# What if the rumored 5Dx is actually a 4D?



## pedro (Feb 14, 2013)

Hi, returning to CRs post a few days ago:


Canon Rumors said:


> <div name=\"googleone_share_1\" style=\"position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;\"><glusone size=\"tall\" count=\"1\" href=\"\"></glusone></div><div style=\"float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;\"><a href=\"https://twitter.com/share\" class=\"twitter-share-button\" data-count=\"vertical\" data-url=\"\">Tweet</a></div>
> <p><strong>A new EOS-1 body in 2014
> 
> 
> ...



as seen at
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=12819.0

*So, concerning the last paragraph of his part of the original post, what if the rumored high MP body is actually a 4D?
CR guy: - any additional thoughts? Is it likely to happen?* 
So the 5Ds could maintain a relatively "low" MP count within its segment as a higher priced allround cam. If my memory isn't too blurred, Canon kinda hinted that after the 5D3s announcement. Not sure what the original message was, but somewhere along the line, that they consider to stay at these MPs in relation to the feedback of some photographers. I would happily embrace such a decision. So a 4D could be the 1DX equivalent at high MP and DR. Well, time will tell. Cheers, Pedro


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2013)

Honestly, I think a 2013/2014 update to the 5DIII is pretty unlikely. Rather, we'll see the high MP FF sensor as a new or split line. They might re-split the 1-series (1Ds X), or they may call it a 4D, 2D, or split the 5-series line (5Ds). Either way, high MP will mean low fps.


----------



## motorhead (Feb 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Honestly, I think a 2013/2014 update to the 5DIII is pretty unlikely. Rather, we'll see the high MP FF sensor as a new or split line. They might re-split the 1-series (1Ds X), or they may call it a 4D, 2D, or split the 5-series line (5Ds). Either way, high MP will mean low fps.



Thats sounds like my kind of camera.


----------



## 1982chris911 (Feb 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Either way, high MP will mean low fps.



Which is not really a bad thing for a camera that is mainly used for Portrait/Landscape/Architecture as long as they keep it reasonable (around 3fps) ... I only hope they will keep a good AF system and not go back to the stone age AF of the 5d MkII, in that regard the 5d MK III is really two steps forward ...


----------



## caruser (Feb 14, 2013)

I know it's against the current stream of excessive classification and name calling (e.g. displays, retina vs. non, and these useless uwxyzvga designations; just tell me the size and the number of pixels already) but I couldn't care less about whether it's called the 5DX, the 5D9, the 1DY or the 4D, if the performance and specs are what I need I'll try to get it, and if not I won't...


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Honestly, I think a 2013/2014 update to the 5DIII is pretty unlikely. Rather, we'll see the high MP FF sensor as a new or split line. They might re-split the 1-series (1Ds X), or they may call it a 4D, 2D, or split the 5-series line (5Ds). Either way, high MP will mean low fps.



I don't know if a 5DIII update is that unlikely, though. They have apparently come out with new sensor tech, and to implement that in only an APS-C (7DII?) and a high-megapixel niche FF (4D? 5Dx?) seems to shut out the largest selling FFs from new sensor tech for a good few years. All that when competitors will be coming with their newer sensors. 
Edit: It bothers me how much conjecture I included in the above paragraph. Let's rephrase: When a company comes out with a new technology that is very likely to be popular among consumers, it makes sound business sense to implement it in their most popular products. In this case, these are the new sensor and the 5D-series body respectively. My 2 cents.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 14, 2013)

I'm still thinking that the 5D3 will have a quick replacement, most likely some time in the second half of 2014. Maybe sooner than that if we are lucky.



neuroanatomist said:


> Either way, high MP will mean low fps.


Low FPS but high MP and great DR - Perfect trade off!


----------



## bseitz234 (Feb 14, 2013)

caruser said:


> I know it's against the current stream of excessive classification and name calling (e.g. displays, retina vs. non, and these useless uwxyzvga designations; just tell me the size and the number of pixels already) but I couldn't care less about whether it's called the 5DX, the 5D9, the 1DY or the 4D, if the performance and specs are what I need I'll try to get it, and if not I won't...



+1. I've been having the same issue with lenses... does Canon really need to include "USM" in every lens title? It's a nice spec, sure, but if Apple sold laptops as "Macbook Pro 15inch 2.4GHz 4core-i7 750GbHDD 8GbRAM GT650M" instead of "Macbook Pro" + a spec sheet, we'd all think they'd lost it.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2013)

1982chris911 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Either way, high MP will mean low fps.
> ...



