# split the 5d series like the 1D series please!



## nzmargolies (Aug 20, 2010)

Does anyone else agree that splitting the 5D series would be a good idea? I mean into a 5D and 5Ds. The 5Ds, like the 1Ds could be the higher mp version, and the 5D ( i guess still pick up with mk III) could become a lower mp, much faster fps camera. That is my absolute dream, a half body (no portrait grip) full frame camera with 12-18 mp that shoots at 7-8 fps. Basically, a 7D with the sensor stretched to be full frame. I think that would suit the needs of a lot of people. I dont want the size of a 1D, the cost, or 10 fps. But i do want full frame, and keep it reasonably fast and small. There could still be the 5Ds for the resolution crazy.

Dear canon,
if you do this, i will buy the 5D III immediately.


----------



## Jan (Aug 20, 2010)

nzmargolies said:


> Does anyone else agree that splitting the 5D series would be a good idea? I mean into a 5D and 5Ds. The 5Ds, like the 1Ds could be the higher mp version, and the 5D ( i guess still pick up with mk III) could become a lower mp, much faster fps camera. That is my absolute dream, a half body (no portrait grip) full frame camera with 12-18 mp that shoots at 7-8 fps. Basically, a 7D with the sensor stretched to be full frame. I think that would suit the needs of a lot of people. I dont want the size of a 1D, the cost, or 10 fps. But i do want full frame, and keep it reasonably fast and small. There could still be the 5Ds for the resolution crazy.


You don't want the 10 fps of a 1D but are dreaming of a 5DMkIII with 8fps? I don't see a big difference in 8 or 10fps. 

However, such a 5DMkIII would be great, so I agree.


----------



## Daviii (Aug 20, 2010)

I'd rather like the "s vs non-s" nosense and create a performance-oriented 3D instead


----------



## Peerke (Aug 20, 2010)

I just don't care what the name is, but a 5D size FF camera with 12-16 MP and 6 FPS would be my ideal camera too.


----------



## that1guy (Aug 20, 2010)

Peerke said:


> I just don't care what the name is, but a 5D size FF camera with 12-16 MP and 6 FPS would be my ideal camera too.



I agree, I could care less what you call it (heck, you could call it the Barbie Cam, and I'd buy it  ), but something like that sounds awesome. I've always maintained that I would have gotten the current 5dII if it would've had better AF, but adding some of the other goodies would be nice as well.

I will be very interested to see what FF offerings Canon comes out with next.


----------



## nzmargolies (Aug 20, 2010)

that1guy said:


> Peerke said:
> 
> 
> > I just don't care what the name is, but a 5D size FF camera with 12-16 MP and 6 FPS would be my ideal camera too.
> ...



i just picked a naming convention i thought canon would be most likely to bite on. if it wants to be the 3D, so be it. But i think we can all agree a fast, medium-low mp FF camera would be amazing


----------



## that1guy (Aug 20, 2010)

Yup, totally agree  Wasn't trying to razz you, sorry. Just showing how much I wanted one like what you were saying. 

I honestly wonder if that could happen...to me it doesn't seem too far fetched. Lets hope


----------



## Grendel (Aug 20, 2010)

You know, I would give a damn about the AF performance if I could get a working split-prism screen for my 5DII or any other Canon camera < 1D.


----------



## lol (Aug 22, 2010)

The 1D4 will be a sticking point. It is still very new, and I'm sure Canon wont bring out something with the specs too close (particularly FF) at a lower price.

What might they do? Recycling bits from existing cameras, imagine the 7D AF, with the APS-H sensor recycled from the 1D4 in a in-between 5D/7D body. Will that do?

Grendel, aren't there 3rd party focus screens you can just drop into the 5D2?


----------



## Richard (Aug 22, 2010)

It sounds like you are describing what many want the mythical 3D to be. I really don't see them making a subset of the 5D line, the nomenclature of the cameras is already confusing enough as is. 

If anything, the camera you want would cost more than the current 5D mk II, not less. Sure it may have fewer MP's but the cost associated with making a full sized mirror and shutter do 7 to 8 movements a second are not insignificant.


----------



## DetlevCM (Aug 22, 2010)

nzmargolies said:


> Does anyone else agree that splitting the 5D series would be a good idea? I mean into a 5D and 5Ds. The 5Ds, like the 1Ds could be the higher mp version, and the 5D ( i guess still pick up with mk III) could become a lower mp, much faster fps camera. That is my absolute dream, a half body (no portrait grip) full frame camera with 12-18 mp that shoots at 7-8 fps. Basically, a 7D with the sensor stretched to be full frame. I think that would suit the needs of a lot of people. I dont want the size of a 1D, the cost, or 10 fps. But i do want full frame, and keep it reasonably fast and small. There could still be the 5Ds for the resolution crazy.
> 
> Dear canon,
> if you do this, i will buy the 5D III immediately.



This has happened with the 7D.

