# More Full Frame Cameras on the 2012 Horizon? [CR2/CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 27, 2012)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9701"></g:plusone></div><div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin: 0 0px 0 10px;"><a name="fb_share" type="box_count" share_url="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9701" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php">Share</a></div><div><script src="http://static.ak.fbcdn.net/connect.php/js/FB.Share" type="text/javascript"></script></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px; margin-bottom: 70px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=9701"></a></div>
<strong>More big sensor cameras


</strong>We <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/03/mirrorless-camera-new-full-frame-coming-second-half-2012-cr2/" target="_blank">reported a while ago</a> that Canon would introduce a new “entry level”  full frame camera some time in 2012. With the recent Nikon D600 rumors, there has been a lot of chatter in the Canon world if they’d do the same thing. For the moment, the 5D Mark II is Canon’s entry level full frame camera.</p>
<p>No specs were given to me, but again I was told Canon is working on such a camera to be available before Christmas 2012 (or 2013 if recent history tells us anything).</p>
<p><strong>… and the other?</strong>


I’ve received 2 other reports that Canon will possibly announce another full frame DSLR beyond the “entry level” in 2012, with availability moving into 2013. One would assume it would be a larger megapixel offering.</p>
<p>I have heard as many as 5 different sensors are in the wild and being tested,  and in various camera form factors.</p>
<p><strong>CRs Take


</strong>It’s highly likely that both cameras will become real products. I do get the feeling Canon hasn’t committed to their immediate roadmap yet and there’s a lot of “wait and see what the market wants” going on. People would like to see the Cinema EOS brand trickle down into a more affordable product than the EOS-1D C, but I don’t see that happening until the 1D C actually starts to ship. I’ll leave the delay jokes up to you guys.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## keithfullermusic (Apr 27, 2012)

They are going to run out names for these cameras soon.


----------



## Ricku (Apr 27, 2012)

Higher MP camera sounds nice, but we all know what the real question is..

Will it fail or succeed to improve in the low ISO DR department? (Where the 5D3 obviously failed).

In other words, will it have brand new sensor to compete with the D800?

*Edit.* I just saw that CR wrote:_ "I have heard as many as 5 different sensors are in the wild and being tested, and in various camera form factors."_

Interesting!


----------



## DLitterio (Apr 27, 2012)

keithfullermusic said:


> They are going to run out names for these cameras soon.



Nahh, they still have decimal points and fractions they can work in.


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 27, 2012)

Get ready for the countless posts now about "Should I wait for this new camera, or buy X?", and "should I sell my lousy 5Diii for the amazing camera rumored?", and "I switched to the D800 last week...thinking of switching back!"


----------



## photosites (Apr 27, 2012)

From Canon's recent launches, it is obvious that they are trying to build a portfolio around DLSR based movie cams. I would not be surprised to see a 5DC... Perhaps with a much weaker AA filter to improve resolution, better codec... After all, the only real complain about the 5DIII's video capability is the resolving power.


----------



## Ricku (Apr 27, 2012)

photosites said:


> From Canon's recent launches, it is obvious that they are trying to build a portfolio around DLSR based movie cams. I would not be surprised to see a 5DC... Perhaps with a much weaker AA filter to improve resolution, better codec... After all, the only real complain about the 5DIII's video capability is the resolving power.


But the biggest complaint is still about the lack of DR improvement. This is what they will take care of first, if they aren't stupid.


----------



## willhuff.net (Apr 27, 2012)

I'll look at the potential high MP camera if Canon starts getting their sensors from Sony.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 27, 2012)

this is doubtful. canon has their hands full with refreshing their aps-c line, keeping up with the C line, and figuring out mirrorless. they are doing too many things at once. 

2013 may see a 1Dsmk4 the earliest. Full frames are done for 2012 as far as canon goes.


----------



## Canon Rumors Guy (Apr 27, 2012)

I'm starting to think the future of APS-C will be in mirrorless cameras and they're going to get phased out in the "prosumer" market.

A 7D Mark II doesn't feel like a guaranteed product to me. It still could be....


----------



## mitchell3417 (Apr 27, 2012)

That would be sweet if canon went full-frame or aps-c mirrorless only. Add a cheaper full frame and and high MP full-frame and that completes that line.


----------



## Stone (Apr 27, 2012)

psolberg said:


> this is doubtful. canon has their hands full with refreshing their aps-c line, keeping up with the C line, and figuring out mirrorless. they are doing too many things at once.
> 
> 2013 may see a 1Dsmk4 the earliest. Full frames are done for 2012 as far as canon goes.



Don't underestimate the power of market forces. I'm sure Canon has had a high MP sensor in development for quite some time now, don't be fooled into thinking they were caught off guard by the D800, I'm sure they knew what Nikon was going to release, but I also think they were caught off guard by it's price point.

As stated, the million dollar question is if Canon has found a way to compete with the admittedly excellent low ISO DR of the exmor sensors. I don't subscribe to the D800 hype as I need a more well rounded camera, but once Canon releases their high MP body, landscape photogs WILL want the ability to push shadows like the Nikon competition. Sony has set the standard for low ISO DR performance and Canon would be foolish to release a camera that's not competitive in that regard. The camera would also need to be better than the Nikon at ISO 6400+, I would expect a decent 12,800 but not much better due to the huge pixel density.

I've never really considered the 5DIII & D800 to be direct competitors, they're very different cameras. 

I believe development of this high MP camera is already well underway, and a 2012 announcement with an early 2013 ship date is very probable, but I'll say get ready for sticker shock. You just aren't going to get a uber MP body from Canon for $3K, I fully expect it to be in the $4.5 - $5.5K price range. For that price, I would reasonably expect the 5DIIIs 61pt af, dual CF slots, dual digic V. I would also expect it to be able to shoot the same 6 fps as the 5DIII, if a single Digic V can push 22MP files at 6fps, there's no reason that dual digic Vs couldn't do the same with 40MP files, although Canon just can't skimp on the buffer like they did with the 5DIII.


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 27, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'm starting to think the future of APS-C will be in mirrorless cameras and they're going to get phased out in the "prosumer" market.



I take this one step further and suspect once mirrorless cameras loose their 'toy' stigma, they will probably eat the full frame market too. Once they get the electronic viewfinders up to similar quality to the optical ones, the advantages to being able to see exactly what the sensor is seeing will outweigh the 'it has a mirror!' thing.

Heh, thought the quote about trying out differnt form factors out in the field, with Canon (and everyone else's) move to putting video capabilities in DSLR bodies, I got a fun image of Canon trying out putting a still camera into a video-like body.... which I am not sure would be a bad thing, I loved my DC120 which had a very different body then we see today.


----------



## darrenra (Apr 27, 2012)

I feel Canon is starting to fall behind. Nikon seems to be better at putting out new models of cameras at a much faster rate for demands of their customers. Canon is doing the same but at a very slow rate. People have been asking for a camera like the 5DIII for a long time. Seems like this camera should have been released a long time ago. Although its a great camera I feel the technology jump was small for the amount of time that it took to finally release it. I'm sure many will disagree, its just my opinion. Nikon is now going to release the new D600 a entry level Full Frame far sooner than canon, and maybe even two models before canon even releases one. People have been asking for an entry level full frame of awhile and canon is dragging its feet, and now Nikon is going to beat them to the punch. Usually competitors leap frog one another, but canon is lagging too far behind and is beginning to look like an over stuffed toad that can't jump.


----------



## Jamesy (Apr 27, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> I loved my DC120 which had a very different body then we see today.