No, I think it's perfectly reasonable. The 1Ds wasn't known for it's high frame rate... Still, if they give it dual Digic 5+, 18 MP at 12 fps could mean 45 MP at 4.8 fps, and that's not too bad (and right in line with the 1DsIII).

I suspect the decision on AF will come down to the body type. If it's a high MP sensor in a 1-series body, it'll get the 1D X/5DIII AF system (and likely the 1D X metering). If it's in a 5-series body, it'll get the 'old' 63-zone iFCL metering and a lesser AF system than the 5DIII. That would effectively force a choice between a true 'action' camera (1D X), a true 'studio/landscape' camera (high MP), and a 'jack-of-all-trades' (5DIII) - or, as Canon's internal marketing presentations may pitch, result in people buying at least two bodies to get their needs met.



Ricku said:


> Low FPS but high MP and great DR - Perfect trade off!



High MP - Canon have certainly demonstrated a willingness and ability to go there. Good DR they have. Great DR? That remains to be seen - Canon's sensor development efforts to date appear to not have been focused in that area.


----------



## Ricku (Feb 14, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > Low FPS but high MP and great DR - Perfect trade off!
> ...


That is a very good point. But I'm hoping that the recent critique against Canon, and also Sony's achievements with the exmor sensor, has forced Canon to spend more dollars on sensor R&D.

After all, when it comes to technical innovation, Canon has become more of a follower than a leader.


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 14, 2013)

dilbert said:


> And as you said elsewhere on this site, without high fps, you can't take good photos



Obviously the mods removing your previous remark and susequent rebuttals to the same effect wasn't sufficient to prevent you from having another go at the expired horse....


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 14, 2013)

my bet is the 5d3 will get the standard cycle of 3-4 years and the reason this is being brought up is to get people talking - because while there is a ver vocal minority of haters for the 5d3, there are tons of happy users who stay quiet! A high mp camera with better DR is geared towards a different user base than the 5d3, which yeah, appeals to most wedding shooters like myself. 

Again, in my local photographer community, no Nikon wedding shooter recommends the d800 to those looking to upgrade - most say d700, d3, d3s. I know many will flame me for saying it, the good old - memory is cheap argument. But, those wedding shooters that did snag a d800 say it stays in the bag on wedding day because the files are just too damn big and adds too much time to the work flow. (it's not just buy more CF cards and new HD's, most will have to upgrade their computers to handle the larger files). 

With that said, a canon high mp body may be more versatile because it would most likely offer RAW, mRAW, and sRAW - where d800 only offers crop mode (I'd rather have a lesser mp'ed image at the full scale of the FF sensor than a smaller file but cropped). So on that end, a high mp body may sell to wedding togs. But, I doubt wedding photographers woud leap at such a body (especially if its in a 1d series body), maybe a few really high end wedding togs (many of them may buy it for the studio and leave it there on wedding day). Even if it has better DR, how much of that would be lost when shooting at mRAW or sRAW? Thats why I think the 5d3 hits the sweetspot of performance across the spectrum. 

Last thing to say, a split line for for the 1D and 5d does make sense - wedding and sports shooters would still have their tools, while studio and landscape shooters would be abe to use the 1dxs or the 5d3s.


----------



## pedro (Feb 14, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> my bet is the 5d3 will get the standard cycle of 3-4 years and the reason this is being brought up is to get people talking - because while there is a ver vocal minority of haters for the 5d3, there are tons of happy users who stay quiet! A high mp camera with better DR is geared towards a different user base than the 5d3, which yeah, appeals to most wedding shooters like myself.
> 
> Again, in my local photographer community, no Nikon wedding shooter recommends the d800 to those looking to upgrade - most say d700, d3, d3s. I know many will flame me for saying it, the good old - memory is cheap argument. But, those wedding shooters that did snag a d800 say it stays in the bag on wedding day because the files are just too damn big and adds too much time to the work flow. (it's not just buy more CF cards and new HD's, most will have to upgrade their computers to handle the larger files).
> 
> ...



Well said, Chuck Alaimo. I strongly hope the MP count will remain the same for a long time. Due to an old PC I am running my 5D3 at mRAW....Along with an improved sensor the 22 MP within this and the overnext product cycle would work quite some wonders...


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 14, 2013)

Interesting thread.

How come Canon, or Nikon...don't offer both a "crop mode" _and_ a downsampled "m" mode? Would that really over-complicate the processing, computing power, or software? It seems to me that having both methods, would be truly very useful and versatile. 

