Is the rave on the 5D MkII over?

5Dmaniac wrote in post #6896353
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.

So you think it should be one or the other? All the other people I know that own multiple systems are crazy too? I'm already invested in both sets of glass and I actually like the idea of being ready for either Nikon or Canon bodies. Of course if I believed the business of "you get what you pay for" and bought exclusively L glass I wouldn't have money for any more than one system. I like the flexibility and it's not being loco.

A D700 arrived today, if I can borrow or rent a 5D2 I'll report back.

Wow from all the response - the magic is still there which I am glad as I too am a 5D die hard. I just wanted to the views of those interested on the video. Seems that video part is of minor concern... then this will be my next upgrade from my 5D (mkI). Thanks guys for your comments with no holds barred which I appreciate very much.

Full frame ahead!!!

[QUOTE=MinhThien;68968​58]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![/quote]

you don't need CS4 if you are importing TIFFS .

ed rader

As a photographer and commercial director, more and more clients are looking for people who can do both. Regardless, I agree with many of the people above that the camera is incredible without the video. The fact that IT HAS an HD video component is a plus.

And for proof, here's a sample of video clips I shot on a still shoot yesterday.

http://gallery.me.com/​dmccarty13#100254

It's akin to when Betacam came out.

No one had really considered one man band video shoots until the technology was available to do so. Then, POOF, a solution to a problem no one really knew they had!

5Dmaniac wrote in post #6896353
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.

I'm almost inclined to answer 'Yes' to that question. I'm not made of money, but believe me, I've pondered adding a D700 to my lineup. I remember sitting around, daydreaming about my dream camera, and then Nikon launched the D700, and suddenly, it existed. I couldn't give up Canon's primes, but yes, the D700 is IMO by far the best FF camera on the market.

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?

The magic isn't gone for me. I wanted to go FF Canon and the 5D Mk II fit the bill. The video, which is just plain fun to play around with, is just a nice bonus. I got the camera for full-frame 21mp sweet, sweet sensor, DIGIC 4, ISO performance..well the list goes on.

My L lenses, which were fine on the XTi and 40D, are rockin' on the Mk II.

Hope you find something that makes you happy.

how can it be over? i havent even found my glowsticks yet!

Cheaper and better all the reasons needed to upgrade! HD Video is a bonus option for people to be creative in videography.

The only people complaining or has negative feedback so far are the ones with out the actual camera.

flipa77 wrote in post #6901042
The only people complaining or has negative feedback so far are the ones with out the actual camera.

If I can get one in my hands you'll get an honest review from me. I've taken Nikon to task for many things and I'm especially disappointed with their color reproduction in their midrange bodies. On the other hand I have heard from a few people I trust that have multiple systems and the major complaint about the 5D2 is a very slow menu system and some real PITA bugs on the user imputs.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6897174
In case anyone missed this:
https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=6896277&p​ostcount=1

Canon has released their official "White Paper" on the 50D and 5DMkII

And yes it confirms it is an improved AF system...

Having video in the camera makes it cheaper, not more expensive.

Because it appeals to a much wider range of buyers.
Many more people buy it, many more cameras get made, each camera costs a lot less to make.

Also the video function would not have been difficult for Canon to incorporate anyway. Canon have to have the video function on the chips for point and shoot cameras and for Live View. It isn't much to just dump the Live View feed onto the memory card. This is part of the reason the 5D Mk II is fixed at 30p. The Live View runs at 30p.


The question is would you pay more to not have the video function?

bomzai wrote in post #6896776
(oh and "Canon makes me pay extra for the video" is not a reason).

Yeah, don't forget that Canon is giving us this camera--which outperforms the 1DsIII, even by Canon's admission--for LESS than the original 5D.

jacobsen1 wrote in post #6897220
didn't people say the same exact thing about liveview originally?

Yes, but I still don't use liveview....