# Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII (pure conjecture)



## UrbanVoyeur (May 3, 2012)

I don't think Canon planned to release the 5D MkIII as it exists today. I think Canon intended to put a much higher MP, lower noise sensor with greater DR in it, but it wasn't ready in time. This is all pure conjecture.

I think Canon was fully aware of the Sony sensor and Nikon's plans, and physics and electronics being what they are, was able to produce a sensor equal to the one in the D800 using Canon technology. There's nothing revolutionary about the Sony/D800 sensor. But I don't think Canon could get it produced in the quantities they needed.

I suspect there was a quality control/yield issue. Yes, the sensor worked, but not enough of them were coming off the production line that met their standards - too many rejects in each batch.

This left Cannon with some choices:
- Release no update to the 5D MkII, already 3+ years old until the sensor was ready, and in so doing, appear to cede that market segment to Nikon.
- Put the top of the line 1D series sensor in the MkIII - an improvement, but the only way to maintain the price point would be to take a loss/break even on every body.
- Put a slightly tweaked MkII sensor back into the MkIII along with the other planned feature upgrades and basically mark time until the new sensor was ready.

I think they took the last option - issuing a minor upgrade so as not to be seen abandoning the market segment to Nikon.

Nikon took advantage of the situation by knocking down the price, and I think that, more than anything else caught Canon off guard. Canon would do well to take a price cut on the MkIII.
*
Why did Sony and Nikon succeed with the new sensor where Canon did not?*

I'm not so sure they did. First, I think Nikon may be creaming the sensor production - paying a premium to Sony for the very best of each run. They don't need that many, since the D800 is a relatively expensive, low volume camera.

A company Sony's size may be able to afford production runs 100x or 1000x larger than Canon. Their yield of the very best sensors may be no better than Canon, but they may have buyers for the lesser sensors - other camera makers and other Sony models that may be happy with fewer pixels, more noise, lower DR or even, via trimming, smaller sensors. 

Or Sony can afford to take a loss on initial production runs, knowing everything will work out in the near future. Sony did this with the PS 1 and PS 2 gaming processors.

It could also be that Canon's sensor production facilities for this model were in Thailand, were flooded out, and the replacement factories are not fully on line yet or tweaked for higher yields.

I think Canon's next full frame camera will be very informative. If it is in the 18-24 MP range, but retails near the 7D, then I would bet that these are based on the same sensor that was originally planned for the 5DMkIII, but represent the lesser quality production yields. (18-24 usable low noise, high DR pixels vs 36-45)

I bet that within a year, Canon updates the 5D MkIII type camera with a much higher MP count, lower noise, higher DR sensor. They may not call it the 5D, but it will be what they had originally planned for the MkIII.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2012)

*Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII?*

To make a profit. And guess what? They will. 'Nuf said.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 3, 2012)

Sorry - I think your argument is fundamentally flawed:
* They are releasing a camera with an entirely new sensor as you say. It's the 1dx and it's 18mp. It's their flagship sensor. They don't have another one in the wings that was better that they were going to put in the 5d3 or it would be in the 1dx.
* Most people don't want the 5d3 to have any more resolution and I'm sure Canon knows this because they will have asked (http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=6096.0). 

Also for whatever reason, Canon didn't increase the low ISO DR on the 5d3. It could be:
* They don't have the tech
* They don't think it would make them any money
* They don't think the market (as a whole) cares about low ISO DR
(or any other reason)

The 5d3 sensor will have been being worked on for probably 2-3 years now. I can't believe it's something you can knock together in 5 minutes. Maybe 2 years ago they didn't care about DR.

I think people who did want more MP can't believe that people want it to stay at 22, but I'll be clear on this point for me - I hope canon NEVER release a 5d1/2/3 which is higher MP since it's just a waste of my time and money. By all means release a different camera (3d, 5dx), but 22MP is more than enough for me. I neither want nor need more.

I'm sure Canon will release a new camera with a new sensor. I've got no idea what that sensor will have or when it'll be released. Given all of the discussion about DR I suspect they're "all over" that particular aspect. However until recently very high DR wasn't something that people particularly cared about - it's just because the d800 is out that people care about it now.

I suspect Canon were caught slightly with their pants down. I think it's that simple. They guessed people wouldn't care / notice and they have. Whether most of those people really *need* high DR is irrelevant - they're now seen as lagging behind and that will hurt them somewhat.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 3, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> I suspect Canon were caught slightly with their pants down. I think it's that simple. They guessed people wouldn't care / notice and they have. Whether most of those people really *need* high DR is irrelevant - they're now seen as lagging behind and that will hurt them somewhat.



You seem to be refering to DR with that statement, and if so, I don't see how that can come as a surprise to Canon - they've clearly lagged behind Nikon on sensor DR for a few years/generations now. So, rather than being 'caught slightly with their pants down,' I think it's more of a case of Canon either truly not caring about the issue, or being technically unable to solve it with their sensor technology.


----------



## PhilDrinkwater (May 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > I suspect Canon were caught slightly with their pants down. I think it's that simple. They guessed people wouldn't care / notice and they have. Whether most of those people really *need* high DR is irrelevant - they're now seen as lagging behind and that will hurt them somewhat.
> ...



Yeh - I keep forgetting about the d7000....... 2010 then


----------



## moreorless (May 3, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> Sorry - I think your argument is fundamentally flawed:
> * They are releasing a camera with an entirely new sensor as you say. It's the 1dx and it's 18mp. It's their flagship sensor. They don't have another one in the wings that was better that they were going to put in the 5d3 or it would be in the 1dx.



What I think you need to consider is how the resolution relates to other aspects of the camera, the 1DX benefits in FPS and high ISO performance over the 5D mk3 due to the lower resolution, the 5D mk3 benefits from FPS, high ISO and video performance over the D800 due to a lower resolution.

My guess going from these releases and some comments from Canon is that they were unsure of the market for ultra high MP and felt that the need for an all round "event camera" was stronger given that the 5D mk2 had been selling well to the landscape/studio market very recently. 

Equally I'd guess Nikon felt that there most pressing need was an affordable high resolution body given how far the D700 lagged behind the 5D mk2 and believed they needed to push beyond it.

Personally I won't be supprized if we see a Nikon body with similar specs to the 5D mk3 and a Canon body with similar specs to the D800 released within the next year.


----------



## mitchell3417 (May 3, 2012)

I think Canon just doesn't have the high DR sensor built yet. I think they are working on it. I think it will happen eventually, or else they will fall further and further behind Nikon in sensor technology. I think they are giving us the best that they have to offer, but they can only offer it if they have the means to mass produce it. Canon will come out with a high MP camera in 2013. The question is whether or not it has dramatically improved DR at ISO 100-400. If it doesn't then Canon has failed for too long in this area. The resolution of cameras is great right now and I think DR and high ISO performance are the two areas Nikon and Canon should be focusing on. Right now Nikon is kicking Canon's but in terms of DR. The same can't be said for Canon and their high iso performance. They are barely beating Nikon in that. So I think Canon is showing us their hand. They just don't have the Ace of Dynamic Range. It has escaped them so far.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 3, 2012)

PhilDrinkwater said:


> * Most people don't want the 5d3 to have any more resolution and I'm sure Canon knows this because they will have asked


Until it comes out. Then everyone wants it. Nikon users are no different than Canon - both companies hear the same things from their customers, and both companies have a pretty good idea of how the market will react to a given upgrade.

Given a choice between more MP OR less noise and more DR, many/most users choose the latter. When given the option of getting all three (more MP, less noise, more DR) nobody turns it down.
*
Editor's Note: I am retracting the "many/most" statement. It is factually incorrect (not being based on anything but my conjecture and opinion) and is a distraction to the discussion.*



PhilDrinkwater said:


> The 5d3 sensor will have been being worked on for probably 2-3 years now.


That's kinda my point. Canon has been planing this upgrade for 3-5 years and working on a new sensor for that long. They just couldn't pull it all together in time for the MkIII.


----------



## Policar (May 3, 2012)

Canon's market cap is much bigger than Sony's if I remember correctly.... Furthermore, Sony has patents on a lot of the technologies that are making their chips better. And there are no other sensors with the same pixel density as the D800--so how could Nikon be paying Sony for the best of each run? They're paying for all of these sensors that exist, at least for now.

This just isn't true...Canon has issues with their sensors and they have more read noise. The 5DIII has a three-year life cycle. Canon won't disrupt that prematurely. The 7D may have surpassed the 5DII in terms of monitoring and frame rates, but the 5DII remained the flagship prosumer HDSR in Canon's arsenal through its product cycle. If you buy a 5DIII, it will have a three-year lifespan as top of its market segment. Don't wait on something that doesn't exist and won't. It's also an awesome camera and the video quality is very underrated (it is soft, however).


----------



## jrsforums (May 3, 2012)

They brought it out because it was spec'd exactly the way I wanted it....and I could not wait any longer 

Would I have liked a better price? Yes....but a few hundred USD are not a major issue, and I blame that more on the weak $, not, so much, Canon.

Greater DR at low ISO? Maybe..? But more as insurance against my not getting the correct exposure. While intellectually it may seem nice to open up all the dark shadows, an image like that usually looks too artificial and is why we often tire of HDR....even if it is not garish.

More megapixels? Always nice, but has trade offs....which I guess is true of pretty much all the specs. It's like what we are told about tripods....if you want cheap, light, and sturdy, you can have any 2, but not all three.

In summary,I believe the 5D3 is an extremely well balanced system....and aim glad I jump on getting it right away (even if it is going to need some taping up).

John


----------



## justsomedude (May 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Canon [is] technically unable to solve it with their sensor technology.



This.

The thing about competition is it spurs innovation. The fredmiranda.com d800/5D3 comparo speaks volumes to the advancements Sony/Nikon has made with respect to DR. Those shadow recovery samples are simply mind blowing. Comparing to the Canon images, it's clear they are still languishing a few years behind in that regard; and there's no amount of spin that Canon fanboys can pile on to change that fact. Canon simply couldn't pull off the same improvements in time for the 5D3.

Hands on samples/reviews/comparos are now all over the internet, and Canon has been made well aware of where they stand ... and you know damn well they are pushing their engineers for improvements. They simply have to - waiting another 3 years without offering some type of serious update in sensor tech will put Canon in trouble with the large-format-print/landscape/studio crowd. They are already causing too much confusion with their convoluted lineup of bodies and their heavy push into cinema - where they still aren't being taken seriously. It's time they get back to the basics of making great still cameras, and I'm assuming they well.

Don't worry - Canon will respond. Just be patient and give them time. Their sensor upgrades are coming. At least, I'm putting my faith in them that they will be.


----------



## prestonpalmer (May 3, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> *Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII?*
> 
> To make a profit. And guess what? They will. 'Nuf said.



+1


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 3, 2012)

Policar said:


> Canon's market cap is much bigger than Sony's if I remember correctly


The market caps of the two companies are about the same but Sony's semi conductor business is much larger than Canon's. see wikipedia and yahoo finance.



Policar said:


> And there are no other sensors with the same pixel density as the D800--so how could Nikon be paying Sony for the best of each run? They're paying for all of these sensors that exist, at least for now.


Creaming is a common practice in the semi conductor business. Intel does it every day with chip Pentium chip speed, as does Apple and its ARM chips. In a given run, the chips that past the most stringent tests get the highest speed rating, and thus command a premium price. Chips that pass the tests at lower speeds sell for less. The same also applies to quad vs dual vs single processors. The best become quads, and so on down the line.

