5D Mark II Announced!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Deep]

I think we are getting close now to the situation we had when many of us used 35mm film - in disposable cameras or in F5 Nikons, 1V Canons and R8 Leicas.  We bought the body/lens combinations with the expectation that the difference in output quality had a lot to do with our ability and lens quality, bearing in mind we could put a really expensive film in a really cheap camera and still get good results.  

Within a given sensor size (and even across it to an extent) there is less and less to choose between cameras and it is the other features which will make the difference, such as ergonomics, build quality, frame rate, etc. etc.  I'm thinking that the 5D and 5DII will be a similar size, weight etc. and both will produce similar 8 x 12 prints to a 1D MkIII or D3 in most situations in which a good photographer will find himself.

I think, now, there is no real need to feel cheated because a new sensor has come out on a cheaper camera because pretty much all the sensors out there are good.  I say this because I use an Olympus E3, which has a sensor which is often mocked on internet fora by people who use bigger sensors, yet I regularly produce huge, detailed, rich prints which people go "ooh, ahh" over, even in less than ideal light.

Sensors will continue to improve, just as film did, but we're reaching the time when a good sensor is a given and other features are what we pay our money for.  Thank God!  Personally, I think much harder about my lenses already, just like in 35mm days.

Don.

[Ray]

I think we are getting close now to the situation we had when many of us used 35mm film - in disposable cameras or in F5 Nikons, 1V Canons and R8 Leicas.  We bought the body/lens combinations with the expectation that the difference in output quality had a lot to do with our ability and lens quality, bearing in mind we could put a really expensive film in a really cheap camera and still get good results. 

Within a given sensor size (and even across it to an extent) there is less and less to choose between cameras and it is the other features which will make the difference, such as ergonomics, build quality, frame rate, etc. etc.  I'm thinking that the 5D and 5DII will be a similar size, weight etc. and both will produce similar 8 x 12 prints to a 1D MkIII or D3 in most situations in which a good photographer will find himself.

I think, now, there is no real need to feel cheated because a new sensor has come out on a cheaper camera because pretty much all the sensors out there are good.  I say this because I use an Olympus E3, which has a sensor which is often mocked on internet fora by people who use bigger sensors, yet I regularly produce huge, detailed, rich prints which people go "ooh, ahh" over, even in less than ideal light.

Sensors will continue to improve, just as film did, but we're reaching the time when a good sensor is a given and other features are what we pay our money for.  Thank God!  Personally, I think much harder about my lenses already, just like in 35mm days.

Don.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222545\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't quite see it that way. My interest in Photography gained momentum before I bought my first digital camera. I was using a Minolta 35mm film camera, and later switched to a Canon film camera, and scanned the developed film with a Nikon scanner.

With the ability to examine at any degree of enlargement the results from any film type, it became apparent that there was a trade off between fine grained film with the potential for higher resolution, and coarse grained film with a higher ISO which allowed for faster shutter speeds.

Fine grained films were preferred by me, and at the time I bought my first DSLR, Royal Gold 25 was my favourite film. The major drawback was the difficulty in getting a sufficiently fast shutter speed with that film type, hence my interest in Canon's IS lenses which were the major attraction when I switched from Minolta to Canon.

A high pixel count sensor is roughly equivalent to a fine grained film which allows for push processing.

The differences in sensors of equal size and pixel count can be compared with the differences in various fine-grained film types with regard to push processing. Some produce better results when underexposed than others.

I know from experience that the 5D produces a slightly degraded image at ISO 1600, not only in terms of DR, but also in resolution. Comparisons I've seen so far between the A900 and 1Ds3 show that the A900 resolution is less than the 1Ds3 at ISO 1600. We don't know for sure if this will be the case in a production model A900 when a RAW image is processed in the latest version of Camera RAW, but it wouldn't surprise me if it were the case.

Comparisons in the final analysis should always be made between equal size images, not equal (native) pixel count images.

[Tony Beach]

I understand what you are trying to say, Tony, but it doesn't quite work out like that. I imagine that even professionals have trouble working out what they need. Do they really need that MFDB system or is it just to impress their clients? Will the increased cost of doing business pay off with more sales or higher prices?

For amateurs, needs don't come into it much. We're a consumer society. People buy what they want, what attracts them and what advertisers sometimes succeed in convincing them they need.[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=29322638]http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29322638[/url]

Let me quote the pertinent parts:

"I'd be perfectly happy to print "large" portraits from a 6mp camera (Fujifilm S5 Pro), but might not be fully satisfied with less than 50mp for landscapes."

