Thank God Sony came along and introduced more competition. We all benefit, it generates more features and lower prices sooner. I do like the in-body stabilization from Sony (and... Konica was it?). But for a prosumer like me, having one piece of gear shoot my HDTV as well as my photos is HUGE. Canon really raises the bar. If it weren't for competition we'd never see so many features so soon. Sony would never add 1080p video since they don't want to cannibalize their camcorder sales. Now they may be forced to. If it weren't for competition we'd never see so many features so soon.
How about a sub $2,000 17-85mm or 24-105mm IS F1.4L that would be some big glass, and it would be close to ideal for me. I'd buy it and the 5D Mark II from Canon in a heartbeat if they made it. Well, I am still dying to buy the 5D Mark II.
You want a 4-5x EF-mount zoom of L quality and at a constant f/1.4 for under $2000? Sorry, not happening with current optical materials. I'm not sure if it is even possible to manufacture, but it would be gigantic and extremely expensive. Just the 24L and 35L together cost more than $2000.
Canon already has a 24 to 104 IS "L" lens. They also have a 17 to 85, but it's for the APS "C" cameras, and none of the APS lenses are "L" lenses, because as Canon says, that's reserved for the full frame lines top models. But the gold ringed lenses are pretty good.
I guess im phychic. When they reviewed the new Sony DSLR, i critisized it while others said how great it was and how awesome it is for under 3 grand.
And I said Cannon and Nikon are going to beat the crap out of it becuse they are the top two in the DSLR markey and make QUALITY over trash becuse Sony and others are after market share.
OH LOOK WHATS THIS? Its beautiful, and you can bet there is ALOT less of a reason to choose the Sony alternative. Go back home, Sony. Improve the stuff youre good at.
What people aren't commenting on here is the question, and it's been brought up in the pro sites, is how good the sensor really is.
From what I know, the 1Ds has better noise than the A900 at higher ISO's, from 400 and up, at least.
As the 5D mkII is supposed to be about 1.5 stops less noisy at any ISO than the older 5D, which already was less noisy than the 1Ds mkIII, it should certainly be interesting.
Personally, I think Sony made a mistake going for the gold on resolution, rather than overall IQ as Nikon did. The difference is insignificant.
This could bite them if the 5D mkII is as good as Canon is saying it is, and the few photographers who have been using it already have been saying.
But, I suppose Sony needed this prize, small as it is, to get good publicity. We'll see if it lasts.
Well rounded, but Nikon still has the advantage when it comes to shooting and focusing at high speeds. The 3.9 fps of the 5D Mark 11 is impressive for the amount of a data that it has to process, but still too slow for sports. Can't wait to read the review!
The 5D was never aimed at the sports photographer.
And, really, who cares?
Some people think that sports is the beginning and the end. But most photographers do not shoot sports.
When this camera came out, the IQ was higher than any other camera around, including Canon's 1Ds, if you don't just take resolution into account. And even there, it wasn't that much lower than the 16.7 MP of the 1Ds mkII.
I find that even now, at ISO 200 the camera easily holds its own against Nikons D3 and D700. That's saying something for a three year old body.
The new one will do better. Most people using these cameras won't be shooting at 25,600 ISO, or even 12,800 ISO. both are useful, but neither gives much in the way of quality.
The battle will be in dynamic range at lower ISO's. We'll see what happens there.
My experience with the Nikons is that they break down in prints at 16 x24, while the 1Ds doesn't. The noise level is better, but we'll see how that compares to the new 5D mkII.
We have added illustrations to answer questions about the 5D Mark II AF module and the ISO Sensitivity compared to the 5D and 1Ds Mark III. The sensor in the 5D Mark II is said by Canon to be the most advanced they have offered in the EOS line so far, and even superior to the 1DS Mark III sensor.
We have added the European Press Release and more 5D Mark II photos from the UK press site to the article. The Canon Europe Press Release was well-organized and provided easy-to-access facts.