A Canon body, especially a high MP one, that could use both methods, would have a strong appeal, it seems to me. However, could it also be, that if both methods were offered, then users would want a choice of higher frame rate (a la Nikon in their crop mode)? Canon use frame rate to distinguish their line, so maybe that's the real reason both methods wouldn't be included?

I thought the "4D" name had bad connotations in the Japanese language...


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 14, 2013)

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 14, 2013)

One way of looking at the upcoming Canon product line is to posit that the order in which the flagships were introduced was flipped... 

1) 1D mark IV was replaced by 1DX ...a faster lower MP body (yes it happens to be full frame and not APS-H)
2) 1Ds mark III is yet to be truly replaced...though canon earlier claimed that 1DX is that replacement...I think the rumored higher MP body (1DsX?) is the real candidate that is destined to occupy the slot left vaccant by 1Ds Mark III. 

The anticipated higher MP body (1DsX?) could likely have ~35-45MP, lower fps, 1DX metering and AF, other 1 series perks, and if you buy into this hypothesis, we can expect the price range to be pegged higher than the current 1DX, at may be $7.5 K to $8.5K, not that far from its original predecessors. They may throw in a few bonuses like GPS and wifi...while pro's were never really dying for such features, they won't say no to it either if offered. 

Whatever its final form, this new entry is bound to be a substantive body with an impressive feature list.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2013)

dilbert said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



...and thank you for flagrantly misrepresenting what I said. Now would you like to provide a link to where I stated, "Without high fps, you can't take good photos," or, perhaps you'd like to suggest that the 5Dx/4D will actually be a lens, and not a camera?


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 14, 2013)

Canon can call it whatever it wants, but the product line can certainly benefit from a true successor to the 1DsIII. I have no use for a mega megapixel body, but know lots of people that are still hanging on to their 1DsIIIs because neither the 1Dx or 5DIII are compelling enough reasons to trade them in.

IMHO, it makes more sense to build a high megapixel body around the 5D platform, as the 1-series build quality and form factor are overkill for studio work. A lot of the used 1DsIII bodies on ebay have well over 100,000 clicks but look practically new.


----------



## pedro (Feb 15, 2013)

V8Beast said:


> Canon can call it whatever it wants, but the product line can certainly benefit from a true successor to the 1DsIII. I have no use for a mega megapixel body, but know lots of people that are still hanging on to their 1DsIIIs because neither the 1Dx or 5DIII are compelling enough reasons to trade them in.
> 
> IMHO, it makes more sense to build a high megapixel body around the 5D platform, as the 1-series build quality and form factor are overkill for studio work. A lot of the used 1DsIII bodies on ebay have well over 100,000 clicks but look practically new.



seems about right. wise words. for studio use you won't need a brick...


----------



## Ricku (Feb 15, 2013)

pedro said:


> IMHO, it makes more sense to build a high megapixel body around the 5D platform, as the 1-series build quality and form factor are overkill for studio work. A lot of the used 1DsIII bodies on ebay have well over 100,000 clicks but look practically new.



seems about right. wise words. for studio use you won't need a brick...
[/quote]
+1

Same thing can be said about landscaping and hiking / traveling.


----------



## J.R. (Feb 15, 2013)

What's in a name? But in the case of Canon it matters. 

If the new body were a new series altogether, it shall need to be substantially different from the 5d series. It can't be only a simple MP upgrade. 

Personally, I expect it to be a 5Ds and not a 5Dx.


----------



## RS2021 (Feb 15, 2013)

Ricku said:


> pedro said:
> 
> 
> > IMHO, it makes more sense to build a high megapixel body around the 5D platform, as the 1-series build quality and form factor are overkill for studio work. A lot of the used 1DsIII bodies on ebay have well over 100,000 clicks but look practically new.
> ...



To think that the high MP offering will be housed in a 5D-range body, or 5D-like body, or anywhere within the vicinity of 5D3 price (even double) is a pipe-dream in Technicolor.

It will be a 1 series or "1-series-like".


----------



## marinien (Feb 15, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Either way, high MP will mean low fps.
> ...



According to *dilbert*: high fps gives you *more *chances to have good photos = without high fps, you *can't *take good photos :


----------



## marinien (Feb 15, 2013)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > insanitybeard said:
> ...



but, but, ... Neuro, you promised stop beating that horse ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2013)

marinien said:


> but, but, ... Neuro, you promised stop beating that horse ;D



"You see what I did? I didn't let it lie." --Harry Burns (Billy Crystal in _When Harry Met Sally_)


----------



## insanitybeard (Feb 15, 2013)

dilbert said:


> insanitybeard said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



My comment was about as insightful and relevent to the topic as your repeated belittling of anybody who wishes to use high speed burst on their camera. Don't want to use it yourself? Fine. But don't REPEATEDLY preach to the rest of us that by using it it somehow makes us devoid of any skill.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Feb 15, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want



I can only speculate on what drives the purchasing decisions of other people. From my experience of owning alll the 5D series of Canon cameras as well as most of the xxD series as well as a Nikon D800 and D800E, I have never needed to use a small raw format ever. However I do find that the various cropping sizes on the D800 are very useful. The most useful is that I can use full frame or aps-c lenses on the same camera. This would be revolutionary for Canon. But what Canon could do is to allow DX (aps-c) crop mode on an full frame camera.

