# Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011



## Canon Rumors Guy (Sep 25, 2010)

```
<p><strong>I have a bit more information

</strong>It seems that both Canon andÃ‚Â Nikon are aiming for very high megapixel flagship cameras near the end of 2011, somewhereÃ‚Â in the 35-45 mpx range.</p>
<p>This exceeds original reports of a 32mp sensor inside the 1Ds Mark IV.</p>
<p>Before either of these cameras launch, I suspect both Canon & Nikon will release big megapixel cameras to come above the D700 & 5D Mark II. Think in the 28-32mp range. This would match up with some stuff I’ve been told in the past.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## hsmeets (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

A 28-32mpx successor to the 5D sounds as it could really happen but not for the D700 and if nikon would release such camera it probably be more of something like a D3x "light".


----------



## blufox (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

Sad, so we are going to see DSLRs go the pixel race way...


----------



## hsmeets (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

There is a market for 40, 50, 60mpx camera's given that PhaseOne/Mamiya, Hasselblad, Pentax and newcomer Leica are active in DMF (Digital Medium Format). Pentax and Hasselblad seem to have picked up the gauntlet and are trying to win over some of the high-end DSLR customers.

So no surprise here that canon/nikon does not want to let these customers go without a good fight.


----------



## bradj (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

the difference is the Hasselblad and pentax have larger sensors. If they want to compete with them, they should surely make the sensor as big, and bring the price down, in some way.

Who wants loads more pixels with the extra noise, and hard drive space problem with no upside.


----------



## afrank99 (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

I would love a 3D/5DmkIII with 32 MPixels. (no, they DON'T add noise)
Bring them pixels


----------



## jouster (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

I believe there will be another FF body. But I do not think it will be called the 3D unless it actually is....3D. The term is too confusing otherwise.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

I'm pretty sure with the improvements canon has demonstrated with getting APS-C sensors up to 18 MP with reasonable noise control, that they can get the 5D Mark III sensor up to ~30 MP with reasonable noise control. in terms of sensor-pixel size, I don't think it's actually such a make-or-break difference that they can't account for with new technology.

in terms of a 45 MP flagship ... that I'm really curious about. what has canon developed that's going to allow this camera to deliver the highest quality IQ that's going to be demanded of it?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



Canon Rumors said:


> Before either of these cameras launch, I suspect both Canon & Nikon will release big megapixel cameras to come above the D700 & 5D Mark II. Think in the 28-32mp range.



Great! Hopefully, that means a 5DIII (or whatever they call it) will come early in the year, paving the way for the new flagship later in 2011.


----------



## hsmeets (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

Caveat, it might not be as simple as stated below, but for the sake of the argument:

if you take current 7D sensor and you add rows and colums of same pixelsize to grow it to 24x36mm you will get around a 8350x5550 or about 44mpx. 

And if you increase pixelsize with 20% that would yield a 30mpx sensor with 44% more area per pixel.

So you could have a 5Dmk3 with more pixels and probably better noise then 7D.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



hsmeets said:


> So you could have a 5Dmk3 with more pixels and probably better noise then 7D.



I'd say definitely better noise performance. Noise is inversely proportional to total light falling on the sensor, and total light falling on the sensor is directly proportional to sensor size. So, a bigger sensor means less noise.


----------



## Etienne (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

5DIII ... pixels shmixels, anywhere between 21 - 35 MP is fine. Too many pixels means bigger files, which are a little harder to deal with. I only hope for a few things:

Better AF
Reduced banding at high ISO
Built-in RF wireless flash control
Improved movie AF and reduced rolling shutter
Maintain the price point and low weight.


----------



## tzalmagor (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

The more MP on the sensor, the 'sharper' the lenses have to be. There is no Moore's law for lenses, so the price of lenses is going to go up & stay up.

As the variety of EF-S lenses is not very impressive, I think this would mean either Canon will invest in it's EF-S line of lenses, or Canon sales will run into a bricks wall when consumers select a manufacturor making lower resolution sensors with appropriately cheaper lenses, or I'm missing something.

The new EF 8-15mm f/4 lens, which is supposedly the fisheye lens for APS-C sensors, will cost about twice as much the older FF fisheye, I tend to think the first option is wrong.


