# The Future of the 1Ds & 5D Lines [CR2]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 1, 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/2011/05/the-future-of-the-1ds-5d-lines-cr2/" 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/2011/05/the-future-of-the-1ds-5d-lines-cr2/"></a></div>
<strong>Happiness coming?

</strong>Iâ€™m told there will be a shakeup in the Canon lineup by the end of 2011.</p>
<p><strong>1Ds Series

</strong>Weâ€™ve talked about the amalgamation of the 1D and 1Ds line in the past, the next 1Ds may prove to make that talk a reality. Iâ€™m told that there will be no more 1D after the next 1Ds.</p>
<p>Does that mean the next 1Ds will do what the current 1D does? Or will the 1D Mark IV remain current until a 1Ds Mark V? Iâ€™m unsure at the moment.</p>
<p>It was also suggested APS-H in the EOS line is finished.</p>
<p><strong>â€œ5Dâ€ Series

</strong>I call it â€œseriesâ€ due to the suggestion of a split in the 5D lineup.</p>
<p>A 5D Mark III with advanced video features and a 5D Mark III for stills?</p>
<p>Canon has yet to directly monetize video capabilities in DSLRs. Yes, the 5D2 is a bigtime video performer, but the camera wouldnâ€™t cost less if it didnâ€™t shoot video. If Canon does away with the 1D line of cameras, there will be a price hole that a video feature rich camera could fit into.</p>
<p><strong>CRâ€™s Take

</strong>All plausible and Iâ€™m sure I will hear a lot more about these ideas. It doesnâ€™t make sense in my mind to have 2 EOS-1 bodies in the lineup, the number of these they sell compared to the 5D Mark II isÃ‚ minuscule.</p>
<p>I wonder about technology though, can you offer a 9fps+ capability in a 30+mp camera? Thereâ€™s lots of technical people that know better than I do.</p>
<p>Splitting the â€œ5″ series camera for stills and video has been asked for by a lot of still photographers who donâ€™t care about video. You wonâ€™t see a 5D Mark III still camera with basic video features costing less than the current 5D Mark II, but a 5D Mark III with advanced video features will surely attract a lot of buyers even if itâ€™s at a premium.</p>
<p>Iâ€™m willing to wager Canon could sell a lot more 5D Mark III â€œvideo editionsâ€ than 1D Mark Vs.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong>
```


----------



## max (Jun 1, 2011)

Seems very possible to have a 5D mark III at the same price cost as the older one for stills with the same video functions but 720p 60fps, and a 5D mark III video for 3000-3500...

And where can I find the market share of each canon camera in the canon lineup?? Does this info exist?


----------



## AG (Jun 1, 2011)

The way these companies segregate their product lines makes no sense to me sometimes.

What would make sense would be for them to do something along the following.

*FULL FRAME SENSORS*
1D series - 1 camera top of the line Pro shooting ALL the bells and whistles.
5D series - 1 camera aimed at the semi pro shooter (no video)
7D series - 1 camera, this is now the video DSLR, ALL the positive features of the 5D plus 1080p video, headphone jack, mic connectors, accurate HDMI out etc

*CROP SENSORS*
60D series - 1 camera pretty much what we have atm
600D series - 1 camera again same as we currently have.
1100D series - 1 camera, My first DSLR style camera. 

This way the crop sensor cameras are now relegated to the lower rung. 
It would also mean that FF shooters can downgrade to say the 60D and still use their L series lenses, but not the other way around being that the crops use EF-s by default.

To me streamlining the cameras like this makes sense because then you know that the cameras are built to a specific spec and not a price point.

And YES i know that some pro's like shooting on crop sensors, they still can.


----------



## HughHowey (Jun 1, 2011)

AG: I like where you're going with this.


----------



## fernando (Jun 1, 2011)

Count me in for the 'video edition' of the 5D


----------



## alipaulphotography (Jun 1, 2011)

Pretty interesting AG. Should probably arrange the 7D between the 1D and the 5D with your proposed product line.

A video camera and a stills camera isn't such a bad idea. I'm still quite fond of basic video features in my dslr though with stills being my primary.


----------



## Justin (Jun 1, 2011)

So I'm perfectly in agreement on your take on the 1Ds and 1D lines, Craig, but I question why Canon would start to monetize video at this stage when it's been added to every Canon dslr camera released recently. The only thing that would differentiate the 5D line would be some kind of super enhanced video shooting qualities, 60p, 4,2,2, raw codec in one body and just regular old 1080p with standard codec in another. 

That alone still doesn't seem like enough to make a difference. Sensor technology, AF tech, processing engines, viewfinders, and body construction are the current standard differentiators between the lines. I just don't' see that changing any time soon. 

My wishlist for the 5D series would be to keep it as one body; they could call it something creative like the 5D3. Give it a 32 mpx or thereabouts sensor with improved dynamic range and improved high iso (better by 1 stop than the 5D2, clean iso 6400 please). Weaken the AA filter please. How about dynamic 1.6 and 1.3 crop? Give it a decent AF engine with enough AF points, and for heaven's sake make more than one point as accurate as the center point on the 5D2. Take us to 5fps. Make it fully weather sealed. 100% viewfinder and throw in a high res 3.2 in lcd to boot. One digic 5 processor could power the rig. $3500

My wishlist for the 1Ds line would be to make it more like medium format with upgradeable sensor technology. Body upgrades could come every 7-10 years. Back upgrades 2-3 years. Three nice dense sensor options to the tune of 32mpx, 40mpx, and 50mpx. Significantly weaken the AA filter please. Fast AF, fast fps, dynamic 1.3 and 1.6 crop. How about 10 fps in dynamic crop mode and 6 in full frame mode? Make it rugged, even with the replaceable back (Canon could accomplish this with a sealed recessed design). Give us a huge 3.5 in. high density pixel lcd touch screen and call it a day. Two digic 5 processors could power the rig. $6500 $7700 $8900


----------



## justicend (Jun 1, 2011)

Okay Here is the point. If 5D is going two version for STILLs and Video. If serious photographers don't want advance video features. Then why would videographers want the STILLs features ? Why simply Canon doesnt make interchangeble big sensor camcorder with name "5D" on it. So EF lens can be used with it. And sensor size can be reduced, cause video aspect ratio does not require 36 x 24. Other companies are already with this idea. Good Luck Canon.


----------



## ddg1263 (Jun 1, 2011)

Maybe the 5d series line will split by adding a new 3d line that was rumored months ago. On one rumor, they had the price list of a 3D as being very expensive. And if they reorganize the 1D line too they may collapse some features of the 1D mark IV into the 3D line and pump up the video operations. This may be the low light high ISO camera too. 

So the New 1DS will be the studio camera with high megapixels and the flagship camera.

3D will be the field camera with low light capacity and above average video capacity.

5D will be just stills with standard video features. 

Kind of like they are now but it will set the platform for further R & D for each product where they could specialize in their respective development. 

I donâ€™t know anything but it sounds good if you say it really fast!


----------



## gene_can_sing (Jun 1, 2011)

As a video guy who want a Full Frame video camera (5d3), I think it's best to split the the 5d3. Because one cannot really exist with the other, and have an ideal camera.

Many stills people hate video, and the video people don't want a really high Mega-Pixel because that's what causes line-skipping and aliasing in video.

I would be happy with a 5D3 video enhanced that would max out at 12 mega-pixels or even less to prevent heavy line-skipping. I think many video people would be fine with that also.

I also think this is smart for Canon because the video thing is moving so fast that they cannot wait another 4 years (like they have with Digic 4) to update their video cameras. That way, the video 5D3 can be independent from the stills, and evolve at a different pace. Still cameras are harder to evolve because they are already so good. DSLR Video on the other hand, is pretty new, especially full frame video.

That way to Video edition can have the 4:2:2 codec and maybe RAW output to a recorder, which would be amazing and Slow Motion

That way Canon can keep up with the competition which is heavy from Panasonic and Sony.

Plus, they would probably sell more cameras this way.

So if you're reading this Canon, you have my blessing to split the 5D3 line. Hehe....


----------



## Admin US West (Jun 1, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> So if you're reading this Canon, you have my blessing to split the 5D3 line. Hehe....



One of the things that appeals to many photographers is not having to carry two cameras around, when you can have one that does both stills and videos.

A camcorder is the thing to get for videos only, Canon needs to produce one with FF.

But, for PJ's, wedding photographers, those who would like to occasionally include a video clip anlong with their stills, both features need to be in one camera.

That is not lost on Canon, so, while they might produce a $65,000 FF video camera like the Red, a full featured video DSLR for $2600 is not likely. Canon will merely add a few upgrades, as little as they can get away with.


----------



## ronderick (Jun 1, 2011)

Good to hear that things are starting to move towards a more reasonable mid-tier/prosumer product line up and the simplification of the 1D/Ds line.

However, what I am worried about is the price of the single 1D-line model that will inherit both the speed of the 1D and the photo quality of the 1Ds. Will it remain at the USD 5,000 range or will Canon choose the USD 7,000 neighborhood? :-\

Frankly, I hope the standard flagship will remain at the 1D/D3s level....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 1, 2011)

AG said:


> The way these companies segregate their product lines makes no sense to me sometimes.
> 
> What would make sense would be for them to do something along the following.
> 
> ...



Ugh don't like the idea at all of either a slow slug and video or speed and no video. Makes no sense anyway since the digics to handle high quality video well would also be what you need to drive high fps, high quality stills.

And how much did video add to the 5D2 cost?? Development, but that gets spread across them all. The h.264 encoder chip is about all I can see in added parts. Ridiculous! Although I wouldn't put it past Canon marketing division to make something up.
I suppose if they made one with RAW video out perhaps that might increase costs a bit especially if it did 4k video too.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 1, 2011)

justicend said:


> Okay Here is the point. If 5D is going two version for STILLs and Video. If serious photographers don't want advance video features. Then why would videographers want the STILLs features ? Why simply Canon doesnt make interchangeble big sensor camcorder with name "5D" on it. So EF lens can be used with it. And sensor size can be reduced, cause video aspect ratio does not require 36 x 24. Other companies are already with this idea. Good Luck Canon.



yeah, i mean the whole point is that it can do BOTH well, otherwise how is the new video 5D3 much different from a video camera? maybe it takes a few stills but maybe it also has bad video ergonomics. I don't get this at all.

this isn't the split people have been clamoring for


----------



## t.linn (Jun 1, 2011)

I find it frustrating that Canon refuses to do the one thing that folks have been asking for since before the 5D2: create a 5D3 that has not just a "pro" label but actual pro features like 100% viewfinder, more than a 3-frame bracket, more than +/-2 EV exposure comp, true robust weather sealing, decent frame rate, true auto-ISO in manual mode. Why not that, Canon?!?


