If you don't know why someone might need 21.5MP, then you probably don't need a 5D Mark II. There are those of us who make great use of that resolution, but for some it's just too much to work with on the computer. Clearly Nikon recognizes the need for higher resolutions too, since they also have a very high resolution camera body on offer (D3x) and are packing more megapixels into other cameras as new releases come out.
When you get the marvelous image quality that you do with the 5D2, I don't see why you would complain about megapixels, unless your computer just gets bogged down with large files. Canon hit a beautiful balance between resolution and noise with that camera. But if its big files are really a problem for you, then maybe going with Nikon would be a better route. I have no idea what the "countless other blunders" you speak of might be, but if you're that down on the camera, don't plunk down $2500 on it!!
).I don't think this is a fair comparison: the D700 does have a bigger brother, it's the D3(s) (not D3x) which is largely identical in terms of features.But then again, Nikon do the same thing; why must I pay $7200 to get a FF Nikon with >12MP? Canon can do it, so from the point of view of a Nikon shooter, I've either got to give up resolution or money (or switch to Canon
This is a fair point. There's no excuse for Canon putting the 5D classic's AF system in the 5DmkII, when the 40D/50D AF system was just sitting there waiting to be used.
It's clear that Canon sees the 5D line as a potential threat to the 1D line, and thus feels it needs to withhold features to justify the price difference. But then again, Nikon do the same thing; why must I pay $7200 to get a FF Nikon with >12MP? Canon can do it, so from the point of view of a Nikon shooter, I've either got to give up resolution or money (or switch to Canon
Again, not excusing the lack of a modern AF system in the 5DmkII; just pointing out that as good as the D700 is, there are areas where it cannot compete with the 5DmkII.
The grass is always greener...
Now, why oh why can't Canon make a wireless ETTL system as good as Nikon CLS????
And I have a MarkIII, so what? You and I both know the 1 series cameras cost a lot more than a 5D, and can't expect to keep the AF system. Deal with what the camera has, and if you're that bothered then buy a 5D3 when they launch that will inevitably upgrade the AF, but even then it will be shy of what a 1 series offers.
The 5D Mark II was released after the D700 and the D3 (the D3S is just a smaller upgrade from the D3), namely in 2009 as opposed to 2008.
Why not? The D300's AF system is a derivative of the D3's and D700's AF.
No one said that it was not a fine camera.
No one said it would melt.
No one said it is not capable of great things.
People did say that they would have liked an improved AF system over the original 5D, ESPECIALLY considering that there were SEVEN YEARS between them.
The fact of the matter is that I am about to drop $2500 on a "pro" camera body that has worse auto focus than than the "consumer" body I am upgrading from. Excuse me for caring about my hard-earned dollars.
Also: You come off as extremely condescending suggesting that we don't know how to "use our camera to the max." It is very possible that we know how to use our camera, and would like more from our camera.
So, about your high-horse: Get off it.
Seven years? Really? My, that means the 5D came out in 2001? Awesome time machine you have there. Try three years.
You're dropping money on a camera due for an update. You don't buy a Mac when it is reaching end of cycle, so don't buy a camera.
My bad, the D3 managed to struggle in to retail channels at the tail end of 2008 (after an end of August announcement), and the D700 got to retail over the summer of 2008. 5D Mark II landed in October.
Note, derivative. Not the same. The expectation in this thread is that you can seemingly lift the AF unit out of one camera and drop it in another, which is simply not that case. You can usually use the same CPUs, but the coverage and so forth are different between models, requiring the system to be re-worked. In the 5D Mark II's case, you simply cannot take an APS-C system (such as the 40D) and drop it in.
You can indeed afford to be critical, and also have a balanced view on why things are as they are, rather than raging on about how Canon crippled the camera. I accept my 5D has limitations, and deal with them, rather than whinging about them. I accept the next iteration of the camera will have a newer AF system (as well as a high MP count, blah blah) too.
I'm aware of the difference. However, people seem to forget that Canon has built many, many fast full-frame AF modules before (the EOS-3, for example, had 45 AF points and a pretty modern AF system for its time). Sorry, but I don't buy the argument that a decent AF system would have made the camera that much more expensive.
Even though you cannot put AF modules for APS-C-sized sensors into it, it's not to hard to make a derivative of it for larger sensors. That's what I mentioned Nikon's Multi-CAM 3500DX/FX module where full frame and crop module are related.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive: I base my critique of Canon's decisions on facts and not on some irrational dislike.
I hope so, too, and I think Canon has little choice. They have maneuvered themselves into a corner with the last three releases of dslrs (5D Mark II, 7D and 60D). Part of it is marketing: if they had named the 7D 60D, the 60D 600D and pushed the 550D one notch down, people would be much less upset.
.
Huge prism? Canon has been building `full frame' cameras (analog slrs) for years, including some with very advanced AF systems. So they have the experience and even the technology to do it. Saying that the body is `too small' is perhaps an excuse for the 5D Mark I, but the fact that they kept the AF for the Mark II just shows Canon did not intend to upgrade it.
That (emphasis mine, of course).
The D700 didn't bankrupt Nikon, so why would you suggest such a thing would happen for Canon? If anything, Canon could rest assured that cannibalization is not an issue.