----------



## spam (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



tzalmagor said:


> The more MP on the sensor, the 'sharper' the lenses have to be.



No, almost any lens will show more detail with a higher resolution sensor, particulary in the center of the image. A better lesn wil obviously give you even better results.



tzalmagor said:


> As the variety of EF-S lenses is not very impressive, I think this would mean either Canon will invest in it's EF-S line of lenses, or Canon sales will run into a bricks wall when consumers select a manufacturor making lower resolution sensors with appropriately cheaper lenses, or I'm missing something.



Most EF-S lenses ar OK optically, some are cheap with a matching construction while other are more expensive with better construction. I can't really see that Canon's EF-S lenses are particulary worse (or better) than the competition. All entry level lenses have som weak areas. And most competitors seem to move to 14MP and 16MP which is fairly close to Canon's 18MP. 



tzalmagor said:


> The new EF 8-15mm f/4 lens, which is supposedly the fisheye lens for APS-C sensors, will cost about twice as much the older FF fisheye, I tend to think the first option is wrong.


You've just been complaining about poor quality EF-S lenses, then go on to complain about expensive ones. Quality costs, maybe Canon has decided to produce a good one? Anyway, it's a zoom lens, most fisheyes are not. It's not clear which lens you compare it with.


----------



## hsmeets (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml

About lenses and sensors.

What I understand from this is that in daily practice shooting at f8, f11, a sensor like the one as in the 5Dm2 starts to out resolve lenses.


----------



## J-Man (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

1DsIV @ 35-45MP
&
5DIII @ 25-35MP
Is fine with me as long as they release a 3D @ 18-21MP,
All I want is some options in the FF lineup,
Right now it's 21MP or 21MP or a crop sensor.


----------



## Orangutan (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

I'll jump in for no good reason, even though I'll never be able to afford a "flagship" camera.

Canon and Nikon could introduce new flagship models with much higher pixel counts right now, and still sell quite a few units. Although it's possible they're just selling down existing stock, it's also possible they've got bigger plans. Since it appears that Canon and Nikon have a "gentleman's agreement" not to step too far ahead of each other, they must both be worried about the competition. This means they'll both take big steps forward together. Seems that MF (i.e. larger than 36x24) is the most logical next step. They would also need new lenses to go with those new bodies. Fortunately, computers make lens design easier now. That might explain the slower introduction of new lenses to the FF lines.

Regarding a potential MF sensor, I'd like to propose a speculative feature and see what the "real pros" on this forum think about it (all three of you). For working studio, landscape or still-life photographers (not action shooters) how would you feel about a "circular" sensor that covers the full image circle illuminated by the lens? In reality, this would be a square sensor that covers that area, but all the corners would be dark all the time. Yes, the ring around the circumference would have distortions, depending on which lens you used. But *you*, not the camera, would decide which part of the image to keep. Of course, no vertical grip would be required. Yes, the larger sensor with wasted pixels would cost a bit extra, but for a "flagship" camera this is less important, and the lack of vertical grip would partially offset that added cost.

What say you, pros?

Orangutan.


----------



## traveller (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

hsmeets, your link provides some excellent information. You might also like R.N. Clark's essay on the subject:

http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html

A bit technical, but pay special attention to figure 13. This shows f/8 diffraction limits for various format sensors, vs. the pixel pitch. From this you can see that the current crop of APS-C sensors are already diffraction limited at f/8; APS-H can probably be increased to 20 MP+; full-frame sensors reach the limit at just over 30 MP. This is not to say that there is no benefit to increasing resolution beyond these limits, at larger apertures the greater detail resolved would be apparent (assuming the lens is capable of it!). There is always the trade-off that with greater number of 'pixels/sensels' per unit area (at a given technology level), inevitably comes poorer signal to noise ratios and dynamic range. 