And the 1D is not FF it's a 1,3 crop - so it's FF in the 1Ds and 1,3 crop in the 1D
For the 5D it's FF and the 7D is a 1,6 crop


----------



## nzmargolies (Aug 22, 2010)

Richard said:


> It sounds like you are describing what many want the mythical 3D to be. I really don't see them making a subset of the 5D line, the nomenclature of the cameras is already confusing enough as is.
> 
> If anything, the camera you want would cost more than the current 5D mk II, not less. Sure it may have fewer MP's but the cost associated with making a full sized mirror and shutter do 7 to 8 movements a second are not insignificant.


Well, i don't think it would have to cost less, but around the same, maybe a little more as is natural with the evolution of bodies. And i know it's difficult to make such a camera, thats why it hasn't happened yet (except for the Nikon D3s, which is far to expensive for most, and, again, is a huge body).


----------



## ronderick (Aug 23, 2010)

DetlevCM said:


> nzmargolies said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone else agree that splitting the 5D series would be a good idea? I mean into a 5D and 5Ds. The 5Ds, like the 1Ds could be the higher mp version, and the 5D ( i guess still pick up with mk III) could become a lower mp, much faster fps camera. That is my absolute dream, a half body (no portrait grip) full frame camera with 12-18 mp that shoots at 7-8 fps. Basically, a 7D with the sensor stretched to be full frame. I think that would suit the needs of a lot of people. I dont want the size of a 1D, the cost, or 10 fps. But i do want full frame, and keep it reasonably fast and small. There could still be the 5Ds for the resolution crazy.
> ...



On a side note, the 5D2 and 7D use the same kind of battery. The 1D and 1Ds lines share the same battery tyoe as well. 

It would save the user a lot of trouble by carry the same kind of battery instead of carrying spare ones for 1D and another for 50D...


----------



## muteteh (Aug 24, 2010)

nzmargolies said:


> Does anyone else agree that splitting the 5D series would be a good idea?



I think it's a bad idea.

Canon is maintaining 7 camera body lines (1Ds, 1D, 5D, 7D, xxD, xxxD, xxxxD), with about three new bodies being released every year.

At the same time, Canon's line of lenses is aging and has holes. Examples being:

1. The EF 20mm, 24mm, 28mm f/2.8 are ~20 years old, and are not faster or sharper than L zooms covering those focal lengths. The 28mm f/1.8 has the speed advantage, but could enjoy an upgrade.

2. No fisheyes for APS-C bodies, no circular fisheye for FF bodies.

3. Other lenses waiting for an upgrade, e.g. the TS-E 45mm & TS-E 90mm are dragging ~2 years behind the TS-E 24mm. I guess the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM is in the pipe for H-IS upgrade.

Considering that Canon releases ~4 lenses a year, and - as far as rumors on this site say - none of the lenses above are due for an upgrade this year, the lenses above are work for ~3 more years, without announcing anything new (like the new H-IS for macro).

My point being that, IMHO, Canon should divert resources from developing bodies to upgrading lenses.


----------



## Sebastian (Aug 24, 2010)

muteteh said:


> nzmargolies said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone else agree that splitting the 5D series would be a good idea?
> ...



Well, I can see your point, but I wouldn't mind a 3D. 



muteteh said:


> At the same time, Canon's line of lenses is aging



Agreed - partially at least.



muteteh said:


> 1. The EF 20mm, 24mm, 28mm f/2.8 are ~20 years old, and are not faster or sharper than L zooms covering those focal lengths.



But they're hell of a lot cheaper. :
Please keep in mind that not everybody has enough bucks to spare to buy the Red Rings.



muteteh said:


> 2. No fisheyes for APS-C bodies, no circular fisheye for FF bodies.



Fisheyes are very special lenses with very limited range of practical use. Personally, I don't really miss them and I guess a lot of other photographers don't also.



muteteh said:


> 3. Other lenses waiting for an upgrade, e.g. the TS-E 45mm & TS-E 90mm are dragging ~2 years behind the TS-E 24mm. I guess the EF 180mm f/3.5L Macro USM is in the pipe for H-IS upgrade.



I agreed with you on the TSs - although they're almost as specialised as the fisheyes mentioned above.



muteteh said:


> My point being that, IMHO, Canon should divert resources from developing bodies to upgrading lenses.



Or at least develop better bodies instead of simply partaking in the megapixel race. 


Regards,

Sebastian


----------



## muteteh (Aug 24, 2010)

Sebastian -

Regarding the primes: I would expect the upgraded primes to be cheap non-L versions, especially as there already is an EF 24mm f/1.4 with a red line.

Regarding fisheyes: I think there is more demand for those than people estimate for three reasons:

1. Nikon makes two fisheyes (diagonal and circular for FF), and Sigma makes four (circ & diag for FF & APS-C).

2. Go to Amazon's lenses category, and sort it by bestselling. Canon's fisheye is, at the moment, on the 56th places, higher ranking than such lenses as the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, the two f/1.2L primes, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (w/ or w/o IS), etc.

3. DxO has an EF 15mm fisheye module for almost all Canon bodies, including APS-C bodies. AFAIK, they make modules based on popularity. DxO has four fisheye modules for the Nikon D90 (two by Nikon, one by Sigma, one by Tokina) and two for the D700 & D3 (one by Nikon, one by Sigma).

