# What do you want from the 5D mk III



## alipaulphotography (Apr 6, 2011)

Interesting to see what the consensus is.


Ali 

www.alipaul.com


----------



## WarStreet (Apr 6, 2011)

Interesting to see the MOST wanted improvement. 

Voted for FPS. But really, I need better AF too, and wish a good improvement in dynamic range.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 6, 2011)

The alternatives in the Canon DSLR lineup need to be specified. Are we to assume that there will ALSO be a FF, 16MP pro/semi-pro body (e.g. a 1D5/9D/3D) in the lineup, designed to outdo the D3s in every respect, except possibly FPS?


----------



## gene_can_sing (Apr 6, 2011)

Since I'm a video guy, I want the 5D3 to have 

1) no terrible moire and aliasing like it currently does
2) 60p slow motion
3) Better video codec, preferably 50mb 4:2:2 at the least. There are rumors of RAW codec to an external recorder, but RAW is not a major concern of mine. For work we work with RED regularly, and we rarely color grade from RAW. Usually just color grade from the proxies in After Effects, which ultimately link up the source file. So for me at least, not too worried about RAW as much as a good in-camera codec.

I just hope the 5D3 or a decent video camera comes out at NAB. Canon is making me really nervous lately with how quiet they are. Sony and Panasonic are releasing and announcing all this new and progressive stuff, and it's been quite a while (last 7D) since Canon has released any cameras of merit.

Since Canon hasn't announced any press releases for NAB yet, it's looking like they won't release anything at NAB for the 2nd year in a row. That is so embarrassing and really makes us video guys lose hope in Canon who is started to get dusted by the competition.


----------



## bvukich (Apr 6, 2011)

Better AF, all points cross, double cross in center + zones.
16bit Raw, and the DR to make them useful (so at least +2 stops or why bother)
High ISO improvements. ISO 102400 may be silly, but clean ISO 12,800 or even 25,600 would be awesome.
No low ISO banding


----------



## distant.star (Apr 6, 2011)

Whatever it has, I'm sure will be fine.

All I really want is:

1. a camera that won't be outdated a month after I spend $2500 (even if I have to spend $3500 to accomplish it,

2. the articulated screen.

If I could have anything I want, I'd get rid of the damn video. I don't like them mucking up my perfectly good still cameras with video that is useless to me. If you want a video camera, go buy a video camera.

Call me an old curmudgeon if you like, but you asked!


----------



## yeldarb (Apr 6, 2011)

Wasn't sure what "advanced ISO handling" means, exactly, but it seemed close to what I want. I'm an advanced amateur and shoot a lot of candids for school and youth organizations. I like to avoid flash to minimize the distraction of my shooting the event. I seem to spend a lot of time adjusting ISO. I'd like to be able to set aperture and shutter, and let the camera "float" the ISO as needed. With the active kids I usually need a certain minimum shutter and it's sometimes handy to have more than the minimum depth of field. Often I end up just leaving ISO set at 3200 so I don't miss any shots, but it would be nice if the camera would automatically float the ISO so that with brighter scenes I at least get getter quality images (less "grain".)
Does this make sense?


----------



## yeldarb (Apr 6, 2011)

Oh, and maybe I'm the only person who doesn't ALWAYS shoot RAW with this camera... but how about better Auto White Balance? Anyone?

Sometimes I'm shooting where I know I will just need to upload the photos very soon after the event. Sometimes it's just easier to shoot JPG (or at least RAW+JPG so I have options...)

Auto White Balance seems to be stymied by the wide variety and crappy quality of compact fluorescent bulbs in use today. I get shots within the same venue (lit by too many different kinds of bulbs) where some are massively yellow-tinted or green-tinted, requiring adjustment at the computer later. Sometimes I don't have time for much of that.

Pre-setting white balance in these cases is usually not an option either (again due to the variety of lighting at the same event.) I realize this is a tough one, scientifically, and the only real solution in these cases may be to use flash. Just wondering what other think and if this is anything that's likely to be improved anytime soon.


----------



## pellemolle (Apr 6, 2011)

No jello effect in video.
Much faster flash sync. At least 1/1500th of a second. 5D is _the_ portrait camera and but instead cheaper Nikon cameras can do it.


----------



## SiliconVoid (Apr 6, 2011)

For marketing purposes, and to keep from cannibalizing sales from the 1D's, I am concerned that Canon will simply destroy the 5D.
They will inevitably try to upgrade an already great sensor (read: 30+mp with terrible AA filtering like the 7D)
We will unfortunately see a switch to enable video and photo from live-view. Forget what you read in the reviews praising the 7D for the toggle, it is cumbersome, it is much more convenient to enable live-view and then simply press one button for photo and one for video without having to turn a switch, wait for lcd to come back, etc.
We should all make sure to make a lot of noise that we DO NOT want an articulating lcd which will not survive the body.

What should be included:
-Same sensor.
-Updated AF.
-Updated metering.
-Smoother less tank-like body. (aesthetically speaking) 
-Updated LCD. (higher rez, scratch resistant tempered glass, accurate color and brightness)
-Wireless flash control (maybe built in flash for convenience)
-Better weather sealing. (should be a given)
-Changeable focus screens.
-Auto ISO in M/B.
-Dual Digic 4.
-Faster FPS. (6-8 preferably - would result from the cpu's)
-60fps 1080p.
-Live manual control during video recording.
-Programmable button set for photo and video.


----------



## Prof.Canon (Apr 6, 2011)

As I'm rarely using the video function on my baby, I'd be happy with better AF like the 7D or 1D mk IV.
I actually don't want to spend 1,600 bucks on a 50mm L lens, which is sad to focus instantly in low light so I got me the f/1,8 lens. The AF on this lens is innately slow but it's a grudge on the 5D mk II when shooting in low light. I don't like huge tele lenses for portrait so I stick to a 50mm.
I would instantly buy the mk II if it had better AF performance even if the resolution stays the same (30mp+ would be amazing though ;D)


----------



## Damp (Apr 6, 2011)

I would really like 5,3 FPS burst and better ISO performance. I want a full frame camera that shoots over 5 frames per seconds and that doesnt look like shit like 1ds  I agree that there is something beautiful about the 1d and 1ds but they are too big!

I actually want the 5DmkIII to be a better version of the 7D. And of course, full frame!


----------



## Damp (Apr 6, 2011)

SiliconVoid said:


> What should be included:
> -Same sensor.
> -Updated AF.
> -Updated metering.
> ...


----------



## ecka (Apr 6, 2011)

What I'm expecting from 5D3 :
1] better AF system (at least something like 7D's 19 cross-type)
2] better metering and AWB
3] solid body with weather sealing and 100% OVF
4] FF sensor, obviously, with better dynamic range and no banding please
5] clean ISO 100-3200 and acceptable noise levels up to ISO 25600
6] adjustable Auto ISO limits (like lowest low and highest high)
7] manual Noise Reduction control (something like Luma/Chroma 0-20 for each ISO level)
8] 5fps or more would be nice (Dual Digic4, Tripple Digic4, Single Digic5 ... whatever works)
9] built-in wireless flash control
10] no "jello effect" in videos
11] more than 1 memory card slot (at least 1 CF + 1 SD/SDHC/SDXC)
12] better LCD would be nice (AMOLED?), could be Vari Angle (I don't mind)
13] Intel's new Thunderbolt connectivity (or at least USB3.0)
14] new kit lens (EF 24-70/2.8L IS USM?)
15] reasonable price (less than $3000 MSRP?)


----------



## DuLt (Apr 6, 2011)

ecka said:


> What I'm expecting from 5D3 :
> 1] better AF system (at least something like 7D's 19 cross-type)
> 2] better metering and AWB
> 3] solid body with weather sealing and 100% OVF
> ...



I second that + autofocus in video and ability to rid the world of famine! Oh and deliver a superb cup of joe!


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 6, 2011)

DuLt said:


> I second that + autofocus in video and ability to rid the world of famine! Oh and deliver a superb cup of joe!



Wait now, lets not get too far ahead of ourselves. We need a cup holder grip accessory to hold that cup of joe.


----------



## DuLt (Apr 6, 2011)

Macadameane said:


> DuLt said:
> 
> 
> > I second that + autofocus in video and ability to rid the world of famine! Oh and deliver a superb cup of joe!
> ...



Third party cup holder!


Btw... if they increased the fps to 8... wouldn't that kill part of 7d sales and part of 1d sales? and maybe 1ds sales?


----------



## distant.star (Apr 6, 2011)

Excellent addition. I'll need IS on that cup holder -- I don't want coffee sloshing out on me and my equipment!





Macadameane said:


> DuLt said:
> 
> 
> > I second that + autofocus in video and ability to rid the world of famine! Oh and deliver a superb cup of joe!
> ...


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 6, 2011)

distant.star said:


> Excellent addition. I'll need IS on that cup holder -- I don't want coffee sloshing out on me and my equipment!



I was checking this super-secret 5d iii photo, but I can't see an IS switch on the cup-holder. Maybe its on the other side. I'll have to grill my source for more info.


----------



## kubelik (Apr 6, 2011)

better AF quality and fps are the only things that [barely] held the 5D II back from being an industry-wide Kratos on a spree (although I think it's come closer than any other digital camera), so I would put those at the top.

that being said, given that it is now 3 years later... I'd hope that canon takes a couple of steps further.

16 bit RAW files
better dynamic range and color integrity at high ISO
28+ MP
more framerate options in video (120p at HD resolution anyone?)
XLR audio input


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 6, 2011)

kubelik said:


> ... XLR audio input



I know the non-video-ers will not care, but that would seriously be nice. Do I think it will happen? Nope. But if it did, phantom power would be nice too. What canon should do is make a "video grip" that has gain knobs, a couple XLR inputs, and perhaps some other things.


----------



## DuLt (Apr 7, 2011)

Macadameane said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > ... XLR audio input
> ...



The battery grip could serve such a purpose.

Maybe the 5D could not be weather sealed to allow such controls.


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 7, 2011)

I think the above is a very good solution. That way the still only people don't have to have unnecessary gizmo's and the video people have something to go for.

If juicedlink for DSLRs was integrated into a grip, I would be extremely happy:


----------



## DuLt (Apr 7, 2011)

We could add a "special" video batter + ssd disk?


----------



## Bruce Photography (Apr 7, 2011)

Now that we've had the "cup holder" as a requested feature I feel safe in adding my two cents. The 5DMK III should
- Have the improved feel that is present in the 7D. Even the grid display in the
is not only nice to have but means that I don't have to keep buying the grids for
every new Canon body I purchase.
- Speaking of focus, the new 5DMK III MUST have the improved focus options used
in the 7D. I love the new options and often find a use for each one at different
times. Please include 7D features in any 5DMK III upgrade otherwise for me 
that own both cameras the upgrade is not an ugrade.
- While I don't need a built in flash, some device for controling multiple electronic
flashes would sure be nice. The 7D has so many of these really "handy" features
that I'm hoping the 5DMK III is a real upgrade not only from the 5D MK II but 
will also include ALL the features of the 7D.
- Personally I too would like 28mp but not if it means more noise. I'm really tired
of the noise of the 7D. I'm limiting myself to ISO 250 for outdoors on the 7D and
using the the 5DMK II for indoor shots using high ISO. 
Even my 50D has better noise handling than the 7D I'm sorry to say.
- For low level macro shooting and other uses I do want a tilt lcd screen. The 60D
feels pretty good. Too bad Canon eliminated micro focus adjust and the joystick
on the 60D. I hope they keep both on the new 5DMK III. 
If not I probably won't upgrade. We shouldn't have to lose capabilities just to
buy a new model with more MPs.
- Canon produced 1080 P portable monitor add-on for live view and video
- Autofocus during video with upgraded joystick to move focus point during filming.

Some of the following have been copied from someone else:
-Dual Digic 4.
-Faster FPS. (6-8 preferably - would result from the cpu's)
-60fps 1080p.
-Live manual control during video recording.

As you can see, the longer I wait for the 5DMK III to come out, the longer my
wants list becomes. (Hint, Hint Canon...)


----------



## 10tonhammer (Apr 7, 2011)

Better Fps and low light adaption. And quality sound, too...


----------



## J. McCabe (Apr 7, 2011)

The important features to me would be ISO, AF, and FPS.

I like video in DSLR, and often take clips with my camera. When it comes to professional video, IMVHO, Canon should split the bodies, and share the lenses.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 7, 2011)

I really hope they done split the bodies because i could only afford one! 

For video, less / no moire and no jello effect. The new codec rumor and better colour space would be amazing, and some better fps choices such as at least 60p at 1080 would be good. And manual sound control.

For stills, AF and dynamic range improvements would be awesome, and other little features theyve stuck in the new bodies such as wireless flash triggering.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 7, 2011)

Well the poll so far suggests that no one wants more mega pixels. I definitely don't. I have the 5D original and am quite content with the 12.8 or so it provides.

Would it be possible to fit an infra-red system like the st-e2 into the body? Or would that kill the accessory all together?

I can't imagine fps will change too drastically as that would be killing sales of the 7d and 1d series.
Clean ISO 3200 would be perfect and I think hope that 7D auto focus is a given.

I am concerned of the robustness of the articulating screen. It just doesn't seem particularly 'professional' to me, but I haven't used one yet..

Ali


----------



## Kim (Apr 7, 2011)

I'm happy no one have voted megapixels.

Would definitely like to see:

Better AF system, 1D mk 4 or better
Noise performance
ISO 100k
Builtin vert grip but that is a long shot
Better display


----------



## abs014000 (Apr 7, 2011)

I'd like to see Thunderbolt technology implemented on the body and also a way to flip between Full-frame and Crop mode sensor sizes like the Nikon D3. Articulating screen is a given.


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 7, 2011)

abs014000 said:


> . . . Articulating screen is a given.



Maybe not. I myself wouldn't mind an articulating screen; however, a different design that is tougher would be necessary. Many pros do not want an articulating screen.

I have a 7D but have used another camera with an articulating screen a good while, and it did come in really handy.


----------



## mreco99 (Apr 7, 2011)

all i want extra is
Articulated screen
More AF points
oh and half the price its going to be.


----------



## Justin (Apr 7, 2011)

I want a bunch of things. Thunderbolt would be fantastic. 

I do want more resolution. 
24-30 mp would be great.
Improved AF system. The old one is very old...
5 fps min
I want it to be fully weather sealed.
100% viewfinder


----------



## jalbfb (Apr 7, 2011)

^^^Justin's list is as close to mine although higher mp is not that critical to me.


----------



## endigo (Apr 7, 2011)

I would like to see these features:

Thunderbolt Integration
Switchable between Full Frame and Crop (One of the Nikon cameras have this)
High ISO
Touch screen in live view to adjust focus and/or exposure (Camera Pro on the iPhone has a good implementation of this)
Night Vision (we can dream can't we?)


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 7, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> oh and half the price its going to be.



I wish. Probably could get this 5D II for even cheaper than 1/2 off. I like how the 50 f/1.4 lens has a red ring. Who knows, perhaps it will be the 50 1.2L successor.


----------



## jeremymerriam (Apr 7, 2011)

I am curious how many people who have voiced their desires are working photographers. It would be nice to see an editable profile next to our names stating who is a hobbyist and who shoot professionally like they do on BHphoto reviews. It might even be helpful if canon ever peruses the forums and have an idea how to tailor products to their customers.

I am a working photographer and I skipped the 5dmark2 because the improvements were not that significant compared the 5D for me. 

What I need to buy the next generation 5D:

- faster AF
- useable 3200 ISO (compared to 5D ISO 400)
- better dynamic range

Give me 2 out of 3 and I will buy it.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 7, 2011)

What do you want more megapixels for out of interest?

Also, with thunderbolt, do you need to have a thunderbolt compatible computer? IE. with a thunderbolt input?

Would be very handy for fast 1080p transfer. Especially as cards are getting bigger and bigger these days.
I too didn't see the mk II as a big enough upgrade if you use it only for stills. Maybe when the price drops...

Ali

www.alipaul.com


----------



## ecka (Apr 7, 2011)

Macadameane said:


> abs014000 said:
> 
> 
> > . . . Articulating screen is a given.
> ...


Well, I think we all agree that vari angle LCD is very good to have for videography. While there many HDSLRs for that purpose, 5D2 is the best one so far (am I wrong?). The question is - "Why 5D3 shouldn't have vari angle screen?". One of the possible answers is - "Because it could be the weak spot of the expected sturdier body construction". Another point - "Vari angle LCD would cause the change of button layout, or worse, some of them could be missing". Any comments?


----------



## ecka (Apr 7, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> Also, with thunderbolt, do you need to have a thunderbolt compatible computer? IE. with a thunderbolt input?


For laptop - yes, you will need the compatibility.
For desktop - you will be able to buy an additional PCI-e 4x controller to make it compatible.
However, I think that if Thunderbolt "hits" the 5D3 it won't be the only connectivity solution, USB2.0 and/or USB3.0 should be present as well, so, no worries there .


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 7, 2011)

I am into HDSLR video; however, this time I was commenting only from a photography perspective. I didn't have a chance to do much video with that camera. For those who like taking odd-angled photos, the vari screen is nice.

It is a weakness though, and even so, the only way to nail the focus is to have an zoom in the live view, an external monitor, or something like LCD VF. The 3 inch screen can be too small to extract awesome focus. Unfortunately, each solution has a downside, ie not weatherproof and expensive (LCD monitor), have to have the camera on your face (LCD VF).

I've decided not to buy one of these solutions for my 7D until I find out what the 5D III will be doing. If it is vari angle, if could render the LCD VF incompatible. I will however still get my rig with follow focus.


----------



## endigo (Apr 7, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> Also, with thunderbolt, do you need to have a thunderbolt compatible computer? IE. with a thunderbolt input?



By the time the Mark III is released, there will be PCI Express cards to add a Thunderbolt interface to your existing computer.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 7, 2011)

@ Macadameane

could you link me to the follow focus rig your thinking of please?


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 7, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> @ Macadameane
> 
> could you link me to the follow focus rig your thinking of please?



Are you looking for follow focus only? Or a full setup?


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 7, 2011)

Event photography at ISO 12800, meaning the ability to use a zoom lens at F 2.8 - 4, shutter speed 200, in the average interior lighting. No noise banding and a tonal range as high as possible (at high ISO).

* REAL auto ISO, based on the actual exposure information.
* More accurate center focus point in low light (at least better than my 40D's).

* Either limits (= low and high) for ISO, shutter speed and F-number, or the ability to switch the exposure settings from several stored sets, based on the (absolute) amount of available light. For example, I can have a set of settings for low light, one for medium light, one for lots of light. A photocell determines the absolute amount of available light and switches the exposure settings.
* 2 memory cards.
* USB 3.
* DOF size displayed, based on the exposure settings (and camera sensor size).

Oh, and sharper photos!




jeremymerriam said:


> I am curious how many people who have voiced their desires are working photographers. It would be nice to see an editable profile next to our names stating who is a hobbyist and who shoot professionally like they do on BHphoto reviews.



Does the word "professional" have any practical meaning? 1 2


----------



## Chewy734 (Apr 7, 2011)

Personally, I would like a spec sheet and release date. They can keep the pricing information to themselves until it's closer to release. Canon is really dragging their feet with this body, and I wish they could release some legitimate information in the next few weeks so that rumors don't run rampant for another year.

It is interesting that the votes show none of us want more MPs... I hope Canon is listening.


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 7, 2011)

Chewy734 said:


> Personally, I would like a spec sheet and release date. They can keep the pricing information to themselves until it's closer to release. *Canon is really dragging their feet* with this body, and I wish they could release some legitimate information in the next few weeks so that rumors don't run rampant for another year.
> 
> It is interesting that the votes show none of us want more MPs... I hope Canon is listening.



I think it feels like they are dragging their feet, but in reality, its not even due to be released yet. We've all just been foraging for rumors for a year with hope that something will happen early.


----------



## Neuffy (Apr 7, 2011)

ecka said:


> What I'm expecting from 5D3 :
> 1] better AF system (at least something like 7D's 19 cross-type) - check
> 2] better metering and AWB - check
> 3] solid body with weather sealing and 100% OVF - eh, nice but OVF is unlikely and unneeded
> ...



Unlikely others here, I'd take all the MP I can get. 40 MP would be nice - it gives 2x2 pixel binning to 10MP with minimal processing power. I certainly wouldn't expect it, but I'd take 80MP if they'd give it (20MP with 2x2 pixel binning). Would it be fair to say that others here do not habitually print big? I'd like my standard size to be 40x60" (unfortunately, I can't print larger myself - I'd have to send it out).

Naturally, priority is better autofocus first, then get rid of banding/noise, and finally resolution.


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 7, 2011)

Binning would be a good solution for video. I don't know that it would do much for the rolling shutter issue, but would do loads for the resolving, Moire, and aliasing problems.

What I don't want is for a video solution to be "crop only" meaning that a small set of pixels in the center will be 1920x1080. Great for resolution, moire, aliasing, and rolling shutter, but would completely drive HDSLR crowd away. If that happened the depth of field would grow much larger (as per subject distance) and that is why the film crowd latched onto the 5D II in the first place.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 7, 2011)

I run a macbook pro at the moment - so thunderbolt wouldn't be an option for me till I buy a desktop (hopefully in the next year). Lets hope the new imac comes with thunderbolt, as that would be my first choice.

What do you mean by 'pixel binning'? As in cropping?

I'm never keen on cropping my photos unless I really have to and I still print big with a 12.8 mp camera with no noticeable pixels. My usual is 30"x20" though. Haven't printed bigger as of yet. That is why I don't feel I need the 21+ pixels offered and certainly not more when efforts could be put to other areas of the camera.

