The 5D Mk II - a Nikon shooter's perspective

Well said and done!

Well put Radio. A breath of fresh air.

Sfordphoto wrote in post #6342356
check out the numbers here in the tables. looks like the mark II is a bit slower than the 20D. i would explain it as the 5d having a larger mirror, etc...but nikon's d700 is pretty fast
http://www.the-digital-picture.com …igital-Camera-Review.aspx

anyways that isn't the point of the thread

TheHoff wrote in post #6342689
Just a guess but I'd wager it isn't any worse than your 20D; the complaint is that it is exactly the same as the old 5D. They didn't change or improve the responsiveness at all in 3 years.. it is noticeable if you use it next to a 1-series but you will probably feel it is quicker than what you're used to.

Thanks for the info. The chart on that site does show that the lag is slightly worse on the 5D than the 20D (kind of surprised me, to be honest) but when you're talking milliseconds and I haven't used a 1D, it seems like it shouldn't be too noticeable especially when not doing sports

And yeah... while I agree it's the photos and the end result that counts, it is annoying to have a camera update that has some obvious areas where it could have been improved but wasn't for whatever reason. Of course, the DIGIC IV processor could lend some enhancements just as a side effect of it being a newer technology, so the exact details remain to be seen. Regardless, I know I'll be thrilled with the new camera, and it'll at least motivate me to get out and shoot more to play with the new toy

good read

Great thread Great read.

My only concern is that I see one of these threads every 4-5 months or so: Is it the equipment or the photographer? We almost always come to the conclusion that it's the photographer. Yet anytime some new piece of equipment comes out, many of us forget it's the photographer and hope that this is the MAGIC BULLET.

When the 50D was announced, I thought "Now I can get better shots in my NBA arena!" When the 5DMkII was announced, I thought "Great! I don't need 6fps, 3.9 is OK and I can get back to FF. All my landscape, travel, garden and city photos will now be fantastic! And I can now shoot in the rain,the MkII is weathersealed!"

I must keep repeating: It's the photographer, not the equipment; it's the photographer, not the equipment; over and over again.

www.mbpixel.com wrote in post #6342330
Bottom line though, I take pictures, and to be honest all I need is a single focus point, and a good high iso, the rest I can take care of myself. Whistles and bells are great if you are a morris dancer or santa, but they wont capture the moment for you.

Best way yet that I've heard it put !

radiohead wrote in post #6341040
Sometimes I have to catch myself and recall the feeling I get when I get a great shot – the buzz of a new camera is nothing by comparison.

This is precisely the reason why I avoid participating in most comparo threads. I go in to check out the differences, strengths, weaknesses, but I'd rather take and edit photos with my time. I did a pretty basic shoot for work yesterday, and the whole time, I was just enjoying myself taking shots of my coworkers and having lots of great laughs, too. At no point was I thinking, "Damn, wish I had a 50D/5D II/D700." It was all about having fun setting up, shooting, and interacting. That matters more to me than having the latest and greatest (debatable ad nauseam)... that's not to say that I don't long for better or different camera bodies, but you get my point.

all i can say Guy is BRAVO, AMEN, HALLELUJAH and ROCK ON BROTHER!!!!!!!!!!!

Very, very well said by the OP...

deeeez wrote in post #6341235
here, here...

I think you mean "Hear! Hear!"

I agree as well.

You made a very nice and thoughtful post! I agree with your view of the "love of photography"! I own canon but If I had the money I would love to give a nikon system a try, for who is to say that I may like it more?

Really nice post. Thanks.

Good post Guy! Thanks for the enlightening us with your wisdom.

One of the nice, unexpected benefits of switching to film last March was that it exorcised underlying concerns about being equipped not so much with the latest, but at least with the most sufficient. Digital is still in its germ stage, evolving rapidly enough that most of us will likely still be kickin' when a sensor has a dynamic range that equals or even surpasses that of the human eye. Consequently, every new release stimulates expectations and hype, a process inherently prone to disappointment for many, not all, of course.

I am not waiting for the next Nikon FM2, and I don't think Canon is going to be doing any tinkering with my Elan 7NE. And I am certainly not worried about what one camera company is doing, and what the other is not. I know what ISO3200 brings me, and I demand nothing more. Some companies might bravely introduce new film emulsions, but with Tri-X and Ilford's current offerings, I am already happy with what is available.

Of course, I am not completely free, because my workflow involves digital, and I'm particularly keeping an eye on printers, mainly in regards to black & white. But from what my Epson R2400 is producing, I think I will be fine for the next few years. More importantly, I still have the negatives, which I can always bring to a darkroom for silver halide prints or have scanned with a drum scanner should I be so fastidious. It's been pretty liberating.

Very insightful post, just like some of the stuff I read your spout on nikon cafe. I'm not trying to start anything, but coming from there to here, I notice more people on this side worry more about equipment than actually taking pictures