5D2, Do you need it or want it? or not

[jesseb]

One word: ISO (performance). Video? Bonus. High MP? Bonus. It all comes down to IQ, including being able to take low noise shots in low light environments.

[nyphotopro]

Want it? Yes. Ordered mine the day they were announced. Too expensive? Yes, but I don't care considering the features

and its a heck of a lot cheaper than the 1Ds-Mark III.

 

Do I need the HD video feature? No, but I'll now sell my Canon HF-10 Vixia that has about three hours on it and put that

money towards the 5DM2.

 

Nobody "needs" cameras like these. It's all about features and quality and I like to own and shoot the best at any given

time. I live frugally and do without a lot of so-called "needs" that Madison Avenue and the "Joneses" try to convince me

that I "need." I live this way so I can afford the stuff that a derived real joy from - and that's the stuff that enables me to

take great photos.

[craignorrisphoto]

As Canon has said in the media release, the HD Video was added for photojournalists who shoot for sources that

require a video of a scene along with stills that have been submitted. These sources being agencies that sell to

media outlets like Yahoo! and other internet news sources since newspapers will soon disappear. There's no harm in

adding features and making the camera a multi-functional tool for a photojournalist or a studio photographer.

 

And besides that people lined up for the MKI, why wouldn't they line up for the MKII with nearly twice the resolution,

all the extra ISO, and HD Video for 400 bucks less than the original? Need it or want it, I will be getting it to give my

clients better images.

 

Craig

[rashedahmed]

Most of us don't need it but we want to have it.

[paul_mayall1]

I ' like many would like too have the 5D2, simply because it is the latest technology and should offer better quality

images than the 5D, But! dose it offer better quality or just larger files given the 21 megapixel sensor. So for me I

will wait and read into a few tests and reviews before considering an upgrade from the 5D, I still work with medium

format film on projects where I think that the images could be suitable for large calender or posters, digital is more

about image quality and not file sizes as most of my digital work would not be larger than A4 or double page.

 

Camera makers are out to get our money and survive" fair enough" however I feel that cameras produced in the last 2

years take a lot of beating and camera makers are finding it harder to come up with something that makes previous

models obsorlete.

 

Again I will say yes I would like the 5D2 but image quality must be better than the 5D by a reasonable margin.

[kerry_grim]

I am satisfied with my 40D with the exception of focus point placement. If the outer ones were closer to the center, it would make shooting sports a helluva lot easier! Canon got it right on the EOS-3, and probably do as well on the 1D Mark II, but that is out of my price range.

[scott bean]

Need it? No not really...it would be nice to have...as others have mentioned, I have to interpolate files from my 40D to submit to some stock sites, but this is not a major issue right now (I don't do that very often).

 

Want it? Heck yes I want it!

 

Will I get one? Probably not in the foreseeable future unless I come into a lot of extra $$$. I'm very happy with my 40D actually. Maybe when the 5D3 comes out I could afford a 5D2...

[jon_park]

In response to the original question......I definitely WANT the 5D2 even though I don't NEED it. I shoot for pleasure, not for money. I use a 5D along with a 24-70/f2.8L and 85/f1.8, mostly family gatherings, portraits, travel, and just about anytime my wife and I go outside our home. Although I love my 5D, I am attracted to the 5D2 for its

 

1] built-in sensor cleaner (I hate cleaning mine),

2] larger and improved LCD (5D lcd.....well.....sucks),

3] higher and yet supposedly cleaner ISO capability (5D gets noisy at ISO >800 IMO),

4] HDMI output (I love sharing photos on my high def TV to friends and family)

5] and the biggest selling-point for me is the HD video capture.