Where do I use it. Let us say I'm using my 300mm for a landscape shot accross a bay and then I spot an some wildlife where I need a longer reach. I can quickly go into crop mode and choose the amount of crop by choosing the image area thereby saving the file in a smaller raw file as well as having a faster FPS. Canon could do this but so far they haven't because their full frame cameras don't have enough MP to do the crop and still have enough MP for the frame. Someday will really high MP, perhaps all cameras will allow a digital crop size so you can get any framing that you want (maybe even square - Nikon D800 has a very pleasant 5x4 format choice that saves some Raw size).


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 15, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want



I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 15, 2013)

dilbert said:


> You repeatedly insisted that high fps were required to take good photos and that skill was no replacement for this which obviously leads one to conclude that you're insisting that high fps is required to get good photos.



Link, please? In particular, when did I state that one *could not* get good photos without high FPS? Pity you don't seem to understand the difference between 'helpful' and 'required'. I can't help if you draw completely bogus conclusions from my statements, but please do not misrepresent what I'm actually writing.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 15, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want
> ...



Different strokes. mRAW is what I shoot the majority of the time because full RAW is overkill. That gets right back to the point of the other reply I left here, that I hope this would be a spit in either the 1d or 5d line - not a replacement. There are many of us who don't need mega giant files. The 5d3 is a great all around camera workhorse.

Crop mode would be kind of useless for me as the vast vast majority of the time I want the FOV of a FF camera. With the exception of the formal portraits, anything more than mRAW is overkill. I'm not swaying there isn't a time and a place for what a mega mp body can do, but for me the benefits just aren't there. plus there is the extra $$$$$ that would need to be spent on CF cards, HD's and upgrading my PC because as a wedding shooter something like the d800 would triple/quadruple the the overall memory used. Hell, if it takes 20 minutes to transfer 16 to my computer - on a d800 I would need at least 4 more 16 gig cards - that's over an hour extra just to get the files on the computer. Then comes the culling, which again will take much longer. The majority of these shots will only be printed up to 5x7, so yeah, mega MP is overkill. Unneeded for me. 

Spit the line - a mega mp body will not kill 5d3 sales as each cam is meant for different things (same goes for 1D series, sports shooters for sure woud rather have fps that MP).


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 15, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Bruce Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



I know quite a few nikon shooters that would have bought d800's if it had mRAW sRAW. It's the #1 thing mentioned when i hear nikon folk asking for upgrade advice. For weddings, nikon shooters recommend the d700, d3 and d3s because the files size on the d800 is too large for that kind of work. 


Here are some quotes from nikon users:

" I would look for a used D700, D3, or D3s. The D800 files are going to be way too big for your needs. The D4 is somewhat overpriced for what you are going to need."

"D3s is the leader for low light, D4 is a piece of junk. D800 is crap unless you're in a studio. Wouldn't touch a canon unless 5DMrkIII"

" Best wedding camera on the market today is the D3s. The best value wedding camera on the market today is the D700."

" I agree with Brady, D3s is a beautiful camera. Shooting with 2 32GB CF cards with one for immediate backup is a great way to shoot a wedding with confidence! D800 is a body geared towards the landscape/commercial world but not for weddings. D4 was a dud."


I could keep going with these quotes.


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 15, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want
> ...



Yes, the point of RAW is non processed information, allowing for post processing in 16 bit. It's quite possible users may want to pp images that aren't going to be greatly enlarged or used for web viewing. The larger the MP the more useful this mode for those that understand the true might of 22 MP ( let alone 40 ! )


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 15, 2013)

V8Beast said:


> Canon can call it whatever it wants, but the product line can certainly benefit from a true successor to the 1DsIII. I have no use for a mega megapixel body, but know lots of people that are still hanging on to their 1DsIIIs because neither the 1Dx or 5DIII are compelling enough reasons to trade them in.
> 
> IMHO, it makes more sense to build a high megapixel body around the 5D platform, as the 1-series build quality and form factor are overkill for studio work. A lot of the used 1DsIII bodies on ebay have well over 100,000 clicks but look practically new.


