# 5D3, 1D5 and 1Ds4 Timeline [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Mar 27, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/03/5d3-1d5-and-1ds4-timeline-cr1/" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2011/03/5d3-1d5-and-1ds4-timeline-cr1/"></a></div>
<p><strong>Lots of variables.

</strong>There is lots of stuff flooding in about the 5D3, 1Ds4 and 1D5.</p>
<p><strong>1D Mark V

</strong>It’s been said before, but a new 1D in 2011. Announced in the June/July timeframe. Full frame this time around.</p>
<p><strong>5D Mark III

</strong>I received 2 different announcement dates. September timeframe and in the 28mp range from a decent source and 30mp and June from an unknown source.</p>
<p><strong>1Ds Mark IV

</strong>Another person in the camp of the 1Ds4 being in 2012. 40+ mp and announced in very late 2011 or early 2012. The gist of the comment was the “1Ds” moniker will be discontinued.</p>
<p><strong>CR’s Take

</strong>Stuff is starting to flow in again, there will be some truths buried in all of it. A camera announcement of some kind is on the near horizon. As always, I’ll keep digging.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p> </p>
```


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 27, 2011)

A 1D will full frame might not get the respsonse Canon wants - there is an advantage to a smaller sensor in a sports camera, the reduced field of view gives you the perception of more reach and thus allows you to use smaller lenses.

The downside - greater depth of field, although with sports that is possibly less of an issue.

If the 1D does become FF I wonder if Canon has any mad tricks up their sleeve - a sensor which could switch between crop & FF would be nice if both will supply the same resolution.
(Can be done -> crop needs to have a higher pixel density and this needs to be calculated down for FF operations)

But I suppose the best answer here is wait an see.

On the 1Ds - if they discontinue it, which camera will carry forward the excellent weather sealing? The 5D MK something could do it, but this would increase the price which would make it unreachable for many that shoot with it now.
So if they do get rid of it, I really hope they replace it with another line.


----------



## Ivar (Mar 27, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> Itâ€™s been said before, but a new 1D in 2011. Announced in the June/July timeframe. Full frame this time around.



I think FF in the next 1D is inevitable. The only possible way to add more sensitivity (aren't we talking about sports cameras?)/image quality is to increase the light capture area. I fail to see Canon adding even more pixels to 1.3x area at this point. The 1.3x crop WAS a good balance, not anymore.


----------



## Justin (Mar 27, 2011)

The 1Ds is overdue. The 5D3 is due. The 1D5 is not due. These release/lifecycle discrepancies signal Canon is changing a lot more than we imagine. 

I think we can expect the unexpected. The question Canon should be answering is: What do photographers want from a new camera? or Two. Probably not three. 

Apart from focusing on what existing Canon customers need and want, Canon should be expanding into new markets for new customers. 

Smaller format and larger format spring to mind.


----------



## Blaze (Mar 27, 2011)

Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?

Low light / high ISO performance is way more important to me than adding (what are in most cases) superfluous pixels.


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 27, 2011)

Blaze said:


> Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?
> 
> Low light / high ISO performance is way more important to me than adding (what are in most cases) superfluous pixels.



Then scale down your images in post processing.

-> You get more per pixel noise with smaller pixels, yes, but not overall more noise.
Scale down your images and you have your 1MP noise free solution.


----------



## armando (Mar 27, 2011)

I just bought the 5d Mk II, the only limitation i see is I wish I could use every lens like the ef-s and the other lens like from sigma the DC line with the camera >.< other than, honestly these images are delicious and at the top of the game in quality, more mp? don't need that, and honestly I don't think we will see a 5d mk III for 2 more years  or even more.


----------



## pedro (Mar 27, 2011)

*Re: How will this work ...*

amidst of this ongoing desasterous situation in Japan?

Or are there any production plants in other asian countries?


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 27, 2011)

armando said:


> I just bought the 5d Mk II, the only limitation i see is I wish I could use every lens like the ef-s and the other lens like from sigma the DC line with the camera >.< other than, honestly these images are delicious and at the top of the game in quality, more mp? don't need that, and honestly I don't think we will see a 5d mk III for 2 more years  or even more.



For some lenses you can do it -> remove the rubber ring at the end *BUT* beware, as for most EF-S lenses the lens potrudes into the camera and the mirror would hit the lens resulting in costly damage.
If you have a lens designed for APS-C (e.g. Tamron 17-50) that uses an EF mount you can use it on a 5D MK II without any issues and crop the image accordingly.


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 27, 2011)

*Re: How will this work ...*



pedro said:


> amidst of this ongoing desasterous situation in Japan?
> 
> Or are there any production plants in other asian countries?



Production and Presentation of 2 models are two different things.

