Canon 5D mk2:

- 21 megapixels, NOT the same sensor as the 1Ds mk3. ISO 100-6400, boost to 50 and 25600. (I bet it schools the D3 by a stop or so!)

- 3.9 FPS. (Boooo! Go D300 + D700 = 8 FPS w/grip!!)

- 9 AF points. (Allegedly better than the other 9-point AF systems, but still it ain't a 45 point pro system, and it isn't enlarged to cover more of the viewfinder like crop sensors are. Boo.)

- 1080p HDTV. (WOW. NICE!)

- No pop up flash. (Meh. I'd be tempted to say that I'm happier with a pop-up flash than HD video...)

- No pro-series weather sealing. (Not an issue for most studio / portrait / wedding shooters, but I'd rather have a fully sealed camera considering my personal outdoorsy habits...)

- 3" LCD high res. (Yay, finally...)

...And that's about it, folks. We saw this coming a mile away, pretty much. I'm sticking with Nikon, but at least now Canon shooting 5D owners don't have to switch to Nikon too!

Oh and Canon announced a new 24mm f/1.4 that SOUNDS incredibly sharp, and a G10 that seems pretty rad too. Not more read than micro 4/3, but still a sweet little camera...

=Matt=

[EDIT]

They put up the preview today. Here's some more points:

- IR port for use with those cheap little IR remotes, in addition to the already compatible more high-end remotes... Very nice touch.

- The camera has a built in mic and a built in speaker for the video recording / playback, AND it has a mic-in jack! WOW!!! This is least expected from Canon, considering they have the hugest business in video recording gear already. Awesome job, Canon...

- UPDATE: They have some weird, cryptic spec listed for water resistance: "10mm rain in 3 minutes". Whatever that means, but I doubt it's as well-sealed as a 1-series...

- AUTO-ISO: CRIPPLED to 100-3200 range. Canon never ceases to amaze me by making software decisions FOR photographers instead of letting them decide for themselves. Seriously, what if I'm just taking casual goof-off photos and ISO 12800 is totally acceptable? I don't get to access 6400+ in auto-ISO just because YOU don't think it's good enough? Give me a break, Canon.

- BTW, the price is $2699. THAT is nice. Considering THAT price, it is definitely worth it despite it's drawbacks, if you shoot certain things that most 5D mk1 shooters do.

- NO EF-S lens compatibility, (never will be) and no "high-speed crop" mode like Nikon. Boo.

- HOWEVER, YES, Canon did solve ONE of the major problems I've always had with high-res DSLR's: the 5D mk2 now allows RAW capture in ALL SIZES, 21 mp, 10 mp, and 5.2 mp. God bless you, Canon, I can only hope that the next generation of Nikon cameras will adopt this feature!!!

- They finally adopted something similar to Nikon's high-tech battery monitor system. Glad to see that SOME features trickle down from the pro series!

- Canon has another wifi vertical grip for the 5D mk2 (like the 40D has) although it obviously needs to use the grip for the wifi hardware, and therefore only holds one battery, for a total of two. No 1-series batteries, no boosted frame rate. Hmm, which do you want more?

- UPDATE: Here's a view of the viewfinder:

- Same focus point spread as the 5D, which is similarly limited just like the Nikon FX bodies and the Canon 1-series FF bodies.

...I'm having a hard time determining whether or not the off-center focus points are cross-type like in the 40D / 50D, which almost assures that the 5D mk2 retains the weak, NON-cross-type AF points off-center. (The 40D and 50D specs explicitly list that all focus points are cross-type for f/5.6 or faster lenses.) This is of course in my opinion the worst drawback of the 5D mk2. As some of the best professionals in the industry have the guts to admit, the 5D autofocus bites except for the center focus point. I suppose with 21 megapixels you can just compose your subject in the center of the frame every time and just crop hahaha, but that would often kill your "FF DOF + FOV advantage" to well below what a crop sensor would offer.

...For me, and as some of my commenters have already mentioned, this is almost the opposite of the camera I wanted from Canon. To be sure, if I'm a studio photographer, or a landscape photographer, the 5D mk2 is AMAZINGLY AWESOME, considering the sheer resolution and size / weight. Since I DO like landscape photography, I'd be very tempted to buy a 5D mk2 + 17-40 L for landscape work, if I were rich.