I do hope canon does read these forums for a users opinion! But I imagine now is too late as I would hope production is underway. A 5D mk III is definitely due if Canon want to compete with Nikon. 5Dmk II must be losing sales by now.

Ali

www.alipaul.com


----------



## rocket_scientist (Apr 7, 2011)

As an owner of the 7D and no full-frame as of yet, I think I would be hard pressed to upgrade to a Mk III without better autofocus. I do not utilize the tremendous speed the 7D offers so 4 fps would suffice, I think. If Canon does not deliver this with the Mk III, I would probably wait until the 1Ds Mk III's got cheaper and buy used (not good for Canon). I would be going FF for better noise and DOF so a higher resolution than what is available would not be necessary. 

Aside: To those wanting the ability to change crop sizes, Nikon does this with its 'dx' lenses similar to Canon's 'EF-S' lenses. The problem with Canon doing this, is that EF-S lenses allow the rear element to stick farther into the body because a crop sensor camera uses smaller mirrors (according to what I have read about this). That being said, one would not be able to put an EF-S lens on a FF camera because it could hit the mirror. Cropping the sensor might make it seem like you are getting a tighter shot, but all you are doing is changing the image before you get it to the computer to do the exact same thing...


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 7, 2011)

My understanding is that pixel binning is combining the sensor data (from say a 2x2 pixel area) into an effective 1 pixel in the output.

This has advantages because it reduces noise. The process can be modified to search for noise and compare it to surrounding pixels. Also these comparisons can be used to create a more "resolved" picture because the color data of a near pixel is considered.

This it not only for video, but the current video solution (on the 5d mk ii) is to record a single pixel every 3rd line. Because of this, there is missing information in between those lines. There are video still frames vs actual full sensor picture scaled to 1920x1080 that show huge differences.


----------



## zalmagor (Apr 7, 2011)

jeremymerriam said:


> I am curious how many people who have voiced their desires are working photographers. It would be nice to see an editable profile next to our names stating who is a hobbyist and who shoot professionally like they do on BHphoto reviews. It might even be helpful if canon ever peruses the forums and have an idea how to tailor products to their customers.



I'd rather know who got a tax return on their equipment, and who didn't. After all, those who pay more should have a greater say.


----------



## DuLt (Apr 7, 2011)

Does the 5d really need weather sealing? Or a stronger body?
Wouldn't everyone prefer that level of ruggedness on a 1d to keep 5d's costs down?

I mean I shot trough rain and snow with a 400d, its still kicking.
Well it didn't fell in a puddle of muddy water offcourse...


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 7, 2011)

DuLt said:


> Does the 5d really need weather sealing? Or a stronger body?
> Wouldn't everyone prefer that level of ruggedness on a 1d to keep 5d's costs down?
> 
> I mean I shot trough rain and snow with a 400d, its still kicking.
> Well it didn't fell in a puddle of muddy water offcourse...



The 5d II already had some weather sealing. but the 7D is even better. I think they will bring the 5D up to the 7Ds weather standards. (At least I hope) I like to go spelunking and its a hard environment for a camera. Now, I just need a weather sealed lens... perhaps the 50 f/1.2. And later the 14mm 2.8 II.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 7, 2011)

@Macadameane

Yea a followfocus would be awesome. I have seen the electircal one from Oki, i think thats the name. 

Any info on decent full rigs too would be great! Really appreciate any thoughts, message me if its not appropriate here! Thanks


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 7, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> @Macadameane
> 
> Yea a followfocus would be awesome. I have seen the electircal one from Oki, i think thats the name.
> 
> Any info on decent full rigs too would be great! Really appreciate any thoughts, message me if its not appropriate here! Thanks



It was lengthy, so I sent you a PM


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 7, 2011)

I have taken nearly a half million wedding photos, and I can definitively say this is what I would like to see in the 5DIII. This would be best for my business. And, for those of you who are wondering about the "pro's" out there. I make $300,000+USD/yr shooting weddings, and that's all I do.

1. Better High ISO (low light) performance. 1 more stop would be great.
2. Improved Dynamic Range
3. Auto Setting and adjusting internal clock to timezone and time using broadcasted time signals (cant tell you how important this would be!)
4. Better auto focus
5. Built in ETTL transmitter (similar but improved over 7D)
6. Dual Card Slots, 1x CF, 1x SD. Ability to save JPG to one and RAW to another. (in camera redundancy)
7. Slightly better weather proofing
8. USB 3.0 AND OR Thunderbolt
9. perhaps 60P vid
10. Built in GPS (for personal use, not professional)

THATS IT! I will pay $4000 for this body and pre-order 2 of them the moment they are announced.


*DO NOT NEED:*
-More megapixels
-Higher FPS
-articulating screen
-better AWB or Metering - C'mon guys, you should all be shooting RAW by now, and you should understand how your metering mode works. This doesn't need to improve. YOU DO.


----------



## endigo (Apr 7, 2011)

endigo said:


> I would like to see these features:
> 
> Thunderbolt Integration
> Switchable between Full Frame and Crop (One of the Nikon cameras have this)
> ...



I would like to add to more features to my order please:

GPS for Geo-tagging (I should have the option of turning it off)
WiFi for wireless uploading of my images (The Eye-Fi can do this inside an SD card)

P.S. Snow isn't yellow?


----------



## akiskev (Apr 7, 2011)

I just want a new sensor, better af system and a swivel-screen! That's all!


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 8, 2011)

prestonpalmer said:


> I have taken nearly a half million wedding photos, and I can definitively say this is what I would like to see in the 5DIII. This would be best for my business. And, for those of you who are wondering about the "pro's" out there. I make $300,000+USD/yr shooting weddings, and that's all I do.
> 
> 1. Better High ISO (low light) performance. 1 more stop would be great.
> 2. Improved Dynamic Range
> ...



I'm totally agreeing with you there. This isn't a sports camera. Images is what we buy cameras for so I'd hope an upgrade will take 'better' images. Megapixels don't constitute a 'better' image. New sensor that has clean 3200 ISO and improved dynamic range and auto focus points that cover a larger area of my viewfinder! Focus and recompose doesn't work well with an 85mm f/1.4 but center point works fine if I'm not shooting that shallow. I bought myself an ST-E2 for triggering flashes and also for auto focus assist in low light. A built in one of these would be great for everyone that doesn't have one already otherwise you should look at the 'yongnuo' model which is only about Â£80 and is actually better than the canon version.

Verifying my posts is annoying me...


----------



## mreco99 (Apr 8, 2011)

prestonpalmer said:


> I have taken nearly a half million wedding photos, and I can definitively say this is what I would like to see in the 5DIII. This would be best for my business. And, for those of you who are wondering about the "pro's" out there. I make $300,000+USD/yr shooting weddings, and that's all I do.
> 
> 1. Better High ISO (low light) performance. 1 more stop would be great.
> 2. Improved Dynamic Range
> ...




Ive a sudden urge to learn wedding photography, maybe its because spring is here?


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 8, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> Ive a sudden urge to learn wedding photography, maybe its because spring is here?



Either that or the $300,000


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> auto focus points that cover a larger area of my viewfinder! Focus and recompose doesn't work well with an 85mm f/1.4 but center point works fine if I'm not shooting that shallow.



Don't hold your breath for that one. More points? Likely. All cross-type points? Very possible. But a wider spread of AF points is very unlikely given the limitations of AF systems. In case you didn't know, the AF points in the 5DII cover the same area of the frame as those in the 1DsIII. The 1DsIII has many more points (45), and many are cross-type (19), but the points on the edges of the array are no further from the center than those in the 5DII.


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 8, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> ... a wider spread of AF points is very unlikely given the limitations of AF systems.



Do you know the reasoning behind the limitation? I could look it up somewhere I'm sure, but you probably know off the top of your head.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 8, 2011)

Macadameane said:


> Do you know the reasoning behind the limitation? I could look it up somewhere I'm sure, but you probably know off the top of your head.



Basically, three reasons:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Limitations on the size of the secondary mirror. Light for AF passes through the semi-transparent part of the main mirror (most is reflected up to the viewfinder), then is reflected off the secondary mirror down to the AF sensor. There is limited space behind the main mirror, based on the necessary geometry (i.e. the main mirror has to be at a 45Â° angle to the incoming light, and the secondary mirror has to be behind the main mirror and at an angle of 90Â° to the main mirror, so it's length is limited by the distance between the main mirror and the image sensor).
[*]Distortion. With many lenses, the edges of the frame are subject to distortion (barrel/pincushion), and that reduces the accuracy of phase detect AF.
[*]Vingetting. The AF system needs a certain amount of light to work. Almost all lenses vignette to some degree, meaning there might not be enough light at the edges of the frame. For example, the EF 17-40mm f/4L has >2 stops of vignetting wide open at the wide end - that means at the edges of the frame, you're below f/5.6 and AF sensors would not heve enough light to operate.
[/list]

It's worth noting that none of these limitations apply to contrast detect AF, so using LiveView you can autofocus right out to the edge of the frame.


----------



## mreco99 (Apr 8, 2011)

That might explain it, in laymens terms
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/camera-autofocus.htm


----------



## djw (Apr 9, 2011)

yeldarb, that is a excellent idea.



yeldarb said:


> I'd like to be able to set aperture and shutter, and let the camera "float" the ISO as needed.
> ...



If makes perfect sense! "ISO Float" would be a real innovation (and it would be very simple to create).

It is such a great idea I can't believe it isn't built into cameras now.

Cheers

David


----------



## DuLt (Apr 9, 2011)

djw said:


> yeldarb, that is a excellent idea.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If onyl we could set auto-iso in manual mode...


----------



## Neuffy (Apr 9, 2011)

DuLt said:


> djw said:
> 
> 
> > yeldarb, that is a excellent idea.
> ...



Well, Nikons can do it. Canon...not very well. More applicable to Aperture Priority than manual, but still true.


----------



## DuLt (Apr 9, 2011)

or a new Custom priority! Where you set what you want in AUTO mode!


----------



## John Smith (Apr 10, 2011)

Would like
- Updated AF, similar to 7D's. Central focus point sensitive at f/8.0 would be really nice.
- 2nd memory card slot. I prefer SDHC/SDXC, but CF would be fine as well.
- GPS. If Canon can put one in the SX230, it should be able to put one in DSLRs.

Nice to have
- Updated metering & AWB.
- Improved dynamic range, ISO & ISO control.
- Higher FPS rate.
- Autofocus in video.
- Ability to use crop lenses.
- Wireless flash control.

Object to
- More megapixels. I have far more than I need, anything more would just burn resources from memory card, through image processing, to backup. I would actually welcome a reduction in resolution, unless crop lenses are supported.


----------



## lol (Apr 10, 2011)

For those earlier who want auto-ISO in manual mode, it's present on the 7D and I assume on newer cameras too, so Canon certainly can put it in newer cameras like an inevitable 5D3. The only snag with the implementation is you can't set exposure compensation in that mode. The 7D lacks user set auto-ISO limiting, but I think that did make it into newer cameras.

I voted for better AF, as I think it would be suicide for Canon not to do so. My guess would be a 7D like system as they would probably want to keep a gap between 5D and 1D series. If they stuck that in the existing model with maybe a few firmware features from newer models, call it 5D2N, I'd buy it now.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 10, 2011)

lol said:


> I voted for better AF, as I think it would be suicide for Canon not to do so.



You should vote with what you want the most! It would likely be suicide, but it isn't my most wanted feature.

www.alipaul.com


----------



## Bill Pryor (Apr 10, 2011)

I would be a very happy camper if they would improve the moire issue, provide full HDMI out so people who want to could record more uncompressed to an Atmos or equivalent box. It would also be nice if they made an audio pod, similar to the old Sony PD150's, that would attach to the hotshoe, with 2 XLR inputs and real audio meters. Or, what the hell, they could just put the 5D's chip into a body like the XH A1!


----------



## WarStreet (Apr 10, 2011)

I guess it is to be expected a 28mp, about 2/3 or 1 stop noise improvement, and maybe a 1 stop Dynamic range improvement especially in the high ISO range. An improved AF, maybe similar to the 7D, new small features found on the latest cameras, and maybe a 100% viewfinder. There is no doubt they will do all sort of video improvements too since they want to keep the good momentum in the video area. 

BUT.... the FPS is the only area we might not see a big improvement since this is not what the camera is intended for. Can you imagine such a camera with 8FPS ? It will be a super camera, with highest image quality , together with good enough AF and FPS for most situations and users. I think that's why I voted for FPS, as it is what I believe it's weak point.

With no competition, we will never see something like this, but with strong competition we might see a good improvement. Sony translucent a33 and a55 as far as I know cost less than a 60D and they have 7FPS and 10FPS respectively. The new A77 is expected to cost similar to the 60D and is expected (reliable rumors) to have 24MP and 10FPS with very high ISO capabilities. If it is true that a cheap APS-C camera can do 10FPS with 24MP I guess Canon do need to improve FPS in most of their cameras. They need to take care about the new FF cameras from Sony which will compete with the 5DIII. Sony has no interest to limit specs on their cameras, they just need to show off big time to steal clients. I think a big weakness of Sony is some side-effects related with the translucent technology, but still, I am happy to see such a competition which hopefully should mean a better 5DIII


----------



## lol (Apr 10, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> You should vote with what you want the most! It would likely be suicide, but it isn't my most wanted feature.



It is what I want most, pipping a big jump in MP count as my 2nd choice. e.g. scale the 18MP APS-C sensor up and you get about 46MP. FF sensors have always lagged the density of smaller sensors so I'd settle for 30MP+. Of course everyone has different needs so I can imagine that wont appeal to everyone.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 10, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> You should vote with what you want the most!



What I want the most isn't really there...more AF points is closest. Frankly, I think 15 is enough (pretty close to the 7D's 19-points, and on the 7D it's really rare that I select anything that's not either the center point or one on the outer ring). What I want is better AF - hopefully, we can all recognize that _more_ AF points does not mean better AF. I want all cross-type sensors, a diagonal f/2.8-sensitive center point (the 5DII's center point has just a horizontal f/2.8 line, the vertical line is f/5.6-sensitive), and the low-light AF performance of the current sensor maintained or even improved.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 10, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> alipaulphotography said:
> 
> 
> > You should vote with what you want the most!
> ...



Very good point which I should have rephrased in the poll. As the phase goes: 'Quality not quantity'.

D700/5DmkII hybrid for the 5dMKIII would be super.

Thanks Canon!


----------



## Lawliet (Apr 11, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> What I want is better AF - hopefully, we can all recognize that _more_ AF points does not mean better AF.



A wider spread of AF points would be nice, transplant the 7D module and you get a very sophisticated large center point.

"More" comes almost for free. f/2,8 cross sensors tend to require intersecting sensor lines with those of the surrounding points. Change the readout patterns and you have an additional point inbetween.


----------



## AlicoatePhotography (Apr 11, 2011)

I would like to see the 5D continue to be a game changer.
5d Affordable Full Frame, incredible image quality
5dII 1080P video
5dII raw video

I can't see anything else being such a big deal. 
But I still want more:

I would like to see the dedicated video button, but that is a given.
6FPS
28MP
Wider AF points (this is required) this can't come from the 7d. an APS-C AF isn't large enough.
7d like AF features
The ability to use a crop of sensor for higher magnification video.(and much less moire)
Higher resolution video than 1080P 4K maybe.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 11, 2011)

In all honesty this is what I would really like to see included in the 5DIII.

1. Built in legs, arms and AI. This way the camera can wake up before me in the morning, go to the kitchen and make me some bacon and eggs and deliver it to me in the bedroom. While I eat the camera goes into my office and starts editing, processing, uploading and delivering finished products via print and web to my clients. Of course these are photos that the camera took by itself after I showed it the exact STYLE me and my clients like. When done with that work the camera goes off and shoots some creative stuff just for fun and after a long full day of work the camera sets itself in the charger ready to go again tomorrow.

I really don't think this is too much to ask from Canon.


----------



## Phil Indeblanc (Apr 11, 2011)

A removable AA filter


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 11, 2011)

prestonpalmer said:


> In all honesty this is what I would really like to see included in the 5DIII.
> 
> 1. Built in legs, arms and AI. This way the camera can wake up before me in the morning, go to the kitchen and make me some bacon and eggs and deliver it to me in the bedroom. While I eat the camera goes into my office and starts editing, processing, uploading and delivering finished products via print and web to my clients. Of course these are photos that the camera took by itself after I showed it the exact STYLE me and my clients like. When done with that work the camera goes off and shoots some creative stuff just for fun and after a long full day of work the camera sets itself in the charger ready to go again tomorrow.
> 
> I really don't think this is too much to ask from Canon.



Let's hope canon are listening. I don't like disappointment


----------



## endigo (Apr 11, 2011)

prestonpalmer said:


> 1. Built in legs, arms and AI. This way the camera can wake up before me in the morning, go to the kitchen and make me some bacon and eggs and deliver it to me in the bedroom. While I eat the camera goes into my office and starts editing, processing, uploading and delivering finished products via print and web to my clients. Of course these are photos that the camera took by itself after I showed it the exact STYLE me and my clients like. When done with that work the camera goes off and shoots some creative stuff just for fun and after a long full day of work the camera sets itself in the charger ready to go again tomorrow.



This is totally absurd, There is no way Canon will make a charging dock for their DSLRs!


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 12, 2011)

prestonpalmer said:


> In all honesty this is what I would really like to see included in the 5DIII.
> 
> 1. Built in legs, arms and AI. This way the camera can wake up before me in the morning, go to the kitchen and make me some bacon and eggs and deliver it to me in the bedroom. While I eat the camera goes into my office and starts editing, processing, uploading and delivering finished products via print and web to my clients. Of course these are photos that the camera took by itself after I showed it the exact STYLE me and my clients like. When done with that work the camera goes off and shoots some creative stuff just for fun and after a long full day of work the camera sets itself in the charger ready to go again tomorrow.
> 
> I really don't think this is too much to ask from Canon.



And what is 5D4 supposed to do then?


I want it to have a sensor split in 4, where every second (RGGB) pixel (vertically and horizontally) can be exposed with different settings (ISO or shutter speed), so that we can take HDRs at any moment.


----------



## Cannon Man (Apr 12, 2011)

This is what i think they will do.. (at least what i think they should)
It will have about 28mp, i think it deserves to have a bigger body and more of a quality feel to it, the built wuality feels like its a 50D (not as big as 1D though) because i hate using a battery grip and without it its just too small. and then they could up the price to 3500â‚¬ from 2000â‚¬ or am i the only one who thinks its too cheap?? 

I dont care about iso performance, i want it to look and feel like a pro camera and if they up the price maby they could make it better than 150 000 cycles, more MP will come without a question... I think Canon is working on next level sensors or somehow taking a bigger step because there is no word on the 1Ds Mark IV that im waitin for that normally would have come already.


----------



## azf (Apr 12, 2011)

I guess I'm quite easy to please. If these three things are met, I'm getting one:

- Better high iso performance. Two stops' improvement would make it on par with nikons, and I'd be delighted with that. 
- About the same price Mk2 was as new
- Available
- (Not worse than Mk2 in any major way)

As long as they keep CF slot and the same battery that is already in Mk2, I'm all set. I haven't been in situations where my shots would've had any technical quality problems due to gear, so there's not much point in craving for more pixels or anything. 

And my Mk2 is starting to show some wear and tear, so I probably have to retire it to being spare real soon now.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 12, 2011)

Cannon Man said:


> This is what i think they will do.. (at least what i think they should)
> It will have about 28mp, i think it deserves to have a bigger body and more of a quality feel to it, the built wuality feels like its a 50D (not as big as 1D though) because i hate using a battery grip and without it its just too small. and then they could up the price to 3500â‚¬ from 2000â‚¬ or am i the only one who thinks its too cheap??
> 
> I dont care about iso performance, i want it to look and feel like a pro camera and if they up the price maby they could make it better than 150 000 cycles, more MP will come without a question... I think Canon is working on next level sensors or somehow taking a bigger step because there is no word on the 1Ds Mark IV that im waitin for that normally would have come already.



The entire point in the 5D series - "_Full frame camera in a smaller, more affordable body._"

I really don't see the point in more megapixels. No professionals should be cropping their photos and 21.1mp blows up massive will no visible pixels. If you are blowing up any bigger than that (say billboards) then you should probably have a medium format.

How many 5D users have had problems with blowing up photos large and getting visible pixels? How many have had visible noise in their photos?

I some how feel that the majority is with the latter. One of the biggest reasons to upgrade from a crop to a full frame is for noise performance.

And why anyone would want a camera to be _more_ expensive is beyond me.


----------



## WarStreet (Apr 12, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> I really don't see the point in more megapixels. No professionals should be cropping their photos and 21.1mp blows up massive will no visible pixels. If you are blowing up any bigger than that (say billboards) then you should probably have a medium format.



I am not a pro, but I doubt that pro should not crop their photos. There are different types of photography and one might have different needs. From the books and the web articles written by pros, cropping is considered essential. I don't think that avoiding cropping makes a photographer better, it just limits the photographer and miss opportunities.

There might be the need to change the photo in different formats to fit in different media, or just to change the meaning of the photo. You might need to crop to get more reach. My friend who shoots birds, never have enough reach even with a 400mm on APS-C, and cropping is essential. For sports photography, it is very limiting to try to frame perfectly the action, since this is hectic and you end up with cut limbs, so it is much better to leave some space. Another situation in sport might be having non subject players limbs in the photos, where you just crop only the subject an leave the non important stuff out. The same is for some distracting background, there is no time to think much during action. There are other situations where one needs cropping. 