Also, design and development takes time - what they present now would have been worked on months ago.
What will suffer though is availability.

And production - I think some of the Rebels are made in Taiwan.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 27, 2011)

DetlevCM said:


> Blaze said:
> 
> 
> > Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?
> ...



You might want to tell that to these people.

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

Click on "Canon HD CMOS Pro Image Sensor"


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 27, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > Blaze said:
> ...



It is much easier to scale down images than video.
Edit:
It's also easier to record data from fewer pixels than from many - bandwidth was one of the issues at the time of the 5D MK II's release, nowadays the technology for transferring more data is available.


----------



## pedro (Mar 27, 2011)

*Re: Thanks Detlev CM*

for your kind information!


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 27, 2011)

DetlevCM said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > DetlevCM said:
> ...



It seems that bandwidth is still very much an issue, judging from what Red does to get high resolution images from the Epic, from what Canon requires of CF cards used in the XF100/105/300/305 camcorders and from the amount of compression used for AVCHD videos.

More pertinent is the fact that the sensor in the Canon M40/41/400 camcorders is larger than the sensors of the their predecessors or their competitors. Still, Canon seems to be doing an about-face in preferring fewer but larger pixels in some of their recent introductions.


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 27, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



But it is still video and not stills 
You are forgetting that DSLRs are predominantly about still images an stills photography.
Yes, there is a saturation point, but it hasn't been reached yet.

Canon also produced a 130MP APS-H sensor -> so they have the technology for more.

We'll have to see.


----------



## traveller (Mar 27, 2011)

Interesting article on the old megapixel question: 

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/dxomark_sensor_for_benchmarking_cameras.shtml


As for the actual rumours... It's the same old "1Ds coming soon, before the 5D Mk3" vs. "no new 1Ds, but a merging of the 1D and 1Ds lines into a new 1D Mk5 next year, after the 5D Mk3 is announced". 

Who knows what to believe, but maybe if there is a 1Ds Mk4, it may use pixel binning or cropping to APS-H to achieve higher frame rates at lower resolution or higher ISO figures.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Mar 27, 2011)

armando said:


> I just bought the 5d Mk II, the only limitation i see is I wish I could use every lens like the ef-s and the other lens like from sigma the DC line with the camera >.< other than, honestly these images are delicious and at the top of the game in quality, more mp? don't need that, and honestly I don't think we will see a 5d mk III for 2 more years  or even more.



I think you're just hoping no 5D3 for 2 years, because you just bought one. Hehe... For the rest of us, especially video people, it can't come fast of enough. I'm hoping June, but it will probably be later.

As for the EF-s lenses, that would be cool. I heard somewhere (not sure if it's true), but doesn't Nikon have a 1.6x crop option on their full frames? That would be really cool for the new 5D3 for some extra reach, plus to match motion picture camera crops if you wanted to.

I'm fairly sure it will have the 3x crop deal, like the new Rebel, which is a really cool feature to have.


----------



## x-vision (Mar 27, 2011)

DetlevCM said:


> It is much easier to scale down images than video.



Tell this to the pros taking 1000+ shots per event.


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 27, 2011)

x-vision said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > It is much easier to scale down images than video.
> ...



Still less work than scaling down video.

-> 1000 images at 25fps is only 40s of video.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 28, 2011)

DetlevCM said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > DetlevCM said:
> ...



"Scaling down" video is an inherent part of the rendering process. Using Sony Vegas, rendering is easy but it does tax the CPU like nothing else I've ever done. (All four cores immediately go to 90-100% utilization and stay there for the duration.) From what I understand, feature film post-production is often done at 4K pixels horizontally or more. A sensor capable of 4K full aperture (4096 X 3112 pixels) with a 1.5x aspect ratio would still only require 14.53MP, unless some sort of binning was done. That's not a lot of pixels.


----------



## ronderick (Mar 28, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> As for the EF-s lenses, that would be cool. I heard somewhere (not sure if it's true), but doesn't Nikon have a 1.6x crop option on their full frames? That would be really cool for the new 5D3 for some extra reach, plus to match motion picture camera crops if you wanted to.



Yes, Nikon's FX bodies (FF) does have the option of using DX lens (the crop factor of Nikon is 1.5x). 

Unfortunately, the catch is that you'll be shooting at half the megapixels (aka "crop" mode). So if you fit a 18-200 VRII onto a 12MP D3 body, you'll end up with roughly 6 MP shots.


----------



## armando (Mar 28, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> I think you're just hoping no 5D3 for 2 years, because you just bought one. Hehe... For the rest of us, especially video people, it can't come fast of enough. I'm hoping June, but it will probably be later.



