# From the Land of Crazy! [CR0]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 23, 2011)

```
<strong>New Sunday Feature</strong>

Every Sunday I am going to post the craziest â€œrumorâ€ Iâ€™m sent from the previous week for your enjoyment.</p>
<p>I will say about crazy rumors, there was one rumor I was told about that I dismissed. I thought it was loony, and that was the 8-15 f/4L. I was never told fisheye and didnâ€™t think fisheye.</p>
<p><strong>Spec List! </strong>

The person writing in stressed this wasnâ€™t the 5D Mark III and to expect an announcement in the next few weeks.<strong> </strong></p>
<ul>
<li>- New small body FF</li>
<li>- Pro AF (45 point same as Eos 1D MKIV)</li>
<li>- 16.7 MP</li>
<li>- 6 FPS (booster with extra batterygrip up to 9fps)</li>
<li>- ISO 100-12800 (L50 / H102400)</li>
<li>- Single CF slot</li>
<li>- Video as Eos 7D</li>
<li>- Msrp $ 4,399</li>
</ul>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 23, 2011)

Is this rumor from the same person who said there would be a 15MP 1D coming really soon? I would hope that (1) there are two CF slots and the camera can write to both simultaneously, (2) the video is much better than the 7D, as good, in fact, as the XF300/305 camcorders and better in low light and (3) the price is closer to $3399.

If this is the new pro body configuration for the 5DMkIII, do you think that Keith Cooper (Northlight Images) will like it?

"Next few weeks"? Let's hope so!

Oh yes, one more thing, 16.7MP is exactly what you would expect if pixels were being binned 8:1 to create a 1920 x 1080 video stream.

On second thought, no it isn't. The aspect ratios are different.


----------



## Stone (Jan 23, 2011)

I like this rumor very much except for: small body, single card slot & no mention of weather sealing. Am I the only one that prefers a larger body?


----------



## olav (Jan 23, 2011)

Stone said:


> I like this rumor very much except for: small body, single card slot & no mention of weather sealing. Am I the only one that prefers a larger body?


No, you aren't! I used the 60d last week and have to say its size is pretty much borderline!


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 23, 2011)

olav said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > I like this rumor very much except for: small body, single card slot & no mention of weather sealing. Am I the only one that prefers a larger body?
> ...



Did you use the 60D with or without the battery pack? With my 5D and 40D, the difference is dramatic with the battery pack. My EOS-3 film camera is/was the same way.


----------



## Justin (Jan 23, 2011)

Craig, if this actually happens you will have to invert your CR ratings. ;D


----------



## OnteoEOS (Jan 24, 2011)

Where do I have to sign for that one? sounds like "THE CAMERA"

I would not mind going for a loan in this one if canon goes all digital in their sensors. (Sony like)


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 24, 2011)

OnteoEOS said:


> Where do I have to sign for that one? sounds like "THE CAMERA"
> 
> I would not mind going for a loan in this one if canon goes all digital in their sensors. (Sony like)



Actually it sounds like the Nikon D800. 8-D


----------



## Isurus (Jan 24, 2011)

$4400 seems like a pretty steep price tag for the described camera if you ask me. Seems like a wish list to me. Crazy land indeed.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 24, 2011)

yeah, I would definitely not be shelling out $4400 for what is essentially incremental upgrades from a 5DII; this must be a canon executive's daydream ...


----------



## Film (Jan 24, 2011)

I don't find it "CRAZY". I actually think that Canon should have introduced something similar a long time ago....but it doesn't mean that they will. I'm not talking about the exact specs, but about a small decent FF with very good AF and fast fps, weather sealing of course (nothing mentioned about it, but for this money it should have it) and of course I consider "small body" = 5D / EOS 3 Size, not 60d size or smth. Someone mentioned that it sounds like Nikon. And it sure does. And if Nikon will make such a thing and Canon won't during next year (it looks like this is the way it's going) - I will start moving to Nikon (and not only me). Canon really starts to suck at delivering customers the best.


----------



## blufox (Jan 24, 2011)

4300$ is a big lol'eth price.
2000$ and it will sell like hot cakes.

if at 4300$, Canon can kiss goodbye it to its fortunes.


----------



## martijn (Jan 24, 2011)

"New Sunday Feature Every Sunday I am going to post the craziest â€œrumorâ€ Iâ€™m sent from the previous week for your enjoyment."

Are you sure you want to do that? The problem with a feature like that is that people will start manufacturing 'crazy' rumors just to get on this site...then again, perhaps some are already doing just that ;-) ....