 

I realize that a lot of professional photographers shudder (no pun intended) or even scoff at the idea of video capture on a still camera. But I believe that any extra feature in a camera that does not take away from the other elements that assure good photo quality is a good thing. To think otherwise would be going against progress. Furthermore, Canon would be shooting itself (pun intended) if it did not continue to be innovative in the face of increasing competition from Nikon and Sony. From a business standpoint, I believe that in order for Canon to outpace the competition, they must cater towards the consumers as well as the professional photographers. To exemplify this point, when I recently worked in the labor and delivery ward in hospitals I noticed a large number of people using dslr cameras. The vast majority of these people have no clue on how to use dslr's but they purchased them simply to take good quality photos. I have seen people using Nikon D80, Nikon D200, Nikon D300, Canon 40D, Canon 5D. In other words, professional photographers are not the only ones buying prosumer grade dslr's anymore.

 

I love having all these extra 'bells and whistles' on the latest dslr cameras. Yes, most of these features may not add to the quality of photos. But if these extras make it easier and nicer to use these cameras, then why not?! Kudos to Canon for having the cajones to come out with these new features at the risk of rattling the photography purists. My humble opinion.

 

--Jon Park

[whwhitejr]

The bottom line is if you are a Pro and shoot Canon lenses you need this latest technology. If you are an amateur then you only want it. Still money wise it is a lot of bang for the buck. Pros might want the 1Ds upgrade that will surely come soon. So I say buy one of them to! :-), Bill

[john_bellenis]

As a full time professional Jon, I totally agree with you... When products initially come out with new features, I usually

think that I don't want or need them, then I start to begrudgingly use them and think maybe they aren't so bad, and then

they become totally indispensable!

 

Cell phones with a camera are a case in point, coffee makers with timers... and I am sure that I will find myself using the

video option on the 5D Mk II - even though it isn't something I would have actually asked for if they had asked me!

 

Is this then a case of manufacturers creating a demand for features where none existed? Is it the continual game of

competitors having to leapfrog each other with new technological do dads? Are they solving problems that no-one had?

Personally I don't care, but I am certainly not enough of purist to fly in the face of innovation and I will definitely find a

use for most of the new features one way or another.

[patflynn]

One angle that I wonder about here is how Canon thinks its 1Ds Mark3 users are going to feel about their now-inferior product, that cost them over three times more than the 5D2? I'm sure Canon expects those people to feel compelled to buy the 1Ds Mark 4 next year. The 5D2 is every bit as much a marketing ploy as it is an innovation of photography, and as someone who did not purchase the flagship model at Mark 3, I have to confess that I am much less tempted by the 5D2 than I am by what this gambit implies about the features that will inhabit the next 1Ds.

 

But as far as creating a demand for features where none existed, I don't see the HD video capacity that way. Instead I see it as Canon's first step toward revolutionizing digital capture. Imagine simply filming what you would otherwise photograph, and then breaking that film into its component frames and simply selecting the one that the captures the definitive image. Consider how much higher your success rate would be if the skill involved in squeezing the shutter at just the right moment is no longer a discriminator. That's where DSLR HD video capture is going to take photography. That's your bleeding edge feature here and that's what makes the introduction of the EOS 5D2 and the Nikon D90 such momentous events.

[dmanthree]

Want, need, please. do I need anything more than a simple 4 cylinder car to get to work? No. Do I need a 2400 sq ft home? Not really. My

old Sony 32" tube TV died. Did I need to buy a 40" hi-def TV. nah. But since when are our expenditures based on need? Sometimes the

simple pleasure of using a fine tool is enough justification, like shooting with a Leica M6. I don't need an M6, but using one is, well,

something I enjoy.

 

Sometimes the decision is easy. My 5D is getting old, and my usage is increasing. They don't last forever. If it fails, why spend money on

it? Why not just get the new model? (assuming it isn't a noise box)

[tdigi]

With the price of 1.6 crop bodies getting so cheap its hard to fork up $2700 for a body if your doing this for a hobby. When

you look at an XSi for $600 or a 40D for only $900. If someone asked me what should I get a 5D 2 body or a 40D with a 24-

70 2.8 L and a 70-200 2.8 I would probably suggest the later based on the logic that in 3 years you would still cherish these

lenses and the camera body would probably be almost outdated.

