# How many people just want Canon the 5DIII and 24-70mm f/2.8 IS already?



## Radiating (Sep 20, 2011)

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.

5D Mark III

- 32 Megapixels
- no more low iso noise problems
- 7D Autofocus
- Improved Dynamic Range
- Lower noise (signal to noise ratio not just noise reduction)

24-70mm F/2.8 IS

- Capable of resolving around 32 megapixels wide open or nearly wide open.

Seriously. They would sell these things faster than they could produce them.


----------



## Meh (Sep 20, 2011)

It's not like Canon has all kinds of new products ready to ship and have just been holding on to them to watch everyone at canonrumors.com squirm. The sensors and lenses we all talk about here are pretty much state-of-the-art (that can be mass produced for a reasonable cost) and it takes real R&D and manufacturing breakthroughs to get to a new level of performance. It's different for low-end products because the manufacturers are simply integrating existing technology (trickle down from high-end products) at an approximate one-year cycle to drive sales.

Please realize that resolution and signal to noise ratio are opposing design choices... smaller pixels collect less light and therefore have a lower SNR and less dynamic range. Hopefully, Canon will announce major technological advancements but don't count on it. It's been 3 years and therefore the 5D3 will have improvements but it's going to be incremental improvements.

If Canon announces a new FF sensor of about 30 megapixels with the very low per-pixel noise achieved in the 1D4 sensor that would be quite good already. And if Digic5 and current electronics can process the 30MP images at 10fps then I think the speculation of a merged 1 series line is what we will see because then there would be no need for two 1 series bodies.


----------



## J. McCabe (Sep 20, 2011)

Radiating said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.
> 
> 5D Mark III
> 
> - 32 Megapixels



I know lots of people who have either FF or APS-C cameras, and never needed more than 8MP after cropping. People who need to crop more than 100% of the pixel regularily are either the exception or novice photographers.

I do know plenty of people who want cleaner images, more DR, higher ISO, higher FPS, and smaller images to improve performance (less processing time, less disk space, etc).

It's certainly not a no brainer - there are plenty of people who would prefer less MP. Of course there are people who do need more, but there's no reason their needs would decide what everybody else should have.



Radiating said:


> - no more low iso noise problems
> - 7D Autofocus
> - Improved Dynamic Range
> - Lower noise (signal to noise ratio not just noise reduction)



That I'll sign with both hands and a foot.

I had a 24-70mm F/2.8, and I sold it. My priorities for buying a new one would be

1. Size. I don't deny the benefits of all pro lenses having 77mm filters, but if that what it takes, I would share 67mm filters with the 24-105mm f/4, or use step-up rings.

2. Performance wide open, especially corners at the wide end (24mm-35mm) and field curvature.

3. Image stabilizer, as I should hand held in evening light and shows. As it's a wide lens, this is not my top priority, and would be happy with 2 stops.


----------



## kenraw (Sep 20, 2011)

With regard to the 5D MKIII having the auto focus of the 7D I wouldn't be wishing for that. I have two 7D's and both can produce amazingly sharp images even at f2.8 however these are far and few between. My friend has a Nikon D700 and I borrowed it for the day and shot wideopen all day at f2.8 at a drift racing event. It pains me to say but it rarely missed focus at all. It focussed how a camera should, select your focus point make sure your shutter speed is suitable for your subject and press the shutter...sounds too easy but thats how it should be. Not like my 7D's which require numerous shouts and techniques to get a tack sharp image.


----------



## koolman (Sep 20, 2011)

Radiating said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.
> 
> 5D Mark III
> 
> ...



The market today is being flooded with bodies. Prices of electronics are constantly dropping. The 7d did not sell well because of its high price bracket compared with the nikon D7000. In today's environment new bodies aimed at most of us - cannot be more then 2k - or they will not sell well. People are seeing tons of stuff pouring out every week, and they will wait. Existing 5d mark 2 people will not upgrade so fast - and send thousands more - unless it is a substantial upgrade.

The issue facing Canon is not tech development. I'm sure that they can produce outstanding stuff. Its a tricky business decision of how to eat the cake and keep in whole = bring out a winner body with substantiated advantages - that can be cost effective and attract a large audience of consumers.


----------



## EYEONE (Sep 20, 2011)

kenraw said:


> With regard to the 5D MKIII having the auto focus of the 7D I wouldn't be wishing for that. I have two 7D's and both can produce amazingly sharp images even at f2.8 however these are far and few between. My friend has a Nikon D700 and I borrowed it for the day and shot wideopen all day at f2.8 at a drift racing event. It pains me to say but it rarely missed focus at all. It focussed how a camera should, select your focus point make sure your shutter speed is suitable for your subject and press the shutter...sounds too easy but thats how it should be. Not like my 7D's which require numerous shouts and techniques to get a tack sharp image.