----------



## Flake (Jan 24, 2011)

I think the give away here is the battery grip giving an increase in fps - that really is a Nikon trick to try to rival Canons superior performance. Nikon can't even manage to do it in full 14 bit, they need to drop to 12 bit to get to that, of course the many biased reviewers leap on this and compare the two as if they are like for like when they know they're not! As with the video this is a function of the Expeed image processor not being as advanced as the Digic IV.

At 16.7 MP the nearest comparator would have been the 50D which managed 6.3 fps - there was no increase from the addition of a battery grip.

Canons reasoning (excuse) behind crippling the 5D MkII autofocus was that they could not fit a larger AF unit into a XXD type body with a FF sensor, if that is true then this rumour would also fall into the same trap.

I think I agree with others that this is most likely a spec for the Nikon D800, and if so it will leave Nikon yet again well behind the field in terms of MP, Most Nikon users seem to think they're going to get the 24MP Sony sensor to rival the 5D MkII (a generation late!). 16.7MP is insufficient to meet the size demanded by the stock agencies without interpolation.


----------



## justicend (Jan 24, 2011)

Canon FF camera 16 MP ??? No way , I don't think they will downgrade the resolution on FF camera.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 24, 2011)

justicend said:


> Canon FF camera 16 MP ??? No way , I don't think they will downgrade the resolution on FF camera.



I'm not so sure. For one thing, Canon reduced the pixel count in the G11 P&S. Second, I see the new model as emphasizing video much more than in the past. To get some idea about what they're doing with their video cameras, select "Canon HD CMOS Pro Image Sensor" here:

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/consumer_camcorders/vixia_hf_m41#Features

That reads like something that Nikon would write about why the D3s is better than the 1DMk4.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2011)

Flake said:


> I think the give away here is the battery grip giving an increase in fps - that really is a Nikon trick to try to rival Canons superior performance.



Really? Check out the specs for the Canon EOS-1V - "_Continuous up to 3.5 frames per second (up to 10 frames per second with BP-E2/NP-E2)._" Several of its predecessors, like the EOS-3 and EOS-1n, also had increased frame rates with the battery grip.


----------



## olav (Jan 24, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> olav said:
> 
> 
> > Stone said:
> ...


I used it without the battery pack. With it attached it should be fine although i had the impression (i didn't measure it) that the grip ( the camera's grip) is a bit smaller than the older xxD's grip.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 24, 2011)

Flake said:


> Well you're really having to scrape the barrel to dissagree ! Every single camera you have quoted is a film unit, hardly the same at all.



Please explain why that makes a difference. You suggested that a higher frame rate enabled by a battery grip was 'a Nikon trick' and I pointed out the specifications of a Canon camera that has the same feature. It seems pretty relevant to the discussion, and since it's a camera that is currently in production, it's hardly 'scraping the barrel'.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 24, 2011)

If the digital technology is not affected by the same factors as film technology, then why does a digital Nikon body need a battery grip to increase FPS? 

I'm actually curious because I never understood how this works, exactly. Is there an extra processor in the grip?


----------



## Bob Howland (Jan 24, 2011)

kubelik said:


> If the digital technology is not affected by the same factors as film technology, then why does a digital Nikon body need a battery grip to increase FPS?
> 
> I'm actually curious because I never understood how this works, exactly. Is there an extra processor in the grip?



I think the battery voltage is higher, allowing the film transport motors and digital processing circuitry to run faster.


----------



## NormanBates (Jan 24, 2011)

a quick google search tells me that the only reason is that nikon wants to sell grips harder than canon does, and cripples their cameras on purpose, then uncrippling them for the price of a grip

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/162154-nikon-d300-8-fps-w-out-battery-grip.html

a quick way to test this theory is to see whether the nikons get higher fps also with only one battery installed in the grip


----------



## ms (Jan 24, 2011)

is it me or is this more like (IF it were real) to be the nikon mirrorless body than something coming from canon? Don't get me wrong... if canon put out an FF mirrorless with these kinds of specs I'd be bonkers for it but as of late I've toned down my expectations from Canon (mainly sticking with them b/c I like adapting lenses to the EOS mount)... here's hoping I'm wrong and that Canon give us some pleasant surprises


----------



## Mr.Magic (Jan 24, 2011)

Looks like a dream camera! 16 MP FF, always dreamed off! 8)
I'd buy it immediately for $2200


----------



## Catastrophile (Jan 24, 2011)

16.7MP sound too low a megapixel count for two reasons:

1) in combination with the high price and the relatively low fps, one of the 3 factors has to change, either increase the fps or the megapixel or reduce the price.

