Justin D wrote:
Year after year, like, when Nikon had such competitive cameras in 2005 and 2006, even 2007? Meh. I think the 'little drama' is watching people work themselves into hysterical tantruming consumers on the web (not directed at anyone in particular, just generally!) over a camera manufacturer which chooses to prioritise some aspects of photography over others in their 3rd tier camera body in order to cut costs and, yes, to maintain their investment in higher end technology. Part of teh reason this camera can be priced so competitively is the fact that 1DsIII users were effectively subsidising its development. And that is not bad, nor evil, nor even cynical - it is good business practice....Show more →
I disagree on the 1 series subsidy bit - that's the rebel that subsidizes everything on up.
Hysterical tantrums - that is funny. And it never loses its humour whenever someone posts this kind of thing in response to someone else's opinion on what is or is not in a new camera.
The AF thing is a big deal. Not a deal-breaker, but more than a slight disappointment that it hasn't been updated in some way after 3yrs. It's like ordering fries at a restaurant only to find when they arrive the restaurant has no ketchup. No ketchup?? What the ...??
And Nikon is not perfect either by any means. Like no dust shaker on the D3. There's compromises in any system. But to mention them doesn't mean one is being hysterical or a whiner. Just voicing an opinion.
Justin D wrote:
Canon doesn't make one. Nikon doesn't make an affordable high res body. They didn't make a decent IQ body until 12 months ago. I don't understand what the problem here is - Canon decided to continue the line of what is probably one of its most successful bodies as they had a winning formula: a low spec, high IQ body. Some users are left without a 'backup' camera. I guess that's the decision Canon made - it's not as if they haven't continued the lines they have been producing for however long... What made you decide to shoot Canon that locked you into their lens mount however many years ago? Sure as hell couldn't have been any suggestion from Canon that they would ever produce a compact sports body with weather sealing....Show more →
The 5D was popular because it was the best IQ for the money period. Pro's lived with the crap AF but it wasn't popular because it was a good camera, only because there was nothing better under $8000. Don't kid yourself. It's the reason wedding pro's are switching to Nikon in droves for the D700. It was popular as a 'low price, high IQ' body, it certainly wasn't popular for the low specs. Now the vast majority of shooters have already got enouh IQ and won't bother to upgrade for megapixels only.
dragonview wrote:
I am thoroughly confused and dissappointed by the Canon’s product development approach in 5D Mark II. To me, Canon is in a no win situation. I think everyone would agree that if 5D-2’s ISO performance does not AT LEAST match up to the D3/D700, 5D-2 is dead on arrival. The high-end market has been screaming “We don’t want more pixels. We want better pixels!!!” This was validated by the tremendous success of D3/D700.
Let’s first assume that 5D-2 does meet the market expectation and give us a extreme low noise sensor, the question is why in the world Canon want to do it on a 21MP sensor? The consumer would have been perfectly happy with the performance on a 16 or 17MP sensor. If Canon 5D-2’s 21MP sensor can really deliver D3’s ISO performance, the IDs Mark III will basically become obsolete in any practical sense. Something smaller, lighter, cheaper and lower-noise vs. something larger, heavier, more expensive and higher noise? Hard choice! And why would Canon risk that is really beyond my imagination or comprehension. On the other hand, if 5D-2 DOES NOT deliver on ISO performance, then whoever at Canon had developed this product should be shot! Like some of you had suggested, they just might have decided to put the 1Ds Mark III sensor in 5D-2. If this is what really happened, first, the 1Ds Mark III again will become a dinosaur. And second, Canon will continue to loss more market share to Nikon as the high-end market is putting ever more emphasis on ISO performance over pixel count. This approach would only make sense under two assumptions. 1. Canon already sold 80% (or greater) of what they think they can sell on the 1Ds-3. Second, Canon simply does not have the comparable technology as Nikon thus it has no choice but to offer more pixel to stay competitive. But either way, this is no win situation for Canon I am afraid.
David Baldwin wrote:
I need a new FF body for low light work, for this both the D700 and 5D2 should do well, and I will look carefully at both over the next few months. However, I am also interested in portrait work and worry about the availability of usefully placed focus points, I don't always want to focus slap bang in the middle of the viewfinder.
Does it look like the autofocus on the new 5D2 will be good for portrait work?
AngusM wrote:
No, you're not correct. Deal with it.
Deal with what, the canon fanboys that come out of the woodwork once or twice a year if any one dare suggests it's about time they offered a decent AF system for under $4500.
You post crap that people are demanding 1Ds III for $2700 not that you could ever find evidence of such demands and then make smarmy smart ass comments about working harder if you want better features.
BLOKES,
who cares about autofocus?
With a camera that is specked up like the 5DmkII, I would be using the new Zeiss ZE range on this beauty..WOW, what a combo indeed.
We are not servants worshipping at the alter of Canon accepting whatever they give us and accepting that we cannot have a $3000 camera with decent AF and sealing. We are consumers and canon are saying, 'if you want features then you have to pay, we give you no choice. Oh and by the way, we know you can't switch as we've locked you into the system so like it or else'.
Jesus. What a Prima Donna. Canon have said - we think we'll sell teh most cameras by trying to capture a market that has no competition. This is not personal. Nobody is out to get you. Certainly not Canon. For me, the 5DII looks brilliant. If it didn't, I WOULD change sides, but I know that Canon have continually delivered what I want, obviouslyu because I am serviced well by Canon's market philosophy. If you're not, that's not Canon's fault - they have never offered a small format body with weather-sealing and whizz bang AF. They've given you no reason to believe that tehy would.
