1DMkII - Why the mad excitement?

[unbound]

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the 1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra $3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can (theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

 

[MarkMiller]

this is the first camera to combine resolution with frame rate.

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

this is the first camera to combine resolution with frame rate.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

sports shooters are not the only people who want frame rate and fast af. wildlife photographers - papparazzi - photo journailsts etc etc

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

an increase is an increase - would you say no to a 15% pay rise?

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

1/2 the price of the 1ds

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

The final answer is it is a combination of it all the frame rate, the higher resolution, improved af, improved ttl. Or as somebody else has already said - the best camera in 40 years.

--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~

 

[Pekka Saarinen]

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

If you're not into sports: not often, but when you do paid jobs you will want the insurance.

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

Wrong. All samples demonstrate that high ISO of Mark II noise is much lower and also more random and less colored in nature which makes it easier to post-process without using NR software.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

Mexapixel increase is about 2% or all reasons.

I wrote my reasons for moving from 10D to Mark II in http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=8138963

--
Pekka
http://photography-on-the.net

 

[Ger Bee]

.... you would know.

If you were trying to make a living with the 10D then you'd appreciate how easier it is with the 1D, the MKII improves on this.

If you use flash a lot …. I don’t even have to finish my sentence!!!

Worth the 3 grand? If you have to ask, you really don't know but I'm sure 10D owners will take solace in your words, try posting it there, where I’m sure it will be appreciated more.

I’ve mine paid for so I’m not worried about the cost, money is nothing and is very cheap, if YOU want it go talk to your bank manager, you’ll get little sympathy here.

 

[unbound]

Please avoid comparing the 1DMkII to the 1Ds... they are completely different cameras with completely different purposes, and they should not be compared regardless of the price. Full frame -vs- 1.3 frame, 11MP -vs- 8MP. If you are a wide angle shooter, or a resolution hound, the MKII does not fit the bill even if it is half the price.

I agree that the 1DMkII is a great replacement for the 1DMkI for new buyers that need the characteristics that the camera offers, but I also think that there are lots of people buying the camera for the wrong reasons (pixel count and frame rate), when they would be much better served spending the $3000 difference from a 10D on better lenses, monitor calibrator, monitor, software tools, storage, etc.

One thing that the 1DMkII offers that might justify the 'upgrade'... the best shutter lag figure amongst all DSLR (40ms shooting wide open). But then again, only certain shooters really need that capability, and most think that current DSLRs have no lag at 100ms anyway.

BTW - I both do and talk about it... do you do... or just talk?

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

this is the first camera to combine resolution with frame rate.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

sports shooters are not the only people who want frame rate and
fast af. wildlife photographers - papparazzi - photo journailsts
etc etc

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

c> >

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

1/2 the price of the 1ds

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

The final answer is it is a combination of it all the frame rate,
the higher resolution, improved af, improved ttl. Or as somebody
else has already said - the best camera in 40 years.

--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~

 

[David Martin]

Let's look at what it is replacing - the 1D.

Now the ID was a very fine camera (sitll is!) but it was fundamentally very orientated to shooting sports, as for things like crops or landscapes the 4MP was a little limiting, as was the weak AA filter for weddings etc.
So the relevant increase in resolution is not from 6MP, but from 4MP to 8MP.
The price is even coming in at less than the f1D started out at.

This, coupled with better flash performance (and about time, some will say!) , makes this camera suitable for a whole host of applications that the 1D was less than ideal for, perhaps pre-eminently wedding photography.

So you have a magnificent general purpose camera, which is also the cheapest price-point at which you can buy pro-class AF and a weather sealed body.

You get this for around the same price as you would have paid for a D30 or whatever not so long ago.

When the specs were first announced, I was a little doubtful as I thought to increase the MP to 8 they might have sacrificed high-ISO performance.
Instead they have increased DR.
There has also been some talk about lack of sharpness.

We have now seen a couple of sharp shots. That is all you need to see to know that the camera itself must be sharp, and that any soft images are due to the lens, the photographer, poor post-processing or whatever, as the sharpness ain't gonna suddenly go away.
So let's put it this way:
What's not to like?