----------



## shOo (Jun 1, 2011)

Why canon can't for once just release a fast fullframe camera. Nikon done it years ago. If I need FF and fast frame rate, accurate AF I can't get that even if I buy the most expensive canon.


----------



## axismundi (Jun 1, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> I wonder about technology though, can you offer a 9fps+ capability in a 30+mp camera?



Well, I think a practical solution would be 
a single 1D model, 30 MP, shooting 10 fps with e.g. 12 MP and e.g. 3 fps with the full 30 MP.
I think this would make all customer quite happy.


----------



## mreco99 (Jun 1, 2011)

For the first time, i am starting to think id rather get a 5d2 
If i read correctly, suggestion is a 5d3 with no video for similar price as the 5d2, and there might be a 5d3 with enhanced video for more money.
Who knows, we'll see when its all announced.

I want basic video in my next camera, ive spent too long with the canon 450d and no video option to know that just sometimes it would be nice to have.

Im waiting for the 5d3 but im not paying a premium for enhanced video, and i wont be getting a FF camera without any video option.

in fact ive just remembered, im not tied to canon yet, i think i should check out what Nikon have to offer.


----------



## macgregor mathers (Jun 1, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> As a video guy who want a Full Frame video camera (5d3), I think it's best to split the the 5d3. Because one cannot really exist with the other, and have an ideal camera.



I 2nd that, to a degree.

Every pocket camera today has video capabilities, because most photographers want to take video clips as well. A 5D-stills camera would need to offer at least as much. Beyond that, I agree that pro video features should go to a separate camera.


----------



## NXT1000 (Jun 1, 2011)

i doubt canon will split 5d3 into video and non video. 
no way i will believe it, until i see the press release.


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 1, 2011)

* every DSLR they release from now on is going to have video, there's no point in disabling it, they don't save any money by doing that

* the video improvement I want most for the next generation of canon DSLRs, which is also the one that's most likely to happen, is a switch to a decent resampling algorithm (read: no more line-skipping, and therefore reasonable amounts of aliasing/moire; panasonic has done that already; canon should go there too, soon)

* the additional video improvements above that call not just for a split in a DSLR model, but for a completely different form factor: a real video camera; you can't get inbuilt ND filters, XLR inputs, and dedicated buttons, in a DSLR body; getting rid of the mirror and allowing for a bigger body will do the trick

* in any case, given how good the sony FS100 is, and given it sells for $5K, they can't go much higher than that in a DSLR form factor (yes, the sensor is bigger, but you also lose a lot of features by sticking to a DSLR body)


----------



## NXT1000 (Jun 1, 2011)

Splitting the â€œ5″ series camera for stills and video has been asked for by a lot of still photographers who donâ€™t care about video.

these people should be put in front of firing squad and shot.


----------



## mreco99 (Jun 1, 2011)

NXT1000 said:


> Splitting the â€œ5″ series camera for stills and video has been asked for by a lot of still photographers who donâ€™t care about video.
> 
> these people should be put in front of firing squad and shot.



save me a gun....


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 1, 2011)

So here's my take on the situation:

currently:
1ds3 - ff, highest mp, decent fps, best af, best high iso, built like a tank w grip, f8 focussing.

1d4 - apsh, medium mp, highest fps, best af, best high iso, built like a tank w grip, f8 focussing.

5d2 - ff, highest mp, medium-low fps, decent af, best high iso, (weathersealed?), no grip, f5 focussing.

7d - apsc, medium-high mp, medium-high fps, medium-high af, decent high iso, weathersealed, no grip, f5 focussing

60d - apsc, medium-high mp, medium-low fps, medium af, generally reduced features of 7d.

550/600d - reduced features of 60d

1100d - My-First-Dslr.



so what if they merge the 1d & 1ds? and simultaneous with splitting the 5d lines?
i like the idea of:
1d5/1ds4, whatever it's called - ff, highest mp (maybe 30-40?), decent fps in ff mode, highest fps in apsh/apsc crop mode (don't nikons do this?), best af, best high iso, built like a tank w grip, f8 focussing, dual digic, best high iso.

3d - the "pro-video" version of the 5d3. fixed pellicle mirror, full time video af, raw video, (4k video??), maybe pushing the price tag of the 1d line, but well above the 5d3. rest of specs as 5d3 below, (dual digic?), best high iso.

5d3 - ff, high mp (30mp? depending how high the 1d goes), decent af (as current 7d, 19cross, or better, not as good as 1d5), lower fps than 7d, higher than 70d, f5 focussing, no grip, single digic, best high iso. video performance as 600d now, [email protected], digital zoom, slowish video af as now.

7d2 - apsc, medium high mp (25ish?), ~7 fps, 2nd best af (same or better than 5d3), decent high iso (similar to 7d vs 5d2 performance).

70d and lower - cut-down versions of 7d2, with worse af/fps/specs & features accordingly. maybe keep the current 18mp sensor for now to boost sales of 7d2, depending on release order.


with this scenario, release dates? i'm still going for 1ds3-replacement, if it's called 1ds4 or what, being the next thing out. no way they'll bring out a 5d3 with the same sensor as the 1ds4 first. if we see a 5d3 first, then the 1ds4 is going to have much higher mp.

I'm definitely thinking that the most likely scenario will be 7d2/70d/650d all will share the same sensor and progressively reduced features. no way they'll bring out a 70d or 650d with >18mp before a 7d2. and it follows on from there, 7d2 trickles to a later 70d and later 650d (if 650d is before 70d, then it will have 18mp sensor and 70d will have the same as 7d2, or somewhere between 18mp and 7d2 sensor). It makes more economic sense to have the same sensor for lots of models, economies of scale etc.

we're almost at the limits of most lens' resolutions as it is (my 70-300 non-L worked fine on a 350d at release time, on my 7d it's just fuzzy. sold it to my sis and i'm buying the L version on the weekend). so we're not going to see the leaps and bounds of the sensor resolution we have recently.

my hope? add 1 or 2 bits of dynamic range for the 1d line, keep it the same mp as the 3/5d line just HDR. that'll get your pros buying them like they're going out of fashion...


----------



## austinmaniac (Jun 1, 2011)

personally, i'd like to see a higher sync speed. it's what currently separates dslr and medium format. 1/250 just doesn't cut it for stopping action.


----------



## lol (Jun 1, 2011)

If I were head of Canon going for a two model 5D3 approach, I'd make one photo-centric. Pretty much as we know the 5D2 but generally "improved" all round. It will include video in a similar way to the 5D2. The 5D3-V for lack of a better name would share the majority of the core electronics, but repackaged in a much more video friendly form factor, whatever that will be. It may or may not do stills too, but if so it would be very secondary.


----------



## tomscott (Jun 1, 2011)

In my opinion anyone who is a serious professional videographer wont use a DSLR and will use a video camera from a professional range. I know you get the enhanced depth of field, with the EF system, but by the time you have bought the extra equipment like a shoulder harness and all the other stuff that makes a DSLR like a pro video camera you are spending nearly double what a pro video camera would cost. Not forgetting it has serious flaws like zooming etc

I think the video thing has got out of hand, especially for them to create two cameras, one for and one without!! Most stupid idea i have ever heard! Even with the advanced video features, will it be worth the price hike? And a DSLR in the line up in the Â£2000 without video... people see features as a bonus, removing would be a mistake. The DSLR is designed for stills not video, ergonomically and lens wise... there is no digital zoom. Its just a nice extra that people can use when needed. Yes it has been used in the pro scene with good effect but surely a new range of camera would be a better way of marketing this. With better ergonomic features put more towards video professionals and can use the EF system. Its a 50/50 opinion because still is really important but for a videographer maybe not but its the same the other way round its nice to have high quality stills from video... so...

I just dont think the DSLR market isthe right one to implement in on professionally! A new homologation camera type would make more sense. Leave the video on the DSLRs for people that want to use it but create a newer market that is based on the EF system but aimed more toward video.

In my opinion the 5D is a slow camera for a niche market, the cameras speed allows you to stop compose and think about what you are shooting just like a medium format film camera did in the day. Is a homologation model what people want, then i feel a new re-branded faster full frame camera would be better marketing than a 5D split. I think that it would confuse people as canons range already does, too many cameras with similar features. They really need to split the range and have a real reason for people to spend the extra cash. The difference between the 60D and the 7D is micro adjust, weather sealing and more points. But for the 50D owners it is a serious downgrade for the same price and the 7D doesnt add much (more MP and new AF on a 50D) and an extra Â£400!! its obserd, in my opinion the 7D is what the newer 50D should have been. Its a joke.

Pro
1D 
3D (Fast full frame camera, new 1ds without the price tag and size. A suped up 7D say 22mp)
5D (Similar to now with the improvements noted AF 30mp etc)

Semi
7D (APC version of the 3D)
60D (better version of the amateur model)

Amateur
600D
1100D

My 2 cent, i love canon products but the direction they are going in their product planning, direction and brand awareness is becoming very poor. A real shake up needs to happen, but as features get better, technology becomes available and socially accepted as the norm it is harder to distinguish the range. Which is why i think a newer type of camera needs to come into being. Help distinguish the features and become more specialist towards the needs of users in the EF format.


----------



## polpaulin (Jun 1, 2011)

I am waiting for a PRO 1Ds , no AA filter , new sensor, no video, watever the price but a PRO camera


----------



## unfocused (Jun 1, 2011)

> Canon has yet to directly monetize video capabilities in DSLRs.



What does that even mean? And, this is a CR2 Source? There's no "meat" to this rumor, just repeating things we've heard before with a little pseudo-business speak thrown in to make it sound authoritative.

Canon is selling a whole lot of DSLRs with video capability. The cost of including video is minimal and it greatly expands their sales potential. In addition, it's added to their prestige and marketing (Look at all the publicity they got from one "House" episode). I would say they have "monetized" video capabilities pretty well so far.


----------



## motorhead (Jun 1, 2011)

axismundi said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I wonder about technology though, can you offer a 9fps+ capability in a 30+mp camera?
> ...



It would not satisfy me and I suggest its shelf life would be very limited. 30MP was withdrawn by Canon if we are to believe the rumours because it was already yesterdays news.

And just to add to the video versus non video debate thats sprung up. I am a stills photographer and will never shoot video even if I'm forced to have it on the camera. I firmly believe that those who want video should buy a video camera designed for the purpose not con the rest of us into paying for something we don't want. And before anyone tells me (yet again) that its not costing me anything - Thats nonsense, we are all paying the R&D and production costs whether we like it or not as things are. Its about time the costs are born by those who want it.