The sensor Nikon gets is the last step in long manufacturing process for Sony, which starts from silicon wafers.

Like every semiconductor part each of those steps has a yield; in gross terms good, bad, perfect and junk are produced in each run.

Nikon pays for the low noise, high DR, full frame 36 MP sensor - that's the only chip they want. In that same run, there may be low noise, high DR version, but only if you ignore the outer sensors - APS-C @ 22 MP. Or you my get a full frame with great noise and DR, but you cannot use adjacent pixels - FF @18 MP.

My examples are crude, but I think you see the point. There are many cameras models from Sony and other manufacturers that don't need 36 perfect MP's on a FF chip, which may present an opportunity to sell chips Nikon rejects.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> Given a choice between more MP OR less noise and more DR, many/most users choose the latter.



Damn, you must be right. After all, for the past several years, Canon has more MP along with more noise and less DR, while Nikon has had less MP but also less noise and more DR. Since, as you say, 'many/most users' would choose less noise and more DR, that must explain why Nikon has beaten Canon for dSLR market share for the past several years, and why Nikon's market share has increased while Canon's has decreased. 

Oh, wait, as we established earlier, Canon's market share went up while Nikon lost more than 10% of the dSLR market. Perhaps, just maybe, consider the fact that *your* opinion isn't representative of 'many/most' users.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Perhaps, just maybe, consider the fact that *your* opinion isn't representative of 'many/most' users.


Umm. Ok.


----------



## TrumpetPower! (May 4, 2012)

justsomedude said:


> The fredmiranda.com d800/5D3 comparo speaks volumes to the advancements Sony/Nikon has made with respect to DR.



I'd take that comparison with a huge grain of salt. In some very casual backyard experiments, I was able to get similar results with my 5DIII as Fred got with the D800 in even more extreme conditions, using either DPP or ACR. If you really, really need to do that kind of shadow recovery, you can do it just fine on the 5DIII, though you might have a stop or so more grain than the D800. Considering how damned little noise there is any of these cameras, even at insane ISOs, I really don't see how that's at all a problem.

Especially considering that the proper solution, with either camera, is to either fix the lit or shoot a multiple-exposure HDR....

Cheers,

b&


----------



## unfocused (May 4, 2012)

How many times and in how many threads do we have to rehash the same old craziness?

I commend Neuro and others for their patience in explaining a few facts to people.

Canon did their market research. The found that customers were generally satisfied with the 5DII except for the autofocus, weathersealing and a few other features. They also found that real customers (wedding and event photographers) would snap up a camera with improved ISO performance. They calculated what the proper price point would be to capture the largest and virtually only remaining professional market (wedding and event photographers).

The camera is here and as Canon knew from its market research, it is selling very well to their target audience.

They didn't design the camera for people who post on forums. They didn't even design it for enthusiasts like myself. They designed it for photographers who are in a very competitive business and have to have a tool that will give them an edge. I doesn't makes a dime's worth of difference what its testing geek "scores" might be and it doesn't make a difference that it might not be what you wanted.


----------



## noisejammer (May 4, 2012)

I'm sure that Canon will be making a profit on the 5D3... but I can't see any of it coming from me. If they were offering something with the banding fixed, better dynamic range or an improvement in ergonomics, I'd have one already. Right now, I'm contemplating whether my next lens should have an F mount.

I suspect the reason we're not seeing a camera that competes with the D800 is simply that Canon thinks it can make more money with the spec it has offered. Very few of the Canon lenses will outresolve the sensor, so offering a higher resolution sensor is a backhanded incentive to purchase third party glass - read Zeiss. Of course, the same argument holds over many Nikon lenses too but Nikon had very little to loose in this market segment.


----------



## stevenrrmanir (May 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> *Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII?*
> 
> To make a profit. And guess what? They will. 'Nuf said.



True, but you forgot the second part. To make a profit off the hype. The product is a marginal upgrade over the 5D MKII - NOT worth the upgrade and the cost! Only fanboys and die hard Canon individuals who are stuck with their system (ie. cannot sell all the glass) will auto-convince themselves that the new 5DMKII is heavenly mana... in a year from now it will become too painfully obvious even to the blind followers. Right now there are better alternatives out there at lower cost.


----------



## stevenrrmanir (May 4, 2012)

jrsforums said:


> They brought it out because it was spec'd exactly the way I wanted it....and I could not wait any longer
> 
> Would I have liked a better price? Yes....but a few hundred USD are not a major issue, and I blame that more on the weak $, not, so much, Canon.
> 
> ...



The DR is VERY BAD on this body! What do you mean a maybe? Have you even seen how it compares to, say D800? It is like comparing a Fiat to a nice BMW when it comes to DR! The IQ across all kinds of situations is evident by the sensor! 

If you are going to spend $3500 at least spend it on a worth-while body! Otherwise, stick with $500 cameras capable of raw - you will get the same IQ as the Canon 5D MKIII when it comes to noise, and DR.

It is beyond pathetic how some people can find reasons to justify their purchase! It is a bad purchase at that price! Something like that should have been priced at $2500, and they should have reduced the cost of 5D MKII to about $1800 - but they got greedy! Hiked the price of MKII by about $300 here in Canada!

I am not a stupid customer and will not budge just because they have a new body! Screw them! I am going to wait until the price for the quality is worthwhile. I am happy with my 40D which has better IQ than the 50D and 60D with the lenses I have!


----------



## Mike Ca (May 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> *Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII?*
> 
> To make a profit. And guess what? They will. 'Nuf said.



This.

I think Canon chose to stick with the off sensor ADC technology rather than going to something similar to the Sony Exmor technology because it is much easier to do high quality video in Canon's current technology.

Sony had problems with video. Some of their cameras had problems with sensor overheating and shutting down doing video. Those problems have been fixed in the newest Sony cameras. In the D800 Nikon/Sony have gotten high quality low ISO video, but the high ISO video on the D800 is still much nosier than the 5D III. I think Canon decided not to purse Sony Exmor technology a number of years ago because they thought high quality video was more important and that technology makes video more challenging.


----------



## sach100 (May 4, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> I am not a stupid customer and will not budge just because they have a new body! Screw them! I am going to wait until the price for the quality is worthwhile.



I think you will have to hang on to your 40D for few more years. Happy shooting with your 40D! <No sarcasm>



stevenrrmanir said:


> It is beyond pathetic how some people can find reasons to justify their purchase! It is a bad purchase at that price!



In my limited experience, at least i haven't come across people who've made purchase decision only based on DR. For many many other reasons that ARE important for photographers there is Canon. Thank you. 
<Again zero sarcasm>


----------



## Sony (May 4, 2012)

unfocused said:


> How many times and in how many threads do we have to rehash the same old craziness?
> 
> I commend Neuro and others for their patience in explaining a few facts to people.
> 
> ...


Damn right! Thumbs up!


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (May 4, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> PhilDrinkwater said:
> 
> 
> > * Most people don't want the 5d3 to have any more resolution and I'm sure Canon knows this because they will have asked
> ...



No, it's just that those who want more MP make a lot more noise than those who don't.


----------



## moreorless (May 4, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> jrsforums said:
> 
> 
> > They brought it out because it was spec'd exactly the way I wanted it....and I could not wait any longer
> ...



This post just seems to illistrait the point that others are making, your looking to translate your needs to every potential user.

Resolution and DR are obviously well behind the D800 but neither are "very bad" in objective terms and I think its easy to see many users not having an issue with these.

Equally I think its easy to see many users needing the 5D3's higher FPS, higher ISO performance, better Jpeg's and much better mid ISO video perfromance.

The big issue is I'd say that the people who want these things tend to be pro's who do not spend there time posting on net forums as much as amatures who may not even be looking ti buy a FF DSLR dispite spending alot of time commenting on them.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 4, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> The DR is VERY BAD on this body! What do you mean a maybe? Have you even seen how it compares to, say D800? It is like comparing a Fiat to a nice BMW when it comes to DR! The IQ across all kinds of situations is evident by the sensor!



The DR is VERY BAD on the *D800*! Have you even seen how it compares to, say a *welding camera*? It is like comparing a Fiat to a nice BMW when it comes to DR! The IQ across all kinds of situations is evident by the sensor!


----------



## NormanBates (May 4, 2012)

OK, I don't have a clue what customers want
more mpix? more DR? richer colors? lower price?
guess what: the D800 beats the 5D3 at basically every aspect of image quality you care to compare, and it's cheaper too
whatever customers want, they'll probably find it on the D800 (sadly that probably will be "more megapixels", sigh)

with the 5D3 finally shipping, we should soon see if sales are anywhere close to those of the D800
if they're not, looking at what happened with D700 vs 5D2, I'm expecting the 5D3 to fall to $2700 by mid-summer; if that hapens, I may buy one

* July 2008: Nikon launches D700 at $3000
* Sep 2008: Canon launches much better 5D2 at $2700
* Dec 2008: D700 has fallen to $2320, 5D2 still $2700
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Nikon-12-1MP-FX-Format-Digital-3-0-Inch/product/B001BTCSI6
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Canon-21-1MP-Frame-Digital-Camera/product/B001G5ZTLS


----------



## Cfunkexplosion (May 4, 2012)

Step 1: Release 5D Mark III

Step 2: ???

Step 3: Profit


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2012)

Cfunkexplosion said:


> Step 1: Release 5D Mark III



Sounds a lot better than collecting underpants... ;D


----------



## unfocused (May 4, 2012)

> It is like comparing a Fiat to a nice BMW when it comes to DR!



Just a piece of advice. Obscure references don't work very well as analogies. I have no idea if a Fiat is better or worse than a BMW. Nor do I care. But then again, I don't really care whether a Canon 5DIII or a Nikon D800 scores higher on some equally obscure, arbitrary test.


----------



## kdsand (May 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Cfunkexplosion said:
> 
> 
> > Step 1: Release 5D Mark III
> ...



Better than a panty raid?
???


----------



## traveller (May 4, 2012)

unfocused said:


> > It is like comparing a Fiat to a nice BMW when it comes to DR!
> 
> 
> 
> Just a piece of advice. Obscure references don't work very well as analogies. I have no idea if a Fiat is better or worse than a BMW. Nor do I care. But then again, I don't really care whether a Canon 5DIII or a Nikon D800 scores higher on some equally obscure, arbitrary test.



FYI - Fiat own Ferrari... ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 4, 2012)

kdsand said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Cfunkexplosion said:
> ...



FWIW, it was a South Park reference. Read more, if you care...

The Gnomes' Business Plan:


----------



## unfocused (May 4, 2012)

traveller said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > > It is like comparing a Fiat to a nice BMW when it comes to DR!
> ...



Ha! Thanks. I guess that helps. I know both are better than my 2000 Ford F150. On the other hand, if there is eight inches of snow outside, my 4x4 Truck is probably going to do better than either. Which is kind of the point with cameras: test results are nice, but what makes a difference is how you use it and what you personally need.


----------



## kdsand (May 4, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> kdsand said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



8)
"I see" said the blind man 
as he picked up his hammerand saw


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Resolution and DR are obviously well behind the D800 but neither are "very bad" in objective terms and I think its easy to see many users not having an issue with these.
> 
> Equally I think its easy to see many users needing the 5D3's higher FPS, higher ISO performance, better Jpeg's and much better mid ISO video perfromance.
> 
> The big issue is I'd say that the people who want these things tend to be pro's who do not spend there time posting on net forums as much as amatures who may not even be looking ti buy a FF DSLR dispite spending alot of time commenting on them.