2) if this materializes, it'll be considerably lower in pixel density than 1DIV and if I'm not wrong Canon has never before gone to a lower pixel density than whatever they have/had in their latest 1D.

if the megapixel and/or the fps are increased (plus maybe adding dual card slots and weather sealing), the specs will be about you'd expect from merging and "budgetizing" the 1D+1Ds lines.


----------



## Justin (Jan 24, 2011)

Hence, "from the land of crazy."



Catastrophile said:


> 16.7MP sound too low a megapixel count for two reasons:
> 
> 1) in combination with the high price and the relatively low fps, one of the 3 factors has to change, either increase the fps or the megapixel or reduce the price.
> 
> ...


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jan 24, 2011)

The guy that sent the rumor to me was offended.

He swears it's coming for CP+!

Maybe this won't be a weekly feature. 

Great thread though.


----------



## kubelik (Jan 24, 2011)

heh. I'd be offended by anyone trying to charge me that much for a camera like that. Unless it's got a big red dot on the camera, in which case I'd either a. denounce it as a knockoff or b. buy three


----------



## Catastrophile (Jan 24, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> The guy that sent the rumor to me was offended.
> 
> He swears it's coming for CP+!
> 
> ...



maybe you can just use "CR0" for this kind of rumors without labeling them as "From the Land of Crazy" and such.


----------



## Mr.Magic (Jan 24, 2011)

Actually, I heard the same rumor in the largest camera shop in my country....
Still, I think canon won't make such a camera, but I'm still hoping they will.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jan 24, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> a quick google search tells me that the only reason is that nikon wants to sell grips harder than canon does, and cripples their cameras on purpose, then uncrippling them for the price of a grip



*Different cameras for different jobs*. Why should I pay a *higher price* for a camera with *a built-in grip and higher frames per second*, if I *don't need high frames per second?*

High frames per second may be important to sports photographers/PJs or fanboys, but I've never heard a portrait photographer complain about not enough FPS. A commercial shooter, shooting catalog pix, doesn't spray-and-pray.

I like Nikon's idea of only paying for what you need. Too bad that Canon doesn't have the same philosophy.


----------



## Stone (Jan 24, 2011)

c.d.embrey said:


> NormanBates said:
> 
> 
> > a quick google search tells me that the only reason is that nikon wants to sell grips harder than canon does, and cripples their cameras on purpose, then uncrippling them for the price of a grip
> ...



Actually, Canon has more of a specialized body philosophy than Nikon. The 5DII is specialized for portrait/landscape photography because it contains an antiquated af system. The 7D on the other hand gives you a very slight drop in IQ with it's cropped sensor in exchange for 8fps and the 2nd best af in the Canon lineup. Canon has long tried to separate their bodies by function. Nikon on the other had puts a top notch af system into all of it's semi/pro bodies whether you need it or not. Also they are caple of 8fps if you choose to buy a battery grip. With a D700 you can go from senior portraits to sports with the same body only adding a grip.

Many of us want a do it all body because we're enthusiasts, and have no desire to carry around 2 different bodies for 2 different purposes. I shoot everything from portraits/landscapes to high school football & volleyball and I want Canon to give me the best of both worlds. If they don't do it this time around, then I know who does.


----------



## Flake (Jan 24, 2011)

Nikon cannot provide a serious competitor to the 5D MkII at the present time, with the D700 you have only 12MP and most landscape photographers will tell you this is simply not enough.
The D700 needs a battery grip to attain 8fps but this is in 12bit mode so not comparable to the 7D, but there are other strengths for FF & crop frame, control over depth of field, or the apparant extra reach crop frame gives.

Macro shooters for instance need lots of MP and good DoF a crop sensor is ideal just an example of why you can't have one camera which does it all. Perhaps the best of all worlds of the 1D MkIV with it;s 1.3x APS - H sensor?


----------



## Stone (Jan 24, 2011)

Flake said:


> Nikon cannot provide a serious competitor to the 5D MkII at the present time, with the D700 you have only 12MP and most landscape photographers will tell you this is simply not enough.
> The D700 needs a battery grip to attain 8fps but this is in 12bit mode so not comparable to the 7D, but there are other strengths for FF & crop frame, control over depth of field, or the apparant extra reach crop frame gives.
> 
> Macro shooters for instance need lots of MP and good DoF a crop sensor is ideal just an example of why you can't have one camera which does it all. Perhaps the best of all worlds of the 1D MkIV with it;s 1.3x APS - H sensor?