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 1, 2011)

tomscott said:


> In my opinion anyone who is a serious professional videographer wont use a DSLR and will use a video camera from a professional range. I know you get the enhanced depth of field, with the EF system, but by the time you have bought the extra equipment like a shoulder harness and all the other stuff that makes a DSLR like a pro video camera you are spending nearly double what a pro video camera would cost. Not forgetting it has serious flaws like zooming etc



all I read there was: "I'm not a videographer, I really have no idea about that market"

* "professional videographer" and "zooming" should never be in the same sentence

* "a pro video camera" comparable to a DSLR starts at $5K (without lenses)

* you've been out of the planet for the last two ryears, right?

* you know black swan had a scene shot with DSLRs? and that George Lucas' Red Tails also used DSLRs? and both of them in situations where the existence of cameras like the sony F3 or FS100 (or the Sony CineAlta F35, which was the main camera in Red Tails) is irrelevant (Black Swan used the DSLRs to shoot in the underground, without permits; in Red Tails, DSLRs were put inside the cabins of WW2 planes; in both cases, the size of a DSLR was deemed more important than the ergonomics of a real videocamera)

the rest of your post, though, is pretty sensible (e.g. the 50D vs 60D vs 7D part, but also the bit about a dedicated videocamera being more likely than a video-centric DSLR); it's just that the beginning cried for a "duty calls" post:
http://xkcd.com/386/


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 1, 2011)

NormanBates said:


> tomscott said:
> 
> 
> > In my opinion anyone who is a serious professional videographer wont use a DSLR and will use a video camera from a professional range. I know you get the enhanced depth of field, with the EF system, but by the time you have bought the extra equipment like a shoulder harness and all the other stuff that makes a DSLR like a pro video camera you are spending nearly double what a pro video camera would cost. Not forgetting it has serious flaws like zooming etc
> ...



+1... dont forget scenes shots in the TV show "house" and even a few scenes in avatar if i'm not mistaken. There is always a place for compact video cameras. It's not of the quality of a "red" camera, but for what it is, it's not a shabby performer. In the end I'd rather have that option in my bag rather than differ all video related jobs to someone else and lose money and a potential client.


----------



## tomscott (Jun 1, 2011)

Ok then give me a few more examples, in my opinion those were almost experiments and for specific uses where they were seen as better in specific situations where a bigger camera wasnt suited not replacements 'yes we can..." but should you? Otherwise the whole industry would use them. Just because there are a few examples doesn't mean they are accepted as an industry standard. Canon was probably a partner and "see if you can" as good publicity comes to mind. The cameras were only used in specific situations they were not seen as a replacement. 

Once you add a lens to the 5D say a 24-70mm or a prime your looking at Â£1000-1500 then the shoulder harness Â£1500 and a mic kit and your looking at Â£5000+. What i meant by zooming was that if you are using a zoom lens the shudder you get from zooming is not aesthetic compared to an electronic digital zoom. At the end of the day my comment concluded at a homologation model with the rumours of new video EF lenses. 

Anyone serious about video would choose something like the XL2 orXH G1s.


----------



## kencathy (Jun 1, 2011)

Canon should think twice about bifurcating the 5d mk iii with a pricier twin. There are alternatives, and we'd hate to lose a Canon devotee to a competitor!


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 1, 2011)

tomscott said:


> Ok then give me a few more examples, in my opinion those were almost experiments and for specific uses where they were seen as better in specific situations where a bigger camera wasnt suited not replacements 'yes we can..." but should you? Otherwise the whole industry would use them. Just because there are a few examples doesn't mean they are accepted as an industry standard. Canon was probably a partner and "see if you can" as good publicity comes to mind. The cameras were only used in specific situations they were not seen as a replacement.
> 
> Once you add a lens to the 5D say a 24-70mm or a prime your looking at Â£1000-1500 then the shoulder harness Â£1500 and a mic kit and your looking at Â£5000+. What i meant by zooming was that if you are using a zoom lens the shudder you get from zooming is not aesthetic compared to an electronic digital zoom. At the end of the day my comment concluded at a homologation model with the rumours of new video EF lenses.
> 
> Anyone serious about video would choose something like the XL2 orXH G1s.



Or an XA10 or XF100 camcorder, which are roughly similar to the 7D and 5D in price, except that the camcorders include a 10X zoom lens. I would suggest that posters who think that the 5D2 is a great video camera should download and read the user manual to the XF100/XF105, just to see what you're missing.


----------



## UncleFester (Jun 1, 2011)

The 5D II performs well enough in video to where many won't upgrade to III if the autofocus problem isn't fixed for stills. That's the 5D's biggest problem. I won't upgrade until I'm confident this problem has been resolved and will out-perform the II.

I'm not going to hold my breath.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Jun 1, 2011)

It so obvious from reading these comments that the 5D3 need to be SPLIT into a regular edition with some video, and a optimized video edition. People can't really seem to meet in the middle. It's like Democrats and Republicans.

Think of it this way. A video editor and a 3D animator both buy the newest Macintosh. The video guy is probably going to buy a graphics card optimized for video and video capture and export (very expensive cards). The 3D guy is probably going to buy a graphics card that is optimized for 3D. The same computer, but optimized for different disciplines. It's really no different with cameras. 

A big part of why the 5D2 was so successful was because of the video. I work in TV in LA, and everyone I know (and there are many), bought the 5D / 7D mainly for the video.

The market is evolving, and Canon needs to change with it.

Still photographers don't want the video and Video people don't need a huge mega-pixel count because it causes aliasing and line-skipping. As a video guy, I would be happy to have a 5d3 that took great video and good stills, but I don't need a 30 mega pixel image. That's way over kill for me. The opposite probably applies to a Still photographer.

As for the argument of "just go buy a video camera," that is such and OLD and DATED way of looking at things. That just sounds like something my Dad would say. Look at the new RED Epic, it's pretty small and not like a convential video camera. Try shooting cameras like the Red or the Panasonic AF 101 handheld. It doesn't work very well as it always needs some type of support because the size and ergonomic are terrible for hand held.

The small size of the DSLR's are it greatest strength. If you wanted to, you can use a cage and attache a monitor, a good mic to a good recorder, a matte box, a different handle, etc.... But if you want it just the bare basic camera for those stealth Subway shots in Black Swan, it's good for that too. It's as big as you want and as small as you want. Something that just CANNOT be done with current video cameras that are huge and have everything built in.

The DSLRs have their place in video for sure, especially when you need a small, portable camera which is great if you are shooting solo or with a small crew. James Cameron said in a recent interview that he's shooting an entire feature using 5Ds. So yeah, DSLR video is here to stay.

I think the Red Epic and the Scarlet and the DSLRs, all small cameras, are the way of the future. Who wants to film with a giant video camera when you can eventually have something that would do the same thing, but fits in one hand? I certainly don't. 

But it's obvious that Canon cannot make both camps happy, so they should just do 2 versions of the 5d3.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2011)

Canon Rumors said:


> Iâ€™m told that there will be no more 1D after the next 1Ds.



Previously, you were told (also CR2?) that there would not be a next 1Ds.



Canon Rumors said:


> Iâ€™m told there will be a shakeup in the Canon lineup by the end of 2011.



A shakeup in the lineup? How does a MkIII of anything represent a shakeup? By definition, a Mk# release is an incremental improvement in an existing product (as are the equivalent increments in the xxD and xxxD lines). The 1D was a shakeup - it was digital. The 5D was a shakeup - 'affordable FF in a small body'. The 7D was a shakeup - near-1D frame rates in an APS-C format. If this was about a 3D or a 9D, we could talk shakeup.

I fully expect there to be a 1DsIV, then a 5DIII, then a 7DII. The next shakeup is a few years away.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> The market is evolving, and Canon needs to change with it.



That's just it. Canon seems to lag quite a bit behind in their evolution. Not that they're using stone knives and bear skins, but they don't have a history of 'skating to where the puck's going.' I think they put video into the 5DII and were caught by surprise at the outcome. Three short years is not enough for them to catch up to the crest of that wave (or quite likely, they'll not want to risk doing so).


----------



## gene_can_sing (Jun 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> gene_can_sing said:
> 
> 
> > The market is evolving, and Canon needs to change with it.
> ...



I totally agree with you. Canon is tragically conservative. The success of the 5D2 was basically an accident because of the video. Canon totally didn't anticipate it.

They are the major camera company now, but if they don't start innovating again, they are going to lose to Sony and Panasonic who are very hungry and coming up with many modern and innovative products.

Not so sure on my history, but wasn't Nikon the dominate company back in the 80s? Wasn't it then a hungry and innovative Canon overtook Nikon? Same thing could very easily happen, especially with Sony since they are now making sensors for other companies and coming out with progressive products.


----------



## kencathy (Jun 1, 2011)

I'll fill out my earlier trivial comment.

Liveview autofocus is the current sorest spot in dSLR performance, both still and video. I am confident Canon will address this in the 5d ii successor. Other camera manufacturers have already enhanced the LVAF performance of their latest cameras (consider the Panasonic 4/3 line and the latest mid-line dSLRs from Nikon).

The other enhancement that would be greatly appreciated is increasing the continuous shooting performance. This will be an aim of the DIGIC V.

I don't think Canon needs to produce specialized 5d iii's. I think they need to improve the LVAF. They will certainly push up the pixel count somewhat and again, put in a faster processor for a higher continuous shooting rate. Maybe they'll even go to a 4:2:2 video codec rather than 4:2:0.

However, with today's technology there is no need to split the next generation 5d line. And I think if Canon does so to "monetize" the 5d video capabilities, they will lose customers.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 1, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> It so obvious from reading these comments that the 5D3 need to be SPLIT into a regular edition with some video, and a optimized video edition. People can't really seem to meet in the middle. It's like Democrats and Republicans.
> 
> Think of it this way. A video editor and a 3D animator both buy the newest Macintosh. The video guy is probably going to buy a graphics card optimized for video and video capture and export (very expensive cards). The 3D guy is probably going to buy a graphics card that is optimized for 3D. The same computer, but optimized for different disciplines. It's really no different with cameras.
> 
> ...



Well golly gee, I wouldn't want to look at things in an OLD and DATED way or say something that your dad might say.

As for James Cameron, Peter Jackson is using a slew of Red Epics to shoot the Hobbit movies. Regarding the "giant video camera", go pick up a Panasonic HDC-TM700 (or 900). Mine is MUCH smaller than my Canon 5d DSLR. Of course, so is its sensor. Furthermore, the focal length range of the XA10 and XF100 lenses is 30 to 300 and the Canon 28-300 is a certainly rather large and unwieldy.

And there is the issue of whether lenses thoroughly optimized for still photography should or can be re-purposed for videography. At the very least, there is the lack of speed-selectable power zoom.