[captainsensible]

I'd like one because my 400D/XT isn't very good for landscape photography and I would like to use higher ISOs or using existing ISOs with less noise, but... I could get some fantastic lenses for that kind of money (e.g. 70-200/2.8 IS L & 300/4 IS L)

[ben_quinn1]

If one has to agonize over a purchase so much that it takes all the fun out of it then its probably wise to forego the

purchase. Like has already been said here, glass is probably more justifiable. In a few years the technology will have

trickled down for the consumer so until then make do with what you have.

[ujwal]

I don't need it as a wedding shooter.

 

As a landscape photographer. 5D is still a dream.....5Dii would be even better, but wont have money left to

upgarade computers again if i managed to buy a MKII.

 

I do both....weddings to make money...nature photography for myself.

 

But still, I want it. Don't need it. My 20D is still going strong. I love the photos i get with it...even

heavily cropped ones give really awesome 6x8 which my clients print and 20D gives me amazing 12x18.

I am not a videographer and don't even shoot vdo with my compact camera so why would i want to bother shooting

video with a DSLR when i could get really great photos with it.

 

When a photographer thinks he/she cant tell a story with photos and must have video....thats not a good sign.

 

Everybody please start upgrading to 5DMkII ....and you'll help push the price of 5D very low ;-)

[markonestudios]

Needed a full-frame dSLR to get back to my film SLR optical advantages (I'm also getting into commercial

photography and would prefer more data in my image rather than less). Was gonna get a Canon-refurb 5D (MkI). They

announced the 5D2. Now I WANT the Mk2 :) I was willing to pay full price for a new Mk1 anyway, so I have no

qualms about shelling out the money for a Mk2. I shoot semi-pro, so I shall treat it as a biz expense. HD video

doesn't push my buttons (no pun intended :)) but alongside a full-frame, low noise at high ISO sure does, as does

a vastly better viewfinder, larger high-res LCD, and potential for LARGE enlargements . I've just done a shoot

for an interior designer and they want 20x30 inch prints. That'll stretch my 400D's imaging capabilities, but

would be much less of an issue with 21MP worth of data compared to 10MP ;) A jump to the Mk1 is only 2.8MP but to

the Mk2 is 10MP...

[richard_crowe4]

I neither want it nor need it.

 

If I were still shooting professionally, I would probably shoot with full-frame. After all, equipment is tax deductable.

 

However for my present 8x10", 11x14" and occasional 16x20" prints, my 30D and 40d cameras with excellent lenses serve me very well.

 

If I did hunger for the 5D, I would rather have had an audio information capability to link information with images (like on some 1D series cameras) than to have a video capability. I would also like capability to send images to a notebook computer as I am shooting them as I believe the latest 1D system has. Both of these capabilities would interest me more than a video capability.

[philip_wilson]

I have ordered one for the (supposed) high ISo performance. I have shot film for many years and find digital boidies very overpriced but 400ISo is about the limit of good quality film so for some indoor sports I want the high ISO perofrmance - especially hockey where spoeeds are high/

[jeff_nolten]

I'll be sticking with my current DSLRs for now - I'm the only limitation to my 5D. That said, I'll be watching the response to

the HD video capability. I like doing landscape/nature photos and it seems that HD video has some real potential to go

beyond what one can do with photostitch. To be able to pan across a vista or waterfall really sounds attractive, but I

realize I would be adding an order of magnitude in complexity to creatively take, edit, and present such media. Something

to think about though.

[clgriffin]

I was an early adopter of the 5D, possibly the first one in my area. It was OK, but failed me while on a vacation when the mirror came loose. I was carrying it because I wanted to take a lighter body than my Mark 3s. Had to buy a pocket camera to finish the trip. Arghhh! It seems to have been a problem with the camera, because Canon replaced the mirror transport assembly without cost, even though it was well out of warranty.

 

I won't be the first in my town this time. I want some field reports first from other shooters.