All good points, and APS-H is a nice compromise, I love some of the shots i've seen from the 1DIV. However there are many successful landscape shooters using nikon D700 & D3 bodies. The difference in MP does not result in a dramatic difference in IQ between the 5DII & D700, I know people who shoot with both and IQ is a wash with a slight lead in high ISO performance going to the D700 and a slight lead in detail on very, very large prints going to the 5DII. Canon obviously wins in video. FF is obviously better for dof & crop gives you more reach with shorter lenses, essentially the difference between buying a 300mm vs 400mm lens, so they both have their uses.

I still contend that technology is such that a FF body can shoot 8-10 fps and that recently the performance limitation has been imposed by Canon to protect their flagship, not the availability of technology. EOS film cameras could shoot 10fps and those bodies had to advance a film roll so I know it's possible with digital.

My ideal body would be FF, 18-21MP, 1-series weather sealing, 8-10 fps, very clean ISO 6400 & dual card slots, the 7D AF would be more than acceptable on this body for me. I would imagine Canon could produces this body in the 3K-4K price range if they really wanted to do it.


----------



## lbloom (Jan 24, 2011)

This whole rumor sounds like more of a Nikon D800 than anything Canon...


----------



## Flake (Jan 24, 2011)

_"I still contend that technology is such that a FF body can shoot 8-10 fps and that recently the performance limitation has been imposed by Canon to protect their flagship, not the availability of technology. EOS film cameras could shoot 10fps and those bodies had to advance a film roll so I know it's possible with digital."_

FF is not the issue but MP count is, a recent Canon technical piece stated that there is a problem with the sensor at 18MP and 10 fps, each time an exposure is made the sensor is 'reset' wiped if you like, the technical problem is in resetting the larger pixel counts. Failure to do this effectively builds a series of ghosts of previous images, which gets worse as the number of images in a burst increases.

Your ideal camera is very very close to the 1D MkIV. 16.1MP isn't very different to 18MP it does 10fps dual card slots and clean Iso 6400 the only compromise is the Aps-H even the price is about right if you're quoting in Â£ notes!


----------



## Film (Jan 24, 2011)

Flake said:


> Canons reasoning (excuse) behind crippling the 5D MkII autofocus was that they could not fit a larger AF unit into a XXD type body with a FF sensor, if that is true then this rumour would also fall into the same trap.



Nope! This shouldn't be the reason. EOS 3 had autofocus similar to EOS 1V (45-focus points and very fast). It was a film camera - so you can consider it a FF. And the size is almost as 5D2. 5D2 = 6.0 x 4.5 x 3.0 in; EOS 3 = 6.3 x 4.7 x 2.8 in. It looks like it's more a concern of differentiating 5D from 1Ds, to sell FF bodies for $8k. And it sucks. I really like Nikon's approach in this regard.


----------



## Film (Jan 24, 2011)

Flake said:


> _"I still contend that technology is such that a FF body can shoot 8-10 fps and that recently the performance limitation has been imposed by Canon to protect their flagship, not the availability of technology. EOS film cameras could shoot 10fps and those bodies had to advance a film roll so I know it's possible with digital."_
> 
> FF is not the issue but MP count is, a recent Canon technical piece stated that there is a problem with the sensor at 18MP and 10 fps, each time an exposure is made the sensor is 'reset' wiped if you like, the technical problem is in resetting the larger pixel counts. Failure to do this effectively builds a series of ghosts of previous images, which gets worse as the number of images in a burst increases.
> 
> Your ideal camera is very very close to the 1D MkIV. 16.1MP isn't very different to 18MP it does 10fps dual card slots and clean Iso 6400 the only compromise is the Aps-H even the price is about right if you're quoting in Â£ notes!




As far as I remember, it was an issue of a FF, not MP. That was the reason to put APS-H in 1D4, they could have made it FF, if the problem was pixel count. Nikon's fast FF shooters can't shoot more than 9fps in FF mode, only in APS-C, because of this as far as I understand. But as it goes so far in technical details it's more based on what one read on forums and stuff, so we can't be sure.


----------



## Stone (Jan 24, 2011)

Film said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > _"I still contend that technology is such that a FF body can shoot 8-10 fps and that recently the performance limitation has been imposed by Canon to protect their flagship, not the availability of technology. EOS film cameras could shoot 10fps and those bodies had to advance a film roll so I know it's possible with digital."_
> ...



This is correct, at the time Canon was designing the 1DIV they could not push 10fps thru a FF sensor because of the ghosting issues that Flake mentioned earlier. This is an engineering problem, and Canon has probably been working on it since they completed the 1DIV. I have no inside info, but considering the design of the 1DIV was probably completed some time back in late 2008 or early 2009 for it's late 2009 release, Canon has had over 2 years to resolve this issue. Add to that the dramatic increases in the processing power of embedded chips over the same time period and i'm sure Canon has solved this issue by now.


----------