----------



## NormanBates (Jun 1, 2011)

please do not bring small sensor cameras to the discussion, there's absolutely no comparison, no matter how good the ergonomics are and how many features they have; if you insist, I'll have to tell you that a powershot is enough for what you do, and it has face recognition too!!


TV shows using DSLRs (albeit sparingly) already in may 2010 (too lazy to research it again, plus it's become more dificult to know about because it's not news anymore): house, 24, californication, true blood, ghost whisperer, how I met your mother, CSI miami
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/05/18/thoughts-on-house-finale/
http://philipbloom.net/2010/04/19/in-depth-interview-with-executive-producer-and-director-of-house-season-finale-shot-on-canon-5dmkii/
http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=3613
http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=3650
http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=3708

big budget films shot ENTIRELY (or almost) with DSLRs: I only know about one, "act of valor", $60M budget, shot by Shane Hurlbut ASC (whom you may know from Terminator Salvation)
http://www.freshdv.com/2010/05/conversations-bandito-hurlbut.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591479/technical

small budget films shot ENTIRELY (or almost) with DSLRs: dozens
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?198927-DSLR-Feature-Film-List


I know big sensor videocameras are bound to replace DSLRs for most of these uses, as I said, it makes much more sense than trying to create a video-centric DSLR; just don't tell me this was small; or that this extra R&D had to be paid by photographers; movie productions using DSLRs are buying these cameras, fitted with L glass, by the dozen, and labeling all that as "consumables" (yes, I'd also like to go fish on their garbage cans)


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 1, 2011)

And how many professionals are using camcorders with 2/3", 1/2" and 1/3" sensors. There seem to be an awful lot of models listed at B&H under "Professional Video". Just how small does a sensor have to be to be considered "small"?


----------



## gene_can_sing (Jun 1, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> And how many professionals are using camcorders with 2/3", 1/2" and 1/3" sensors. There seem to be an awful lot of models listed at B&H under "Professional Video". Just how small does a sensor have to be to be considered "small"?



Bob, I hate to break this to you, but the small sensor video camera era is rapidly, and thankfully coming to an END. I work in TV commercials and promos in Los Angeles, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the professionals I know DON'T want to use cameras with small sensors anymore. Everyone I know always uses a RED (large sensor) or on budget projects, the Canons.

Comparing a 5D to a tiny consumer camcorder is.... well... basically, one the 5D can be used for professional work (even more so when the new one comes out hopefully) and the consumer camcorder is for dad's home movies. Big difference.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> ... the small sensor video camera era is rapidly, and thankfully coming to an END ... Comparing a 5D to a tiny consumer camcorder is.... well... basically, one the 5D can be used for professional work (even more so when the new one comes out hopefully) and the consumer camcorder is for dad's home movies. Big difference.



Out of curiousity, where does that blurry line fall? Canon's XA10 ($2000) and XF100 ($3300) professional camcorders use a 1/3", 2.37-megapixel CMOS sensor. As a dad, I shoot my home movies with a Vixia HF M41 (which I'd call _relatively_ tiny - it's bigger than my PowerShot S95, but a lot smaller than my 24-105L). The Vixia HF M41 also uses a 1/3", 2.37-megapixel CMOS sensor, presumably the same sensor as used in the two pro camcorders mentioned above. Sure, the pro models have more aperture blades, handles with XLR connectors, etc., but if you compare the top 'consumer' camcorder (HF G10) to the bottom 'pro' camcorder (XA10), they are essentially the same camera except for that handle with the XLR connectors...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 1, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> Still photographers don't want the video



I surely beg to differ! A FEW still photographers don't care, while many love having the video option built-in.



> and Video people don't need a huge mega-pixel count because it causes aliasing and line-skipping.



The new digic should be fast enough to properly sample video from a 20-something MP camera I'd imagine.



> But it's obvious that Canon cannot make both camps happy, so they should just do 2 versions of the 5d3.



I really hope not because the entire middle will but shut out! THe stills gripers will have video removed and the msotly video only guys will have their camera but the giant middle who like both will be left out. If they do that and Nikon does not I may finally switch to Nikon.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> gene_can_sing said:
> 
> 
> > The market is evolving, and Canon needs to change with it.
> ...



Agreed! How they could have been so silly as to not even imagine people would want manual control over ISO/aperture/shutter is simply beyond me. How short-sighted can you get? It's because they use these dumb hyper targeted focus groups and get a few PJs saying they don't have time to set this or that for video or what not. And their products surveys where they ask people to list the single biggest reason or two for getting a certain model (and then when 3fps 5D users say they didn't get it for speed and that this proves the 5D user doesn't want speed, come on, it doesn't prove that at all, it's a self-fulfilling circular loop). And the same for locked audio gains. Or for stills it's taken them years to barely even understand how AutoISO should work. For years they locked it out of M mode which is the one place it made the MOST sense! And they still refuse to draw a box around the histogram so you can actually see where it ends when outdoors (or to provide basic things like overexposure point flashing for video (which even some hackers were able to add in without even having programming docs!).


----------



## gene_can_sing (Jun 1, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> gene_can_sing said:
> 
> 
> > ... the small sensor video camera era is rapidly, and thankfully coming to an END ... Comparing a 5D to a tiny consumer camcorder is.... well... basically, one the 5D can be used for professional work (even more so when the new one comes out hopefully) and the consumer camcorder is for dad's home movies. Big difference.
> ...



I think for most people, a 2x crop in the Panasonic GH2 and the AF 101 are considered a "Large" sensor. A 1.6x APS-c crop is even better IMO because it's the same crop as 35mm motion picture cameras. A 5D Full frame has a special, really shallow focus look that's new to video.

I think the definition of "Pro" video is rapidly changing. A few years ago, a 1/3 sensor was considered Pro because there was no APS-c or Full Frame video that was affordable. But since the 5D / 7D come out, the definition of Pro has been elevated a bit, at least for TV commercials, music videos and indy film where aesthetics are really important. I think for something like broadcast news or local news, a smaller sensor would be better because it's so run and gun and focus is obviously a lot easier with smaller sensors. SO there will be a market for those types of cameras also, especially when it's about speed and not aesthetics.

Now that large sensor video is affordable, nobody want to go back. If someone gave me an XA10 for free, it would be an expensive paper weight.


----------



## bp (Jun 1, 2011)

I think people are getting carried away with the "split" concept. I don't think CR was implying that the "stills" version would have NO VIDEO AT ALL, but rather that it won't have additional, advanced video features that they may add to the "video" version.

Why would Canon go so far as to disable video all together, when even the new Rebels have basic video functions? They wouldn't. But not forcing still-only people to pay extra for features they wouldn't use (and furthermore, would come to sites like this and gripe about it all day) would be a very smart move for Canon.

Sign me up for the video version. Waiting to buy 4 of them, with baited breath. Extra grand apiece, no problem - just give me full HD out without overlays, 4K or RAW video would be even better, timecode, maybe a grip with XLR inputs, and I'm a happy camper. And yeah, for the still-shooter-gripers who want to say that DSLR video is a fad, and no real pro's use them... uh, OK. You go on and think that while they continue to pop up, on pro sets all over the country, and the crews still using smaller sensor camcorders (regardless of a "professional" designation on B&H website) continue to wonder why their footage looks like $#!+ compared to that of their competitors. Its not a fad folks, face the music. Canon has.


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 2, 2011)

I'd like to see one of two things happen:

1) Merge the 1D and 1Ds line into a single pro body with a 45-plus point AF system, 10-plus frames per second, and best-in-class image quality and high ISO performance. Megapixels? I don't really care, as I'm sure Canon will squeeze as many megapixels as their next generation of sensors and processors allow. This would obviously be the flagship body aimed at working professionals who need both image quality and speed. As others have already asked, the big question is if a camera like this would sell for $5,000 like the 1DMKIV, or $7,000 like the 1DsMKIII? My money is on the latter. 

2) Update the 5D with the a decent AF system similar to the 7D's with a bump to 7 frames per second. IMHO, this is the bare minimum Canon can get away with considering how badly the Nikon D700 trounces the 5D MKII in terms of AF and FPS. The 5DII is already a great camera, just painfully slow with a pathetic AF system, so Canon doesn't need a revolutionary update to this body. IMHO, the 5D line is best geared toward for static/landscape/portrait work, and Canon has already carved a niche in the market with it's balance of image quality and affordability, so there's no sense in messing with that formula. In order to remain competitive with Nikon, the price needs to stay at around $2,500. 

This scenario would create a huge gap in the Canon lineup between the 1D ($7,000) and 5D ($2,500). Canon's stuff has been pretty lame the last few years, but who knows, maybe they still have some surprises up their sleeves. What about a full-fame 7D MKII, built in the same gripless body as the current 7D, but with the 1D's AF system, high ISO performance, and 8 FPS for $4,000? Now that would be a game changer. The current 1D MKIV and 7D are aimed at sports shooters and photojournalists, where tons of megapixels aren't as important anyways, so Canon could conceivably offer fewer megapixels, slightly fewer FPS, in a smaller and lighter body to help distinguish it from the flagship 1D/1Ds replacement. 

Now for the high-end prosumer line, a camera similar to current 7D with a 1.6:1 sensor would more or less be the next 70D. There are more than enough Rebels to fill the void that would be created if the 60D were replaced by something more like the 7D.


----------



## Roimund (Jun 2, 2011)

*my english is bad, sorry *

The way I see it, is that the EOS-1 line will from now on be a 7.000$ full-frame 30mp++ flagship with high-ish fps, the shake will be done with the introduction of the 3D line, that will be a full-frame 1d mk5, with more fps than the new "1" line, less MP (20-ish) and an in-camera crop mode. The 5D mk3 will have a "HDSLR" version like the 7D now has a "Studio Version", it will have a crop mode, that will make away the line skipping but have the same sensor than the normal 5D mk3 but with more advanced movie focus, some fancy video modes will be a bonus as well (RAW) (i doubt that the line skipping will be dealt with optically, but for the light gathering it would make more sence).

Canon will continue having 3 high end sensors like now and will have no "oh, the 1D came out, so the 1Ds will soon to, as they are one line"..

I do hope they have a separate sensor for the 7D mk2.. i do not like sharing one with the xxD and xxxD line.. the IQ that is.. would have nothing againts a renewed 18Mp sensor with 5D per-pixel sharpness.. and as for the new 5D.. i hope they stick "Dual Digic V" and go for 5-6 fps via 7D AF.. and as for the 7D vs 5D.. you pay more.. you get more.. but.. the 7D mk3 will have more of a 1D-ish AF, 30+ AF points... I have a feeling the mk2 will get burned by the D400..


----------



## funkboy (Jun 2, 2011)

bp said:


> Why would Canon go so far as to disable video all together, when even the new Rebels have basic video functions?



because professional sports & event photographers are worried about event policy forbidding them to use devices with built-in video capability like the 1DIV...