For large printing, higher resolving power is not that important since bigger prints need a related longer viewing distance with a related lower dpi since we won't manage to detect more detail even if there is a higher dpi.

For cropping, higher resolving power is important since cropping just eliminates data, while still having the same intended print size.

I personally, do need a camera with low noise ability to be able to shoot indoor sports, and my first preference in the poll is FPS, but I still would like more resolution for me or for anyone who needs it. A good balance of features is more important rather than having a bottleneck, of which I think (but might be wrong) that today the bottleneck compared to film is dynamic range.


----------



## torger (Apr 12, 2011)

I guess the 5D must be some sort of all-around camera. I don't really believe in compromise of high MP and high ISO, I really like Nikon's approach with D3x (high MP) and D3s (high ISO), but for the non-flagship model I guess you need that compromise, and I guess the rumoured 28 megapixel could provide both an upgrade in MP and ISO performance.

In general I think the value of resolution is a bit underestimated, at least for tripod-mounted photography. 400 ppi for book/screen distance viewing distance is a good target, and this is what you can get with high quality printing technology. My personal experience is that there is a clear visual difference between 200 and 400 ppi in printed material. You don't really see individual pixels at 200 ppi, but the lack of micro detail leads to an unnatural pastel-like look, especially highlights are suffering. At 400 ppi at book viewing distance the image looks perfectly natural, and you get the sense that the image has resolution beyond what the eye can perceive, which is what you should strive for. Being satisfied with 200 ppi images is like being satisfied with 8 bit sound.

Also worth noting is that film images have a much more pleasing look if blown up too large than a digital image, so I would say that the resolution requirement is higher for digital than film. There's a charm to film artifacts, but there's no charm in digital ones. The ideas of what resolution is required for a certain size/viewing distance come from the film era, and it certainly needs upgrading to fit the digital era.

You cannot get high ppi count on computer screens yet (they are currently around 100 ppi), but it will come. To fill a 24 inch screen with 300 ppi or both pages of a high quality photo book you'll need around 40 megapixels, and I think that is a reasonable resolution for full-frame, but you will probably have to sacrifice ISO performance then, so every photographer not using a tripod and often shooting at high ISOs would of course want to trade megapixels for better ISO performance.

Of course you could say that high MP count should be reserved for medium format, but I think 40 - 50 megapixels is sort of ideal pixel count for unlimited time into the future (its related to the human eye limitations and normal picture sizes), and since that pixel count is technically possible with good quality for 35mm I think we should eventually get there. At least with some camera body... entry level full-frame might not be the right one.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 12, 2011)

I understand the importance of megapixels in general, and I should hope in future that it will improve as full frame sensors can certainly handle more. I don't however think it should be on top of canons priority list in an upgrade for the 5D when they are lagging behind in the ISO handling area.

The Nikon D3s and D700 are superb cameras used by professionals worldwide yet are only 12.1 megapixels. They realised the majority of photographers would rather have a camera with lower noise at high ISO's than the megapixels. Yes - canon did well with the 5D mk II to get the high megapixels and also decent noise handling, but not as good as the low mp nikons. Canon already have the megapixel advantage, so I should hope that they now focus efforts on the ISO handling. Then nikon won't have much to shout about at all. I envy D3X users that can shoot ISO8000, stop down their lenses and capture sharp action in zero light.
My personal opinion is that is where canon should be aiming. But I guess that is what the poll is for - to see what the majority of other photographers opinions are.


----------



## parsek (Apr 12, 2011)

My first post, hi everyone!

First of all I hope they keep the body the same size and kill some of the hard edges.

Secondly I hope Canon realize that they need to make a separate DSLR for the video enthusiasts before they start ruining what could become a perfect walk around high end DSLR for photographers.


My wishes and desires for this camera:

1: Dynamic range above all.
2: Dynamic range, still the most important.
3: Improved build.
4: Low light noise improvements/high ISO capability.
5: Better AF.
6: 24-26 MP range.
7: At least two f-stops of dynamic range. Please...
8: LotÂ´s of customization options. Kill the print button!
9: Better screen and articulated.
10: USB 3 (not happening).
11: Dual CF card shooting.
12: Build in intervalometer function.
13: Better dust removal system.


PS: This page keeps asking me "What colour is snow", it is a ridiculous question. First of all snow crystals are transparent, its all reflections and refractions. Second of all white is not a colour. Huge fail to use for a photographic forum.


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 12, 2011)

parsek said:


> PS: This page keeps asking me "What colour is snow", it is a ridiculous question. First of all snow crystals are transparent, its all reflections and refractions. Second of all white is not a colour. Huge fail to use for a photographic forum.



1. All color is reflected light wavelengths (refracted is different though, you are right there).
2. White is a color, combining red green a blue light. If you say it is not a color, then any other combination of light is also not a color. Leaving only red green and blue as colors. I can see arguing that black is not a color, but still.


----------



## pgabor (Apr 12, 2011)

Macadameane said:


> 1. All color is reflected light wavelengths (refracted is different though, you are right there).
> 2. White is a color, combining red green a blue light. If you say it is not a color, then any other combination of light is also not a color. Leaving only red green and blue as colors. I can see arguing that black is not a color, but still.



Im pretty sure that he wanted to say that white and black are tones.
On the other hand, you are wrong, white is not a combination of red green and blue. Take a prism and try out!





White light contains every wavelength of the visible range ("White light is the effect of combining the visible colors of light in suitable proportions (the same present in solar light)" from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White)
The only reason that you register the red green and blue combination as white, because your photoreceptor cells in your retina can only detect wavelengths what we call "red" "green" and "blue".


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 12, 2011)

torger said:


> I don't really believe in compromise of high MP and high ISO, I really like Nikon's approach with D3x (high MP) and D3s (high ISO)



Here is a little trick that anyone can do. Download the RAW photos taken with those 2 Nikons from:
* http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/D3ShSLI006400_NR0.NEF.HTM
* http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3X/D3XhSLI6400_NR_OFF.NEF.HTM

Load them in your RAW editor, deactivate all processing, and export them as JPEG (100% quality) or TIFF; in LR you need to increase the exposure of the photo from the D3x with about 0.5 stops (to match the brightness). Then load the results in your photo viewer, in full screen (NOT at 100% view / pixel level, but full screen because that's how people see photos on displays or on paper).

Then see if the difference in the noise levels from the two photos, considering the years of extra research for D3s + only half the resolution, means more than diddly squat.


Disclaimer: I believe that the photos taken by IR are taken in different amounts of light, which affects a scientific test, but since here two Nikon cameras are compared, I see no problem (despite the huge difference in exposure compensation and post-processing exposure adjustment which doesn't favor the D3x).


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 12, 2011)

Ok sure, I can handle some burn.


----------



## WarStreet (Apr 12, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> in LR you need to increase the exposure of the photo from the D3x with about 0.5 stops (to match the brightness).



I think you meant to increase the 0.5 stop to the D3S.


----------



## torger (Apr 12, 2011)

Both images are underexposed, the D3s 0.5 stops more than the D3X, so the D3S is less favoured.

When you shrink an image, the pixels are averaged out which reduces impact of the noise. So in some circumstances a high MP sensor can with more noise per pixel can win over a lower MP sensor. On my screen the D3s wins with a little though, but not much.

When I discussed quality above I was discussing "high end" prints and limits of human vision. A bit early to dream about that perhaps, I admit. On normal viewing distance I see individual pixels on my computer screen, which is 1920x1200 @ 100 ppi. That is not satisfactory, but is what current technology can do. When the screen has 300+ ppi (like the iPhone4 has, but that screen is a bit small for a workstation  ) the quality is approaching the vision limit (for photos, not for line art). For the best prints, we're already there. For the screens I think we will be there within 5-8 years or so. I want to produce "future proof" photos as soon as possible...



NotABunny said:


> torger said:
> 
> 
> > I don't really believe in compromise of high MP and high ISO, I really like Nikon's approach with D3x (high MP) and D3s (high ISO)
> ...


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 13, 2011)

Well voting closes tomorrow and looks like the very aged autofocus is coming out top with ISO handling in close 2nd.

More megapixels is in last place - but I somehow reckon canon will probably boost them anyway and compromise ISO handling potential.

Wish I had dynamic range up there - would be interesting to see!

What current (digital) camera has the greatest dynamic range? What is stopping manufactures from improving it substantially?

You lot are so wise..


----------



## Grendel (Apr 13, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> [dynamic range] What is stopping manufactures from improving it substantially?



Physics.


----------



## branden (Apr 13, 2011)

parsek said:


> PS: This page keeps asking me "What colour is snow", it is a ridiculous question. First of all snow crystals are transparent, its all reflections and refractions. Second of all white is not a colour. Huge fail to use for a photographic forum.


You are being ridiculous. The question is not "what color are snow crystals". Snow, being by definition a large quantity of snow crystals, when pure and exposed to light, reflect back the same color as the light. This meets the definition of a white pigment. This also brings us to your second ridiculous error, where you ignore the universe that is pigments and state that white is not a color. When discussing colors of objects, it is convention that unless specifically stated otherwise, what is under discussion is the object's pigment color. The pigment color of snow is white, therefore the color of snow is white.


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 13, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> NotABunny said:
> 
> 
> > in LR you need to increase the exposure of the photo from the D3x with about 0.5 stops (to match the brightness).
> ...



Right, the image is already underexposed with 1.3 stops, so this correction gives it only 0.8 stops underexposure. (Considering that these are both Nikons from the same range are really doubt that they have an ISO sensibility that differs with 0.8 stops; I simply believe that the photos were taken in a different amount of light.)




torger said:


> On my screen the D3s wins with a little though, but not much.



Exactly.



torger said:


> When I discussed quality above I was discussing "high end" prints and limits of human vision.



Right, but if the resolution of the print / display increases, the image with fewer pixels must be upscaled more, which means that its noise is increased plus it would show blurry details because it has no real details (they are interpolated).

This example was meant to show that the theory that less pixels means less noise is an illusion. Even if we ignore the technological advancements of D3s, is it really important that tiny difference in noise that you get from *halving* the number of pixels (note: only in this illusory world where the better quality of the D3s is strictly given by the fewer pixels)?

I can see no practical application where fewer pixels would mean a technically better *image* (= not better pixels). The only advantage there is, is in terms of more FPS and less storage space per image, but if the camera (with more pixels) implements pixel binning, these advantages are very limited (it really depends how fast the camera does pixel binning).


Of course, one could always go to http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911 where I point to a guy who did take the same photo in the same light with a 1D4 and a D3s (the photos have the same exposure settings and brightness).

Those images have to be normalized for the physical size of the sensor (and black level). Some people ignore that comparison because they do not understand that sensor size is THE technical reason why DSLRs and medium format (and whatever other uber-sized format) exist: more light for the same exposure AND noise. When such images are seen at the same *physical* size as the ones coming from smaller sensors, that extra light actually clears the image of some noise.

(Alas, the guy's conclusion is wrong because he compares the noise at pixel level, not at image level.)


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 13, 2011)

branden said:


> parsek said:
> 
> 
> > PS: This page keeps asking me "What colour is snow", it is a ridiculous question. First of all snow crystals are transparent, its all reflections and refractions. Second of all white is not a colour. Huge fail to use for a photographic forum.
> ...



He's being technical, not ridiculous.

The question refers to a social concept: color. However, technically, the colors perceived by humans are really a spectral power distribution function of an illuminating light which is altered when reflected by matter into another spectral power distribution function and then received by the human eye and altered into a much more limited spectral power distribution function (the so called RGB receptors), and finally processed by the brain into something we perceive as color.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 13, 2011)

Enough snow talk already! Camera site, camera forum and I check a new post and it is about whether white is a colour.

Really interesting link behind the physically limits of photography - Thanks for posting Grendel.



NotABunny said:


> WarStreet said:
> 
> 
> > NotABunny said:
> ...



The D3S is currently the best ISO handling DSLR out there. But you are saying that even if it had 30mp, that wouldn't affect its performance and the image at higher ISO's would infact be _better_?


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 13, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> The D3S is currently the best ISO handling DSLR out there.



Yes, but that's because of its sensor size (and its top technology), not because of the fewer pixels.




alipaulphotography said:


> The D3S is currently the best ISO handling DSLR out there. But you are saying that even if it had 30mp, that wouldn't affect its performance and the image at higher ISO's would infact be _better_?



Exactly. (But only in theory because Nikon / Sony may not have the actual sensor technology which would allow them to increase the pixel density while maintaining the level of noise. As the comparison between the 1D4 and D3s shows, Canon does have such technology.)


----------



## fernando (Apr 13, 2011)

- Better audio monitoring and features
- Raw Video
- Better encoding
- All available FPS (24p, 30p, 50p, 60p)
- Swivel Screen
- Higher Res LCD Screen

oh and announce it tomorrow


----------



## torger (Apr 13, 2011)

You cannot be categorical on this issue. Yes, the noise advantage of large pixels/sensels is generally over-estimated, but saying it is not a factor to take into account is going too far.

The noise advantage of a larger pixel is that you gather more light (more signal), and if the read noise is the same, you get a higher signal/noise ratio (you get some advantage of less photon shot noise too with more signal). So if you make a smaller pixel you need also to lower the read noise to keep the same signal/noise ratio per pixel. It is also easier to gather the photons in a specific area with one pixel than if you have pixel borders in it - photons can hit in-between pixels (micro lenses developments has improved this collection problem though).

Whether or not the advantage of large pixels will compensate or supersede the advantage of averaging noise between several pixels you need to subjectively compare on a case per case basis. If the small pixel sensor has great electronics and great micro lenses, and the large pixel sensor has poor the small pixel sensor will certainly win. If the quality of the electronics and sensor construction is exactly the same, which sensor will win? I don't know, I'm not sure if anyone knows, there's too many variables.

The high ISO advantage of the D3s I think is due to both larger pixel size and quality electronics. However, if you make a camera body specifically aimed at high ISO you don't really need many megapixels - high ISO typically means hand-held and action and then it is generally not possible to get the extreme sharpness you need to max out 20+ megapixels, plus the noise levels will be so high in any case that the pixels are not carrying useful info at the pixel level. So you have more than one reason that makes a high ISO sensor favor fewer megapixels.

But perhaps I'm wrong not believing in combining top performance in high ISO and high pixel count. I would be glad if I am, because I do favor high pixel count since my main interest is landscape photography...



NotABunny said:


> alipaulphotography said:
> 
> 
> > The D3S is currently the best ISO handling DSLR out there.
> ...


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 13, 2011)

torger said:


> if you make a smaller pixel you need also to lower the read noise to keep the same signal/noise ratio per pixel. It is also easier to gather the photons in a specific area with one pixel than if you have pixel borders in it



That may have been true for older technology, years ago. But those photos taken with the 1D4 and D3s are taken by two sensors built by different companies (at about the same time, so we can say with sort of similar technology), where one has 3 times the pixel density of the other, yet there is no visible difference in the noise levels (between the two) at ISO 12800. So what does it take from a practical point of view to have a visible difference in the noise levels?




torger said:


> if you make a camera body specifically aimed at high ISO you don't really need many megapixels



Right. Maybe if Canon / Nikon / Sony would build a sensor with only 10% of the pixels (1...2 MP), using the same technology that they've used in their latest cameras (or something better that can be scaled at that resolution), that would show 1 stop less noise at ISO X. But who would use such a low resolution? And more to the point, where is the physical evidence?


----------



## John W. Hession (Apr 13, 2011)

I am the photo editor of an architectural magazine. About half our contributing photographers shoot with the 5D Mark II primarily because of the excellent array of tilt shift lenses that Canon has come up with. 

1. The biggest improvement would be the dynamic range of the sensor, espedially at low iso (eg 50). Where the 5D really falls behind the Phase One backs and traditional 4x5 is the inability to hold shadows and highlights in high contrast situations. 

2. When shooting video the base of the camera is not up to keeping the lenses aligned with followfocus and matte box accessories. Just pure bad build. I shoot a lot with film cameras, and an essential feature is the ability to use accessories without the camera moving thus having the lens center moving in the frame. I know the 5D is a throw away compared with an Arri or and Aaton, but still, the build is cheesy.


----------



## torger (Apr 13, 2011)

I guess you are referring to this comparison:

http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_1d_mark4_review_comparisons.htm

I see clear differences to the D3s's advantage, I'd say it is about 2/3 stops in that comparison, the reviewer sees 1. D3s ISO12800 looks only slightly worse than 1D4 ISO6400. If you say that it is no difference, I understand your conclusions, but I cannot draw the same since I think the D3s shows clearly better performance.

Afterall, it's all subjective. I'm not saying you're wrong, it could just as well be me that is more picky than the average user. It is a very interesting discussion.

(There's one thing that testers often miss, I'm not sure if done here, the light meters can make different decisions, typcially low contrast scenes are underexposed if auto-exposed, so I prefer tests when there is manual exposure according to the expose-to-the-right principle so I get to see the raw sensor performance. Light meter behavior is of course relevant to action photography though, but much harder to test... anyway, when shooting from a tripod and you have the time one should always expose manually, it is not uncommon that the camera's auto-exposure algorithm throws away 1-2 stops in dynamic range just like that, at least according to my experience.)



NotABunny said:


> yet there is no visible difference in the noise levels (between the two) at ISO 12800.


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 13, 2011)

torger said:


> I guess you are referring to this comparison:
> 
> http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/canon_1d_mark4_review_comparisons.htm
> 
> I see clear differences to the D3s's advantage, I'd say it is about 2/3 stops in that comparison.



That's because you have not normalized the sensor size (plus the black level applied by Nikon - or maybe that was a mistake in the RAW editor). As I said above, the sensor size is THE technical reason why DSLRs (or medium format) are used instead of compact cameras.

You can't directly compare two photos taken with sensors of different sizes if you want to see if the pixel density matters. Yes, because of its sensor size and top technology, not because of pixel size, D3s is currently the best at ISO handling.


Here is why you see the difference: the 1D4 sensor has a 1.3 crop, which means that its surface is 1.69 times smaller than that of D3s, which means that it gathers that much less light, which means that you should see more noise worth about log2( 1.69) = 0.75 stops *per photo*.


----------



## DOF (Apr 13, 2011)

bvukich said:


> Better AF, all points cross, double cross in center + zones.
> 16bit Raw, and the DR to make them useful (so at least +2 stops or why bother)
> High ISO improvements. ISO 102400 may be silly, but clean ISO 12,800 or even 25,600 would be awesome.
> No low ISO banding



what this person said


----------



## torger (Apr 13, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> Here is why you see the difference: the 1D4 sensor has a 1.3 crop, which means that its surface is 1.69 times smaller than that of D3s, which means that it gathers that much less light, which means that you should see more noise worth about log2( 1.69) = 0.75 stops *per photo*.



Ahh... did not think about sensor size, you're right that does have some impact. I'll look more into this in the future, really interesting for us technical nerds . But wait a minute, that would only count for photon shot noise, right?

Emil Martinec's noise discussion sheds some light on the issue:

http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

Just as you say he says that light collection efficiency is largly independent of pixel size, but that there can be read noise advantages of larger pixels at high ISOs.


----------



## archie.gsy (Apr 13, 2011)

better ISO performance
more focus points / better auto focus system
dual card slots
more AEB than 3, at least 5 poss 7
level indicator like the 7D 
not really bothered by more MP / does it need more ?
selectable autofocus during video
a frame rate of about 5 FPS


----------



## te4o (Apr 14, 2011)

With the Digic V intro I hope there's a chance of a new LifeView era: much higher resolution screen (iPhone like 300 dpi, retina) with high-end finger-zoom, touch AF-video&stills, touch-zoom, 100% coverage, easy video control functions on a menu separate from stills... why should only smart phone users enjoy smart interfaces? If Canon goes Apples why not integrate hardware and software more and more?
A swivel screen is unavoidable if serious about video, opponents may keep it fixed onto body all the time (don't think they would, though)
Everything else about IQ and AF etc is said already.


----------



## NotABunny (Apr 14, 2011)

te4o said:


> much higher resolution screen (iPhone like 300 dpi, retina)



Having seen a Samsung Galaxy S 1 and an iPhone 4 at the same time, I really hope Canon decides to go with AMOLED, like Sony. Having more but blurrier pixels doesn't appeal to me.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Apr 14, 2011)

- 1 or 2 stops improved noise performance
- Dynamic range improvement
- 19 Cross type AF points
- DIGIC V
- USB 3.0 or thunderbolt
- Fix the aliasing problem for video people

Haven't made my mind up on a swivel screen - Don't think the camera needs it, but don't think it would do much harm.


----------



## azf (Apr 14, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> Haven't made my mind up on a swivel screen - Don't think the camera needs it, but don't think it would do much harm.



I guess it won't have it, and I definitely don't want it to have it either. All the extra joints would be problematic to seal properly against moisture and dust.


----------



## endigo (Apr 14, 2011)

rocket_scientist said:


> To those wanting the ability to change crop sizes, Nikon does this with its 'dx' lenses similar to Canon's 'EF-S' lenses. The problem with Canon doing this, is that EF-S lenses allow the rear element to stick farther into the body because a crop sensor camera uses smaller mirrors (according to what I have read about this). That being said, one would not be able to put an EF-S lens on a FF camera because it could hit the mirror. Cropping the sensor might make it seem like you are getting a tighter shot, but all you are doing is changing the image before you get it to the computer to do the exact same thing...



I have faith that Canon could redesign the mirror mechanism to avoid this issue. Yes it would be a major departure from the simple hinge design that they have used since day one. What is the point of coming out with new cameras if you don't incorporate new designs and ideas?