I don't think the EOS 1Ds Mk III is going to be sold much longer. They'll probably replace it with a 1Ds Mk III N not too soon after Nikon announces their FF Pro camera. The 1Ds still has many features that the 5D does not, the most important being a 45 pt AF system. All said though, the 5D Mk II does come very close to the current 1Ds Mk III.
In terms of the 5D Mk II feature set, I am pumped about the HD movie mode. From the videos that Canon has put out, the quality seems spectacular considering that it's not what you would traditionally buy the caera for - much more than an afterthought. If it is indeed properly done, the level of creativity that it offers is amazing. I have the EF 85mm f/1.8 USm lens and puttogether with a 3200-6400 ISO, I could be shooting videos in the dark with no artificial lighting. The look of natural light video is unique (check the origina Omen movie out to get a feel for what I'm talking about - it uses wide aperture lenses with minimal artificial light extensively). This camera is probaby going to be very revolutionary.
I would really like to see some in depth reviews soon.
> I would really like to see some in depth reviews soon.
just go to dpreview - they always have in-depth previews with 24 hours of announcement, as they get pre-production equipment from Canon/Nikon on NDA. it's also been in the hands of select Canon pro photographers for a number of weeks. the video quality is very, very good.
umm you actually spent that much on a camera body and you think the Sony is better just because it has higher MP. You shouldn't waist your money on a dSLR and just get yourself a High MP Point & Shoot. I am seriously doubting you have a D700 or your one of those rich kids who doesn't know how to use his equipment. I would love to have to D700.
I don't see Canon OR Nikon being too concerned by this. So far, both Canon and Nikon have many professional lenses. Sony has none other than the few Zeiss lenses that have come out. The Minolta lenses have been criticized as being pretty old and not designed for digital sensors, while both Canon and Nikon have had a program of re-design and replacement of their many lenses for several years.
Still, I believe that Sony is the only real challenger to those two. The other companies are quickly moving to irrelevance.
The new micro 4/3 will be nice for less dedicated shooters, because of its size and weight, and is what the format should have been from the beginning. But it's too late for much else. Pentax doesn't seem to be getting any traction with its more pro bodies.
"he new micro 4/3 will be nice for less dedicated shooters, because of its size and weight, and is what the format should have been from the beginning. But it's too late for much else. Pentax doesn't seem to be getting any traction with its more pro bodies. "
Being a Nikonian myself, I do not necessarily disagree with everything that you're saying. However, from a technical standpoint, the 4/3 mini format *could* conceivably 'own' the wide angle market. Everything that I have read seems to indicate that because of the closeness of the sensor to the glass that hugely wide images should be possible with minimal to zero distortion. Having said that I am *maybe* average in understanding these technicalities concerning camera, so, I may be wrong(and will have to see where they take us).
The registration distance of micro 4/3 is 20mm, so any lens of focal length less than 20mm will be retrofocal (compared to around 40mm for more traditional SLRs). So to match something like the Sigma 12-24 on a full-frame sensor, a lens would have to be wider than 6mm.
My guess is that you might see better ultrawides for micro 4/3 than you do for the APS-C class SLRs, as for a given field of view the design would not need to be as retrofocal. Whether they are better than FF will probably depend on how much the parallel illumination of the sensor matters.
Minolta Professional Grade lenses were labeled G lenses or SSM or both and there are a large number of those in the market. Prices for G glass on the used market have remained very high.
Sony carried most of the G and SSM designs over to their own brand, but they released the new badging on these high-end lenses slower than the higher volume lenses. The Carl Zeiss are the newest Pro grade from Sony.
Frankly at the A900 launch event Sony had every one of their current lenses available to try. I think everyone at the event was shocked at the huge number and range of the current Sony Lens selection. I know I was.
I wasn't shocked. They have always had a decent range of lenses, though not nearly as extensive as from Canon and Nikon. But you have to know that most of those lenses were designed as long as 15 years ago (a couple are even older!). The last ones were designed before Sony bought the Konica-Minolta brand.