----------



## funkboy (Jun 2, 2011)

I would love to see Canon "break the mold" as they did in the late '80s with the Colani-inspired T90 pro camera, back when a "pro" camera looked like an F-1. They then did it again shortly thereafter by redesigning their lens mount from scratch to incorporate autofocus.

The video DSLR explosion is a similar paradigm shift in the camera world, as is the compact large-sensor camera (though to a somewhat lesser degree). I think that there's a lot of overlap in both areas, as they have several things in common:


don't necessarily require a mirror (or at least don't require an optical viewfinder,) & as a result,
does not look like a traditional SLR. can be made smaller, or at least "less bulky"
don't necessarily require traditional EOS system lenses, but should at least be easily adapted to them
requires at least an APS-C size sensor to be competitive, & FF if they want to continue to milk the 5DII video cow
success heavily dependent upon video features
very young market, no established "standard" solution

It would make a lot of sense for them to create, say, a 5Dv specifically for video from an ergonomic & control perspective, outside of the traditional EOS lineup. As a previous poster suggested, lower MPs (say, the original 5D sensor brought up to date with modern techniques. Knowing Canon they'd probably go for the highest MP they could get away with without excessive video artifacts at 1080p).

& I do mean "break the mold". Big time. This is not an established product line, so they're free to come up with something new (e.g. something like this: http://www.jtt-e.com.tw/pdf_sample/sample_technical_003_e.pdf). If said mold is to be broken, things like


new storage based on PCIe or SATA
wireless detachable high-resolution OLED display
lenses designed specifically for video, as well as the more compact body

must be included. A huge business decision for Canon will be to decide whether the large-sensor video market & the compact large-sensor camera market are convergent enough that they can be covered by the same product line...


----------



## funkboy (Jun 2, 2011)

On a side note, another effect of having such a sensor would be the possibility to create a direct competitor to the D3s. Give the camera enough FPS & durability & it could easily replace the current 1D line...

So, then, as a wild-ass guess, if Fukushima hasn't broken the back of their R&D budget & they're still on the "compete directly with Nikon" theme in EOS land, we're looking at the following new Digic V powered stuff in the pipe:


1Ds monster-MP flagship: FF, 10fps, & dual digic v
low-light master, son of 5D & 1DIV: 1/2 the MP of 1Ds, FF, 10fps & single digic v (same sensor as 5Dv)
eventually, 7DII: APS-C flagship

And, if they decided that large-sensor compacts are convergent with large-sensor video cameras, a 5Dv flagship (or whatever they'd call it, EOS DV is another guess), and an APS-C version...


----------



## tomscott (Jun 2, 2011)

Lets be honest the question we need to ask is... where is the professional sector going? The professional sector has been struggling for years. With the event of everything turning digital it has made it even easier for people to get into the industry and be good at it. Also making it very hard for pros to make as much money. Look at other companies that are struggling in their professional line up:

Apple - Apple's success and saviour was its professional following, they have now pretty much deserted these customers with pro hardware and software that is taking 2-3+ years to replace/update infuriating customers (2-3 years is a long time in the computer world). Instead they are concentrating on their consumer products, macbook pros and imac outsell mac pros 1000:1 the market isnt as strong in this sector anymore so putting money into it isnt as worth it. Upgrading them every 6s months makes sense and costs alot less because of the volume sales. 

The same can be said for most companies, there isnt enough innovation to create a very secure product range in the camera world. This has been extremely obvious by most pros leaving the 1D market and moving to the 5D or 7D. Nearly half the set up costs and these cameras more than produce adequate imagery for newspapers and magazines.

The 1Ds on paper doesn't offer a stupid amount more for its price tag compared to the 5D, Â£6000 compared to Â£1500 is a large amount for weather sealing and 45 AF points (as main selling points). Now in practise this is very different and these cameras feel and perform very differently and the 1Ds is a superb camera. But we are in the middle of recession and everyone wants to save money so in my opinion and obviously alot of others the switch was obvious! 

What is the definitive factor that makes you buy the camera? It used to be a large factor between the amateur/semi/pro ranges but now they are tiny electronic factors that most people either um and arr about for ages untill the product is so old a new one is inevitable and the process starts again, the blog is filled with it! or people who arnt too bothered about it and will part with the cash. Most others will live without it and go with the cheaper option like we have seen apart from the die hard pros with the breed becoming thinner. The semi pro/pro line seems to be merging in every sense, the tech has got so good that people can do without the most expensive pro equipment because they offer very similar features.

People are complaining about the AF in the 5D yet alot of pros switched from the 1Ds, it must say something. Cost most probably and the fact the 5D will do! the extra Â£4500 goes along way! Canon will not put 45 in a 5D because that is the definitive feature that will finally kill the sales of the 1Ds range. 

Now we see very similar features throughout the amateur/semi/pro ranges its hard to justify the cost. Now everyone has their needs but in the recession and if you could get by, by reducing your cost by 3/4s and you can still do the same job without all the bells and whistles people will.

Something big has to happen to jump start the pro scene, and at the moment in every sense it is dying because innovation is lagging. The other factor is how far can you go! what else can they pack into a DSLR? video is available from the Â£400 DSLRs all the way to Â£6000 the only difference is the quality, but higher up the quality is less distinguishable. 

Like in my previous posts I dont see the DSLR market to be the best market for video. There is only so much you can do. A new product range which is more ergonomic for the video user with fully fledged features based on the EF system would make more sense. I think the rumour about the 5D being split is ridiculous, but the more i think about it the more i feel that canon will go along this line but the rumour about it being split from the 5D to be slightly wrong not split but a new product range. Call it the 3D or what ever, it will use the same system but designed to incorporate all the essential equipment a videographer needs but also keep the small form factor of the DSLR. 

A new homologation product.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 2, 2011)

tomscott said:


> Apple - Apple's success and saviour was its professional following, they have now pretty much deserted these customers with pro hardware and software that is taking 2-3+ years to replace/update infuriating customers (2-3 years is a long time in the computer world). Instead they are concentrating on their consumer products, macbook pros and imac outsell mac pros 1000:1 the market isnt as strong in this sector anymore so putting money into it isnt as worth it. Upgrading them every 6s months makes sense and costs alot less because of the volume sales.



I beg to differ. In 1997, Apple's stock was at the lowest point in the past 25 years (just over $3/share), and the company posted a loss of nearly $1B. One year later, the stock price had tripled, and the company was nearly $0.5B in the black. Why? A bubble-shaped, candy-colored consumer product called the iMac. In the early part of this century, they were again in a slump, and what came to the rescue? Another consumer device called the iPod, which combined with the iTunes Music Store and more recently the iPhone - more consumer products - is largely the reason the stock price is now 100 times higher than that 1997 nadir.

Yes, MacBooks and iMacs outsell their other computers, but if you look at Apple's 2Q11 earnings, Macs only account for 15% of their revenue - iPhones account for over 75%. 

The pooint of all that is that the 'professional following' is really not important to Apple's bottom line, and it never has been. The same is true for Canon - revenue from Rebels and sub-$250 consumer lenses is far greater than that from 1-series bodies. The latter, like the supertele line, are developed and produced for a niche market, which is really mostly about prestige and brand recognition.


----------



## UncleFester (Jun 2, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> The pooint of all that is that the 'professional following' is really not important to Apple's bottom line, and it never has been. The same is true for Canon - revenue from Rebels and sub-$250 consumer lenses is far greater than that from 1-series bodies. The latter, like the supertele line, are developed and produced for a niche market, which is really mostly about prestige and brand recognition.



+1 This is why companies like Canon are not worried about customers jumping ship and switching to Leica. They only need to take care of the consumer market for a pro market to survive.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Jun 2, 2011)

scalesusa said:


> ... while they might produce a $65,000 FF video camera like the Red, ...



Forget the RED (Super 35, not full frame). The real competition will come from Sony's $6.000.00 FS-100 (Super 35, E-mount) and Sony's $14,000.00 F3 (Super 35, PL mount).

With these Sony cameras there is *no need to spend thousands of $$$ at ZacutoRock* to have a useable video camera.

Canon could have done this ... but they didn't - you snooze you lose!

BTW for those who don't know, Super 35 is APS-C size and is what is used in 35mm film motion picture cameras and high-end digital motion picture cameras. Another words, the industry standard.


----------



## minestrone (Jun 2, 2011)

5DMIII, one body, slightly better ISO performance would be nice, and better AF for sure. As far as megapixel count, I wouldn't mind an increase, I'm not sure why people think that 12 MP is ok. All my clients ask for huge prints. 

As far as video goes, I hope the 5DMIII is one unit that does both video and photography. I really don't feel like lugging more camera equipment then I already do. 

Would be nice if Canon came up with a gyro solution for HD video, even with a red rock micro kit I sometimes feel that its not stable enough.


----------



## awinphoto (Jun 2, 2011)

minestrone said:


> 5DMIII, one body, slightly better ISO performance would be nice, and better AF for sure. As far as megapixel count, I wouldn't mind an increase, I'm not sure why people think that 12 MP is ok. All my clients ask for huge prints.
> 
> As far as video goes, I hope the 5DMIII is one unit that does both video and photography. I really don't feel like lugging more camera equipment then I already do.
> 
> Would be nice if Canon came up with a gyro solution for HD video, even with a red rock micro kit I sometimes feel that its not stable enough.



+1. One thing (i'm sure most think it's a gimmick but...) I want the 2 way axis level on the LCD and viewfinder if possible like the 7D. I know people dog the 7D because of the computerized VF screen which cant be replaced like you can the 5D but if they can find a compromise between the two I'd be game. Also a Flash commander would be awesome. I dont care if its through a popup flash or infrared, just get it in there some way. If they can do that plus the above suggestions I'd be very happy.


----------



## unfocused (Jun 2, 2011)

> Yes, MacBooks and iMacs outsell their other computers, but if you look at Apple's 2Q11 earnings, Macs only account for 15% of their revenue - iPhones account for over 75%.



I did not know that. Does that mean that iPods now account for less than 10% of revenues? Wow! I knew the market was changing, but didn't realize it was changing that fast. 



> The pooint of all that is that the 'professional following' is really not important to Apple's bottom line, and it never has been. The same is true for Canon - revenue from Rebels and sub-$250 consumer lenses is far greater than that from 1-series bodies.



Comparing apples to oranges here. Nobody buys an iPhone because of Apple computers. But, there are plenty of people who buy Canon cameras because Canon has positioned itself well in the professional market. 



> The latter, like the supertele line, are developed and produced for a niche market, which is really mostly about prestige and brand recognition.