lol guilty, dell does have a 90 day return item for business accounts, so..  we will see.


----------



## iPrevailed (Mar 28, 2011)

i didnt give in yet :x and hopefully i wont


----------



## Stone (Mar 28, 2011)

I think Canon will keep the 1DIV along side a new 1DV body, then photogs will have a choice between FF & APS-H. I would imagine a FF 1DV will cost well above 5K and could easily be the next flagship body, high performance and FF are no longer mutually exclusive, Nikon has proven it and Canon will definitely need to match it. I still don't see the purpose of another 1Ds body, people spending that kind of coin could easily step up to the higher end brands and I just can't imagine that Canon sells THAT many 1Ds bodies, hence the long hiatus as they decide if it's really worth it.

By the looks of it, Canon has no intention of competing in the midrange fast FF market, leaving it to the Nikon DXXX bodies, I see the 5DIII continuing to push the video niche without fast fps or sports oriented af. It's working for them, so who could blame them.

if the 1DV, is FF and hits 10fps, it will be my next body. If by some miracle, the 5DIII can do at least 8 fps with decent af, then I might go for that. An APS-H 7D might be the sweet spot. I still could give a flip about video so no opinion there.

god I love speculation....


----------



## Stuart (Mar 28, 2011)

Global Shutter, to solve video jello, moving object curl, high speed flash sync.


----------



## NotABunny (Mar 28, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > Blaze said:
> ...



They are comparing their sensor with something not specified. There are two possibilities:
* The unmentioned sensor is physically smaller, so the Canon sensor implicitly performs better (= the size of the pixels is marketing talk for people who believe in pixel size relevance).
* The unmentioned sensor has the same physical size but more pixels (like 3 MP instead of the HD's 2 MP, which makes pixels smaller) and when they record HD movie they use only 1920 * 1080 pixels, which means that the physical size of the used sensor is smaller, and this is why they perform worse than the Canon sensor.


I've just seen they were comparing it to the models from 2010. So, there you go: VIXIA HF M32 ( http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/consumer_camcorders/vixia_hf_m32#Specifications ) has a sensor of 1/4 (compared to 1/3) inches and 3MP.


----------



## NotABunny (Mar 28, 2011)

x-vision said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > It is much easier to scale down images than video.
> ...



People (not pixel peepers) who look at the photos do NOT look at pixel level, they look at the whole picture on the display (or paper), which means the the photo viewer resizes them automatically to the display / printer resolution.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 28, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > DetlevCM said:
> ...



Canon is also comparing it with the Canon S-series from 2010 which has 6.01MP "effective" instead of 2.07MP. (See the last sentence under "Superb Low-Light Performance [1.5 lux]".) If you'll check all my previous posts in this thread, you'll see that I previously pointed out that the sensor is larger in the new series.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 28, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> x-vision said:
> 
> 
> > DetlevCM said:
> ...



And besides, resizing 1000 images is just a step in a Photoshop action run as a batch on images selected on Adobe Bridge.


----------



## Justin (Mar 28, 2011)

Speculation is tons of fun. I think the next 1D will be full frame and will include a dynamic crop mode. The 1Ds will be something more along the lines of the Pentax 645D, dare I say Canon 645D? Maybe not a bigger sensor, but improved sensor tech that gets us into the high 40 mp range on a 35mm-sized wafer. There needs to be a compelling reason to drop 10k on a camera and it needs to be about screaming medium format-like image quality and dynamic range with the niceties of an slr camera. 

Then we just need a mirror-less solution from Canon to complete the lineup. I dont' see that coming too soon, but here's to hoping that it is an aps-c sized sensor solution and a slew of EF-S prime lenses in pancake formats: think 15, 21, 30, 50 mm (24, 35, 50, 85 mm equivalents). 

5D3 should reach 5 fps and have the AF capabilities of the 7D. This is going to be my go-to camera for a variety of work. 




Stone said:


> I think Canon will keep the 1DIV along side a new 1DV body, then photogs will have a choice between FF & APS-H. I would imagine a FF 1DV will cost well above 5K and could easily be the next flagship body, high performance and FF are no longer mutually exclusive, Nikon has proven it and Canon will definitely need to match it. I still don't see the purpose of another 1Ds body, people spending that kind of coin could easily step up to the higher end brands and I just can't imagine that Canon sells THAT many 1Ds bodies, hence the long hiatus as they decide if it's really worth it.
> 
> By the looks of it, Canon has no intention of competing in the midrange fast FF market, leaving it to the Nikon DXXX bodies, I see the 5DIII continuing to push the video niche without fast fps or sports oriented af. It's working for them, so who could blame them.
> 
> ...