For someone who doesnt't have years of experience with the Canon product line. What caracterized the 1DsIII?


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 15, 2013)

Hobby Shooter said:


> For someone who doesnt't have years of experience with the Canon product line. What caracterized the 1DsIII?



For its time, the 1DsIII was the king of resolution and overall IQ, which made it the go-to workhorse for many studio photogs. However, it's state of the art (for its time) AF and respectable 5 FPS burst rate made it an extremely versatile tool that could be used for occasional action and sports photography as well.

Other than high-ISO improvements, the 5DIII doesn't offer much if any improvement in overall IQ or resolution, but then again, the 5DIII is less than half the price of what the 1DsIII sold for when new. If I already owned a 1DsIII I'd probably still be shooting with one, but I didn't own one, so I'm more than thrilled with my 5DIII


----------



## pedro (Feb 15, 2013)

V8Beast said:


> Hobby Shooter said:
> 
> 
> > For someone who doesnt't have years of experience with the Canon product line. What caracterized the 1DsIII?
> ...



I never owned an 1DsIII either, not my budget anyway. But coming from a 30D my 5DIII is a huge step up and it blows me away...anytime I pick it up. If it doesn't it's always the dude behind ;-)


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 16, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want
> ...



You don't know why anyone would? I'll tell you. If you're a sports photog, and have a MEDIUM amount of time to get photos out, you can still shoot in sRAW and still have a lot of processing freedom over JPEG. It comes in really, really handy when you have to shoot good, quick shots, but still have time to process a bit to print an 8 x 10. I shot 5000 sRAW files at the GLIAC Swim meet and I was really thrilled over the IQ when processed and converted to jpg. Shooting just in jpg would not have maintained the IQ I was able to maintain in sRAW, especially with a 1DX where the sRAW files were amazing. The whole reason to shoot sRAW is much lower file size, much faster upload to computer time, while still maintaining a high level of IQ, close to RAW, but better than jpg.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 16, 2013)

dilbert said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



No dilbert, he never did. Sorry.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



Well said! It also comes in handy when you know you want to shoot at really high ISO, and you know there is resolution loss at that setting...so why waste file size on something that isn't using all the pixels anyway? Still way better than shooting a jpg. Not every photographer shoots in a studio at ISO 100, with strobes. Some of us are outside shooting fast moving things, even when it's getting dark. If the final image can't be printed at 24 x 36 at 300 dpi and have every one of those dots razor sharp with real detail, so what?


----------



## Peerke (Feb 16, 2013)

On topic:

If it will be called 4D, I for sure won't buy it. I can't even stand the thought on it. Nightmares I had, Nightmares. Thanks for this post.


----------



## risc32 (Feb 16, 2013)

i don't have any use for sRAW either. when i'm shooting sports or something like that where i might crank out thousands of shots i shoot jpg. i dial it in, and shoot jpg. if i had the memory card space, wanted my camera buffer to bog down(that could mostly be fixed with a fast card), and had time to fool around on a PC i'd shoot this stuff in RAW. but obviously people differ. that's cool. options are cool.
honestly, the only reason i came to this thread is because the title reminded me of a scene from a "revenge of the nerds" movie. the characters are stoned on a deserted island and ...... "what if cat, really spelled dog?"
yup, i sure am something....


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

Risc32, haha, I need to look up those movies again, I forgot about that!


----------



## emag (Feb 16, 2013)

AprilForever said:


> I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.



I've often used MRaw for time lapse. I find it gives me PP flexibility without huge file sizes. YMMV.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 16, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > Here are some quotes from nikon users:
> ...



OK, here are the sites of some of those quoted --

http://www.nealurban.com/splash

http://www.bradydillsworth.com/

http://www.drewzinckphotography.com/

http://argentophotography.com/

LOL...I find it funny that as opposed to hearing the other side of the fence recommending lower mp'ed bodies for weddings in your mind = obviously bad advice. Why is it so hard to accept that if you don't need to shoot to print 40x60 or larger a lower mp camera is bad????? What I find even funnier is that in a standard photography forum (not nikon or canon), you see many nikon users telling younger photogs that the 5d3 is a great idea if your upgrading to FF and are not invested in glass???? File size does matter if you shoot 2000 images or more per event you shoot.


----------



## Hobby Shooter (Feb 16, 2013)

pedro said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > Hobby Shooter said:
> ...