Regarding TS-E - "they're almost as specialised as the fisheyes mentioned above", yet the 24mm TS-E got upgraded before the slightly older EF 20mm & 28mm f/2.8.


----------



## EOS (Aug 24, 2010)

It's strange to see that people want a FF camera with less MP then the current 21.
Then nikon is your brand to go after...


----------



## EOS (Aug 24, 2010)

nzmargolies said:


> Basically, a 7D with the sensor stretched to be full frame. I think that would suit the needs of a lot of people. I dont want the size of a 1D, the cost, or 10 fps. But i do want full frame, and keep it reasonably fast and small. There could still be the 5Ds for the resolution crazy.
> 
> Dear canon,
> if you do this, i will buy the 5D III immediately.



Please Canon don't do this!
Because the AF module for the 7D is perfectly suited for a 1.6 crop camera, but doesn't cover enough of the sensor area of a FF camera. Basically, you would still not have a descent AF system if this module would be used 1:1 in a FF camera.

Coming down to the fact that a new 5D would also need a complete new AF module that is specifically designed for a FF camera.


----------



## Sebastian (Aug 24, 2010)

muteteh said:


> Regarding the primes: I would expect the upgraded primes to be cheap non-L versions, especially as there already is an EF 24mm f/1.4 with a red line.



So why did you compare them to the L-series lenses in the first place? ???



muteteh said:


> Regarding fisheyes: I think there is more demand for those than people estimate for three reasons:
> 
> 1. Nikon makes two fisheyes (diagonal and circular for FF), and Sigma makes four (circ & diag for FF & APS-C).



I can only see two current Nikon fisheyes: the 16mm f/2.8 (FF, diagonal) and the 10.5mm f/2.8 (APS-C(!), diagonal). The first is a very old design, the second seems to be tribute to APS-C users.
You're right with Sigma though and don't have a real explanation for this line-up. (Aside from "because we can" )



muteteh said:


> 2. Go to Amazon's lenses category, and sort it by bestselling. Canon's fisheye is, at the moment, on the 56th places, higher ranking than such lenses as the Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS, the two f/1.2L primes, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM (w/ or w/o IS), etc.



I don't know what you did, but when I just looked at this ranking, the EF-S 55-250 came out on second(!) place. ???

Regards,

Sebastian


----------



## Sebastian (Aug 24, 2010)

EOS said:


> It's strange to see that people want a FF camera with less MP then the current 21.
> Then nikon is your brand to go after...



Does it also seem strange to you that people want cameras that deliver better image quality, especially with Hi-ISOs? :
And with any given sensor technology level, you will get better Hi-ISO IQ with less pixels (per area - compared to a sensor of the same technology with more pixels per area). That's plain physics.

And yes, you're right - in my point of view, Nikon's D3s is currently the best that is when it comes to Hi-ISO IQ.


Regards,

Sebastian


----------



## that1guy (Aug 24, 2010)

dilbert said:


> nzmargolies said:
> 
> 
> > that1guy said:
> ...



Yeah, I could go for that. The 5D (both versions I believe) went for about $2,700 when released, so that would be a reasonable premium for the extra features, and a reasonable discount for the toned down version.

I believe someone had mentioned that they thought the 7D was the "other" 5D, and I guess that could be true, but there is another way to look at it that could make a branching of the 5D seem possible (maybe it is just my own twisted logic wanting it to happen : ) And I could be wrong on this, but I look at the 7D as the slightly better 50D, and the new 60D is the slightly more affordable camera in that range. As dilbert had stated in another post, the 20D came out and was priced higher than the new 60D is expected to be, and that would make the 60D a relative bargain. I guess I look at it as them splitting that line (xxD) a bit; one camera (7D) added some nice features and moved up a bit in price, the other (60D) went down a bit in price (but really only seems like it lost the metal body). 

So, my thinking was that there might be room to add a slightly higher end 5D (or whatever you want to call it) for a slight price premium, and then have another 5D (again, insert your preferred name here) that still sees an improvement in specs (which isn't too unreasonable since technology always improves) but maybe takes away the metal body, for a slight price discount. Again, I don't work for Canon, so I don't know how feasible this is. Based on other stuff they have done though, it certainly wouldn't be a shock to me, and I would really enjoy a cheaper FF camera.

Either way, it is fun to talk about it ;D


----------



## muteteh (Aug 24, 2010)

I expect none-L primes to be at least as sharp as L zooms.

Can't explain what changed in that link, but do note Canon's 15mm diagonal fisheye is still in a good #40 position. I'll admit Sigma might be making circular fisheyes for the 'we can' effect, but I'll put my money on Nikon, Sigma, and Tokina making money on APS-C diagonal fisheyes.


----------



## nzmargolies (Aug 25, 2010)

i do agree that less effort needs to be put into bodies and more into lenses. Heck, the new 29mp 1ds will have a hard time finding lenses that can take advantage of that resolution. Although, i think this should not be at the pro-sumer and up where people have very specific needs, but rather at the entry level. 4 entry level dslrs (xsi, xti, t1i, t2i) is simply too much


----------



## MadButcher (Aug 28, 2010)

It seems there is a shortage in the world of 5D mk2 in stores?
At least in Holland is since June.

