Check out this sample video shot with the new Canon 5D MKII that will be hitting the shelves soon! This was done with a full-frame 21.1 MP still camera that happens to do short HD video clips as well.

Vincent Laforet's Reverie

Whaddaya think?

It can be yours for $2700, without lenses!

WOW! Only $2700! Lwt me get down to the Best Buy now!

Wait...reality check...

It looks like it will be the King of The Hill for a while. That thing is awsome. I love Canon cameras.

Ya, $2700 for a camera is slightly insane

quote:

Ya, $2700 for a camera is slightly insane

Right! But, if you make $$$ with a camera, its worth it for this one...

Ya, I'd love to win one of those

I wonder what they are going to do next with digital cameras - there's pretty much no room for improvement left - does anybody need more megapixels??

Picked the right city to do this (NYC) and that moby track is cool.

well we want one but i guess wait 2 years then get it in walmart for 99.00

the 5D MKII is cool
but a bit too much for daily use
but the best news is the MK I is much more cheaper now~!!

I agree Henry, I just picked up a 5D MKI!!!

21 MP is getting to the edge of ridiculous. It's almost to the point where the camera's sensor can resolve more detail than what many lenses are capable of.

Vincent Laforet had close to $30K in lenses at his disposal. It must be nice to have access to that collection, plus a helicopter.

Nonetheless, for a still camera to make HD video of that quality is quite amazing to me. Much of that video was shot in dark conditions, too.

I think that for a "working pro" this camera will have tremendous value. Especially for guys who shoot weddings for a living.

No wonder they are selling HD's over a terrabyte in size now.

quote:

Originally posted by vladi123456:
Ya, $2700 for a camera is slightly insane

But $1000 for a hunk of plastic with speakers isn't?

quote:

Originally posted by MasterBlaster84:


But $1000 for a hunk of plastic with speakers isn't?

HAHAHAHAHA!+
MASTERBLASTER!
You managed to get to change this thread from "OFF-" to "ON TOPIC" .......

quote:

It can be yours for $2700, without lenses!

what about this used Hasselblad (without lenses)JT?
...does she work better?

quote:

Originally posted by MasterBlaster84:

But $1000 for a hunk of plastic with speakers isn't?

I dont think 21 MP is better than Hasselblad yet.

In the photo-film world the lens was always the weak link.

Added note:
They should put megapixal rating on film too, was not an issue before.

Usually the "video" on these cameras are not that good. Choppy frame rate bad sound.

Hi Jens,

That store is very, very proud of their items! I've been there in person and they are very expensive!

Hasselblad is great, but in this era images from the H-blad would require the added step of drum scanning for the most use of the film resolution. Unless you can spend the $25,000 or so to get the 33MP Leaf digital back for it.

There are several 16MP backs for Hasselblad out there, looks like they start at around $2K, 22MB backs go from $4K~$8K! And didn't they release a 39MP digital Hassy that sells for $19~$20K last year?

So, as great as H-blad is, it should be for what it costs. But it's too big as well. For what I shoot, I'd take the 5D mkII over a digital H-blad anyday. I'm more oportunistic vs. intentionally artistic in my shooting and the H-blad is much more of a tripod/studio shooter.

Oh, and Transwave, I'm guessing you didn't watch the reverie video? Incredible image quality. Its nothing like the little crap P&S cameras of the world.

I have a Nikon D40 - which is entry level. And I view my pics on a 52 inch television - I honestly do not understand why people need 10 or 15 or 20 megapixel cameras. Mine is only 6 - and I do 200% crops, and the quality is still pretty amazing - especially when compared with my Panasonic extra zoom camera - which, in turn, is way better than most P&S cameras.
The only reason to get that new Canon is to buy a new toy to play with - and despite everything I just said - I would LOVE to get my hands on one of those

I have a ixus70

When you work with a camera i.e. jounalsim, sports photography,etc image quality is king. The more room to 'play' on an image simply enhances the possibilities. Sports images especaially, when using a high powered lens i.e. 300-500 & need to create asmuch detail as possible, then a high MP camera has the edge as it simply captures more data.

These cameras aren't for you & I, these are designed as photographer's tools, hence the price. Although the market for these things is small the manufacturers know that there is a need.

I have a 12MP Nikon & when using RAW i.e. not JPEG you can see how quickly the image loses quality.

I hear you vladi. But even the best TVs out there pretty much max out at 1920x1080 resolution. So, even a decent P&S camera will look impressive on a big screen when zoomed to 200%.

