This whole discussion started out as my concern about light weight body not the camera design or material or any manufacturer."The consideration here is whether or not the blur from the moment of the mirror slap is greater than that from your hands. The mirror slap problem can be countered easily: hold the button and let the shutter close 2 or 3 times and review all frames for focus/blur. Often it is the 2nd or 3rd frame that is the best because the vibration from the slap is gone." ( From Dilbert)
This is another misleading statement. People buy DSLR is due to the small shutter delay to capture the "Kodak Moment". Now you are telling people to ignore the first picture. The baby may have changed from laughing to crying. Also for a good photographer, the camera and the hand becomes an integral unit. So any movement will be the sum of both. You just cannot sperate them.
We spent good money to buy good camera and lens, we want to get the most of it. So we want to try our best to get the sharpest picture.
"But if you cannot hold it still enough to take the photo without blur, then whether or not there is a slight increase in movement (and thus blur) from the mirror impact is irrelevant. The weight of the camera plus lens and the ability to hold both still is a 1st order problem, the mirror slap a 2nd order problem." (from Dilbert)
This is another misleading statement and an insult to the intelligence of the photographers and camera manufacturers. Camera manufacturer put the mirror lockup function in the camera for a good reason. Camera manufacturer understand that mirror movement will cause camera vibration and hence cause blur of the picture. So to get the most sharpness, It is necessary to get rid of it. This function will be used with the camera either mounted on a copy stand or a sturdy tripod. Both are rock steady. So are you still telling me that vibration caused by the mirror movement are not important??? Have you ever used this function on your 5D II with your long lens and tripod? If you have never done that, I feel sorry for you. You 5D II is just another status symbol to show people that you do not have "Money or Budget Problem".
Dilbert, You have spent enough time to try to discredit me and I have spent euough time to educate you. Enough is enough.
MLU is not going to help you when you're trying to catch the "moment" with a baby - well it might if you've already primed the mirror? But I have a hard time convincing myself that any camera manufacturer would build a camera where the mirror movement would cause blur for the ordinary user. They'd simply not sell because too many pictures would be blurry. I'd like to believe that the engineering of that box includes taking into account the entire weight of the mirror and what the resulting impact does to the rest of the camera. If usability testing of a plastic body 60D resulted in what you're speculating, then you'd assume they'd can the camera. And if all the stories of multiple bodies used for testing are true, then it stands to reason that they more than likely have compared the results of magnesium vs non-magnesium.
You're not trying to educate me, you're trying to discredit Canon. You're trying to argue that their engineers have made a poor choice in the overall camera design of the 60D because of a non-magnesium alloy body and you're doing that based on speculation of how something that you've never held or used will perform (same too for everyone else that criticizes this change.) I believe that people should give Canon the benefit of the doubt if this new design is true - unless you're one of the engineers from the 60D project. I'd hazard a guess that both of us are pea shooters pissing on each other in comparison to what the engineers at Canon know, despite whatever schooling we may have had in our earlier life.
If I took your suggestion to throw out the first picture, then I will miss the "Kodak moment". regardless of the camera body. This is a dumb suggestion. Why are you make that at the first place? Do you agree that there are mirror bounce?? Also explain to me why Canon put the mirror lockup function on ALL their high end camera, even the Magnesium body ones??? Obviously, you have never use this function. What a waste of your 5DII.
I have never say that plastic body is bad. I have never discredited Canon. I have never say that they are bad design or bad material. You are putting word in my mouth again. The fact that ALL SLR and DSLR camera manufacturer (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Minolta, Pentax, Sigma, Leica etc, just to name a few ) put mirror lock up function on ALL their high end SLR and DSLR camera to help the user get the most of their camera when extremely sharpness is required. Also this is a good prove that Canon, (and anyone else but you) realize the mirror movement will cause unsharpness to a certain degree. May be you do not care about extreme sharpness. May be Good enough is good enough for you. May be you can tell ALL camera manufacturer to take away this function to save a few dollar on each camera and give you a big fat check in return.
So please keep your never say die and never admit mistake attitude and find some one else to argue. At the same time just tell everyone else that your 5D II will take good picture with a very long tele lens on a tripod without using mirror lock up. Good luck and have fun.
Do sports photographers use MLU when using big white lenses mounted on tripods or monopods? No. Do they capture the moment with sharp pictures? Yes. Why do they have their equipment mounted? Because otherwise the weight and size of their equipment would make it very difficult for them to "get the shot."
Do people need MLU to get sharp pictures of their cat to post on the Internet? No.
MLU is there for specific situations and circumstances (although it is annoying when you've turned it on for a tripod shot and then go to do handheld and it is still on, why can't the camera work out that it's no longer mounted in a tripod and turn it off automatically? ...:-/)
Your argument is that if they are making the body lighter then the mirror slap will have a bigger impact on picture sharpness. I disagree and contend that the folks who actually design these cameras take this into account when designing it. For example, maybe the mirror part itself will weigh less in the 60D than the 50D so that there is less force from the impact. Another example, is the Internet screaming about blurry pictures due to the sensor movement from mirror slap and lighter body of the 550D? No. Or even people complaining about using the 50/1.8mk2 with the 550D because it is too light and producing blurry pictures? No.
There is a very large spectrum of circumstances, equipment and settings required in order to get a sharp picture. Using MLU is only one small part of that. The set of photos that are subject to blur from the mirror slap is a subset of that.
I understand your concern, but until you've actually tried it out and tested it, there's simply no way for you (or anyone else for that matter) to say that this change will have a detrimental effect on picture quality. But the Internet is full of people like yourself that jump up and down if anything changes because they think that this particular change is bad and how it was before is better. Heck, I'm sure if Canon removes the "Print" button that forums will be full of people whining about how it is now harder to print pictures from their cameras.
Whether I've got a 5D2 or not is irrelevant. I could have a 1Ds3 or a 550D or 1000D. I'm sorry that I mentioned what equipment I have or have used - I'll never do that again.