You mean a Kodak DC120, right?
http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_DC120_Zoom

That was my first digital camera, good times!!!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Apr 27, 2012)

Although I see the mirrorless APS-C eating up the entry level DSLR's like the xxxxD and xxxD, but still see a market for the intermediate level cameras from the xxD upwards, furthermore, I still think that we may still see a APS-C "1D" model, designed for even faster frame rates and reach. EF-S lenses will undoubtably sell in big numbers, probably mostly the 55-250mm as the 18-55mm comes with the majority of Canon DSLR sale, I'm still staggered Canon don't have a set of budget EF-S primes and hope to see some in the future under the new batch of IS non L primes that are starting to appear (thinking the new 24/28mm).


----------



## Aglet (Apr 27, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I'm starting to think the future of APS-C will be in mirrorless cameras and they're going to get phased out in the "prosumer" market.
> ...



PENTAX has that funky brick-like but surprisingly ergonomic K-01 mirrorless that uses their standard lens mount. Great concept, I really like it, would buy one if I had Pentax glass.
http://pentax.ca/en/digital_slr/K-01/

Canon needs to consider doing the same thing with an EOS mount, crop and FF. But dammit, use better sensors than their current offerings.

No mirror = much higher fps possible, and much less mirror-slap/bounce to blur hi-rez sensors. Also cheaper lighter package to produce. But make sure we have some smart AF options, not just slow contrast detection. There are some patents that allow more predictive AF using a live-view function to speed things up. This could be a very useful product system for the future.

And if there are some new entry level FF cameras coming, they'd REALLY better improve that low ISO performance and DR cuz I'd rather boost my Canon lineup with some TSE lenses and more FF bodies than figure out how to make the same shots on a D800 or rumored D400/D600.

Canon, make use a REAL landscape camera that can compete with the D800! You already have some of the required glass that they don't.


----------



## etto72 (Apr 27, 2012)

I am a happy canon 5D mk III users,which i consider to be an extremely well balanced camera
I do not deny that in Studio context i wish to have a camera with more MP !
If you are among those that wish Canon to gives us a high megapixel (40+) DSLR
please sign this petition
http://www.petitionbuzz.com/petitions/canon1dsmkiv
Thanks
Ettore


----------



## Neeneko (Apr 27, 2012)

Jamesy said:


> You mean a Kodak DC120, right?
> http://camera-wiki.org/wiki/Kodak_DC120_Zoom
> 
> That was my first digital camera, good times!!!



Yep, that is the one. My first digital camera that was not tethered to a PC. Sadly I destroyed it when I tried to do an IR conversion....

It is a pity the binocular form factor has gone out of style, I always found it very comfortable and easy to steady.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 27, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> I'm starting to think the future of APS-C will be in mirrorless cameras and they're going to get phased out in the "prosumer" market.



This was already theorized before by some and it certainly sounds like a smart move for a change for Canon to (re)gain a leadership position.



Stone said:


> Don't underestimate the power of market forces. I'm sure Canon has had a high MP sensor in development for quite some time now, don't be fooled into thinking they were caught off guard by the D800, I'm sure they knew what Nikon was going to release, but I also think they were caught off guard by it's price point.



Interesting - I wanted to write the exact opposite: While Canon certainly knew what Sony's tech could achieve in a Nikon full frame body, the fact that they are targeting early 2013 for the actual release of their successor and that they strangely produce the 5d2 along the successor 5d3 looks to me like they were caught off guard and now have to start thinking about how to fill the 5d2 successor and high mp gap. Maybe they put all their resources into their video line and took their dlsr position too much for granted.


----------



## KyleSTL (Apr 27, 2012)

Stone said:


> ...I'm sure Canon has had a high MP sensor in development for quite some time now...


Like the 120MP APS-H sensor (August 2010)?
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/08/canons-120mp-aps-h-sensor/

I'm sure Canon could do anything up to their most-dense 1/2.3" in a full-frame camera, but it'll all depend on what consumers (in the general sense of the word) demand, or what Canon can convince buyers they desire (and of course how much said device will cost to produce).


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

willhuff.net said:


> I'll look at the potential high MP camera if Canon starts getting their sensors from Sony.



Didn't you mean to go to Nikon Rumours forum?


----------



## Ivar (Apr 27, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> willhuff.net said:
> 
> 
> > I'll look at the potential high MP camera if Canon starts getting their sensors from Sony.
> ...



No need, they have one ;-)


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 27, 2012)

Ivar said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > willhuff.net said:
> ...



Not all of them .....


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 28, 2012)

Ricku said:


> photosites said:
> 
> 
> > From Canon's recent launches, it is obvious that they are trying to build a portfolio around DLSR based movie cams. I would not be surprised to see a 5DC... Perhaps with a much weaker AA filter to improve resolution, better codec... After all, the only real complain about the 5DIII's video capability is the resolving power.
> ...



i have a bad feeling they will just go crazy with MP 45 and yet with the same old poor DR and zero fps and thus be worse than D800 in every way other than a space eating extra few MP


----------



## well_dunno (Apr 28, 2012)

I think they will plan to have some announcement prior to, and some pre-production samples in Photokina - I cannot see how they could possibly neglect it. If not a new FF, perhaps a 7D mk II or a 70D?.. Though if I am not mistaken no new APS-C sensor will be on those - "an improved 18 MP sensor" as the rumor went. Not sure how much attention Canon would attract with them in Photokina if that is the case...

Also, I have not seen any rumor on the sensor of this entry level FF. Would it be the same as 5d mk III or 1DX or another sensor which could be used on, let's say, an upcoming 1Ds mk 4? I think CR is very accurate on his take and Canon is waiting to see what market wants. They have 5 sensors out and depending on the market reactions, they will make the call...

My humble opinion anyway... 

Cheers!


----------



## squarebox (Apr 28, 2012)

Aglet said:


> Neeneko said:
> 
> 
> > Canon Rumors said:
> ...



Nikon has the same thing on their mirrorless as well. I think this is the best route for Canon as well to be able to keep selling EF-S lens.


----------



## Inst (Apr 28, 2012)

With regards to dynamic range, the main issue is that Sony's sensor architecture results in dramatically lower read noise compared to Canon. But read noise is not the only factor affecting sensor noise; high ISO noise is the other. Once high ISO noise becomes the dominating factor in sensor noise, Canon's sensors are competitive with Sony's.

The two ways for Canon to fix this problem is for them to redesign their sensor architecture to reduce read noise, or just to jack up the MP count so much that ISO 100 looks like ISO 3200 on a per pixel basis. However, this means that on a print basis, you can't tell the difference between Canon and Sony.

The current EV difference between Canon and Sony is 2.59 EV at ISO 100. Increasing pixels to a factor of 6 gives you about 132 MP, and should completely bridge the gap between Canon and Sony at ISO 100 while making it so that Canon would have better performance at ISO 200.

An increase in MP by 5 times, though, would require 6 times the processing capability. To match the D800's 4 frames per second, you'd need 4 DIGIC V+ processors. This would also likely cut battery life by 3/4ths, and would require a substantially larger battery.

A better way to handle this would probably be to go with a test APS-C camera. Large pixel cameras require humongous processing capabilities on the desktop computer, and with APS-Cs, you could use about the same pixel density with a reduced MP count. This would be about a 51 MP APS-C camera.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 28, 2012)

The rumored Nikon D600, is *rumored not to have a focus motor*. This puts it in the D3200 class and below the D7000. No reason for Canon not to make a FF Rebel to compete with the rumored Nikon. *Looks like FF may be the new high megapixel.*

I have no interest in a FF Rebel , but I would buy an APS-C Mirrorless, *if the were good primes available*  -- I'm not interested in variable aperture Kit Zoomz . Here's hoping


----------



## pdirestajr (Apr 28, 2012)

It would be cool if Canon created a high end camera system within their EOS system that had changeable backs (sensors)- like medium format systems. Would be nice if we could just upgrade the sensor and update the firmware every few years at a lower cost.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 28, 2012)

Why is everyone so hung up on the technolgy in their camera?