None of those lenses were designed for digital, and it shows.
There has been a lot of criticism in the industry about Sony ignoring those older lenses. They simply are not up to modern professional standards, though most are good enough for other work.
The Zeiss lenses are fine lenses, they can compete anywhere in optical and mechanical quality, except for the odd fact that they are not environmentally sealed.
" I think everyone at the event was shocked at the huge number and range of the current Sony Lens selection. I know I was. "
Sony have promised to have a minimum 40 lens lineup - this may not seem a lot compared to Canon or Nikon but then think that they don't need IS & non-IS versions so their 40 is Canon or Nikon's 80.
At the wide end Sony can already pretty much compete with Canon & Nikon bar a few specials like T&S/PC (of course they also have a few unique lenses themselves) but they are still lacking a bit at the extreme tele end. I'm sure that they know this though & at least 1 of the prototypes that they have been showing appears to be an extreme tele (400mm f2.8 ?).
You need to visit some Canon 5D Forums to get cheered up. Most in those Forums are complaining about the slow burst speed compared to Nikon and the "archaic AF mode" compared to the Nikon D700. Your opinion of the new 5D Mark II all depends on what features matter most to you.
agreed. i don't think the D700 is disappointing at all. if you've used a D3, you know how amazingly capable that sensor is... the sensitivity is unbelievable. i'm skeptical the 5D II will be as clean at ISO6400+, but then it has a lot more pixels to work with so by the time you scale it down to 12MP it might similar. hopefully the dynamic range is on par with or better than the D3/D700 as well.
even as a Canon user who has been waiting for this model for 2 years, i'm not sold until i can see some exhaustive image quality tests, as well as use it in my own hands. the video is neat but in the end this is a camera for capturing still images, and the real measure is how well it does that. in that respect, the D700 is still an excellent camera, regardless of what the 5D II is capable of.
> i am a nikonian and very disappoint in nikon. the d700 sux compare to what's coming ahead.
ha! nikon users are in heaven right now compared to a few years ago. did you forget what it was like to be a d1x user for 4 years, waiting for a new model while canon had upgrade after upgrade every year? :)
I agree that a 1Ds Mark III replacement sounds very likely. Otherwise why would Canon scuttle its own flagship body with a nearly-identical product? Canon really timed this nicely and has effectively stolen all the thunder the Sony a900 caused recently. I know that I am going to buy a 5D Mark II without hesitation.
I doubt it. Sony is a very small player in the DSLR market and i don't expect that to change anytime soon. They are doing this to compete with the D3/D700 from nikon. Nikon was beating them since their release. Don't expect this canon to trounce on the nikon just because of the mp increase. The nikon 12-13MP is sufficient for most people and actually a lot of people don't want higher MP because of the noise associated with it. The nikon have VERY good low noise / high ISO abilities which is what most photographers want.
Now your probably asking why is sony such a small player. Well i think of it has to due to lenses. Yes sony bought the minolta line of lenses way back when but they are not nearly as nice as the professional nikon/canon glass and when you spend this much on a camera then its all about glass. Sony always seems to have "something missing" in their bodies too. Nikon/Canon have been doing this for so long they know what professionals need/want.
I want to see if there is any dramatic price drop in the D700 after this camera starts selling. If it drops to $2k then i'm definetly going to pick one up. Its the camera body ive been lusting after and since all my glass is the F-Mount nikon stuff and since i'm not going to go through the MAJOR expense of switching all my glass otherwise id probably give the 5D MKII a look.
Part of this is in response to your assertion about lenses, but part is in response to the general negativity surrounding the Minolta (oops! Sony) release.
Having had my first Minolta a long while back (a Maxxum 7000 film camera), I was always impressed with their products, and very much so with their lenses. I've had different models over the years (my 7000's were stolen) and now primarily shoot with an Alpha 707. The Sony represents a nice way for me to upgrade without losing my current lenses. I've not seen it, nor have I tried it, as I still have an attachment to film, and want to be the last hold out :). But it looks like Sony has an excellent Minolta product with the A900.