If they allowed the use of crop lenses on full frame cameras, then they could spend more effort on EF-S L Lenses that would have a larger market. It would also eliminate one more hurdle for people with several EF-S lenses to move up to a full frame camera.


----------



## WarStreet (Apr 14, 2011)

How many photographers owing a great camera such the 5DIII, spending so much money on other equipment, and then turn this camera into a low res APS-C ? Is it worth for Canon to do this for just a few users and a feature promoting low quality ?


----------



## J. McCabe (Apr 14, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> How many photographers owing a great camera such the 5DIII, spending so much money on other equipment, and then turn this camera into a low res APS-C ? Is it worth for Canon to do this for just a few users and a feature promoting low quality ?



Some users buy an APS-C camera before buying a 5D, and allowing them to use EF-S lenses while they save money for EF lenses makes for an easier upgrade path than forcing them to switch lenses when buying the body.

EF-S lenses cover ~40% of a FF sensor, and 40% of 21MP gives 8.2MP - and I've seen people going around this month with a Canon 20D (in a store, possibly upgrading to 7D), 1000D, or just upgrading from 350D / 400D, all having 8MP or 10MP sensors. Some people buy DSLR even though they don't print A4 and larger on regular basis.


----------



## DuLt (Apr 14, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> WarStreet said:
> 
> 
> > How many photographers owing a great camera such the 5DIII, spending so much money on other equipment, and then turn this camera into a low res APS-C ? Is it worth for Canon to do this for just a few users and a feature promoting low quality ?
> ...



Some people replace their dslr because the new model has 2 more megapixels...


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 15, 2011)

DuLt said:


> Some people replace their dslr because the new model has 2 more megapixels...



I did that ... replaced my 1.1mp Fujii with a Nikon CP990 that had 3.2 mp. It was a huge improvement. Its all relative.


----------



## drummstikk (Apr 15, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> How many photographers owing a great camera such the 5DIII, spending so much money on other equipment, and then turn this camera into a low res APS-C ? Is it worth for Canon to do this for just a few users and a feature promoting low quality ?



I would, especially presuming the 5DIII will have higher megapixels on the full frame. If the APS-C section adds up to 12MP or more, that's more than adequate if I wanted a second crop body to use in addition to the 7D.

I'd actually prefer if it did APS-H. Maybe it could do both. Or maybe it could also do the 24mmx24mm square segment I've been craving for so long.

I'll continue to stand pat on my original 5D Mark Nothing unless the 5D III adds focus points (parity with 7D) and gets the frame rate up to at least 6-7fps. It would even be fine with me if the higher frame rates were only available in "crop mode" or in the full-frame mRaw and sRaw modes.

Regarding the survey, only the higher fps and increased focus points would be compelling to me. It's not as important to me, but I'd be extremely surprised if better high ISO and more megapixels weren't part of the deal as well. I wouldn't bet either way on articulating screen or RAW video. I'm sure it would be nice for some folks, just not a big deal for me.

It's more of a sideline/hobby for me, but if they would improve the auto-bracketing options (at least 7 frames at adjustable intervals), that would make HDR work much less tedious. The 1D's are overpriced for my taste and overbuilt for my needs (with reasonable maintenance, my 5D and 40D are still going strong), so I'm never going to get a 1D just for HDR work.


----------



## J. McCabe (Apr 15, 2011)

DuLt said:


> J. McCabe said:
> 
> 
> > WarStreet said:
> ...



Which means some do not. Note that the survey at the top of this thread says MP is the least important feature for it's participants.


----------



## lol (Apr 15, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> Note that the survey at the top of this thread says MP is the least important feature for it's participants.


Not exactly... it says more MP is the least important FIRST choice. It would be important to me, but it isn't my first choice since I can only make one here.


----------



## WarStreet (Apr 15, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> Some users buy an APS-C camera before buying a 5D, and allowing them to use EF-S lenses while they save money for EF lenses makes for an easier upgrade path than forcing them to switch lenses when buying the body.
> 
> EF-S lenses cover ~40% of a FF sensor, and 40% of 21MP gives 8.2MP - and I've seen people going around this month with a Canon 20D (in a store, possibly upgrading to 7D), 1000D, or just upgrading from 350D / 400D, all having 8MP or 10MP sensors. Some people buy DSLR even though they don't print A4 and larger on regular basis.



Yes I understand that users switching from APS-C to FF is the reason for this feature, I am one of those users, but I think some of them might already have FF lenses, and others will get the 5DIII with kit. 

I am not against this feature since there will be more happy users, and I am not saying lower resolution cameras are not good either, there are award photos from 20D cameras. 

My point is that if you have a 20D it is fine, but if you have a 5DIII and use it as a 20D it is a waste. I don't know how they could implement this feature, but I think it will also effect the framing with the 1.6 crop factor and the depth of field. 

The question raised is if it is worth for Canon to do it. I think it's not.


----------



## torger (Apr 15, 2011)

On the megapixel issue I think many people debate from the viewpoint of low end cameras. The megapixel issue in compacts and APS-C is not the same as in fullframe and medium format.

Even the good EF-S glass has fairly low resolving power - the optics is designed for good price/performance. For fullframe, you have professional glass with considerably better resolving power, and you have ~2.5 times larger sensor area. Getting the same pixel pitch as a 7D on fullframe would mean 45 megapixels.

Considering that EF-S glass generally has low resolving power and the pixel pitch is much smaller, the megapixel count has been pushed much farther on APS-C than on fullframe. Compact cameras even more so.

Fullframe is still rather conservative on the megapixel count. The reason why we have not yet seen 40+ megapixels on fullframe is probably more due to issues handling the file sizes (tough requirements on processing and storage) rather than limits in sensor technology. There's been some limits in glass too, but some important upgrades have been made.

If a photographer doesn't need high end resolution, there's APS-C. I see little reason to make a fullframe camera that does not aim at maximizing performance with high end glass, since fullframe sensors are due to their size a lot more expensive to manufacture than APS-C, and you could satisfy lower resolution requirements with APS-C.


----------



## J. McCabe (Apr 15, 2011)

torger said:


> On the megapixel issue I think many people debate from the viewpoint of low end cameras. The megapixel issue in compacts and APS-C is not the same as in fullframe and medium format.
> 
> Even the good EF-S glass has fairly low resolving power - the optics is designed for good price/performance. For fullframe, you have professional glass with considerably better resolving power, and you have ~2.5 times larger sensor area. Getting the same pixel pitch as a 7D on fullframe would mean 45 megapixels.
> 
> ...



If an EF-S lenses, including those that cost >U.S.$1,000, can't resolve 8MP (40% at the center of a 5Dmk2's sensor), it certainly can't resolve neither 10MP on an EOS 1000D nor 18MP on an EOS 7D. If this is true, it sounds bad for the Canon brand - either Canon spends too much on megapixels or it doesn't spend enough on low end glass.


----------



## WarStreet (Apr 15, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> If an EF-S lenses, including those that cost >U.S.$1,000, can't resolve 8MP (40% at the center of a 5Dmk2's sensor), it certainly can't resolve neither 10MP on an EOS 1000D nor 18MP on an EOS 7D. If this is true, it sounds bad for the Canon brand - either Canon spends too much on megapixels or it doesn't spend enough on low end glass.



Even the worst lenses can resolve without any problem any current SLR cameras and can resolve even higher detail with a new higher mp sensor. There are some myths out there which unfortunately confuse people which could lead them take wrong decisions on their purchase.

I think what torger meant is that a 12MP FF will resolve more detail than a 12MP APS-C since the FF camera is using more glass and therefore more resolving power. This is true even if the same FF lens is used on these cameras. It's not that APS-C lenses optics are weak, there are some which have a better resolving power than L lenses when both compared on an APS-C camera. 

Luckily, DXOmark lens/camera data can show that real life measurements match perfectly with theory. 
When using DXO, don't use their indexes such as DXO scores etc.. it confuse even more, just use the detailed raw data such as resolution - profiles or MTF. Their indexes is what caused the internet getting flooded with D7000 better than 5DII !


----------



## torger (Apr 15, 2011)

Well, actually I did mean that EF-S glass is poor . I did not however mean that EF-S is not good enough for 8 megapixels. Much of the glass show resolution limits on the 18 megapixel 7D though, such that if you put in a lens with known high resolving power you see a clear improvement.

EF-S glass is not poor because there's some law of physics that makes it so (oh well the smaller image circle and the need for shorter focal lengths may make it a bit more difficult), but because in general it is expensive to manufacture high quality optics, and EF-S is made for APS-C, and APS-C is in the low cost segment so the lenses should be cheap too. Of course, some of the EF-S lenses are not exactly cheap, such as the 17-55mm f/2.8, but still cheaper than the corresponding full-frame glass.

If only looking at resolving power there are indeed low cost lenses that are very sharp, such as the 50mm. Some focal lengths are easier to make sharp than others, just because you there's a cheap 50mm it does not mean you can make a sharp cheap 24mm (it's about the distance to the image plane and other factors).

With the 50mm, the cheap ones are actually sharper than the L version on small apertures, so they are great landscape lenses. There are a fair amount of less-than-sharp L lenses, but those are not so much optimized for maximum resolution at f/5.6-f/8 but some other aspect such as ok sharpness and very nice bokeh at largest apertures. Afterall, really high resolving power is somewhat of a niche inhabitated by landscape photographers and others that don't shoot a single photograph without a tripod and a remote shutter release .

The EF-S lenses are all zooms (except the macro 60mm), and as far as I know none of them is as sharp as the good old 24-70 f/2.8 L zoom even at f/8.

What you do if you want to get full use of the 7D's 18 megapixels is that you use some of the high resolution full-frame lenses. The larger image circle gives you the advantage of less vignetting and better corner performance. I'm quite sure that the "pro" APS-C models are intended to be used together with pro full-frame glass, so therefore it is ok with 18 megapixels.

However, 18 megapixels on an entry-level camera where the users will most likely use EF-S zooms is somewhat overkill, but probably unavoidable for marketing reasons -- resolution-as-a-number probably sells in the low end.



WarStreet said:


> J. McCabe said:
> 
> 
> > If an EF-S lenses, including those that cost >U.S.$1,000, can't resolve 8MP (40% at the center of a 5Dmk2's sensor), it certainly can't resolve neither 10MP on an EOS 1000D nor 18MP on an EOS 7D. If this is true, it sounds bad for the Canon brand - either Canon spends too much on megapixels or it doesn't spend enough on low end glass.
> ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 15, 2011)

torger said:


> The EF-S lenses are all zooms (except the macro 60mm), and as far as I know none of them is as sharp as the good old 24-70 f/2.8 L zoom even at f/8.



Really? Sure, the 24-70mm will completely outresolve the EF-S lenses when you compare the L zoom on FF to the EF-S on crop. But, if you look at photozone.de's Imatest results for the EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS and the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 on a the same camera - a 350D - you'll see that the 17-55mm outresolves the 24-70mm L across the zoom and aperture ranges. Before you argue that it's because of the relatively low resolution 8 MP sensor, check out the DxOMark lens data for those same lenses on a 7D, and you'll see that on the 7D, the 17-55mm also delivers greater resolution than the 24-70mm (and even the 'lowly' EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS slightly outresolves the L lens).


----------



## skitron (Apr 15, 2011)

Having not used the predecessors and just based on hearsay:

Stills:

Better ISO performance
Better focus and metering
Built in wireless flash controller

Video:

Selectable crop zoom for ratios that can maintain full HD res. 
Fix rolling shutter issues
Full res HDMI out

General:

SDxx card support
Better LCD with some sort of articulation
USB 3 connectivity


----------



## torger (Apr 15, 2011)

Uhmm... yeah you're right, I've done a FF/APS-C crop mixup. Doh! *blush*.

Of course there are other quality advantages, build quality, eveness in sharpness, usefulness of available apertures and such that the L lenses usually excel in, but under ideal circumstances the EF-S lenses does indeed seem to have good sharpness just as you say. A bit embarrassing I missed that, I usually is quite thorough when analyzing data, but obviously not this time around. I have some bad personal experience from an EF-S lens which probably contributed.

Anyway, with this in mind I tend to think that the current 18 megapixel of the 7D is about as high as we can go in pixel density (4.2 um pixel pitch). With bayer arrays and antialias filters there is some merit in slightly outresolving the lenses though, but it seems like that is exactly what we do now. Probably not much value in outresloving them more, and you'll get diffraction issues coming along. This puts 18 x 2.6 = ~46 megapixels on fullframe, which I think happens to be an ideal resolution.

A suitable viewing distance of an image is the same as the width of it, and you need about 6000 - 8000 pixels to (kind of) reach the eye's resolving limit, and with 46 megapixels you get 8300x5533. More resolution than that is only required if you need to crop or want to be able to be so close to the image that you don't see the whole image at once (a large panorama for example).



neuroanatomist said:


> torger said:
> 
> 
> > The EF-S lenses are all zooms (except the macro 60mm), and as far as I know none of them is as sharp as the good old 24-70 f/2.8 L zoom even at f/8.
> ...


----------



## WarStreet (Apr 16, 2011)

torger said:


> Anyway, with this in mind I tend to think that the current 18 megapixel of the 7D is about as high as we can go in pixel density (4.2 um pixel pitch). With bayer arrays and antialias filters there is some merit in slightly outresolving the lenses though, but it seems like that is exactly what we do now. Probably not much value in outresloving them more, and you'll get diffraction issues coming along. This puts 18 x 2.6 = ~46 megapixels on fullframe, which I think happens to be an ideal resolution.



No need to be embarrassed, learning it's the idea of the forum. I have learned a lot from here. 

Regarding the MP count limit, luckily for all of us, we did not reached it yet and we are far from reaching it. 
The total resolution from camera/lens combo can be improved if either a sharper lens is used or a higher MP count sensor used. They don't limit the improvement of each other (with exception of extreme limits). DXO measurements match with theory too. 

Pick a lens and see the resolving power when used on a low MP and high MP sensor of the same size, and also pick the high MP sensor and compare when used with a poor and very good lens. It will show that the lens is not limiting a high MP sensor while the sensor is not limiting a very good lens. Using extreme small apertures will limit the performance of the lens and there you should see some limitation. Use DXO - resolution - profiles


----------



## yellowbull (Apr 18, 2011)

What about Exposure Bracketing improvements? Nikon will go up to 9 increments!


----------



## yeldarb (Apr 20, 2011)

prestonpalmer said:


> *DO NOT NEED:*
> -better AWB or Metering - C'mon guys, you should all be shooting RAW by now, and you should understand how your metering mode works. This doesn't need to improve. YOU DO.



I disagree. Sure, AWB is not relevant if shooting RAW, but that doesn't mean Canon shouldn't improve AWB (or why offer it at all, why offer JPGs?) For advanced amateurs such as myself, whose primary reason for using this camera is its low light performance, "pro" quality and ruggedness, it may be the case that shooting RAW all the time just isn't practical. This is not my day job, and often when I'm shooting kid's events, etc, I barely have time to transfer the photos to the computer, make minor tweaks and upload them to a web album. Taking the time to work with larger RAW files and do more post-processing is just not a luxury many of us have these days. I'd love to "improve" my skills, as you suggest, but I'd also love for Canon do deal with the fact that their AWB doesn't work very well in today's climate of varied cruddy light sources (different brands of compact fluorescent bulbs in the same room, etc).


----------



## endigo (Apr 20, 2011)

yeldarb said:


> ...I barely have time to transfer the photos to the computer, make minor tweaks and upload them to a web album. Taking the time to work with larger RAW files and do more post-processing is just not a luxury many of us have these days. I'd love to "improve" my skills...



I have found a huge difference in the quality of an image that was retouched from a RAW and saved as a JPG from an image that was retouched from a JPG and saved back as a JPG. After experimenting with this, I no longer retouch images from JPG. If the JPG that the camera produces it good, I don't mind using it, so I agree with you on the AWB, but try looking at the difference between retouching a RAW and a JPG, I think this exercise may help improve your results.


----------



## pedro (Apr 20, 2011)

Better high ISO, pixel binning...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 20, 2011)

yeldarb said:


> prestonpalmer said:
> 
> 
> > This doesn't need to improve. YOU DO.
> ...



Prestonpalmer is right - Canon doesn't need to fix this. YOU just need to learn to _appreciate_ orange-tinted pictures...


----------



## yeldarb (Apr 20, 2011)

endigo said:


> I have found a huge difference in the quality of an image that was retouched from a RAW and saved as a JPG from an image that was retouched from a JPG and saved back as a JPG. After experimenting with this, I no longer retouch images from JPG. If the JPG that the camera produces it good, I don't mind using it, so I agree with you on the AWB, but try looking at the difference between retouching a RAW and a JPG, I think this exercise may help improve your results.



I said tweak, not retouch. By tweak I meant tasks such as: discard ones I don't want, crop some, maybe slight exposure adjustment. I'm doing this directly in iPhoto, it needs to take less than a few seconds per photo. Anyway, I'd agree with your technical points, but my point was TIME. I don't have the luxury to spend hours every time I need to sit down to transfer some event photos to a web album where other people can download them. If I did this professionally, or was retired or something and had lots of time, I certainly would shoot everything in RAW and make every photo a work of art in Photoshop. And yes, adjusting color temperature on a JPEG produces worse results, this is an argument for having better AWB in the camera in the first place!

People seem to really like what I offer (for free), I enjoy shooting, and was willing to spend the money on a "pro" camera to capture really good shots. The camera and lenses are truly phenomenal and I've captured some great moments with them.

The question was about what I'd like to see improved in the 5DmIII. One of my biggest problems has been interior existing light situations (I find flash distracts kids). Anecdotally, I'd say the problem has gotten worse with the proliferation of cheap CF bulbs in the marketplace. Most interior places are becoming a disaster in terms of variations of lighting sources and color temperatures etc. I realize this is a really tough nut for Canon to crack, but improved AWB would allow me to shoot better photos in the camera and not have to spend time at the computer. 

I guess I distinguish between "taking" photos and "making" them. When my intent is to make photos, I'll shoot RAW and spend time at the computer perfecting images. A lot of the time, I just need to "take" the best photos I can in the first place, and get them out to people in a hurry. Improved AWB would help do that. All I'm saying.


----------



## mreco99 (Apr 20, 2011)

Theres only three things that will determine whats on the 5dmk2 replacement.

1. what the competition is doing
2. what is the minimum upgrade canon can get away with to make users buy or upgrade their equipment
3. retail cost point, what will the market place accept. Too expensive, and there will be little sales.

Nothing else comes into it.

Work out those three things and you will have a fair guess as to what it will be.


----------



## J. McCabe (Apr 21, 2011)

mreco99 said:


> Theres only three things that will determine whats on the 5dmk2 replacement.
> 
> 1. what the competition is doing
> 2. what is the minimum upgrade canon can get away with to make users buy or upgrade their equipment
> ...



I would think what people want, e.g. as expressed in this thread, would influence ...

1. What the competitors are doing.
2. what is the minimum upgrade which would make users buy or upgrade their equipment.
3. How much money would people pay to get #2, or switch to a competitor.


----------



## Headshots (Apr 21, 2011)

"Re: What do you want from the 5D mk III"

Want/Need 
Faster Sync Speed 
1/250 on 1DS MKIII ???
Can Canon get the mechanical shutter to sync up to 1/400 ?
At the very least give us 1/250 because you can.
I am a Headshot Photographer in Los Angeles
I shoot headshots with studio strobe outside using sun/available light as fill and/or background. Some times there is slight motion blur from the natural light mixing in at 1/200 with the subject moving during the shot and no it is not fast action sports just people standing and moving with natural energy and yes I am a human tripod and sorry IS is not the solution.
1/400 would be perfect and definitely *increase sales...*

Actors Headshots Los Angeles

5D MKll 85Lll 135L 50Lll


----------



## endigo (Apr 21, 2011)

Headshots said:


> Can Canon get the mechanical shutter to sync up to 1/400 ?



The 580 EX II in FP Flash mode works great for me. The flash will sync with all speeds (see page 17 in the Manual)


----------



## epsiloneri (Apr 21, 2011)

endigo said:


> The flash will sync with all speeds (see page 17 in the Manual)



That's pretty cool. I didn't know you could change the flash duration with modern flashes. Thanks for the tip!

Some more background is available in this blog entry.


----------



## Rob (Apr 22, 2011)

The few things I would like improved for the next 5D installment are pretty much the same as everyone else.

1. 7d Autofucus or better
2. Better ISO (D3s or better)
3. Pop up flash for wireless flash control and also for the occasional time when you don't want to carry a flashgun e.g Family holidays etc
4. 60p video
5. Don't really want more resolution, but if they introduced pixel binning that was a benefit to the ISO, that would be cool.
6. Also want Canon to use same grip as the Mark 2 or at least allow it to still fit.
7. Would like a Crop funtion 1.3 & 1.6 for creative in camera croping. Also a funtion that allowed you to crop a photo in the camera after it has been taken. But I wouldnt be anoyed if they didn't do this as its not a big deal.

I know this is a bit of a repeat of what has been said but felt I had to add my list, just in case Canon is watching as this topic is getting a big response. I hope they are as there has been some great ideas and suggestions on this topic.


----------



## J. McCabe (Apr 22, 2011)

Rob said:


> 6. Also want Canon to use same grip as the Mark 2 or at least allow it to still fit.



Is there a reason Canon comes up with new grips & batteries for each camera (or at least every other camera), beside trying to make more profit ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> Is there a reason Canon comes up with new grips & batteries for each camera (or at least every other camera), beside trying to make more profit ?