I can just imagine a pro that specialises in the budget end of the family portrait market (like I seem to get when they have zero budget) getting really hot under the collar about IQ from issues caused by noise and low DR when printing out their 7x5 family pictures at 100iso. Well I guess not then .....


----------



## CanonLITA (May 4, 2012)

traveller said:


> FYI - Fiat own Ferrari... ;D



So what? BMW own Rolls Royce..



unfocused said:


> Ha! Thanks. I guess that helps. I know both are better than my 2000 Ford F150. On the other hand, if there is eight inches of snow outside, my 4x4 Truck is probably going to do better than either. Which is kind of the point with cameras: test results are nice, but what makes a difference is how you use it and what you personally need.



Heavy + big wheels + snow = abandon ship!

Certain xdrive BMW are probably going to do better, while the Fiat Campagnola (www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=893&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=iveco+campagnola&btnG=) or even Panda (www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=893&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=fiat+panda+4x4&btnG=) are _*certainly*_ going to do better.

Which is exactly the point with cameras. At the customer product level is not the company's capability that shape the product: if you want a Ferrari that beats an F150 on the snow, they could easily make it (actually, they did: www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1280&bih=893&tbm=isch&sa=1&q=ferrari+ff&btnG=). The point being, companies produce what they think is more profitable to them (short and long term profitability are two different animals, granted), and not what is best for the customers or what is the best they can do. And this is because finance/business people are in charge, not the engineers (which is good since companies should stay in business to begin with). Then again, when they will be asked to build the new Hubble telescope things may change.


----------



## V8Beast (May 4, 2012)

Here's my crazy theory.

Canon released the 5DIII in its current state because it conducted extensive market research on what its largest segment of potential buyers wanted in a camera. They then prioritized specifications of the 5DIII targeted at that market, and built it to attract those buyers. I know, it' a crazy idea ;D


----------



## Marsu42 (May 4, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Here's my crazy theory.



The 5d3 always reminds me of a Simpsons episode: Homer is hired to design the perfect family car, and the car company's boss tells his techs to shut up and do everything Homer says because what the customers want is certainly what they'll buy, right? The result is a car that is indeed crazy and the company is broke.

So Canon did everything their customers wanted, even included the 1dx's af though at a slower speed. And since it's everything everyone asked for, 3500$ is a fair price, isn't it? But obviously there are even many Canon fans who aren't happy, Canon marketing should have watched more Simpsons.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 4, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> Here's my crazy theory.
> 
> Canon released the 5DIII in its current state because it conducted extensive market research on what it's largest segment of potential buyers wanted in a camera. They the prioritized specifications of the 5DIII targeted at that market, and built it to attract those buyers. I know, it' a crazy idea ;D



How absurd!!! no large company would ever do this!!!!! (sarcasm!) heheheheheh


I think the proper word for all of this nonsense is hyperbole! "Hyperboles are exaggerations to create emphasis or effect. As a literary device, hyperbole is often used in poetry, and is frequently encountered in casual speech. An example of hyperbole is: "The bag weighed a ton."[3] Hyperbole helps to make the point that the bag was very heavy, although it is not probable that it would actually weigh a ton."

This is very evident here -


stevenrrmanir said:


> If you are going to spend $3500 at least spend it on a worth-while body! Otherwise, stick with $500 cameras capable of raw - you will get the same IQ as the Canon 5D MKIII when it comes to noise, and DR.
> 
> It is beyond pathetic how some people can find reasons to justify their purchase! It is a bad purchase at that price! Something like that should have been priced at $2500, and they should have reduced the cost of 5D MKII to about $1800 - but they got greedy! Hiked the price of MKII by about $300 here in Canada!
> 
> I am not a stupid customer and will not budge just because they have a new body! Screw them! I am going to wait until the price for the quality is worthwhile. I am happy with my 40D which has better IQ than the 50D and 60D with the lenses I have!



there are many other examples here, even the person who sited this - http://www.fredmiranda.com/5DIII-D800/ , a three page review that talks about both camera's. Conveniently though, the only page that person seemed to read there was page 2, and the only thing they noticed was the shadow grab. I don't think the test was even a fair one at all - they upsized the mk3 file to match the res of the d800, then did 100% crops? Thats not apples to apples at all. aside from that bit on page 2, there were more images posted from the canon, and the reviewer even spoke of mostly using the canon due to live view focusing issues in the d800. The reviewer also seemed to salivate over the Tilt shift lenses from Canon. The reviews conclusion is this - 

"Finally, I leave you with an image of my silhouette, captured without my consent by the illumination of a full moon that guided my path as I said goodbye to my favorite falls. The bottom line, is that these are both amazing tools for photography. There are good points and bad points to both. Nothing is ever perfect and the best advice I can give, is for you to evaluate your needs and make your decision based on what you primarily shoot. There are workarounds to every problem but ultimately a photographer needs to know the camera's strengths and weaknesses in order to get the most out of it."

Now that is a statement that lacks hyperbole! This whole conversation has really just turned to tech spec fanboyism. 

I personally love all the car references. And I think they are apt. BMW, Ferrari, Ford. Yeah, the Ferrari may have a top speed of 200 mph, but, do you live near the Audubon? Do you rent time at a race track? When do you ever get to use that beast at anywhere near its potential? I fear that is what shall happen here, people will by the Ferrari camera body and drive it at 30 mph on city streets....


----------



## V8Beast (May 4, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> So Canon did everything their customers wanted, even included the 1dx's af though at a slower speed. And since it's everything everyone asked for, 3500$ is a fair price, isn't it? But obviously there are even many Canon fans who aren't happy, Canon marketing should have watched more Simpsons.



The funny thing is that before the 5DIII was announced, much of the talk revolved around AF and speed. Now all of a sudden DR is the only thing that matters. People kept saying there's no way the 5DIII would get the 1DIV's AF system, let alone the 1Dx's! Others said we'd be lucky to get the 7D's AF system. Some even went as far as saying they'd be content with the same 9-point AF system as long as they were all cross-type points.

Speaking of cross-type AF points, it was the hot button topic for a while, just like everyone is fixated on DR right now. People kept pulling cross-type AF points out of their @sses. "I want a 19-point AF system, with 5 cross types," they demanded. "No, make it a 15-point AF system with 9 cross-types," they speculated. "Give me more cross-types, or give me death," they demanded. At that point, I don't think anyone would have dreamed that Canon would put a 61-point AF system with 41 cross-type points into the 5DIII, but they did, and now all of a sudden the camera is a POS? Anyone that suggested that the 5DIII might have 41 cross-type points at that stage was considered an idiot and flamed profusely. 

I wouldn't mind if the 5DIII had an extra stop or two of DR in addition to all the other improvements over the MKII, but it's still a machine that addressed all my main gripes with the 5-series cameras. Regardless of how great any of the 5DIII's other specs may have been, if Canon recycled the same BS 9-point AF system for a third generation, I'd be pissed and would never have bought a 5DIII.


----------



## edawg (May 4, 2012)

I don't get it, the 5d III is one of the best cameras ever made by any manufacturer, ever. Great af, great low light performance and with the EF mount it has access to some of the best lenses ever made in the history of photography. Irrespective of whatever else is out there, if you can't take good pictures with a 5d III, you can't take good pictures period.


----------



## stipotle (May 4, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> The funny thing is that before the 5DIII was announced, much of the talk revolved around AF and speed. Now all of a sudden DR is the only thing that matters. ... People kept pulling cross-type AF points out of their @sses. ... "Give me more cross-types, or give me death," they demanded.



Hahaha Awesome. 
+1


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 4, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> At that point, I don't think anyone would have dreamed that Canon would put a 61-point AF system with 41 cross-type points into the 5DIII, but they did, and now all of a sudden the camera is a POS? Anyone that suggested that the 5DIII might have 41 cross-type points at that stage was considered an idiot and flamed profusely.


I would like to point out that 61/41 point/cross point AF is old technology that Canon perfected in the EOS line over 15 years ago. It costs them essentially nothing to put it in any camera - no software development cost, no new hardware to develop. The marginal cost of the 61/41 point screen and AF sensor is essentially nil. So yes it is an important feature, but hardly an advance of any kind.

Same for the ever so slightly higher frame rate (4 MkII vs 6 MkIII). That is a function of the size of the high speed memory buffer. It has nothing to do with the sensor. It is very old technology, with very little cost associated with the modest frame rate increase. It may have even cost less, given the drop in price of fast RAM since this MkII introduction.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 4, 2012)

edawg said:


> Irrespective of whatever else is out there, if you can't take good pictures with a 5d III, you can't take good pictures period.



... unless you fell for the hype and got a 5d3, but the rest of your money was just sufficient for a 50/1.8 with no flashes, no filters, no tripod, no nothing


----------



## V8Beast (May 4, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > At that point, I don't think anyone would have dreamed that Canon would put a 61-point AF system with 41 cross-type points into the 5DIII, but they did, and now all of a sudden the camera is a POS? Anyone that suggested that the 5DIII might have 41 cross-type points at that stage was considered an idiot and flamed profusely.
> ...



I understand that these aren't important features to you, but for many people the new 61-point AF and faster burst rate are huge upgrades. Can we just leave it at that and move on?


----------



## Cptn Rigo (May 4, 2012)

DavidRiesenberg said:


> stevenrrmanir said:
> 
> 
> > The DR is VERY BAD on this body! What do you mean a maybe? Have you even seen how it compares to, say D800? It is like comparing a Fiat to a nice BMW when it comes to DR! The IQ across all kinds of situations is evident by the sensor!
> ...



Wow... Records full UDR (Ultra-Dynamic-Range), up to 1,000,000:1


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 5, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> I understand that these aren't important features to you, but for many people the new 61-point AF and faster burst rate are huge upgrades.


Actually, the 61 point auto-focus is a very important feature to me - as is the option of slaving the spot meter to the focus point, which I don't know if the 5D MkIII custom settings allow. It is one of my favorite features from the EOS 3 and the 1D line.

I do take exception to the 61 point auto-focus being touted as some great advance or new feature when it's really a freebie. As is the increased FPS from 4 to 6. To me, there is nothing in the MkIII that justifies the price.

I started this thread wondering how Canon could have ended up here, with a marginal upgrade at an inflated price that is completely out classed by an aggressively priced competitor with a massively improved sensor.

My thought was that Canon probably tried, but given the deadlines in manufacturing, just couldn't get their comparable sensor together in time for release. I do believe Canon has a high MP, low noise, high DR sensor at the same price point - there is nothing magical about the Sony sensor.

I hope Canon pulls it off in the near future and is able to manufacture it at scale, or they are in for a bumpy ride as lower cost derivatives of this Sony sensor filter through Nikon line up. I think we are seeing the first couple in the D3200 and upcoming D600.


----------



## V8Beast (May 5, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> I started this thread wondering how Canon could have ended up here, with a marginal upgrade at an inflated price that is completely out classed by an aggressively priced competitor with a massively improved sensor.



From an IQ standpoint, I can see why some feel that the 5DIII is a marginal upgrade over the 5DII. I suppose it's all a matter of perspective, since I always thought that the 5DII was a marginal improvement over the 5DC. All it offered over the 5DC was an extra stop of DR and ISO, and 9 more megapixels. So if you were happy with the 5DC's IQ and resolution, there would be no point in upgrading. The 5DC's greatest flaws were its pathetic AF system, burst rate, weather sealing and build quality, and Canon didn't address any of them with the MKII. 

IMHO, the MKII was a less revolutionary jump over the 5DC than the MKIII compared to the MKII, but again it all depends on your personal shooting needs.