As in the past, however, Nikon and Canon have a sort of "anointed" state of grace amongst some. I can't think of any "glass" that Minolta couldn't compete with in the film days, and the quality of the cameras and the pictures they take is phenomenal. Yes, I lusted for an F5 at one point, but also for a Maxxum 9 (I still want one of those, in fact).
Sony is a small player because Minolta was always a small player, despite often having better features and specs than competing cameras. Sony also has earned a bad rep for some of the less customer-friendly aspects of the company.
In short, I look forward to all improvements in the digital camera realm, especially with sensor sizes, as I still don't see a compelling reason to switch from film, other than the convenience factor. I have sometimes spent upwards of $800/year in film processing/prints, etc, but I would be spending much more than that on the Sony body just to have to still incur the costs of making prints. Meanwhile, the quality of Fuji Pro400N (used to be 400NPH) seems as good or better than the quality of the best 35mm digital I have seen. Don't even get me started on Black and white (where I still think that Ilford rules the roost).
I have aslo seen statistics recently that show Sony has 17% of the DSLR market in Europe, which is impressive and much higher than the US. I wish I understood why that was the case.
Maybe Sony never released crap products in Europe to turn people off to them.
The exact timing of the release might be a response to Sony, but obviously the camera itself isn't. The 5D is 3 years old, so users have been expecting a replacement for 18 months. Major announcements are generally made either before/at PMA in February, or Photokina in September (even though that show is only bi-yearly).
I would strongly suggest that you try any of the Sony/Minolta G lenses, the SSM motor lenses, or the Carl Zeiss lenses before you make such blanket comments on Sony glass. I also own Canon and Nikon and I do not share your opinion that Sony glass is lacking in comparison these days.
My complaint about Sony glass is that they seriously overprice their best lenses compared to Canon and Nikon. However, there are still gems to be had for very fair prices at the top of the Minolta lens lineup. However, the best Minolta glass has been going up rapidly in price and is getting harder to find.
I agree, Zeiss also hold alot of ground in Digital Cinematography glass. A lot of these points just have to do with preference. I usually prefer/or am biased about what I own up until I actually get to try new glass. I am however upset that Zeiss primes are so expensive
Don't think so, it depends what you want in a camera as the Sony still trumps the Canon in a lot of the tradional areas e.g. viewfinder. The Canon forums also seem to be grumbling that the AF appears unchanged (& apparently the 5D is known for being slow).
Will also depend upon where you live as whilst the 5DMkII seems cheaper than the A900 in the US, in Europe it's dearer.
All the top 3 (Canon, Nikon, Sony) are offering something slightly different in this area of the market.
As Gary says we'll have to wait & see results from actual retail bodies - I wouldn't be surprised if Sony beats Canon to retail availability though.
We'll have to see when the cameras actually ship. The camera that really gets kicked to the side is Canon's own $8000 1Ds Mark III. If the low noise capabilities are anything to match the ISO range on the 5D no one will buy a 1Ds III at more than twice the price any more. That has to mean a 1Ds Mark III replacement is on the near horizon.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
38 Comments
Back to Article
BigJim - Monday, September 22, 2008 - link
Thank God Sony came along and introduced more competition. We all benefit, it generates more features and lower prices sooner. I do like the in-body stabilization from Sony (and... Konica was it?). But for a prosumer like me, having one piece of gear shoot my HDTV as well as my photos is HUGE. Canon really raises the bar. If it weren't for competition we'd never see so many features so soon. Sony would never add 1080p video since they don't want to cannibalize their camcorder sales. Now they may be forced to. If it weren't for competition we'd never see so many features so soon.daversinger - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
How about a sub $2,000 17-85mm or 24-105mm IS F1.4L that would be some big glass, and it would be close to ideal for me. I'd buy it and the 5D Mark II from Canon in a heartbeat if they made it. Well, I am still dying to buy the 5D Mark II.strikeback03 - Friday, September 19, 2008 - link
You want a 4-5x EF-mount zoom of L quality and at a constant f/1.4 for under $2000? Sorry, not happening with current optical materials. I'm not sure if it is even possible to manufacture, but it would be gigantic and extremely expensive. Just the 24L and 35L together cost more than $2000.melgross - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
What exactly are you asking for?Canon already has a 24 to 104 IS "L" lens. They also have a 17 to 85, but it's for the APS "C" cameras, and none of the APS lenses are "L" lenses, because as Canon says, that's reserved for the full frame lines top models. But the gold ringed lenses are pretty good.