At the end of the day it is the IQ that it delivers rather than what it uses to deliver the image.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Apr 28, 2012)

i'm sure i would welcome a new full frame entry level and cheaper than 5d mk ii! but i dont think i can wait that long (2013) to get a FF camera..


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 28, 2012)

Inst said:


> Once high ISO noise becomes the dominating factor in sensor noise, Canon's sensors are competitive with Sony's.



The question is: How high is "high iso", what difference is there really between Nikon & Canon and how many people need that high iso performance with your average f4 lens when not shooting fast moving object in bad lighting?

While a 5d3 of course is great for weddings and such, I guess the next Nikon generation and after will push their high iso performance, too and thus Canon seems to be on the loosing track. Because as you wrote, 50mp+ is ridiculous for average photogs because the lenses cannot follow and the processing power skyrockets.



Inst said:


> A better way to handle this would probably be to go with a test APS-C camera.



Historically, Canon is set on the ff path because their customers have spent their money on ef lenses that are only partially used on aps-c. I guess that's the reason why Canon never showed that much "love" for aps-c lenses: No L marketing, inferior build quality, no weather sealing - the ef-s lenses are there to be phased or go consumer market sooner or later. So I don't think we'll see more mp than Nikon in aps-c from Canon soon.



briansquibb said:


> Why is everyone so hung up on the technolgy in their camera? At the end of the day it is the IQ that it delivers rather than what it uses to deliver the image.



The question is if it's still "safe" to spend thousands and thousands of bucks for Canon lenses when the Nikon competition is backed by Sony and has much more r&d money for their sensors - and this does influence iq very much on the long run.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Why is everyone so hung up on the technolgy in their camera? At the end of the day it is the IQ that it delivers rather than what it uses to deliver the image.
> ...



I have no inherent brand loyalty. 

If I was going to spend thousands and thousands on kit then I would consider a tactical approach ie what is currently available or known to be available rather that what might be.

I have just made some major purchases and yes I did consider what Nikon was offering and worked out the figures. There was little in the reviews that suggested that (for me) that Nikon was much different to Canon, but the budget was significantly lower by staying with Canon, so I stayed.

Puchasing for me is more of a logical process than an emotive process.

In hindsight my puchases worked well for me - I ended up with the 1Ds3 and didn't have to wait for the 5DIII or endure the teething problems, and have a camera that has simillar functionality and at least as good IQ.


----------



## birtembuk (Apr 28, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Canon Rumors said:
> 
> 
> > I'm starting to think the future of APS-C will be in mirrorless cameras and they're going to get phased out in the "prosumer" market.
> ...



I believe that also.


----------



## Ivar (Apr 28, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Ricku said:
> 
> 
> > photosites said:
> ...



Unfortunately I think the same. Too late too little with high price - they still plan carefully which features go where, there doesn't seem to be desire to push limits. At this I'm not even sure if Canon is capable of making a decent sensor. On top of all, announced early delivered who knows when. 

p.s. there is absolutely nothing wrong with higher prices as far as they match the marketplace reality. Why not pay more for objectively premium product.


----------



## JurijTurnsek (Apr 28, 2012)

Gotta say, I wouldn't mind a "FF rebel" - I've been shooting 1,6x crop with max 70mm for almost 4 years now and I've yet to feel a sudden urge to go further with mm (and even then, FF 200mm would be my ceiling). We're not all wlidlife/stadium sports photographers - there's lot to be captured in the wide, medium range.


----------



## seta666 (Apr 28, 2012)

I think a cheaper alternative to the 5D mkIII is needed; not everybody needs 61p AF or weather sealing for instance. I think a 1500$ FF is possible nowadays and I wish those nikon D600 rumours are true, because canon will have to do something about it

For instance as a macro shooter I do not need the AF, burst or fancy stuff like video but I would wellcome a couple of stops better DR (which 5D mkIII) does not provide or Hardware ISO 50

Regards


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 28, 2012)

dilbert said:


> ... If Canon were to introduce an entry-level FF camera at that price point then it would get in the way of the 7D2 (if that remained a APS-C.)
> 
> So I cannot see the future having any room for a crop-sensor 7D Mark II.



*FFFanboys* have a hard time realizing that *not everyone wants or needs a FF camera!* Size and weight are very important to some Pros. And these Pros have even switched to M43 to get rid of unwanted size/weight.

Here are the weights for a few cameras (body only):
Canon 5D3, FF - 30.3 oz. 
Canon 7D, APS-C - 28.9 oz. 
Canon 60D, APS-C - 23.8 oz.  Why would I want anything heavier than a XXD ???
Sony NEX 7, APS-C - 10.3 oz.
Olympus OM-D EM-5, M43 - 13 oz. 
Olympus E-P3 - 11.32oz. 

*WOW!!!*, a 20 oz. (1lb. 4 oz.) difference between a NEX 7 and a 5D2  Isn't it about time for Canon to come out with a Pro Mirrorless ???

BTW I rented a 5D3 for a test shoot, nice camera, but too damned heavy.

BTW2 I own a Sony NEX 5n, that I bought to use as a Video Crash Cam. Great video, great stills (blows away Canon APS-C) and this 16.1 Mp APS-C camera only weighs 7.4 oz. . It has no EVF , but that's not needed for a Crash Cam.


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 28, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> *FFFanboys* have a hard time realizing that *not everyone wants or needs a FF camera!* Size and weight are very important to some Pros. And these Pros have even switched to M43 to get rid of unwanted size/weight.
> 
> Here are the weights for a few cameras (body only):
> Canon 5D3, FF - 30.3 oz.
> ...



Well Sony fanboy, nice to see you on this Canon site. Good luck with sticking a 600mm lens on your NEX5


----------



## skoobey (Apr 29, 2012)

5d2 is so good, I see no reason to put out anything cheaper than it, and I would much rather like to be wowed by 1ds4.


----------



## DonHorne (Apr 29, 2012)

I'd love a stripped down full frame camera with a great sensor, decent build quality, better than 5D Mark II focusing, at least 98% viewfinder and good battery life. Throw out video & live view and any other bells & whistles that aren't of any use for a still shooter. Price it at $1599 and it'll fly off the shelves.

Honestly I'm just tired of the video features in DSLRs, I can't recall doing any serious video work on my 1D Mark IV or 5D Mark II besides just tinkering. I'd rather take the money saved from buying stripped down still cameras and just buy a dedicated video camera if I ever go down that road.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Well Sony fanboy, nice to see you on this Canon site. Good luck with sticking a 600mm lens on your NEX5



Why would I want to "stick" a 600mm lens on my NEX 5n ??? I have *THREE Canon cameras*, one FFFilm and two APS-C DSLRs, plus a FFFilm Nikon and a Toyo 4x5 (a real FULL FRAME camera).

So am I a Sony fanboy ??? a Nikon fanboy ??? or a Canon fanboy ??? Or just a photographer who chooses the right tool for the job.