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 28, 2011)

Just to comment on the mirrorless aspect:

It might be fun for a consumer model, and a rangefinder has an appeal to certain customers, but the ability to look through the lens is very valuable.
A screen (electronic viewfinder) will never (in the next few years) be able to match the resolving power of the human eye.

Besides - another issue I can think off... eye strain, especially in dark environments.
Currently the viewfinder is darker or equally bright compared to the surroundings, in a dark environment a screen will be brighter and lead to eye strain.


----------



## mccrum (Mar 28, 2011)

Blaze said:


> Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?
> 
> Low light / high ISO performance is way more important to me than adding (what are in most cases) superfluous pixels.


I'm with you. I've found that because of space and my personal requirements I mostly shoot at RAWs1. For more artsy stuff and rare opportunities I'll jump up to the 21mp, but to add another 8mb per shot on hard drives would mean that I'm expanding my 1tb drives even further. I just don't need them, it seems like marketing going insane (do people still buy one camera over another because of megapixels?)


----------



## jeremymerriam (Mar 28, 2011)

x-vision said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > It is much easier to scale down images than video.
> ...



Shoot in small format RAW rather than the large format. Besides, if you are having trouble with processing 1000+ images, you either need a new computer or starting using Lightroom.


----------



## st sebastian (Mar 28, 2011)

mccrum said:


> Blaze said:
> 
> 
> > Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?
> ...



Me too. I don't print photos large enough to require 21MP.

An issue I have is that DxO does not read mRaw & sRaw, so I have to choose between photo size and ability to process the photo with DxO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 28, 2011)

jeremymerriam said:


> Shoot in small format RAW rather than the large format.



So, do you believe Canon's little whilte lie marketing position that sRAW is 'all the flavor without all the fat,' so to speak? With sRAW, you're losing resolution (not the best possible trade-off for a file size reduction), and you're adding processing artifacts to your image. Have a look.


----------



## motorhead (Mar 28, 2011)

I agree, more pixels will show even at A4, never mind A3 or A2 print sizes. The improvements will get more subtle as pixel counts of 21mp are compared to 32 or 40, but it IS visible in print. I will never throw away pixels. It's difficult to explain the difference in appearance. I would describe it thus: the whole image seems smoother, more "depth".


----------



## Etienne (Mar 29, 2011)

mccrum said:


> Blaze said:
> 
> 
> > Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?
> ...



Hard drive space is a complete non-issue. A 2 TB drive is about $80, and can hold about 80,000 RAW files at 25 MB each (from Canon 5DII). That's 40,000 images per year for two years. Even with a second drive for full backup it's still only $160 in hard drive space, or $80 per year. This is a trivial cost compared to other costs of photography.

As long as low light performance is not compromised I'm ok with high MP counts, however it doesn't seem to work that way, so I'm in favor of sacrificing some pixels in order to get great low light performance.


----------



## Chewy734 (Mar 29, 2011)

Etienne said:


> Hard drive space is a complete non-issue. A 2 TB drive is about $80, and can hold about 80,000 RAW files at 25 MB each (from Canon 5DII). That's 40,000 images per year for two years. Even with a second drive for full backup it's still only $160 in hard drive space, or $80 per year. This is a trivial cost compared to other costs of photography.



I'm not sure that everyone can say that. Perhaps for you it's a non-issue. But for me, if I'm going on a 2 week vacation with my camera, you're looking at only ~650 of those RAW files on a 16gb card, max. I usually don't take my laptop, and even if I do, that means I'll need to also take an external hard-drive along with it? Many times it's just not practical.

That being said, I agree with you, that if you're doing a 1-day or afternoon photo shoot, and then come home to a laptop/desktop with TBs of storage space (which isn't all that expensive any more), then having 25mb+ RAW image files is fine. Keep in mind though, if you have to do some batch editing on thousands of those, it will take noticeably longer on larger files than smaller ones. Anyways, just my opinions on the matter. I'm sure I'll be first in line once Canon actually releases these beasts.


----------



## ronderick (Mar 29, 2011)

In addition to bigger harddrives, the cost of bigger files also comes with possible upgrade of your computer parts to stuff like USB 3.0 (not to mention thunderbolt, eSata, etc.) or BD-R compatible drives (an empty BD-R disc is still too expensive), as well as more memory space... the list can grow quite a bit.

Of course, while upgrading the entire system might not be as costly as some camera parts, they still involve a certain degree of financial commitment...


----------



## Flake (Mar 29, 2011)

One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect. While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears. It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately. Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.