On a broader scale, I'm not entirely convinced that the 1Dx represents a true merger of the 1D and 1Ds lines. The 1Dx is more of a 1DV than a 1DsIV. There were some rumors on this forum from a while back that suggested that the 1Ds line would morph into a small-form, gripless, studio-oriented body with a boatload of megapixels and a slow burst rate. I'd have no need for such a camera, but such a model isn't out of the question. Neither is an entry-level FF body slotted between the xxD line and the 5DIII.


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> The 5DC's greatest flaws were its pathetic AF system, burst rate, weather sealing and build quality, and Canon didn't address any of them with the MKII.



It sounds like the D800 - same burst rate, weather sealing and build quality .......


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> I would like to point out that 61/41 point/cross point AF is old technology that Canon perfected in the EOS line over 15 years ago. It costs them essentially nothing to put it in any camera - no software development cost, no new hardware to develop. The marginal cost of the 61/41 point screen and AF sensor is essentially nil. So yes it is an important feature, but hardly an advance of any kind.
> 
> Same for the ever so slightly higher frame rate (4 MkII vs 6 MkIII). That is a function of the size of the high speed memory buffer. It has nothing to do with the sensor. It is very old technology, with very little cost associated with the modest frame rate increase. It may have even cost less, given the drop in price of fast RAM since this MkII introduction.



Wow, so Canon had an AF system with many f/4-sensitive crosses? They had AF sensors with >19 points and even one f/2.8+f/5.6 dual-cross, much less five? Which models were those again, I must have missed them? You also claimed that Nikon has outsold Canon for the past few years. From what orifice do you pull out these non-facts?

BTW, what makes you think the sensor is the only restriction on frame rate? You don't suppose they might...just might...have needed to redesign the mirror assembly to achieve 6 fps vs. 4 fps for a FF camera, do you? Nah, that conflicts with the non-facts pulled from your...well, I'll quit while I'm you're, ummm, behind.


----------



## V8Beast (May 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wow, so Canon had an AF system with many f/4-sensitive crosses? They had AF sensors with >19 points and even one f/2.8+f/5.6 dual-cross, much less five? Which models were those again, I must have missed them? You also claimed that Nikon has outsold Canon for the past few years. From what orifice do you pull out these non-facts?
> 
> BTW, what makes you think the sensor is the only restriction on frame rate? You don't suppose they might...just might...have needed to redesign the mirror assembly to achieve 6 fps vs. 4 fps for a FF camera, do you? Nah, that conflicts with the non-facts pulled from your...well, I'll quit while I'm you're, ummm, behind.



You know, I really get tired of your facts sometimes. If you'd stick with assumptions and half-truths like most everyone else on online forums, it would make for more interesting debates. But no, you have to pull out all these inconvenient facts.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 5, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > I started this thread wondering how Canon could have ended up here, with a marginal upgrade at an inflated price that is completely out classed by an aggressively priced competitor with a massively improved sensor.
> ...


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Wow, so Canon had an AF system with many f/4-sensitive crosses? They had AF sensors with >19 points and even one f/2.8+f/5.6 dual-cross, much less five? Which models were those again, I must have missed them?


Yes, the EOS 3 and 1V film cameras, had 45 focus points, 11 of which were cross 7-11 of which were cross depending on CR settings and worked from max aperture of f/1.0 down to f/5.6, depending on the lens. Adding more cross points was done very early in the EOS 1D line. So yes, this is very old tech.



neuroanatomist said:


> You also claimed that Nikon has outsold Canon for the past few years. From what orifice do you pull out these non-facts?


I never claimed that. Where did I say that? I don't know who outsold whom in the past several years, and in any case it is not germain to any of my arguments.



neuroanatomist said:


> BTW, what makes you think the sensor is the only restriction on frame rate? You don't suppose they might...just might...have needed to redesign the mirror assembly to achieve 6 fps vs. 4 fps for a FF camera, do you? Nah, that conflicts with the non-facts pulled from your...well, I'll quit while I'm you're, ummm, behind.



Again, a misquote. I said that the sensor had *nothing* to do with the increase in frame rate from 4-6. I said that the size of the high speed RAM buffer on the camera controlled the FPS. More buffer RAM = higher FPS.

The mirror system would not need to be redesigned. Canon EOS film cameras have been capable of 6 FPS at the lowest model end for over 20 years. Nearly every EOS film camera that took a winder could do 6 FPS with the stock mirror. I know. I own them. Same mirror, same flip action. That problem has been solved. Canon does use a more robust reflex system when going for 11+ FPS, but again, the timing issues and mechanism were worked out at least 20 years ago. It's just a part number for them now.


----------



## rj79in (May 5, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, so Canon had an AF system with many f/4-sensitive crosses? They had AF sensors with >19 points and even one f/2.8+f/5.6 dual-cross, much less five? Which models were those again, I must have missed them?
> ...



These 'facts' are making me really curious. While the EOS-3 was launched in 1998 having the 45 point AF, why Canon never implemented this in any of the cameras other than the 1 series? Was it the issue of cost of production being high or was Canon simply hiding this up its sleeve all this while? 

Another interesting 'fact' is that EOS-3 was launched at a price of 185,000 yen which translated to roughly USD 1500 in 1998. On current exchange rates, these yen translate to USD 2,300. That's a whopping $ 800 hit on forex alone. 

Anyhow, I don't see the reason why Canon shouldn't be recovering its R&D cost even now, when it put this system in a very select group of products in the first place. Its all subjective though, if you don't agree with the price, don't buy it


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 5, 2012)

rj79in said:


> These 'facts' are making me really curious. While the EOS-3 was launched in 1998 having the 45 point AF, why Canon never implemented this in any of the cameras other than the 1 series? Was it the issue of cost of production being high or was Canon simply hiding this up its sleeve all this while?


I don't know. I don't think it is that expensive to implement. From what I understand of the AF technology, the number of focus points and cross points is more a matter of software analysis rather than major changes to the AF detector. And of course, a focusing screen withe LED overlay.

Hackers showed that it was possible to unlock the more focus points on lesser models cameras, like the 20 & 30D and even configure more AF cross points. 

Canon also never brought back eye focus (which I loved) or for most of its line, slaving the 2% spot meter to a selected focus point. Though here again, hackers showed that the spot meter to focus point link existed in the firmware. And that it could be made into a 1% meter on some models.

*Edit note: I was right about the number of AF points (45) in the 3 and 1V, but wrong about the number of cross points (max 11, not 19 or 21) . I corrected it in my post and I wanted to make sure you knew of the change.*



rj79in said:


> Another interesting 'fact' is that EOS-3 was launched at a price of 185,000 yen which translated to roughly USD 1500 in 1998. On current exchange rates, these yen translate to USD 2,300. That's a whopping $ 800 hit on forex alone.


That may have been the retail price. Film cameras typically sold for much less. I paid about $800 for the body at Adorama around 1999/2000.



rj79in said:


> Anyhow, I don't see the reason why Canon shouldn't be recovering its R&D cost even now, when it put this system in a very select group of products in the first place.


I guess, but I think they recovered the cost of all the legacy technology (that shared with film bodies) a long time ago. Overall, I'm more concerned that people think the AF, FPS and prism coverage are expensive tech and justify a price increase, or even maintaining the old price. They don't. They are essentially give aways.


----------



## rj79in (May 5, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> rj79in said:
> 
> 
> > These 'facts' are making me really curious. While the EOS-3 was launched in 1998 having the 45 point AF, why Canon never implemented this in any of the cameras other than the 1 series? Was it the issue of cost of production being high or was Canon simply hiding this up its sleeve all this while?
> ...



You may be right in this and maybe we are being ripped off, but I guess it makes least difference to Canon and/or Canon's customers for whom this upgrade is a must. Those who have concerns will either wait for the price to come down or for the 5DM4 to see whether _that_ camera satisfies them for features, tech and price. 

That said, I know what I want to buy for myself this Christmas ;D


----------



## NormanBates (May 5, 2012)

* if you have any doubts that Canon is ripping you off, just look at the video side of the market; BlackMagic is selling (still not shipping, but that will come in august) a camera that puts all the canon, sony, panasonic, etc, models to shame, for $3K (with $1500 of awesome software included); Canon could do the same, with a bigger sensor, for $4K; yet they prefer to sell it for $40K; good for them, but just don't expect me to buy it (ok, the C500 has some things that are better than the BMC, but some are worse too; definitely not worth the price difference unless $30K is just small change for you)

* the problem for Canon is that they (just like anyone else) are trying to hit a moving target; before the D800, all we wanted was a 5D2 with better AF, better construction and weather sealing, and cleaner video; and that's what the 5D3 is; the problem? in the meantime Nikon shipped a full frame camera with 36 Mpix and >14 stops of DR, for $3000; suddenly, better AF and construction is not enough; and at $3500 it's silly

* $3500 is silly not because it's more expensive than the 5D2 launch price; it's silly because a similar camera with much better IQ is selling for $3000

* one more reason to expect a price drop on the 5D3 once it's out of back-order:
aug-2010: Canon launches 60D at $1400
sep-2010: Nikon launches D7000 at $1200; it's better in some areas (noise, DR, color) but worse in others (mpix, video, swivel screen)
oct-2010: 60D has fallen to $1250, D7000 remains at $1200
since jan-2011: 60D almost always cheaper than D7000
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Canon-60D-3-0-Inch-18-135mm-Standard/product/B0040JHVC2
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Nikon-16-2MP-DX-Format-Digital-3-0-Inch/product/B0042X9LC4
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/680|0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/663|0/%28brand2%29/Canon


----------



## jrsforums (May 5, 2012)

BlackMagic....now that is a well known, trusted maker of cameras with a great track record of development, manufacturing, and support.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Wow, so Canon had an AF system with many f/4-sensitive crosses? They had AF sensors with >19 points and even one f/2.8+f/5.6 dual-cross, much less five? Which models were those again, I must have missed them?
> ...



The center point was an f/4 cross, the others required f/2.8 or faster lenses. With every 1-series digital body and with the 1V and 3 film cameras, an f/4 lens gives one and only one cross point (except certain specific f/4 lenses on more recent bodies), and an f/5.6 lens gives you no cross points at all. On the 1D X and 5DIII, an f/4 lens means 41 crosses, an f/5.6 lens means 21 crosses, and an f/2.8 means 41 crosses and 5 dual crosses. Old tech and AF sensor redesign, sure.


----------



## Axilrod (May 5, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> * if you have any doubts that Canon is ripping you off, just look at the video side of the market; BlackMagic is selling (still not shipping, but that will come in august) a camera that puts all the canon, sony, panasonic, etc, models to shame, for $3K (with $1500 of awesome software included); Canon could do the same, with a bigger sensor, for $4K; yet they prefer to sell it for $40K; good for them, but just don't expect me to buy it (ok, the C500 has some things that are better than the BMC, but some are worse too; definitely not worth the price difference unless $30K is just small change for you)



It's idiotic to try and compare the black magic camera to the Canon Cinema line. It appears that Black Magic was actually aiming for consumers, while Canon was clearly aiming at industry professionals with their Cinema EOS line. I know it sucks they didn't make anything in our price range, but it's clear to me that stuff is for the big boys. I doubt you'll see any blackmagic cameras on any sets with it's joke of a 2.4x crop. And you talk about both these cameras as if you have used them to produce dozens of films, but it's all just speculation until they actually get released.


----------



## bycostello (May 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> *Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII?*
> 
> To make a profit. And guess what? They will. 'Nuf said.