They don't always come up with new batteries, and sometimes not grips. The LP-E5 battery fit the XS, XSi, and T1i. The LP-E6 battery fits the 5DII, 7D, and 60D. The T2i and T3i both use the same battery (LP-E8) and the same grip (BG-E8). 

If they make a change to the shape of the body, there needs to be a new grip to match.


----------



## ramonjsantiago (Apr 22, 2011)

Lightspeed or at least USB 3.0
+/- 3 stop exposure bracketing
An integrated Wireless File Transmitter
Use the same 
Digic V
28 Megapixels
Same price point as the D2
CFast in addition to CF
Use the same Battery Grip BG-E6


----------



## endigo (Apr 22, 2011)

endigo said:


> endigo said:
> 
> 
> > I would like to see these features:
> ...



One more thing,

built in master module so that I can remotely, wirelessly, trigger a flash.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 22, 2011)

endigo said:


> built in master module so that I can remotely, wirelessly, trigger a flash.



That would seem to require a pop-up flash, something I really don't want on a 5DIII. Unless Canon goes RF...


----------



## LFG530 (Apr 22, 2011)

Haven't seen much demand for tougher/weather sealed body...


----------



## Hillsilly (Apr 23, 2011)

Personal Wishlist...

Bluetooth
WiFi
Internet Enabled
GPS
More FPS
Waterproof to 5m
Dual card slot

My phone can do most of this. Surely a reasonably spec'd camera can get close?


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 23, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> . . . Waterproof to 5m . . .


Yes, canon is about to replace their whole L lens line-up with water proof lenses!


----------



## ronderick (Apr 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> J. McCabe said:
> 
> 
> > Is there a reason Canon comes up with new grips & batteries for each camera (or at least every other camera), beside trying to make more profit ?
> ...



Just to add something about the battery... 

There was somekind of new regulation in Japan about battery safety standards, so camera companies have to come up with a new battery for their newer model - ones that'll comply to the new regs. (I remembered reading that from Olympus E-5 battery discussions...)


----------



## LFG530 (Apr 23, 2011)

It'd be nice if it was a flying device, if it had robot legs and took pictures by itself.

Seriously let's stick with realist things to expect: better sensor in every aspect, big af update (something between 7d and 60d IMO), digic V, something surprising in video mode (even if I don't care), built-in flash transmitter, probably two card slots like d700 (or not), a re-designed body (more ergonomic, sorry the bg-e6 won't fit ), more customizable options in the menus.

PLEASE GOD I DON'T WANT AN ARTICULATING SCREEN (amen). 

I don't think there will be much more than that, but "that" already makes it a great upgrade.


----------



## Joaquox (Apr 23, 2011)

Macadameane said:


> Hillsilly said:
> 
> 
> > . . . Waterproof to 5m . . .
> ...


Which is great, with the ef800 + 2x teleconverter you don't need to be all that close to them nasty sharkies!


----------



## AdamJ (Apr 23, 2011)

I hope they concentrate on getting the high ISO performance at least up to Nikon standards. I stopped caring about megapixels when they got to 10.

The only other thing I'd like is the 7D's AF.

I doubt the FPS will improve, if only for marketing reasons.


----------



## S P (Apr 23, 2011)

Missed the poll but I would have voted for better ISO and noise handling. I'm happy with everything else, including even the so-called lousy AF system that everybody seems to complain about. To me it's simple and just 'works'.

The low-ISO noise and banding issues are annoying. The non-defeatable low-ISO NR smudging and smearing is also ridiculous. The high ISO chroma noise that starts to get ugly at around 800 is bad too. Thankfully DPP does a pretty darned good job of handling most of this assuming you shot in RAW, but a camera like this really does deserve better in-camera JPEG processing. The Nikons have way better in-camera JPEG processing. I "forgive" Canon for this because of how well DPP works and the fact that it's free. Nikon's software is awful in comparison and they make you pay for it, so it's a good thing their in-cam JPEG processing is pretty darned good.

As for the AF system, it'd be nice if it kept working in a stop or so dimmer light. The fact that it seems to quit early in dim light is my only real complaint. If they're not going to improve that, then at least put an AF assist lamp or something on the camera.


----------



## Rob (Apr 24, 2011)

Was wondering if any of the Canon tech or marketing departments check out this website for customer feedback? hope they do! :-\


----------



## nema (Apr 24, 2011)

What not a lot of people requested in the new 5D mkIII is a focusing light in dark situations

I think the 5DmkII is nice already, but as 'expected' for new features of a mkIII are great if they happen; but I believe (IMO of course) that a focusing light (heck, just like nikon  ) would benifit a lot of photographers who do a lot of low/no light photography (ie weddings, receptions, events etc.)

just my 2 cents and cake.

-e


----------



## Cooljoe57 (Apr 24, 2011)

What do I want most?

I want it to be released already!


----------



## Macadameane (Apr 24, 2011)

I really really really want pixel binning. This would fix a lot of the video problems and allow others to use less MP if they wanted to without needing a smaller sensor.


----------



## transpo1 (Apr 25, 2011)

Macadameane said:


> I really really really want pixel binning. This would fix a lot of the video problems and allow others to use less MP if they wanted to without needing a smaller sensor.



Amen.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Apr 30, 2011)

One thing I really want, besides for it to come out, is the 3x crop mode like they have on the new T3i. That would be really useful for artistic purposes. You could do some seriously cool stuff with that.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 1, 2011)

Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but in-body image stabilization does't appear to add that much to the cost of a camera and would be a worthwhile improvement. Canon are probably correct in stating that in-lens IS is a better option, however, as we all know, not all lenses feature this. Ideally, the in-body IS would turn itself off and on automatically (with manual override) depending upon whether an IS enabled lens was attached.


----------



## Admin US West (May 1, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but in-body image stabilization does't appear to add that much to the cost of a camera and would be a worthwhile improvement. Canon are probably correct in stating that in-lens IS is a better option, however, as we all know, not all lenses feature this. Ideally, the in-body IS would turn itself off and on automatically (with manual override) depending upon whether an IS enabled lens was attached.



Get a sony! However, be warned, It has been a pain for Sony users, the heat generated is difficult to disappate, and video with IS on can limit you to 3 minutes before having to shut down for 15 minutes due to overheat.

http://photorumors.com/2010/10/07/sony-updated-their-statement-on-a55-and-a33-sensor-overheating-during-video-recording/
It sounds neat, but it does not work out


----------



## J. McCabe (May 1, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but in-body image stabilization does't appear to add that much to the cost of a camera and would be a worthwhile improvement. Canon are probably correct in stating that in-lens IS is a better option, however, as we all know, not all lenses feature this. Ideally, the in-body IS would turn itself off and on automatically (with manual override) depending upon whether an IS enabled lens was attached.



At first I thought it might hurt sales of certain lenses, e.g. EF 70-200mm f/4 IS for the EF 70-200mm f/4 (IS-less), but then there are only a couple of lenses that have parallels with and w/o IS.


----------



## Hillsilly (May 1, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> Get a sony! However, be warned, It has been a pain for Sony users, the heat generated is difficult to disappate, and video with IS on can limit you to 3 minutes before having to shut down for 15 minutes due to overheat.



I'd have faith in the Canon engineers to implement this properly!

I hadn't really thought about video. Not being a DSLR video aficionado, I assume that IS would help to reduce the jitteryness of videos if you are handholding the camera? This might be where in-body IS would really shine (if implemented properly), as Canon lacks IS in their wider angle lenses. The 24-105 and the 28-135 being the only two wide angle zooms with IS.


----------



## lol (May 1, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> Get a sony! However, be warned, It has been a pain for Sony users, the heat generated is difficult to disappate, and video with IS on can limit you to 3 minutes before having to shut down for 15 minutes due to overheat.
> 
> http://photorumors.com/2010/10/07/sony-updated-their-statement-on-a55-and-a33-sensor-overheating-during-video-recording/
> It sounds neat, but it does not work out


Note that is for their SLT cameras, in video, in a hot place, where they are providing additional functionality not available from Canon currently. A total non-issue for normal photographic use, and even in video, you can always turn it off if needed. I moved from Sony to Canon in the past and that is one feature I do miss.


----------



## Lawliet (May 1, 2011)

Hot place, as in a studio environment, and even with the IS turned off you take a substantial hit.
Remember its not about the single clip, but you have take after take without much interruption.
A Canon that goes into thermal shutdown for a few minutes every hour is an annoyance, according to that table using the cameras in question would send have the staff in a tantrum really fast.


----------



## Admin US West (May 1, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> scalesusa said:
> 
> 
> > Get a sony! However, be warned, It has been a pain for Sony users, the heat generated is difficult to disappate, and video with IS on can limit you to 3 minutes before having to shut down for 15 minutes due to overheat.
> ...



The very How would think Canon could do better? Sony holds all the patents and has over 20 years experience with in-camera IS, they know all the tricks. The problem is carrying heat away. In camera IS requires that you move the sensor, so it is hinged to allow it to move with little power, and mass must be kept very low to be able to move it quickly. Heat cannot flow quickly thru the flexible mount hinges, and a heavy heat sink would not work either.

So, not only do we have the sensor generating a lot of power in live view or movie mode, but the IS motor generates heat as well. Canon and the others already have trouble with heat generated in live view, IN body IS makes it many times worse.

Yes, you could just not do live view, video, or turn IS off. But then there is no point to having it.


----------



## Cropper (May 1, 2011)

Not in time for the poll, but here it goes :

Improved auto-focus (at least like 7D + continuous video AF)

Amazing High ISO performance

Improved dynamic range

30MP (nice round number)

In camera APS-H and APS-C crop modes

5 FPS (more in crop modes)

Ability to retain autofocus at f8 maximum aperture 

And last but not least a gentle price...


----------



## LFG530 (May 1, 2011)

Cropper said:


> Not in time for the poll, but here it goes :
> 
> Improved auto-focus (at least like 7D + continuous video AF)
> 
> ...



I'm certain the last one is impossible with these features and not sure if the f8 thing is even possible at this moment... 
If it has video AF and the 7d performance it will be REALLY expensive because it will directly affect 1d series sells (even if they still have the edge in speed)...


----------



## John Smith (May 2, 2011)

LFG530 said:


> Cropper said:
> 
> 
> > Not in time for the poll, but here it goes :
> ...



Canon has bodies with central AF point that works at f/8, and as far as I know the DSLRs have (at least for stills) a separate AF unit, so why would it be impossible ?

(I'm not saying it would be cheap, just possible)


----------



## asu (May 2, 2011)

Cropper said:


> Not in time for the poll, but here it goes :
> 
> Improved auto-focus (at least like 7D + continuous video AF)
> 
> ...




i dont no if everybody will agree wtih me, but this is my wish

1. the most important thing is Improved auto-focus (at least like 7D but i hope like D300)
2. better DR, in many things digital sensor is surpasses the film capability execpt in dynamic range, especially in 
highlight
3. better body design, i think 7d is better in this category (you will understand if you use both camera in more 
than 1 or 2 hour
4. better noise handling in high iso (enough in megapixel race)
5. 1.3 crop option and higher fps (5 fps and more in crop modes)


----------



## Heidrun (May 2, 2011)

I want a camera that takes iso 52600 like iso 800 on the 1D mk III. 
I want a camera that i don`t have to put away in the rain. 
I want a camera with electronic viewfinder. No mirror
I want a camera that has the same body as a 1D or 1DS. 
I want a camera with square sensor. 
I want a camera with around 30 MP


----------



## DuLt (May 4, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> I want a camera that takes iso 52600 like iso 800 on the 1D mk III.
> I want a camera that i don`t have to put away in the rain.
> I want a camera with electronic viewfinder. No mirror
> I want a camera that has the same body as a 1D or 1DS.
> ...



How 'bout a pellicle mirror?

I believe they'll eventually retry a pellicle camera on an XXXd model.


----------



## EYEONE (May 4, 2011)

Hillsilly said:


> Sorry if this has been mentioned before, but in-body image stabilization does't appear to add that much to the cost of a camera and would be a worthwhile improvement. Canon are probably correct in stating that in-lens IS is a better option, however, as we all know, not all lenses feature this. Ideally, the in-body IS would turn itself off and on automatically (with manual override) depending upon whether an IS enabled lens was attached.



I find it surprising that anyone at all that shoots Canon would want in-body IS. Asside from the technical limitations and heat build up, it's simply not as good for composing photos. When I look through my view finder and half press the shutter release I can see the image stabilize and I can compose correctly. I would not trade that ability for anything!


----------



## lol (May 5, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> I find it surprising that anyone at all that shoots Canon would want in-body IS. Asside from the technical limitations and heat build up, it's simply not as good for composing photos. When I look through my view finder and half press the shutter release I can see the image stabilize and I can compose correctly. I would not trade that ability for anything!



I take it you really enjoy the IS on the 24-70 then? It doesn't matter how fast or wide the lens is, it will give you that bit more which I will gladly take if offered. No one said you have to have body IS *instead* of lens IS, but you could have it in *addition* to. There are a lot of lenses that don't have IS, and unlikely to any time soon, so having IS in body is better than nothing. Heating is a non-issue for stills shooting.


----------



## torger (May 5, 2011)

Oh, just got irritated again about banding noise at low ISO. I know 5D mk2 does not have as bad banding as 7D, but anyway it would be nice with a completely random read noise, which increases the useful dynamic range.

I can't exactly say I often have problem with it on the 7D (and I've heard that the problem is less evident on 5Dmk2), but now and then it pops up, for example when pushing shadows in post-processing, and in some occasions it is slightly visible in quite bright skies too. Probably I'd have less problem if using Canon's DPP instead of third party raw development software, but I certainly don't like the idea of hiding flaws in the electronics by some inhouse secret algorithm that will not be in the third party softwares which most folks use. The less that needs to be fixed in post-processing the better.


----------



## Dymonds (May 8, 2011)

Expected this to be a hot topic and was interesting to read the wish lists of current users. As someone who is new but having completed a fair amount of research, I would expect that much of what has been put into the 7D will make it's way to the 5DMkIII. In particular though my two cents worth is:-
* Dual memory card slots (The Nikon D7000 has it so it's not impossible for this size body)
* Improved ISO

Also, can we expect better white balance. This seems to be a DSLR quirk which hasn't been able to be overcome even at the highest level (ie even the 1D's have issues here)


----------



## Velo Steve (May 9, 2011)

Here's my wish list, most important first:

[list type=decimal]
At least two stops higher ISO without an increase in noise. The improvement needs to be at the sensor level - not just postprocessing.
Improved focus tracking of moving objects (athletes, birds in flight).
Frame rate as fast as the 40D (6.5 fps), or better.
Built-in wireless control. Paying hundreds extra for an add-on device may have made sense ten years ago...
Weight no higher than needed. "Feels solid" can be just an illusion.
The Mark II's 21 megapixels is already pretty good. At some point you just waste storage space and transfer time.
If video features are added, they should NEVER get in the way of use as a still camera.
Wider dynamic range. HDR from multiple exposures rarely gives what I want.
A price increase is to be expected, but I won't pay 1D-level prices.

I'm asking a lot, but after all I have a perfectly good camera already. A new one has to be compelling.

Steve[/list]


----------



## autochrome (May 9, 2011)

[list type=decimal]
[*]5, 7 or even 9 bracketed shots, or some other limit - user set preferably (for instance, to build HDR lightprobes with a full frame fisheye, or just ordinary HDR images).
[*]
Ability to record a wider exposure latitude
[*]
DNG support
[*]
For video some sort of lens data and lens operation data file would be a blessing, specially if any computer graphics elements have to be inserted in the video - tracking footage is complex, compensating lens distortion can be complex as well, specially if you're using zooms frequently, so some sort of metadata file for the video to ease the burden of post production and/or tracking/visual effects would be nice (one can dream...).[/list]

What more...


lower noise overall and lower noise at higher ISO speeds, even at the cost of resolution. ISO6400 with characteristics of ISO400 would be nice (this is a wish list after all...).

RAW video, if coupled with one of the previous points, the capability to record a wider exposure latitude, this would be great, although storage and the capacity of the onboard CPU(s) to keep up with the data being fed would be a problem.

USB3 support.

The AF system of the 7D (no point in asking for the AF system of the 1D Mk.IV, but one can surely wish it).

Ability to program series of (time lapse) exposure for stills, and time lapse for video

Same price as the Mk.II.


----------



## zerotiu (May 9, 2011)

* ISO handling
* more autofocus points
* more bracketing stops
* tougher weather sealed
* same price like 550D..oops I mean 5D2


----------



## tvboy (May 9, 2011)

A lot of good comments and I would like to see by Canon that there be a way to connect the body to a portable hard drive...e.g. Western Digital or Seagate and be able to copy your CF card instead of buying 3rd party equipment like Nexto Extreme or a laptop. There is already a screen to view and USB. When in the wild with no Electricity and airline weight a priemum. Elimated all the baggage would be great.


----------



## Admin US West (May 9, 2011)

tvboy said:


> A lot of good comments and I would like to see by Canon that there be a way to connect the body to a portable hard drive...e.g. Western Digital or Seagate and be able to copy your CF card instead of buying 3rd party equipment like Nexto Extreme or a laptop. There is already a screen to view and USB. When in the wild with no Electricity and airline weight a priemum. Elimated all the baggage would be great.



The issue is availability of power. A camera barely has enough power to take a reasonable quantity of photos, it would have to have larger battery or multiple batteries to run a portable hard drive.

Check out the Canon wft-e4a for your 5D MK II, It or a upgraded version will work with a MK III. You can connect with a portable hard drive, a wired or bluethooth GPS, wirelessly operate the camera or download to a laptop, a whole host of power hungry things. And, if the battery runs down, the camera battery is not affected.

If you are doing video, hookiing up a partable hard drive to the WFT might work for you. For stills though, tethering a camera to a hard drive might not be the best thing.


----------



## Velo Steve (May 9, 2011)

autochrome said:


> USB3 support.
> 
> Ability to program series of (time lapse) exposure for stills, and time lapse for video


I edited the quote down to two items which should have been in my list too.

Time lapse should be really simple to add, would save having to connect a laptop with EOS utility to do a simple series of photos.


----------



## Leisersan (May 9, 2011)

How about a full rez video out while recording


----------



## EYEONE (May 9, 2011)

lol said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > I find it surprising that anyone at all that shoots Canon would want in-body IS. Asside from the technical limitations and heat build up, it's simply not as good for composing photos. When I look through my view finder and half press the shutter release I can see the image stabilize and I can compose correctly. I would not trade that ability for anything!
> ...



Actually bud, I don't mind not having IS on the 24-70mm. It's too short to really need it. We can go off whining about not having IS on every single lens if we want to but these normal range zooms don't need it. 

They could do IS + Lens IS I guess. If that's what you want then go tell Canon. I don't really see the point. All the lenses that need IS have IS. Maybe we should all stop whining about features and go take some good pictures.


----------



## gene_can_sing (May 9, 2011)

I really just want some real info on body and lenses so we can all stop speculating and actually be able make some solid buying decisions. Canon is starting to remind me of RED, a company that sells Vaporware.


----------



## Admin US West (May 9, 2011)

Velo Steve said:


> I edited the quote down to two items which should have been in my list too.
> 
> Time lapse should be really simple to add, would save having to connect a laptop with EOS utility to do a simple series of photos.



I would also prefer to have time lapse built in. However, Use of a laptop is overkill.

You can use the Canon TC80N3 for time lapse, I use mine and it works well. 

There are third party units available as well, the Pixel TC-252 seems to fit the bill, but I have no direct experience with it. http://www.pixelhk.com/Proshow.aspx?id=76


----------



## Flake (May 9, 2011)

The laptop comes in handy for storing loads of images in RAW especially if you use a 5D MkII memory cards just don't seem big enough.

As for what I'd like from a MkIII I'd like a delivery date Canon can actually meet within a reasonable timescale following the announcement. So many products seem to have been announced and never delivered to store, I can't see the point of any more announcements until the back logs are cleared. Before anyone mentions the earthquake some of these date back well before the earthquake struck.


----------



## Admin US West (May 9, 2011)

Flake said:


> The laptop comes in handy for storing loads of images in RAW especially if you use a 5D MkII memory cards just don't seem big enough.
> 
> As for what I'd like from a MkIII I'd like a delivery date Canon can actually meet within a reasonable timescale following the announcement. So many products seem to have been announced and never delivered to store, I can't see the point of any more announcements until the back logs are cleared. Before anyone mentions the earthquake some of these date back well before the earthquake struck.



Canon has always done pretty well at delivering camera bodies in a reasonable time. The 5D MK II took a couple of months, but then, the volume of orders took Canon by suprise. In the case of the new super telephoto lenses, it was a complete fiasco, just like typical Sigma announcements. 

I also much prefer having a product ready to ship when a announcement is made, rather than a development announcement, or a wishful thinking announcement.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 11, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> I also much prefer having a product ready to ship when a announcement is made, rather than a development announcement, or a wishful thinking announcement.



Is it just a photography thing? PocketWizard, Paul C. Buff, etc., also announce products and an availability date, which invariably slips, then slips some more.

On the other end, there's Apple. No leaks in advance (or very few, at least, with some notable exceptions), product is announced and then starts shipping and shows up on store shelves the very next day.


----------



## gene_can_sing (May 11, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> scalesusa said:
> 
> 
> > I also much prefer having a product ready to ship when a announcement is made, rather than a development announcement, or a wishful thinking announcement.
> ...



There is a HUGE difference between Apple and Canon though. With Apple, you pretty much know that their products get a pretty good upgrade almost every year. With Apple, generally speaking, their releases are very regular and you've come to expect it, and they usually deliver something really good.

