5D MK II Announced - the moon shines

[BoblyBill]

1080 video of my storm chases... here I come!!!

 

[Village Idiot]

The 3.9 fps and 9 pouint AF is what's killing it for me. Was hoping to get a better 1D-ish AF system so I do not have to splurge on a 1D Mark III. I will have a talk with Canon tech and see if the AF holds water on the 5D though in all honesty, I do not think this is a camera geared towards sports or wildlife photographers.

3.9 fps is good. It's almost double the mp from the 5D and has an even faster shutter rate. You're probably looking at RAW files that are 20mb. That's a lot of data to move.

The Digic V chip that's in development is supposed to do that even faster. Maybe a 7D or a new 5D MKIII next year.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Interesting. The camera is spectacular, but ultimately I don't need it - I have the 5D Mk I and it is perfect for all those family photo sessions. For my landscape and architecture work I bought the 1Ds Mk III, and although I admit I like the price of the new 5D a lot better than the $8,400 I paid for my 1D, I don't feel like I got out-maneuvered by Canon. Esp. the serious weather-proofing is a big deal, and probably more expensive to implement than we realize.

By reading between the lines of the improvements on the 5D, Canon seems to have understood who the primary customer is - wedding and event photographers, and high-end hobbyists. The number of AF points is enough for most, the fps is a little thin, but multiple custom set-ups, the noise features, and so on really speak to that segment.

Also, unlike a lot of members of this forum, Canon and Nikon understand that they have customers who stay with them because of an investment in lenses. The people here who are saying "just get a Nikon" or a Canon or a Sony (whatever) are talking to a very small group (or trolling lightly). The fact is that such a camera is usually only considered by people who have a good amount of experience, and a prior investment in glass.

 

[droyz2000]

I would have to think that this camera is quite a blow to Sony after they just announced the a900. We all knew that the new 5D was coming but now that it has been announced it makes it much more tangible. Those people who wanted full frame and high MP without spending $8000 now have it from Canon and will no longer consider Sony. At least that is how I would look at it.

 

[soylentgreen]

Interesting. The camera is spectacular, but ultimately I don't need it - I have the 5D Mk I and it is perfect for all those family photo sessions. For my landscape and architecture work I bought the 1Ds Mk III, and although I admit I like the price of the new 5D a lot better than the $8,400 I paid for my 1D, I don't feel like I got out-maneuvered by Canon. Esp. the serious weather-proofing is a big deal, and probably more expensive to implement than we realize.

By reading between the lines of the improvements on the 5D, Canon seems to have understood who the primary customer is - wedding and event photographers, and high-end hobbyists. The number of AF points is enough for most, the fps is a little thin, but multiple custom set-ups, the noise features, and so on really speak to that segment.

Also, unlike a lot of members of this forum, Canon and Nikon understand that they have customers who stay with them because of an investment in lenses. The people here who are saying "just get a Nikon" or a Canon or a Sony (whatever) are talking to a very small group (or trolling lightly). The fact is that such a camera is usually only considered by people who have a good amount of experience, and a prior investment in glass.

Well put Iron, as usual. The 3.9fps is okay upon further review. I am a selective shooter, so rarely use high-speed mode. Gotta test drive the AF though to see if it will work for my wildlife work. My photo-journalistic side is drooling for IQ test results.

 

[Jeff Canes]

The big question is does the auto focus work as well as Nikon's dose with a moving subjects and all combination of lens

 

[Overread]

Canons AF system was perfectly fine till the 1D (whatever model it was) problems - before that people did not have a problem with the system until that production line problems started up,
I think Canon well know this and will have taken steps to avoid this problem in the 5D and 50D

 

[Jeff Canes]

Canons AF system was perfectly fine till the 1D (whatever model it was) problems - before that people did not have a problem with the system until that production line problems started up,
I think Canon well know this and will have taken steps to avoid this problem in the 5D and 50D

As the owner of the Canon D1 MIIn I would strongly disagree, IMO the Canon AF is often ***** with fast moving subject

 

[Brian Austin]

The 5D and 5DII were never designed as "action" cameras or extreme weather bodies. People looking for that level of performance simply need to cough up more $$ for a different Canon body....or look at switching systems.

The 5D was good for a lot of things, including fair weather landscapes, weddings, portraits, and entry level full frame photographers who couldn't afford the 1Ds series.

The 5DII continues that tradition. It's not a sports camera. It's not an extreme weather camera. The movie stuff is gimmicky, imo, but if it's there, it's there. Doesn't mean it has to be used. It offers the exceptional Canon ISO performance, full frame photosites for better low light images, the Digic IV processor, high MP count, and a few other features helpful for those missions.

It will make a fine upgrade for wedding, portrait, and fair weather photographers such as myself. I'm looking forward to the purchase and using it in the studio and on location. This is the one I've been waiting for.

The Sony, while admirable at 24+MP, is untried in full frame. We simply don't know how it's going to perform. Canon has a long history in FF digital bodies, including at the "prosumer" level like the 5D/5DII. I'd consider the Sony or Nikon alternatives if I didn't already have serious thousands of $$ tied up in Canon EOS mount lenses. One doesn't change bodies so much as systems...and it ain't cheap.

 

[Christie Photo]

Well, sh*t. I guess I better start saving.

-Pete

 

[pm63]

That's it, when I finish uni and hopefully make lots of money, I'm switching to Canon.

Why pay more for lower image quality (Nikon)?

EDIT: Canon could AT LEAST have bothered to correct chromatic abberations in the landscape example shot

 

[shivaswrath]

Auto ISO and WB are a plus as well - def heating up the competition with the D700, I can't wait to see the D700 prices come down now as well!

 

[Village Idiot]

I'm not a fan of auto ISO and auto WB really doesn't work too well on any DSLR I've seen used.

 

[epp_b]

I hope video does not become a "standard" feature of DSLRs. I hate paying extra for gimicks.

 

[Big Mike]

I think I would like auto ISO...changing the ISO and remembering where it's set, has been inconvenient for me....but I use cameras that don't display the ISO in the viewfinder.