I think you really need to calm down and evaluate how wisely you're dealing with this. And particularly, as to what you're saying.
I'm quite calm, thank you. Hope you are too. This is just a forum discussion of opinions of Canon products and the direction new ones on the horizon, not a Canon board meeting.
If you take the time to read my post, I'm obviously not comparing medium format cameras to the 5D MK II. But no DSLR can be compared to a medium format camera, as they're completely different. You actually raised the issue of the medium format camera being an option - I pointed out that they're in entirely different fields. Please read what I (and others) have written before launching into misdirected criticism.
I took the time to read your post, and yes you did compare:
"...A digital back costs a lot more - and if you do get one, a medium format camera itself will add further cost - without the availability of Canon's lens range. And of course, the total cost would be much more (thousands) than what a 5D MK II, and what it offers: an excellent full frame camera for a very affordable price."
I find it rather humourous that you mention 'excellence - in whose eyes?'; it's exactly the point that you yourself should be taking in.
Glad to bring a smile to your face. :-)
I have taken that point in, and that is why I'm talking about the quality of tools Canon sells for professionals.
I have no qualms in anyone pointing out some disappointments in any brand. There are faults in Canon just like there are faults in every single brand and company on this planet. But they way you're portraying it is frankly unjust and my posts have clarified many points which you have left out or warped.
Sorry, but to me, you display time and time again that you have serious qualms with anyone pointing out any disappointments in Canon. Unjust? To what? I'm critiquing a CAMERA COMPANY'S current products and the direction of future ones. Think about it. Unfortunately, I have yet to see anything valid in your posts to un-"warp" my view:
I think you've lost the idea, here, regarding the flagship cameras. Just as Nikon has shifted their D3 into two different bodies now (the D3X, with 24+ MP, and the D3S, which is practically the same as the D3), so has Canon: the 1D and the 1Ds series, that are targeted to two different types of photographers - sports/wildlife photographers and studio photographers respectively. And the D700, comparable to the 5D MK II, is targeted as a backup camera, or also available to those who are looking for a good but relatively cheap full frame body.
Please read my post- I said I have a problem with Canon and Nikon shifting to two separate bodies in the DLSR realm, not that I didn't understand what each did or why they did it. What I don't understand is why you are wasting your time typing that...?
The majority of people aren't buying the D700 or 5D MKII prosumer cameras as "backup cameras"; they are buying them because that is what is in their budget.
These series have not merely gone up '1 or 2 MP' - they've improved resolution drastically, and I might add that sensor technology has been improved by Canon to 'defray' what would otherwise result in noise problems.
(Sigh) Once again... please read my post before replying in haste. I said more MP's here and there, not '1 or 2 MP'. Please don't put words in my mouth. At least scroll through my post. Obviously 4-8-10-16 (1D series) 11-16-21 (1Ds series) and 12-21 (5D) is more than one or two. I said "1 or 2" FPS. And your rebuttal to a non existent point was a moot point anyway; every other company has been doing the same evolution with their sensors.
You absolutely can't compare the 1D MK IV as being terrible to the D3s. They've got a difference of some 4 million pixels in resolution, and the 1D MK IV is still faster in terms of burst rate. Admittedly, the D3s is slightly better in noise handling, but the 1D MK IV holds its ground extremely well considering the resolution.
RE your idea that the 1.3x FOVCF is not useful for some photographers - perhaps make yourself more acquainted with Canon's professional lineup. They have a 1Ds MK III (which should have a successor in the next year or so) that caters for full frame. The 1D MK IV is targeted, as I've said above, to those capturing fast movement (ie; sports, wildlife, etc.).
Obviously they are both flagship "sports cameras" from each manufacturer. Once again, read my replies- I never said the MKIV was "terrible". The MK IV would be an amazing camera, except the 1.3 crop, and useless higher ISO settings above 3200 due to junk file quality. For those two reasons alone, I think the D3S is much better (and I can list other reasons too). It's that simple. 4 MP more, 1 FPS more (though the D3s does shoot 11 FPS in DX mode, if you want to be particular) and 1080 video doesn't make up for the other shortfalls. If it was FF at least, I might have a more favorable opinion of the MKIV (and probably own one).
You're using the term "admittedly"? What are you admitting to? You really must work for Canon... ;-)
And I'm very acquainted with Canon's professional lineup- that's WHY I have issues with it!! I also said 1.3 is useful for some, but not everyone. Most certainly not a reason to base one of the top of the line cameras off of. According to your logic of Canon's cameras, if you shoot sports/wildlife, you shouldn't want FF, only 1.3 crop. Um, yeah, right. 1Ds MKIII would also be an amazing camera (the image quality is superb) if it shot more than 5 FPS (even if it was JPEGS at 9 FPS, which would not be hard to add in) and had higher ISO. Not too much to ask, especially considering it was $8000 when released.
And once again... I take issue with Canon AND Nikon splitting their flagship camera from the film 1V/ F5 days to two separate camera "markets", when all it really means is pro photographers who want the best all-around DSLR in their camera bag, need to buy (and lug around) two different models instead of one. Not a hard concept to understand.
It's plain wrong. Cropping doesn't reduce any resolution when talking about crop sensors, as you factor in the pixel density as higher. You can compare a 15MP APS-C (ie, a crop factor body) and a 24MP full frame body, and that works. They come around to the same resolution if you crop the equivalent image from the full frame body. But we're talking about 16MP vs 21MP, between Canon's top two models. You also must consider the idea that a smaller focal plane gives a larger depth of field, whilst the idea that a great focal length provides less DOF has been proven false. So, for those wanting to get in really closely, there's extra DOF without sacrificing speed in relation to aperture.
Of course- for lenses designed for that specific sized chip. Unfortunately, you forgot to acknowledge there are no lenses specifically designed for APS-H chips, which was my whole point, if you understood my post.
And frankly, saying that a tele-extender won't affect the resolution, while correct, is ignorant in that ignores the detriment it brings to image quality. CA, sharpness, affects on aperture and other side effects are seen when using a tele-extender.
So do substandard chips, i.e. anything smaller than full-frame.
And Nikon's DX mode on their FF cameras leaves an enormous vignette around the image. At a reduced resolution. It's not the same.
I don't believe I said it was the best option, merely an example of an option. Once again (hopefully I don't have to keep repeating myself), I was taking issue with the fact that Canon doesn't make the perfect products for some people (when they very well have the technology to do so). And you tirelessly defend Canon, for what reason? Are they paying you? Does your future depend on Canon's success? If you answered no to both of those questions, please lighten up, and maybe consider that Canon isn't perfect nor make the perfect products for everyone (nor does any company at the moment). If you answered yes, well, at least acknowledge you do so; it would probably clear a few things up with some people reading this.