+1


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> The center point was an f/4 cross, the others required f/2.8 or faster lenses. With every 1-series digital body and with the 1V and 3 film cameras, an f/4 lens gives one and only one cross point (except certain specific f/4 lenses on more recent bodies), and an f/5.6 lens gives you no cross points at all. On the 1D X and 5DIII, an f/4 lens means 41 crosses, an f/5.6 lens means 21 crosses, and an f/2.8 means 41 crosses and 5 dual crosses. Old tech and AF sensor redesign, sure.


On the 3 & 1V, yes there were 7 standard cross points usable with f/2.8 or greater lens. Yes, only the center one worked with lens with a max ap of less than f/2.8. Starting with the EOS 1Ds MkIII in 2007, 19 additional cross points were added.
Is the AF on the 5DKIII better than the EOS 3 and 1V of 14 years ago? Yes.
Is it new technology? No. Just a modest refinement of old tech.

We are nit-picking here. You asked if Canon had AF with >19 point and at least 1 point cross-point workable at less than f/2.8 in the past. I showed you several, some dating back over 14 years which met this criteria. Yes, the system has improved over the years - that's to be expected. And yes, the 5DMkIII benefits from that refinement. But no, it is not a major breakthrough and to me, not worth the premium Canon wants.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 5, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> * if you have any doubts that Canon is ripping you off, just look at the video side of the market; BlackMagic is selling (still not shipping, but that will come in august) a camera that puts all the canon, sony, panasonic, etc, models to shame, for $3K (with $1500 of awesome software included); Canon could do the same, with a bigger sensor, for $4K; yet they prefer to sell it for $40K; good for them, but just don't expect me to buy it (ok, the C500 has some things that are better than the BMC, but some are worse too; definitely not worth the price difference unless $30K is just small change for you)


Yeah, I think between the Black Magic, the lower cost RED's and the Sony NEX line, the whole digital video market is in upheaval. I don't think it makes sense to buy into any of these until things settle down bit. But I will be renting the Canon 4k when they are available.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> You asked if Canon had AF with >19 point and at least 1 point cross-point workable at less than f/2.8 in the past. I showed you several, some dating back over 14 years which met this criteria.



No, I asked about *dual* cross type points. The ones you're referring to comprise one f/2.8 line and one f/5.6 line, so the increased accuracy of the f/2.8 baseline is only available in one orientation. A dual cross is an f/2.8 'x' superimposed on an f/5.6 '+'. You showed me none. No previous 1-series has them - they debuted in the 40D, and are found in the 50D, 60D and 7D as the center point, and the 1D X and 5DIII have five of them. 

But when it comes down to it, all of this is incremental improvements to old tech - that defines 99% of what marketers call 'new'. 

You don't find the improvements in the 5DIII, compared to the 5DII, worth the cost. That's fine - don't buy one. IMO, the 5DIII addresses all of the shortcomings of the 5DII - particularly the AF. You mention the EOS 3, and that's how far you have to go back (a technological eternity) to find Canon putting the 1-series AF sensor in a non 1-series body. I, for one, am fine with the cost of the 5DIII - the improvements over its predecessor are substantial. I'm not getting one, but only because I've already pre-ordered the 1D X.


----------



## rj79in (May 5, 2012)

But when it comes down to it, all of this is incremental improvements to old tech - that defines 99% of what marketers call 'new'. 

You don't find the improvements in the 5DIII, compared to the 5DII, worth the cost. That's fine - don't buy one. IMO, the 5DIII addresses all of the shortcomings of the 5DII - particularly the AF. You mention the EOS 3, and that's how far you have to go back (a technological eternity) to find Canon putting the 1-series AF sensor in a non 1-series body. I, for one, am fine with the cost of the 5DIII - the improvements over its predecessor are substantial. I'm not getting one, but only because I've already pre-ordered the 1D X. 
[/quote]

+1 on that


----------



## rj79in (May 5, 2012)

It is really a wonder as to how all the alleged issues with the 5d3 boil down only and only to the $3,499 and no real problem with the camera as such.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2012)

rj79in said:


> It is really a wonder as to how all the alleged issues with the 5d3 boil down only and only to the $3,499 and no real problem with the camera as such.



Of course all issues boil down to the price tag - but that's ok, because buying anything and esp. tech is always a matter of "what do I currently get for the money". For this very reason, there are no inherent problems with any tech item "as such", its mostly about what the buyer subjectively wants for his more or less hard-earned cash and what the competition is. 

There are some absolutes like "how many mp do I need for what print size", but most is relative and heavily dependent on shooting circumstances - cropping power, sealing, af, dr, noise, weight, usability...


----------



## rj79in (May 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> rj79in said:
> 
> 
> > It is really a wonder as to how all the alleged issues with the 5d3 boil down only and only to the $3,499 and no real problem with the camera as such.
> ...



My point exactly. While the gripes are almost always over the price, people are needlessly trying to find fault with what is a very good camera. 

It's ok to have a different point of view but some of the trolling here is unbelievable.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2012)

rj79in said:


> It's ok to have a different point of view but some of the trolling here is unbelievable.



Actually, I find the trolling level around here rather low, imho it's more trolling from well-off people essentially stating "get a job" if you try to decide if feature/body is worth it for one's circumstances.

While everybody should be able to understand some degree of jealousy, that shouldn't influence posts. I'm very happy with my current 60d gear, I'm just looking into in the future and trying to decide what is needed to get money out of this. And when I walk around with a friend of mine who's got very cheap Sony gear, I'm always amazed that she doesn't try to strangle me looking at my shots - and this reminds me that even my current gear is pretty good, too.


----------



## Viggo (May 5, 2012)

It's probably the "lack" of DR that got me into the most important thing about photography, LIGHT!

Flash-photography is a tad more than ettl on cam. I have a few customers that claim their 7d is so good they don't need flash. I lol then....

So thank you Canon for the 5d3 being JUST the way it is... They have done a spectacular job, they have turned ME, of all people, away from the 1-series, because they put so much of the fun from the 1-series into the 5d and built it smaller and lighter, by far! That is serioulsy good... 22 mp is just right, plenty but not stupid. And the high iso DR of the 5d3 is very good indeed. 

And headphone jack for video is something they never should have left out of the 1d x.


----------



## rj79in (May 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> rj79in said:
> 
> 
> > It's ok to have a different point of view but some of the trolling here is unbelievable.
> ...



Well phrased ... However to me it looks like the most trolling is coming from ppl who don't own either a 5d3, nor the D800


----------



## KeithR (May 5, 2012)

stevenrrmanir said:


> Typical fanboyinsm... did you even bother to look at the picture comparison between the two bodies and how well they deal with shadows and image quality (IQ)?



And your post is typical clueless trolling with no basis whatsoever in fact.

Understand this very clearly: not only have people here looked _very_ carefully at that review, but they then went back their 5D Mk III files _and utterly destroyed the review by producing results from them that were so much closer to Reichman's D800 examples than his 5D Mk III results, that it's obvious his problems weren't coming from the camera._


----------



## KeithR (May 5, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> Given a choice between more MP OR less noise and more DR, many/most users choose the latter.



Damn - I didn't get the memo where you asked me _my_ opinion about that.

Just to reiterate what has already been said (not that it really needs it): 


you don't speak for "everyone"; 
what you want doesn't automatically become what "many/most" users want; and 
the way the 5D Mk III is flying off the shelves (and let's face it - it won't be getting mopped up by clueless newbies) might even suggest that _you have absolutely no insight whatsoever_ into what "many/most" users want from the 5D Mk III, and (this is where I'd bet my money) could even be utterly, utterly wrong about that.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 5, 2012)

KeithR said:


> Damn - I didn't get the memo where you asked me _my_ opinion about that.
> 
> Just to reiterate what has already been said (not that it really needs it):
> 
> ...


You're right:
- I didn't ask you. I apologize for that oversight. ;-)
- I don't speak for anyone else.
- I don't know what most/many users want.
- I should prefaced that with an "I think" rather than present it some sort of fact (it is pure conjecture)
- My wish list does not become what many or most want and certainly does not become camera reality.

So in short, I apologize for the "many/most" statement and retract it.

Again, I didn't start this thread to debate the features of the 5DMkIII or to nit-pick over the evolution of Canon AF tech - though that's what it has become.

I tried to take a genuine stab at the question of how Canon let themselves get surpassed in the area of "sensors brought to market" by a competitor. Specifically, the Sony FF sensor in the Nikon D800.

I firmly believe that if Canon could produce such a sensor at scale, it would have been in the 5DMkIII. I do not know why they could not. I took a guess.

For me, the sensor is like film. In my photographic purchases over the past 25 years or so, I've placed the emphasis on getting the best glass, OEM ED and L, rather than getting the body with the most features or most rugged construction. I came up using spots meters, the Zone system and careful film calibration. I worked with commercial labs for weeks or months with each particular chrome film until I could predict exactly what it would do in almost every lighting situation, ASA and processing push - how much DR, true speed, grain, color shift, etc. I knew Fuji chromes (and TMax) like the back of my hand.

Fast forward to the digital age. My "film" is the sensor. I shoot RAW. Body produced JPEGS are for my previews and occasional tight newspaper deadlines. The body is only a means to get my L glass in front of that sensor. I want the highest resolution, lowest noise and greatest DR I can, because that what is I would demand of my film.

Digital is evolving quickly. I have tended to buy bodies with disposability in mind - knowing that in 2-3 years I would dump it for an improved sensor package, not because I'm a gadget freak, but because the sensor is the film, and if better film is out there, I want to use it - like when Fuji produced Velvia 100 and I stopped using 100D or when Fuji came out improved 400 D, I stopped using the older 400. 

So when my system manufacturer, Canon, fails to keep up in sensor tech in a given model revision, I wondered why. Not that the 5MkIIII doesn't have many fine features. It does. What I think it lacks is the best "film" on the market.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> I tried to take a genuine stab at the question of how Canon let themselves get surpassed in the area of "sensors brought to market" by a competitor. Specifically, the Sony FF sensor in the Nikon D800.
> 
> What I think it lacks is the best "film" on the market.



A fair question, but essentially irrelevant. Canon has certainly shown a desire to innovate in the sensor arena - has Sony produced the largest CMOS sensor ever made, or a 120 MP APS-H sensor (equivalent pixel density as a 71 MP FF)? No. It's not like Canon doesn't care about sensor technology. 

But what matters isn't selling sensors, it's selling cameras. The 5DIII is designed to sell as a _camera_, not merely as a sensor-enclosure. Time will tell, but I expect the 5DIII will sell like proverbial hotcakes. Given the relative market share of the 5DII vs the D700, I expect there will be more upgraders on the Canon side, and given Canon's >14% greater market share overall, and thus a greater number of people already invested in the Canon system, I expect the 5DIII will outsell the D800, sending Canon a clear message that they made the right design choices. 

Even though some people have trouble grasping the 'big picture' and prefer to 'focus in' on individual features (puns intended), Canon's overriding consideration is and must remain making a profit (something they, unlike Sony of late, seem able to do).


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> UrbanVoyeur said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to take a genuine stab at the question of how Canon let themselves get surpassed in the area of "sensors brought to market" by a competitor. Specifically, the Sony FF sensor in the Nikon D800.
> ...



+1 The more money they have the more they can put into R&D


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> UrbanVoyeur said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to take a genuine stab at the question of how Canon let themselves get surpassed in the area of "sensors brought to market" by a competitor. Specifically, the Sony FF sensor in the Nikon D800.
> ...