BTW I usually shoot with an EF 85mm f/1.8, but from time to time I'll use a 300mm f/2.8, a 400mm f/2.8 or a 400mm DO. I have a Wimberly II gimbel head ( http://www.tripodhead.com/products/wimberley-main.cfm ) that I use for long lenses. It would be no problem to use the NEX 5n, with a Metabones Canon EF to Sony E adapter ( http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/01/17/Metabones_Conurus ) and a Big White lens 'cause the gimbal head carries the weight, not the camera.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 29, 2012)

dilbert said:


> 10+ yeas ago, everyone had full frame cameras.



And 10 years from now, almost no-one will own a full frame camera.

Stop living in the past


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 29, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Well Sony fanboy, nice to see you on this Canon site. Good luck with sticking a 600mm lens on your NEX5
> ...



Seems to me that you called us ff fanboys so I thought I would return the favour. As you seem to be unable to handhold with anything heavier than a NEX5

Real Canon pros hand hold their 800s attached to series 1s without using props

:


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 29, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > 10+ yeas ago, everyone had full frame cameras.
> ...



Agreed - we will be using MF with 200mps


----------



## JR (Apr 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...




...and shooting at ISO 204,000 !!!

8) 8) 8)


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2012)

i cannot understand why canon should produce an entry level FF. They have one it's called 5DmkII and apart from autofocus, 2.1 fps more and about 2/3 stops improvement in high iso - please don't mention 2 stops I am referring to raw files- it's extremely close in IQ to 5DmkIII. I do not know if I will own in the future a 5DmkIII but I am not selling my 5DmkII period!

I think it is much easier for canon to lower a little the price of the 5DmkII rather than design, test and produce an entry level FF. I personally believe that this suits the users too. Do you think of any unresolved issues (bugs not missing features) with 5DmkII? I don't.


----------



## Woody (Apr 29, 2012)

tron said:


> i cannot understand why canon should produce an entry level FF. They have one it's called 5DmkII and apart from autofocus, 2.1 fps more and about 2/3 stops improvement in high iso - please don't mention 2 stops I am referring to raw files- it's extremely close in IQ to 5DmkIII.



Canon can replace the metal body with polycarbonate, and the penta-prism with a penta-mirror. In short, introduce a FF sensor into a small and lightweight body (600D). Market that for ~US$1500 and it'll sell like hot-cakes.

I'll like to see Canon limit DSLR bodies to FF and convert all APS-C cameras into compact camera systems. Perhaps that's what Canon has in mind and that's why we're not seeing the usual yearly replacement for the 600D.

That's just my preference.


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Seems to me that you called us ff fanboys so I thought I would return the favour.



Feel free to call me an *APS-C Fanboy.*  I don't have any problem with *Film Fanboy* either 



> As you seem to be unable to handhold with anything heavier than a NEX5



I was shooting with a 5D3 a couple of weeks ago. As I've said before, it's a great camera, but a lot heavier than I like. That's why I do most of my paid work with a Canon APS-C camera.



> Real Canon pros hand hold their 800s attached to series 1s without using props
> 
> :



Does that mean you think all the photographers, along the side lines, at the *Super Bowl* and the *World Cup *are amateurs


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Agreed - we will be using MF with 200mps



My guess is 80 Mp Smart Phones. That also shoot 4K Digital Video. 

If Moore's Law continues to function, we'll have MFD IQ in a very small camera very soon. Bet on it!


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 29, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> Does that mean you think all the photographers, along the side lines, at the *Super Bowl* and the *World Cup *are amateurs



Super Bowl ? Never heard of it. What soccer team is that


----------



## moreorless (Apr 29, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed - we will be using MF with 200mps
> ...



I'd guess the limates of optical technology will prevent things going too far in this direction, the NEX maybe small but its still ulimately using the same sized sensor as crop DSLRs.

A high MP FF camera does seem like a good opportunity to take the mirrorless route to me though. FF DSLR's seem well suited to the jurno/sports/wildlife users given the advanatge in AF performance and the fact that there often using large tele lenses that balance well with a heavy body. A camera targetting the studio and landscape market doesnt need the same AF performance and is more likely to be used with lenses in the wide/normal range that could be downsized and balance well with a smaller body.

Perhaps such a camera could even follow the GXR M mount route? Having a detactable sensor/lens mount seems like an easy/cheaper way to mobular design than a digital back.


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 29, 2012)

Woody said:


> Canon can replace the metal body with polycarbonate, and the penta-prism with a penta-mirror. In short, introduce a FF sensor into a small and lightweight body (600D). Market that for ~US$1500 and it'll sell like hot-cakes.



While it sounds interesting, I don't think so. I'd rather guess that Canon marketing has figured out that people who spend a lot of $$$ for a Japanese black plastic dlsr want to have a lot of camera for it or they'd get an expensive, exclusive Leica. And the larger full frame mirror needs a somewhat larger body to begin with.


----------



## Ellen Schmidtee (Apr 29, 2012)

tron said:


> i cannot understand why canon should produce an entry level FF. They have one it's called 5DmkII ...



As Canon sells xxxxD series bodies with sensors taken from relatively older xxxD bodies, why not sell a cheap FF camera with the 5D's sensor? There are plenty of photographers who used (and probably still use) the Nikon D700, which has similar resolution.


----------



## grosssa (Apr 29, 2012)

tron said:


> i cannot understand why canon should produce an entry level FF. They have one it's called 5DmkII



I am one of the customers who currently have a EOS 450d and would like to upgrade to FF. As photography is still a hobb though a concept like an entry level FF is just what I would need.

As to the 5D Mark II being the current entry level FF I can not speak for everybody, but even though the camera is of course still very good, I do not want to buy a 3 year old product. It is of course a pure psychological reason, but if I buy a new product I prefer to buy something released not so long ago.

Now with this attitude I am not the hardcore photographer, I know its more the tech geek attitude, but looking at the market canon will - in my opinion - be able to sell a lot of entry level FF to hobby/enthusiast photographers if they release a new FF model. Its just the same as with mobile phones, the old ones are not crap because they are old, but the consumer expects she/he is getting more for the money with a new model.

Therefore I wait for a entry level FF, and I guess I am not the only one right now 

Kind regards,
Sascha


----------



## moreorless (Apr 29, 2012)

Ellen Schmidtee said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > i cannot understand why canon should produce an entry level FF. They have one it's called 5DmkII ...
> ...



The biggest factor is surely going to be competision, if Nikon release a budget 24MP FF DSLR with pro AF then Canon really can't get away with either a 5D mk3 sensor with crippled AF or an old 5D sensor.

The release that would make the most sense to me would be a new high MP sensor in a body similar to the 5D mk2. I think the D800 and the 5D mk2's sucess pretty defintively proove that whatever peoples opinions on it resolution sells well on a body targetted at mainly amatures.


----------



## Bosman (Apr 29, 2012)

grosssa said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > i cannot understand why canon should produce an entry level FF. They have one it's called 5DmkII
> ...



I don't think many hobbiests will buy FF because they won't spend the cash on FF lenses because they are pricey and struggle with spending $200 for a lens. The hobbiests that do buy the FF glass usually also have 1d and 5d series cameras and don't care how much it cost.


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2012)

I see requests for a cheap (around 1500$) FF camera the moment the very good 5DmkII costs about $2200.
Maybe we should also request a FF with a price around $2700, a FF with a price around $3000, etc... :


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 29, 2012)

moreorless said:


> I'd guess the limates of optical technology will prevent things going too far in this direction,



There are some M4/3 lenses that have good IQ. Leica's DG SUMMILUX 25mm F1.4 ASPH is one of them. And *Canon* has built high quality lenses, for 2/3" Broadcast Video cameras, for a long time.



