ISO50

It looks like a great camera, but for me I’m content to wait until FF comes down below $2000.

If I was in the market for a camera of this caliber it would come down to the ISO performance of the 5DII. The D700 (and its D3 CMOS) is just such a stunner at high ISOs, and that’s a huge selling point. 12mp is plenty for most commercial work, and while HD video is kind of cool it’s not a huge selling point for me.

There’s also that rumored new nikon format coming to be early next year. That could shake things up a bit.

I just bought a D90 and I couldn’t be happier. D300 sensor for $999. Can’t beat that.

I’m picking up a D90 later this week, I think they arrive on Friday here. The 5D sounds awesome, but my investment in glass and the 5D being slightly out of my price range(although the 21MP is so appealing) is telling me the D90 is for me. I’m going from a D70s so thats a huge step up for me at $999.
I’ve been kicking a long with the D70s for awhile now waiting for something to really stand out. The video was a huge selling point for me. I can’t wait to mess around with it.

I just got married. Our photographer shot our whole wedding on a 5D and a 40D… The shots are AMAZING.

http://www.brittkellyphoto.com

I tried to convince her to sell me her 40D… she wasn’t having it. So I guess she is happy with it.

lovely cam, really. but you guys are rating MP too high! three hint: lens, lens and lens.. i’d love that cam though

You almost got me – but I go with Adam and I think he nailed it with the lenses. You certainly do not buy a great body and cheap glasses, do you? The 5D is tempting but I would not want to switch brands and spend about 5000 bucks for a decent equipment.
21MP… What job couldn’t be done with 12MP or even less? (Yes, I know there are some but not for me. Not yet. ;))
FullHD… I am mainly interested in new possibilities like low light and DOF. The small HD resolution is still fine for me.

You just made my day! I am insanely excited about this. When I heard about the new Nikon cameras I was just waiting for what Canon would show next. I better start saving up!

oohhh. very nice. Very curious about the HD video. If the price/performance ratio is anywhere near my Digital Rebel from a few years back… that should be one dynamite camera! And by dynamite I do mean DY NO MITE!

“In my book, the 5D MKII beats Nikon’s recently announced D700 for two reasons: HD video (which is inexplicably absent from the D700) and price (it’s $300 less than it’s Nikon counterpart).”

I do have to disagree. The 5D MKII did not in fact trump the D700, and is only a small improvement over the original 5D. When comparing two cameras, your 2 factors, namely HD Video and a price difference of 300 doesn’t sufficiently justify the underlying technology, and of course ultimately how good a camera is.

and to add to that, neither do mega pixels. I would prefer Nikon’s D700’s 12 mp any day. Just imagine the work flow you’d have to go through with 21mp files! High MP count is just something to attract people who don’t know better. After all, many of us wouldn’t even need such a high MP count, unless you’re doing large commercial work. In that case, a medium format camera would suit you better. Nikon’s 12 MP sensor has a pixel pitch of 8.45. This means low light performance is greatly improved. What canon did to achieve a whoppin’ 21 MP is to squeeze more into a full frame sensor, making a pixel pitch of just 6.8.

Just a short breakdown:
AF points Canon Vs Nikon: 16 Vs 51
Pixel pitch Canon Vs Nikon: 6.8 vs 8.45
FPS Canon Vs Nikon: 3.9 Vs 5 (or 8 with Battery Grip)
Nikon has built in flash, Canon doesn’t
Nikon has AF fine tuning, not sure about the new 5D

This isn’t a comprehensive list, but some of the factors that i feel are wayyyy more important than having HD Video or a high MP. HD Video is a cool function to have, but I’m a photographer, not a videographer. When choosing cameras, HD Video wouldn’t be the one that helps me decide. One thing that the 5D MKII has done better in is having ISO 50, while Nikon only goes as low as ISO 100.

To sum it up, the 5D MKII to the 5D is very much similar as the 30D to the 20D. Not a huge step forward, but there are some noticeable improvements. Waiting 3 whole years for a much overdue update to their very successful 5D, Canon could have definitely come up with something more substantial.

cheers,
Shaun

What a camera indeed. 21mp at 14bits is enough for anything I could see doing with it. I think sharp outstanding prints at 20×30 is really doable. s

Wow, I shoot the 5D and now I’m bloody lusting after this new one. Before it was rumored to just have a 17MP jump not 21! But that long lasting battery and high ISO noise reduction are definitely perks as well. Also, the price didn’t go up from the previous 5D.

Am I the only one who thinks that 21 megapixels is a ridiculously high number for 35mm? I mean, high end DSLR’s used to be at like 10-12 megapixels, and now suddenly 21? Doesn’t that ring any alarm bells? Mere logic tells you that they can hardly pump up the pixelcount like this without cutting back in other quality aspects. This is what an Canon engineer says:

“I am hugely disappointed because once again Canon engineers are dictated by their marketing department and had to keep up with the megapixel race. They have the technology to blow the competition away by adapting the new 50D sensor tech in a full frame format and just easing off a little on the megapixels. Although no formal testing has been done on the new model yet, judging by the spec and technology used, it just seems to be as good or as bad as the competition – not beating them by a mile (which we used to).”

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/techdigest/20080917/ttc-exclusive-canon-engineers-held-back-e870a33.html

“I just don’t see how you can double the pixel count with the same surface area, and not loose something in the way of IQ.”

What they did was redesign the pixel lenses to let in more light. I have no doubt the IQ will be better by far than the existing 5D.

I just got my 5d mkII, and yeah, the 21 MP is great, but I find myself using the 10 MP setting more often. Hell, 10 MP in raw is enough for most applications. the main thing is lenses. canon just plain has more lenses than anyone else. period, point blank, the end. can you get a tilt/shift lens from nikon? I rest my case.

Nobody seems to mention the differences of the AF system on the two cameras as a point. I have spent few days reading about the two cameras 5d Mk II and the D700. People criticised the HD capability as a half way house because there is only manual focusing capability. The other sticking point is the AF point system, Nikons AF system over Canon’s 9-point system seems to be the winner for many. Horses for courses as they say, but the Nikon D700 would be in effect better for me because I shoot lots of kids portraits and in low light. But I love my 5D! I love my glasses. Whether the improvements are worth the upgrade to 5D MkII, I do not know!
I would love to have the noise reduction capability of the say D3. 21 mp also seems to be too much information. I would need a good NAS device, throwing another £900 after this potential upgrade. I think looking at the price tag and the improvements, unless money would be no object, I would wait until Canon came out with another jot of improvement on the Mk II, more sophisticated AF system + great noise reduction for instance. I am not bothered about the HD capability. Would be a nice extra but not worth specifically my money.
All in all, I am still not convinced that the 5D Mk II would warrant the extra £2000 for a body only.
And finally, this is for a good reason that the UK is also known as rip-off Britain!!!