For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option. If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 29, 2011)

Chewy734 said:


> Etienne said:
> 
> 
> > Hard drive space is a complete non-issue. A 2 TB drive is about $80, and can hold about 80,000 RAW files at 25 MB each (from Canon 5DII). That's 40,000 images per year for two years. Even with a second drive for full backup it's still only $160 in hard drive space, or $80 per year. This is a trivial cost compared to other costs of photography.
> ...



So wait a second, you can carry at least 4kg of camera gear, possibly more but can't carry at least a netbook and some HDDs? -> 2 ideally for backup.


----------



## Etienne (Mar 29, 2011)

Flake said:


> One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect. While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears. It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately. Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.
> 
> For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option. If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?



Low light performance really means good high ISO performance. The 5DII is Canon's best high ISO, and I don't think Canon will let Nikon continue to walk away with the high ISO award.

High ISO is important for many things: low light use, ability to shoot at small apertures in moderate light, when very fast shutter speed is required like sports in indoor arenas. I can't think of why anyone would object to good high ISO performance. There is a trade off between pixel count and high ISO, and I hope the 5DIII achieves a good balance. Personally I don't need more pixels, so I favor improvements in ISO performance. Of course in a perfect world I'd get both in one Camera.


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 29, 2011)

Flake said:


> One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect. While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears. It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately. Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.
> 
> For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option. If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?



Does Nikon "walk away"? 
Scale down the 5D MK II to Nikon resolutions or scale up the Nikon resolutions to 5D MK II resolutions and they become pretty equal, at least for the D700.

-> Overall noise stays the same, per pixel noise increases with smaller pixels.

Now the current sensors from Sony apparently offer a greater dynamic range, and that might be a plus for the Sony-sensor-buyer Nikon right now.


----------



## Flake (Mar 29, 2011)

Etienne said:


> Flake said:
> 
> 
> > One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect. While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears. It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately. Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.
> ...




I think you've missunderstood my point here. By high Iso performance I'm talking about being able to shoot in a dark room where you can barely see at Iso 25600 and still get useable images (Something D3 users claim to be able to do).
High Iso is relevant because it's directly linked to dynamic range, a camera has to have good performance, but in a camera like the 5D MkII/I I don't require class leading performance, I don't want to photograph the black man looking in the dark room for the black cat that isn't there!

BTW I would have said that the ID MkIII was the best camera in the line up for low noise.

As to Nikons answer, well it doens't bother me too much as I'm not a Nikon user, but to me the 12MP sensor looked underpixeled when it was launched, and the high Iso ability might be a plus for it, but other than that it's a bit of a one trick pony, and the half stop between the D700 and the 5D MkII isn't enough for me to lose much sleep over.


----------



## Chewy734 (Mar 29, 2011)

DetlevCM said:


> So wait a second, you can carry at least 4kg of camera gear, possibly more but can't carry at least a netbook and some HDDs? -> 2 ideally for backup.



Well, unfortunately I don't have a netbook. My Macbook Pro weighs at least 6 lbs, and I use Aperture, so I can't buy a cheap windows netbook (assuming I want to use the netbook for more than just a conduit to save files). If I take my current laptop with an external HD, I'm more than doubling my backpack's weight.


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 29, 2011)

Chewy734 said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > So wait a second, you can carry at least 4kg of camera gear, possibly more but can't carry at least a netbook and some HDDs? -> 2 ideally for backup.
> ...



Shouldn't have bought a Mac then  my laptop (NOT netbook) weighs 1,73kg + maybe 300g for the power brick, is now soon 3 years old and handles my 5D MK II's RAW files in Adobe Photoshop CS4 without an issue.


----------



## EELinneman (Mar 29, 2011)

Chewy,

I'd recommend you look at bootcamp or perhaps VMWare's fusion. I bootcamped my Macbook Pro and the response under windows 7 is impressive. You have to give up some disk space, but I now keep photos on a small portable USB drive.

What I'd like rather than more pixels in the 5DIII is greater dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO. I have friends who shoot Nikon and have less noise than the Canon. I'd also like to have a better AF like the Nikon has. Donning my fireproof suit now! LOL


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 29, 2011)

EELinneman said:


> Chewy,
> 
> I'd recommend you look at bootcamp or perhaps VMWare's fusion. I bootcamped my Macbook Pro and the response under windows 7 is impressive. You have to give up some disk space, but I now keep photos on a small portable USB drive.
> 
> What I'd like rather than more pixels in the 5DIII is greater dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO. I have friends who shoot Nikon and have less noise than the Canon. I'd also like to have a better AF like the Nikon has. Donning my fireproof suit now! LOL



Less noise... -> less noise at the per pixel level, try scaling up or scaling down and then compared images.