> Also I can Not afford $5000 for a D3x or D4, but maybe something between $2500 - $3500...

"Then I have to ask: do you really think that you're going to print and sell something really large with something less capable than those that do that for a living use? Are you going to enter the Indianapolis 500 with a Mazda Miata? This is not to say you can't create a 24" print with a D300 (can't say about the D90 yet, see above). But I really have to say that if your aspirations are large, then, unfortunately, your budget is likely to need to reflect that.  Let me phrase that a different way (and I hope Nikon is reading this, because I'm about to be very blunt): if I had to make my living solely off my images right now--and remember this is the context of a landscape photorapher--I almost certainly wouldn't be using Nikon at this moment in time. However, I doubt that I'd be using a Canon or Sony, either. While I've been able to create some mammoth and impressive large images via stitching (156 images is my current record), you simply can't rely upon stitching for every situation."

At the end of the lengthy post he writes:

"Actually, I've long felt that 16-18mp FX is about the right answer (balance) for a DSLR-type camera. That's bigger than a desktop inkjet can print, with reasonable DR and noise. When you start going higher (21mp or now 24mp) it's a little bit like shooting at a higher ISO all the time (e.g., a 24mp DSLR is going to have noise and DR at ISO 100 is going to have noise and DR more akin to a 16mp DSLR shooting at ISO 200. At base ISOs this isn't always a big deal. But consider this: with f/2.8 glass (400mm VR) I was generally shooting at ISO 800 in Denali, especially towards the edges of the day."

- Thom Hogan

I would add that if the AA filter is stripped out of a well executed 18 MP FX DSLR, with proper technique the results will be superior to what the Canon 5DII is likely capable of accomplishing:  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29378457  There has been much discussion lately about noise and resolution and how Canon has accomplished some sort of breakthrough by putting weaker BFA filter on the 5DII, but this comes at a cost:  http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=29379192  What this suggests to me is that even if you took the AA filter out of the 5DII, its resolution is still compromised.

If people confined their buying habits to only what they need, there wouldn't be an economy to collapse.

Not meaning to go OT, but rampant profligacy (or unfettered consumerism) is what is leading the United States into a downward spiral of deficits:  government spending and future obligations running into the tens of trillions of dollars, personal debt exceeding savings, and a massive and growing trade deficit.  All those SUVs you allude to that were bought mostly as status symbols (sound familiar to what we are discussing here about megapixels?) have saddled this country with a fleet of gas-hogs that will be polluting the environment and consuming precious oil for years to come.  All this leads the United States to maintain a military larger than perhaps the next ten largest nations in the world, which makes us an empire not unlike Rome and that empire lasted centuries while we may see ours end in mere decades.

Coming back to the topic at hand, buying more megapixels just to be able to say you have more megapixels is going to end up costing you more than just the price of the camera.  You will need more RAM, probably a faster CPU, and more storage (bigger memory cards, hard drives, and more archival media).  To justify having those megapixels you will be making massive prints which will also cost dearly; otherwise you will just be throwing all those megapixels away.

You know, it won't be terribly long before revolutionary rather than evolutionary technological developments leave BFA DSLRs in the dust.  Then we will start this upgrade cycle all over again, and the economy will continue to churn out newer, better cameras and provide jobs to workers in poorer nations and profits to corporations in richer nations.  I like megapixels and I look forward to the future too, just like you do; but at some point I have to wonder when enough is enough.

The image quality of the 5D1 was so good that it's still as good as the new Nikon D700......??

Now where have I heard that sentiment expressed before... or something similar? Err! Could it be on this site?

Please, that's a Canon engineer speaking, do we really expect him to say the 5D is not as good as the D700?  What is missed (perhaps deliberately) in that statement is that in daylight the two cameras are probably indistinguishable, but the D3 and D700 have been optimized for unnatural lighting, and at that they excel like no other camera currently available:  http://www.bythom.com/nikond3review.htm

Quoting the part of that article pertinent to this discussion:

the D3 simply blows away any DSLR Nikon has previously produced.

The big surprise for me was my dimly lit basketball gym. To date, I've not found any DSLR that I'm 100% comfortable shooting at ISO 3200 in that gym (and you have to in order to get even a modestly usable shutter speed at f/2.. Well, not any more. The D3 does just fine in that gym"

It seems that Canon always strives to provide that compensatory technology to reduce, and perhaps even cancel any increase in total image noise. In the case of the 5D2, I get the impression these improvements include; improved transmissiveness of the color filters; reduced gap between the microlenses; improved amplifiers at each photosite; improved Digic processor.