...Having said that, I'm not rich and in my day-to-day work, (wedding photojournalism) ...I need low-light performance, (check, on both the 5D mk2 and D700) ...I need the absolute best AF performance, (no dice on the 5D mk2, check on the D700) ...I need spot metering on all my focus points, (no dice on the 5D mk2, check on the D700) ...and I need a 5-6 FPS frame rate. (no dice on the 5D mk2, check on the D700) ...I also really prefer full viewfinder focus point spread, which NO full-frame camera offers yet, which is one reason (other than price LOL) that I have not yet added FX to my bag.

So in the end, I'm definitely sticking with Nikon. I love the 5D mk2 for it's low-res RAW capture, that would be awesome for children's theater, but neither can I afford to simply use the center focus point 100% of the time because the satellite focus points aren't cross type and don't have spot metering...

My verdict? Canon REALLY should have just stuck with 12-15 megapixels like Nikon did, and gone for more important feature additions like pro-series autofocus and full spot metering. Not to mention the fact that almost ALL high-end cameras now have 6+ FPS, and ALL the Nikon's can hit 8 FPS with the grip. Once again, Canon shoots themselves in at least the toes.

I believe that Canon will still sell tons of 5D mk2's and the camera will take beautiful pictures, however many photographers out there just got tipped in the direction of the D700.

Hopefully the D800 will solve some of the problems remaining with Nikon FX, THEN I can consider it in ~5 years... (Unless the D700 drops below $2000 before then, in which case I'd consider that in 1-2 years...)

Take care, again,
=Matt=

Did you hear that? Someone just broke the f/1.0 barrier. (Again)

Leica just made a 50mm f/0.95. Only available for their M-class rangefinder (manual focus) cameras, however.

Being (apparently) the only ASPHERICAL lens to break the f/1.0 barrier, unlike Canon's old 50 f/0.95, or the Rodenstock f/0.75...

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091505leica_50mm_f0_95.asp

Don't worry, it's only $11,000!

Leica also announced a new version of the M8, and two new f/1.4 wide angle lenses, a 21mm and 24mm... Too bad their M8 (old and new) aren't full-frame, cause those wide angle lenses would be AWESOME!!!

=Matt=

Not much unlike the Canon 50mm f/1.4's test, the Nikon 50 1.4 just bombed DPReview's high-tech lens test. Wide open, the entire frame is "orange-ish" and the corners might even be red. (Green / blue being the best, and red being the absolute worst)

Both lenses are seriously outclassed by the new Sigma 50 1.4 at f/1.4.

Nikon:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon_50_1p4_n15/page4.asp

Canon:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/canon_50_1p4_c16/page4.asp

Sigma:
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sigma_50_1p4_c16/page4.asp

Wide open, the Nikon and Canon are neck and neck, with the Canon being a little sharper in the center. Stopped down to f/2, the Sigma is still in the lead by far (the entire frame is "green" by f/2) however the Nikon takes a lead over the Canon...

NONE of the lenses perform too well on full-frame, sadly. Wide open, the dead-center of the Canon may be sharpest. (But it is a TINY circle in the center!) But stopped down to f/2, the Sigma again takes the lead, The Nikon and Canon barely make it to a "very sharp" center, and ALL have pretty bad corners.

I'll wait until Photokina when Nikon is alleged to release some new f/1.4 lenses, and then decide what to buy...

One thing is for sure, looking at the corner performance of ALL these lenses on full-frame, I'm very inclined to stick with DX. Maybe a new Nikon, or the Current Canon 50 1.2 L, can do better on full-frame?

=Matt=

It looks like the first DSLR to be announced "for" photokina, (other than the Canon 50D and Nikon D90) ...is the Sony A900. The much anticipated 24 megapixel full-frame sensor is here finally!

Some notes:

1.) Sony ONLY says this camera can "meet the demdands of serious enthusiasts!" Wow, they're STILL not openly going for Canon / Nikon's jugular? Interesting. I'd say they're a consideration for even the most demanding pros, but we'll see...