Could there come a new line of full-frame camera's from Canon?
I don't mean the 5D mk3, that will last next year.
But a new line because maybe they don't want to have much 5Dmk2's on stock?

I also think there is more room for more fullframe-camera's.
Canon only has 2 now.

I want to replace my 40D for a FF.
I guess it's wisely to wait one month for Photokina to see what will come.

p.s.
I'm a bit affraid they 'ruin' the 5Dmk3 with a double anti-aliasing-filter (lowpass) just as the 7D.


----------



## backshot_especiale (Aug 28, 2010)

Richard said:


> It sounds like you are describing what many want the mythical 3D to be. I really don't see them making a subset of the 5D line, the nomenclature of the cameras is already confusing enough as is.
> 
> If anything, the camera you want would cost more than the current 5D mk II, not less. Sure it may have fewer MP's but the cost associated with making a full sized mirror and shutter do 7 to 8 movements a second are not insignificant.


 bulls**t most of the cost is r&d which has been paid for, unless you are saying the mirror apparatus is made from/gold/titanium/enriched uranium. The cost in manufacture is clearly marginal.


----------



## ronderick (Aug 28, 2010)

MadButcher said:


> It seems there is a shortage in the world of 5D mk2 in stores?
> At least in Holland is since June.
> 
> Could there come a new line of full-frame camera's from Canon?
> ...



There seems to be no problem with the supply of 5D2 here in Taiwan... plenty of boxes sitting at store windows. 

I really doubt that there will be signs of 5D3 replacement until sometimes in 2011 (my guess would be mid or late 2011, if the current cycle remains the same). But who knows? If Nikon releases a D800 that sells like hot cakes, we might see the 5D line new member much sooner.

However, noticing the new kit box of D700 + 24-70 f2.8, maybe we can see a similar 5D2 + 24-70 f2.8 IS if the new lens makes a debut either this year or in 2011. :-*


----------



## pedro (Aug 30, 2010)

nzmargolies said:


> Does anyone else agree that splitting the 5D series would be a good idea? I mean into a 5D and 5Ds. The 5Ds, like the 1Ds could be the higher mp version, and the 5D ( i guess still pick up with mk III) could become a lower mp, much faster fps camera.
> Dear canon,
> if you do this, i will buy the 5D III immediately.



Sounds a bit like good fiction, but anyway. I am in. Great idea! Saving up for a 5D III with high hopes that it won't surpass 24 MP. Best regards. Peter


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 1, 2010)

Grendel said:


> You know, I would give a damn about the AF performance if I could get a working split-prism screen for my 5DII or any other Canon camera < 1D.


I'd rather get an articulated screen for live view, myself. Focusing screens wouldn't be terribly helpful with my tilt-shift lens.

If you have manual non-TS lenses, then I could definitely see wanting a better focusing screen. The Zeiss manuals strike me as being rather rare and exotic, but maybe not as exotic as some of the TS lenses.


----------



## Grendel (Sep 1, 2010)

I use my TS quite a bit w/o T or S, that's actually why I want the split prism.  W/ T/S I use a 5x viewfinder on the LCD.


----------



## Rattle (Sep 14, 2010)

While this would suit many persons pocket book what does it accomplish that they don't already offer. Canon brought out the 5D to appease the many that wanted a FF camera but with the smaller footprint and cost. If they take this body too close in technical aspects to that of the 1 series it will only hurt the sales of the 1 series. I see this concept as a non starter. 

The 1 series is split for very good reasoning. The 1D hits the sports and wildlife shooters and the crop factor in this body is an added bonus, imo. The 1Ds with its full frame and higher resolution works better for the commercial shooter. I have both of these in the II, III and the 1DmkIV. By and large they serve different markets and serve them well. 

I already feel that there is too much commonality between the 1 series and the so called prosumer bodies to the point where it is diluting the sales of the 1 series bodies. I have owned a number of crop bodies as well as the 5D original and there is still nothing like the 1 series to stand up to continued use.


----------



## Artisttt (Sep 14, 2010)

No needs to split anything. Many people wants more pixels, let them have it in 5D III. 
It`s obvious, Canon line is missing camera like Nikon D700. Canon just need to fill this hole and make it little bit better, not to be always behind Nikon.

Let`s call it 3D:

Small body (like 5D)
FF
12-16mp
5-6 fps
Good AF
Clean ISO 6400 or even 12800 (not just acceptable, but CLEAN!)
Could be without video if it helps to make it cheaper
Could be plastic body (like 60D) if it helps to make it cheaper
Price $2000

This camera will not compete with 1D or 1Ds or 5D, because it`s different.

1D - for sport;
1Ds - in studio; large prints;
3D - weddings, events;
5D - landscapes


----------



## DetlevCM (Sep 14, 2010)

Artisttt said:


> No needs to split anything. Many people wants more pixels, let them have it in 5D III.
> It`s obvious, Canon line is missing camera like Nikon D700. Canon just need to fill this hole and make it little bit better, not to be always behind Nikon.
> 
> Let`s call it 3D:
> ...