I recently had an opportunity to print some of my images for a Burning Man exhibit where the max print size available to me was 60" x 48." Unfortunately, I could not take advantage of printing to that size because my 8MP files did not provide enough resolution. The ideal viewing distance at this exhibit was 2 meters, but viewers could walk right up to the image as well. The biggest my images could be printed and still look acceptably good was 32"x40".

With a 21.1MP camera, that would not have been an issue.

At that same exhibit, there was another photographer who had been shooting with the Canon 1Ds MKIII, which has something like 26 MP and costs around $8K! At least one or two of his images were 60" x 48" in size and were sharp as a tack, even viewed very close.

So, while I'm not a full-time professional photographer, all of my gear has paid for itself (and then some). There are many other people who actually earn money with photograpy full time.

I assure you, as a hard-core photographer, you can never seem to have too much resolution. The more the merrier.

But, as a snap-shooter, even 4MP is plenty for most imagaes. Especially if you don't really care about ever making any prints over 11x14 or having your work published.

So, to me, at $2700, that camera is actually starting to look like a bargain. Especially when it is capable of making such good videos as a bonus and compared to the price of the Hasselblads.

As to the financial and Megapixel limit for each person, I guess it all depends on what you end up doing with the output.

JT, I wish I could make a little extra income with photography - I really enjoy it. I'm going to my friend's wedding this Saturday, and there I'll see how good my skills are for that types of events. But that would be awesome if I could earn a little doing that - and spend that on new awesome cameras such is this new Canon.
I also like Nikon D90 - it's more in my price range - I could probably afford it - if I sell D40 and my kidney

quote:

I also like Nikon D90 - it's more in my price range - I could probably afford it - if I sell D40 and my kidney

Keep the Kidney! From what I read here about your drinking habits, you will surely need it!!!!

You might use a digital camera to make video.
But the making of good video is another ball game, and its different than photography.

Ok here's the scoop on them pixels from looking around the web.

12MP for 35mm film
144MP for 110mm film

BUT BUT !!!

For digital camera pixels you need to divide by 3.
Its the total number of pixels but you need to use three digital camera pixels to make one photo pixel.
RED GREEN BLUE.
So the average 7.1MP digital camera actually has 2.3MP for the picture.
Digital camera pixels are not the actual number of photo pixels.

Ya, I think I've read it somewhere as well - about dividing the number of pixels by three. Still, from what I understand, the main problem with these new top of the line cameras is that there are not many lenses that can match the sensor - and those lenses may cost more than the camera itself

To my knowledge, its only the Fuji SLR cameras that isolate RGB into separate color sensitive pixels as you describe. And those cameras are noted for their accurate color rendition.

Right now I actually own three D-SLRs. A Canon 5D 12MP, a three year old 8MP 20D and a 6MP Konical Minolta 7D (which goes on ebay soon, along with my Minolta lenses). I will remain invested in the Canon EOS system, which works very well for me.

I've pretty much stopped shooting medium format or 35mm slides. Resolution aside, there are just too many workflow benefits to shooting digitally.

That being said, I do still keep a really old Kiev medium format and Canon EOS RT around for shooting the occasional roll of film. It will never go away for me completely. That Kiev shoots remarkably sharp images and was dirt cheap.

I will eventually own one of those 5D mkIIs. But that is probably 2 or 3 years down the road.

I did a little research earlier today, and turns out - there are quite a few cameras in that price range - namely - Sony a900 and Nikon D700.
By the way - JT - have you heard of the new Panasonic G1? That seems to be an interesting development - although not even close to the cameras we're discussing here

Vladi, check out www.dpreview.com

Its an awesome camera research site.

The Sony A900 really interests me too... but I have shot with the Minolta 7D (Sony bought Minolta camera division and the A900 is the evoloution of the 7D I have) and I just like the canon's better. They are more intuitive to me and I have great Canon glass already.

I would like to seek out a store locally that has the A-900 and handle it and possibly shoot some sample pics with it to see how they look on screen. It has an impressive set of specs, too.

I haven't heard of that panasonic. Will look into that one.

Ya, I read dpreview on a regular basis - once or twice a week - very good site!
The G1 was just released a few days ago at Photokina - first of the Micro Four Thirds standard - looks pretty promissing. It's also a first DSLR with electronic viewfinder - and they already have a review up on dpreview!

LOL, I was just checking it out...

Looks quite promising!