So we must ask who would benefit from a full frame camera with a sensor resolution in the 40 MP+ range? Landscape photographers generally stop down for greater depth of field and so would encounter diffraction limitation. Sports and wildlife photographers need fast shutter speeds and so would appreciate a sensor with a higher signal to noise ratio. So that leaves portrait /event photographers who can't afford a medium format camera. With the new budget entrants into the medium format market, Canon and Nikon will find that there is even greater pressure on the prices they can charge for their flagship camera.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



hsmeets said:


> A 28-32mpx successor to the 5D sounds as it could really happen but not for the D700 and if nikon would release such camera it probably be more of something like a D3x "light".



Using your logic Nikon didn't just release the Nikon D7000. D7000 has more megapixels at a lower cost than a D300s so it really didn't happen.

*5D III vs D400*. If the 5D III is still just a full frame Rebel, Nikon will eat their lunch with a higher megapixel D700 replacement.


----------



## gkreis (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



traveller said:


> hsmeets, your link provides some excellent information. You might also like R.N. Clark's essay on the subject:
> 
> http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html
> 
> ...



Excellent points. The articles are over my head, but trusting their analysis, we can hope that the camera makers will see this 'wall' coming and not try to smash through it for some marketing reason.

I am anxious to see the Nikon D7000 image comparisons with the 7D/60D.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



traveller said:


> So we must ask who would benefit from a full frame camera with a sensor resolution in the 40 MP+ range? Landscape photographers generally stop down for greater depth of field and so would encounter diffraction limitation. Sports and wildlife photographers need fast shutter speeds and so would appreciate a sensor with a higher signal to noise ratio. So that leaves portrait /event photographers who can't afford a medium format camera. With the new budget entrants into the medium format market, Canon and Nikon will find that there is even greater pressure on the prices they can charge for their flagship camera.



Many Photojournalists use CaNikon Pro Bodies. Many Editorial photographers use CaNikon Pro Bodies. Many Advertising shooters use CaNikon Pro Bodies. Why aren't they part of your list???

BTW Diffraction Limitations are a bigger deal to Pixel Peeper than it is to Pro Photographers.


----------



## traveller (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

Fair points Mr Embrey, I didn't realise that my list was meant to be exhaustive. I am sure that there are groups of photographers that would value the added resolution at large apertures and low ISO. The point is that the list becomes smaller and smaller as the resolution goes up. 

BTW diffraction limitations are a bigger deal to those who want to make larger prints from their digital captures. If the laws of physics prevent you capturing more detail with a given lens/sensor format combination, why continue to increase pixel count?


----------



## spam (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

According to dpreview tests the Canon 20D (and 30D) has horizontal/vertical resolution of 1850/1650 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonEOS20D/page27.asp).

The corresponding numbers for Canon 7d are 2500/2450 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos7d/page28.asp)

This is around 35% improvement (linear) for horisontal resolution (and slightly better for vertical)

The 20D/30D has exactly the same pixel density as 1Ds Mk III and 5D Mk II (but a smaller sensor) and it would be reasonable to expect the same gain from a full frame sensor with 7D pixel denisty (18MP*2,6 which comes out to around 47MP). 

So, anyone happy with 7D image quality should certainly welcome a higher resolution full frame sensor.


----------



## peejay (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

a 22MP 5d III would be fine. Just make the colour, tonality and dynamic range better please.


----------



## hiplnsdrftr (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

I am in fact a professional photographer. I use 5D2 and 1Ds3... thats the limit of file size I want to deal with. Already, the hard drive space is kinda out of control! 

As much as I would love to use the new gear... i dont think I would upgrade due to the trouble of trying to store and handle the amount of drive space.

Just one of my jobs is about 7000 photos.


----------



## nocojoe (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

First of all, I am not in the market for Canon's 1D line, but i do have a 5D classic and I am looking to upgrade it. I shoot some portraits and landscapes, so diffraction limitation is something that interests me. And from some of the examples i have seen of the 7D when the shots get above f14 or so, it starts to worry me especially if I have a large print to make. 

Anyway, I hope that if Canon wants to push the megapixels more that it comes out with some sort of MF type camera to really get a nice IQ.


----------



## victorengel (Sep 25, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

This seems compatible with my analysis here:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1032&message=36434409

It would be nice to have a camera where sraw2 was 10-12 megapixels. That would mean full raw is 40-48 megapixels. Sraw1 is just a fake raw format. By that I mean it is interpolated.