They are coming out with an 18 to 200 though.
aeternitas - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
I guess im phychic. When they reviewed the new Sony DSLR, i critisized it while others said how great it was and how awesome it is for under 3 grand.And I said Cannon and Nikon are going to beat the crap out of it becuse they are the top two in the DSLR markey and make QUALITY over trash becuse Sony and others are after market share.
OH LOOK WHATS THIS? Its beautiful, and you can bet there is ALOT less of a reason to choose the Sony alternative. Go back home, Sony. Improve the stuff youre good at.
Koing - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
D700 is much more geared towards sports5D mkII is more geared towards landscapes and general photography with more detailed required.
Theres another of a difference for everybody :)
Koing
melgross - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
What people aren't commenting on here is the question, and it's been brought up in the pro sites, is how good the sensor really is.From what I know, the 1Ds has better noise than the A900 at higher ISO's, from 400 and up, at least.
As the 5D mkII is supposed to be about 1.5 stops less noisy at any ISO than the older 5D, which already was less noisy than the 1Ds mkIII, it should certainly be interesting.
Personally, I think Sony made a mistake going for the gold on resolution, rather than overall IQ as Nikon did. The difference is insignificant.
This could bite them if the 5D mkII is as good as Canon is saying it is, and the few photographers who have been using it already have been saying.
But, I suppose Sony needed this prize, small as it is, to get good publicity. We'll see if it lasts.
Keepitpro - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
Well rounded, but Nikon still has the advantage when it comes to shooting and focusing at high speeds. The 3.9 fps of the 5D Mark 11 is impressive for the amount of a data that it has to process, but still too slow for sports. Can't wait to read the review!melgross - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
The 5D was never aimed at the sports photographer.And, really, who cares?
Some people think that sports is the beginning and the end. But most photographers do not shoot sports.
When this camera came out, the IQ was higher than any other camera around, including Canon's 1Ds, if you don't just take resolution into account. And even there, it wasn't that much lower than the 16.7 MP of the 1Ds mkII.
I find that even now, at ISO 200 the camera easily holds its own against Nikons D3 and D700. That's saying something for a three year old body.
The new one will do better. Most people using these cameras won't be shooting at 25,600 ISO, or even 12,800 ISO. both are useful, but neither gives much in the way of quality.
The battle will be in dynamic range at lower ISO's. We'll see what happens there.
My experience with the Nikons is that they break down in prints at 16 x24, while the 1Ds doesn't. The noise level is better, but we'll see how that compares to the new 5D mkII.
strikeback03 - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
That is why the 1DIII exists. The 5D is aimed more at portraiture.Wesley Fink - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
We have added illustrations to answer questions about the 5D Mark II AF module and the ISO Sensitivity compared to the 5D and 1Ds Mark III. The sensor in the 5D Mark II is said by Canon to be the most advanced they have offered in the EOS line so far, and even superior to the 1DS Mark III sensor.Wesley Fink - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
We have added the European Press Release and more 5D Mark II photos from the UK press site to the article. The Canon Europe Press Release was well-organized and provided easy-to-access facts.Spinne - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
I don't think the EOS 1Ds Mk III is going to be sold much longer. They'll probably replace it with a 1Ds Mk III N not too soon after Nikon announces their FF Pro camera. The 1Ds still has many features that the 5D does not, the most important being a 45 pt AF system. All said though, the 5D Mk II does come very close to the current 1Ds Mk III.In terms of the 5D Mk II feature set, I am pumped about the HD movie mode. From the videos that Canon has put out, the quality seems spectacular considering that it's not what you would traditionally buy the caera for - much more than an afterthought. If it is indeed properly done, the level of creativity that it offers is amazing. I have the EF 85mm f/1.8 USm lens and puttogether with a 3200-6400 ISO, I could be shooting videos in the dark with no artificial lighting. The look of natural light video is unique (check the origina Omen movie out to get a feel for what I'm talking about - it uses wide aperture lenses with minimal artificial light extensively). This camera is probaby going to be very revolutionary.
