I guess nobody think the 5DMKII is better than D3x… They are for different targets. I never thought comparing those cameras either. Maybe just comparing the IQ delivered having 20+ MP each, but that’s only a part (very important, sure) of the whole camera

Don’t feel “sick” of hearing anything about photography, it’s a synptom that you hear or read too many comments.

Maybe you don’t need higher resolution, but some do. I do. If your are sick about “different purposes” then you might be sick of D3x advertisements too.

I use Nikon, like it a lot, but not get married with any brand. I’m not Nikonian, so if I think Nikon releases something a bit late, I tell that, even if Nikon makes a better quality camera.

I don’t think a technology is “a year old”, I said Nikon released one year after Canon, specifically the D3x, better built (than 1DsMK III) but is a D3 from a year ago with a higher res sensor, at around 170% the price of a D3.

Think whatever you want, but many people do not think about some features as gadgets because they use (or can use) them to work more than to play with.

Technology is always in the way of perfection, just take a look back to the previous Nikon DSLRs and compare them to actual ones.

Sometimes Nikon is releasing something new or revolutionary, sometimes not.

The D700 is extraordinary for photographing people in any light, while the 5D Mark II rarely gets anyone in focus at f/2 because it has no face recognition and can’t nail the eyeballs as do the D700 and D3.

The only thing you get with the 5DMII is higher resolution. I am sick of hearing about people saying “for different purposes”. That’s a load of crap on the very broad average. For a couple people of course they have different needs. But that doesn’t change the general market category. If Nikonians were Canonites, theyd buy the 5D/5DMII. As Nikonians, we will buy the D700/D800.

And the technology will not be a “year old”. Only idiots think that way. The technology will be PERFECTED when Nikon releases it. It won’t have black holes and striped images the way the crappy 5DMII does.

The only reason anyone thinks the 5DMII is a good deal is because they think its on the level of the D3X or the Sony. But Sony and the D3X are far better cameras.

Canon should stop fiddling around and stop releasing things before they have the technology perfected. The 40D and 50D barely compare to the D300 and the D90. And the 5DMII is no D3X. Its just a crappy camcorder with a broken camera attached.

The 5D was excellent for its time. The 5DMII is mediocre for its.

Remember that Nikon is releasing a high-res camera over 1 year later than Canon.
Yes, I agree it seems better than 1Ds MK III, but later and expensive as compared to its “smaller” (if it can be called like that, since they are almost identical besides the sensor) brother/sister, the D3.

5DMk II is not equal to D700, they are different cameras with different specs and features.

And I wouldn’t call some of those features as “gadgets”, since they can deliver professional products if well used.

And since lately Nikon is releasing some cameras a bit “late” (in some aspects), I hope Nikon do a better job implementing those features, with higher quality too.

But if it’s true, then the revenue of selling each D3x at $8,000 is huge… around 23%

Buy them all up, make Nikon happy. Wanna buy some swamp land in Florida?

BTW I’m a D90 user but comments like this from either side are just annoying