism, too, they will find out that 10 sold D2100 bring much mor than one or two D700 and even the still communistic photograhpers will be happy, because they can afford a 7D/D2100 and must not work with their 35 year old "Exacta" any longer. They will do much better pics, then their capitalistic competitors and agencies will book them instead of us (only fair). That will break our necks. And we would not be able any longer to purchase "expensive" 7Ds/D2100s. So Canon and Nikon realize they have to sell more to be cheaper (believe me, they are not stupid). In 5 to ten years every hungry african child owns a 16D/D28.000 and does heartbraking pictures of their hungry sisters and brothers. And we will cry and spend some money. So at least capitalism saves the world ...
Lamborghini is the company that makes tiny cars that anybody over 150lbs cannot fit in?
What do you mean by "horizon line"... is it just a line over the viewfinder? If you use live view, there is an option to put a grid on the display which you can use as a horizontal line... so any new camera that Canon comes out with live view will have that feature. It would be nice if Canon could put in an electronic leveler though.
I think it would be a smart move for Canon to come out with 2 cameras... one under $2,000 and another $3,000 or more. Since Ben Horne has confirmed that the 5D has been discontinued, that means there is a void at the $2,000 price point. I believe the $1,899 rumored price is legit.
People trashed the 5D when it came out, but soon and quietly people understood what the 5D could do for them. If there is a FF 5D successor for $1,900 USD that will do 95% of D3, then too will people will quietly understand.
bobbytan wrote:
How long did it take Nikon to release their first FF body after Canon did?
So what. The fact is, they did, and they put Canon in a corner. Let's watch and see if they can fight their way out. It's funny, Canon actually stumbled and caused half of their injuries, and now their vision is out of focus.
Stunnaz wrote:
What do you mean by "horizon line"... is it just a line over the viewfinder? If you use live view, there is an option to put a grid on the display which you can use as a horizontal line... so any new camera that Canon comes out with live view will have that feature. It would be nice if Canon could put in an electronic leveler though.
I believe Ralph is referring to the grid type alignment lines which you can turn on within the VF in the D300/D700/D3.
Esquire08 wrote:
You're going to sell off all of your glass and bodies for a significant loss, and move to a more expensive camera and a system that charges considerably more for the same glass? For what? Marginally better pictures at best?
Hate to edit your post, but didn't you mean to say "Marginally better pictures of Tebow rendering defenders unconscious at best?"