I would really like to see some in depth reviews soon.
n4bby - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
> I would really like to see some in depth reviews soon.just go to dpreview - they always have in-depth previews with 24 hours of announcement, as they get pre-production equipment from Canon/Nikon on NDA. it's also been in the hands of select Canon pro photographers for a number of weeks. the video quality is very, very good.
eternalkp - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
well, the A900 is still the champ so we have to thank sony because canon has to lower the price to compete.21meg for $2700...not bad at all!!!
i am a nikonian and very disappoint in nikon. the d700 sux compare to what's coming ahead.
ncage - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
umm you actually spent that much on a camera body and you think the Sony is better just because it has higher MP. You shouldn't waist your money on a dSLR and just get yourself a High MP Point & Shoot. I am seriously doubting you have a D700 or your one of those rich kids who doesn't know how to use his equipment. I would love to have to D700.melgross - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
I don't see Canon OR Nikon being too concerned by this. So far, both Canon and Nikon have many professional lenses. Sony has none other than the few Zeiss lenses that have come out. The Minolta lenses have been criticized as being pretty old and not designed for digital sensors, while both Canon and Nikon have had a program of re-design and replacement of their many lenses for several years.Still, I believe that Sony is the only real challenger to those two. The other companies are quickly moving to irrelevance.
The new micro 4/3 will be nice for less dedicated shooters, because of its size and weight, and is what the format should have been from the beginning. But it's too late for much else. Pentax doesn't seem to be getting any traction with its more pro bodies.
yyrkoon - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
"he new micro 4/3 will be nice for less dedicated shooters, because of its size and weight, and is what the format should have been from the beginning. But it's too late for much else. Pentax doesn't seem to be getting any traction with its more pro bodies. "Being a Nikonian myself, I do not necessarily disagree with everything that you're saying. However, from a technical standpoint, the 4/3 mini format *could* conceivably 'own' the wide angle market. Everything that I have read seems to indicate that because of the closeness of the sensor to the glass that hugely wide images should be possible with minimal to zero distortion. Having said that I am *maybe* average in understanding these technicalities concerning camera, so, I may be wrong(and will have to see where they take us).
strikeback03 - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
The registration distance of micro 4/3 is 20mm, so any lens of focal length less than 20mm will be retrofocal (compared to around 40mm for more traditional SLRs). So to match something like the Sigma 12-24 on a full-frame sensor, a lens would have to be wider than 6mm.My guess is that you might see better ultrawides for micro 4/3 than you do for the APS-C class SLRs, as for a given field of view the design would not need to be as retrofocal. Whether they are better than FF will probably depend on how much the parallel illumination of the sensor matters.
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
Minolta Professional Grade lenses were labeled G lenses or SSM or both and there are a large number of those in the market. Prices for G glass on the used market have remained very high.Sony carried most of the G and SSM designs over to their own brand, but they released the new badging on these high-end lenses slower than the higher volume lenses. The Carl Zeiss are the newest Pro grade from Sony.
Frankly at the A900 launch event Sony had every one of their current lenses available to try. I think everyone at the event was shocked at the huge number and range of the current Sony Lens selection. I know I was.
melgross - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
I wasn't shocked. They have always had a decent range of lenses, though not nearly as extensive as from Canon and Nikon. But you have to know that most of those lenses were designed as long as 15 years ago (a couple are even older!). The last ones were designed before Sony bought the Konica-Minolta brand.None of those lenses were designed for digital, and it shows.