2.) In-camera stabilization for a full-frame sensor: HERE, they are definitely attacking Canon Nikon head on, mentioning specifically how this system allows a 2.5-4 stop shutter speed advantage, "especially for wide angle and fast-aperture lenses" (where obviously Canon and Nikon have ZERO IS / VR lenses...)

3.) Viewfinder: 100% coverage and 74% magnification. Holy cow, if I'm not mistaken that is bigger than ANY other full-frame DSLR in history.

4.) Dual- processor allows for 5 FPS, even at 24 megapixels RAW.

5.) Has a "DX crop mode" like Nikon FX bodies. Ouch, Canon?

6.) ISO 100-3200, with 6400 as HI.

7.) AF system is 19 point, but only 9 points accessible. (arranged much like Canon's 5D) Definitely NOT more spread out around the viewfinder than current full-frame DSLR's, which is my one complaint about full-frame technology so far.

8.) Dual cards with one CF slot, but the 2nd is for MSDuo, a nearly useless memory card type.

9.) Pretty decent control layout, WB and ISO are on their own buttons (unlike Canon) and on the right side of the camera. (unlike Nikon) Also the vertical grip is "dropped" down to a more comfortable level, which LOOKS really weird but actually makes the camera handle incredibly well I would imagine... It also has weather sealing, of course.

10.) Here's the kicker. Are you ready? $2999. Yep, the busted this out at under $3K. Wowzer. Canon and Nikon are going to hurt a little. Canon's 21 megapixel 1Ds mk3 is still $7800, and Nikon's 24 megapixel "equivalent" is not yet here but will undoubtedly cost more than $5000. So it looks like Sony really IS the advanced amateur's only choice for high-resolution... Now only time will tell if the image quality, autofocus performance, and lens arsenal are up to the task of fully professional photography...

Speaking of lenses, Sony also announced a Zeiss 16-35 f/2.8, sure to make Canon and Nikon shooters alike very jealous, and a 70-400 f/4-5.6 super-zoom, sure to make Nikon 80-400 users jealous...

Gotta get back to work!

=Matt=

Got to snap a few test images with the Nikon D700 today after I returned rental gear from this weekend.

The D700 is really nice, it has a few extra features that I like above the D300, and a few, well, I'll call them differences, that I don't like...

Viewfinder- Circular viewfinder eyepiece, and an awesome, definitely bigger than the D300 viewfinder! (D300 is 0.95x and the D700 is 0.72x though, so it's still close) ...And a locking diopter adjustment that works similarly to analog watches. You pull it out a click, adjust it, then push it back in. NICE touch, Nikon! Makes the dang thing feel all the more like a Rolex!

Metering dial a la D300 etc- I've never liked where the metering mode dial is on the flagship cameras, and I hope they STOP putting it on the side of the viewfinder. It's SO much better where it is on the D700 / D300- right where I can flip it with my thumb without even taking my eye away from the viewfinder. I REALLY use all three metering modes like crazy, you have no idea!

The return of individual RGB highlight warnings- They had this on the D200, took it away on the D300, and brought it back on the D700. I cannot tell you how many times I have blown the red channel and not known until later... (I shoot sunsets and people, sometimes both at once haha...)

The fully professional autofocus- debates rage about this; whether or not the D300 actually has a less-powerful AF system than the D3, and now the D700. All I can say is, the D300 and all other non-flagship cameras I've ever tested are really spotty at best when you pass f/2.8 and head towards f/1.4. I mean if you're on a tripod shooting a stationary object you'd have no problem locking perfect focus on any of the D300's focus points, but it's the hand-holding in low light, the continuous focus, etc. that really kills your accuracy. Every 85mm f/1.4 that I have ever rented has been nothing but trouble on both my D200 and D300, when shooting hand-held in dim light wide open, continuous OR single focus. On the other hand however, the two BORROWED 85 1.4 and 1.8 that I've tried, have performed pretty flawlessly. So maybe I just need to stop putting up with battered rental lenses and BUY one for myself. But my point was, I am NOT satisfied with the AF performance of any camera I've owned when shooting in the pitch dark, and I am indeed wondering how much better a D3 might perform. I'll at least wait to see how the SWM / HSM f/1.4 lenses do for focus accuracy, when they get here. My Sigma 50-150 focuses like a laser beam in ANY light, seriously!