With Canon, the upgrades are far and few, and you never know when to expect anything. Could be this year, could be 2 years from now. There is absolutely no predicting Canon. Canon has got into this pattern of very incremental upgrades to existing products -- add a flip screen here, maybe a 3x crop factor, etc... Many new cameras are just firmware updates of previous versions (t2i, 60d, t3i).

With Apple, they are usually pushing the edge, and that is why everyone just copies them. Apple is extremely progressive and Canon is extremely conservative.

I wish Canon thought like Apple. We would've have the 5D3 a year ago if they did.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 12, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> With Apple, you pretty much know that their products get a pretty good upgrade almost every year. With Apple, generally speaking, their releases are very regular and you've come to expect it, and they usually deliver something really good.



That's true, _now_. For their computers, at least, it's true because they are using Intel chips, and Intel has a regular schedule and a defined roadmap. But back when Apple designed/used their own chips (made for them by Motorola), it was a different and far less predictable story.


----------



## gene_can_sing (May 12, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> gene_can_sing said:
> 
> 
> > With Apple, you pretty much know that their products get a pretty good upgrade almost every year. With Apple, generally speaking, their releases are very regular and you've come to expect it, and they usually deliver something really good.
> ...



That's an interesting point you bring up. Isn't Sony becoming a major chip maker for cameras? I know they make most if not all, of the chips that goes into Nikon. If Sony becomes an Intel like chips maker for camera manufacturers, who has to make regular schedules and breakthroughs and be held to a higher standard. Wouldn't that squeeze Canon, much in the same way that Apple used to be squeezed when they had Motorola make their chips and had to compete against Intel?

Maybe that would be good for Canon to have some real competition.


----------



## sb (May 12, 2011)

Here is what I'd love to see in 5DMK3:

1. Built-in radio slave trigger with ETTL support, compatible with next gen Canon radio flashes so that I dont require any third party triggers once and for all (yes I'm looking at you PocketWizard)
2. Built-in ND (and graduated ND??) filters so I can shoot video outside at f/1.4 and not have to use filters. I'm sure they could do this via reduced sensor sensitivity.
3. Faster AF system - PLEASE!!!!! And don't release a 7DMk2 6 months later with an even better AF to make me regret my purchase.
4. No more megapixels. I dont need 30MP, stop the nonsense please
5. Double memory card slot with redundancy mode
6. at least 60fps video if not 120fps. I like smooth slow motion
7. Fix the aliasing issue with the video if you can, I hate seeing those straight lines all jagged-y
8. 6fps fire rate would be nice
9. higher dynamic range would be nice
10. if you can improve signal to noise ratio even more, I'll love you even more


----------



## Admin US West (May 13, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> [That's true, _now_. For their computers, at least, it's true because they are using Intel chips, and Intel has a regular schedule and a defined roadmap. But back when Apple designed/used their own chips (made for them by Motorola), it was a different and far less predictable story.



That's an interesting point you bring up. Isn't Sony becoming a major chip maker for cameras? I know they make most if not all, of the chips that goes into Nikon. If Sony becomes an Intel like chips maker for camera manufacturers, who has to make regular schedules and breakthroughs and be held to a higher standard. Wouldn't that squeeze Canon, much in the same way that Apple used to be squeezed when they had Motorola make their chips and had to compete against Intel?

Maybe that would be good for Canon to have some real competition.
[/quote]

I think you are thinking of the camera sensor, Sony can't make them fast enough, so they farm out production.

Canon uses a ARM946E-S Core in the 5D MK II processor, The firmware is done by Canon, and perhaps the overall manufacturing, but they do not design the processor. Sony, Apple, ...a huge number of companies use the various versions.

Read up on them here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture


----------



## ReyMorlu (May 13, 2011)

I have been working all my "pro-life" in technical & editorial photography and the first digital camera I consider good enough to be bought in orther to repace my elder equipement based in Hassel, Linhoff and 35mm Canon film cameras was the 5D-2 even not covering all my needs! ...but clients have the last word and labs broke-down in my country and everybody wants digital pics even being a damn rabish!

Pro-photo is gonna be dissapear!!!, and expensive cameras are the new way to spend money for nothing in adult toys... almost for younger photographers with less than 40 years old. (in my personal opinion)
50% of photostudios are closed now and 80% of labs too, -almost in my country- 

What my needs are then...?

1Âº No less than 40 MPx, to use it like a medium format camera, BUT improved with versatillity of 35mm lenses
2Âº Same accessories (compatible!) whith 5D-2: bp-e6, bateries, CFlash cards (double slot), Speedlites....
3Âº MULTIEXPOSURE!!! like old film cameras and Nikon, Pentax, etc. I don't understand why canon does'nt
4Âº HDR multiexposure (like pentax K5D) -at least- and panoramic-auto-mode if possible.
5Âº Video avi Format also, not only MOV (personally video is not a must for a camera... but!)
6Âº 7D autofocus sistem
7Âº 100% coverage viewfinder and more confortable eyepiece 1D series like
8Âº 4fps at RAW-S1 and 6/8 fps at RAW-S2 or less
9Âº Slow motion video 60fps... or more
10Âº AFORDABLE like it's predecesors: 5D, 5D-II

I'm not gonna pay a buck for a camera whith less than that, the fact of making something different is not enought to make people buying it... whith eyes wide shut!

Take your time guys! im very patient.


----------



## cedrics (May 14, 2011)

My list:
-Main feature for me would be to keep all buttons in the same spot as mk II. I use the present one underwater and housings don't come cheap... Almost glad mine lasted for two years with the latest full frame!
-Second curtain flash with any strobe brand. Right now you can only do this with Canon's strobes and I can't use these underwater. I understand they want to sell their own brand but in my case this doesnt apply as Canon has no underwater strobe. I used to be able to do this with my 300D and every other brand let's you do this...
-MORE SHARPNESS, tired of having to spend so much time sharpening my shots
-Higher dynamic range
-Better autofocus including proper autofocus in video
-Slow motion
-Ability to choose which area of the sensor to use in video mode. Center Crop would be so nice for macro shooters...
-No more pixels, at least no more than 24MP. Don't want to feel that even my L lenses are not good enough!
-Wireless Strobe, and why not built-in wireless file transfer
-Recharging battery via induction/powermat. With this and the last point I'd never take my cam out of its housing
-SAME PRICE TAG
-announced lenses becoming available... Fisheye zoom should have come out months ago


----------



## cedrics (May 14, 2011)

-ND Filters in camera
-IS in camera. This IS on lenses business has to be the biggest rip-off ever!


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2011)

cedrics said:


> -ND Filters in camera



Where? The mirror box is already tight enough, flange to sensor distance can't increase.



cedrics said:


> -IS in camera. This IS on lenses business has to be the biggest rip-off ever!



Not really. The IS system optimal for reducing the effect of shake is different for a standard zoom vs. a supertelephoto. Put another way, it's doubtful that an in-camera system could effectively stabilize a supertele lens.


----------



## sb (May 16, 2011)

I'd like to believe that they can create in-camera ND filters via some kind of reduced sensitivity mode instead of an actual physical filter. It might be realm of science fiction, but could they create a software override where they simply discard X percentage of photons which reach sensor nodes? That way, they reduce exposure, thus simulating an ND filter? I'm just thinking out loud...

About IS:

Again, may sound like science fiction (or plain stupidity ), but how about a secondary in-body IS system which can work in CONJUNCTION with the lens IS (if available) to even further enhance "hand holdability"?


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 16, 2011)

sb said:


> I'd like to believe that they can create in-camera ND filters via some kind of reduced sensitivity mode instead of an actual physical filter. It might be realm of science fiction, but could they create a software override where they simply discard X percentage of photons which reach sensor nodes? That way, they reduce exposure, thus simulating an ND filter? I'm just thinking out loud...



This is sort of available already, at least as a '1-stop in-camera ND filter' - some cameras, e.g. the 5DII, offer an ISO 50 setting via a C.Fn, which is really just a processing trick. While this is a possibility, I think it's tied to Canon increasing the overall dynamic range of their sensors (something I'd really like to see!)



sb said:


> Again, may sound like science fiction (or plain stupidity ), but how about a secondary in-body IS system which can work in CONJUNCTION with the lens IS (if available) to even further enhance "hand holdability"?



That would be quite a nice feature!


----------



## sb (May 16, 2011)

Yeah I hear you about the ISO 50, I just wish they took that to the next level. For any kind of long-ish exposure in daylight, you're still stuck with stacking filters. So I'm waiting for that ISO -800 LOL


----------



## Admin US West (May 16, 2011)

I believe that ISO Range and Dynamic Range are linked. You could design a camera with a low ISO of -800, but then the high ISO might be 100. DSLR sensors do lack dynamic range, and many photographers are willing to accept higher and higher ISO at the expense of low ISO settings.

In a way, it makes some sense, you can add ND filters to be able to use long exposures, but you can't easily deal with low light without using additional lighting, which often totally spoils the effect you are seeking.

The obvious answer is to increase dynamic range of the sensor, but even if there is a big jump in DR, I'll bet it all goes toward giving higher ISO ratings.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 17, 2011)

sb said:


> For any kind of long-ish exposure in daylight, you're still stuck with stacking filters.



Stacking? Why? My B+W ND #110 (3.0, 10-stop) allows very long daytime exposures with just one filter.


----------



## bvukich (May 17, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> My B+W ND #110 (3.0, 10-stop)



AKA, welding goggles.


----------



## sb (May 17, 2011)

LOL welding goggles...That B+W looks like a nice filter. I initially cheaped out on my filter purchases, so I ended up with a few crappy cokins which gave me so much red tint, the pictures made me nauseous.

Anyway I was looking at Lee's "Big Stopper" which is also 10 stops and about the same price, but I'm starting to question resin altogether - I wouldn't want to end up with a more expensive Cokin, if you know what I mean.

This B+W looks good though, gonna check it out. Thanks


----------



## NotABunny (May 17, 2011)

sb said:


> I'd like to believe that they can create in-camera ND filters via some kind of reduced sensitivity mode instead of an actual physical filter. It might be realm of science fiction, but could they create a software override where they simply discard X percentage of photons which reach sensor nodes? That way, they reduce exposure, thus simulating an ND filter?



It's (theoretically) possible to expose, for example, every second pixel (RGGB set) with a different ISO in order to get 4 simultaneous exposures, so it's possible to have hand-held HDR (with no motion blur or ghosting, though at 1/4 the resolution).


Here is another approach (used in the Mysterium-x sensor in RED cameras):

http://www.scribd.com/doc/53692312/9/MYSTERIUM-X%C2%AE-SENSOR



> HDRx is an option for extending dynamic range from +1 to +6 stops over the baseline Dynamic Rangeoffered by the camera. HDRx mode simultaneously shoots two images of identical resolution and framerate - a primary track (A-track) that is normally exposed, and a the secondary track (X-track) that has anexposure value that reflects the additional stops of highlight protection desired.
> EXAMPLE: If you select an HDR value of +2 and your primary exposure is 1/48th sec, the X-trackexposure will be 2 stops faster, 1/192 sec.
> The ISO and Aperture remain the same for both exposures.



Also see http://reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?49668-EPIC-HDR


----------



## ReyMorlu (May 22, 2011)

LET ME INSIST...

H.D.R. multiexposure is a must nowadays (even some snapshot cameras do it) & REFLEX too. K-5D ie.

More resolution, no less than 36mpx.

100% viewfinder! with an eyepiece shutter like elder film cameras A-1, F-1, eos1... IS IT SO DIFFICULT, again!??

Improved autofocus (all CT) even being only 15... and faster! and placed other way in example: 4 of them in Rule of Thirds strongest points.

Don't put a movil, rotating, variangle, etc. screen like newer models (most of us Hate it)

CF card cover, lock device please (it opens on and on accidentally in 5Ds)

Pro-photographers are waiting for a tull not for a toy (prosumer market) think about it...


----------



## autochrome (May 22, 2011)

ReyMorlu said:


> LET ME INSIST...
> 
> H.D.R. multiexposure is a must nowadays (even some snapshot cameras do it) & REFLEX too. K-5D ie.
> 
> ...



I'm just voicing my support for an eyepiece shutter as well, for the price Canon will charge the 5D Mk.III they might as well do it, and even on lower end cameras.


----------



## richy (May 22, 2011)

AFAIK the 5d2 comes with an eye piece cover on the strap? 

Re the 5d2 what I would love as someone who feeds their kids with their photography is

- more dynamic range even at the expense of higher iso's and resolution
- 16 bit
- same resolution
- wider af 'area'. Why bother having 'outer points' when they are so close to the center?
- less dusty - ff = dust magnet so any way it gets less dust is good.
- more Custom memories.
- less buttons on the back and a bigger, higher res touch screen in their place
- the DP button switchable to a MLU button, who the hell uses DP???
- in body IS, whilst it will be of limited help in many situations there are some primes it would help by a stop or two.
-more 'natural' noise like the 7d, the 5d2 has nasty blocky noise.

what I dont care about
-video. its good enough for home video, don't want it for any more than that. better codecs etc are fine, but dont compromise the stills ability. 
- number of af points. 3-9 is enough as long as they work well like the centerpoint on the 5d2.

what I really dont want to see
- frickin novelty junk for the noobs like movable screens, lie down or stand on a chair or shoot blind, those screens are camera killers if you have to use your camera in any kind of weather. 
- HDR pano sweep junk functions.
- a high speed fps. nikon make a general use camera, the d700, its pretty fast and has a decent resolution, canon make two specialized cameras, the 5d is a way better landscape cam and the 7d a better (but not by far) action cam. Lets keep it that way and not turn a 5d3 into a generalized camera.


----------



## leGreve (May 23, 2011)

Out of curiousity... why do people want more AF points? I probably ask because I haven't been in a situation yet where I needed more. I usually stick to the top most or right most point when held horizontally.


----------



## Radiating (May 24, 2011)

I joined this forum just to reply to this thread. I'm a huge fan of the 5D Mark II and I really think it's an amazing camera for what I do. I'm a I've tried so many other bodies and this one just has the best combination of it all to offer.

Out of a 5DIII I want the following:

- 24MP+ to beat out Nikon and add even more cropping power, which is very important and one of the main reasons I love the 5DII
- Longer battery life, again I love this about the 5DII and I want more
- Low iso noise fix, at least performance equal to Nikon, that's all.
- 7D Autofocus
- Remove the 1/30th limit on live view, this drives me nuts, when shooting on a tripod
- Faster processor, maye even dual CF cards?
- A larger viewfinder (not that critical)
- Less weight (not that critical, but at least not much more weight)
- Better weather sealing (not that critical)
- RAW video
- Bluetooth and WiFi connectivity, espetially with the abbility to download images to a remote server


----------



## HughHowey (May 24, 2011)

richy said:


> what I really dont want to see
> - frickin novelty junk for the noobs like movable screens, lie down or stand on a chair or shoot blind, those screens are camera killers if you have to use your camera in any kind of weather.
> - HDR pano sweep junk functions.
> - a high speed fps. nikon make a general use camera, the d700, its pretty fast and has a decent resolution, canon make two specialized cameras, the 5d is a way better landscape cam and the 7d a better (but not by far) action cam. Lets keep it that way and not turn a 5d3 into a generalized camera.



Noobs? The 5DII revolutionized the video DSLR market. A swivel screen makes perfect sense, even for stills. Live view is much better for manual focus. Lie down? Stand on a chair? Shoot blind? Why be such an elitist snob when you can just choose to not use these functions?

And if Digic V can handle a higher FPS, then bring it on. Why would you *not *want more FPS? This makes absolutely no sense to me. Not when Nikon's competing FF does 8 FPS gripped, and is already a year old.

I swear, some photogs come off like they want their hobby to have more barriers to entry. It's bizarre. There are compacts out there that warn you of someone blinking during a group portrait, no need to zoom and pan to check. A buried menu function that turns on a handy beep code for this would be cool for those of us who think $3,000 should buy similar features as a $200 P&S. I want 3, 5, and 7 frame automatic in-camera HDR. I want pano-stitching. I want a crop option on my FF. I want a 300 page owners manual. For people like you, I will concede that all these goodies come "off" by default. You never need to know they are there. You can just grind your teeth and agonize over the sight of "noobs" running around with a camera that you wish only you could own and operate. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2011)

richy said:


> - wider af 'area'. Why bother having 'outer points' when they are so close to the center?



As I ]pointed out previously (closer to the beginning of this long-ish thread), there are technical reasons that the spacing of the AF points is so close to the center. The AF points on the 1DsIII cover the same extent (altough on the 1DsIII they are more densely packed and more sensitive and accurate). The 1D series (APS-H) does have a relatively wider spread of AF points than either the FF or APS-C cameras.



richy said:


> - the DP button switchable to a MLU button, who the hell uses DP???



I, for one, use the DoF Preview button - both for DoF preview and to activate modeling flash. When I'm going to use MLU, I'm on a tripod, and there are several other settings that go along with that - timer/remote trigger, fixed ISO 100, etc., so rather than a button for MLU and still having to use the quick display to set the others, it's easiest to just set up a Custom Mode (C# on the mode dial) for tripod shooting. 



richy said:


> - number of af points. 3-9 is enough as long as they work well like the centerpoint on the 5d2.



I agree that 9 is probably enough for most situations. Three is not enough, no way. Having a denser array means better AI Servo performance for moving subjects. Personally, I like the approach of 'invisible' AF points in the 5DII (although a better solution would be to make them selectable via a C.Fn for those who want to select them. On the 7D, though, I only use the center point or a point on the edge, not the middle ones - and I'd rather not have to skip over them.


----------



## richy (May 26, 2011)

HughHowey said:


> richy said:
> 
> 
> > what I really dont want to see
> ...



Nothing to do with barriers or short manuals. The screen would compromise the weatherproofing and the strength of the body. I need my camera to work in the rain. The 5d2 and 7D and 1 series have no issues with rain. Pros have been making great pictures for years without a swivel screen? 

It may be your hobby, its my job, so yes I take it a little more seriously than somebody playing at it.

I have no issues with them increasing the use for video, but don't compromise its main purpose, as a stills camera. If the function really doesn't compromise the camera than fine, otherwise leave it in the cheap compacts. And you need a function to tell you if someone blinked? Theres a few VERY easy ways to ensure nobody blinks. Many videographers are also using external monitors with their dslrs to aid in focussing and framing which are considerably better than the rear lcd screen. 

HDR? Check out Peter Lik. nd grads  Sure better bracketing would be good. I've never understood why nikon do it and canon don't, but why bother having the camera mess about with stitching panos and tonemapping HDR's, just have them capture the info and do it on a pc that can make a better job of it? I've seen some of the sony auto pans and they just aren't sharp. It sounds good but it doesn't deliver. Seriously, why not leave the processing to the several thousand dollar pc with great software? 

I thought I explained the whole lower fps, perhaps you were drowning in your own vitriol. Sure if they can do it, it MAY not hurt. I just don't want them merging the 5d and 7d lines. Nikon have a general use camera in that price point, canon have two specialized cameras. Part of what attracted me to the 5d2 was that its sensor was a world apart from the d700's. I would not like to see them compromise that. Canon make video cameras, canon make film cameras. The 5d2 did a great job at stepping between the two but it is primarily a stills camera. If canon compromise its stills ability then its time to switch to nikon. 



neuroanatomist said:


> richy said:
> 
> 
> > - wider af 'area'. Why bother having 'outer points' when they are so close to the center?
> ...



Re DP. Direct Print  not DOF. I find myself taking mlu on and off a lot. I just find it amusing that canon (despite being begged for years) do not even make it an option to change the DP to an MLU button. It cannot be that difficult to do. 

Re Outer points, I didn't see your post but I presume its due in part to the size of the AF chip? I think I remember canon saying something about that and it further increasing the body size. Personally I believe it was a cost and marketing decision.


----------



## sehmuzb (May 26, 2011)

I need a full frame camera, a Canon will be nice but if Nikon delivers a better one I am seriously considering moving.

C'mon Canon give us:

- Canon 7D like body (no damn flip screen)
- %100 viewfinder coverage with built in cover (like 1D)
- 24+ MP, clean ISO 3200, much better Dynamic Range
- 7D like AF with at least 11 crosspoints
- 5+fps
- Built in GPS (or easy integration)
- AUTO ISO with adjustable shutter speed (lens based auto preferred) Just look at the M8 or M9
- CF + SD card slots configurable for multiple combinations (d300s, d700)
- 60D style focusing screen support


----------



## torger (May 26, 2011)

More and more I start thinking that higher useful dynamic range at base ISO is of key importance (to me at least). The line noise of 5Dmk2 and 7D really irritates me, shadows can often not be lifted and I want to lift them quite often in high dynamic range photos. On the 7D line noise can be slightly visible in fairly bright parts too, like in even fields of snow or a sky. We know that a nice random noise profile is possible (just see the Sony sensors in some Nikon models). A well-working base ISO is to me more important than good performance at high ISO.


----------



## epsiloneri (May 26, 2011)

torger said:


> More and more I start thinking that higher useful dynamic range at base ISO is of key importance (to me at least). The line noise of 5Dmk2 and 7D really irritates me, shadows can often not be lifted and I want to lift them quite often in high dynamic range photos.



I agree, the pattern noise is the single most annoying flaw of the 5D2, and the reason I want an upgrade a.s.a.p. My 7D does not have that issue at all, neither did my 350D or 40D. My 50D had, badly. I wonder how much the sample to sample variation is. My impression is that certain models are more affected than others (like those I listed), and I really, really hope the banding issue will be fixed with 5D3 or I'll be extremely disappointed. 5D2 delivers such great quality pictures in all other respects that it would be really a shame if they couldn't fix this one thing.