Why do people always want a fast full frame camera?
That's what the 1D or 7D are for - one a 1,3 crop the other a 1,6 crop.

I cannot see the point of having a lower resolution FF camera in Canon's lineup.

And before someone says noise - the current 7D does quite well with noise, the 1D MK IV is even better, noise is not a significant problem.

Adding another camera would be a problem - simply because producing another sensor would be expensive.


----------



## Artisttt (Sep 14, 2010)

DetlevCM said:


> Why do people always want a fast full frame camera?
> That's what the 1D or 7D are for - one a 1,3 crop the other a 1,6 crop.


Where did you see "fast full frame camera"???
5-6 fps is not 8-10 fps



DetlevCM said:


> I cannot see the point of having a lower resolution FF camera in Canon's lineup.



Many people can see this point.
They do not need huge files, that`s why 12-16mp is enough.



DetlevCM said:


> And before someone says noise - the current 7D does quite well with noise, the 1D MK IV is even better, noise is not a significant problem.



Your "someone" is wrong. 7D and 1D MK IV are not good enough. 
Not 7D or 1D can produce clean ISO 6400 or even 12800



DetlevCM said:


> Adding another camera would be a problem - simply because producing another sensor would be expensive.



This camera would be a dream for wedding/event photography, it will be bestseller ever


----------



## DetlevCM (Sep 14, 2010)

Artisttt said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > Why do people always want a fast full frame camera?
> ...



There is something called sRAW if you cannot handle a 21MP file - although my 2 years old laptop does fine on them. (2,5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM)

And ISO - there is something called post processing 

Nobody on photography on the net is constantly whining for a fast FF camera from Canon.
On that note - 5-6fps, take the 1Ds - it's been around for quite a while.

It's only on here that people whinge about it - and why? Because their Nikon cameras don't resolve enough detail or what? At least I don't see people on a Canon forum calling for a low pixel count FF sensor.
Some people will ask for better dynamic range, maybe the odd one asks for better high ISO performance - but nobody is constantly whinging for a low pixel count FF camera.
It's only here.

And for Nikon users - complain to Nikon - your company decided to take a different approach - don't complain about Canon users liking their detail.

And on performance - the 5D MK II apparently is favoured by a lot of wedding photographers 
And to get back to ISO - I'm not sure where you live - but I cannot imagining you needing ISO 12800 for anythng planned like a wedding - it would have to be near total darkness.
Now if you are shooting for news stories going to accidents etc. I can see the point - but anything like a wedding - there is more than enough light for current cameras.

And about selling numbers - I'd doubt it - the extra sensor development costs would make it rather high-priced - possibly in the 1D range would be my guess.


----------



## Stone (Sep 14, 2010)

DetlevCM said:


> Artisttt said:
> 
> 
> > No needs to split anything. Many people wants more pixels, let them have it in 5D III.
> ...



The 7D does well at high ISO with it's cropped sensor but that comes at the expense of noise in the lower ISO ranges. There are many examples out there of noise showing up in 7D shots at ISO 800 and below where virtually no noise has become the norm and is expected. The 1DIV has excellent noise handling but it's a $5K body and a larger sensor so noise handling SHOULD be better, it's still noisier than the best FF sensors.

Honestly, I don't care if producing another sensor is expensive. Last I checked Canon is a multi-billion dollar company so I don't feel sorry for them if they have to come out of pocket to produce something that their customers want. Canon has no love for you or for me, ultimately we are just entries on a balance sheet so make them earn your business. To believe Canon is doing the absolute best that they can for their customers is laughable. They could have made a fast, FF camera several years ago but were quite happy letting their customers buy 2 bodies instead and if the D700 hadn't crashed the party, they would be just as happy to continue the status quo.

I want

-- 8+ fps for my kids sports and any other fast moving action I might want to shoot 
-- FF for wide-angles, better DOF at smaller apertures and IQ that still can't be matched by a cropper
-- Cleaner high ISO because I shoot often in low light and spraying speedlites all over the place is getting LESS acceptable

My current company of choice is Canon as I have been using their products for years. I'm giving them time to give me what I want as a consumer even though they could have done it long ago. If they don't, I'll support the company that tries to do so. When it comes to my wallet, loyalty to any manufacturer is a losing proposition........


----------



## Artisttt (Sep 14, 2010)

DetlevCM said:


> There is something called sRAW if you cannot handle a 21MP file - although my 2 years old laptop does fine on them. (2,5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM)
> 
> And ISO - there is something called post processing
> 
> ...



Did I ask to stop making 5d with hi pixel count? 5D III will have even more pixels, especially for you, I don`t mind.
I was talking about DIFFERENT, inexpensive full frame camera with the main feature as excellent ISO performance. In my opinion it`s better to have variety of FF cameras then variety of Rebels. 
Now 5D for wedding is a compromise, because there is no better suited camera from Canon.
In 10-15 years every entry level DSLR will have clean ISO 12800 and I`m sure Canon can do it in today's FF cameras. 
And please, don`t tell me about post-processing


----------



## DetlevCM (Sep 14, 2010)

Artisttt said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > There is something called sRAW if you cannot handle a 21MP file - although my 2 years old laptop does fine on them. (2,5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM)
> ...