On that note, if you can, I'm sure you could cook up a nice comparison as you have access to the cameras.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2011)

Chewy734 said:


> But for me, if I'm going on a 2 week vacation with my camera, you're looking at only ~650 of those RAW files on a 16gb card, max. I usually don't take my laptop, and even if I do, that means I'll need to also take an external hard-drive along with it? Many times it's just not practical.



On my most recent trip, I took along some USB thumb drives for image backup. Imation makes a 64 GB thumb drive that's about the size of a AA battery, and three of those were enough for backups of 2 weeks worth of 5DII images (one copy on the internal drive and one copy on a USB thumb drive so I could re-use the CF cards if necessary). I also had along a 96GB ExpressCard SSD, in case I needed more space.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 29, 2011)

DetlevCM said:


> EELinneman said:
> 
> 
> > Chewy,
> ...



You could always use the still life scene from Imaging Resource, normalized for the same resolution. Pay particular attention to the black velvet cloth and black cup in the lower right, the shadows behind the bottles and the detail and color in the threads along the upper right. On my 23", 1680x1050 monitor, a horizontal image viewed at 40% is roughly the same size as a 12"x16" print.


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 29, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > EELinneman said:
> ...



You know, a link would help


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 29, 2011)

DetlevCM said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > DetlevCM said:
> ...



http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

You can download the raw images if you start from the camera review. At ISO12,800+, images need a LOT of noise reduction.


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 29, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



Thanks for the link


----------



## Chewy734 (Mar 30, 2011)

Thanks for the suggestions guys. Sadly I still have a 20D, so I don't think I'll be able to hook up any USB devices directly to it.


----------



## Admin US West (Mar 30, 2011)

Chewy734 said:


> Thanks for the suggestions guys. Sadly I still have a 20D, so I don't think I'll be able to hook up any USB devices directly to it.



With a 20D, you can save a lot more images to a given size CF card, so a 16GB Card might be overkill.

Certainly, a photographer should have more than one flash card if going on vacation and wanting to take lots of images. If a card fails, they could be out of luck because they didn't buy a spare or two. 8GB cards are pretty cheap right now. I would take several cards, so if one died, I'd still have images on the other two or three.


----------



## Chewy734 (Mar 30, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> With a 20D, you can save a lot more images to a given size CF card, so a 16GB Card might be overkill.
> 
> Certainly, a photographer should have more than one flash card if going on vacation and wanting to take lots of images. If a card fails, they could be out of luck because they didn't buy a spare or two. 8GB cards are pretty cheap right now. I would take several cards, so if one died, I'd still have images on the other two or three.



Yeah, I agree. That's what I do. I was just referring to the situation with a much larger MP count like the proposed 28+ MP 5D3.


----------



## Rocky (Mar 30, 2011)

Just want to point out that now some European airline limits the carry on weight to be 8 Kg (17.5 lbs). The camera gear alone will be that much weight. There is no allowance left for lap top, power supply, external hard drive etc. A bunch of high capacity CF card (or SD card) is the best way to go, reguardless what camera system that you have.


----------



## Admin US West (Mar 30, 2011)

Chewy734 said:


> [Yeah, I agree. That's what I do. I was just referring to the situation with a much larger MP count like the proposed 28+ MP 5D3.



A larger sensor will likely cause me to get a couple more 16GB cards. I tend to avoid the really big ones, so a loss of a card doesn't lose everything. Of course, my 1D MK III makes a backup to the SD card, so loss there is very unlikely.

I'd like that feature in a new camera, but I've yet to lose any images, so it will only become a big issue on the day I lose them.


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 30, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Just want to point out that now some European airline limits the carry on weight to be 8 Kg (17.5 lbs). The camera gear alone will be that much weight. There is no allowance left for lap top, power supply, external hard drive etc. A bunch of high capacity CF card (or SD card) is the best way to go, reguardless what camera system that you have.



Which isn't an issue with a reputable airline.

I think I once had 11 or even 12kg of hand luggage + the full checked in allowance and nobody complained, I'm flying Lufthansa by the way.
-> Also, if you read the Lufthansa terms closely, it says 6kg or 2kg more with a laptop, and a small camera, and, and, and... so that you sort of think that they will not complain if you put anything expensive in your hand luggage.
-> And the cheaper stuff can obviously wonder into the main luggage (e.g. cables)


----------



## Rocky (Mar 30, 2011)

DetlevCM said:


> Which isn't an issue with a reputable airline.



Have you ever flown a three letter airline started with 'S" that is based in northern Europe?? It spell out clearly as one peice of carry on with weight limit of 8 Kg. This airline is just as reputable as Lufthansa. Did you check the web site of Lufthansa lately??? It also have the same limit without additional allowance for lap top or camera. You got through without problem may be due to: 1. you are lucky, 2. you did not fly recently. But we should not bet on our luck all the time.