You are more confident than the Canon engineer.  Note that "improved transmissiveness" has already been addressed above in this reply -- there is no free lunch, and the price will be reduced color resolution.

I'm very confident that any image from the 5D2 at ISO 3200 will have less noise than an image of the same scene under the same conditions from the 5D1 at ISO 3200, when the images are compared at the same size.

Then under those circumstances you could just shoot with a 5D and save money.

[dwdallam]

What a whining diatribe.

Firstly, I will bet you wont be able to pick a 5D from a 1DSMK3 file without looking at the EXIF data and secondly, as posted numerous other times, there are quite a lot of differences between the 5DMKII and the DSMK3. If you don't feel these differences are worth the cost to you - fair enough, but honestly, there is no need to go on whinging about it in post after post.

Either use your DSMK3 and be happy with it - or sell it and move on.

'Gets off soap box.'
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222518\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're just jealous because you don't have a 1DS3 to whine about

[Josh-H]

You're just jealous because you don't have a 1DS3 to whine about
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222574\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Actually I do, as well as a 5D and a G9 and a slew of other gear.

My 1DSMK3 is my far my most used camera.

[dwdallam]

I'm very confident that any image from the 5D2 at ISO 3200 will have less noise than an image of the same scene under the same conditions from the 5D1 at ISO 3200, when the images are compared at the same size.

If it doesn't, I'll eat my hat.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222523\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I'm very confident too because Canon already said it would. In fact, he said it would be better than the 1DS3, which is about equal in noise to the 5D1. So what were getting from Canon is a 21MP camera that produces BETTER image quality than its 1DS3 plus has less noise than the 1DS3, which means it will have less noise than the 5D.

And for those saying that "a little less noise at high ISO isn't that big of a deal" I would suppose you have never had the liberty to shoot almost noiseless images at ISO 1600, which I can do with the 1DS3 with a good exposure, much less at !SO12000+ which the Nikon D3 can do. It's quite liberating. I guess for me, after seeing examples of the D3s almost noiseless and sharp images at 12000+ ISO, which is a 2+ stop over 1600 made me literally "see the light" behind high ISO low noise capability. And to be sure, if you under expose a 1DS3 at ISO 1600, you just got a nice fat noisy image. ISO and low noise headroom like the D3 has is a very useful tool.

Likewise, if the 5D2 can come anywhere near the D3 in noise control vs ISO, that's gonna be a knockout punch in many ways, since it's 21MPs to boot.

It will be interesting to see comparisons between the D3, 5D2, and 1DS3.

For those of you who haven't seen the capability of the D3 to generate ultra low noise and tack sharp images at high ISOs, like 6400+, you should treat yourself.

[dwdallam]

I don't think there was any discussion of the topic.  I thought it was interesting.  It was also one of those things you kind of hope isn't happening but you know probably is.  I mean I've been commanded to make more than one idiotic product because marketeering wanted it...

I think Thom Hogan on Dpreview said that right now he couldn't point to a single camera company making a camera with their eye on ultimate picture quality.   (Or something like that.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222527\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I read somewhere that Canon didn't want to have a huge MP war, but they did their research and found out that when consumers buy cameras, that's the top priority. They said this translates to pros and prosumers too because they get better large images and have lots of cropping room. Thus, Canon choose to have an all out battle of teh pixel. And here we are. The article said that Canon already has technology to produce a FF 50MP camera. Their simply bettering that technology and waiting for the competition to push it.

[dwdallam]

Actually I do, as well as a 5D and a G9 and a slew of other gear.

My 1DSMK3 is my far my most used camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222576\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Dammit!

Joking aside, I will keep my DS3 because I do like it's pro weather sealing and build quality. It will last me for a very, very long time. I don't plan on buying anymore cameras for a long time either. I have a 5D and DS3 and that's a pretty good kit. If I came into  lots of money, I "might" buy the new DS4 in two years IF it has superior noise and image quality and 30% higher resolution than the 1DS3, and if I could get a decent price for my 1DS3. Barring those "ifs," I'm not on the market for another camera anytime soon.

[Ray]

Let me quote the pertinent parts:

"I'd be perfectly happy to print "large" portraits from a 6mp camera (Fujifilm S5 Pro), but might not be fully satisfied with less than 50mp for landscapes."