Perhaps it is an irrelevant question. After all, this is the camera that Canon has released, and I have no reason to doubt that it will sell very well. There's pent-up demand after a 3 year wait, and with Canon's greater market share, sheer numbers alone are in their favor.

But relying on customer lock-in rather than true innovation is, I believe, a losing proposition. It may work for one product cycle, maybe even two, but it hurts in the long run.

Of course we'll never know what the real sales impact is because without putting the Sony sensor in a 5DMkIII body and charging $500 less for it, there's no way to do a real head-to-head with Canon customers.

Regarding the 120 MP APS-H sensor, while impressive, there is a very great difference between building a one-off "concept" sensor and mass manufacturing. Now Canon may sell as many of these handcrafted 120 MP sensors as they can produce to military contractors and satellite manufacturers, but what matters in consumer products is scale - thousands of units, on schedule, on budget.

So far, Canon has not shown they can do that with a sensor comparable to the Sony at the Sony/Nikon retail price point. 

Canon faces one further pressure: Every day that Sony makes this sensor they get better at it. The yields get higher and their costs go down. That is operational knowledge you only gain by making a thing. It's knowledge that Canon will have to acquire one step at a time. Even if they enter the market in 6 months with an equivalent to the Sony sensor, they will be at a manufacturing experience disadvantage, and therefore cost disadvantage. And Sony get to apply all their knowledge its next gen.

Now that's not to say that Nikon or Sony will suddenly or even ever overtake Canon in market share. I don't think they will, at least not in the next several years. I happen to think Canon cares as much about sensor innovation as Sony - maybe more. But they have their work cut out for them.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2012)

Let me explain, no, there is too much, let me sum up. There is some truth to the idea that ISO is the new megapixels. But at this point, DR is a forumenon - discussed almost exclusively by people here, most of whom have no real intention of buying either a 5DIII or a D800 (meaning, frankly, that neither Canon nor Nikon care about them). Think about it. MP? That's a top line spec. ISO? It's at least in the specs, and highlighted in the feature lists. DR? Not mentioned in 'real world' context. Can you find out about DR, if you really want? Yes - and I bet you could find out about the cameras' snargleoptical quotients, too, if you really look. Most consumers won't. Forumenon. 

Sorry, that's harsh...but reality often is.


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

The ideal iso is 100 as it was with film (although asa64 was best)

Rather than let the camera give you high iso (and low DR) it is worthwhile working on the techniques to get as close to iso 100 as possible.

If you rely on high iso you will run out of DR to recover the blocked out blacks.

One of the reasons I suspect the Canon released the new 600EX is to reduce the iso and increase the DR. The beauty of this approach is that it applies to all existing cameras rather than relying on new technology


----------



## V8Beast (May 5, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> DR? Not mentioned in 'real world' context. Can you find out about DR, if you really want? Yes - and I bet you could find out about the cameras' snargleoptical quotients, too, if you really look. Most consumers won't. Forumenon.
> 
> Sorry, that's harsh...but reality often is.



Nonsense. I was looking at a D800 brochure the other day that read: "14.4 stops of dynamic range, beeyotch, recognize!"

I found it quite effective, and immediately posted my 5DIII on ebay ;D


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 6, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > DR? Not mentioned in 'real world' context. Can you find out about DR, if you really want? Yes - and I bet you could find out about the cameras' snargleoptical quotients, too, if you really look. Most consumers won't. Forumenon.
> ...



But they didn't mention the D800's snargleoptical quotient?!? Geez, Nikon's marketing = fail, no wonder Canon has way more market share!


----------



## TrumpetPower! (May 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> But they didn't mention the D800's snargleoptical quotient?!? Geez, Nikon's marketing = fail, no wonder Canon has way more market share!



Probably has somethihng to do with e fact that Nikon isn't exactly all that snugglegasmic and they know better than to play to their weakness.

I'm just sayin', is all.

b&


----------



## NormanBates (May 6, 2012)

if I was Nikon, I'd start marketing "Dynamic Range 20000:1 (Canon 5D3 can't even reach 3500:1)"


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 6, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> But relying on customer lock-in rather than true innovation is, I believe, a losing proposition. It may work for one product cycle, maybe even two, but it hurts in the long run.



Both Canon and nikon do this. Its essentially the same model. Spam the market with P&S cam's, update them twice a year, people buy em up like hotcakes, one for me, one for gf, one for mom...eventually, on of those people will upgrade to a slr. Which system do you choose....and from there on up you got your cheap body and an expanding bag of glass. If your on either system this is true - an it ain't like canon and nikon play nice enough that they can ssy, lets just share mounting techinology (that would make it easier if we could all just buy the best body and interchange lenses with no loss of anything)...

just as a side note here, with how the new nikon/sony sensor is being received, I gotta wonder how safe nikon is. Could nikon be in danger of sony just saying, yeah, about that sensor, i think we want that to be ours and just ours now? Wonder what the time frame and limitations of the contract/partnership with sony is?


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 6, 2012)

If I were Nikon, I'd be more worried about the financial situation at Sony.


----------



## DavidRiesenberg (May 7, 2012)

I don't think that stock levels are are a good parameter in gauging success. Especially considering Nikon's problematic supply levels even when they don't have a hot new product on the market.


----------



## moreorless (May 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Let me explain, no, there is too much, let me sum up. There is some truth to the idea that ISO is the new megapixels. But at this point, DR is a forumenon - discussed almost exclusively by people here, most of whom have no real intention of buying either a 5DIII or a D800 (meaning, frankly, that neither Canon nor Nikon care about them). Think about it. MP? That's a top line spec. ISO? It's at least in the specs, and highlighted in the feature lists. DR? Not mentioned in 'real world' context. Can you find out about DR, if you really want? Yes - and I bet you could find out about the cameras' snargleoptical quotients, too, if you really look. Most consumers won't. Forumenon.
> 
> Sorry, that's harsh...but reality often is.



I'd say theres always a tendancey for net forums and some review sites to focus on an aspect on IQ that seperates camera equipment and greatly over emphasize it. I'd guess because its easier to throw stats around than talk subjectively about other features for cameras you've never used.

DR seems rather similar to lens boarder performance to me, obviously not irrelivant but greatly dependant on intended use. For landscape its obviously a plus but unlike the 5D mk2(or the D800) it seems clear to me that the 5D mk3 was not built primarly to cater to this market.


----------



## JR (May 7, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:



> UrbanVoyeur said:
> 
> 
> > I tried to take a genuine stab at the question of how Canon let themselves get surpassed in the area of "sensors brought to market" by a competitor. Specifically, the Sony FF sensor in the Nikon D800.
> ...



While I totally agree with your assessment on this one Neuro, it is interesting that over the week-end I got a different sound bell from my local store. Ok I know this is not a big sample but from this store (only sell pro stuff from all brand) the D800 is outselling the mkIII big time. The sales rep mentionned they have a lot of Canon user actually ordering the D800 instead of the mkIII.

In local store you can actually find mkIII available to buy from time to time while for the D800 the backlog is very large. Now I know Nikon is having shipment problem with its D800, but none the less the order list from that store was all Nikon and no Canon. If this was true across the board, then for sure we will see a large MP camera from Canon as soon as they can and it will become a priority for them. 

I actually had a D800 for the week-end from a friend and I must say it is a great machine. ISO 100-400 is simply spectacular compared to my "old" 5D mkII and the mkIII file i have... but that is a different topic all together...


----------



## psolberg (May 7, 2012)

UrbanVoyeur said:


> I don't think Canon planned to release the 5D MkIII as it exists today. I think Canon intended to put a much higher MP, lower noise sensor with greater DR in it, but it wasn't ready in time. This is all pure conjecture.
> 
> I think Canon was fully aware of the Sony sensor and Nikon's plans, and physics and electronics being what they are, was able to produce a sensor equal to the one in the D800 using Canon technology. There's nothing revolutionary about the Sony/D800 sensor. But I don't think Canon could get it produced in the quantities they needed.



There may not be anything revolutionary about EXMOR but it is better than what canon has today... Then there are patent issues we don't know about. Canon may be able to make an equal sensor but then why didn't they? And why have they been consistently trying to catch up in DR? Canon either can't match the sony/Nikon team or won't because of its own reasons. And whatever those reasons, we won't know what will change until the 5Dmk4.




> I suspect there was a quality control/yield issue. Yes, the sensor worked, but not enough of them were coming off the production line that met their standards - too many rejects in each batch.



Unless you have evidence, there is little to suggest this is the case. If your premise was that there was nothing special about the D800 exmor then why would canon not be able to manufacture it with similar yields to Nikon/Sony? This seems contradicting to your prior point.



> This left Cannon with some choices:
> - Release no update to the 5D MkII, already 3+ years old until the sensor was ready, and in so doing, appear to cede that market segment to Nikon.
> - Put the top of the line 1D series sensor in the MkIII - an improvement, but the only way to maintain the price point would be to take a loss/break even on every body.
> - Put a slightly tweaked MkII sensor back into the MkIII along with the other planned feature upgrades and basically mark time until the new sensor was ready.


I think it was far more simple a choice. Canon thought Nikon would keep the D700's successor to be a lowMP high FPS body, and so because the 5DII did very well, saw nothing wrong with its strategy. Even jacked up the price. By the time it was revealed Nikon was going big MP, the 5DmkIII was in the final stages of planning and canon thought the 36MP Nikon sensor wouldn't be as good as it is now known to be. Then nikon came out at 3K and not 4K as rumored. Canon simply had a case of hubris. 



> Nikon took advantage of the situation by knocking down the price, and I think that, more than anything else caught Canon off guard. Canon would do well to take a price cut on the MkIII.



somewhat revisionist history. The D800 came out BEFORE the MKIII at 3000USD. Nikon didn't knock down the price. Canon entered the market fully knowing the D800's capabilities and price point. Nikon had no idea of the mkIII's price.



> *
> Why did Sony and Nikon succeed with the new sensor where Canon did not?*
> 
> I'm not so sure they did. First, I think Nikon may be creaming the sensor production - paying a premium to Sony for the very best of each run. They don't need that many, since the D800 is a relatively expensive, low volume camera.



I find it hard to imagine Nikon can come out at 3000 dollars if the sensor was all that more expensive than the 5DIII. The sony/Nikon partnership goes both ways. Nikon uses a lot of its IP and sensor design experience to help sony. Sony uses its fabrication muscle to help nikon. It is a partnership which benefits both and it makes no sense for Sony to lose Nikon by ripping them off. The demand on the D800 is unprecedented and all the switchers on top of Nikonians upgrading have made it worse. Combine that with multiple people placing orders in multiple dealers to get a hold of one, and you have the perfect supply storm we have. I was able to switch to a D800 by placing an order with a small local chain. They only have gotten 5 - 10 cameras per week but their wait list is single digits. not triple digits unlike B+H which just release the following:



> Because the backlog in fulfilling these orders is unprecedented in our history we want to let you know we’re aware of your frustration -BH


http://nikonrumors.com/2012/05/06/amazon-uk-started-canceling-nikon-d800-pre-orders-due-to-restricted-supply-from-the-manufacturer.aspx

I think what we have here is not a low volume camera but a home run which clearly Nikon wasn't prepared for. The switchers like myself are only making it worse because Nikon assumed we'd stay with canon. For B+H to say this is unprecedented in their history clearly shows Nikon wasn't expecting such a hit. Lloyd Chambers had this to say:



> I’m not inclined to disagree here. BTW, the rumor I’m hearing indirectly as word on the street from various dealers is that the Canon to Nikon switch is of tidal proportions, unprecedented.


http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/20120504_3-ReaderComment-5DM3.html

Lastly from amazon's ranking alone, we know the D800 is hauling much more preorders and sales than the 5DmkIII.