> the NEX maybe small but its still ulimately using the same sized sensor as crop DSLRs.



That's the point. A NEX 7 (1.5 crop) is much smaller and lighter than a Canon 60D. And the Sony sensor is 24 Mp, not 18 Mp like the Canon. 

But time marches on, and I'm sure that the next generation of Canon APS-C sensors will have more IQ than the present Sony sensors. Manufacturers leap-frogging one another is how high tech works -- everyone gets to be the leader for a few weeks. 



> A high MP FF camera does seem like a good opportunity to take the mirrorless route to me though.



The problem with FF cameras is that they require large/heavy FF lenses  A Leica 25mm f/1.4 M4/3 (2X crop) lens weighs 200 grams and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 weighs 290 grams. Percentage wise the difference between 200 and 290 is very large.

This is also a problem for Canon APS-C cameras because they use FF lenses, except for the EF-S zooms. Even though I'm an *APS-C Fanbo,* I can see a future need for M4/3 cameras, if you really want to decrease size and weight even more. Me, I'd be happy with a *NEX 7 sized CANON CAMERA* with 14mm f/1.8, 24mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 primes.



> FF DSLR's seem well suited to the jurno/sports/wildlife users given the advanatge in AF performance ...



The Nikon 2.7x crop mirrorless cameras (J1 & V1) have the Phase Detect Auto Focus sensors built into the chip and are said to focus as fast as Nikon's DSLRs  

" ...Very DSLR-like in most aspects, including speed and tracking ability ..." & " ...This is the result of phase detect sensors being built into the imaging sensor, coupled with the high frame rate of the sensor ..." http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/nikon-v1-review.html

Like it or not, "time marches on" into the high-tech future.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Seems to me that you called us ff fanboys so I thought I would return the favour. As you seem to be unable to handhold with anything heavier than a NEX5
> 
> Real Canon pros hand hold their 800s attached to series 1s without using props
> 
> :



Nonsense, those are the posers. REAL pros hand-hold double rigged 1 series + 800mm f/5.6 pairs and shoot in 3D. (oh.... with one hand, the other hand is to hold a pint)


----------



## jrista (Apr 29, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Seems to me that you called us ff fanboys so I thought I would return the favour. As you seem to be unable to handhold with anything heavier than a NEX5
> ...



+1


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 29, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> The problem with FF cameras is that they require large/heavy FF lenses  A Leica 25mm f/1.4 M4/3 (2X crop) lens weighs 200 grams and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 weighs 290 grams. Percentage wise the difference between 200 and 290 is very large.



Statistically yes, real life no


----------



## c.d.embrey (Apr 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Statistically yes, real life no



How's that ??? An 85mm on an APS-C camera has approx the same field of view as a 135mm lens on FF.

An EF 85mm f/1.8 is 3.0" x 2.8", *15.0 oz.* and an EF 135mm f/2,0L is 3.2" x 4.4", *1.7 lbs.* *More than a .7 lbs difference seems real life enough for me.* YMMV

Have a nice day


----------



## tron (Apr 29, 2012)

"A Leica 25mm f/1.4 M4/3 (2X crop) lens", "An 85mm on an APS-C camera", "a 135mm lens on FF"....

All these do not seem as exactly apple to apple comparison to me...

But, there are many flavors for everyone I guess. We all can get what suits us best...


----------



## elflord (Apr 29, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with FF cameras is that they require large/heavy FF lenses  A Leica 25mm f/1.4 M4/3 (2X crop) lens weighs 200 grams and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 weighs 290 grams. Percentage wise the difference between 200 and 290 is very large.
> ...



You're right, but when we're discussing a hypothetical, "in real life" is no longer relevant  The difference between 200gm and 290gm is _small in real life_ because current full frame DSLRs would dwarf the weight of the lens -- the relevant difference is between 1400gm and 1490gm.

However, if one were to consider a mirrorless full frame camera, the body is much lighter -- for example the M9 is 600gm. Then the weight of the lens becomes more of an issue.

Having said that, the M9 proves that it's possible to produce a decent full frame mirrorless camera. Much like APS-C mirrorless cameras, they work well with normal length primes. However, once you start using long teles or f/2.8 zooms, there is little point trying to shave a few ounces off the body and/or make it fit in ones pocket (even if you could put a 300mm f/2.8 in your pocket, it wouldn't exactly afford the type of "discretion" that rangefinder shooters expect.)


----------



## tron (Apr 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



This is a very good remark. However, this is exactly the answer to your previous post! If Canon makes an entry level FF camera it is mostly certain they'll discontinue 5DII. So they will have replaced a decent FF camera with a lesser one! (and force someone who does not like this to pay the exorbitant amount of 3500 for the 5DIII)


----------



## RC (Apr 30, 2012)

I hope both Canon and Nikon develop and produce more FF bodies period. With more competition and more options, everyone wins! I figure I'm about a year away until I can add a FF body. I'd like to see a FF body between the 7D and 5D2. I don't necessarily agree the 5D2 is an entry level FF body. BTW, what is "entry level" and who decides that?




dilbert said:


> c.d.embrey said:
> 
> 
> > *FFFanboys* have a hard time realizing that *not everyone wants or needs a FF camera!* Size and weight are very important to some Pros. And these Pros have even switched to M43 to get rid of unwanted size/weight.
> ...


Excellent point. My brain still works in FF (24 x 36) from the film days. It took me a bit to get the 1.6 conversion in my head. 




c.d.embrey said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > 10+ yeas ago, everyone had full frame cameras.
> ...


Why and why?




Bosman said:


> I don't think many hobbiests will buy FF because they won't spend the cash on FF lenses because they are pricey and struggle with spending $200 for a lens. The hobbiests that do buy the FF glass usually also have 1d and 5d series cameras and don't care how much it cost.



Depends on the definition of hobbyist. Often I see hobbyist and consumer interchanged. I consider myself a hobbyist since I don't make money from photog. IMO, hobbyists are saving their money and are anxious (not struggling) to spend it on that fast L lens. Where consumers are more like the soccer mom who picked up a body/lens kit at Best Buy to shoot the kids and probably doesn't what to spend much more, if any, on gear. 

I"m saving up right now for a 35L II then a 5D3 to compliment my 7D and L lens. If I had the funds today, I'd have my 5D3--still would wait for 35L mk II. I have no problem spending my limited money on gear.


----------



## moreorless (Apr 30, 2012)

c.d.embrey said:


> There are some M4/3 lenses that have good IQ. Leica's DG SUMMILUX 25mm F1.4 ASPH is one of them. And *Canon* has built high quality lenses, for 2/3" Broadcast Video cameras, for a long time.
> 
> That's the point. A NEX 7 (1.5 crop) is much smaller and lighter than a Canon 60D. And the Sony sensor is 24 Mp, not 18 Mp like the Canon.
> 
> But time marches on, and I'm sure that the next generation of Canon APS-C sensors will have more IQ than the present Sony sensors. Manufacturers leap-frogging one another is how high tech works -- everyone gets to be the leader for a few weeks.



The increases in image quality on ASPC already seem to be becoming more limated by lens tech to me though, no video camera is going to need anything close to the resolution were talking about either.

My guess is that as tech progresses where going to start moving back towards the situation with film where by lenses become the overriding factor in IQ again with FF and MF having an obvious advanatge simpley because the imaging area is larger. As tech improves the cost of these larger sensors is likely to carry on decreasing aswell bringing them more into reach of more users. With MF espeically a decrease in manifacturing cost could have a very large effect on price(both sensors and lenses) since its currently a very niche market.