There has been a lot of criticism in the industry about Sony ignoring those older lenses. They simply are not up to modern professional standards, though most are good enough for other work.
The Zeiss lenses are fine lenses, they can compete anywhere in optical and mechanical quality, except for the odd fact that they are not environmentally sealed.
Heidfirst - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
" I think everyone at the event was shocked at the huge number and range of the current Sony Lens selection. I know I was. "Sony have promised to have a minimum 40 lens lineup - this may not seem a lot compared to Canon or Nikon but then think that they don't need IS & non-IS versions so their 40 is Canon or Nikon's 80.
At the wide end Sony can already pretty much compete with Canon & Nikon bar a few specials like T&S/PC (of course they also have a few unique lenses themselves) but they are still lacking a bit at the extreme tele end. I'm sure that they know this though & at least 1 of the prototypes that they have been showing appears to be an extreme tele (400mm f2.8 ?).
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
You need to visit some Canon 5D Forums to get cheered up. Most in those Forums are complaining about the slow burst speed compared to Nikon and the "archaic AF mode" compared to the Nikon D700. Your opinion of the new 5D Mark II all depends on what features matter most to you.n4bby - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
agreed. i don't think the D700 is disappointing at all. if you've used a D3, you know how amazingly capable that sensor is... the sensitivity is unbelievable. i'm skeptical the 5D II will be as clean at ISO6400+, but then it has a lot more pixels to work with so by the time you scale it down to 12MP it might similar. hopefully the dynamic range is on par with or better than the D3/D700 as well.even as a Canon user who has been waiting for this model for 2 years, i'm not sold until i can see some exhaustive image quality tests, as well as use it in my own hands. the video is neat but in the end this is a camera for capturing still images, and the real measure is how well it does that. in that respect, the D700 is still an excellent camera, regardless of what the 5D II is capable of.
n4bby - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
> i am a nikonian and very disappoint in nikon. the d700 sux compare to what's coming ahead.ha! nikon users are in heaven right now compared to a few years ago. did you forget what it was like to be a d1x user for 4 years, waiting for a new model while canon had upgrade after upgrade every year? :)
dash2k8 - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
I agree that a 1Ds Mark III replacement sounds very likely. Otherwise why would Canon scuttle its own flagship body with a nearly-identical product? Canon really timed this nicely and has effectively stolen all the thunder the Sony a900 caused recently. I know that I am going to buy a 5D Mark II without hesitation.melgross - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
Early next year.araczynski - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
i don't know jack about the dslr market, but that just felt like someone kicking sony (their alpha900 announcement) in the gut.sounds like a great camera.
ncage - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
I doubt it. Sony is a very small player in the DSLR market and i don't expect that to change anytime soon. They are doing this to compete with the D3/D700 from nikon. Nikon was beating them since their release. Don't expect this canon to trounce on the nikon just because of the mp increase. The nikon 12-13MP is sufficient for most people and actually a lot of people don't want higher MP because of the noise associated with it. The nikon have VERY good low noise / high ISO abilities which is what most photographers want.Now your probably asking why is sony such a small player. Well i think of it has to due to lenses. Yes sony bought the minolta line of lenses way back when but they are not nearly as nice as the professional nikon/canon glass and when you spend this much on a camera then its all about glass. Sony always seems to have "something missing" in their bodies too. Nikon/Canon have been doing this for so long they know what professionals need/want.