Okay, that's more accurate. Although it's more than just prestige and brand recognition. It's also about spreading R&D costs over the maximum product lines. And, it's about moving customers up the product line. This is much different than a company like Apple. I own an iPhone, but there is absolutely nothing about that phone that is going to make me want an Apple computer. On the other hand, Canon knows very well that a certain percentage of Rebel users will progress up their line. In fact, I'd love to see the statistics on the number of 1Ds owners whose first SLRs were Canon. I'd wager it's a high percentage. 

Now, getting back on topic. If there is a divergence between video and still models of the 5D (or any other line), I believe it will be for design and engineering reasons, not marketing. It may be that Canon feels it cannot simultaneously optimize performance for both stills and video in the same camera. If that's the case, they may be forced to offer one version optimized for stills (with video capability) and one version optimized for video (with still capability). I think they would be loathe to do that, but design limitations could force that to happen.

Right now, the 5D has two major professional customer bases that Canon wants to protect: wedding and portrait studio photographers and independent and commercial film producers. If they feel they can satisfy both groups with one camera, they'll do it. If they find that the demands conflict, they may be forced to diverge the line.


----------



## digishooter (Jun 2, 2011)

It would be very easy given the state of the current technology to integrate the 1-series into one body. All they would have to do is have, say, a 40mpx full-frame sensor and then have a sports mode that would cut the mpx to half that, or slightly less, in order to get the frame rate back up to 10fps. Sports shooters are not going to want huge files anyway, for a lot of shots even 20mpx is too big. Then it would be a simple matter to switch back to the full mpx mode for other types of photos.

Despite the fact that a few people may not like the demise of APS-H, it's probably going to go away.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jun 3, 2011)

I think this is most likely to do with the actual specifications of the cameras - the 1.3x crop boggles the mind a bit and the increasing quality of 1.6 crop bodies are encroaching on that space for wildlife shooters a bit. They certainly could do a bit to overhaul that end. I'm not sure that there needs to be more differentiation in the upper and middle ranges, just get something out there to really replace their last EOS-1D full frame mark, and improve (but not further differentiate) the middle range with the full-frame 5D replacement (maybe a 1.3x crop would be tolerated there; I don't know). I don't think the actual _names_ of the cameras are going to change, other than to perhaps squish a few of the most egregious naming conventions (i.e. adding -s); if you care to find out why:

Having two 1D bodies makes some sense in that they want to remain the go-to choice for professionals - if they will clearly represent differences in the best use of each camera (portrait / landscape vs. sports, or EV/dynamic range vs. sheer ISO, seems to be the usual balancing act). It doesn't make sense to me that they might remove the 1D line; it has always represented their "#1" camera, even before there was a 1D there was a EOS 1. If they do wipe out the moniker, they will doubtless still have a top tier of cameras with some designation that is similar in its meaning. And if they wipe out the moniker 1D, then some real shakeup of the EF system is probably afoot, and I think video alone doesn't explain this (not sure of a EF system suited more to video - more on that in a moment - or an EF system with view camera type movements, which again wouldn't be well suited to the current group of EF lenses). It would make even less sense (if this was suggested) to keep the 1Ds and drop the plain 1D.

Splitting the 5D line for video and non-video especially is a proposition that seems to carry more cons than pros, since video is simply (protestations about what we don't know about internal Canon engineering aside) a firmware feature requiring minimal hardware support, and a good buzzword and value extender for marketing purposes.

An EF mount video system might make somewhat more sense...but Canon already has its camcorders, and now (against my earlier predictions) entries in the PL-mount category - systems that are perfectly suited for the two traditional opposed genres in motion pictures of flexibility (news, many television shows) and ultimate control (movies and large-budget features). There may be a slight argument to be made for professional DSLR video in certain circumstances, but it would be a small and specialist market.

If you theorize that you could split some camera lines, with some side having a sensor more suited to video (which seems possible to make), as the EF system stands it would still generally be a pretty woeful choice for professionals making video productions. An EF system may not be far behind some other digital video systems, and at a good price (assuming you aren't gearing up for a professional production in which case investing that money in traditional gear, even just one lens, is preferable), but the number of lenses in the system that retain constant focus and/or that do not change their angle of view when zooming is small, and smaller still are the number of these that have sufficiently large maximum apertures and have focus rings up to the standards of professional focus pulling. But hey, if Canon wants to refresh their whole line with f/2.8 parfocals with movie-quality focus rings, three cheers!

At this point, it seems most of this discussion is going into the realms of trying to get diminishing returns from a set paradigm, not unlike Nikon trying to futz autofocus support into a mount that also supports their earliest non-AI lenses. To get the features mentioned here, Canon may well need a totally new mount - though, again, the fact they have now invested in both mounts (their proprietary camcorder mount as well as PL) means that this seems unlikely. I already took a shot at guessing Canon was not going to go to an "open" standard like the PL Mount; they didn't misjudge that market (where the whole point is not to get locked into a single system) like I did. Butchering the EOS series for the sake of iffy video support would be, quite frankly, a bigger betrayal of the EOS / EF ethos than anything Ken R. has ever had cause to complain about.


----------



## Chaos411vm (Jun 3, 2011)

Splitting the 5D line would make absolutely no sense, logically and for business. Why do people in general like the current line of SLR's? It's the fact that they are of course hybrids. Yes the 5D has a full frame sensor but it's not unique to just Canon. If a somewhat serious videographer/professional is going to have to pay more for an SLR that is clumsy first and foremost to shoot video with and now also be weak in the Stills department they will move to other cameras that have those features. Why pay more money for a camera that can't be shouldered if it's main purpose is going to be the video? That wouldn't be a an SLR at all even though it would be built like one. Canon unfortunately has been sluggish with getting new stuff out and is now playing catch up with Sony. What would be amazing is if Canon decides to put the 5D mark III sensor in an actual Full body and not the clumsy SLR body with way more functions then that would be a different story and that I hope they can pull off.


----------



## idigi (Jun 3, 2011)

I think someone from Canon initiated this discussion just to see customer reaction and get some ideas on what to do next. I am sure Canon reps are having fun reading this thread and are putting check marks and crosses next to each idea/suggestion 

It started something like this:
Canon rep1: why not spilt 5d into two models?
Canon rep2: hmm, let's get some customer feedback first.
Canon rep1: hey, canonrumors, there is a rumor floating that...
Canonrumors: The future of the 5D line (CR2)!


----------



## Justin (Jun 3, 2011)

idigi said:


> I think someone from Canon initiated this discussion just to see customer reaction and get some ideas on what to do next. I am sure Canon reps are having fun reading this thread and are putting check marks and crosses next to each idea/suggestion
> 
> It started something like this:
> Canon rep1: why not spilt 5d into two models?
> ...



Ha ha. If only Canon did more research based on geeked out tech rumor forums... I'd have my 5D3 (best features from the 5D2 + 7D with resolution and dynamic range to spare) in hand shooting like a champion.


----------



## idigi (Jun 3, 2011)

Justin said:


> Ha ha. If only Canon did more research based on geeked out tech rumor forums... I'd have my 5D3 (best features from the 5D2 + 7D with resolution and dynamic range to spare) in hand shooting like a champion.


Canon has the technology, but Canon is not going to give it all away at once, especially not packed into one model because:
1. They need to be making money all the time by adding just the right amount of features to keep you on their hook.
2. They need to differentiate between different models and make you choose between at least two models, or make you buy both, if you want to have it all.

Look at mobile phones as example. You cannot get the best and most expensive phone with everything you want. You'll have to sacrifice either camera quality, qwerty keyboard, screen size, and so on. You'll have to decide on the most important features for you and choose your model based on features/price ratio, just like you choose your dslr.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jun 3, 2011)

idigi said:


> Canon has the technology, but Canon is not going to give it all away at once, especially not packed into one model because:


At the lower end there certainly are features left out for price (and perhaps consumer-proofing), but at the top end they pretty much have to throw the kitchen sink in, else somebody else will. The only reason to leave features out of top end models is for the sake of efficient and comfortable operation, i.e. no querty keyboard in camera models. Any feature that can be added now to a top-end camera will likely be, else it isn't economical. So what's the "hook' to future upgrades for a top-end camera? Well, many features keep improving (though some don't). I don't think Canon has a problem with putting out a "perfect" camera that nobody ever needs to replace, even if resolution and IQ eventually tapered off they'd still be making new sales of bodies and lenses.

The middle (upper) range is a strange area, and perhaps the most pure photographic tools belong there. At the bottom end you have sharp differentiation by features and price, and at the top you have again sharp differentiation by intended uses. For the middle-upper it's a bit fuzzier how you could meaningfully split a line; the cameras are not intended to compete with pro cameras but they are meant to be better than the low end.


----------



## idigi (Jun 4, 2011)

Here is what I mean by saying that Canon has the technology:
*Canon develops world's first 120 megapixel APS-H CMOS sensor*
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10082410canon120mpsensor.asp

Notice: "It [sensor] offers full HD recording (using 1/60th of its surface area) and can deliver 9.5fps continuous shooting.

From CanonRumors:


> I wonder about technology though, can you offer a 9fps+ capability in a 30+mp camera? Thereâ€™s lots of technical people that know better than I do.


Well, if Canon can deliver 9.5fps in their prototype 120 mp sensor, then they can certainly make 9fps 30+mp camera.

So, even if Canon has no plans for APS-H sensors in the future, this proves that they are capable of producing 100-150 megapixel full frame sensor. But instead, Canon (or Nikon, or Sony, or any other tech company for that matter) is going to milk its customers by gradually implementing new tech features. So, they'll bump up megapixel count to 30, 40, 50 mp for now to make an impression of being the latest and greatest, and also to stay competitive.

From CanonRumors:


> It was also suggested APS-H in the EOS line is finished.


Well, if Canon developed 120 MP *APS-H* sensor, why would they abandon this format now? This rumor seems to be very unlikely.

Pay attention to the following information in the same article: "This [120 mp sensor] follows a 50 million pixel sensor of similar format the company developed in 2007.

So, the technology they are going to put in cameras in 2011-2012, ~50 MP sensors, existed back in 2007.

I doubt Canon will split 5D series into video and non-video versions, especially since most, if not all, latest DSLRs, not just Canon, have video feature in them. Instead, they may add 3D series to have something in between 1D and 5D, just like they filled up the gap between 5D and xxD series with 7D.


----------



## x-vision (Jun 4, 2011)

idigi said:


> Well, if Canon developed 120 MP *APS-H* sensor, why would they abandon this format now? This rumor seems to be very unlikely.



Good find about the 120mp sensor, Idigi. 

Note, though, that this is just a prototype sensor. 
It indeed shows that Canon has the technology for a 30mp/9fps camera - at least in a testing/prototype phase. 
It's in no way an indication, though, that the technology will be used to actually make APS-H sensors. 

APS-H is just a very convenient and economical size for prototypes.
It showcases the abilities of a new technology to scale to FF sensors - while at the same time it's more economical and allows faster prototyping than FF. 