Thanks Mr Beast!
Pedro, same for me, I came from 60D to the 5D3 and although I am far from being able to use it to its full capacity I am often stunned by its capabilities. Bad pictures are because of me.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 16, 2013)

I owned a 1Ds Mark III. It was amazing how accurately it could reproduce skin tones. I'd say no other camera can get skin tones as "correct" as the 1Ds Mark III can. With that said, it couldn't go anywhere near ISO 800 or higher like the 5D Mark III can. Overall, the 5D Mark III is much more versatile and has outdated the 1Ds Mark III and I probably wouldn't even consider getting one, especially since a new 5D Mark III is often cheaper.

However, it wasn't made to do the same things the 5D Mark III was made to do. That's why I think the 1Ds Mark II and Mark III are both excellent studio cameras. But if you show me a studio photo from a 1Ds Mark III shot and a 5D Mark II shot let's say, you won't be able to tell which is which. The only difference is skin tone. I still can't get over how well those cameras could do.

With a newer, higher MP camera, I'm sure it will be the true successor to the 1Ds Mark III. It'll be 39-46 mp, will be low fps, and low-ISO only.


----------



## pedro (Feb 16, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> hjulenissen said:
> 
> 
> > Chuck Alaimo said:
> ...



According to my shooting habits the highest amount of files I get while shooting is near 200. Developing them in DPP and some PP in CS2 (old but suits my needs), piece by piece. Due to an old and slow PC I don't even shoot full res. mRAW is way enough for now. So MPs really count. IQ wise as well, if you aim at mostly high ISOs and available light. So for me to go far beyond the current MP count of my 5D3 in a next body cycle would be a loss. As the 5D3 is a great low light tool at a (still) decent price. Especially if your amateur budget is not apt for an 1Dx. *I'd prefer a split: 5Dx ("revolutionary" 22 -24MP sensor, decent ultra high ISOs, 50-51k "native", 102 and 204k extended, 0.5-1 stop improvement in RAW in comparison to the 5D3) 5Ds (new high MP sensor, ISOs 50-25kmax, ultra high DR)*


----------



## petrosv (Feb 16, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> I owned a 1Ds Mark III. It was amazing how accurately it could reproduce skin tones. I'd say no other camera can get skin tones as "correct" as the 1Ds Mark III can. With that said, it couldn't go anywhere near ISO 800 or higher like the 5D Mark III can. Overall, the 5D Mark III is much more versatile and has outdated the 1Ds Mark III and I probably wouldn't even consider getting one, especially since a new 5D Mark III is often cheaper.
> 
> However, it wasn't made to do the same things the 5D Mark III was made to do. That's why I think the 1Ds Mark II and Mark III are both excellent studio cameras. But if you show me a studio photo from a 1Ds Mark III shot and a 5D Mark II shot let's say, you won't be able to tell which is which. The only difference is skin tone. I still can't get over how well those cameras could do.
> 
> With a newer, higher MP camera, I'm sure it will be the true successor to the 1Ds Mark III. It'll be 39-46 mp, will be low fps, and low-ISO only.


----------



## petrosv (Feb 16, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> I owned a 1Ds Mark III. It was amazing how accurately it could reproduce skin tones. I'd say no other camera can get skin tones as "correct" as the 1Ds Mark III can. With that said, it couldn't go anywhere near ISO 800 or higher like the 5D Mark III can. Overall, the 5D Mark III is much more versatile and has outdated the 1Ds Mark III and I probably wouldn't even consider getting one, especially since a new 5D Mark III is often cheaper.
> 
> However, it wasn't made to do the same things the 5D Mark III was made to do. That's why I think the 1Ds Mark II and Mark III are both excellent studio cameras. But if you show me a studio photo from a 1Ds Mark III shot and a 5D Mark II shot let's say, you won't be able to tell which is which. The only difference is skin tone. I still can't get over how well those cameras could do.
> 
> With a newer, higher MP camera, I'm sure it will be the true successor to the 1Ds Mark III. It'll be 39-46 mp, will be low fps, and low-ISO only.


i totally agree with you . i also owned a 1dsIII and for back up a 7d . So as my job go to tv and movies stage photo shooting ,
i shell 1dsIII for 5dIII ,high iso capabilities and many others, but like you said ,skin tones never be the same . the perfect accurancy not there, i think do antialising filter is the reason. 
sorry for my bad bad english....


----------



## deleteme (Feb 16, 2013)

It seems the most logical path for Canon would be to make a 5Dmk3s/x or some such thing as an answer to the D800.
The need for a bulletproof body such as the 1D class for even most pros is dubious.