----------



## blufox (Sep 26, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

We do not need a MP horse race result with Full frames.
If canon/nikon are so interested in jacking up MP, please go ahead by all means but then please manufacture MF sensors for that.

Full frame with 21MP is just fine, all we want is better ISO image, better dynamic range and good tonality.

Sigh... I will be dissapointed if Canikon produces a 30+ MP full frame with bad ISO performance.


----------



## tzalmagor (Sep 26, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



spam said:


> tzalmagor said:
> 
> 
> > The new EF 8-15mm f/4 lens, which is supposedly the fisheye lens for APS-C sensors, will cost about twice as much the older FF fisheye, I tend to think the first option is wrong.
> ...



Reducing things to black and white (usually sign of malice or having a blond moment) tends to produce ridiculus results the original writer did not intend.

To give an example, Canon's EF 100-400mm f4.5-5.6L IS USM costs >$1,500, and it's replacement would probably be even more expensive. This means I would buy the Sigma 150-500mm lens for $1,000.

This is not because Canon is incapable of producing non-L zoom to compete with the Sigma in focal length & price, but because Canon's policy is to produce either cheap EF-S lenses (in this case ending in 250mm) or expensive L zooms, creating a hole in it's lenses line.


----------



## spam (Sep 26, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



tzalmagor said:


> spam said:
> 
> 
> > tzalmagor said:
> ...



I agree with the 100-400 example. Something reasonably good with more than 300mm, preferably in the 400-500mm range would be nice. However, Canon has the range from around 18 to 300mm covered with both cheap and mid level lenses, By cheap one I mean 18-55 (IS), 55-200, 55-250 IS and the cheapest 75-300. Mid range is 15-85 IS, 17-55 IS and 70-300 IS and 70-200 L (non-IS). Below 18mm they could add something cheaper than the 10-22, but I'm not sure how cheap it would get, even Sigmas least expenisve 10-20mm isn't that inexpensive.


----------



## hsmeets (Sep 26, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



chrome_dude said:


> Excellent points. The articles are over my head, but trusting their analysis, we can hope that the camera makers will see this 'wall' coming and not try to smash through it for some marketing reason.



I guess "pixels sell" is the photographic version of "sex sells".

Looking at myself, my photography and my current camera and printer: I basically came to the conclusion that anything that is reasonably priced (around â‚¬ 2000), offers 20 - 24mpx, is usable up to 1600iso, can do 5 to 7 fps, basically covers my wants/needs for many many years to come. And those 24mpx are more or less just to get passed the "reasonable doubt" and nothing else. 

There are camera's today that fit my bill, but as 2011 seems to bring new ones and iI'm not in a hurry i'll wait and see what 2011 will bring. And then will not buy a new camera for maybe 10, 15 years (bar a total-loss defect).

Reading of customer that stop buying every camera thrown at them must be scaring the shit out of manufacturers.


----------



## unfocused (Sep 26, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand the logic that says a 5D Mark III needs to be released before a new flagship camera. 

Wouldn't Canon want the new flagship to showcase the latest and greatest technology? The 5D seems to still be pretty well positioned in the market now, so why rush to replace it? 

Not pretending to have any special insight, but it seems at least as likely that Canon would unveil a new flagship and leave the 5D Mark II out there for awhile.


----------



## Justin (Sep 27, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

Canon must refresh the 5D soon. Nikon will steal more market share without it. The 5d af and fps are crippled. It makes just as much sense to release a new pro ff as it does a new flagship. In anycase what I wish canon would do is remove the AA filter and focus on DR. 5-6 fps is great and 19-45 pt AF with the zones of the 7d will be expected. 

Other than that we need more lens updates.



unfocused said:


> Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't understand the logic that says a 5D Mark III needs to be released before a new flagship camera.
> 
> Wouldn't Canon want the new flagship to showcase the latest and greatest technology? The 5D seems to still be pretty well positioned in the market now, so why rush to replace it?
> 
> Not pretending to have any special insight, but it seems at least as likely that Canon would unveil a new flagship and leave the 5D Mark II out there for awhile.


----------



## rejames1 (Sep 27, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

Anyone care to speculate on what the initial $ might be on a 5d III body?