APS-H is going away for sure. 
From a marketing perspective it's a mistake to offer a lesser sensor in the flagship pro/sports camera when Nikon is offering a FF sensor in their equivalent. 
Long term, the perception will be that Canon's flagship is either inferior than Nikon's (if priced lower) or that Canon is overcharging for a lesser camera (if priced the same/higher). 

So, Canon actually has no choice but to put a FF sensor in the 1DV. APS-H will just hurt their business.


----------



## distant.star (Jun 4, 2011)

My guess is the only Canon personnel who read this seriously are lawyers.





idigi said:


> I think someone from Canon initiated this discussion just to see customer reaction and get some ideas on what to do next. I am sure Canon reps are having fun reading this thread and are putting check marks and crosses next to each idea/suggestion
> 
> It started something like this:
> Canon rep1: why not spilt 5d into two models?
> ...


----------



## c-law (Jun 4, 2011)

idigi, developing a 120MP APS-H sensor that can capture at 9.5 frames/sec is very different from developing one that works in a camera and is mass-produceable. Notice that in the link you posted that they state they had to develop new processors and circuits to get it to read-out accurately.

I may have miscalculated but I believe that sensor would produce over 1GB of data every second it is shot. The changes required to put that in a camera involve the DIGIC processor and the storage media at least.

Remember that a lab test experiment used to create buzz at a camera show is very different than what it takes to bring everything together in a functional camera.

Chris


----------



## Tarrum (Jun 4, 2011)

c-law said:


> idigi, developing a 120MP APS-H sensor that can capture at 9.5 frames/sec is very different from developing one that works in a camera and is mass-produceable



I agree with you on that one, but still, they did it. 

Now of course they will not put out a seriously amazing body, as that would hurt them in the long run. It's just the way technology is like - put in something new with every new model. Take Apple for example. Once you see a new product, you can't understand how you could live without it on the first one.


----------



## J-Man (Jun 5, 2011)

Like it or not, the DSLR video genie is out of the bottle, it's here to stay.
What Canon needs to do is reorganize their Lineup to give the consumer/pro more choice.
For example, if you want a FF camera, there was no choice in resolution between the 5DII & 1DsIII, if you wanted more or less, you were screwed, so far video options are the same.


----------



## macgregor mathers (Jun 5, 2011)

c-law said:


> idigi, developing a 120MP APS-H sensor that can capture at 9.5 frames/sec is very different from developing one that works in a camera and is mass-produceable. Notice that in the link you posted that they state they had to develop new processors and circuits to get it to read-out accurately.
> 
> I may have miscalculated but I believe that sensor would produce over 1GB of data every second it is shot. The changes required to put that in a camera involve the DIGIC processor and the storage media at least.



Are there any lenses that can resolve that many MP ?


----------



## motorhead (Jun 5, 2011)

At 120 mp probably not in any current EF lens!

But I've read that the latest lenses from both Nikon and Canon can comfortably out resolve sensors likely to appear in the near future and that lens design can be tweaked as improvements are needed. Of course that will make them ever more expensive, but that's another issue. That's why we are seeing mark two versions of Canons classics appearing - to stay ahead of sensor demands.


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Jun 6, 2011)

unfocused said:


> > The pooint of all that is that the 'professional following' is really not important to Apple's bottom line, and it never has been. The same is true for Canon - revenue from Rebels and sub-$250 consumer lenses is far greater than that from 1-series bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing apples to oranges here. Nobody buys an iPhone because of Apple computers. But, there are plenty of people who buy Canon cameras because Canon has positioned itself well in the professional market.


Back in the '90s, even in the days when they were under sloppy management, Apple machines impressed the hell out of me. To put it simply, Apple machines seemed less hairy to many people; to me, the fascination probably was that here was a machine that was meant to have a sleeker design (though I laughed at the one button mouse) and which was not just a professional machine like a Windows PC, but a professionally artistic machine, as opposed to the business professional of Windows. They still play on this perception in the infamous Mac ads. Of course, I was very comfortable using a Wintel machine - though I quickly became respectful of their quirks and instabilities - which has always been my "home" OS. I would have been impressed somewhat less in Apple machines if I had known the gamma was nonstandard (with Apple allowing three different readings - see here - of an appropriate gamma value for video display), but at the time (and to hear Ken Rockwell tell it), Apple machines of the pre-DVI, pre-DisplayPort era were OMG AWESUM!!1

In any case, associating success with top-tier professional work and so impressing the average user is a theory that many companies operate under. For many years Canon used the "Nature as Canon sees it" ads to show off a profile of the newest FD telephoto zoom (of course, now the lenses are nowhere to be seen, as they seek to focus more on the pure concept of Canon allied with wildlife, while letting the professional images speak for the quality of Canon cameras and lenses). Some managements will ignore the idea, and in their markets they may be right to do so; others will fixate on it to their detriment, too (I want to mention the Edsel...not sure it's the best choice of comparison). The idea is always to make money in the respective niches and never lose the biggest markets (either biggest sales through volume or through expensive items).

Computers and cameras seem a bit different in that, aside from software, computers generally refresh completely every few years; whereas with lenses the investment developing high quality lenses for pros makes in eventual improvements to consumer lenses has been more apparent (at least over the last decade or so, in areas like IS). Neither Apple or Microsoft has been lethargic in trying to create quality standards for the future; with Apple you had Apple Display Connector and Firewire, printers and monitors. The incompatibilities and pin shorting madness more common on Windows was mostly avoided. Of course, Microsoft banked more heavily on driver compatibility, business, and gaming, and overall they seemed to have made a better bet in those markets. At the moment, Microsoft clearly is far ahead Apple in terms of creating experimental, cutting-edge "software technology," some of which is useful for the average person, though I wonder if they aren't spinning their wheels still due to the sudden breakout of open source. Apple has bet better in other markets, obviously. Not a clear "win-lose" situation- Apple didn't really rake in users (only somewhere around 10% of the installed base of desktops around the late '90s to early '00s) but they remained relevant for many in professional editing (and many still stick to them for it).

________________

Okay, this "end of the megapixel wars" thing is interesting. I think that most people could easily see a selling point in improving ISO and dynamic range - sore points for most digital cameras, especially dynamic range - and leaving image size be for a while. But I think, despite what Lens Rental Guy says, that most lens makers are cautious to throw up the flag of surrender (even silently) because the sector still is very competitive.

What's been most remarkable about the last year or two from Canon is that they have been working much more on handling and ergonomics improvements than on sensors. There have been a whole raft of 18MP sensor cameras, but that doesn't mean the T3i is equal to the T2i, and especially not to the 60D or 7D. As time goes on, I find myself less interested in the technical sensor improvements, and more on improvements that give me more tricks to use in practical photography. To be sure, I shoot a lot of stuff at sunrise and sunset, but I also don't expect anything to come along 

Somewhere or other there is a repetition of the old "retiring APS-C" rumor. I think plenty of good arguments can be made against this happening; why would Canon throw away the benefits of small sensor production pricing in volume for cameras they sell in the millions? For myself, I almost dread the thought of a changeover since Canon doesn't make enough affordable optics that are longer - and they flat-out don't produce anything like the 90mm f/2.8 in a 1.6 crop factor format, which I've gotten very used to using. To be sure, all you would need do on full frame is crop down a bit - but to have the same number of details in the cropped image that full frame sensor would have to be as densely packed as the APS-C one, so we're back to square one again. The improved dynamic range, better quality across an entire frame (less apparent magnification of flaws), and better wide angle options from going to slightly lower density full frame would be great, of course.

The Lens Rental Guy's argument about lens softness (which not surprisingly is showing up to be consistent, as that's how flaws are - accuracy and precision are NOT the same) just shows up that some lenses and bodies are being made to less-than-L standards. Thank goodness for manual focus is all I need say


----------



## hutjeflut (Jun 6, 2011)

theres som sense in removing the 1D (non s) series and maby make it a 2D series or a 3D series so the line is more logical.
i cant see how you could split up the 5D line tho thats just bollox if you ask me.
ive seen people talk about a video 5D wich is also stupid video is a extra on a dslr you cant realy make it a main line or you end up with a videocamera in a dslr casing and lineup.
it would be like placing a electical car in the formula 1...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2011)

unfocused said:


> Now, getting back on topic. If there is a divergence between video and still models of the 5D (or any other line), I believe it will be for design and engineering reasons, not marketing. It may be that Canon feels it cannot simultaneously optimize performance for both stills and video in the same camera. If that's the case, they may be forced to offer one version optimized for stills (with video capability) and one version optimized for video (with still capability). I think they would be loathe to do that, but design limitations could force that to happen.
> 
> Right now, the 5D has two major professional customer bases that Canon wants to protect: wedding and portrait studio photographers and independent and commercial film producers. If they feel they can satisfy both groups with one camera, they'll do it. If they find that the demands conflict, they may be forced to diverge the line.



1. Canon needs to wake up and stop assuming that a FF is only for slow motion wedding and studio people. People want more speed! The only reason they don't get people checking off that they bought a 5-series for speed is because it has no speed, it's circular! Enough with the 3-4fps! Maybe not 10fps, since that gets a more expensive mirror box for FF but at least bump it to the old 40D/50D speed of 6.3fps, if not 7fps like D700 with grip.

2. If they were to split the 5D line along video lines it should be based upon ergonomics. Both bodies take the same quality stills and video but one has ergonomics better for stills and one has had all sorts of changes to make it work out better for video without needing to spend on all sorts of third party additions that bump price too close to Sony/RED etc. Maybe the video special version can do a few things better such as RAW output that might require more expensive fast memory chips for buffering, etc. but I don't think they should cripple the regular version.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 6, 2011)

idigi said:


> I think someone from Canon initiated this discussion just to see customer reaction and get some ideas on what to do next. I am sure Canon reps are having fun reading this thread and are putting check marks and crosses next to each idea/suggestion
> 
> It started something like this:
> Canon rep1: why not spilt 5d into two models?
> ...



The only problem with this, is they would have put this out there WOEFULLY too late in the game! They would have need to do this at least a year ago.


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 6, 2011)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> 1. Canon needs to wake up and stop assuming that a FF is only for slow motion wedding and studio people. People want more speed! The only reason they don't get people checking off that they bought a 5-series for speed is because it has no speed, it's circular! Enough with the 3-4fps! Maybe not 10fps, since that gets a more expensive mirror box for FF but at least bump it to the old 40D/50D speed of 6.3fps, if not 7fps like D700 with grip.



