When I moved from film to digital cameras, I also moved from Minolta to Canon, and bought a EOS 5D with five lenses, and have added two more lenses, one to replace one, a 35mm f1.8 instead of the excellent but hefty f1.2, which I still use, just not backpacking, and to add one, a 17-40 f4 zoom, as an everyday or general purpose lens, since with Minolta I carried six lenses from 16mm to 45mm.
And now I'm reading the review of the new Canon EOS 5D Mk II. And I barely have 20,000 shots on my Mk I. Well, reading the reviews of the Mk II, it's obviously an excellent camera, and in some ways better than the MK I, but I have to say, just maybe it's trying to do too much, and maybe Canon included features that don't make it a better camera, but make it a better marketable camera.
Why? To be really honest, does a still frame photographers really need a DSLR with a built-in microphone and a jack for an external one to go with the up to 29 minutes of video capture? Really? Does it really help the camera or just add gadgets to a great camera? Do you really need live view? What happened to the photographer thinking? Now you can set the auto features (program/auto mode with AWB) and then just point and shoot.
Hell, you can fix it in Photoshop or video editor. You don't really need to be a photographer anymore, just have a great camera and call yourself one because you use it.
Too much? Probably, but it makes my point. I love the 5D for its capabilities and features, and 90% of the time I use it as a digital version of a film camera. I may only be an ordinary photographer, but I want to think while using the camera (I have yet it use program and auto modes and only shoot raw format about 10% of the time). And heaven forbid according to some photographers, I actually shoot black and white in the camera.
I make no bones about being a curmudgeon in my photography. It's the photography I like to do, which also includes shooting 4x5 film photography. Old school? Yes, even defiantly.
While I like the new 5D for the larger pixel size sensor (still full frame but 21 mp instead of 12 mp), slightly fast speed (3.9 fps instead of 3 fps), and higer ISO (25,600 instead of 1600), I'll have to balk at it for the junky video gadgets. While it may be nice, it's not what I want in a camera. And since I use a film EOS-1N alongside my 5D, I don't see buying the Mk II anytime soon.
And so sorry Canon, while you have a good customer, you don't have my business to buy the Mk II. Not yet anyway, and probably not until the Mk III or the 5D's successor, something without the video gadgets too. If I want a video camera, I'll go get or buy one, I don't want it an still camera.