Different and inexpensive don't go hand in hand.
Neither do inexpensive and full frame.

If Canon made another full frame camera it would be in the price range of a 1D.


----------



## Artisttt (Sep 14, 2010)

DetlevCM said:


> Artisttt said:
> 
> 
> > DetlevCM said:
> ...


Without video, in small plastic body, 5fps - price like 1D??? I don`t think so.


----------



## nzmargolies (Sep 15, 2010)

i can't see why this camera doesnt make sense:
16-18mp
6.5 fps
full frame
body like 5D II
quality iso, comparable to what the nikon d700 offers, (hopefully better, that camera is aging)
the af system of the 1d, scaled down to 19 points
$2700-2800 body only

this makes all the sense in the world, and the d700 has proven such a camera can be successfull
(if anything, make these numbers better or the price lower)

people know how to pp out a lot of noise, but taking a picture you know is going to require a lot of work is never fun (or, not as fun as knowing it will be perfect SOOC)


----------



## Stone (Sep 15, 2010)

nzmargolies said:


> i can't see why this camera doesnt make sense:
> 16-18mp
> 6.5 fps
> full frame
> ...



Other than MP and video capabilities Canon is playing catch up to the D700. Those aren't bad specs, but they will almost certainly be beaten by the D700 replacement which will up the MP and add video. FPS & AF seem to be the things Canon is trying to keep exclusive to their 1 series cameras and this simply won't fly anymore. I'm noticing that the Nikon bodies also seem to have better weather sealing across their advanced amateur/professional product line as well. I hate to keep beating up Canon, as I love their bodies and would prefer not to learn a new system, but this is getting ridiculous, the 60D just got pimp slapped by the D7000. Come on Canon!!!


----------



## nzmargolies (Sep 15, 2010)

Stone said:


> nzmargolies said:
> 
> 
> > i can't see why this camera doesnt make sense:
> ...



Couldn't agree more. I was beginning to understand the logic behind the 60D before the D7000. Now, i think it is verging on embarrassing...


----------



## Jan (Sep 17, 2010)

nzmargolies said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > nzmargolies said:
> ...


Totally agree.

I think it's really funny when people are arguing a 3D (FF with high fps and good AF) would be too expensive and impossible in that combination at this price point. Just take a look: the D700 is at the same price as the 5DMkII. Having a 51-sensor-AF and up to 8fps...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 17, 2010)

Jan said:


> Just take a look: the D700 is at the same price as the 5DMkII. Having a 51-sensor-AF and up to 8fps...



Bingo. So, c'mon, Canon - bring it on!


----------



## papa-razzi (Sep 23, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> Jan said:
> 
> 
> > Just take a look: the D700 is at the same price as the 5DMkII. Having a 51-sensor-AF and up to 8fps...
> ...



There is such a thing as building and marketing to specs. All these companies do it. More MP doesn't always mean a better sensor. As an example, people on this forum are asking for lower MP because it is believed that is the answer to better ISO performance. Similarly, more AF points doesn't equate to a better AF system either.

The true test is in the actual performance of the camera. It is too easy to get sucked into evaluating a product on published specs alone. If you do that you will be misled. I would bet that most buyers look at all the specs to make the purchase decision then keep the camera mode dial set to the green box. Very few buyers really know how to properly evaulate the finer points betwen simliarly priced cameras, so they default to looking at the list of published specs.


----------



## nzmargolies (Sep 24, 2010)

papa-razzi said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Jan said:
> ...


not the people on this forum or the people who would buy this camera...


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 29, 2010)

papa-razzi said:


> I would bet that most buyers look at all the specs to make the purchase decision then keep the camera mode dial set to the green box.


I would bet that this is how the normal Slashdot / Gizmodo / maybe even a DP Review commenter would judge the cameras. Of course, these people don't actually buy cameras. As has been noted many times on DP Review, most of the folks who take photos for a living are too busy to talk about cameras. Lots of the folks who talk about cameras the most (like me!) just stick to what they have (could afford). Slashdot / Gizmodo types just go "First! OOH SHINEY" and in ten minutes have forgotten they own a computer.

I think that most DSLRs are bought at the local Big Box Retailer / Wal*Mart, and the buyer buys the cheapest one available. This is because the customer representative generally says "that one's a DSLR and it's cheap, sells well" and it's bought. The sad truth is that most of these people probably ought to be buying newer compacts (but as we know that's a good market too), for various reasons. I don't even think the $300 DSLRs (like the D3000, which was replaced recently but the D3100 is a $700 camera - just like the T1i which is seems more or less specced against - and whatever's similar on the Canon side, maybe the XTi or 450D, whatever) are much ahead of new compacts for image quality (not in the daylight scenes most compacts are used in), and they aren't faster operating or easier to carry.


