To buy or not to buy the EOS mkII

[george]

Hi ! i'm new here...
Please give me your opinion :
I want to get the new 5DMKII and a friend told me I should wait for 6 months until some bugs and malfunctions are corrected and upgraded.
On the other hand i'm terribly impatient.
So what do you say ?
Get on or wait ?
And which lens ? I want the 24-105.
Please advise !
george.

[KeithB]

Chances are, if there *are* any bugs will be correctable in firmware.  It is unlikely that there will be any hardware problems.

The only real new hardware in the camera is the sensor, and except for Leica's IR filter debacle, I have never heard of a sensor problem.

If you have the money I would not wait.  Help out the economy!

[george]

Thanks Keith,
It's hard earned money and I want to be cautious.
Once I buy something my fate is to see it replaced by a new model....
But i guess you are right.
It cannot be a bad move.
And lens ?
I will also try  a Leica R Summicron 50.

[KeithB]

"Once I buy something my fate is to see it replaced by a new model...."

With Digital cameras that is going to happen for the forseeable future.  However, the quicker you buy it, the longer it will be the "latest thing."  (I almost included this as a reason to buy now, but thought that it was a bit too trivial.)

Ken Rockwell points out that digital camera bodies are pretty much worthless after a few years, but *lenses* hold their value pretty well.

[Bob Atkins]

They may be "worthless" in terms of resale value, but obviously they are just as good as they were when you bought them as far as making images goes.

It is true that older models devalue rather quickly when a new model comes along, but they are not "worthless" even in monetary terms.  The 20D is maybe worth about 1/3 what you would have paid for it 3 or 4 years ago.

If you buy a 5D MkII for $2700 today, my guess is that it will lose maybe 50% of its value by the time the 5D MkIII comers out in 2 or 3 years time.

I doubt there will be significant problems with the MkII. It uses the same AF system as the 5D, so it's pretty well tested in that regard. The only really new feature is the movie mode. Most initial problems are fixed with simple firmware updates. The only hardware problem in recent years was the AF problem that some 1D MkIII bodies suffered. Hardware problems are rare.

[george]

...and last but not least...
Do I really need the MKII or shall I get the old one for 1000Euro less ?
G

[KeithB]

Right, Bob, I was strictly talking re-sale value.  The pictures will be the same quality for years.  Or, until you take 100,000 shots and the shutter dies. 8^)

I don't recall shutter life-time being a big deal for film cameras.  I would guess it is because you take so many more shots with the digital cameras.

[george]

100.000 is not that much....5-6 years with 100 shots a day.
But as far as mega pixels, we are arriving to a dead end.
Is it worth to get the MKII ?

[Bob Atkins]

Shutter replacement isn't a big deal. It's a few hundred dollars. Even if it's $300 if it happens after 100,000 shots, you've saved ar least $14,000 on film and each shot has only cost you 1/3 of a cent!

Are we at the pixel limit with 21MP and full frame? No, certainly not. I'd expect to see maybe 40MP next year in a 1Ds MkIV. What the "ultimate" practical limit is I don't know. You can always cram a few more pixels on there. I think we may well see 50MP sometime in the next few years.

[whizkid]

Nikon guru and IMO Canon critic Rob Galbraith's web site reports that the auto-focus of the 40d & 50d is not the same as that adopted by the 5DMk2. He reports on paper the auto-focus of the 40D and 50D look superior but quotes Chuck Westfall, spokesperson for Canon USA, that the auto-focus of the 5DMk2 has a higher level of performance using 6 assist AF points plus the center point Vs the center point only arrangement of the 40d and 50d for A1servo use.  R.G.further reported that in previous tests the auto-focus of the 40D was erratic and not suitable for serious sports use.  R.G's auto-focus testing of the 5D was given as decent and he offered that Canon has chosen the 5D's system as the better of the two for the 5DMk2. Any thoughts of this assessment as I presented  it ?

[Bob Atkins]

Yes!

As far as I know the 5D and 5D MkII use the same AF system (with the 6 added invisible assist points around the center focus zone). There are 9 marked zones

Again as far as I know, the 40D and 50D share essentially the same AF system too. Like the 5D, there are 9 marked zones but on the 40/50D there are no invisible assist zones.

I've found that the tracking AF performance of the 5D (using the center zone with invisible assist points) is better than that of my 40D, so it would be logical to conclude that the 5D MkII may be somewhat better than the 50D when it comes to AF tracking.

Since I don't shoot sports I can't comment on that, but for wildlife the 5D does seem a little better than the 40D and so I'd assume that would also apply to sports. Of course AF tracking performance also depends on the lens, and will be better with a fast lens using a USM ring focusing motor than it is with a slow lens using a non-USM or micro-USM focusing system.

So on this occasion I'd have to agree with RG (though on other points I'm sure we would differ!).

On static subjects, I don't see a lot of AF difference between the 40D and 5D and I'd assume the same will apply to the 50D and 5D MkII