Canon is quite conservative and the demonstrated success of the D800 fairly calls out for response.
The high status 1D bodies and D4 bodies do not garner nearly the attention (and certainly not the sales) they used to. The 5D/D800/D600 bodies point the way to a segmentation of the higher volume FF landscape to come.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 16, 2013)

Normalnorm said:


> It seems the most logical path for Canon would be to make a 5Dmk3s/x or some such thing as an answer to the D800.
> The need for a bulletproof body such as the 1D class for even most pros is dubious.
> 
> Canon is quite conservative and the demonstrated success of the D800 fairly calls out for response.
> The high status 1D bodies and D4 bodies do not garner nearly the attention (and certainly not the sales) they used to. The 5D/D800/D600 bodies point the way to a segmentation of the higher volume FF landscape to come.



While I agree with you in that Canon needs a higher MP body, the 5D Mark III is actually much more successful at sales than the D800. So the masses of consumers/pros do not consider high MP necessary. When you say "demonstrated success of the D800 fairly calls out for a response", that is actually not true, because in sales the 5D3 is selling way more than the D800. I'd say the D800 therefore, wasn't all that successful compared to Canon.

For the pros, it would be nice for, myself included, to have a high MP, low fps, low ISO, 1D body like the 1Ds Mark III. Replacing the 5D Mark III already, considering it's sales success, makes no sense. It will most certainly be a higher-end body.


----------



## Dick (Feb 16, 2013)

pedro said:


> what if the rumored high MP body is actually a 4D?



Does the name of the rumored new body matter? We don't know what it will be like anyway. 5D X or 4D... I won't buy it based on the name.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 16, 2013)

hjulenissen said:


> Chuck Alaimo said:
> 
> 
> > hjulenissen said:
> ...



Yeah, kind of did feel like you were saying my way is the way and no one should ever do it different, therefore things like mRAW and sRAW should never be installed or use cause I never use it. My whole point was that different systems appeal to different users...big mp's, while desired, aren't what we all need...


----------



## JohnJ851 (Feb 17, 2013)

Bruce Photography said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want
> ...



You don't get longer reach you just change you FOV, still the same pixel pitch on your sensor.
I can do the exact same on my PC by cropping.
JohnJ


----------



## Bruce Photography (Feb 17, 2013)

JohnJ851 said:


> Bruce Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



True but since this response was made at the time we were discussing how to save space on our cards by use sraw and mraw out in the field, the image size options on the D800 certainly save card space, while you are out in the field on a shoot. Birds in flight are a perfect example. I've only got a 300mm for my Nikon gear for my longest tele. A bird is very often just a relatively small part of the frame while in flight. The image size command draws a visual box around the dx area in the viewfinder. This allows me to see the bird in the viewfinder before he gets into my DX cropped area to photograph. Sure I can do it in post but that extra 36 mp shot gets cut down to 15+ mp right there and the surrounding area is one that I would not be able to use anyway. Just FYI.


----------



## sagittariansrock (Feb 18, 2013)

Bruce Photography said:


> JohnJ851 said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce Photography said:
> ...




I'd think all other things remaining equal, I'd prefer to crop in post as opposed to cropping while shooting since that gives more flexibility. I can choose whether and how to crop. 
However as I said a bigger image in the viewfinder is preferable to me- probably the one advantage of a crop sensor (for the same focal length lens).


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 18, 2013)

bdunbar79 said:


> Normalnorm said:
> 
> 
> > It seems the most logical path for Canon would be to make a 5Dmk3s/x or some such thing as an answer to the D800.
> ...



Well said Bdunbar. 

And again, I also agree with Nikon's idea of being able to crop the image at capture. I like both Canon's and Nikon's methods of downsizing the file at capture, while storing them as a RAW, or "small RAW". So Canon needs to put both into a camera. It just seems like these aspects of in-camera processing or modification, aren't, or shouldn't be...all that difficult to implement, or require a lot of processing power (as opposed to the other processing aspects).


----------



## AprilForever (Feb 19, 2013)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> AprilForever said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



I seriously need every ounce of help I can with nord photography, which is usally in low light with distant, moving targets. mRAW will never get there.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 19, 2013)

Bruce Photography said:


> JohnJ851 said:
> 
> 
> > Bruce Photography said:
> ...



Thats great if you actually want the FOV of a crop, then a crop mode is the best of both worlds. But if your looking to get a certain FOV that demands FF, and a shallow DOF at the 70-200 range, crop mode doesn't get you there unless you switch to a 24-105 lens. And if you want Wider, then crop definitely isn't helping....