Conclusion: 
D800 demand may not match cheaper bodies but it is far bigger than the industry expected. The D800 is this generation's 5DmkII popularity wise. I think we're just seeing the beginning.



> I think Canon's next full frame camera will be very informative. If it is in the 18-24 MP range, but retails near the 7D, then I would bet that these are based on the same sensor that was originally planned for the 5DMkIII, but represent the lesser quality production yields. (18-24 usable low noise, high DR pixels vs 36-45)
> 
> I bet that within a year, Canon updates the 5D MkIII type camera with a much higher MP count, lower noise, higher DR sensor. They may not call it the 5D, but it will be what they had originally planned for the MkIII.



I honestly think that talk about said cheaper canon FF camera is just a bunch of nonsense in reaction to Nikon's alleged D600, which still just a rumor. The next canon FF body will likely be a big MP 1Ds4 to compete with nikon's upcoming D4X. I think Canon fully realizes they are being trashed in the high res market when Nikon's entry level DSLR out-resolves ever canon camera ever made. Nikon has proven a 36.3MP sensor is perfectly capable of outstanding quality. It is higher resolution over the old 20MP standard to make a difference but not too high to cause too many problems. It is literally the sweet spot of technology as 20MP was in 2007, but for 2012. The question is will canon over-react and overshoot just to look good on paper at the expense of quality.


----------



## UrbanVoyeur (May 7, 2012)

psolberg said:


> There may not be anything revolutionary about EXMOR but it is better than what canon has today... Then there are patent issues we don't know about. Canon may be able to make an equal sensor but then why didn't they?





UrbanVoyeur said:


> I suspect there was a quality control/yield issue. Yes, the sensor worked, but not enough of them were coming off the production line that met their standards - too many rejects in each batch.





psolberg said:


> Unless you have evidence, there is little to suggest this is the case. If your premise was that there was nothing special about the D800 exmor then why would canon not be able to manufacture it with similar yields to Nikon/Sony? This seems contradicting to your prior point.



I did say this was pure conjecture, right? 

I don't think the Sony senor is revolutionary because it is not based any break through in physics or CMOS design. It uses the same basic materials in the same layers and circuitry as before. (silicon, gallium oxide, etc) It is *evolutionary* - a dense packing of sensors over a large area. That's why I don't think there in anything special about making one, other than manufacturing technique.
(for example, revolutionary would be using buckey ball nano tech coated with room temp superconductors  )

Increasing the size of a chip or the density of devices on it is always difficult in semi-conductor manufacture. Both factors multiply to increase the likelihood of failure or at lest than ideal performance. The cost of a chip with a new design is never a function of the materials or the process to make the actual chip being sold. It is measure of how many chips were rejected to get one that works. 

Perfecting a semi-conductor production line for higher yields is as much an art as a science. Just because it is not new science, there is no reason to believe that every manufacturer can do it. AMD struggled for years with Athlon chip yields, where for Intel, fabricating CPU's with equivalent complexity seemed effortless. Likewise, Nvidia vs ATI on graphics chips. Or it could just be bad luck. A fire. The Thai floods. Contaminants. It has happened to others.

Nobody gets it perfectly right the first time, and sometimes, companies only break even or take a loss on the runs in the early years to be first to market with a performance boost. As I mentioned, Sony did this with the cell processors for the PS1 and PS II and Intel has done it repeatedly over the years with various Pentiums. 

Because large, high density CMOS chips have low yields, Sony may have gambled that with big enough production runs, they could produce enough chips that meet the 36 MP, FF Nikon spec. One percent of 1,000,000 chips attempts is still 10,000 good sensors. And there may be enough market for the various types of rejects to offset the cost of some of the discards. 

It is not a rip off in any way for Sony to charge a premium to Nikon for the "cream of the crop". Sony says: we're planning to attempt 1 million chips. Out of that, 5,000 will meet your strictest criteria, and another 5,000 will come really really close. Nikon replies: rather than attempting 1 million chips, we'll pay the extra cost for 10 million chip attempts so we can have our pick of the best, and you're free to use any we pass on it any way you want.

That's why I don't think Sony *necessarily* got any better yields than Canon - with a much larger semi conductor business, Sony may have been willing to float much larger runs at the same low yield as Canon.

I am sure Canon knew about the Sony chip years ago - the may even have considered using it. They certainly saw the specs, if not the chip itself.

Why do I think the Nikon price caught Canon off guard? Retail price is one of the last things a company set when releasing a new product. There are cost targets during design and manufacture, but actual retail price is set very late. The fact that the D800 preceded the 5DMkIII by a few weeks didn't lessen the surprise, and at that point, Canon's promotional material and product channels were already set up for $3500. It takes a little while to turn a ship that big. Nikon may have even faked Canon out by preparing two sets of channel materials - one with the higher price in the weeks leading up to release, and one with the real price, released at the last minute. It's been known to happen. But I do agree with you, there is a bit of Canon hubris in that $3500 price tag.



psolberg said:


> I honestly think that talk about said cheaper canon FF camera is just a bunch of nonsense in reaction to Nikon's alleged D600, which still just a rumor. The next canon FF body will likely be a big MP 1Ds4 to compete with nikon's upcoming D4X.



Maybe. I think the next Nikon FF will have fewer MP's (18-24) and will be made from the same production runs as the 36 MP sensor, and will therefore exhibit the same DR, noise and color capabilities.

Here's why:
Just because you can't get 36 perfect MP's with low noise and high DR, doesn't mean the chip isn't good. The pixels of many 10-12 MP chips are not actually 10-12 million single sensors, but grouped sets of 18-24 million sensors, which taken separately, have less than ideal performance, but taken together, produce very good results. One pixel in the group may give you great DR info, another, the best noise floor. Taken in combination, they produce perfect, if lower resolution results.

So a rejected 36 MP FF sensor may make a perfect 18 MP FF. And the yields will be much higher, and therefore the cost of the sensor much lower because you don't need 36 million perfect sensors.

If Canon releases a FF 18-20 MP at substantially less than the 5DMkIII (with fewer bells and whistles of course) then it would be a good indication that they are on their way to a high MP FF like the Sony, and these these are the rejects from that line.

In any case, I think Canon is working extremely hard to get it's high MP, high DR senor production to scale.


----------



## AdamJ (May 7, 2012)

If you don't see the value in the 5DIII, don't buy it. Nothing will speak louder to Canon than sales figures. And if they hit their sales targets, then don't expect a better sensor any time soon. Equally, if 5DIII sales don't meet forecasts after the early adopter honeymoon is over, then expect something better sooner.


----------



## moreorless (May 7, 2012)

psolberg said:


> I think it was far more simple a choice. Canon thought Nikon would keep the D700's successor to be a lowMP high FPS body, and so because the 5DII did very well, saw nothing wrong with its strategy. Even jacked up the price. By the time it was revealed Nikon was going big MP, the 5DmkIII was in the final stages of planning and canon thought the 36MP Nikon sensor wouldn't be as good as it is now known to be. Then nikon came out at 3K and not 4K as rumored. Canon simply had a case of hubris.



My guess would be that Canon believed there was an untapped market in essentially a cheape/smaller, version of the 1Ds mk3 + video while being unsure of the market for megapixels much beyond 20.

Staying with 22 MP allowed for a higher FPS without having to include 2 chips and also allowed for pixel binning offering improved video ISO performance.

Going from some of the comments we've heard I'd guess they were unsure of the market for more megapixels due to the fact that a FF camera will never be at the top of the market for resolution in the same way it can be for AF/ISO/FPS. Rather than aiming for the top of the sports/jurno/wedding market your potentially aiming below MF that has been coming down in price recently.

Perhaps the mistake was focusing too much on speaking to pro's? I can see AF, FPS and video appealing to more of them but for amatures I'd say "budget MF" resolution is exactly what many people have been hoping for.

Still I wouldnt say we'll nesserally have to wait until the 5D mk4, it could well be that much of the tech for a high resolution sensor already exists. Its unlikely we will hear Canon say, "yep the 5D mk3 wasnt really designed for landscape and studio work, don't buy and and wait for something we'll release in 2013".



> somewhat revisionist history. The D800 came out BEFORE the MKIII at 3000USD. Nikon didn't knock down the price. Canon entered the market fully knowing the D800's capabilities and price point. Nikon had no idea of the mkIII's price.



It was released before it but prior to that release the rumours were pegging it at 4000 USD. 

I'd say that Canon also need to deal with the fact that the 5D mk3 steps on the toes of the 1DX more than the D800 does the D4, if the price is dropped too low it could cost them sales.


----------



## NormanBates (May 8, 2012)

Canon entered at $3500 believing Nikon had made a "too many mpix" mistake, then kept it there knowing that supply of their camera would be short, so they'd sell as many cameras as they could take to the stores anyway

And it will fall to $2700 once production is at regular levels, once it's out of backorder, IF it starts to pile up in the warehouses

This is nothing new, it's happened many times before (D700 vs 5D2, D7000 vs 60D)


edit: 
grabs popcorn, heads over to amazon's best selling dslr list, to see D800 still at 5th place, and 5D3 quickly moving up, from 19th to 12th since yesterday, as they start to receive the cameras and people line up to get theirs
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941

if you don't like this kind of entertainment, here's something else to keep you busy while you wait for this to happen (or not):
http://color.method.ac/
(my scores: 1st try 7.8, 2nd try 8.7, 3rd try 8.7, 4th try 9.3)


----------



## V8Beast (May 8, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Perhaps the mistake was focusing too much on speaking to pro's? I can see AF, FPS and video appealing to more of them but for amatures I'd say "budget MF" resolution is exactly what many people have been hoping for.



That's an interesting comment. Outside of professional use, $3,000-plus full-frame bodies are very much niche products. If the 5DIII's feature set is perceived to be target toward pros, I suspect that Canon conducted extensive market research, and determined that pros were the largest pool of potential buyers for the 5DIII. If that's the case, there's no way Canon would risk pissing off the 5DIII's largest segment of buyers to appease a small number of very vocal hobbyists. 

What's considered a "budget MF" resolution body, anyways? Even if you consider the D800 a "budget MF" resolution body, its $3,000 price makes it target primarily to pros, and the occasional wealthy hobbyist.


----------



## unfocused (May 8, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> ...Outside of professional use, $3,000-plus full-frame bodies are very much niche products. If the 5DIII's feature set is perceived to be target toward pros, I suspect that Canon conducted extensive market research, and determined that pros were the largest pool of potential buyers for the 5DIII...



What! How DARE you suggest that Canon's primary goal was to sell actual cameras to genuine customers. Everyone knows they SHOULD be designing cameras to satisfy forum geeks.


----------



## moreorless (May 8, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the mistake was focusing too much on speaking to pro's? I can see AF, FPS and video appealing to more of them but for amatures I'd say "budget MF" resolution is exactly what many people have been hoping for.
> ...



Do pro's make up the majority of buyers for 5D level cameras? I was under the impression that the amatues market was larger. If thats the case I'm sure Canon knows it but the impression I'v gotten is that they tend to have a greater focus on the pro market than Nikon generally offering cheaper amatures products and more expensive professional ones.

I spose one thing that body sales figures alone do not tell you is the lens and other gear users buy with pro's likely to spend more.


----------



## V8Beast (May 8, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Do pro's make up the majority of buyers for 5D level cameras? I was under the impression that the amatues market was larger.