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 30, 2011)

Rocky said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > Which isn't an issue with a reputable airline.
> ...



SAS - yes, I have flown with them, not often though. -> On that note though, SAS is trying to lower their price and directly compete with the low fare segment.

With Lufthansa it's not a "one off" - they don't weigh your hand luggage, although optical size might be a part of it -> standard laptop bag. Obviously, if you brought along "Hand luggage" as large as checked luggage then they might want to have a look.
I also tend to fly East to West, so not on the tourist routes, which might be another reason I have zero problems with weight.

On that note, on your checked luggage Lufthansa has a 10% tolerance which you shouldn't exploit, but should calm your nerves with respect to packing and weight.


----------



## NotABunny (Mar 30, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > EELinneman said:
> ...



Imaging Resource takes photos in different (amount of) light; look in EXIF at the exposures. This makes noise comparison irrelevant.

There is a link at http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911 to a guy who did take the same photo in the same light.


----------



## DetlevCM (Mar 30, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > DetlevCM said:
> ...



I also see another issue:
They claim the images are unchanged, but judging from the file size, this cannot be -> the ISO 25600 sampel is way too small.
I suspect they might have used in Camera JPEG with noise reduction.

Anyway, scaled down, the D700 and 5D MK II are pretty much equal -> I didn't scale up the D700 though.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2011)

Rocky said:


> Just want to point out that now some European airline limits the carry on weight to be 8 Kg (17.5 lbs). The camera gear alone will be that much weight.



There are limits, and then there are limits. For internal flights within China, you are limited to one 20 kg piece of checked luggage, and "*one* carry-on bag that *cannot exceed 5kg (11 lbs) *in weight and dimensions of 55cm (21 inches) in length, 40cm (15 inches) in width and 20cm (7 inches) in height." I flew on 3 such flights last month - in all cases, the checked bag was weighed at check-in. My 'carry-on' bag was a Storm im2500 hard case with all my camera gear and laptop, weighing in at somewhere over *15 kg*, 3 times the 'limit' and no one said a thing.


----------



## Bob Howland (Mar 30, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> Imaging Resource takes photos in different (amount of) light; look in EXIF at the exposures. This makes noise comparison irrelevant.
> 
> There is a link at http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911 to a guy who did take the same photo in the same light.



http://www.imaging-resource.com/ARTS/TESTS/SLMULTI.HTM

Look under "A Note About Exposure"


----------



## NotABunny (Mar 30, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> NotABunny said:
> 
> 
> > Imaging Resource takes photos in different (amount of) light; look in EXIF at the exposures. This makes noise comparison irrelevant.
> ...






> Some readers have suggested that we should hold the lighting absolutely constant, use the same shutter speed and aperture for all cameras at a given ISO setting, and let the images fall where they may. In our experience, though, this would result in greater variation in the appearance of the images, making it harder to judge cameras against each other. Minor inaccuracies in lens aperture, shutter speed, and even the ISO setting can combine to produce quite visible exposure differences.



Well, the link I provided above shows that the photos taken by that guy have the same exposure in EXIF, yet the images have the same brightness! So, their statement is misleading. Moreover, the last time I did a comparison the difference was 1 stop! (not +-1/3)

So, the exposure was the same, but the amount of light was not. I have no idea why this matters, but my experience confirms this fact, plus the fact that the link I gave above shows the both 1D4 and D3s have the same noise level per unit area of sensor (whereas the comparison of the photos from IR shows the opposite).

The only difference is that the IR site introduces an unknown factor in the comparison: the different amount of light. (Plus, I don't remember reading on their website the images come from RAWs, without noise reduction.)




> Our convention is to shoot these images with each camera's picture style (known by different names among different manufacturers; basically the presets for contrast/saturation/color mapping) set to the default, since that's what the vast majority of users will do. Default contrast, saturation and color mapping can vary a fair bit from manufacturer to manufacturer, so the images from some cameras may thus look brighter or duller than those from others. Of course, this is the whole point of showing test photos: The aim isn't to make different cameras' output look like each other, but rather to show what the captured photos do look like, with well-controlled shooting conditions.



Ah, well, so from this I understand that they shoot JPEG with the cameras' default settings because they just want to show the output of cameras, not to allow absolute comparisons.


----------



## mrnwp (Mar 31, 2011)

I think it's pretty clear canon will not release at 5iii and 1dv this year. I can see canon announcing a 1dsiv this year, but it will not be released till summer(maybe later) of 2012. Personally I am getting pretty tried of the long and delayed windows between announcement and release. Don't think your going to get anything big from canon with these cameras, just more MP's and a redesigned AF that does the same thing the current AF does(marketing gimmick).