OKAY, now the things I don't like:

The separate "OK" button in the center of the joypad- Meh, not a fan.... I Don't like this setup, I really got used to simply pressing the center of the joypad and it has worked great for me. Now that there is a button inside a button, it just feels slower to navigate because you have to be a little careful. But I'm sure a month with the camera and it'd be second nature, so I wont' complain.

(Canon) amateur-style memory card door- Booo! I don't like this! I like Nikon's older style lever-action card door release. Obviously the D3's card door latch is the most superior, on par with Canon's 1D-series style, and I guess that is just going to be one of the things that separates the $5000 pro body from the $3000 semi-pro body. Like the lack of dual-card slots in the D700 as well.

QUASI VERDICT- You know, never play with professional gear if you can't afford to sate the resulting appetite for such pro gear. Now I not only want a D700, I also want a D3! Gah I don't have $8000 to spend on camera bodies though! I mean, who does? Oh wait, Mike Colon and Becker do, but you get my point.

So yeah. The D700 is nice, but I want it for reasons other than the FX sensor. Or at least, the FX sensor isn't the only reason I want it. I shot a handful of ISO 3200 / 6400 test shots which I will compare to my D300, but I already know that the D300 is about 1.5-2 stops below as far as that is concerned. D700 looked oh-so-clean even at 3200, and 6400 could make a pretty decent print I'm sure. No loss of saturation, DR or detail, just a bit of noise. And I like the look of the noise anyway...

But like I said- I guess I wish I had a D700 / D3. What I REALLY wish is that I could get a D700 with dual card slots, and a D300 with the rest of the D700 features, and FLAGSHIP PERFORMANCE AUTOFOCUS... Because to be honest, I really do like the DX crop for some things. Having 12 megapixels at 1.5x is a thing of beauty for telephoto work, trust me. (Of course the D3X, or whatever the next 24 megapixel flagship is going to be, might change the game, with a ~11 megapixel DX crop mode!)

Aight I've got way too much work to do to be blogging this trivial stuff. Bye!

=Matt=

It doesn't get any more official than this! The 5D mk2 will be announced within a month's time... Straight from Canon:

http://www.canon.com/moon/en/index.html

http://www.canon.co.uk/

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08090501somethingcanon.asp

Smooth move, Canon. Grab that yoke and PULL BABY, cuz the past few days have been a serious PR nose-dive...

I think I hear the fat lady singing, yall... Nikon better grab ahold of something cause this could rock!

Alright I'm off to do a million things and then shoot a wedding rehearsal,

=Matt=

Here's a thought: Last year Canon announced both the 40D (prosumer) and the 1Ds mk3 (pro flagship) on the same exact day, August 20th. Historically, August 20-30 has been the time for Canon to announce cameras. (The 5D was announced on Aug. 22nd back in 2005...)

This doesn't bode well for those who are HOPING that Canon comes out with the 5D mk2 some time within the next few weeks. Canon did fine introducing the 40D alongside the 1Ds mk3, so why not introduce the 5D mk2 along side the 50D? Maybe they didn't want to deal with a 5D / 50D name confusion? I doubt it, judging by the smashing success of Nikon's D3 and D300 one-day announcement.

HOWEVER, back in 2004 Canon DID announce the 20D in August and then the 1Ds mk2 about a month later in September, so there IS hope!!!

Here's another thought: The Canon 5D is LITERALLY the absolute oldest camera in Canon's ENTIRE lineup of digital cameras. In fact, the next-youngest camera OVER a year younger, and it's a P&S camera. All other camera models have been discontinued.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/

All in all, it's still a wash with both Canon and Nikon. Will the 50D out-perform the D300 and do it at a lower price? Gosh it sure looks like that could be the case. If they can cram a clean ISO 3200 out of 15 megapixels on a cropped sensor, well then I might just buy one.

But then there's full-frame. If the 50D is so good, what on earth could the 5D mk2 be cooking up? 21 megapixels with ISO 25600 to match the D3? And at what price? I'm still a crop sensor guy because I can get a fully professional DX body for well under $2000, (used D300's are dropping below $1500, by the way, WOW!!!) ...BUT, if Canon's 5D mk2 were to cost $2000-$2500, well how could you NOT buy one? (Although the D700 is starting to show up for as low as $2600, I think!)