----------



## kubelik (Sep 27, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



rejames1 said:


> Anyone care to speculate on what the initial $ might be on a 5d III body?



lots of speculation going on about that already. everybody's ideal scenario is that it costs as much as the 5D Mark II did on release: $2699. there is some precedent for this possibility, given that the 5DII cost less than the original 5D on release.

however, given the pricing trends of the latest batches of canon lenses, and the state of the yen-dollar exchange rate, it does seem a little optimistic. clearly, the price also depends on how revolutionary the camera is in terms of specs and tech (which would relate back to how high a price Canon feels it needs to set in order to recoup R+D costs).

I'm expecting it to drop for $3000 to $3300. we've seen estimates by others on this forum that range as high as $4K. I'm willing to bet it will fall in that overall range, between $2700 and $4000, but definitely leaning more toward the 3 grand amount, rather than the high end.


----------



## spam (Sep 27, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



rejames1 said:


> Anyone care to speculate on what the initial $ might be on a 5d III body?



It will depend on so many factors that it's impossible to say, including what the competiton do. Right now there isn't much direct competition. The Sony A850/A900 is closest with higher resolution, but no video mode. D700 has only 12MP, but is otherwise a better camera. I'd expect Canon to increase pixel count, and improve frames per second and AF slightly. They might base it on either 7D or 60D, personally I'd guess 60D and it would be great if they could get a FF into that body. Given these parameters I'd guess a price a bit over 7D, somewhere in the $2000-$2500 range depending on how much of the 7D they use.


----------



## spam (Sep 27, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



kubelik said:


> rejames1 said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone care to speculate on what the initial $ might be on a 5d III body?
> ...



Almost all models so far has started cheaper or worst case same price as the previous one did.


----------



## kubelik (Sep 28, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



spam said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > rejames1 said:
> ...



that would make me hugely happy if the 5DIII clocked in below $2699 ... to the point that I would consider upgrading immediately

Almost all models so far have started cheaper or worst case same price as the previous one did.


----------



## ronderick (Sep 28, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



kubelik said:


> spam said:
> 
> 
> > kubelik said:
> ...



I think that the 5DIII will remain at the same price range as the previous models, simply because there's too many competitors in the same block (aka D700-next-gen). 

Profit? They problably regain it through those updated-and-expenseive lenses. ;D

I think if Canon can fix the AF (at least on par with one in the 7D) and boost the viewfinder's coverage to 100-percent, it would be an ideal FF model for most people. While FPS may be a bit slow, I could live with it if it maintains the high MP count.


----------



## Stuart (Sep 28, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



hsmeets said:


> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
> 
> About lenses and sensors.
> 
> What I understand from this is that in daily practice shooting at f8, f11, a sensor like the one as in the 5Dm2 starts to out resolve lenses.


So all this improvement is just for better cropping / digital zooming?


----------



## kubelik (Sep 28, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

ronderick, you bring up a good point, and a huge question in my mind: to what extent are camera bodies merely loss leaders? anybody here actually within the industry or familiar with the business?


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 28, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



blufox said:


> Sad, so we are going to see DSLRs go the pixel race way...


Shocking! A megapixel war! Quick, somebody put a rumor rating on this one!


----------



## hsmeets (Sep 28, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



Stuart said:


> hsmeets said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/resolution.shtml
> ...



Nope, I suspect it's more marketing driven, it's like we dutch say a pissing contest, who covers the biggest distance is winner.

Given current 5Dmk2 specs it would take little effort to create a mk3 that would cover my needs for many, many years to come. I think that scares the shit out of Canon/Nikon: that users stop with buying anything thrown at them as the camera's are just fine for what they are. 

And frankly, if such canon (or nikon) materialises next year I actually will stop buying camera's for a long time.


----------



## Justin (Sep 28, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

Buying a camera every year or two is too much for most people. But it's taken awhile for the technology to get to a point where people want to wait so long between upgrades. In a perfect world Canon would differentiate its products enough so that people would want to own and hold onto multiple cameras. An aps-c mirrorless camera system. A aps-c fast system. A full frame and fast enough system. A super high resolution medium format system. 