Tony,
I do have a wide format printer (the Epson 7600) and I do like to look at large prints on my wall. Paintings are generally large and I like my photographic prints to be generally large.

Coming back to the topic at hand, buying more megapixels just to be able to say you have more megapixels is going to end up costing you more than just the price of the camera.  You will need more RAM, probably a faster CPU, and more storage (bigger memory cards, hard drives, and more archival media).  To justify having those megapixels you will be making massive prints which will also cost dearly; otherwise you will just be throwing all those megapixels away.

I never, ever, ever, buy more megapixels just to be able to say I have more megapixels. In fact I often feel a little embarrassed walking around in locations where I stand out conspicuously with all that Canon jewelery around my neck.

As already mentioned, more RAM, a faster CPU and bigger storage is provided as time goes by. No problem there.

Also, wide-format printers use large rolls of paper. The ink comes in large cartrides for each color, about the size of a video tape cassette, and the prints cost far less per unit area than prints from small printers.

You are more confident than the Canon engineer.  Note that "improved transmissiveness" has already been addressed above in this reply -- there is no free lunch, and the price will be reduced color resolution.

I don't know the credentials of the so-called Canon engineer or his motives, but I know what I know. Of course there's no free lunch, but I don't expect to receive my 5D2 for free, although, with all the plugs I've been giving the 5D2 one might think that Canon should offer to give me a free 5D2   .

One shouldn't presume that the statement 'improved transmissiveness' necessarily means reduced color resolution. Canon is not obliged to reveal in full detail every aspect of their improving technology, which is no doubt the subject of pending patents.

For all I know, the Digic 4 processor might take care of that. We'll have to wait to see the full comparisons.

[Ray]

"Then I have to ask: do you really think that you're going to print and sell something really large with something less capable than those that do that for a living use? [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222572\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes! The first print I ever sold was one such. It was one foot high and 8 feet long, printed on an Epson 1200. I sold it to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. It consisted of 13 vertical 35mm Ectachrome images taken with a cheap 70-300mm Tamron zoom, stitched with Panavue Image Assembler.

I was rather proud of the fact that this panorama of the city of Brisbane was probably much higher resolution than a single cropped image taken with an 8x10" field camera.

[Tony Beach]

One shouldn't presume that the statement 'improved transmissiveness' necessarily means reduced color resolution. Canon is not obliged to reveal in full detail every aspect of their improving technology, which is no doubt the subject of pending patents.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222583\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Why do MFDBs have more noise than DSLRs even when compensating for photosite size?  You are suggesting that it's because Mamiya, Hasselblad, et al do not keep up with Canon, Nikon, et al; I think I'll take Iliah Borg's explanation that greater color filter densities (4x to 6x) used to get better color separation are the primary culprit over your explanation.  Did you read the link to that explanation in my last reply?

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating.  If a pixel has less acuity, it will suffer more from enlargement than a pixel with greater acuity.  I strongly suspect that pixels have been underutilized by Canon's execution of the 5DII and that they could accomplish equal detail with fewer megapixels.  Again I have to ask you, did you read the links in my last post, specifically the one about the comparison between the 14 MP Kodak and the 21 MP 1DsMKIII?

Until competent photographers have the various cameras (real and speculative) in hand and can do valid side by side testing, this will all be unsubstantiated and unresolvable debate on both sides.

For all I know, the Digic 4 processor might take care of that. We'll have to wait to see the full comparisons.

One of us doesn't really know what the camera's ASIC does.  My understanding is that it processes data coming from the ADC into JPEGs and controls the WB and AF.

[Tony Beach]

Yes! The first print I ever sold was one such. It was one foot high and 8 feet long, printed on an Epson 1200. I sold it to the Lord Mayor of Brisbane. It consisted of 13 vertical 35mm Ectachrome images taken with a cheap 70-300mm Tamron zoom, stitched with Panavue Image Assembler.

I was rather proud of the fact that this panorama of the city of Brisbane was probably much higher resolution than a single cropped image taken with an 8x10" field camera.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222586\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I see, you want to engage in endless argument.  Go back and read Thom's post carefully.  Sure it can be done, but not always and especially when the light is changing.  Someone with a MFDB could take that pano in fewer shots and print it larger.  Now you will get some of the with a 5DII and at a very reasonable price, and I'm not disputing that.  What I am concerned about though is attaining the optimal resolution and overall image quality from a given format; according to Thom Hogan that's 12-18 MP for FX, and according to Iliah Borg it can be done better than Canon is currently doing at 21 MP.