Of course the amateur is far larger, but most of them aren't spending $3,500 for an SLR. I don't have stats or sales figures, but based on price alone, I'd think that the bulk of the hobbyists market is in the Rebel and xxD line, not the 5D line. I see tons of soccer moms and casual users with Rebels and xxD bodies, but very few of them with 5Ds. Conversely, I know a ton of pros that shoot with 5D series bodies. The fact that it's a very capable camera is just one reason. IMHO, with how much the market for pro photographers has dwindled, and the undercutting that has ensued from a new wave of hungry competition that's willing to work for free, the 5D's represents a very good balance of performance for the money.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 9, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > Do pro's make up the majority of buyers for 5D level cameras? I was under the impression that the amatues market was larger.
> ...



Id say it falls in along general socioeconomic lines. The vast majority (bottom 90%) of regular folk are gonna buy P&S, rebel and xxd bodies. Next up is the 5% in the almost rich categories, they will buy 5d's causer they are nice and give them bragging rights. But the top 2% will buy 1D's or MF camera's - yeah, these amatuers will never use these cameras anywhere near their potential, it would be more of a trophy piece. Like the rich guy that buys a warehouse to store fancy cars they never drive. That sums up the consumer market in a nut shell...


----------



## Marsu42 (May 9, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> Next up is the 5% in the almost rich categories, they will buy 5d's causer they are nice and give them bragging rights.



It would be interesting to know how large the 5d market really is - around Berlin, every tech store has it in its showcase, but maybe just to make the wife say "well, at least you didn't get the most expensive model". But then again, at least a 5d3 isn't that expensive in comparison to other hi-fi and tv stuff people buy when they work all day and have more money than time to spend it. And all dedicated photo stores live from selling this stuff to amateurs who won't max it out - one guy called his own customers "noble amateuers" once to me, but still wanted to sell me something that didn't fit me and was beyond my budget.


----------



## briansquibb (May 9, 2012)

Chuck Alaimo said:


> But the top 2% will buy 1D's or MF camera's - yeah, these amatuers will never use these cameras anywhere near their potential, it would be more of a trophy piece.



I would think you have missed the amateurs that work their kit hard a lot of the time. That would be those with private incomes or pensions.


----------



## NormanBates (May 9, 2012)

would you aggree that pros don't buy their cameras at amazon?

because if that's at least mostly true, then you have a moderately accurate picture of how the amateur DSLR market looks like:
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941

(popcorn)

D800 still holding 5th, 5D3 losing steam, falling to 14th place


----------



## GND (May 9, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Do pro's make up the majority of buyers for 5D level cameras? I was under the impression that the amatues market was larger.



The way I see it we're just witnessing Canon's responsive awareness to the Mk.II phenomenon. The impact of this camera was just tremendous. It's a camera whose capabilities were "discovered" over time. Never intended as a pure pro model yet its video capability blew the mind of pros even TV series or movies are filmed with it. 

If you look at this camera for improvement from the pros view (top-down) you upgrade A/F system, ISO and sensor, ergo Mk.III. If you look at it from the amateur's view (bottom-up) you need a price around $2,000 and some tweaks. Canon having realized it marketed the Ace of Spades with the Mk.II it orientated towards needs of pros. 

The Mk.III is no toy, the Mk.II could be (e.g. 9 point A/F). Anyone whose starting photography better leave the Mk.III aside. So overall, the Mk.II will go down in history as one of most groundbreaking models in the history of photography, the Mk.III will be a mature higher upgrade. At this level however, some amateurs are knowingly not supposed to keep up.


----------



## moreorless (May 9, 2012)

V8Beast said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > Do pro's make up the majority of buyers for 5D level cameras? I was under the impression that the amatues market was larger.
> ...



Obviously most amatures use SLR's below the 5D line but alot of what I'v heard(and a fair bit of what I'v witnessed) tends to suggest that more amature buyers than pro's picked up the 5D mk2.

I agree with your point about value, I think Canon is targetting the market than previously might have bought a 1Ds with the 5D mk3, previously having everything in one package has been expensive.

I'm really just going from the comments we've heard from Canon recently with my analysis, they made a big point of claiming they'd listened to the views of pro's on the 5D mk3 and mentioned that they were unsure of the market for higher MP than the 5D mk2.


----------



## tomscott (May 9, 2012)

I think a lot of people are missing the point that not everyone has the 5D MKII. A lot of people are still using the 5DC, 1Ds MKII, 40D etc the previous generation cameras.

The target audience for this camera is not just the 5D MKII there are the rest of us. People that didnt invest in the 60 or 7D and want to go full frame. Or didnt feel like the 5D MKII was worth the upgrade from the 5D classic. 5DC still makes superb images. 

The 5D MKIII is a dream come true for these owners. I cant wait to snap one up. The D800 is overkill for most things in terms of resolution and is far too slow for the price point. 22mp is more than enough 3 years ago we were all using 10mp cameras! 22mp is more than enough.

I also agree with Neuro on this one DR... If you need 14 stops of DR you need to learn how to use a camera correctly! Its nice to have it as a back up but I did a test on my 40D shot a picture of a black car with nothing but a street light and purposefully under exposed it. I had enough DR to bring back a useable picture, now if the 5D MKIII can provide 10x + performance than a 40D then its basically miracle working IMO. When does anyone use more than 1-2 stops of DR anyway and if you do you should learn how to use light!!!!


----------



## V8Beast (May 9, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Obviously most amatures use SLR's below the 5D line but alot of what I'v heard(and a fair bit of what I'v witnessed) tends to suggest that more amature buyers than pro's picked up the 5D mk2.



I guess it depends who you hang out with. I know some hobbyists that picked up 5D2's, but most 5D2 users I've run across are pros. IMHO, the internet can grossly distort the reality of this ratio. 

Everyone has their own theory, but my guess (for which I have zero proof) is that Canon didn't expect the 5D and 5D2 to be so popular with pros. Both had great sensors for their time, but overall, they handled very clumsily and had very few pro features. I hate to post another "when I talked to a Canon rep" story, but when I asked a rep several years ago about the possibility of substantially upgrading the 5D2's AF, FPS and weather sealing, his response was that Canon did not view the 5D line as a product that's used by pros. Obviously, this guy was clueless given the features Canon eventually put into the 5D3, but it makes me wonder how prevalent that sentiment was within the powers that be at Canon. 

Given the 5D3's inflated price and pro-like feature set, and considering that the 5D2 hasn't yet been discontinued, Canon must recognize that a market exists for a full-frame body in the $2,000 to $2,500 price range. Maybe something along the lines of a 6D is coming


----------



## V8Beast (May 9, 2012)

tomscott said:


> The target audience for this camera is not just the 5D MKII there are the rest of us. People that didnt invest in the 60 or 7D and want to go full frame. Or didnt feel like the 5D MKII was worth the upgrade from the 5D classic. 5DC still makes superb images.
> 
> The 5D MKIII is a dream come true for these owners. I cant wait to snap one up.



That's a great point, and describes the situation I was in perfectly. One of the publishing companies I work for uses the 5DC as the standard issue body of its staffers. They never upgraded to the 5D2, but will be buying a boatload of 5D3s. Personally, I don't care how many cameras Canon sells, but they'll be moving 100-plus 5D3s out the door in one fell swoop with that deal. For other companies invested in the Canon system, I seriously doubt their going to switch systems just so their staff guys have a few more stops of DR to work with.


----------



## NormanBates (May 10, 2012)

popcorn update:
5D3 moving up in sales contest, but very slowly
D800 still 5th, 5D3 moves up one spot and is now 13th
http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941


----------



## Marsu42 (May 10, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> popcorn update: 5D3 moving up in sales contest, but very slowly



When I tested the Tamron 24-70 at Germany's biggest tech retailer chain, they told me the 5d2 is phased out and they couldn't order it anymore since end of last month. I don't know this only due to their their own purchasing division, but it means that even given the hilarious pricetag (not to bash the 5d3, but it's double of the 5d2's current price) the 5d3 will continue to move up at least in Canon's own lineup.


----------



## V8Beast (May 10, 2012)

NormanBates said:


> popcorn update:
> 5D3 moving up in sales contest, but very slowly
> D800 still 5th, 5D3 moves up one spot and is now 13th
> http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941



Things appear to have changed since you posted this. The D800 is now #6, and the 5DIII is #9. Personally, I don't care what the sales numbers are, as I'll enjoy my 5DIII regardless. Even so, plenty of people seem to think that this camera is worth $3,500.


----------



## NormanBates (May 11, 2012)

I see the D800 still at 5th, but the 5D3 is still climbing (9th) and it appears IN STOCK (only 3 left) with a price of $3900!!!

I still read this as "demand is bigger than supply, because supply is very low", and still expect it to fall in price in the coming months, but you can all laugh now at my forecasting abilities


other sellers who have them in stock are selling them at ebay for the following prices:
D800: $3700
D800E: $4400
5D3: $3700
(all "body only")


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 11, 2012)

The thing is, Canon pulled the 5DIII production and sale while they were fixing the LCD / Metering light issue. So they have been very hard to find over the last month or so. I'm pretty sure that's reflected with those sale figures. 
I'm sure we'll see the 5DIII's sales figures bump back again once supply is stabilised.


----------



## NormanBates (May 11, 2012)

that's what I'm looking into

supply has been limited, that's for sure, so the 5D3 just couldn't appear any higher in the bestseller lists, and it's not so surprising that those who could get hold of the thing would sell it for a hefty profit on ebay (that amazon would do it too is a bit more unusual)

now that production seems to be picking up (the camera is no longer backordered in amazon, though that may not last long as stock is very low), we should get a clearer picture of demand for this camera

after the 5D3 launch, the D800 climbed to the very top of that amazon list; it has been out of stock ever since, and has fallen a bit, but it's still selling as well as the most popular entry level DSLRs (no small feat for a $3K camera)

btw: 5D3 back to 10th, and still in stock (only 2 cameras sold in 3 hours may sound surprising, but it was 6am on that side of the world...)


----------



## lola (May 11, 2012)

tomscott said:


> The D800 is overkill for most things in terms of resolution



Overkill? For what? If you're interested in shooting dogs chasing each other at parks, yeah, maybe...



tomscott said:


> Far too slow for the price point.



Which price point is that? It's $500 cheaper than the 5D Mark III, you know that, don't you?
And also, it shoots 5fps in 24MP crop mode and 6fps in 16MP crop mode.



tomscott said:


> 22mp is more than enough.



Says who? For whom? For what?
As a commercial photographer, I definitely find 22mp NOT enough.



tomscott said:


> 3 years ago we were all using 10mp cameras!



No, not really... 3 years ago, today, 5D Mark II was already 6 months old and the 1Ds Mark III was already 1.5 years old.



tomscott said:


> If you need 14 stops of DR you need to learn how to use a camera correctly!



So the pro says... Does that mean I'll never learn to use a camera correctly just because I want to see fine detail in both highlights and shadows in a high contrast scene?



tomscott said:


> I had enough DR to bring back a useable picture



Usable where? Cover of a magazine? Perhaps what's usable for you might not be usable for someone else...



tomscott said:


> When does anyone use more than 1-2 stops of DR anyway and if you do you should learn how to use light



You give private workshops? I'm deeply interested in attending one!


----------



## RLPhoto (May 11, 2012)

To Make More MONEY. Why else?

And to satisfy their end users with better AF, Metering, Durability, Handling and extra features that the MK2 should of had.


----------