So like I said, it's a Nikon and Canon free-for-all right now. I'm definitely going to sit tight, hold onto the gear I own, and see what the next ~12 months bring...

=Matt=

The Nikon D90 is also here, hot on the heels of the Canon 50D.

12 megapixels. (D300 sensor)

4.5 FPS.

ISO 200-3200 (D300 sensor, so ISO 100-6400 via boost)

3" high-res LCD.

Video!

Video!

VIDEO!

Okay, what the heck am I going to do with video capabilities on a DSLR? I dunno. I didn't have a clue what to do with live view either, but I found a use for it eventually. (setting kelvin WB!)

Anyway, a pretty sweet camera. Still has the 11-point AF from the D80 / D200, a system which I've never really enjoyed, but it's still WAY better than the 5-point systems of yester-year, and the center AF point is comparable to equally priced Canons.

Having the D300 sensor in a small, compact body is going to be the key selling point. The D300 sensor, being CMOS instead of CCD, goes wayyyy easier on batteries. And for some reason, the noise technology is better for CMOS, even though CCD's are inherently less noisy...

Anyway, nothing TOO exciting, and I've got a lot of work to do, so peace out.

We're still waiting for the Canon 5D mk2. Honestly Canon, what's up with that? 50D, but no 5D mk2? Laughable...

=Matt=

So, my laptop HD being compromised has brought a very serious problem to my attention: Even though I always keep multiple copies of all my images, and even though I regularly back up my other important data, what effect would a kaput macbook HD have on my actual work schedule? Chances are, I'd be seriously out of commission for quite some time if I were required to fire up my PC and try to recover emails etc. and "get back to work"...

So, I want to talk more about hard drives, and my concept for a fail-safe backup for both desktop and laptop machines. I don't know if I can get along with having a PC desktop and a Mac laptop, so I'll either be getting a Thinkpad W700 eventually, or I'll just get a refurb Mac Pro tower for "cheap" and do my own upgrades.

Either way, I like to be in charge of what hard drives I use, how they are backed up, and how quickly I can be back to work if a hard drive fails, with the least amount of data loss as possible...

What are my options? I've already outlined the standard procedure of having a faster HD for your OS and all your applications and then a more standard, higher-capacity HD (or two) for your data storage. But now I'm more interested in safety, backup etc.

In a desktop, the ultimate luxury would be to have an in-board, fully-bootable backup of the high-speed (OS) HD. (For those of you who are reading along and learning WITH me instead of giving advice, what I mean is this- I'd have two identical drives in the computer, with identical data on them, and if the main hard drive failed all of a sudden, the computer would just think oh, hmm that hard drive isn't responding, let's try this other one! And boom, just a few seconds after a catastrophic failure I am back in business with hardly a single piece of data missing!)

In a laptop, unless I get a Thinkpad I am limited to one hard drive. Backing up this hard drive, well, how to do it? Just use an external hard drive to periodically create a FULL backup? But then there is the potential to lose recent data such as emails, documents, etc. that may have been created since your last backup. I think.

I could stand to lose a days worth of emails or something, I suppose.

And, for the record, I think it is FAR more convenient to do all document work, emailing etc. from my laptop, since I can take the work with me anywhere and never have to say "oh gosh, that document / email is on my desktop, I can't get it for you right now, or I can't work on it right now... etc..."

So, I'd like to continue to use a laptop for most everything. The only real use I have for a desktop is high-powered imaging, and lots of monitor real estate and storage space with which to do so. I don't feel comfortable running around with more than a 120 / 160 gig laptop, just because the potential to NOT have your data backed up is too great. Or even if your original images are backed up, you could still lose a LOT of photoshop work, especially album design, in a crash. So that is very limiting, whereas a desktop hard drive can be 300 gigs for the OS and 500-750 gigs for the data, with room still for two more HD's to back those up.

Alright I've gotta get back to work, so I'll leave this hanging right here and get back to it later.