Too bad about your 7D showing band noise, mine does not (not at the obvious level of the 5D2 anyway). With the band noise showing up in bright parts it sounds more like a flat-field problem than a bias problem. If it is consistent you can try to get rid of it by producing a "master flat field" you can divide all your pictures with.


----------



## QNeX (May 26, 2011)

I would pose a question a little bit differently. What stops you from buying/thinking of buying 5D Mark II?
Personally I promised myself my next body (I have 40D) will be FF. And obviously 5D Mark II was my #1 candidate, until advent of 7D. Things that were not a big issue before, started to be. Something like: "If I am going FF, I must not envy others' crop bodies."
What I need from 5D Mark III:
- Better AF, equal or better than 7D's.
- Improvements in high ISO and dynamic range.
- Moire fixed.
What I would like to (but is not essential):
- Wireless flash control. Either by IR or by ZigBee. Preferably both.
- Finally get indoor white balance right (not an issue since I shoot RAW, but it is still annoying)
- 100% VF coverage.
- 50fps or more (in video)
Things that are of no imporance:
- Megapixels (anything within range 21-40 is fine).
- Vari-angle LCD.


----------



## Chewngum (May 27, 2011)

leGreve said:


> Out of curiousity... why do people want more AF points? I probably ask because I haven't been in a situation yet where I needed more. I usually stick to the top most or right most point when held horizontally.



More autofocus points helps immensely with large aperture primes. Focus then recompose will often result in the subject or you moving a tiny amount resulting in an out of focus image. More autofocus points wouldn't gaurantee correct focus but would certainly help keeper rate. I for one have been using the Sigma 85 1.4 and while the autofcocus is incredibly fast, its too in need of high contrast at the AF point to find focus. So in this situation also, having more autofocus helps with the likliehood of having a high contrast subject at the AF point. 

my list of wants:
1.~30MP
2.7d AF
3.4FPS
4.CF + SD cards
5.Two stops better high ISO handling
6.Integrated wireless flash control
7.Cheaper Wifi module with GPS built in
8.Weather Sealing as 7d

Why:
1. Landscapes and cropping room
2. Better for use with primes
3. 3.9 is not a round enough number
4. Many uses...Better suited to the actual professionals who would use this camera (no, im not one of those pros)
5. This is a minimum, 5dmkII was ground breaking, they've done nothing since. Its time to shoot with the lights turned off.
6. Easy feature to accomodate and very handy for band/live performance photography
7. Awesome idea but way overpriced, GPS is handy for travellers (I am one of those people)
8. I like the rain/snow and don't want to have to run for cover because it starts sprinkling
5d, 50D, 120-300 2.8, 150mm 2.8 Macro , 24-105L, 12-24 EX, 85 1.4 , 50 1.8 II, 70-200 2.8 macro, 2x TC EX, 24-70 2.8 macro, Rokinon 85 1.4


----------



## messus (May 27, 2011)

1. 2-3 stops improved ISO/ SNR
2. 4K movie in RAW
3. 100+MBps write speed (UDMA7+ speed)
4. Max 25Mpx


----------



## martins982 (May 27, 2011)

dilbert said:


> Some of the things I'd like to see in a 5D Mark 3:
> * ability to shoot slower than 1/30 when in live view - live view is great for landscape and focusing but not being able to shoot slower than 1/30 is really really annoying.



Hey Dilbert, You can already do this by selecting the 'Stills display' under the Live view/Movie func set. menu it lets you then select shutter speeds all the way down to 30 seconds hope it helps


----------



## polpaulin (Jun 1, 2011)

_Better high ISO handling
More Megapixels
Better frames per second
More autofocus points
Raw video_

none


----------



## bikersbeard (Jun 1, 2011)

better iso performance
dual cards !!
better auto focus / more points
more FPS
weather sealing
more MP
100% viewfinder with cover & lever ( like 1d series )
more AEB than 3 shots ( 3, 5 & 7 ) not a great fan of HDR myself but an easy thing to have..
multi-exposure setting

NO NO NO to a swivel screen !!!!


----------



## Tastino0 (Jun 9, 2011)

I want only one thing: it would be available. Now!


----------



## zerotiu (Jun 9, 2011)

Until now, I don't know why people always want dual slot card badly. I mean they do want it really badly.

What's the benefit of it?


----------



## noisejammer (Jun 9, 2011)

I almost only use manual focus and live view, so autofocus and frame rate are largely irrelevant to me. I beat the autofocus every time and might achieve one frame per minute. I can see these as being very important for others and if they don't degrade the camera's versatile nature I would be happy.

In spite of having severa ND grads, I'd like to see a dynamic range filter - allow the camera to attenuate light so that you don't get blown areas in the raw image. This could be controlled by the exposure eval and removed immediately in PP. It provides an instant 3-4 stops more dynamic range. It should be smart so that only bright areas get suppressed... but that's easy to control through the exposure sensor.

2 / 3 / 5 frames while bracketing would be nice.

2x CF card capability would improve the fuzzy feeling... but even CF+SD would be an improvement.

Tilt screen - I'm ambivalent. I'd use it a lot provided my Zacuto could fit on it.

Unless you have a grip, the battery life is marginal so it needs a much better battery. I regularly get "lens communication fault" when the battery is getting low. Maybe it's a bug between he Zeiss interface and the camera... but maybe it's just the camera being confused. I'd like that fixed too.


----------



## zerotiu (Jun 9, 2011)

noisejammer said:


> 2x CF card capability would improve the fuzzy feeling... but even CF+SD would be an improvement.



Do you mean less effort to swap the card when it's full? 
If I'm right, oh... it's only swapping memory card, how long can it take? 

In my opinion, 1 memory card slot does have its own benefit. You don't get confuse or accidentaly take the wrong card (when you are in a hurry)


----------



## WarStreet (Jun 9, 2011)

zerotiu said:


> Until now, I don't know why people always want dual slot card badly. I mean they do want it really badly.
> 
> What's the benefit of it?



For some, the main benefit during an important event, is the backup ability.


----------



## davebean (Jun 10, 2011)

WarStreet said:


> zerotiu said:
> 
> 
> > Until now, I don't know why people always want dual slot card badly. I mean they do want it really badly.
> ...



The 5D and 5D2 owns the wedding market. But the Nikon D700 is rapidly catching up and I would consider the Nikon D300s a good backup cam... both those prosumer cams have dual SD slots.

When you're shooting a wedding, everything is double redundant... everything. This is a once in a lifetime event and absolutely NO do-overs. If you do not get the image, the bride/groom will be screaming bloody murder and they will get back all the money they paid me. Two cards have fried on me... both SD cards. Thank God I shoot with a dual card cam, the 1D3. The CF has saved my bacon. However, the 1D3 is too heavy to carry around for a 12 hr wedding.

And I DO NOT want dual CF cards. I want 1 CF and 1 SDHC slot. In the US, CF are harder and harder to find because most cams come with SD slots. I've been caught short of cards on a 3 day shoot out in the middle of no-where. Thank God there was a Walmart nearby, they had lots of SD choices, not too many CF choices. However, SD's suck because they fry easily, their contacts are exposed and they are fragile and small. CF"s are great because the contacts are hidden and they have better error checking than SD's. Plus CF's are more expensive than SD's for the same capacity.


----------



## J. McCabe (Jun 10, 2011)

davebean said:


> When you're shooting a wedding, everything is double redundant... everything. This is a once in a lifetime event and absolutely NO do-overs.



There was an item in a local newspaper about a couple that went through their wedding a second time, because (can't remember why) all the original wedding photos were lost.

This is, of course, an exception.



davebean said:


> If you do not get the image, the bride/groom will be screaming bloody murder and they will get back all the money they paid me.



A few items in the local newspapers reported photographers being sued in such cases. In some cases the photographer gave the money back, and then some as compensation.

This is one of the reasons wedding photographers work in pairs (in the film era, it was common for them to walk together during the important moments, both photographing the same photos from the same spot), often carrying two cameras each.

[That is not to say there aren't other reasons, e.g. one covering the bride & groom and the other covering the guests, and to allow the photographers to quickly switch between wide angle lens to standard zoom lens.]


----------



## worg (Jun 10, 2011)

*I want it all *

;D Dual card slots, one CF and one SD would be fine - would like the one SD so I can use my Eye-Fi card easier w/o an adapter). I want there to be MULTIPLE options for what each card is set to do - ESPECIALLY to send .jpgs to SD card for my Eye-fi) and larger jpg+RAW or just RAW to the other - let us have any combo we want! I want to quickly preview a smallish .jpg on my ipad via direct mode/Eye-fi card so I will know what RAW files I can delete without even DL'ing big RAW files to my computer.

SMALLER SIZE/WEIGHT if possible. My 7D is just feeling way too big these days.

Cleaner high ISO - 5D MII is good but give us another ISO step that's really clean!

More FPS like 7D

Better focus tracking, better AF when using center point.

Video AF of course! 

Live manual control during video recording

No more MP

Manual noise reduction control - that would be cool - and a first (?)

No rolling shutter in video and minimal to no AF sounds being recorded!

Articulated LCD does us no good since focusing is too slow to be useful in Live Mode (enter Sony Alpha A55 DSLR - that does it right)

I want it SOOOON! Fall release is a terrible time to be taking pictures - vacations are over!


----------



## lol (Jun 10, 2011)

davebean said:


> And I DO NOT want dual CF cards. I want 1 CF and 1 SDHC slot. In the US, CF are harder and harder to find because most cams come with SD slots.


Tried the SD to CF adapters? Might be worth getting some to try if you think you might want to concentrate on SD going ahead.

I'm finding the availability the opposite here, at least for anything above consumer level throwaway cards. It is still hard to find branded moderate performing (200x or faster) medium-high capacity (8GB+) SD cards, whereas the CF versions are easily available everywhere. The 2GB super-slow ones are everywhere though.


----------



## Macadameane (Jun 10, 2011)

davebean said:


> I DO NOT want dual CF cards . . . In the US, CF are harder and harder to find because most cams come with SD slots.



CF are hard to find at places like walmart, but then again, so are L lenses. Shop online, you'll get cheaper deals and find everything you are looking for.


----------



## J. McCabe (Jun 10, 2011)

I've tried a couple of SD to CF adapters. As some have a big performance hit, and some don't, I suggest reading the customer reviews before buying one.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 10, 2011)

Macadameane said:


> davebean said:
> 
> 
> > I DO NOT want dual CF cards . . . In the US, CF are harder and harder to find because most cams come with SD slots.
> ...



I HATE to admit is but I got great deals on new (sealed in packaging) lexar and sandisk udma cf cards on ebay. I wouldn't recommend getting cheap generics on ebay, but if you can find a NEW, SEALED lexar, sandisk, (other brand name) card, I would go for it...


----------



## redeyedfly (Jun 10, 2011)

I would like more autofocus points, but mainly more Frames per second and bracketing options like the 1d series. current 5d mk 2 and 7d bracketing is pathetic.


----------



## sjaudio (Jun 11, 2011)

With all of the jumps that have been made by Canon, Nikon, and Sony since the last 5D was released, I'd expect something pretty spectacular. Though we'll probably just see an incremental step forward. If I had to put together my wish list (which is was the original point of this thread), I'd like to see the following.

Professional AF. There's zero reason for a $3000 camera (does anyone really expect this to come out at a price less than that?) to have only a 9 point system. Especially one with only one really usable AF point.

Better ISO. I don't need night vision goggles here, but another step (and keep it clean!) would be handy.

Better DR. Any improvement would be appreciated.


----------



## gferdinandsen (Jun 11, 2011)

An accelerometer like my iPhone. It would be great to have a 3 axis level that would display on the LCD, no more fixing in photoshop those shots that are not level.


----------



## Admin US West (Jun 11, 2011)

gferdinandsen said:


> An accelerometer like my iPhone. It would be great to have a 3 axis level that would display on the LCD, no more fixing in photoshop those shots that are not level.



What is a 3 axis level? 

The 7D has a side to side level, and a front tilt up/ down, what is the third one? 

We will likely see a 2 axis level like the 7D in any new high end models.


----------



## renesisx (Jun 11, 2011)

*Re: I want it all *



worg said:


> ;D Dual card slots, one CF and one SD would be fine - would like the one SD so I can use my Eye-Fi card easier w/o an adapter). I want there to be MULTIPLE options for what each card is set to do - ESPECIALLY to send .jpgs to SD card for my Eye-fi) and larger jpg+RAW or just RAW to the other



Amen! Definitely need an SD card slot, especially so I can use my Eye-Fi.

And SD-to-CF card adapters don't work very well with Eye-Fi as it requires a constant power source. Cameras tend to power off the CF card slot after writing the images - that doesn't give Eye-Fi time to broadcast them.

This means it doesn't currently work with the 5D Mk II


----------



## Admin US West (Jun 11, 2011)

*Re: I want it all *



renesisx said:


> worg said:
> 
> 
> > ;D Dual card slots, one CF and one SD would be fine - would like the one SD so I can use my Eye-Fi card easier w/o an adapter). I want there to be MULTIPLE options for what each card is set to do - ESPECIALLY to send .jpgs to SD card for my Eye-fi) and larger jpg+RAW or just RAW to the other
> ...



How well will the eye-fi do at downloading 50 mb raw files?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 17, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> gferdinandsen said:
> 
> 
> > An accelerometer like my iPhone. It would be great to have a 3 axis level that would display on the LCD, no more fixing in photoshop those shots that are not level.
> ...



The three axes are pitch, roll, and yaw (Google Maps' developer documentation was one of the only demonstrations that uses a camera instead of an airplane):







The 7D's dual-axis level shows roll and pitch. The 60D's electronic level is more limited, and only shows roll. As you can appreciate from the above graphic, yaw is not something you'd want to 'level' - it's actually part of your composition, so there's no point in showing level information for all three axes.

However, to be technically correct, the 7D does have a 3-axis level, even though only 2 axes are displayed at a time. When you rotate the camera to portrait orientation, yaw becomes pitch (imagine rotating the camera above by 90Â°), but the electronic level still works - therefore, it must be a 3-axis level, able to detect yaw in landscape orientation, but not showing the data. Conversely, the 60D only has a 1-axis level (roll is still roll when the camera is reoriented from landscape to portrait).


----------



## skarstein (Jun 21, 2011)

As a videographer i want.

- AF while filming
- Better ISO levels without noise. 
- More fps, atleast 1080P 60fps.
- Manual audio choices. 
- Audio Monitoring
- FullHD HDMI out. 
- No rolling shutter or Moire.


----------



## ReyMorlu (Jun 24, 2011)

I would like to know if should be possible to take (like the white balance bracketing) an ISO bracketing in order to create 3 diferent RAW archives in a single shot... it might be a solution to HDR or higher dinamic scale without the need to take 3 pics in secuence whith possible blur or gosting the moving subjects. ???

Another question... everybody likes the damn video amateur capabillity of the 5d2 but nobody ask for a start/stop video record remote control (lanc in videocameras) having the 5d2 only the rear "set" trigger not very comfortable and even a really annoying way of capturing video. The actual cable releases (TC/RC 80n3 & such) only shot the shutter, then still images but no video! There start being developed some USB devices but not Canon made... 

The last lack in 5d2 is that you cannot see positioned in the same place, images in play mode and live view, then is no possible to make precise compositions and then check out to framing again in an easy way, even the 550d has a better screen in my opinion.


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 24, 2011)

ReyMorlu said:


> Another question... everybody likes the damn video amateur capabillity of the 5d2 but nobody ask for a start/stop video record remote control (lanc in videocameras) having the 5d2 only the rear "set" trigger not very comfortable and even a really annoying way of capturing video. The actual cable releases (TC/RC 80n3 & such) only shot the shutter, then still images but no video! There start being developed some USB devices but not Canon made...



actually, i'm another person who's surprised that there isn't one.
set your camera up on a tripod, frame, focus, wait for the action, press the start button... ah damn, now the camera's shaking from pressing start...


----------



## Flake (Jun 24, 2011)

I want a camera that is capable of taking more than 2 bracketed shots & more than + or - 2 stops Nikon can manage 9 stops & 7 images in a stack. Quite a difference.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2011)

Flake said:


> I want a camera that is capable of taking more than 2 bracketed shots & more than + or - 2 stops



Simple...get a 1-series.


----------



## WarStreet (Jun 24, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> The three axes are pitch, roll, and yaw (Google Maps' developer documentation was one of the only demonstrations that uses a camera instead of an airplane):
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That was a great explanation, thanks for the info.


----------



## docrender (Jun 25, 2011)

- 3K proprietary Canon video codec
- better CMOS readout (not every 10-th pixel, at least every second one 
- High End Canon made PL-mount adaptor (Ok to pay $1000 for it)
- Mirrorless

OMG! I want SONY NEX FS-100!!! But from Canon... ((


----------



## mbiedermann (Jun 27, 2011)

Most of you have focused on the technical abilities of the camera. I'd like to focus a little on its usability:
1) Reset the selected focus point to â€˜Allâ€™ by, for example, pressing the focus point selection button twice of something like that. I believe that some Nikonâ€™s have this feature
2) Iâ€™m amazed that we canâ€™t natively embedded the GPS coordinates in the pictures we make. BTW, I donâ€™t want to sacrifice my hot shoe for this since I take many pictures at night.
3) I would like to be able to secure my camera (and lens by the way) using a computer cable lock. I often shoot time-lapse photography at night.
4) Greater than 3 selections when bracketing a shot
5) Dual card format (SD and CF). SD cards are significantly cheaper than CF ones which can be more performant. 
6) Iâ€™d love it if the camera would move pictures from the CF to the SD card automatically when the CF card is getting full.
7) A setting to automatically set the camera settings so that it can get as close as possible to the maximum number of frames per second. When Iâ€™m looking to take a very fast burst of pictures it takes me a few minutes to tweak all the settings just right so that the camera can get as close as possible to its theoretical maximum FPS. I know I can select high-speed shooting, but depending on my settings (RAW, Av, etc.), I donâ€™t even get close to what I should be able to get.
8) Provide feedback on sensor temperature during long photo sessions at night â€“ I would like to know when Iâ€™m degrading the quality of my picture because the sensor temperature is heating up.

Michel


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2011)

mbiedermann said:


> 1) Reset the selected focus point to â€˜Allâ€™ by, for example, pressing the focus point selection button twice of something like that. I believe that some Nikonâ€™s have this feature



If you use the multicontroller to select AF points (C.Fn III-3, option 1), then one press of the AF selection button sets it to automatic selection ('all') - not much easier than that. Alternatively, if you press and hold the multicontroller in one direction, that will toggle automatic selection on.



mbiedermann said:


> 7) A setting to automatically set the camera settings so that it can get as close as possible to the maximum number of frames per second. When Iâ€™m looking to take a very fast burst of pictures it takes me a few minutes to tweak all the settings just right so that the camera can get as close as possible to its theoretical maximum FPS. I know I can select high-speed shooting, but depending on my settings (RAW, Av, etc.), I donâ€™t even get close to what I should be able to get.



Not something I'd find useful - frankly, if you want maximum fps, get a camera other than the relatively slow 5DII (even the xxD's manage a faster frame rate, and the current xxxD/Rebels are just about as fast as the 5DII). Having said that, if the settings that yield a fast frame rate are important to you, have you considered registering those settings to one of the custom modes (C1, etc., on the mode dial)? That sort of thing is exactly why the custom modes are available, and the 5DII has 3 custom mode sets.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 27, 2011)

mbiedermann said:


> Most of you have focused on the technical abilities of the camera. I'd like to focus a little on its usability:
> 1) Reset the selected focus point to â€˜Allâ€™ by, for example, pressing the focus point selection button twice of something like that. I believe that some Nikonâ€™s have this feature
> 2) Iâ€™m amazed that we canâ€™t natively embedded the GPS coordinates in the pictures we make. BTW, I donâ€™t want to sacrifice my hot shoe for this since I take many pictures at night.
> 3) I would like to be able to secure my camera (and lens by the way) using a computer cable lock. I often shoot time-lapse photography at night.
> ...



ditto what neuro said on 1 and 7... However I do hope that the 5D inherent the 7D multifunction button and customization where you can assign each button to a function it wasn't originally assigned so if you want your 1 shot FPS thing, you could assign it that speed mode. I wouldn't mind dual CF slots and I could change my mind later, but I'm just not sure about different card types in terms of buffering, when you exhaust 1 card how it impacts the 2nd and will there be a lag inherent on the SD cards verse the UMDA CF you may have in the CF slot... I wouldn't find GPS at all useful, I've never fully grasped what the need of having GPS unless you are scouting locations or such... Laptop kinda lock, eh... ok... I've seen many youtube videos of them ripping out of laptops and being easy to pick off... however if it provides peace of mind, then great... 

With that said I'm not bothered about what MP it is as long as it's at least 21mp and shoots faster and has better AF such as the 7D if not better. I dont want as strong of an AA filter that has caused the 5d MII to have the reputation of having soft/smeared images to reduce noise. I want a native 50 ISO so the images would look even better on that setting rather than a native 100 ISO with an underexposed iso 50 which isn't much better quality wise than the 100. High ISO i'm not too bothered about as long as it's usable from ISO 2000 and below.


----------



## NXT1000 (Jun 30, 2011)

I WANT IT TO TELL ME IF THE PICTURE IS BLUR. 

they must be some software, that can measure the amount of blur, due to camera shake, or subject movement, that compute to a figure, which tell me if the photo is blur or not, so i can retake it, I do not want to wait until i go home and sit in front of my 30 inch monitor and find out that it is blur, i cannot go back to retake the photo. 