Lenses seem to be going the opposite direction to me with m43 generally more expensive than ASPC DSLR's. I'd guess because its more difficult to extract the required resolution from a smaller imaging area in a smaller lens(isnt that alot of the reason behind Leica's prices?). If you have that increasing the costs of smaller sensors with higher resolution and the much faster march of sensor tech decreasing the price of larger formats then the costs of the two are likely to become closer.

Infact I'd argue that the rise of mirrorless itself is less a case of former DSLR users moving to a smaller sensor/body size and more a case of compact users moving up in sensor/body size as tech/price allows them to do so.



> The problem with FF cameras is that they require large/heavy FF lenses  A Leica 25mm f/1.4 M4/3 (2X crop) lens weighs 200 grams and the Canon 50mm f/1.4 weighs 290 grams. Percentage wise the difference between 200 and 290 is very large.
> 
> This is also a problem for Canon APS-C cameras because they use FF lenses, except for the EF-S zooms. Even though I'm an *APS-C Fanbo,* I can see a future need for M4/3 cameras, if you really want to decrease size and weight even more. Me, I'd be happy with a *NEX 7 sized CANON CAMERA* with 14mm f/1.8, 24mm f/1.8 and 85mm f/1.8 primes.



If we were talking a FF/MF mirrorless I'm guessing it would be a good deal larger than the NEX bodies which personally I view as a bit of a gimmick with there extreme size cutting(which seems to be creating problems with UWA lenses aswell).

Personally my opinion has always been that the holiday/amature landscape market is a big part of the reason for FF's recent sucess(the 5D mk2 and now the D800). Thats why IMHO resolution has sold so well since you could argue that amatures wanting to make a 30x20 print of a landscape shot have more use for it than many pro's. Size is I'd guess a big factor for alot of these users, they might not want something really tiny but a 500-600g mirrorless FF body would probabley be very welcome, espeically if it saved a few hundred on the price.

My point was that such users are likely to want to use lenses in the wide/normal range most often which are generally going to balance better with a mirrorless system aswell as potentially offering size savings as we've seen woth mirrorless UWA's.



> The Nikon 2.7x crop mirrorless cameras (J1 & V1) have the Phase Detect Auto Focus sensors built into the chip and are said to focus as fast as Nikon's DSLRs
> 
> " ...Very DSLR-like in most aspects, including speed and tracking ability ..." & " ...This is the result of phase detect sensors being built into the imaging sensor, coupled with the high frame rate of the sensor ..." http://www.sansmirror.com/cameras/nikon-v1-review.html
> 
> Like it or not, "time marches on" into the high-tech future.



Have the V1 and the J1 shown AF performance on the level of the 1DX or the D4? my guess is that such AF performance on mirrorless is still some years off.

In this market the size savings of mirrorless seem much less important to me aswell, why would a sports tog want something the size of a NEX when he still needs to put a massive tele lens on the end of it?


----------



## tron (Apr 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



It is very easy to produce a camera worse than 5DII. 

1. They can use a 600-like body
2. They can omit Lens Micro Adjustment
3. They can put a worse viewfinder

Even the use of an SD card although of course NOT WORSE by itself may mean that many CF users who have put a lot of money to buy very good CF cards will have to buy again cards...


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2012)

tron said:


> It is very easy to produce a camera worse than 5DII, 1. They can use a 600-like body, 2. They can omit Lens Micro Adjustment, 3. They can put a worse viewfinder. Even the use of an SD card although of course NOT WORSE by itself may mean that many CF users who have put a lot of money to buy very good CF cards will have to buy again cards...



They wouldn't dare to leave out afma for a ff body because the dof is even thinner than on crop. I think they'll cut back on the usual points you mentioned, too: worse af than 5d3, less processing power = lower fps, less sturdy body. And seeing sd cards on the 5d3, too, I think they'll go for these in the future.

But the main cut from the 5d3 & 5d2 imho will be what Canon marketing usually does: less customization & build in a lot of tiny annoyances that are somewhat workable around by an amateur with time on his hands, but hinder a pro and make him buy the "real thing".


----------



## tron (Apr 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> The body counts for almost nothing. I don't get those who care about what the body is made from. It is never a deciding factor in any of my purchasing decision making.



The body counts very much if it is 600-like. I admit I didn't explain it completely. By mentioning body I was not focusing on plastics, polycarbonate, etc.

I was focusing to the controls. No top LCD and mainly NO Thumb Wheel.


----------



## Cgdillan (Apr 30, 2012)

dilbert said:


> It is very easy to produce a camera worse than 5DII.
> 
> 1. They can use a 600-like body
> 2. They can omit Lens Micro Adjustment
> ...



I think more likely a
1. similar sensor as mkII
2. 7d-like body
3. digit 5 (not 5+)
4. similar to 7d AF
5. slow burst - same MP or 5-6 fps and fewer MP


----------



## K-amps (Apr 30, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> They wouldn't dare to leave out afma for a ff body because the dof is even thinner than on crop. I think they'll cut back on the usual points you mentioned, too: worse af than 5d3, less processing power = lower fps, less sturdy body. And seeing sd cards on the 5d3, too, I think they'll go for these in the future.



Here we go again... Dof is thinner on a crop in absolute terms, it is only because you need to come closer to the subject (to get same framing) that the DoF in FF is thinner... or in other words, in crop you need to back off and the added distance between you and the subject being more, thickens the Dof... or in still other words, keep both FF & Crop the same distance from the subject, crop has thinner Dof.


----------



## tron (Apr 30, 2012)

Cgdillan said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > It is very easy to produce a camera worse than 5DII.
> ...



Really???

You just described a much much better 5DmkII !!!

Same sensor, similar body, better electronics (Digic 5), better autofocus...

This is the camera between 5DII and 5DIII not an entry level...

I want one


----------



## Marine03 (Apr 30, 2012)

tron said:


> Cgdillan said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



What seems ridiculous to me is that the 5D2 was released 3+ years ago, you don't think with thousands and thousands of them on the streets that the cost of manufacturing can't be reduced to say 1,500? Who cares if it used to cost 10 thousand dollars eventually things become cheaper. If you could show me that there were not newer better camera's coming out anytime soon, how can I as a 450D user justify 2,000 on a nearly 4 year old body. 

As others have said this could make FF reasonable starter camera

60D Body
7D Autofocus
6FPS
no LCD on top 
no weather proofing
No video (i personally never take video) 

So put this camera where the 7D use to be at 1500, now when the 5DX comes slot that at like 2500 and then drop the 5D2 completely or price ijt at like 1200


----------



## preppyak (Apr 30, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> No video (i personally never take video)
> 
> So put this camera where the 7D use to be at 1500, now when the 5DX comes slot that at like 2500 and then drop the 5D2 completely or price ijt at like 1200


No video instantly kills the market for that camera, and makes it impossible for Canon to sell it cheap. You want them to use a sensor they've already made (keeps cost down), in which case, video costs them nothing to add in. I can put video on a 50D, which wasn't sold with it, so it's clearly just a firmware/software addition. There may be a few hardware pieces to make it look better, but ultimately, it's cheap if not free. But, having it means way more people buy the camera, which means the cost of manufacturing is cheaper for Canon (offsets R&D, etc over many more consumers). Taking it out would definitely not offset the sales loss.

I agree that the body would have to be 60D like, the AF would probably be the 7D one, but I don't think they can put 6FPS in it, even if the camera can handle it. It'd have to be the same FPS as the 5dII. Even then, it probably still retails for $2k. I'd basically expect a 5dII with very slight improvements that allow them to be manufactured cheaper.