[Ray]

Why do MFDBs have more noise than DSLRs even when compensating for photosite size?  You are suggesting that it's because Mamiya, Hasselblad, et al do not keep up with Canon, Nikon, et al; I think I'll take Iliah Borg's explanation that greater color filter densities (4x to 6x) used to get better color separation are the primary culprit over your explanation.  Did you read the link to that explanation in my last reply?

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating......[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222590\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

You seem to be offering explanations as to why something isn't possible. I'm offering explanations as to why, in the absense of the pudding to settle the issue, it might be possible.

I'll take the pudding in preference to any speculative explanations, and I don't want to prematurely spoil the anticipation of enjoying the pudding with unsubstantiated negative speculation.

If your point is that Canon could, if it wanted to, make a 12mp camera with slightly lower noise and slightly better image quality than the D700 and D3 and with an equally fast frame rate, then I would agree.

However, you should know by now, if you've been reading Emil Martinec's contributions to this site, that the quality of the image as a whole is not only dependent upon the quality of the pixels, but also the quantity of the pixels.

To elaborate, a D3 pixel might be better than a 1Ds3 pixel, but the greater quantity of 1Ds3 pixels on the same size sensor ensures that any image will never be worse than a D3 image but sometimes better because of higher resolution (outside of extreme pixel peeping).

By the way, as I understand it, MFDBs have two main advantages over Canon and Nikon's CMOS sensors. They are CCDs with a greater fill factor and have no AA filter. They are different technologies.

[Ray]

I see, you want to engage in endless argument.  Go back and read Thom's post carefully.  Sure it can be done, but not always and especially when the light is changing.  Someone with a MFDB could take that pano in fewer shots and print it larger.  Now you will get some of the with a 5DII and at a very reasonable price, and I'm not disputing that.  What I am concerned about though is attaining the optimal resolution and overall image quality from a given format; according to Thom Hogan that's 12-18 MP for FX, and according to Iliah Borg it can be done better than Canon is currently doing at 21 MP.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222591\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't have time to read everything. If you want to make a point from someone else's argument, then quote the point they've made so we can all see it. If we don't understand it or think they are not right or think your interpretation is suspect, then we can refer to the article and correct you.  

[NikosR]

Exactly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

You seem to be offering explanations as to why something isn't possible. I'm offering explanations as to why, in the absense of the pudding to settle the issue, it might be possible.

I'll take the pudding in preference to any speculative explanations, and I don't want to prematurely spoil the anticipation of enjoying the pudding with unsubstantiated negative speculation.

If your point is that Canon could, if it wanted to, make a 12mp camera with slightly lower noise and slightly better image quality than the D700 and D3 and with an equally fast frame rate, then I would agree.

However, you should know by now, if you've been reading Emil Martinec's contributions to this site, that the quality of the image as a whole is not only dependent upon the quality of the pixels, but also the quantity of the pixels.

To elaborate, a D3 pixel might be better than a 1Ds3 pixel, but the greater quantity of 1Ds3 pixels on the same size sensor ensures that any image will never be worse than a D3 image but sometimes better because of higher resolution (outside of extreme pixel peeping).


[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I personally speculate that

1. At pixel level the 5DMKII will be slightly but noticeably inferior with regards to noise from the D3/D700

2. At same size comparisons any noise difference will be virtually indistinguishable. Any processing differences will mask any differences out and will be the main reasons for any observed advantages.

However, I think that observable High ISO noise control is not the only factor which affects IQ. Additionally, I am not totally convinced that increased resolution can succesfully mask many IQ differences. Collective experience with P&S sensors points to that direction.

Subjective comparisons between the D3 and the 1DSMKIII (and not only at High ISO) performed by many trusted experts also seem to point to that direction (although, of course, there is as always a multitude of opinions). These people seem not to agree with your assertion about the IQ differences between the D3 and 1DSMKIII expressing a strong preference for the former (for applications where output size is not the limiting factor with regards to the D3).

Dynamic range, colour tonality, colour separation, perceived local contrast are image attributes which seem to be also very important and are not always readily explained by the presence or absence of observable noise.

Iliah Borg, mentioned above, questions, for example, Canon's decision to use less aggresive RGB filtering in an effort to increase the S/N ratio in the 5DII. What observable effect (if any) this will have on colour response, colour contrast, local luminosity contrast and succesfull demosaicing remains to be seen. RAW conversion quality will play a big role in this also.

