peter_cagnacci

<p>Phwoar what a huge respone, this dead horse has been amazingly flogged.</p>

<p>I've seen a woman with what was clearly a high-end Canon DSLR covered in brown packing tape. I thought it actually looked great, though couldn't entirely figure out for what reason she'd do that.</p>

<p>Common sense dictates that a thief won't be shopping for a particular brand or model camera, but simply what is easiest to get and what looks biggest and most expensive.</p>

<p>For the record, a Khaki (or packing tape brown) camera looks badass.</p>

<p>Simply put multi-exposure in their DSLR cameras, really dropped the ball on that one (however Nikon seem to know how make their cameras)</p>

<p>Also make better Speedlites, eg wireless transmitters in the flash that don't require line of sight. Very simple things that you think they would put into a thing that flash, though costs hundreds of dollars. Very stupid disappointing stuff.</p>

<p>Yeah the way i'm currently seeing it is around $3900 for a MK II body or about $1500 for a 5D body a lot extra for a new flash, lens or two etc so I think i'll end up going for the 5D, and f in the future i'm wanting an upgrade perhaps then i'll go to the Mk II should my wallet approve. If i suddenly however come into some extreme extra funds, Mk II here I come. There's a small stigma out there i think that once a new version of something comes out, the previous one no longer works as good etc but i've certainly relised that it's not true, especially after pouring over photography books 25+ years ago.</p>

<p>Thanks for all the advise everyone, very helpful!</p>

<p>Hi there.</p>

<p>I'm currently saving for an upgrade from my 400D and i've had my eye on the 5D for quite a while, it appears to be the most suitable camera out there for me. Recently however, as everyone is quite aware of, the Mk II has come out and i'm not sure which of them to get. Both display different pros and cons and I was hoping I could milk some of the opinions and knowledge from this vast forum. The Mk II would seem like more of a luxury item compared to the regular 5D, what with twice the pixels, HD video, Live view etc which are some things i can surely go without, but maybe paying that $2000+ extra for it would be more wise considering it's very recent and would be a more worthwhile purchase in a few years times.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance</p>

<p>i just bought the 1.4 sigma 50mm. very very happy with it - never tried a zeiss lens but i was pushed to the sigma in prefrence to the nikkor and am glad i was.</p>

<p>Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II is my current cheap love.</p>

I'd love one, like most of the people out there who even aren't into photography, but then again like most of them i don't have that kind of cash and most certainly don't really need it. I am however definitely going to purchase the first 5D since so many people are getting rid of them, they're cheaper, and i need to get a nice upgrade.

Some other planet<div></div>