Canon 5D

[Gaetan Cormier]

Wowww! I'm dreaming about this, totally out of range for me, but I'm sure this baby will find a home somewhere in the community:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/canoneos5d/

[Andrew Khan]

Is it even out yet? It looks pretty cool though.

[Michael P. Morris]

Kinda wish they had included a popup flash with it.

[Gaetan Cormier]

Is it even out yet? It looks pretty cool though.

Not yet! But most dealers are offering it on pre order for 3299$ :shock:

[Ryan McGinnis]

Kinda wish they had included a popup flash with it.

I think their theory is that anyone who drops $4K on a camera can afford another few hundred for a decent add-on flash. ;)

[Andrew Khan]

Is it even out yet? It looks pretty cool though.

Not yet! But most dealers are offering it on pre order for 3299$ :shock:

What? Why so expensive, how can is possibly be better, that say...a Digital Rebel...or D70?

[Jason Boggs]

What? Why so expensive, how can is possibly be better, that say...a Digital Rebel...or D70?

Probably because it's almost a 13 megapixel camera.

[Blake Michaleski]

and it has a sensor nearly teh size of a 35mm slide. that makes the FOV with teh 5D nearly equal to the FOV of a film SLR with the same given lense.


I see this as something to drive the cost of the 20D down

[Andrew Khan]

Well, all I can say is, it better take flawless images/pictures for the pricetag!

[Jeff Snyder]

Originally posted by Andrew Khan
Well, all I can say is, it better take flawless images/pictures for the pricetag!

Hardly. It'll take pictures that are no better than a $600 point-n-shoot if you odn't know how to use it. So will nearly every other dSLR.

[Andrew Khan]

Hah, well isn't that quite the truth, being told? I have had some bad experiences with DSLR's. I've found that it isn't just MP's that make a difference, but also, the glass, sensor, mirror, and other various factors....not everything revolves around mega pixels. You know, I saw either a Canon or Minolta, that has a HUGE 16.5 mega pixels on it, but it's in the thousands...I can't remember where I saw it, but it was somewhere. Do you guys have any ideas why Leica's are so expensive?

[Michael P. Morris]

Because when it comes to pro-quality glass, Leica is basically the standard. They have been making glass for a very long time and the results totally blow away Canon L/Nikkor ED glass. As you mentioned, they are expensive but you get what you pay for.

[Ryan McGinnis]

Originally posted by Andrew Khan
Hah, well isn't that quite the truth, being told? I have had some bad experiences with DSLR's. I've found that it isn't just MP's that make a difference, but also, the glass, sensor, mirror, and other various factors....not everything revolves around mega pixels. You know, I saw either a Canon or Minolta, that has a HUGE 16.5 mega pixels on it, but it's in the thousands...I can't remember where I saw it, but it was somewhere. Do you guys have any ideas why Leica's are so expensive?

Leicas are expensive for several reasons:

1. They have a long history of being very high quality. (though their QC has taken a hit in recent years)
2. They are hand-made by the Germans. Constructing cameras in Germany is a national past-time. The most common bed-time dream in Germany involves assembling a range-finder while attempting a bayonet charge.
3. They have very good lenses available for them. These lenses tend to cost about as much a couple of plane trips to Tahiti, but they perform very well.
4. They have built up an elite brand name. (i.e., a significant portion of the cost of Leica is nothing more than brand-premium.) Are Addias, Nike, and Reebok shoes really five to ten times better than the $20 shoes you can find at Wal-mart? No. But nobody thinks you're cool if you wear $20 shoes.

All in all, new film-based Leicas are terrible value for the money when compared with other cameras, in the same way that Porche 911 is a terrible value for the money when compared to a VW Jetta. You're paying an enormous premium to eek out the last few drops of performance. But they do perform excellently, and Leica glass is slightly better than Canon L glass. If you can find a used Leica in good condition, that might be a really good value. Generally, Leica cameras tend to lack many of the performance features of their competitors, but the types of people who buy Leicas prefer this. So buying used isn't a big deal; odds are a used Leica will have 95% of the features of a newer model.

[Robert Edmonds]

3. They have very good lenses available for them. These lenses tend to cost about as much a couple of plane trips to Tahiti, but they perform very well.

They're so good they don't even have chromatic dispersion!

Basically my point is eventually all cameras will have flaws simply due to the materials and physics we wish to abide by. So, even with $10000 glass lense your still going to have some slight problem. That's why you really don't need to worry about who says what is best. As long as the images are good enough for you the there is a point at which the price tag shouldn't matter.

[Gaetan Cormier]

Well the best way to get Leica optics, is to buy a Panasonic digital camera!!! I have a Lumix DMC LC5 and I just love it!