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[MarkMiller]

Please avoid comparing the 1DMkII to the 1Ds... they are completely
different cameras with completely different purposes, and they
should not be compared regardless of the price. Full frame -vs- 1.3
frame, 11MP -vs- 8MP. If you are a wide angle shooter, or a
resolution hound, the MKII does not fit the bill even if it is half
the price.

then why did you compare the 1.6 fgrame 10d to the 1.3 frame 1dmkII

for users of the 10d the 1dmkII will offer wider fov and higher resolution at half the price of the 1ds.

I agree that the 1DMkII is a great replacement for the 1DMkI for
new buyers that need the characteristics that the camera offers,
but I also think that there are lots of people buying the camera
for the wrong reasons (pixel count and frame rate), when they would
be much better served spending the $3000 difference from a 10D on
better lenses, monitor calibrator, monitor, software tools,
storage, etc.

One thing that the 1DMkII offers that might justify the
'upgrade'... the best shutter lag figure amongst all DSLR (40ms
shooting wide open). But then again, only certain shooters really
need that capability, and most think that current DSLRs have no lag
at 100ms anyway.

BTW - I both do and talk about it... do you do... or just talk?

ditto the line is there because it is obvious that some here do not do

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

this is the first camera to combine resolution with frame rate.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

sports shooters are not the only people who want frame rate and
fast af. wildlife photographers - papparazzi - photo journailsts
etc etc

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

c> >

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

1/2 the price of the 1ds

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

The final answer is it is a combination of it all the frame rate,
the higher resolution, improved af, improved ttl. Or as somebody
else has already said - the best camera in 40 years.

--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~

--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~

 

[unbound]

I did use it, and I was 'suitably impressed' by the shutter fluttering along at 8 fps. But then I started thinking about it.

BTW... I'll post where a topic belongs... and the topic here is the MkII and it's attributes... so take your 'go somewhere else attitude' and shutup. Your whole attitude sucks. Enough said.

.... you would know.

If you were trying to make a living with the 10D then you'd
appreciate how easier it is with the 1D, the MKII improves on this.

If you use flash a lot …. I don’t even have to finish my sentence!!!

Worth the 3 grand? If you have to ask, you really don't know but
I'm sure 10D owners will take solace in your words, try posting it
there, where I’m sure it will be appreciated more.

I’ve mine paid for so I’m not worried about the cost, money is
nothing and is very cheap, if YOU want it go talk to your bank
manager, you’ll get little sympathy here.

 

[Masterdeath]

The AF alone is worth 1500 more. Whats the point of taking an image if the focus is out.. ad in the 2mp, flash and lower noise.. thats another 1500

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

 

[Masterdeath]

The AF of the 1d kills the 10D... Even id the Mark II AF is the same, its still A LOT better...

You say, hey the Mark II is ONLY 2MP more then the 10 right?? WELL the 1ds is ONLY 3MP more then the mark II.. hmm

The 1d has 35% more MP.. By the way, your math is a little off the Mark II is not 15% more pixels then the 10 is around 25%

The extra 3000 for lenses, monitors and so on are not going to get you better AF (better AF from a USM lens is a different story here), better flash and lower noise from a 10D.. Sorry..

I agree that the 1DMkII is a great replacement for the 1DMkI for
new buyers that need the characteristics that the camera offers,
but I also think that there are lots of people buying the camera
for the wrong reasons (pixel count and frame rate), when they would
be much better served spending the $3000 difference from a 10D on
better lenses, monitor calibrator, monitor, software tools,
storage, etc.

One thing that the 1DMkII offers that might justify the
'upgrade'... the best shutter lag figure amongst all DSLR (40ms
shooting wide open). But then again, only certain shooters really
need that capability, and most think that current DSLRs have no lag
at 100ms anyway.

BTW - I both do and talk about it... do you do... or just talk?

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

this is the first camera to combine resolution with frame rate.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

sports shooters are not the only people who want frame rate and
fast af. wildlife photographers - papparazzi - photo journailsts
etc etc

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

c> >

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

1/2 the price of the 1ds

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

The final answer is it is a combination of it all the frame rate,
the higher resolution, improved af, improved ttl. Or as somebody
else has already said - the best camera in 40 years.

--
~ there are those that do ~ and those that talk about it ~

 

[unbound]

All that you say makes sense. Thanks for the well thought out and expressed explanation. Comparing to the 1D makes sense. But it must be tough to be a pro sports shooter these days, given the excitement about the camera the job competition must be horrible... so many people need it!

