Finally!

Canon has announced the successor to the full-frame 5D, the 5D Mark II. And it looks damn sweet! 21.1MP resolution, 50-25,600 ISO, continuous shooting at 3.9fps with a high-speed UDMA memory card, Live View electronic viewfinder via the 3 inch VGA resolution LCD, dust reduction and true high def 1980x1080p video at 30fps.

The list of features and updates is camera pr0n at it's finest.

 

Yeah they just pwned Nikon with that cam. Freaking amazing

 

saw it on engadget this AM

 

Not to be old-fashioned about it, but I don't want my SLR being a video camera. And 21.1MP won't necessarily make a better image, just that one would need more memory cards for it. 3.9fps is pretty slow (understandably so, mind you, with an image that size), especially if anyone wished to use it for, say, weddings.

I wouldn't say they 'pwned' Nikon with that camera. It'll be interesting, but I think a faster, lower-resolution solution would still be better for every day use and/or weddings.

Remember, you can still print a good-quality poster-sized photo with as little as even 6MP.

 

I see the video feature being a 'gimme' simply because of the live view feature now being included. Once you have light on the sensor continuously, you can do anything with the resulting data stream.

I am getting fed up with the 'megapixel race' myself as well, since in most cases when applied to compact cameras, all those pixels simply highlight the defects in the lens and increase noise. Given that the area of the full frame sensor in this SLR is so huge in comparison, it has not reached the point of 'too much of a good thing' yet. It would be useful especially in nature or sports photography to be able to tightly crop a distant image and keep decent resolution for printing and publication.

One thing that all of my other non-DSLRs has spoiled me on is being able to use the LCD as a viewfinder. In the case of an articulated LCD like my S3-IS, I am able to frame shots without having the camera stuck to my face. This makes discrete shots much easier, overhead shots and waist-level shots a snap, and awkward shots like ground-level ones much easier on my creaky old body.

 

The camera may TAKE the picture, but the photographer MAKES the picture.

Jim

 

21 MP on an FX camera is about the same sensor pixel density as a 10 MP DX camera, so it's a nice way to get more information without worrying about excessive sensor noise at higher ISO settings.

3.9 fps is a little slow for action photography, but I'm sure there's a lower-resolution/higher framerate setting available for that kind of work.

I think the Nikon and the Canon are aimed at different markets, but I bet the Canon will be extremely popular with landscape/still photographers (at least those that aren't shooting medium-format film or digital).

 

I find this to be the ultimate camera irony.

For the longest time (what, the last 20 years of so?) Nikon has been the aim for still and landscape shots. Really, medium format, but for the sake of argument in the 35mm world... and Canon has been the action/sports camera of choice because of speed.

Now, it appears that Canon is going towards high resolution/still life type images, while the Olympics showcased a TON of Nikon D3 cameras for sports

 

I'm not familiar with Canon, so I've always been curious as to why they've historically been the overwhelming choice for sports photography. Is it that they held the lead in high frame rates, or is their large-aperture glass better/cheaper?

I did notice the large number of D3s at the Olympics as well - it was a far cry from the "sea of white lenses" I usually see at sporting events.

 

Other than the Nikon D2H(s), Canon generally had the speed advantage, and also their 1Ds was the only mass-marketed full-frame DSLR on the market (I think Kodak had one, but... yeah.... they didn't really capitalise)

 

So far, so good, but I
hope this doesn't turn into a Nikon vs Canon pi**ing contest like on so many other forums.

Jim

 

Canon support for pros is supposed to be unrivaled by anyone. That's a big reason they've trumped Nikon in the sports arena.

John

 

Nah, there really doesn't seem to be any "zealots" here on NAM when it comes to camera brands (or they're keeping their opinions to themselves). I think most of us realize that all brands/models have their strengths/weaknesses, and choose according to our personal needs.

 

I hate wedding picture taking but I understand is a money making biz, I would do it but I hate to deal with Mothers.. I use a canon 5D now and I have a smaller camera for everyday use... The 5D is not a everyday camera.

I think 21.1 is necessary, and the video option is not to make home videos all the time but just utilizing the technology that is already there. In case you forgot your >>HD double CDD option with water cooling and G-geeling handgrip & Martian optics Video Recorder<<

 

This new 5D (which I've ordered) is a huge advance over the previous model (which I use for wide angle, static images and as backup to a faster camera). The low noise at high ISOs is the big news. The other new or improved specs and features are icing on the cake.

 

I want one

 

If I'm not mistaken, there is no autofocus once you engage the video mode. I think you have to focus manually. That's a bummer.

 

Has anyone seen/used the new Nikon D700 yet?

 

I personally don't think the video is just a 'gimme' or gimmick, I think it will result in the ability to shoot video in a whole new way using different lenses ,etc without having to use a professional level video camera.

If you haven't seen this check it out, it is gorgeous and its not even in full rez:

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/control...articleID=2086

 

Yep.. I am pre ordering one..gorgeous video. Thank you for posting it.

 

That's it! I can't keep up.
I'm going back to a cardboard pinhole camera

 

Please post your impressions and pics when you get it so we can be even more jealous