----------



## jouster (Oct 5, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> I would bet that this is how the normal Slashdot / Gizmodo / maybe even a DP Review commenter would judge the cameras. Of course, these people don't actually buy cameras. As has been noted many times on DP Review, most of the folks who take photos for a living are too busy to talk about cameras.



This always makes me laugh. There are many pros commenting on DPR. And why would photographers be too busy to post somewhere compared to, say, lawyers or lumberjacks? I have a job that takes up a lot of time, but I can find the odd minute to post on a forum every now and then. Photographers are no different. They may choose not to post because they don't want to spend their leisure time talking about their professional activities, but that's another story.


Edwin Herdman said:


> I think that most DSLRs are bought at the local Big Box Retailer / Wal*Mart, and the buyer buys the cheapest one available. This is because the customer representative generally says "that one's a DSLR and it's cheap, sells well" and it's bought. The sad truth is that most of these people probably ought to be buying newer compacts (but as we know that's a good market too), for various reasons. I don't even think the $300 DSLRs (like the D3000, which was replaced recently but the D3100 is a $700 camera - just like the T1i which is seems more or less specced against - and whatever's similar on the Canon side, maybe the XTi or 450D, whatever) are much ahead of new compacts for image quality (not in the daylight scenes most compacts are used in), and they aren't faster operating or easier to carry.



I agree with that.

Couple of things I think: firstly, whatever is released will not be called 3D, for obvious reasons, unless it really is a 3D camera. Too much confusion otherwise. Secondly, someone earlier said that the 5D3 will increase in price, because that is how it is with new bodies. Well, not in the 5 series it isn't. The original 5D was five or six hundred dollars more expensive than the mark ii, so the price trend is downward (albeit with only two data points...) thirdly: anyone hoping for a megapixel decrease in the 5 series is living in cloud cuckoo land in my opinion.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 5, 2010)

jouster said:


> Edwin Herdman said:
> 
> 
> > I would bet that this is how the normal Slashdot / Gizmodo / maybe even a DP Review commenter would judge the cameras. Of course, these people don't actually buy cameras. As has been noted many times on DP Review, most of the folks who take photos for a living are too busy to talk about cameras.
> ...




Well, I suppose this is balanced out by the pros who've spent time teaching online. A good example is the landscape photographer and filmmaker Michael Reichmann of Luminous Landscape. You have to pay to get the most up to date stuff but there's very useful basics on the site.

But back to DPR for a second, yes, there are some pros but it's usually very user-oriented, and not a lot of information from people who have an insight into the design and some of the finer points of the systems - but there always are exceptions.


----------



## NotABunny (Oct 8, 2010)

DetlevCM said:


> And on performance - the 5D MK II apparently is favoured by a lot of wedding photographers



Obviously, since it currently outputs the cleanest images (because of it's larger sensor than 1D4), that is, about 1.5 stops cleaner than a 40D.

[quote author=DetlevCM]And to get back to ISO - I'm not sure where you live - but I cannot imagining you needing ISO 12800 for anythng planned like a wedding - it would have to be near total darkness.[/quote]

Actually it's exactly what is needed to take photos (without a flash) in the average indoor lighting conditions - shutter speed 200, F2.8, ISO 12800. Why? Because one would want be practical and use a 24-70 lens to have both zoom and some DOF (not like those sub F2 lenses), and shoot quick enough to avoid motion blur.


I will buy a new photocamera only if it outputs RAWs at least 3 stops cleaner than a 40D; I'm talking hardware, not with noise reduction. No "I / we know better what you need". This is what I need based on the thousands of kept pictures taken in these lighting conditions, and will pay the asked thousands of dollars (preferably for a 5D3 and 24-70 F2.8 v2) only if this happens (okay, I can go with 2.5 stops cleaner).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 8, 2010)

NotABunny said:


> I will buy a new photocamera only if it outputs RAWs at least 3 stops cleaner than a 40D; I'm talking hardware, not with noise reduction.



If by 'cleaner' you mean 'less noisy' the answer is simple. Noise is inversely proportional to sensor size. A FF camera (5DII, 5DIII, even the 5DVIII if they ever get there, even paired with a 24-70 f/2.8L MkIV) will only give you an 1.3-stop hardware improvement in ISO. It's not going to get better. (Ok, maybe it will, if you're including image processing in your definition of 'cleaner' - DIGIC IV is 'cleaner' than DIGIC III, and that's a hardware change...but it's 
'cleaner' because of better in-silico NR, not optical hardware, and you've already stated you aren't counting NR.) 

If you want a bigger improvement in noise compared to a 40D based on sensor hardware than FF can provide, you simply need a sensor that's substantially larger than FF. Lucky for you, there are medium-format digital back photocameras. You can spend your thousands of dollars and get a Leaf or a Phase One today, and get >2 stops of improved ISO performance.


----------



## NotABunny (Oct 10, 2010)

neuroanatomist said:


> NotABunny said:
> 
> 
> > I will buy a new photocamera only if it outputs RAWs at least 3 stops cleaner than a 40D; I'm talking hardware, not with noise reduction.
> ...



I'm expecting a camera which at ISO 12800 (in low light) can output images as clean as a 40D at ISO 1600.