BTW... I have been arguing that ETTL does NOT work for a long time, and been the brunt of insults for my opinion on ETTL (lazy, ignorant, impatient, etc) in these forums. It's good to be vindicated by Canon by having them admit that 'traditional' ETTL is less than optimal.

I think that Sharpness will be excellent, DR seems to be improved, etc. It seems to be an excellent camera. But $3000 difference from a 10D.... peopel should have a real good justification for the expense, as in "I need this camera instead of the 10D because..."

Edward

Let's look at what it is replacing - the 1D.
Now the ID was a very fine camera (sitll is!) but it was
fundamentally very orientated to shooting sports, as for things
like crops or landscapes the 4MP was a little limiting, as was the
weak AA filter for weddings etc.
So the relevant increase in resolution is not from 6MP, but from
4MP to 8MP.
The price is even coming in at less than the f1D started out at.
This, coupled with better flash performance (and about time, some
will say!) , makes this camera suitable for a whole host of
applications that the 1D was less than ideal for, perhaps
pre-eminently wedding photography.
So you have a magnificent general purpose camera, which is also the
cheapest price-point at which you can buy pro-class AF and a
weather sealed body.
You get this for around the same price as you would have paid for a
D30 or whatever not so long ago.
When the specs were first announced, I was a little doubtful as I
thought to increase the MP to 8 they might have sacrificed
high-ISO performance.
Instead they have increased DR.
There has also been some talk about lack of sharpness.
We have now seen a couple of sharp shots. That is all you need to
see to know that the camera itself must be sharp, and that any soft
images are due to the lens, the photographer, poor post-processing
or whatever, as the sharpness ain't gonna suddenly go away.
So let's put it this way:
What's not to like?

 

[Paul Grupp]

Well, I have the 10D and the 1D, and due to various performance issues with the 10D, it only gets used these days when i need a very light camera to carry around for snapshooting. The 1D's faster autofocus, faster frame rate, and spotmeter are all things I appreciate. I also appreciate the tighter weathersealing and rugged body.

The thing is -- the 10D is not a bad camera if you shoot in JPEG -- but the minute you set it to RAW, be prepared to wait for everything. Even shooting models under strobes, it is embarassingly slow. If you fill the buffer in RAW mode, the camera is essentially unusable for the next 20 seconds or so. Snap one more frame, and you have another 20 second wait. That's simply unusable. The 1D, on the other hand, manages snappy performance in RAW mode, thus earning my love and respect. I shoot 100% in RAW these days.

So for me, comparing the 1DMkII to the 10D just doesn't cut it. And when comparing the 1DMkII to the 1D, the pixel count improvement IS significant.

If my body allowed it, I would sell myself on the street to raise money to by the 1DMkII. But that's not possible, so I'll probably be using the 1D for another six months to a year while I raise the necessary cash.

I would say if you shoot models, seniors, concerts, sports, weddings, portraits, news, papparazzi -- any type of commercial photography, you NEED the 1DMkII. If you shoot cats and the odd neighborhood kid, and maybe products, you could probably be more than happy with the 10D. You're right -- Canon is marketing this as a professional camera, not as an amateur's snapshooter.

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

 

[unbound]

The math is correct... 25% more pixels do not give you an image that is 25% larger. Think of it this way (and I'm keeping the math simple)... a 2000 x 2000 pixel sensor is 4MP, and gives you an image that will print at 1x size. Now if we more than double the pixel count, to 9 MP, you have a sensor that is less than 3000 x 3000, which would result in an image 1.5x size.

So if going from 4MP to 9MP gives only 1.5x the print size, going from 6MP to 8MP is really more like 1.15x an increase. Not much at all... and (besides pixel size), as sensor counts increase, the difference between sizes becomes less and less significant in terms of print size.

 

[David Martin]

Cheers!

As for the cost difference to a 10D, I reckon I could 'struggle along' with 1D2 indefinitely, and with a rating of 200,000 shots I would be able to.

The 10D is rated at around 75,000 shots I believe, so on a strict cost per shot basis most of the 1D2 is paid for anyway, and all the rest of the benefits are more or less free (OK, OK, so I am fiddling the figures a little, not taking into account just replacing the shutter or whatever instead of the whole camera, but I reckon I could see myself still happily using the 1D2 in five years time, but not the 10D)

Actually, my main reason for wanting (probably not being able to afford, but wanting!) the 1D2 is the AF - it would be wonderful to never have to worry again about whether I've got the shot!