I could see owning several of these cameras and systems of lenses if they were all available to me. I'd probably own three. The mirrorless, the fast aps-c for sports, wildlife and reach, and the medium format for fine art attempts and landscape. Unfortunately these don't exist. What I am trying to say is that Canon can mitigate any resistance to upgrade by offering compelling alternatives for different types of shooting and shooting styles. 





hsmeets said:


> Stuart said:
> 
> 
> > hsmeets said:
> ...


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Sep 29, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



hsmeets said:


> And frankly, if such canon (or nikon) materialises next year I actually will stop buying camera's for a long time.


Nikon is on record saying that they will strive in the future (after their last 10MP professional camera, which was out a while ago) for a 'better balance of ISO and resolution' (paraphrase).

Enjoy your vacation!

The extra MP does have its drawbacks (namely fewer pictures on your media, more hard drives to buy, and a bit more time processing images) but there are some good points too.

Right now I'm more interested in better metering, autofocus, ISO performance (which has been demonstrated to improve as sensor density increases, more than just a coincidence), and DR.

More megapixels can serve just to magnify problems. Take a blurry picture on an APS-C camera because of slow ISO sensitivity and a poor non-stabilized lens...move it to full frame and the blur isn't reduced at all (per pixel, assuming pixels are the same size), and add more pixels and you just can see "deeper" into the mess. Unfortunately I've found that's the most usual case.

But when things go right - you have a fast shutter speed or you have an adequate setup (IS lens, tripod), the extra pixels should help.

Of course, using old lenses from before 2000 probably isn't the best thing for sheer accuracy. But I'm limited in what I can say from personally having used two primes and a super-cheap film zoom. I remain as interested as ever in newer designs though.

It is interesting to look at high ISOs though. Higher ISO sensitivity comes at no weight cost, unlike faster lenses, and the ISO improvements are ramping up faster than maximum apertures (which of course aren't getting faster because manufacturers assume they aren't as important with digital cameras). But I feel that especially for consumer cameras and lenses, the combination of sensitivity and available "consumer-priced" lenses currently is a bit too slow for really sharp images. But it's improving quickly. I'd love to get my hands on a 60D but I'm afraid that only full frame cameras have the ISO I'd like, in the immediate future.


----------



## tzalmagor (Nov 30, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

The issues Edwin Herdman mentioned are important to me.

I don't want to spend my money on larger & faster memory cards, or computer with faster CPU, more RAM, and more hard disks, to process extra pixels I have no need of. I want to spend my money on lenses and cameras, which is - AFAIK - what Canon sells to it's customers.

As example, rather than buy a new computer, I'd rather buy a new 35/2 lens with USM and better diaphragm to improve bokeh.


----------



## lbloom (Nov 30, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

Releasing a 5d mkIII should bump down the price of the mkII, right? Make that more accessible to the commoner


----------



## jouster (Dec 2, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*



hiplnsdrftr said:


> I am in fact a professional photographer. I use 5D2 and 1Ds3... thats the limit of file size I want to deal with. Already, the hard drive space is kinda out of control!
> 
> As much as I would love to use the new gear... i dont think I would upgrade due to the trouble of trying to store and handle the amount of drive space.
> 
> Just one of my jobs is about 7000 photos.



Seagate will sell you an internal 1TB HD for $45. Wouldn't there be room for a couple of those in a 7000 photo job budget?


----------



## macfly (Dec 15, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*

Yep, tell me about it, most of my work is P65 these days, and since going all digi in 04 I'm sitting on about 40TB at the mo, and its growing fast!


----------



## stark-arts (Dec 16, 2010)

*Re: Canon & Nikon Flagships in 2011*


The new EF 8-15mm f/4 lens, which is supposedly the fisheye lens for APS-C sensors, will cost about twice as much the older FF fisheye, I tend to think the first option is wrong.
[/quote]

its the L fisheye - not the apsc fisheye - not sure why you think that. it's a new interesting lens that gives full frame users the choice of circular and rectilinear fisheye in same lens....


----------