Explain how the 7D doesn't allow you to select your focus point, make sure your shutter speed is correct and press the shutter. I'm not 100% sure what you are talking about. The control layout? The AF speed? I hardly think anyone would complain about the flexibility of the 7Ds AF. If I miss focus on a shot it's because I'm doing it wrong.




koolman said:


> The market today is being flooded with bodies. Prices of electronics are constantly dropping. The 7d did not sell well because of its high price bracket compared with the nikon D7000. In today's environment new bodies aimed at most of us - cannot be more then 2k - or they will not sell well. People are seeing tons of stuff pouring out every week, and they will wait. Existing 5d mark 2 people will not upgrade so fast - and send thousands more - unless it is a substantial upgrade.
> 
> The issue facing Canon is not tech development. I'm sure that they can produce outstanding stuff. Its a tricky business decision of how to eat the cake and keep in whole = bring out a winner body with substantiated advantages - that can be cost effective and attract a large audience of consumers.



The market today is not flooded with bodies. Canon's 1Ds Mark III is 4 years old. Nikon's D3s is almost 2 and the D3x is almost 3 years old. The 5D Mark II is over 3 years old. When these camera's come out people will be all over them like piranhas. Just because you or me are not interested in a camera over 2K right now doesn't mean there aren't tons and tons of people who are. In a few years I will absolutely pay over 2K for a camera.


----------



## 7enderbender (Sep 20, 2011)

Radiating said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.
> 
> 5D Mark III
> 
> ...




Non of this would excite me or make me "upgrade". And I don't think we need a new lens in order to resolve 32MP (or whatever). And I would certainly hope they don't put IS into the 24-70, though I might then be able to pick up the current version cheaper to compliment my 24-105 instead of trading it.

The limitations of AF are a different problem. What I'd like to see in the future are AF points that are spread out much further then even on the 1 series. And I would finally like to see a digital body that allows for very good manual focus. That is the bigger problem for me since I'm really not all that fond of AF in general but "modern" SLRs are not build for anything else really.


----------



## photophreek (Sep 20, 2011)

I agree with EYEONE about the 7d. I bought a brand new 100-400 and did some test shots yesterday. I did exactly what KENRAW said his 7d does not do and got amazingly sharp pictures 100% of the time. 

I will not buy the 5d III if it does not have a 7d like focusing system. I'll buy the 1D Mk IV instead. As far as the 24-70mm is concerned, it won't matter to me if the new version is released with IS or not. My 24-70mm is built like a brick, weighs as much as a brick and is incredibly sharp and does the job for me quite nicely.


----------



## scottkinfw (Sep 20, 2011)

Count me in for the 5dIII


----------



## distant.star (Sep 20, 2011)

Hell, I'd send them $5000 today if they'd promise to put that under my Christmas tree in 2012.






Radiating said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.
> 
> 5D Mark III
> 
> ...


----------



## kenraw (Sep 20, 2011)

EYEONE said:


> kenraw said:
> 
> 
> > With regard to the 5D MKIII having the auto focus of the 7D I wouldn't be wishing for that. I have two 7D's and both can produce amazingly sharp images even at f2.8 however these are far and few between. My friend has a Nikon D700 and I borrowed it for the day and shot wideopen all day at f2.8 at a drift racing event. It pains me to say but it rarely missed focus at all. It focussed how a camera should, select your focus point make sure your shutter speed is suitable for your subject and press the shutter...sounds too easy but thats how it should be. Not like my 7D's which require numerous shouts and techniques to get a tack sharp image.
> ...



The 7D does obviously let you set the focus point shutter speed etc its just I'm not getting consistant shots in focus. I know its not me because I managed to get tack sharp shots all day at 2.8 with my friends Nikon. I can only assume I'm going to have to set the micro adjustment and see if that sorts the problem.


----------



## Picsfor (Sep 20, 2011)

W/E doing 5D2's for Â£1590 + Â£200 Manfrotto tripod.

Tell me that's not just a loss leader?

You may get a 5D3 sooner than you think...


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Sep 20, 2011)

Like everyone else, I'd like a upgrade, mine will be three years old on December 5, and it has many more good years left. The only things that will convince me to upgrade are a stop better low light ISO and improved DR. AF is just fine, and its the best camera for low light AF.

I have a 7D and just sold my 1D MK III, they are very good, but for low light, I reach for the 5D. I do not use the video, because it does not autofocus while shooting, so its only good for someone willing to use it on static pre-focused scenes. Certainly not for sports or anything where continuous AF is needed.


----------



## Radiating (Sep 20, 2011)

J. McCabe said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.
> ...



With regard to the megapixel debate, I'm a high end professional digital artist and a low end pro photographer. If you look at the software side of the equation more megapixels means that noise reduction and sharpening alogrithms are going to be much much much more effective. This is one of the driving forces behind how modern photos with high noise look so good compared to photos from just a few years ago. While I do agree that point and shoot cameras have too many megapixels already, they are the ones which are at the dividing line where the net benefit of more megapixels doesn't outweigh the net loss. If you scaled the pixel density of a point and shoot to a full frame, you'd have a 350 megapixel camera, so we are very very very far from being anywhere near having more megapixels being worse on full frame. More megapixels means cleaner, sharper images when taken a higher iso.