Noise levels can decrease with better technology. The human eye has no noise (sure, it lacks color in low light). I don't care how engineering gets there, but I would not spend 4...5 thousands dollars if I don't have the extra 2.5...3 stops (without going medium frame), because it would continue to limit my ability to take photos, although by a lesser extent.

However, there is one thing to consider (before categorically saying "no" to an improvement of just 1.5 stops), that is, how images actually look at ISO 12800 on a 5D3. I mean, 40D has patterned noise and horrifically limited tonal range at high ISO in the shadows (which shows even worse when I have to lighten images up). So, even if the hardware doesn't provide a 3 stops improvement, the entire processing flow might, and final JPEGs at ISO 12800 from a 5D3 might look as good as JPEGs at ISO 1600 from a 40D.

(By processing flow I mean that with ISO 12800...25600 I could afford to properly expose photos at a high F-number, or even overexpose to counter the low light atmospheric lighting conditions, instead of lightening them up in software, plus apply some Lightroom noise reduction on RAWs.)

This means that I have to wait to see improvements in readout electronics, tonal range increase (in low light and high ISO) and lack of noise patterns (as in 7D).


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 11, 2010)

NotABunny said:


> The human eye has no noise (sure, it lacks color in low light).


Eh?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 11, 2010)

NotABunny said:


> The human eye has no noise (sure, it lacks color in low light).



Actually, the human eye is very noisy (in an electrical sense).


----------



## Macadameane (Oct 13, 2010)

But it does have an approx. resolution of 576 megapixels.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Oct 14, 2010)

Strange, I saw a mere 60mp cited recently. (i.e. close within range of medium format, though it looks like full frame might get there first).

Most of that data must be thrown away. (Does anybody still believe that "you remember everything you have seen" canard?)

Looking at that page, the focal length given for the eye seems not to take into account the point of what I guess you could call "dense attentiveness," the central points which are less sensitive (from frequent use; Carl Sagan wrote about this in Cosmos) but which make up the point you focus your attention on and which is fairly narrow. The part outside, in most people, seems to be used mainly for peripheral vision. On top of all that, the "wider' view you think you have seems to be a panoramic stitch compiled by the brain, where things you have recently focused on may seem to be in view when they really aren't. If you take a moment and concentrate on the part of what you're looking at right now that is actually sharp, you'll see that it is very narrow and probably shaped like a somewhat flattened oval. I've seen a simulation of it; it's almost as if you were looking through a heavily vignetted lens with an odd shaped image section (can't say circle).

Of course, you can see parts outside this region without any darkening, but perhaps the case is the brain doesn't know how to deal with them. So even if the outside parts of the eye's nerves are formed just like those near the center, the way the brain is thought to work seems to indicate that some of that stated 576MP resolution does not factor into most of your daily viewing, but rather into situations like peripheral vision.

In terms of digital cameras, "Digital Zoom" (i.e. crop zoom) is the closest concept I can compare it to.

It's also worth mentioning that it's a lot harder to return faulty eyes to the store than it is to get a camera replaced. And even when your eyes work well, it takes a long time for sensitivity to adjust. The powerpoint gives a remarkable half hour needed to adjust for nighttime viewing; in early people where artificial lights were less common, this would be fine, but in modern life we move in and out from light to dark situations relatively quickly. The human eye is great indeed, but I don't see the argument for intelligent design working so well in that the human eye doesn't always work as well as a camera in modern situations. (Apologies for the political slant at the end there.)


----------



## NotABunny (Oct 14, 2010)

Edwin Herdman said:


> Strange, I saw a mere 60mp cited recently. (i.e. close within range of medium format, though it looks like full frame might get there first).



He is referring to the theoretical resolution of a scene (not photograph) as if it were scanned by a human eye (that is, at its maximum spatial resolution):



> the megapixel equivalent numbers below refer to the spatial detail in an image that would be required to show what the human eye could see when you view a scene.




Above he also says what the eye resolution is supposed to be when looking at a print:



> Consider a 20 x 13.3-inch print viewed at 20 inches. The Print subtends an angle of 53 x 35.3 degrees, thus requiring 53*60/.3 = 10600 x 35*60/.3 = 7000 pixels, for a total of ~74 megapixels to show detail at the limits of human visual acuity.


----------



## jouster (Oct 20, 2010)

DetlevCM said:


> nzmargolies said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone else agree that splitting the 5D series would be a good idea? I mean into a 5D and 5Ds. The 5Ds, like the 1Ds could be the higher mp version, and the 5D ( i guess still pick up with mk III) could become a lower mp, much faster fps camera. That is my absolute dream, a half body (no portrait grip) full frame camera with 12-18 mp that shoots at 7-8 fps. Basically, a 7D with the sensor stretched to be full frame. I think that would suit the needs of a lot of people. I dont want the size of a 1D, the cost, or 10 fps. But i do want full frame, and keep it reasonably fast and small. There could still be the 5Ds for the resolution crazy.
> ...



This. The 7D is the camera you want, though by your splitting scheme it would be APS-H.


----------