For now my main consideration is- I'm running out of storage space and it is time to get a larger capacity HD. Either external although I already have an external G-drive, or internal and I'll just swap it with the current HD in my G-drive inclosure. RAID 1 would be a nice thing, (google G-safe) and I know about Drobo but the last I heard it was still USB 2.0...

The prime candidate is currently a Seagate barracuda 500 gig, 32 mb / 7200 / SATA 3.0 etc. But they actually do NOT get good reviews on Newegg, not as good as the WD equivalent. Which is very odd and makes me hesitate to buy...

=Matt=

UPDATE 01:

Just purchased two Seagate Barracudas, a 250 gig (5400, 8, 1.5) laptop drive and a 500 gig. (7200, 16, 3.0) Installed the 500 gig in my PC tower no problem. Seagate software is cheapo, they want me to pay extra for the auto-backup capability. Meh. Oh and I guess the 137 gig limit on FAT 32 is not a problem anymore? (As a cross-platform user, I'm not a fan of NTFS...)

Next I am going to try and upgrade my mac HD by creating a disk image on an external HD, swapping the laptop hard drives, and then creating another disk image on the new laptop HD, ...and seeing if it works haha... I am so ghetto...

On another note, I still dislike Windows.

=Matt=

Wow. Canon just made quite possibly the ULTIMATE crop-sensor camera. They also just b*tch-slapped everyone who recently bought a 40D.

15 megapixels.

ISO 100-3200 (cleanly) with boost to 12800...

6.3 FPS.

3" VGA (high-res) LCD screen

Digic IV processor.

AF fine-tuning.

Full weather sealing. (Not sure yet, actually, probably not as good as 1D-series but better than the 40D...)

I dunno what to say, I'm torn, very torn. Like I said, this is the most absurd, un-necessary move Canon could possibly think of right now.

The 40D was an awesome camera, with more value than the D300 considering the price. (That's hard to explain. I think there is more value in the 40D, but at the same time the D300 is worth the extra money, if you can wrap your mind around that seeming contradiction.

Not only is the 40D awesome and not really in need of replacement, but the 5D REALLY DOES need a replacement. If you ask me, the days of excitement about cropped-sensor bodies is over. With the arrival of the $3000, fully professional D700, Nikon has REALLY put the pressure on the "low-end full-frame" market. With their two new FX f/2.8 pro zooms, they are really taking the market by storm. (We expect f/1.4 pro primes to roll out starting in a few weeks, too...)

If it's true that Canon has pushed back the 5D mk2 to 2009 all I can say is, what a bone-headed move. Completely backwards from what they SHOULD have done. The crowd would have gone WILD if a 5D mk2 were announced this summer. 16-18 megapixels, ISO 25600 equal or better to the D3 / D700, and bam, you have a show-stopper. Then do the 50D on schedule, next year. But instead, "the crowd" is half totally confused and half downright PISSED.

Okay, weirdness aside, let's take this at face value:

MAYBE, and we'll never know unless we infiltrate Canon Corporate and procure the numbers ourselves, ...just MAYBE the 40D was not selling AT ALL. Maybe Canon really DID need to redeem themselves. And MAYBE the 5D, and it's replacement, are NOT big cash cows for Canon, either. This would indeed give reason for making a 50D now and worrying about the 5D mk2 later. Maybe the 5D is still selling fine at $2200, regardless of the AF shortcomings. Maybe this IS a smart move, and Canon knows what they're doing.

The 50D, if it CAN pull off ISO 12800 as decently as the D300 has done ISO 6400, well, that is one hell of a camera. It really kinda makes you sit down and realize: Canon is still on top, and all Nikon can do is "catch up" every now and then. Assuming of course that it costs less than $2000. And also assuming that the 5D mk2 comes out and costs less than $3000.

But, just because it is a good business move doesn't mean it's downright mean to Canon's customers. Advanced amateurs who just bought the 40D (and I DO see tons of them around) are going to be upset, and pros who desperately need an upgrade to the 5D are getting pretty angry by now I think. (Or, they're spending $8000 on a 1Ds mk3, so again- Canon wins, customers lose. Ouch...)

At any rate, this is all pretty exciting! Both Canon and Nikon are making some pretty amazing tools, and for most the differences should only come down to what control layout you prefer...

Take care,
=Matt=