Nikon do seem to want to service that niche - I've got no idea whether they have a history of doing so. They certainly don't have a history of cutting edge, high res technology. That is what Canon staked their name on - if that's not what you want, you chose the wrong system. You can't blame the system for the fact that you made a bad choice.
BTW - I'm not censoring anybody's right to an opinion - though I do think people who sonsistently make snide remarks about people who might actually want this camera being market saps deserve a little back. I'm providing an impassionate layman's analysis of teh facts of the matter. I also think the expectation that companies should respond to competitors' products within 6-12 months a little distateful, as I think it's a mentality that's fuelling a lot of the problems in the world today...
But that's my few cents (not sure if it's worth five of them). I won't contribute any further, as there seem to be a few too many snide remarks flying about.
dragonview wrote:
If Canon 5D-2’s 21MP sensor can really deliver D3’s ISO performance, the IDs Mark III will basically become obsolete in any practical sense. Something smaller, lighter, cheaper and lower-noise vs. something larger, heavier, more expensive and higher noise? Hard choice!
It is a hard choice, but not for the reasons you cite. Have you ever worked with a 1-series body? Change "larger and heavier" to "much more rugged and pro-grade" and you'll understand what I'm saying.
The two biggest complaints I'm hearing about the 5D2 are AF points and ruggedness. A camera that does fill the bill on those two items will hardly be "obsolete in any practical sense" for pros who like Canon lenses and who need - and can afford to pay for - both of those things.
dragonview wrote:
On the other hand, if 5D-2 DOES NOT deliver on ISO performance, then whoever at Canon had developed this product should be shot!
Shot? Pretty strong language. (Wow, we do get worked up about this, don't we?)
dragonview wrote:
This is no-win situation for Canon I am afraid.
Yes, they might as well just give up now. Not even any reason to show up at photokina after this embarrassingly paltry product announcement. I expect Canon will go the way of Merrill Lynch by Christmas.
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Deal with what, the canon fanboys that come out of the woodwork once or twice a year if any one dare suggests it's about time they offered a decent AF system for under $4500.
You post crap that people are demanding 1Ds III for $2700 not that you could ever find evidence of such demands and then make smarmy smart ass comments about working harder if you want better features.
Yep. Not happy with what Canon offers? Buy what suits your needs and budget from another manufacturer or take your whining to Canon.
I don't have an issue with what I'm buying/using. It serves my purpose just fine. If I did have concerns I'd look at what options suit me better. Currently my Canon investment serves me more than well. The AF system I work with gets me the shots that makes me money. I don't think any other system would make me any more.. so I'm happy. If other's aren't happy with the tools they're using embrace the choices that exist for you and move on.
Beni wrote:
The 5D was popular because it was the best IQ for the money period. Pro's lived with the crap AF but it wasn't popular because it was a good camera, only because there was nothing better under $8000. Don't kid yourself. It's the reason wedding pro's are switching to Nikon in droves for the D700. It was popular as a 'low price, high IQ' body, it certainly wasn't popular for the low specs. Now the vast majority of shooters have already got enouh IQ and won't bother to upgrade for megapixels only.
And Nikon is not perfect either by any means. Like no dust shaker on the D3. There's compromises in any system. But to mention them doesn't mean one is being hysterical or a whiner. Just voicing an opinion. I was careful to mention that that wasn't directed at you. It wasn't. It was directed at a cumulative mass of whinging which, taken together, does seem hysterical. Your post wasn't even if it was the post I quoted in my comment. Apologies if taht misled you.
AngusM wrote:
Yep. Not happy with what Canon offers? Buy what suits your needs and budget from another manufacturer or take your whining to Canon.
I don't have an issue with what I'm buying/using. It serves my purpose just fine. If I did have concerns I'd look at what options suit me better. Currently my Canon investment serves me more than well. The AF system I work with gets me the shots that makes me money. I don't think any other system would make me any more.. so I'm happy. If other's aren't happy with the tools they're using embrace the choices that exist for you and move on. ...Show more →
Clearly, pleasing the bottom rung is the goal and all that's important.
We should all be satisfied and live in mud huts. Why should anyone want more?
Beni wrote:
Just as a matter of interest, has anyone seen the difference in pricing, the camera is the equivelent of $800 (£400) more in the UK than Europe. Is that normal? I know the dollar divide is usually huge but didn't know that the Euro would be so much cheaper. Especially given the price of cheap flights to Europe! The Europe warranty should be accepted in the UK. What is weird is just how much cheaper Nikon is in the UK relative to Canon. The D700 is only a fraction more expensive than in the US but the 5D mkII is £600 more expensive than the D700. Wow. Don't think the same thing is true for the lenses though, just the bodies....Show more →
Yes, looks silly. Here in germany the D700 is € 100 more than the 5D II start price at trustfull dealers. The 50D already went down € 100 before in teh shelves.
That would mean D700 over there at your place is nearly € 600 cheaper in UK then here in germany? Are you sure you told the D700 pricing, not D300?
? The consumer would have been perfectly happy with the performance on a 16 or 17MP sensor. If Canon 5D-2’s 21MP sensor can really deliver D3’s ISO performance, the IDs Mark III will basically become obsolete in any practical sense. Something smaller, lighter, cheaper and lower-noise vs. something larger, heavier, more expensive and higher noise