Amen to that. I love my 5D in terms of its image quality, high ISO abilities, and dynamic range, but it's AF system and FPS make it a big pile of donkey dung for any subject that isn't stationary. In fact, the reason I never upgraded from a 5DC is because Canon put a joke of an AF system in the 5DII. When Nikon is putting a 51-point AF system in the D700 that shoots at 7 FPS, this simply isn't acceptable on Canon's part. I understand that the 5D and 5DII are fast enough for wedding shooters, but when you're shooting overweight brides and their four fat bridesmaid friends most of the time, I suppose you can get away with having such a lethargic body. However, if you're a Canon shooter, you're forced to chose between FF image quality OR speed. You can't have both, even with the $7K 1Ds, since its 5 FPS is slower that Canon's own prosumer xxD series! 

If the next generation 1D gets a full-frame sensor - hence yielding a beast of a pro body that shoots 10 FPS with Canon's latest and greatest AF system - all for $5K, I'd buy one today. Unfortunately, I fear that if Canon does create such a camera by merging the 1D and 1Ds, it would fill the $7K price slot currently filled by the 1Ds MKIII. Who knows. Maybe Canon will surprise everyone and sell the 1D/1Ds amalgam for $5K. 

Unlike Canon, Nikon really doesn't seem to give a $hit about potentially cannibalizing its product line, and puts 51-point AF systems and respectable frame rates in its prosumer line. In theory, the 5DIII will need a to shoot 7 FPS and have the 1D's 45-point AF system just to keep pace with the current D700. In reality, however, I think the best we can hope for is 5 FPS and the 7D's 19-point AF system. Again, if such a body existed with a pricetag under $3,000, I'd buy one today and relegate my beloved yet pokey 5DC to backup duty. 

I hate to sound like a closet Nikon leg-humper, but the D3s offers the combination of speed and FF image quality that Canon has yet to offer. If I didn't have so much money invested in my Canon gear, I would have jumped ship a long time ago.


----------



## Heidrun (Jun 6, 2011)

I have a 1D mk III. And i miss FF. Thats because i want to have wider lenses than the 16-35 is on my camera.
A FF and something like the one Nikon has ( 14-24 ) would be great


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 6, 2011)

Heidrun said:


> I have a 1D mk III. And i miss FF. Thats because i want to have wider lenses than the 16-35 is on my camera.
> A FF and something like the one Nikon has ( 14-24 ) would be great



You bring up another good point. I know several people that have dumped their 1Ds MKIII's for 1DMKIV's because the 1Ds was just too freakin' slow. Unfortunately, that meant saying bye-bye to super wide angle shooting. The 1Ds is just ancient at this point, and IMHO, replacing it should be Canon's top priority. The 5DII is a year newer in comparison, so the need for replacing it isn't as dire.


----------



## williamv (Jun 6, 2011)

Here's my suggestion for the 1Ds, 1D and 5D lines:

Merge the 1D and 1Ds lines. Create a FF 10FPS camera.

Upgrade the 5D along the same path as it has been going. Upgrade the focusing, the resolution and the other things that the market would demand, but don't change the general concept. the concept of the 5D has been a good one, so why kill it by morphing it into something else. I primarily take photos but now and then want to video, but two cameras are a hassle to take everywhere.

With the capacity freed from dropping one of the 1D line create a new line maybe the 5V. Make it a mirror less camera, with all the bells and whistles that a high end video user would want. Make it compact. Make it take the EF lens line, and have an electronic viewfinder. Allow it to capture medium size stills that have a super quick shutter speed because you're not limited by the mirror anymore. Canon could use the same lenses across both their video and still line, meaning they can increase demand for them without having to create another lens line and also provide an upgrade path for their video users. People would like to be able to use their accessories from one platform to another. Now I know they had a video camera previously with interchangeable lenses and I think it was less successful than Canon would have liked, but I think the timing was a little to soon for this type of camera. I think the time is now for such a device.

I've been looking recently to find a replacement for a Sony video camera that I own. I saw the Sony NEX-VG10. That's the sort of thing that my proposed 5V should be like. There are things that aren't quite right with it: Limitations of recording format, Sony lenses (having to buy new system, not many lens types), issues with some of the controls, lack of zoom rocker. 

If it was a Canon body that took the EF lenses, and some of the other limitations were fixed, and it was around $2000, I think I'd get one. I'd like to use my L series glass in a video camera. You can spend a fortune on add ons to get your DSLR camera working like a video camera, maybe as much as buying a new body specifically for filming, and think how nice it would be to have a camera designed for shooting video, rather than something you have to assemble from add on bits to make it work like a video camera.


----------



## NotABunny (Jun 7, 2011)

> Enough with the 3-4fps! at least bump it to the old 40D/50D speed of 6.3fps, if not 7fps like D700 with grip. ... When Nikon is putting a 51-point AF system in the D700 that shoots at 7 FPS, this simply isn't acceptable on Canon's part.



Canon 5D2: 3.9 FPS, 21 MP
Nikon D700: 5 FPS (8 FPS with MB-D10 Battery Pack), 12.1 MP

=> 21 / 12.1 * 3.9 = 6.8 FPS resolution-equivalent for Canon

The fact that some people prefer speed over resolution is another matter.




V8Beast said:


> several people that have dumped their 1Ds MKIII's for 1DMKIV's because the 1Ds was just too freakin' slow



1D4: Dual DIGIC 4, 16 MP, 10 FPS
1Ds3: Dual DIGIC 3, 21 MP, 3 FPS


----------



## V8Beast (Jun 7, 2011)

NotABunny said:


> The fact that some people prefer speed over resolution is another matter.



I don't prefer speed over resolution. I want both speed AND resolution. The $1,700 7D shoots 8 FPS at 18 megapixels, so not only is the technology there, Canon has proven it can be done at a reasonable price point. I fully understand that resolution is king if you're making a living doing portraits or weddings, but in the type of editorial work that I do, images rarely run at 100 percent. If I shoot a six-page story for a client, there's usually only one - and at most two - two-page spreads in the entire layout. Even the 12 megapixel 5DC is plenty.

It's easy to fixate on FPS or megapixels, but in practice, the lame AF system Canon puts in most of its bodies hurts speed more than anything. Let's say I'm shooting pan blurs of cars going down a race track. I need an AF system that's both fast and accurate. It needs to focus quickly, and lock focus on to the correct part of the car. To get any decent amount of motion blur in the cars' wheels or background, you can only count on 30-40 percent of the images being sharp, even with the latest and greatest IS lenses. Throw a POS AF system like the 5D's into the mix, and you can cut that "hit rate" percentage in half. So, the faster and more accurate the AF system, the slower FPS rate you can get away with. If a body has neither a fast AF system or fast FPS, it's the worst of both worlds. 

The 1DMKIV is an excellent machine in the AF and FPS department, but it still lags behind in image quality to the 1Ds and in high ISO performance to the Nikon D3s. Throw in the fact that the D3s has a full-frame sensor to the 1D's 1.3:1 sensor, and the only thing the 1D has on the D3x is megapixels. At the end of the day, you either deliver the product your client wants, or you don't. The only place blaming your equipment gets you is the back of the unemployment line. Do you really think you can tell your cleint, "Well, I should've gotten you the shot, but my camera's too slow, but that's OK because the other images I've submitted to you have a ton of megapixels," is really gonna fly?


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 8, 2011)

*I stand by the prediction I've been making since December*



Bob Howland said:


> An external raw video recorder?!? Exactly what serious videographers have wanted in the 5DMkII. I have a feeling that, regardless of the pixel count, the body of the 5DMkIII (or whatever) will be real star. For one thing, if Canon gets serious about video, I want to see if/how they handle viewfinder masking.
> 
> And there is no reason why Canon can't use the same body architecture for multiple cameras: (1) FF, low pixel count, a video camera that takes really nice still images (2) FF, high pixel count, a still image camera that takes really nice videos, (3) APS-C/APS-H, low/medium pixel count, a speed demon optimized for sport shooters.


----------



## Heidrun (Jun 8, 2011)

V8Beast said:


> NotABunny said:
> 
> 
> > The fact that some people prefer speed over resolution is another matter.
> ...




I maybe takes one shot in the minute. I really want to change from 1d mk III to 1DS mk III or IV or perhaps 5D mk III when it arrives. I want the best resolution i can have for my pictures


----------



## motorhead (Jun 8, 2011)

Heidrun,

I'm with you on this. Apart from landscapes, I shoot a bit of F1, British Superbikes and MotoGP which others might think lend themselves to high fps shooting. However I remain firmly in one-shot mode and don't use motordrive at all. Maybe I'm old school, but I prefer to use my knowledge of each discipline to time my shutter press. I believe, right or wrong, that I can achieve a better shot that way than if I used a "scattergun" method.

I have read books by world famous sports photographers and have yet to see any using and recommending anything other than the method you and I use.

So, I am firmly in the high resolution, high DR camp and have no personal need of high ISO's or ever increasing motordrive speeds.


----------



## RuneL (Jun 18, 2011)

These are answers to various post without the quotes...

Have BMW stopped selling the 760i? Mercedes the S-class AMG? Audi the S8? Surely these cares make no sense and add a miniscule amount of cash-flow compared to the respective other models of each company. 

Some people in this thread are looking forward to a more simplified 1D line - why? Is it hard to figure out now? 

Dropping the 1Ds and morphing them into one 1D with FF makes sense, but I'd like the ability to crop it down, I want the speed of fps (high-ish isn't enough - I need at least teh current 1D IV or more) and af, the large buffer and the extra reach for sports, where I shoot either jpeg, s- or m-raw anyways - so who cares about full frame? I don't want to box with 50+MB files when there is a deadline and hundreds of pictures to go through. I don't have any strong need for full frame as it is, I see the neatness of it, but u know, the impact for me? I'd have to get extenders or new teles...

I like the 1D line as it is. If Canon breaks it I'm convinced a lot more people will just move on to Nikon, especially if the price goes up and Nikon keeps their current range. I know I will. Dropping it will also mean they lose the flagship and the cameras that cater to the pros.

The video part - well, drop the rolling shutter. Yeah, you get awesome quality and a huge varity of lenses, a pretty decent size, but god damn, that rolling shutter makes it hard. But once you are aware of the limitations you're good. I've made awesome looking stuff with mine using only the camera handheld and on a regular manfrotto tripod with a pan head. And autofocus - in a videocamera - really? Anyone needs this? What you need is proper follow focus and a proper screen for focusing. Af in a video camera? No. Just no.

Low light monsters? That is the Nikon D3S, not the 5D II. The low light monster in Canons line up is the 1D IV. Less noise than the 5D II. 

What they do with the 5D doesn't matter to me. Same with the rest of the line up. 





And blah blah blah. Who cares. They will keep making the cameras we know. 

Edit: What I want that actually means something to every day use instead of fever nerd-gasm-fantasies: Better weather sealing, I don't want my drive/af buttons breaking in hard reain.
Better view finder info, I wanna see a change to lightmeter as I select ISO. Etc...


----------

