Update: Added some new images above via DPReview who have a very detailed write up of the new 5D on their site.
21-megapixel, full-frame, Digic 4, full HD video, 6400 ISO….Game over. The ridiculously anticipated Canon 5D MKII is now official and if this wasn’t worth the wait, I don’t know what is. Canon has hit each and every feature and performance threshold I was looking for in a new DSLR and then some. Expect it on store shelves by end of November with a sticker price of $2700 for the body or $3500 with the 24-105mm kit lens. Yes, that’s steep, but take a look at these features:
•14-bit conversion
•3.9FPS unlimited burst rate with JPEG using UDMA CF card, or 14 RAW (standard CF card is 78 JPEG, 13 RAW
•Four-channel readout that’s 2.2x faster than the 5D
•Lens peripheral illumination correction, like 50D, but better supposedly
•15-point auto-focus
•Creative auto mode, also like 50D
•Auto-lighting optimizer
•Three levels of noise reduction that kicks in above ISO800
•RAW, sRAW1 (10MP), sRAW2 (5MP)
•Three-inch, 920,000 dot-screen
•New and improved battery (incompatible with old one) that delivers 850 shots or 1.5 hours of video
•150,000 cycle shutter
•Magnesium alloy body
•NO built-in flash BTW
Jumping from my $2000 D80 kit to this price threshold will be a bit of a stretch, but if this new 5D lives up to it’s performance claims, it will be well worth it. I know nothing can truly be future-proof, but com’on, 21MP? That’s more than enough to make this my workhorse camera for the foreseeable technological future. I love it when a new piece of kit comes out that is so far superior to it’s rivals that it makes the decision easy for you; the 5D seems like one of those things. After my long deliberation over which DSLR to upgrade to it’s nice to see a logical conclusion. I had toyed with the idea of moving to the D90 for the HD video alone, but it’s other specs were so similar to my D80 that it just didn’t seem worth the upgrade.
In my book, the 5D MKII beats Nikon’s recently announced D700 for two reasons: HD video (which is inexplicably absent from the D700) and price (it’s $300 less than it’s Nikon counterpart). I don’t own any pricey Nikon glass, both my lenses are decidedly sub-par, but even if I did, I’d have to believe I’d still give this thing more than a passing glance. How about all you other Nikon users? Would any of you who are invested in Nikon lenses still consider moving to Canon for a camera like this? Let us know
Via Gizmodo