----------



## Independent (Apr 30, 2012)

If Canon introduces an "entry level" FF camera, will it likely have a built-in flash? Why is that verboten on the 5ds but not on Nikon's D800? Any photographer could benefit from fill-in flash on some shots.


----------



## Marine03 (Apr 30, 2012)

preppyak said:


> Marine03 said:
> 
> 
> > No video (i personally never take video)
> ...



Ok so video is important to sales. Take 5dmk3 sensor limit ISO to 12000 drop to 5fps put in a cheaper body and use 7d AF. Seem like a good compromise? I'm not even sure why they use metal chassis when I've never beaten up my 450D. The screen is the delicate part


----------



## tron (Apr 30, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> What seems ridiculous to me is that the 5D2 was released 3+ years ago, you don't think with thousands and thousands of them on the streets that the cost of manufacturing can't be reduced to say 1,500? Who cares if it used to cost 10 thousand dollars eventually things become cheaper. If you could show me that there were not newer better camera's coming out anytime soon, how can I as a 450D user justify 2,000 on a nearly 4 year old body.
> 
> As others have said this could make FF reasonable starter camera
> 
> ...



I think enough with the psychological problems!
If some one wants a FF camera to upgrade from a Rebel how can the fact that 5DII is 4 years old, be a problem? Is it or is it not a much much better body?

As far as the price is concerned they surely can lower the price and have profit, the problem is they obviously want more...

Why no LCD on top? Is that costly? Even the cheapest analog autofocus Canon cameras had LCD on top!!!
Still apart from this you described a better than 5DII camera! I still want one!


----------



## moreorless (Apr 30, 2012)

I can't see Canon being THAT cheap on the body, handicapping AF, lowering FPS, reducing weather sealing yes but lower quality than the 60D seems unlikely to me given the target audience.

My guess is that whether its cheap or not Canon's next FF body will push MP, they hinted that they were taking a "wait and see approach" with the D800 and more recently that there might be some kind of response latter this year.

Seems like theres alot of room to produce a true sucessor to the 5D mk2 without stepping on the 5D mk3's toes to much to me. Maybe reduce the build a little, offer less FPS, limate the AF to a smaller number of widely spaced points, one card slot and a 40 MP sensor. Price that below the D800 by $600-800 and I think it could potentially do very well.


----------



## Marine03 (Apr 30, 2012)

tron said:


> Marine03 said:
> 
> 
> > What seems ridiculous to me is that the 5D2 was released 3+ years ago, you don't think with thousands and thousands of them on the streets that the cost of manufacturing can't be reduced to say 1,500? Who cares if it used
> ...


----------



## tron (Apr 30, 2012)

You inadvertently changed the quotations!
The last one is NOT MINE. It's your comments. Mine is the small paragraph mentioning the LCD on the top.
Allow me to fix it:



Marine03 said:


> tron said:
> 
> 
> > Marine03 said:
> ...



And continue by saying that you would like a cheaper than 5DmkII FF camera (which will be supposed to be worse too) and somehow this is progress?


----------



## Marine03 (Apr 30, 2012)

tron said:


> You inadvertently changed the quotations!
> The last one is NOT MINE. It's your comments. Mine is the small paragraph mentioning the LCD on the top.
> Allow me to fix it:
> 
> ...



You mistake price for quality. You could argue the features on a t3i with its screen are nicer but cheaper also.


----------



## RLPhoto (Apr 30, 2012)

Man if they took the sensor from the 5Dc and revamped it up to modern specs, Id buy One ASAP. 12MP is enough for me.


----------



## Cgdillan (Apr 30, 2012)

It's all sounding like an entry level FF camera would be kinda like a ff 7d in a 60d body and would replace the 5d mkii


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 30, 2012)

I dont see the issue with buying an older design as long as it does its job. Also all the bugs and problems have been resolved.

I got a 1DS3 (older than the 5DII) and produce clean and high IQ all day long. Best camera I have ever bought - cheaper than the 5DIII and more functionality.

5DII has the same benefits over anything up to the 60D


----------



## Marsu42 (Apr 30, 2012)

K-amps said:


> Dof is thinner on a crop in absolute terms



Thanks for explaining, I was really mistaken about that. 



moreorless said:


> I can't see Canon being THAT cheap on the body, handicapping AF, lowering FPS, reducing weather sealing yes but lower quality than the 60D seems unlikely to me given the target audience.



Ultimately, Canon will be as cheap or not as the buyers dictate it - and just now, ff has the "pro" marketing sticker on it, and Canon will exploit this with a price premium as long as they can get away with it. Thus, I do see a ff high mp body next to or above the 5d3, a 5d2 successor at ~2000$, but imho a real ff entry level body is years away.



briansquibb said:


> I got a 1DS3 (older than the 5DII) and produce clean and high IQ all day long. Best camera I have ever bought - cheaper than the 5DIII and more functionality.



What's the functionality of the 1ds3 that you're badly missing from the 5d3?


----------



## briansquibb (Apr 30, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I got a 1DS3 (older than the 5DII) and produce clean and high IQ all day long. Best camera I have ever bought - cheaper than the 5DIII and more functionality.
> ...



Metering on the AF point. f/8 AF

My 1D4, another old design has significantly more functionality than the 5D3, shame it isn't 22 mp


----------



## plutonium10 (Apr 30, 2012)

Ok, here's something that people often seem to overlook. Despite being somewhat outdated, the 5D mk II still sells well. Canon has simply been operating on the principle of "if it aint broke, don't fix it." When people stop buying the mk II, Canon will replace it, most likely with an affordable entry-level body. 

Now here's my vision of an entry level FF camera (6D, shall we say?) Put an 18 megapixel FF sensor and pentaprism in a 7D body with slightly updated (read: more consistently accurate) 19-point autofocus and a single Digic V. Maybe give it 5 fps to avoid canibalization of both 5D mkIII and 7D sales. Given that the 5D II with a 21.1mp sensor sells for about $2200, I see no reason why this new body with less MP couldn't sell for the same or slightly less, again still allowing the faster, $500 cheaper 7D (or 7D mk II) to retain it's "poor man's 1D" niche in the EOS ecosystem.


----------



## jrista (May 1, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> Ok, here's something that people often seem to overlook. Despite being somewhat outdated, the 5D mk II still sells well. Canon has simply been operating on the principle of "if it aint broke, don't fix it." When people stop buying the mk II, Canon will replace it, most likely with an affordable entry-level body.



No truer words... +1


----------



## elflord (May 2, 2012)

Marine03 said:


> What seems ridiculous to me is that the 5D2 was released 3+ years ago, you don't think with thousands and thousands of them on the streets that the cost of manufacturing can't be reduced to say 1,500? Who cares if it used to cost 10 thousand dollars eventually things become cheaper.



Sensor technology hasn't changed substantially -- the 5DMkII sensor still costs much more to manufacture and is still worth much more (and performs vastly better than) a current crop sensor.

The purchase price available to the consumer has little to do with manufacturing cost, it has to do with supply and demand. If you can find something that potential buyers have already bought or don't want, and large numbers of current owners don't want, you will get a great deal (from your perspective). The 5DII appears to fit into that category to some extent, but the correction has already happened. The fact is, as you can tell by looking at prices even for very old full frame bodies, the demand for full frame bodies is very resilient. 



> If you could show me that there were not newer better camera's coming out anytime soon, how can I as a 450D user justify 2,000 on a nearly 4 year old body.



