And the irony here is what I brought up in another thread: High end event video guys are dropping the 5D2 because they don\'t have a 24-70 2.8 IS. They\'re shooting with 7D\'s because it\'s lighter, more functional and most importantly they have the 17-55 2.8 IS as their go to zoom.
adrianb wrote: snapsy wrote:
The same crippling argument could be applied to Nikon, claiming they crippled the D700 with 12MP. It\'s product positioning. Obviously Canon did something right with the 5DM2 since it was a runaway success. Sure most would have preferred better-than-20D AF. The 5DM2 represented a good value as did the 5D which preceded it. Do you know why a lion sleeps for 20 hours a day? Because he can ;-) So a little less sleep for Canon is in the cards.
A huge amount of success was due to video function on 5D II, on a photographic level, the D700 performs BETTER as an event tool.
I see people saying \"oh, canon 5DII still has some advantage over D700....like video...and megapixels\"
as a photographer, who gives a *** about 21MP and video,when you can\'t focus sh*t with the outer points? Everybody would have been fine with 16 mp (like on 1dsII) or 18 mp,but a decent AF system.
If you WANT 21 mp, there was 1Ds III ALREADY on the market..
Feb 07, 2012 at 05:03 PM
Previous versions of cineski's message #10320815 « Do you understand crippling now??? »
