I really, really want one.
Fred let me have a play with his up at IISAC2011, and it's a pleasure to use. ISO3200 and almost no noise!
It helped that it had his 24mm f/1.4 lens on as well, but it's so sensitive, large field of view.
I was tossing up between:
1. Getting the stage zero dolly gear to do motion timelapses (~$1000+)
2. Getting a 5D Mark II (~$2300+)
3. Getting an ultrawide lens for my 40D (~$800+)
I was tempted to go with #1, but the extra hassle, setup time etc, is not what I want right now. I want to get out and shoot.
#2 will motivate me to get out and shoot and take my photography to a new level, I hope. I know a good camera doesn't instantly make a good photographer, but I hope i'm already comfortable with the basics
#3 will give me some new perspective on some shots. Using Chris' 10-22 up at IISAC, it was nice to have such a wide field of view - could really get up close on some subjects and still have the sky and everything else in the FOV.
I'm pretty settled on getting the 5D Mark II now, but need to look at the costs. Not only will I need the camera body, but also a 12V power adapter, and a 240v power adapter.
My intervalometer will work fine on it, but i've only got one lens that will fit it. Luckily it's a good one though (24-105mm L). It's a shame it's only f/4 though. So I'll probably need to get a wide and/or faster lens for timelapses, and eventually a long lens too - 200mm f/2.8 or something. Big bucks :/
I can sell one of my 40D's (probably the modded one) because my wife wants to start learning a bit of DSLR photography and she can use my 40D and Sigma 17-70mm. But that's only going to get me ~$400.
hmm, hard to justify when there's so much else I could be spending money on
Sorry for the Monday morning essay.
Anyway, any thoughts? Convince me one way or the other?