I think all the pros should stick to the 10D, as with their wonderful skills they don't need the 1D2, and let amateurs like me have first pick at the 1D2, as with our crappy skills we really need it!(G)

BTW... I have been arguing that ETTL does NOT work for a long time,
and been the brunt of insults for my opinion on ETTL (lazy,
ignorant, impatient, etc) in these forums. It's good to be
vindicated by Canon by having them admit that 'traditional' ETTL is
less than optimal.

I think that Sharpness will be excellent, DR seems to be improved,
etc. It seems to be an excellent camera. But $3000 difference from
a 10D.... peopel should have a real good justification for the
expense, as in "I need this camera instead of the 10D because..."

Edward

Let's look at what it is replacing - the 1D.
Now the ID was a very fine camera (sitll is!) but it was
fundamentally very orientated to shooting sports, as for things
like crops or landscapes the 4MP was a little limiting, as was the
weak AA filter for weddings etc.
So the relevant increase in resolution is not from 6MP, but from
4MP to 8MP.
The price is even coming in at less than the f1D started out at.
This, coupled with better flash performance (and about time, some
will say!) , makes this camera suitable for a whole host of
applications that the 1D was less than ideal for, perhaps
pre-eminently wedding photography.
So you have a magnificent general purpose camera, which is also the
cheapest price-point at which you can buy pro-class AF and a
weather sealed body.
You get this for around the same price as you would have paid for a
D30 or whatever not so long ago.
When the specs were first announced, I was a little doubtful as I
thought to increase the MP to 8 they might have sacrificed
high-ISO performance.
Instead they have increased DR.
There has also been some talk about lack of sharpness.
We have now seen a couple of sharp shots. That is all you need to
see to know that the camera itself must be sharp, and that any soft
images are due to the lens, the photographer, poor post-processing
or whatever, as the sharpness ain't gonna suddenly go away.
So let's put it this way:
What's not to like?

--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[David Martin]

SNIP
If my body allowed it, I would sell myself on the street to raise
money to by the 1DMkII. But that's not possible, so I'll probably
be using the 1D for another six months to a year while I raise the
necessary cash.
SNIP
Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

Let's not get negative!
Sure it's possible!
Just give yourself 5-10 years to raise the money on the streets!(G)
--
Regards,
DaveMart
Please see profile for equipment

 

[unbound]

.... the camera will last 1/3 the calendar time as a 10D at 3fps (said with tounge planted firmly in cheek).

You make a good case for the MKII... hopefully others see my point of view also about being able to justify the price.

Remember when only a crazy person paid $1500 for a camera body... the good old days of film... now we look at $4500 and say "hmm, good price".

Cheers!
As for the cost difference to a 10D, I reckon I could 'struggle
along' with 1D2 indefinitely, and with a rating of 200,000 shots I
would be able to.
The 10D is rated at around 75,000 shots I believe, so on a strict
cost per shot basis most of the 1D2 is paid for anyway, and all the
rest of the benefits are more or less free (OK, OK, so I am
fiddling the figures a little, not taking into account just
replacing the shutter or whatever instead of the whole camera, but
I reckon I could see myself still happily using the 1D2 in five
years time, but not the 10D)
Actually, my main reason for wanting (probably not being able to
afford, but wanting!) the 1D2 is the AF - it would be wonderful to
never have to worry again about whether I've got the shot!
I think all the pros should stick to the 10D, as with their
wonderful skills they don't need the 1D2, and let amateurs like me
have first pick at the 1D2, as with our crappy skills we really
need it!(G)

 

[MCR216126]

Considering you probably work for Nikon or another competitor of Canon, it's almost funny to watch this thread. If you bought a 45,000 lexus and I came over to your house the next day and badmouthed it, talking about what a worthless investment and making you feel bad about your purchase how would you feel?

Keep in mind the rules don't change...... $4,500 is not a tremendous amount of money for someone with a true passion for photography, and/or a professional. But..... for someone like me that is not a professional, and has worked hard to pay for such an item knowing I won't earn back my money on it from doing shoots..... your comments are almost offensive. If you don't want to purchase the camera so be it, but don't walk around attempting to make others second guess their purchase from hard earned work. Easy stuff, it's just not polite.