I want to see if there is any dramatic price drop in the D700 after this camera starts selling. If it drops to $2k then i'm definetly going to pick one up. Its the camera body ive been lusting after and since all my glass is the F-Mount nikon stuff and since i'm not going to go through the MAJOR expense of switching all my glass otherwise id probably give the 5D MKII a look.
takumsawsherman - Friday, September 19, 2008 - link
Part of this is in response to your assertion about lenses, but part is in response to the general negativity surrounding the Minolta (oops! Sony) release.Having had my first Minolta a long while back (a Maxxum 7000 film camera), I was always impressed with their products, and very much so with their lenses. I've had different models over the years (my 7000's were stolen) and now primarily shoot with an Alpha 707. The Sony represents a nice way for me to upgrade without losing my current lenses. I've not seen it, nor have I tried it, as I still have an attachment to film, and want to be the last hold out :). But it looks like Sony has an excellent Minolta product with the A900.
As in the past, however, Nikon and Canon have a sort of "anointed" state of grace amongst some. I can't think of any "glass" that Minolta couldn't compete with in the film days, and the quality of the cameras and the pictures they take is phenomenal. Yes, I lusted for an F5 at one point, but also for a Maxxum 9 (I still want one of those, in fact).
Sony is a small player because Minolta was always a small player, despite often having better features and specs than competing cameras. Sony also has earned a bad rep for some of the less customer-friendly aspects of the company.
In short, I look forward to all improvements in the digital camera realm, especially with sensor sizes, as I still don't see a compelling reason to switch from film, other than the convenience factor. I have sometimes spent upwards of $800/year in film processing/prints, etc, but I would be spending much more than that on the Sony body just to have to still incur the costs of making prints. Meanwhile, the quality of Fuji Pro400N (used to be 400NPH) seems as good or better than the quality of the best 35mm digital I have seen. Don't even get me started on Black and white (where I still think that Ilford rules the roost).
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
I have aslo seen statistics recently that show Sony has 17% of the DSLR market in Europe, which is impressive and much higher than the US. I wish I understood why that was the case.strikeback03 - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
Maybe Sony never released crap products in Europe to turn people off to them.The exact timing of the release might be a response to Sony, but obviously the camera itself isn't. The 5D is 3 years old, so users have been expecting a replacement for 18 months. Major announcements are generally made either before/at PMA in February, or Photokina in September (even though that show is only bi-yearly).
Wesley Fink - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
I would strongly suggest that you try any of the Sony/Minolta G lenses, the SSM motor lenses, or the Carl Zeiss lenses before you make such blanket comments on Sony glass. I also own Canon and Nikon and I do not share your opinion that Sony glass is lacking in comparison these days.My complaint about Sony glass is that they seriously overprice their best lenses compared to Canon and Nikon. However, there are still gems to be had for very fair prices at the top of the Minolta lens lineup. However, the best Minolta glass has been going up rapidly in price and is getting harder to find.
daversinger - Thursday, September 18, 2008 - link
I agree, Zeiss also hold alot of ground in Digital Cinematography glass. A lot of these points just have to do with preference. I usually prefer/or am biased about what I own up until I actually get to try new glass. I am however upset that Zeiss primes are so expensiveHeidfirst - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
Don't think so, it depends what you want in a camera as the Sony still trumps the Canon in a lot of the tradional areas e.g. viewfinder. The Canon forums also seem to be grumbling that the AF appears unchanged (& apparently the 5D is known for being slow).Will also depend upon where you live as whilst the 5DMkII seems cheaper than the A900 in the US, in Europe it's dearer.
All the top 3 (Canon, Nikon, Sony) are offering something slightly different in this area of the market.
As Gary says we'll have to wait & see results from actual retail bodies - I wouldn't be surprised if Sony beats Canon to retail availability though.
Heidfirst - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
Oops, meant Wesley not Gary (sorry Wesley).Wesley Fink - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
We'll have to see when the cameras actually ship. The camera that really gets kicked to the side is Canon's own $8000 1Ds Mark III. If the low noise capabilities are anything to match the ISO range on the 5D no one will buy a 1Ds III at more than twice the price any more. That has to mean a 1Ds Mark III replacement is on the near horizon.n4bby - Wednesday, September 17, 2008 - link
1Ds III is due to be replaced very soon - common knowledge. there's always some leapfrogging with the staggered new model releases.