----------



## silver_dot (Sep 20, 2011)

[quote author=J
It's certainly not a no brainer - there are plenty of people who would prefer less MP. Of course there are people who do need more, but there's no reason their needs would decide what everybody else should have.
[/quote]

Let me smile reading your two sentences.

I ever said the same thing, just let me tell it in the same way: 

It's certainly not a no brainer - there are plenty of people who would prefer DSLR with built-in video. Of course there are people who do need more, but there's no reason their needs would decide what everybody else should have.
[/quote]

I just remark that for a few people wanting video implemented on a DSLR, but there's no reason their needs would decide what everybody else should have. So, all DSLR bodies must have now video, even if video pisses off the the majority of the owners forced to buy it when just wanting a still photo camera. ;D

Canon don't care about our preferenecs, just wanting to sell more cameras and lenses, putting video in each one.


----------



## J. McCabe (Sep 21, 2011)

silver_dot said:


> I just remark that for a few people wanting video implemented on a DSLR, but there's no reason their needs would decide what everybody else should have. So, all DSLR bodies must have now video, even if video pisses off the the majority of the owners forced to buy it when just wanting a still photo camera. ;D
> 
> Canon don't care about our preferenecs, just wanting to sell more cameras and lenses, putting video in each one.



I wonder whether it is really just "a few people" who want video implemented in DSLR.

By brother in law and his brother both bought Canon DSLRs (600D & 60D), and video was more important to them than the ability to change lenses. It's arguable whether they should have bought a DSLR to begin with, but as noted - Canon's decision to include video in those cameras increased it's bottom line.

I don't really care for video, as in I have a pocket camera that shoots video anyway. It did come handy when a friend used her connections to get a video clip for her boyfriend's song - she got 2 x 5Dmk2s loaned from me & another friend, two videographers shot the footage, and all the required footage was shot within 1&1/2 work days. It's not Hollywood quality, but for something pulled in a jiffy, I think it's very impressive.

[They've used whatever lenses available, including 50mm f/1.4 for shallow DOF, TS-E 24mm mk2 for wide shots, Sigma 12-24mm mk1 for ultra wide shots, etc.]

I didn't buy a Canon DSLR, nor would I upgrade it, for the video abilities, but it's really nice to have.


----------



## deletemyaccount (Sep 21, 2011)

I'm waiting for this combination but for myself I wouldn't miss the video if it was removed. I guess we need to illustrate patience in the meantime.


----------



## niccyboy (Sep 25, 2011)

I'm in an annoying situation as i need another backup camera and i'm very reluctant to buy a mk2 or any other model right now when we are so overdue for a release.

I'd love some new L glass thrown into the mix. a 24-105 that is actually SHARP would be a nice addition.


----------



## Zuuyi (Sep 25, 2011)

I want Video in my camera; it makes my life so much easier. Why carry both a video cam & still cam to a still shoot with just minor video. 

And 1080p HDSLR video will fulfill most needs; it's just not practical for some higher end projects with huge budgets.


----------



## Canon 14-24 (Sep 25, 2011)

I think Canon needs a 14-24 2.8 lens with a superior lens cap (like the 17tse) more than a 5d3 or 24-70 is


----------



## DJL329 (Sep 25, 2011)

I eagerly await the 5D Mark III, however I'm more interested in a 50mm f/1.4 II that replaces the "micro" USM with "ring" and decreases the MFD.

For those wanting an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L with IS, just remember that Canon has yet to release an EF (not EF-S) lens with IS that does not reach _at least_ 100mm. I'm not saying I think they _won't_ add it, just don't assume they _will_.


----------



## JakiChan (Sep 25, 2011)

I got started with my 60D and I've loved it so far, but I did buy my lenses with the idea of moving towards full frame. However the big dilemma will be: Buy a 5D Mk. II while it's getting cheaper and get a VERY proven body or wait and see what the 5D Mk. III brings...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2011)

niccyboy said:


> a 24-105 that is actually SHARP would be a nice addition.



Yep, the 24-105mm is a terribly SOFT lens. Here's an example with a 100% crop below, to show just _how_ soft...




EOS 5D Mark II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, 1/60 s, f/4, ISO 400


----------



## YoukY63 (Sep 25, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> niccyboy said:
> 
> 
> > a 24-105 that is actually SHARP would be a nice addition.
> ...


 
Oh my God!! Ouch... And you still did not throw away this piece of glass crap?!? :


----------



## Meh (Sep 25, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> niccyboy said:
> 
> 
> > a 24-105 that is actually SHARP would be a nice addition.
> ...



Neuro, why must you constantly rain on all the whiners' parade with your persistent dose of reality?  Similar to what I said in another post, it's amazing at how quick folks are to decry any particular piece of equipment as bad. Does anyone seriously think any L lens is actually soft, poor build quality, slow, distorted, etc. in absolute terms... each lens may have it's less than optimal performance at particular aperture or at one end of the zoom range or even be overall less sharp relative to some other lens that was designed for different purposes but the differences are not huge, certainly not "good" and "bad".


----------