----------



## motorhead (Apr 1, 2011)

I could live with a 1Ds mk4 like that, provided we do see 40mp. In fact given the possible alternatives, that would suit me pretty well.

Unlike almost everyone else on the planet (or so it seems) I have no interest in video whatsoever. Film making is a totally different field of expertise and it leaves me cold. I will go to my grave believing that video should be left to video cameras and film makers.

No, my requirements from a new 1Ds are simple, superb DR, lowest noise in a dSLR to date and suberb low ISO performance, down to ISO25 please Canon. I have no interest in ISO's beyond 1600.

However, if Canon were planning to simply do that, we would have had it at least 6 months ago. I believe the chatter that claims Canon withdrew the mk4 simply because they decided that to stick with the minimal upgrades as before. There are too many competitors in the "studio" camera market now, Canon would effectively be saying "OK fellas, we've had a good run at the top, now it's your turn". No, Canon must respond to the Pentaxes and the Hasselblads if they wish to retain a foothold in the sector.


----------



## DetlevCM (Apr 1, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> > Our convention is to shoot these images with each camera's picture style (known by different names among different manufacturers; basically the presets for contrast/saturation/color mapping) set to the default, since that's what the vast majority of users will do. Default contrast, saturation and color mapping can vary a fair bit from manufacturer to manufacturer, so the images from some cameras may thus look brighter or duller than those from others. Of course, this is the whole point of showing test photos: The aim isn't to make different cameras' output look like each other, but rather to show what the captured photos do look like, with well-controlled shooting conditions.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, well, so from this I understand that they shoot JPEG with the cameras' default settings because they just want to show the output of cameras, not to allow absolute comparisons.



This statement makes the "comparison" utterly useless and pointless other than for fully automatic point and shoot cameras.
People who buy an SLR (except maybe quite a few of the Rebel crowd) will general NOT just use default settings and play around with them.
Additionally, "standard" or "default" varies a lot between manufacturers.

A test needs to use equal conditions or as close as equal conditions PLUS as close as equal settings for each image to be worth using.


----------



## DetlevCM (Apr 1, 2011)

motorhead said:


> I could live with a 1Ds mk4 like that, provided we do see 40mp. In fact given the possible alternatives, that would suit me pretty well.
> 
> Unlike almost everyone else on the planet (or so it seems) I have no interest in video whatsoever. Film making is a totally different field of expertise and it leaves me cold. I will go to my grave believing that video should be left to video cameras and film makers.
> 
> ...



"No interest in ISO beyond 1600"... interesting attitude... also, ISO 25, does anybody even offer that?
ISO 50 is already not a true ISO any more and just ISO 100 reduced by 1 stop in camera.
And ISO 1600 - what do you shoot? Landscapes in sunshine and in studios?
Any indoor usage benefits from High ISO, the cleaner the better -> Now there are ranges where you wonder "do we need it", e.g. 102.000 something, but try shooting the interior of a church and you will be hard pressed at ISO 3200 without IS.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 1, 2011)

DetlevCM said:


> NotABunny said:
> 
> 
> > > Our convention is to shoot these images with each camera's picture style (known by different names among different manufacturers; basically the presets for contrast/saturation/color mapping) set to the default, since that's what the vast majority of users will do. Default contrast, saturation and color mapping can vary a fair bit from manufacturer to manufacturer, so the images from some cameras may thus look brighter or duller than those from others. Of course, this is the whole point of showing test photos: The aim isn't to make different cameras' output look like each other, but rather to show what the captured photos do look like, with well-controlled shooting conditions.
> ...



You can get the raw images off their "thumbnail index page(s)"

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E5D2/E5D2THMB.HTM

and 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D3S/D3STHMB.HTM


----------



## DetlevCM (Apr 1, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > NotABunny said:
> ...




-> I think I clicked on that link, what they claim to be "original images" is definitely not an original image. -> on the ISO 25600 sample, the image was subject to noise reduction and is too small for an image originally out of the camera. They are also JPEG and not RAW.


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 1, 2011)

DetlevCM said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > You can get the raw images off their "thumbnail index page(s)"
> ...



I don't know what files you're downloading, but the files that I'm downloading from those pages are definitely raw, according to both Photoshop CS5 ACR and Bibble Pro 5.2.2. You can't just click on the image and download the file. You have to go looking for files with .nef and cr2 extensions. Also, Canon raw images include a smaller embedded jpeg. Are you sure that you're not looking at those?


----------



## DetlevCM (Apr 1, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> DetlevCM said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



I can only see the RAW files for some of the house shots, not for all of them.
-> The lab images seem to be JPEG only, at least I don't see a RAW option.


----------

