CameraLabTester: DSLR prosumers are one spoiled bunch.
Keep 'em coming, Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc...
I agree. I clearly remember drooling over a 6mp digital that cost a year's wages. My first 6mp camera cost 2 months wages. Now this 18mp gem is under a week's wages.
peevee1: Oh, wow, touch screen and continuous AF in movie mode with just 2 lenses, this thing finally almost caught up with the 2.5 years old Panasonic DMC-G2...
Not only that, but if video is your thing there's now a range of dedicated Cine lenses, even from 3rd parties. So if the amazing (but pricey) canon cine lenses are too much to pay for, there's a Rokinon cine! http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/868914-REG/Rokinon_RK8MV_C_8mm_f_3_8_Fisheye_Cine.html
Sambarino: Some nice features for a Rebel. I understand upgrading the video capabilities. Now, how about making a 60D II/70D with upgraded still capabilities for those of us who don't do video? I would trade everything video for better ISO, faster frame rate, better AF, selectable minimum shutter speed while in Av, range settable auto-ISO, larger sensor. Come to think of it, offer me a 5D3a with NO video capabilities for $2,500 and I would order one right now.
The video is implimented in software. The last non video Canon was the 50d but you can make it a video DSLR with a firmware upgrade (albeit with no sound as it doesn't have a microphone). There's no trade off. Leaving it out won't get you your wishlist of better still photo goodies. Certainly leaving it out wouldn't cut the cost of a 5d3 by anything at all. That's like saying "give me a 5d3 with the menus rearragend for 2500 dollars".
Aputra: Video DSLR is the future so they say. How about non-video DSLR with better low light performance, better AF, and lower price?
Maybe they should release the 650D special edition without video?
The video is implimented in software. The last non video Canon was the 50d but you can make it a video DSLR with a firmware upgrade (albeit with no sound as it doesn't have a microphone). There's no trade off. Leaving it out won't get you your wishlist of better still photo goodies.
adski: Ok - Day 0 post, but rest assured it's a genuine first post! (re. troll problem) :-p
I'm a 7D owner, and I resisted the 5D Mark II because a friend had one, and wished he'd waited for the 7D himself. Now, I love my camera - the only thing I generally want to improve is the ISO performance and add full frame, so on paper this looks almost perfect for me. Most of my photography is landscape, and I do a lot of texture photography (3D artist by day).
The D800 has thrown a bit of a spanner in the works though, as that extra MP could prove a bonus for the texture work. The only thing holding me back is glass...I don't mind buying new lenses, or even living in both Canon + Nikon ecosystems (not a fanboy). However, I've been planning on buying the 24mm TS-E II lens. I've scoured the net for reviews and opinions, and it seems there's nothing even close for Nikons (top-level sharpness across the frame is a big attraction for detailed texture sourcing). Is this still the case?
If you shoot landscape and you are thinking tilt shift, why aren't you going large format? TS landscape is what they do. 35mm isn't the right tool for that job.
DuxX: Like a 5D mkII user I can only say that I am very disappointed with this camera. I'm landscape, studio and stock photographer and for me much more important is the resolution, clean and super detailed ISO100 RAW photographs than noise washed ISO12800 JPEG's.
For me, this camera is a total failure and I will not invest in Canon equipment any more.
If you're really a landscape, studio and stock photographer, then you'd know that you should be shooting medium or large format. Saying it's a "failure" because it doesn't do something it wasn't designed to do is like saying it's a failure as an underwater camera. It wasn't designed as an underwater camera! It wasn't designed as a landscape or studio camera, no small format cameras are!