Is the rave on the 5D MkII over?

It is strange with many awaiting the arrival of the 5D mkII before its launching - with fantastic and hopeful suggestions to improve it. It is here now. But the magic is not in the air.

For me I personally feel that the video addition is one thing that many do not want. For me I feel that if I were to get the 5D I would be paying for something that I do not want. Maybe Canon can offer an option to buyers like me who just want a camera and not a video.

I like the 21mp even though it would mean getting more cards and more hd. I am already running on 8 hd on 2 computers linked by a network card. But I think this part is worth the money you put in.

What do you think?

Peter Ho wrote in post #6896145
But the magic is not in the air.

The magic is in the air for me

Peter Ho wrote in post #6896145
Maybe Canon can offer an option to buyers like me who just want a camera and not a video.

Not likely. The video is mostly a software extension of Live View, with the addition of a small mic and speaker. Since all Canon cameras have LV now, I would imagine they'll all have video at some point.

Peter Ho wrote in post #6896145
What do you think?

I think I'm loving my new camera.

Maybe folks are waiting to see how Canon resolves the two issues that seem to be plaguing some cameras, the dreaded black dots and banding at higher ISO

I love my Mark II.
Why can't you buy a 5D Mark II and just not use the video function? Of course it feels like you're paying for video, which I'm sure you are in small part, but the addition of video, as I understand it, isn't so much a hardware innovation as it is a software one. Therefore, I feel like the price wasn't too affected by FullHD video recording. Of course I have no concrete evidence, but it just seems logical/likely.

While prices in general do go down over time, the original 5D's MSRP was more expensive than the 5D Mark II's MSRP. After they meet supply, the street price will go down. The D700 was originally selling at $2999. Street price is a little less than $2400. I'm sure the Mark II will follow suit sometime in the next few months. Therefore, that could be some proof that video wasn't a huge cost to Canon.

Buying more CF cards, upgrading/buying a computer with a faster processor and more HD space is just natural to new technology...

Peter Ho wrote in post #6896145
It is strange with many awaiting the arrival of the 5D mkII before its launching - with fantastic and hopeful suggestions to improve it. It is here now. But the magic is not in the air.

For me I personally feel that the video addition is one thing that many do not want. For me I feel that if I were to get the 5D I would be paying for something that I do not want. Maybe Canon can offer an option to buyers like me who just want a camera and not a video.

I like the 21mp even though it would mean getting more cards and more hd. I am already running on 8 hd on 2 computers linked by a network card. But I think this part is worth the money you put in.

What do you think?

Lol its called a 5D or a 50D, get over it, they arent building camera for the <10% people not wanthing/wanting XXX features.

The additional storage capacity, computer upgrades and the desire to have CS4 will will cost far, far more than the "buck two ninety eight" it cost to add HD Video to the 5DMkII...

It is for me. HD movies and 21 vs. 12mp aren't selling points for me. I'm going to have a Nikon D700 here later today and I'm working on getting my hands on a 5D2 to compare it to, but if what I'm hearing from people I trust is correct it looks like I'm going to be using Canon for crop and Nikon for FF.

K6AZ wrote in post #6896309
It is for me. HD movies and 21 vs. 12mp aren't selling points for me.

Welp, can't please everyone!

K6AZ wrote in post #6896309
It is for me. HD movies and 21 vs. 12mp aren't selling points for me. I'm going to have a Nikon D700 here later today and I'm working on getting my hands on a 5D2 to compare it to, but if what I'm hearing from people I trust is correct it looks like I'm going to be using Canon for crop and Nikon for FF.

That's one of the craziest things I have ever heard - why would you invest into two different systems? Do you really think the D700 is so much superior to ANY Canon FF camera that it is worth the investment? Even if I had money to burn it would never occur to me to have a Canon crop and Nikon FF setup.

K6AZ wrote in post #6896309
It is for me. HD movies and 21 vs. 12mp aren't selling points for me. I'm going to have a Nikon D700 here later today and I'm working on getting my hands on a 5D2 to compare it to, but if what I'm hearing from people I trust is correct it looks like I'm going to be using Canon for crop and Nikon for FF.

From what I have seen the 5D2 has better IQ then the D700/D3.

Peter Ho wrote in post #6896145
It is strange with many awaiting the arrival of the 5D mkII before its launching - with fantastic and hopeful suggestions to improve it. It is here now. But the magic is not in the air.

For me I personally feel that the video addition is one thing that many do not want. For me I feel that if I were to get the 5D I would be paying for something that I do not want. Maybe Canon can offer an option to buyers like me who just want a camera and not a video.

I like the 21mp even though it would mean getting more cards and more hd. I am already running on 8 hd on 2 computers linked by a network card. But I think this part is worth the money you put in.

What do you think?

I had your combo just before I got the combo I have now. I had the 1D III and 5D. Now I have the 1D II and 5D II. The reason I upgraded to the 5D isn't because of the video or even the 21MP. I wanted the better screen, sensor cleaning (cause we all know how much dust we have on our 5D sensors), and better 1600,3200,and 6400 ISO performance. And it isn't that hard to justify the 5D mark II. The 5D back then was just a bit cheaper then what the 5D Mark II is now. If you have made any money from your 5D, I think the 5D Mark II shouldn't be too hard to afford. If you are happy with your 5D, I wouldn't know why you wouldnt be happy with the 5D II, of course if you are exceptionally happy with your 5D, you have absolutely no reason to upgrade to the 5D II. For the short while that I have had the 5D Mark II, I have been impressed with the high ISO performance, especially at sRAW1

Peter Ho wrote in post #6896145
What do you think?

I think you don't feel like you need this camera, which is perfectly fine. I just don't really get why do you need excuses for that (oh and "Canon makes me pay extra for the video" is not a reason).

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6896254
The additional storage capacity, computer upgrades and the desire to have CS4 will will cost far, far more than the "buck two ninety eight" it cost to add HD Video to the 5DMkII...

Hey FlyingPhotog,

I downloaded a 5dmk2 raw files and open it in Lightroom2.2 then imported to CS3! Guess you don't need the CS4 after all!

Peter Ho wrote in post #6896145
...For me I feel that if I were to get the 5D I would be paying for something that I do not want. Maybe Canon can offer an option to buyers like me who just want a camera and not a video...

Hmmm. How much extra did Canon charge for that video feature?

My opinion is this: I don't think the inclusion of HD video capture affected the MSRP even a little bit.

TAZorich wrote in post #6896891
Hmmm. How much extra did Canon charge for that video feature?

My opinion is this: I don't think the inclusion of HD video capture affected the MSRP even a little bit.

It did in indirect ways. Clearly they put a lot of effort, energy, and $$$ into video. All that engineering time could have been used to develop a new sensor system with much improved DR or making sure that the black spot was fixed before releasing the camera. Or they could have saved the $$$ reducing development cost so that the camera can be sold at a lower price.