That is of course assuming you would be using a high ISO. I dont think I have a shot over iso 200 with everything I shot this past year on my 60D. But I guess thats where the wedding folks need to extra light.
So anything really tangible other than the stuff for sports, photojournalists? I hate to see an explanation that its better for "wedding photographers". Which basically means, its good for when people are walking around
I think what I've been most puzzled by this past few weeks has been how outstanding the fuji x100 has been. I can get high quality images with great sharpness and rich colours and a great perspective. The ISO is nicely composed and it works shockingly well given its limitations.
I know the 5dmk2 is going to be so much better with that dslr style snappy auto focus. I just wonder is the money really worth it. Or are we looking at a camera that's bragging rights lie in it's video options and quality?
It seems to be all video samples that are doing the rounds. Do as many people really care about it's images this time around or has the dslr market been balanced out by video makers as much as it has by photographers?
**edit* Looked at the samples over on the canon site. To be fair, ISO 6400 looks fairly incredible! But shooting a bride with a 50mm lens at f 7.1 could have been stopped down to 4/5 and iso down two steps to get just as striking an image.
Still it's very impressive!