Please japanese engineers, give me an image blur indicator. I know you are rubbish with software, just hire some american professors to help you.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Nov 26, 2011)

NXT1000 said:


> I WANT IT TO TELL ME IF THE PICTURE IS BLUR.
> 
> they must be some software, that can measure the amount of blur, due to camera shake, or subject movement, that compute to a figure, which tell me if the photo is blur or not, so i can retake it, I do not want to wait until i go home and sit in front of my 30 inch monitor and find out that it is blur, i cannot go back to retake the photo.
> 
> ...



Not sure if this is a joke or not....


----------



## Zo0m (Nov 26, 2011)

My choice as a travel photographer would be the following:
28-32 Mp
4-5 fps
ISO 100 - 51 200 (3 stop improvement)
CF + SD card slot
Slightly improved AF
Built in GPS
Durable

Price of 3000 $ Body Only
- an optional 24-70 IS kit lens wouldn't be that bad either...


----------



## Macadameane (Nov 26, 2011)

Pixel Binning. If there is pixel binning it will fix moire and resolution issues for video. I will definately get it if there is pixel binning.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 26, 2011)

In order.

-Better high ISO performance (1DX esque)
-Awesome Auto-Focus (1DX/7D esque.)
-Solid weatherproofing (at least as much so it can handle getting snowed and showered on a decent bit)
-Improved video capture performance (aka, clean up rolling shutter problems, etc., even further)
-Uncompressed /Raw Video Capture or Clean HDMI out (I don't mind hooking up a separate adapter when shooting video)
-Over resolution, aka. more than 1080p (not necessarily 4k) to allow for re-cropping/panning/zooming/breathing room in editing
-Ability to capture in 60-120fps frame-rates even if it requires using Clean HDMI out and an external capture unit
-Usable auto-focus in video (this is not a pro-video feature, but there are casual times when a reasonably good version of this could come in great handy at barbeques and whatnot.) And if it is put in, I would also suggest some ability to manually over-ride it/flip it on/off, while still in shot.
-Remove Video Time-Limits (even if a fee has to be paid to digitally unlock it in the regions where that licensing matters)
-Consideration for digital adapter accessory that would allow smooth manual aperture control during shooting. (at the bottom of my list for a reason but it makes more sense than new lenses to me, though for all I know (and I don't) it may require new lenses anyways but it may not, and even still it makes more sense)
-If it's not there already and buried, a recorded measurement that tells the distance of the subject focus point from the camera. This is useful to approximately calculate the scale of a subject which is in turn helpful in roughly estimating the scale of textures for texture artists in 3D animation projects.

So basically, an amazing, 5DII sizish body with the latest stills improvements and nothing we've come to expect missing, as well as updated generation 2 DSLR video upgrades. Hit that mark and I'll grab one near launch.


----------



## Heidrun (Nov 26, 2011)

1)Weather sealed
2)Better iso. Low noise in iso 12800
3)35 MP or more. 
4)5 fps
5)Wireless flash
6)Wireless to my mac
7)Build in GPS
8)2x CF card
9)State of the art AF


----------



## J. McCabe (Nov 26, 2011)

alipaulphotography said:


> NXT1000 said:
> 
> 
> > I WANT IT TO TELL ME IF THE PICTURE IS BLUR.
> ...



A former employer of mine did just that for a hand held camera application.


----------



## TexPhoto (Nov 26, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> alipaulphotography said:
> 
> 
> > NXT1000 said:
> ...



It would be great if software could assign a number an pick out the sharpest photo in a sequence. so if you do shoot 3-10 shots to make sure you get a sharp one, it would be easier to pick out the best.

Another idea is a button on the camera to zoom to 1:1 on the point the camera tried to focus on. This would let you decide quickly if it was in good focus/ motion blurred etc.


----------



## kbmelb (Nov 26, 2011)

21-24MP (28MP tops) of the the most perfect pixels.
AF points clustered like 7d or at least 1DsIII. Spot metering beyond the center point.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 26, 2011)

@ Jettatore - would you pick one up at launch for the >$5K price tag of the dream camera you describe?


----------



## alipaulphotography (Nov 27, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> @ Jettatore - would you pick one up at launch for the >$5K price tag of the dream camera you describe?



Why not just get the 1DX? MKIII would eat all the 1DX's sales if it had those specs and was cheaper so it isn't going to happen.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 27, 2011)

Ali- they basically did just thaty with the 1DS mark III and 5D Mark II. I'm expecting the same. I can understand 5D with smaller body style I like but not getting all the extra ports and the dual card slots, more durable shutter, etc. that a bigger body makes easier to fit it all into. I don't like the size of the 1DX for photography off of a tri-pod and I also think the price is absurd. I got into DSLR and specifically Canon DSLR because they do both video and photography in one system. If I am going to be getting seperate bodies for both photog and video, well now all of a sudden Canon doesn't have any sort of special edge for me and I'll probably go elsewhere. If they aren't going to push video in DSLR any further than they did in generation 1, well then no problem, that's why they invented Craig's List.

Neuro, no that's a bit high for me, by about $1,500-$2,500 too much depending. I wouldn't be too upset but I'd wait for it to drop in price a if it came but was 5k. I can hit it at $3k though and I think that's pushing it already.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Ali- they basically did just that with the 1DS mark III and 5D Mark II.



Really? The 5DII has 'awesome auto-focus' and 'solid weatherproofing'? That's news to me. You just named the two biggest differentiators between 1DsIII and 5DII - why would Canon not use those as differentiators between the 1D X and 5DIII? If they don't, what _will_ they use? They certainly won't release a complete 1D X feature set in a smaller body and charge $4K less for it (except in the vivid dreams of 5DII owners).


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 27, 2011)

Sarcasm aside, yes, valid points. 1DX doesn't really impress me video wise. If 1DX was everything I was asking for in a larger body photog and video combo, and 5DIII was the same with 7Dish focus but not quite 1DX and middle road weather proofing, as a spoon feed me my technology because I don't have my own factory (yet ) consumer I'd be understanding.

But lets drop the old conversation for a bit and let me just ask this instead, it's simpler. What is 5D Mark III going to have over 5D Mark II in terms of upgrades if it doesn't touch on the upgrades I'm asking for, what will it do instead? Isn't version III supposed to be better than version II??? I'm really confused why I'm being looked at like I have 3 eyes???? Another question, once you answer that is, tell me why if it comes out anytime within the next year it will still be competitive in two years and not out-shined by another, as the Mark II easily managed to do vs. the competition? Nikon might have an advantage here as it doesn't have it's own video department to worry about cannibalizing. Oh hey Nikon, want to hire a punk kid analyst, I've got an idea?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2011)

TexPhoto said:


> Another idea is a button on the camera to zoom to 1:1 on the point the camera tried to focus on. This would let you decide quickly if it was in good focus/ motion blurred etc.



This would be nice. The 1-series is already almost there - there's an option to 'Enlarge from selected AF point' which means if press and hold the magnify button, you're taken to max zoom on the AF point you had selected for the shot. So, it's one press (play button) then a press-and-hold, but no moving around on the image - like I said, close.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> But lets drop the old conversation for a bit and let me just ask this instead, it's simpler. What is 5D Mark III going to have over 5D Mark II in terms of upgrades if it doesn't touch on the upgrades I'm asking for, what will it do instead? Isn't version III supposed to be better than version II???



Yes, it will be an upgrade. But little steps... So, first off will probably be either improved ISO by using the 1D X sensor, or more MP (note the or - it won't have 1D X-esque ISO noise and more MP). Improved AF, yes - but not even up to 7D. All cross-type, maybe make all 15 selectable. Dual cross f/2.8 center. Same point spread as 5DII, no zones, maybe Spot AF, probably not. Same body construction and same level of sealing. New metering sensor (63 zone iFCL dual layer like the 7D et al., not the 1D X metering). The updated sensor cleaning system. If it gets the 1D X sensor, it'll get the same video improvements. I expect that between Canon's statements about the 1D X being the choice for dSLR video, and the new C300 and hints of a 1D C, the 5DIII will get more MP but not the video improvements seen on the 1D X. That latter idea is consistent with the rumors of 'splitting video and stills lines'. There might be a 5D C someday, but my guess is the 5DIII will have more MP (28ish), no more fps than the 5DII (perhaps less), modestly better AF, bigger LCD, similar price to the 5DII - and it will sell very well.


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 27, 2011)

Your insights are perfectly realistic. And in that case, I have no pressing reason to upgrade. Not what I want to hear, but it's a good dose of reality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Nov 27, 2011)

Jettatore said:


> Your insights are perfectly realistic. And in that case, I have no pressing reason to upgrade. Not what I want to hear, but it's a good dose of reality.



Realistic is the most likely. I _hope_ the 5DIII has great AF, faster frame rate, better ISO, more MP, better sealing, costs less than the 5DII, and is announced before the 1D X is available. 

Consider what I suggested above as applied to the 1-series 'upgrade'. Strip away the marketing hype, and what do you have? A realistic upgrade, but little steps. Modest ISO improvement, modest AF improvement, better metering, bigger sensor and more MP than 1DIV but _fewer_ MP than 1DsIII, modest frame rate improvement over 1DIV, same build, slightly larger VF, more expensive than the 1DIV but cheaper than the 1DsIII. IMO, taking into account that one camera is a replacement for two lines, the 1D X is a realistic - and incremental - upgrade. Hope and dreams aside, it's unlikely the 5DIII will be any different. 

Knowing that I personally want a major upgrade - not just incremental - to my 5DII, I _plan_ to get the 1D X. But still, in regard to the 5DIII - I _hope_......


----------



## Jettatore (Nov 27, 2011)

I like some of the 1DX upgrades, in particular better ISO. But honestly, no pressing reason to get it. I'm a really good editor, that's where I started, behind the computer not the camera, I'll just make do and wait, see what the market brings. Thanks dude, your insight was greatly appreciated. cheers


----------



## Meh (Nov 27, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Consider what I suggested above as applied to the 1-series 'upgrade'. Strip away the marketing hype, and what do you have? A realistic upgrade, but little steps. Modest ISO improvement, modest AF improvement, better metering, bigger sensor and more MP than 1DIV but _fewer_ MP than 1DsIII, modest frame rate improvement over 1DIV, same build, slightly larger VF, more expensive than the 1DIV but cheaper than the 1DsIII. IMO, taking into account that one camera is a replacement for two lines, the 1D X is a realistic - and incremental - upgrade. Hope and dreams aside, it's unlikely the 5DIII will be any different.



Yes and no. I agree all of those are to the user incremental (i.e. not earth shattering) but maybe modest is a bit understated. The engineering behind making even modest improvements is substantial. In general, I think mass market digital image sensors have come a long way and are somewhat mature therefore big advancements are not easy to come by at this point. Eventually, a major breakthrough could/will happen but I don't think that's imminent. The choice of 18MP might be in part due to the fact they just can't get the improvements in ISO and DR they wanted and continue increasing the MP. Will be very interesting to see what they do with the 5D3.

I'm with you in expecting incremental improvements in most if not all features of the 5D3 including slightly higher MP. In the 5D3 they will go for a slight increase in MP and accept a little less ISO and DR than they could get if keeping the MP the same. AF will come close to the current 7D.


----------



## meinthai (Nov 27, 2011)

What do I want most??........ a releases date!


----------



## motorhead (Nov 27, 2011)

As a very new owner of a markII coming from a 30D, I am immediately struck by the noisy (I'd go as far as saying cheap sounding) shutter. The lack of more AF points was the next surprise.

I would vote firmly for more MP, but not higher ISO's or frames per second, as for my use what the mark II is equiped with is fine for my use. I'd love the mark III to be the camera that challenges the Nikon D800 and it's possible 36 MP.

The 5D II is so new to me that I've yet to shoot in anger with it. I've taken one or two test shots while setting things up as I want them but thats it.


----------



## alipaulphotography (Nov 27, 2011)

motorhead said:


> As a very new owner of a markII coming from a 30D, I am immediately struck by the noisy (I'd go as far as saying cheap sounding) shutter. The lack of more AF points was the next surprise.
> 
> I would vote firmly for more MP, but not higher ISO's or frames per second, as for my use what the mark II is equiped with is fine for my use. I'd love the mark III to be the camera that challenges the Nikon D800 and it's possible 36 MP.
> 
> The 5D II is so new to me that I've yet to shoot in anger with it. I've taken one or two test shots while setting things up as I want them but thats it.



Lack of AF points was a surprise?! Surely you have heard 3 years of people complaining about the 5D series autofocus?!


----------



## motorhead (Nov 27, 2011)

To be honest I had blanked the 5D and have been seriously looking at a used 1Ds mark3 until I went to a Canon presentation on the new 1Dx and we discussed my thinking. Thats when the 5D2 alternative was suggested by the local shop owner.

So I am surprisingly poorly informed other than it has the same MP as the 1Ds mk3, is a little heavier than my old 30D, but only slightly and has no pop-up flash (which suits me fine). I sort of assumed that the Eos-3 has 45 AF points, the new 1Dx has 60 (or is it 61?) therefore the 5 would have 20 or maybe 30.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining. Given that I have yet to fire a shot "in anger" so to speak, I have no right to any real opinion as yet and I'm sure the camera will do me fine.


----------



## dtaylor (Nov 27, 2011)

I can't believe more MP got so few votes. Canon needs at least one FF body dedicated to landscape and studio use. They need to match Nikon at 36 MP.


----------



## sweetcancer (Nov 27, 2011)

Only two things I want: Better dynamic range, I need at least 13 stops. Then I'll be happy. And if it's not entirely impossible, I wouldn't mind a better af system also. 9 af points is enough, just make them all cross-type and spread them out a little. That's all i ask. I think the video in my 5d mark II is good enough, i don't shoot a lot of video, but it's nice to have. 

Hey I'm new to this forum, my first post, so hello everyone!


----------



## alipaulphotography (Nov 27, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> I can't believe more MP got so few votes. Canon needs at least one FF body dedicated to landscape and studio use. They need to match Nikon at 36 MP.



I honestly thought (and hoped) that the new 1D would be high megapixel beast leaving the 5D MKIII to be the low light monster. Looks like that isn't going to be the case.


----------



## EOS 5D Mark III (Nov 27, 2011)

I want:

24,1 MP 
USB 3.0
ISO 100-12800 (standard)
5 FPS
2 x CF 
100% OFV
Magnesium body
Same size as EOS 5D Mark II
3,2" Screen (Same as EOS 1D X)
Same light metering as the EOS 1D X
A little better AF the EOS 5D Mark II
Same battery size as EOS 5D Mark II and EOS 7D
Better DR
2500 Euro (Body)


----------



## Bob Howland (Nov 27, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> I can't believe more MP got so few votes. Canon needs at least one FF body dedicated to landscape and studio use. They need to match Nikon at 36 MP.



Remember that all those votes were cast long before the 1Dx was introduced. At that time, I thought the 1Dx would have 27 MP and do 8FPS. A lot of us were pretty desperate for a Lord-of-Darkness camera like the D3s or, even better, a D700 with a D3s sensor. We're going to get our D3s competitor, but at too high a price.


----------



## Picsfor (Nov 27, 2011)

dtaylor said:


> I can't believe more MP got so few votes. Canon needs at least one FF body dedicated to landscape and studio use. They need to match Nikon at 36 MP.



I can - it's really only Canon 1Ds3 and 5D2 owners that have enjoyed a ff sensor offering 21mp for about 3 years now.

I'm discounting the D3x because even by Nikon users admission, it's no good off a tripod and out of the studio!

So 21mp seems to be keeping a lot of people happy, where as the AF is next to embarrassing, when i have to admit i had more responsive focusing on my 40D (which i believe is the same system).

But let's be honest, i think we're all expecting the MP to increase because Canon has killed the old MP king with the 5D2, so the 5DIII seems the logical successor. And probably another stop or 2 of ISO...


----------



## lol (Nov 27, 2011)

The poll was for ONE thing people wanted updating most. Even where people do want more MP, they also want other updates more than that.


----------



## geot (Nov 27, 2011)

I would like better AF, a pop-up flash for those times when you need a little fill, flash contol so I can get rid of my ST-E2, and faster FPS!


----------



## phill (Nov 27, 2011)

I would like:

24 mp
5 p/sec (7-8 with add. battery grip)
better AF
multi-exposure (in-camera)
9 image BKT (3 as of today is just ridicioulous)

you could also name it 3D  ...at least/last we would be near where we were 10 years ago with the 1V


----------



## stefsan (Nov 28, 2011)

As a (mostly) content 7D owner longing for FF, I would love to get a 5D with 


 great picture quality even at higher ISO settings (I really hate the noise the 7D pictures show even at ISO 400: far too much banding and JPEG-compression-like artefacts even in RAW)
 the 7D AF system
 the 7D weather sealing
 inbuilt GPS
 a high quality screen on the back of the cam and the possibility to directly jump into a 100% view of the picture
 5 fps
 faster shutter speed for flash synchronization


----------



## pedro (Nov 28, 2011)

21 MP/ better 18 MP (same 1Dx sensor)
working ISO 25600/12800
good ISO102k
if we get that at a 2.8-3k USD pricetag

but that is just my wishlist for an affordable FF
wedding photog might like more MP and cropping space


----------



## briansquibb (Nov 28, 2011)

Abillity to change the viewfinder to 16:9 for widescreen photos/movies


----------



## Meh (Nov 28, 2011)

briansquibb said:


> Abillity to change the viewfinder to 16:9 for widescreen photos/movies



Should be easy enough to implement. The same LCD that superimposes the viewfinder info, focus points, gridlines, etc. could black out the top and bottom portions to only show a 16:9 image.


----------



## ejenner (Nov 28, 2011)

I just bought a 5DII since I got tired of waiting for a MkIII, but I would upgrade in a flash if it had at least some of first few of the following. Actually, the first 4 are could probably be done in a firmware upgrade, which I would be happy to pay $500-$1000 for.

Expose-to-the-right setting where you set the amount of clipping of highlights

Pixel binning so I can shoot 10MP at ISO6400 and get similar noise to ISO 1600
I
mproved live-view/playback functions :
-	Direct x10 magnification (and/or zoom into) of actual focus point in image playback (might be difficult 
when using phase-detect AF and re-composing, but for contrast-detect it should be fine).
-	DOF lock (so I donâ€™t have to keep it pressed down while scanning the image or changing the aperture)
-	Ability to zoom in to edges of frame
-	Screen brightness lock when DOF preview button is pressed (since I have to use manual exposure because the matrix metering sucks, even on a tripod). Iâ€™m not sure why I need the screen brightness to change when changing the aperture while pressing the DOF button and I already had the brightness on exposure simulation.
-	Faster contrast detect AF

3,5,7 shot autobracket +/- 3 stops +/-2 on either end

9-11 cross point AF, better Al-Servo. I havenâ€™t used the AF on the 7D, but is seems more complicated than I need, but just copying that could be fine. F8 for the center AF point would be a dream (70-200 f4 + x2 tele).
Better and more consistent matrix metering. OK, Iâ€™ve only had the camera 1 month, but it seems very inconsistent compared to my T1i. Even on a tripod or in very similar lighting. I could write an essay on this but now I know why it seems many people shoot in manual with this camera and although it has honed my manual exposure skills over the last month it is a pain sometimes (especially when changing the aperture using DOF preview in live mode). This could also be a function of the increased dynamic range over the T1i, in which case the â€˜Expose-to-the-rightâ€™ metering will be even more valuable if the DR is increased without going to 16bits.

Keep the MP in the 21-26 range and increase DR and reduce high ISO noise. IMO you are not going to get a 36MP camera with the same DR and high ISO IQ as you have now. Something fundamental needs to happen with sensor technology for this to happen which is why the 1Dx only has 18MP. (Or they could keep cheating on the ISO ratings â€“ they are already 2/3 stop lower than my T1i for instance).
Focus point distance readout (for setting hyperfocal distance or judging optimal focal distance for landscapes)

Inbuilt wireless flash control

1, 3 or 6 fps (not 1 or 6 â€“ too much difference) 

Timer on LCD in bulb mode (so I can see exposure time in the dark)

Create new folder for each day

Movie mode on main dial. I don't use it much, but have to have it turned off because I use live-view a lot and don't want to start recording if I hit 'set'. Going into the menu's to use the video is a bit of a pain, but overall as long as it doesn't interfere with still shooting, I'm not too bothered.


----------



## pedro (Nov 28, 2011)

ejenner said:


> Expose-to-the-right setting where you set the amount of clipping of highlights
> 
> Pixel binning so I can shoot 10MP at ISO6400 and get similar noise to ISO 1600
> 
> ...


I stripped the tech part down a bit , as I am not much into it. But these features here would make the perfect camera in my price range. 

Just one question: wouldn't pixelbinning cannibalize an 1Dx? But let's say, for a 30+MP monster this could be an intresting possibility. I'd be taking the gros of my pictures at 8 MP as with my current 30D. 8 MP is plenty for my amateur photographer needs, as I am aiming at better low light IQ.


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 5, 2012)

ejenner said:


> I just bought a 5DII since I got tired of waiting for a MkIII, but I would upgrade in a flash if it had at least some of first few of the following. Actually, the first 4 are could probably be done in a firmware upgrade, which I would be happy to pay $500-$1000 for.
> 
> Expose-to-the-right setting where you set the amount of clipping of highlights
> 
> ...



If you want pixel binning, why don't you just down-res in PP, and get the same result? Stuff looks way better when down ressed thusly...


----------



## justsomedude (Jan 5, 2012)

I'd like it to be weather sealed.


----------