Dynamic range is a similar issue. While noise is the limiting factor on its floor, it is well saturation which puts the cap on the other end. Whether this is affected by the size of the pixels and any attempts to improve the S/N I cannot comment on.

What is certain is that, despite all advances in dSLR sensor technology,  MFDBs still seem to retain their advantages at base ISO in terms of IQ (and I'm not talking about sharpness or resolution here), a somewhat intangible fact that is not readily explained either by simplistic explanations of noise characteristics or the pixel size.

As both you and Tony said, the proof is in the eating, so we will have to wait.

[BJL]

I read somewhere that Canon didn't want to have a huge MP war ...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222578\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I read somewhere that the G10 jumps to 14.7MP from 12.1MP in the G9 of just one year ago , the 50D jumps to over 15MP from the 10MP of the 40D from only one year ago, and the 5DMkII jumps to 21.7MP from the 12.7MP of the 5D. And I read many people (including you!) declaring the superiority of the 5DMkII of the D700 without citing a single photographic comparison, based it seems mostly on the virtues of that high MP count.

So I suppose I agree: whatever good intentions are stated, Canon is running as hard as anyone in the MP race.

As far as I can see, the only time that Canon or any company talks about the virtues of being conservative with pixel counts is when some one else temporarily has a higher MP count in a competing model. And given the NR and DR benefits possible from downsampling when not so much resolution is needed, I am not nearly as worried by this as some people. I await 5DII vs D700 vs A900 high ISO speed comparisons based on images viewed at equal size.


The 5DMkII sensor is simply a smart, cost effective design approach, requiring relatively minor updates to the existing excellent 1DsMkIII sensor design rather than a complete new development project. The two chips can probably be made on the same production line, even if the later stages of adding CFA's and micro-lenses are different.

[DarkPenguin]

Iliah Borg, mentioned above, questions, for example, Canon's decision to use less aggresive RGB filtering in an effort to increase the S/N ratio in the 5DII. What observable effect (if any) this will have on colour response, colour contrast, local luminosity contrast and succesfull demosaicing remains to be seen. RAW conversion quality will play a big role in this also.

This is actually my biggest question about the camera.  Right now anyway.

Actually took the glacier sample image and printed it.   (After fixing the CA.)  I'm pretty enthused about the quality right now.  I'd like to see what the middlin sraw mode looks like at high iso.

[Tony Beach]

By the way, as I understand it, MFDBs have two main advantages over Canon and Nikon's CMOS sensors. They are CCDs with a greater fill factor and have no AA filter. They are different technologies.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222610\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So you don't know why MFDBs have more noise than DSLRs.  What's more egregious is that you offer completely wrong answers after I have given you the right one.

I don't have time to read everything. If you want to make a point from someone else's argument, then quote the point they've made so we can all see it. If we don't understand it or think they are not right or think your interpretation is suspect, then we can refer to the article and correct you. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222611\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Right, you want to argue with something I cited without investigating it.  The biggest difference between how you have approached this discussion and the way I have is that when I write something I back it up and when you write something it's mostly your unsubstantiated opinion.  For example, your arguments about MFDBs compared to DSLRs is totally flawed and demonstrates that you do not know what

You have time to read marketing hype but not adult discussion, and that's the way you want it because you want to savor your pudding before eating it.

I'm hesitant to write that I'm done here now, because usually when I write that in a contentious thread someone rabbit punches me on my way out the door.  Nonetheless, I hope you and I are done here since you want to dispute my arguments without investigating them.  Frankly, I don't have time to give considered replies to someone who doesn't afford me the same in return -- so unless you go and read those linked posts and digest what is being written then I will bid you good day and I sincerely hope you enjoy your 5DII.

[BFoto]

Dammit!

Joking aside, I will keep my DS3 because I do like it's pro weather sealing and build quality. It will last me for a very, very long time.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=222581\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

See thats precisely the point.

What i wanted in this 5dII upgrade, was a camera i could have for 10yrs with the knowledge i dont need to upgrade. What happened to build quality these days.

its the same for everything we buy in the consumer society. buy it for a couple of yrs and then chuck it.

I want something that will last. I want a camera system and series of lenses that will do the job the way some of the film cameras used to. Like my Hasslebald c1988.

[aaykay]

I think this thread is starting to get a bit hot and heavy, with some of the statements getting a bit personal !  

All of us need to take a deep breath and back away from all the heat that is starting to emerge in the discussions.