Matt
http://www.supremepix.com

 

[unbound]

Notice that I have not badmouthed Canon at all... just questioned how many people are buying the camera for the right reasons, and how many would actually be better served by getting a 'lesser' body and spending the money on other stuff such as great lenses.

Or are the new 'politically correct' rules now such that a civilized discussion about the merits of equipment are out of bounds in these forums if it might make someone feel bad about their choices. Actually, given the responses of others in this thread... you probably should be even more confident that you made the right choice for you, since many good reasons for buying the MKII have been presented.

Considering you probably work for Nikon or another competitor of
Canon, it's almost funny to watch this thread. If you bought a
45,000 lexus and I came over to your house the next day and
badmouthed it, talking about what a worthless investment and making
you feel bad about your purchase how would you feel?

Keep in mind the rules don't change...... $4,500 is not a
tremendous amount of money for someone with a true passion for
photography, and/or a professional. But..... for someone like me
that is not a professional, and has worked hard to pay for such an
item knowing I won't earn back my money on it from doing
shoots..... your comments are almost offensive. If you don't want
to purchase the camera so be it, but don't walk around attempting
to make others second guess their purchase from hard earned work.
Easy stuff, it's just not polite.

Matt
http://www.supremepix.com

 

[LMC54]

There are other things to consider when purchasing a camera.

Body construction, weather proofing, quality of build, how does it feel in ones hands, and how are the controls, I'm sure there are many other points to consider. What I like about the mark II is the pixel count and the speed. For wildlife the speed can come in handy and it is nice to know I have a lot of horsepower under the hood even if I don't need it all the time. I also lilke the high shutter speeds, that comes in handy for me. I already own the 1D and I've enjoyed using it very much. So I won't hesitate to purchase the mark II. Also its nice to have equipment your proud to use. Makes you shoot more photos. I don't know why they think the 1D is made for journalism and sports ... ooooh what a waste of a great camera for such an artless job. All they need is a sony rofl.
Larry Carter

After reading about (and handling a couple of weeks ago) the
1DMkII, I'm still trying to figure out what all the excitement is
all about.

I guess that if you are a professional sports photographer, someone
that makes a living at it, this is really a good tool... but if you
are at all outside that category, why do you need the camera?

Just a couple of things to consider:

a) Pixel count: 8MP. In terms of linear size, that is only an
increase of about 15% in the final print over a 6MP camera. A print
with a 10 inch side goes to 11.5 inches... not a huge increase.

b) Cost: 3x the price of a 10D

Frankly, it seems to me that the major selling point of the 1DMkII
is the frame rate, but how many people really need that kind of
performance?

The noise rating should be similar to a 10D (more pixels in a
larger area = roughly the same size pixels), so there should be
little improvement there.

So does ETTL-2 and more focus points actually justify the extra
$3000 expense if you don't need the frame rate, just so you can
(theoretically) print just a little bit bigger?

--
http://www.shutterfreaks2.com

 

[Ger Bee]

I did use it, and I was 'suitably impressed' by the shutter
fluttering along at 8 fps. But then I started thinking about it.

BTW... I'll post where a topic belongs... and the topic here is the
MkII and it's attributes... so take your 'go somewhere else
attitude' and shutup. Your whole attitude sucks. Enough said.

..... which is why I thought it belonged in the 10D forum where you’d get or expect to get more sympathy.

I use the 1D at 8FPS all the time, I don’t need it but it is just so much fun to shoot like that. Pop the camera, bam! 3frames, they smile, bam! Three more frames ~ usually shot in the bag, easy.

I find it terrific for the eyes closed syndrome, my chances of having one frame will all eyes open is a very high probability, when I was trying one shot or the 10D I found that people had time to recover between shots and blink again from the pre-flash.

I always jump to conclusions when people mention the money, as professionals the money is not necessarily the obstacle, getting good gear to do the job is more important. Spending big money on gear that does not work is frustrating and potentially damaging in client relationships and future business ventures and I’d have accepted your post if so concerned, but you did not advance any that warranted serious consideration IMO, for either the 1D forum or the expected professional applications of its usage in relation to the MKII.