Don't get me wrong, I am all for using the best tools one can to get the job done. If your style is bigger is better then not having sRAW and mRAW options are for you. But if your needs are different, having the flexibility to shoot in smaller RAW file sizes and maintain the same FOV is pretty awesome.


----------



## Bruce Photography (Feb 20, 2013)

To Chuck Alaimo:

I will try this one more time. The situation that I find myself sometimes: I'm out several miles from my car, I only took a 300mm lens to keep the weight down. A subject (often times a bird which is small) comes up perched in a tree but requiring at least a 450mm lens. The bird won't wait. I quickly change to image area to Dx without changing the lens, I now can get my shot without the extra wasted space around the bird that would never fit into the composition. Sraw, and Mraw do not improve this situation. Post does work, but the full frame is much more that I need.

As you say, having mRaw or sRaw doesn't hurt to have also but for me, I prefer the cropped area where I choose the cropping when I'm shooting. Most of the time I do shoot full frame and hope that I'm carrying just the right lens. I'm done.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (Feb 20, 2013)

Bruce Photography said:


> To Chuck Alaimo:
> 
> I will try this one more time. The situation that I find myself sometimes: I'm out several miles from my car, I only took a 300mm lens to keep the weight down. A subject (often times a bird which is small) comes up perched in a tree but requiring at least a 450mm lens. The bird won't wait. I quickly change to image area to Dx without changing the lens, I now can get my shot without the extra wasted space around the bird that would never fit into the composition. Sraw, and Mraw do not improve this situation. Post does work, but the full frame is much more that I need.
> 
> As you say, having mRaw or sRaw doesn't hurt to have also but for me, I prefer the cropped area where I choose the cropping when I'm shooting. Most of the time I do shoot full frame and hope that I'm carrying just the right lens. I'm done.



Like I said at first...different strokes for different folks. It's rare that I find myself in need of the reach/incam crop factor. I was never saying that my style of shooting applies to everyone, hence why I think there should be a split line in the 5 and 1 series bodies, one for sports, one for studio. Others here said more than once that they knew no one who would ever shoot in anything but RAW, while others here think its a unnecessary feature.

I shoot weddings, so for me its about having a file that I can work with while not blowing up my HD's in the process. 2000+ shots will be taken, the only X factor is how much space will each wedding take up. Crop mode, yeah, great if you want/need both the reach and smaller files. But, again, if your just looking to keep each wedding under 40 GB's, then not having sRAW and mRAW file options means each wedding will now take 80-120GB's. That will eat up storage space, CF cards and processor power ---- I know this style of shooting isn't what everyone does. But, there are lots of wedding shooters out there, and yeah, I only know 1 local wedding shooter with a d800 - and she has been asking many questions about how cut the file size down for post processing. Would I want a big MP body? You betcha I would. But do I need one? Right now no. My 5d3 on mRAW rocks a wedding like there's no tomorrow. Back to the point of it all, I really hope that if they put a big MP sensor in a 5d style body, it will be a split in the line --- a 5ds. That's all...


----------



## Sporgon (Feb 20, 2013)

Having sRAW or mRAW facility and a cropping mode are totally unrelated. We shoot in RAW to allow further processing in 16 bit - nothing more. Assuming the camera has a high MP sensor, then to suggest that you only ever want to post process a digital image if you're going to enlarge the image to the size of a house is ridiculous. How many people really want photographs bigger than A2 all the time ?

Nikon must have lost a load of sales by forcing it's users to be saddled with 36MP files if they want to PP - which most serious photographers do all the time ( unless Nikon has another way that I don't know about ). 

The 5D didn't need sRAW - on the MK2 and 3 it is useful. You can guarantee Canon will offer it on an ever higher MP camera because they are ( generally ) in touch with what serious photographers require.

In the same vein in camera cropping to DX is another gimmicky feature, no doubt incorporated to satisfy users of DX lenses on a FX body.


----------



## eyeland (Feb 20, 2013)

When reading the above comments regarding mRAW, I was wondering how in-camera downscaling (assuming that mRAW is just that) and downscaling in post compares in terms of IQ. Comparable?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Feb 21, 2013)

Nobody said everybody needs mRAW and sRAW. I stated a case where it is useful. It delivers an image IQ better than jpeg at smaller file sizes. Why is this so hard to understand? If you don't need it, fine, but I've made use of sRAW a ton with shooting sports with a 1DX. If you have strict deadlines go jpg. If you have relaxed timelines, shoot full RAW. Intermediate timelines shoot smaller RAW because it affords better processing vs. jpg but you also don't fill up your card really fast or take a ton of time to upload to a computer. I can fit 1800 sRAW files on a 32GB CF card.


----------