Well, it does leave all the current APS-C bodies in the dust as far as image quality is concerned. So if you care about image quality, you have every reason to pay a premium for full frame. For those who don't want to pay a premium for full frame, why not be thankful that good APS-C bodies are cheap instead of complaining that full frame bodies are expensive ?


----------



## Marsu42 (May 2, 2012)

elflord said:


> For those who don't want to pay a premium for full frame, why not be thankful that good APS-C bodies are cheap instead of complaining that full frame bodies are expensive ?



I'd be fine with aps-c for the time being, but unfortunately aps-c is no equivalent alternative because the eos ecosystem is more geared toward ff - historically and marketing-wise. A lot of aps-c users who are ok with their sensor but want more sharpness or better lens build use ef lenses. While it is a strange side effect that ef lenses have an extended reach on aps-c, you can only use their full potential of on ff.



elflord said:


> Sensor technology hasn't changed substantially -- the 5DMkII sensor still costs much more to manufacture and is still worth much more (and performs vastly better than) a current crop sensor.



Well, it hasn't changed for Canon - that's what many people are complaining about  ... but real question: How do you know ff the gap between ff and aps-c sensor manufacturing cost is as large as in the last years? Is it because there is no "shrink" like in cpu tech, but a sensor process still needs the same die space and there are many broken ones with hot pixels? However, one would think that manufacturing costs would still drop over time and the 5d3 premium price couldn't be due to sensor cost.


----------



## moreorless (May 2, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > I can't see Canon being THAT cheap on the body, handicapping AF, lowering FPS, reducing weather sealing yes but lower quality than the 60D seems unlikely to me given the target audience.
> ...



Canon's hand maybe somewhat forced by the competision in this case if Nikon does come up with a rumoured $1500 FF body.

The 5D mk3 has the advanatge that it seems to be targetted mostly as pro's who both have existing lens investments and maybe willing to pay for its "all rounder" features as they did for the 1Ds in the past. In the amature market though I think things are becoming more competitive and Nikon looks to have reduced their profit margin significantly in order to increase market share.

As I said my opinion is that resolution remains king in the amature market, while not many people print these days I'd guess a pretty high percentage of FF users do and getting the highest quality print of a holiday landscape or family shot to hang on the wal(where even 30x20 isnt THAT large)l is IMHO the key factor for them. 

That was I'd say the key to the 5D2's continued sucess and I think Canon would be well served by looking to follow that up. The best way to do that to me seems to be to release a high MP body that undercuts the D800 in price while scaling back on some of the "pro" functionality of the 5D3.


----------



## nicku (May 2, 2012)

moreorless said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



More realistic will be a 7D mk2 with a APS-H sensor and 20-24 MP ( to compete with Nikon budget ff body and preserve the wildlife capabilities and extra reach reputation of the actual 7D).... move a little bit up the new 70D to compete with Nikon d300S replacement.

If Nikon will come with an $2000 ff body than maybe the new D400 will be moved one step down ( like 60D was).... 

2012 will be a very interesting year.....


----------



## plutonium10 (May 2, 2012)

nicku said:


> More realistic will be a 7D mk2 with a APS-H sensor and 20-24 MP ( to compete with Nikon budget ff body and preserve the wildlife capabilities and extra reach reputation of the actual 7D).... move a little bit up the new 70D to compete with Nikon d300S replacement.



An APS-H 7D is a nice idea, but the big problem is that it would lack wide-angle coverage (21mm equivalent with a 16-35 and no EF-S). Manufacturing an APS-H body to compete directly with a Nikon FF body would likely lose Canon a lot of market share for this very reason.

Recent 5D mk II customers no doubt include lots of landscape/nature/architecture photographers who want full frame coverage and good IQ at a reasonable price but don't really mind the 5D II's ancient AF system. There's no reason why they would buy a 1.3x crop and lose critically important wide-angle coverage, so the new Nikon FF would be the logical upgrade path for them.


----------



## nicku (May 2, 2012)

dilbert said:


> plutonium10 said:
> 
> 
> > nicku said:
> ...



I will give you a very simple example: one car manufacturer make a car that is predicted to sell in say... 200.000 exemplars... huge success ..... and they sell 600.000... they will interrupt the current model and they will not came out with a new generation????? 

Same with 7D HUGE success ..... is not logical to interrupt the model. Maybe will be FF maybe APS-H or APS-C but 7Dmk2 will be released.


----------



## moreorless (May 2, 2012)

I'v not seen it disucssed much recently but might one alternative be that Canon are looking to release a Foveon like sensor for the high resolution market? there was some talk about a pantent last year if I remmeber correct.

That would seem to explain a few things I'd say. If Canon tested and then ditched the idea of a high MP conventional bayer sensor in the last 2-3 years then its easy to see them failing somewhat behind Sony in the resolution stakes. Equally I'd say it would explain the 5D3 specs given multi leyaer sensors problems with video.


----------



## K-amps (May 2, 2012)

moreorless said:


> I'v not seen it disucssed much recently but might one alternative be that Canon are looking to release a Foveon like sensor for the high resolution market? there was some talk about a pantent last year if I remmeber correct.
> 
> That would seem to explain a few things I'd say. If Canon tested and then ditched the idea of a high MP conventional bayer sensor in the last 2-3 years then its easy to see them failing somewhat behind Sony in the resolution stakes. Equally I'd say it would explain the 5D3 specs given multi leyaer sensors problems with video.



wouldnt a lot of still photographers buy a good sensor even if it did not have video?


----------



## elflord (May 2, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > For those who don't want to pay a premium for full frame, why not be thankful that good APS-C bodies are cheap instead of complaining that full frame bodies are expensive ?
> ...



I find this a little perplexing because I agree that it's probably true for wide angle lenses, but it seems you only own tele lenses ? What is the extra potential you get from projecting your image onto a larger sensor with a tele ? If canon's long teles are capable of projecting an image onto a larger sensor still, does that mean that full frame doesn't use the lenses to their full potential either ?



> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > Sensor technology hasn't changed substantially -- the 5DMkII sensor still costs much more to manufacture and is still worth much more (and performs vastly better than) a current crop sensor.
> ...



No, hasn't changed period. Compare the SNR graph at DxO with any full frame model with the same for any APS-C mode.



> but real question: How do you know ff the gap between ff and aps-c sensor manufacturing cost is as large as in the last years?



I don't know if the gap is as large. I do know that we don't have some Moore's law effect where sensors are improving performance along a sustained exponential curve. Many of the people who assume costs should be plummeting appeal to some kind of "Moore's law for cameras" but there is no empirical evidence to validate this.

But also, as I pointed out, manufacturing costs are largely beside the point (or at least only to the point to the extent to which they affect supply and demand). 

The law of supply and demand states that if there's something that everyone wants that is in limited supply, it will cost you. If you're willing to buy the thing that is not especially rare, that most of the potential buyers have already bought, and some current owners are trying to get rid of, you can invariably get it cheaply regardless of how much it cost to manufacture (I suppose the 5DC probably cost more in real terms to manufacture than the 5DIII) 

No matter how badly you might wish for it, you are not going to be able to get the latest and greatest toy with all the best and newest features for the same price as the old thing that nobody wants anymore. If the price on an item drops, it is always because the item has lost some of its shine, and at that point the complainers don't want it any more as they have found something newer and shinier to complain about.


----------



## briansquibb (May 2, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> nicku said:
> 
> 
> > More realistic will be a 7D mk2 with a APS-H sensor and 20-24 MP ( to compete with Nikon budget ff body and preserve the wildlife capabilities and extra reach reputation of the actual 7D).... move a little bit up the new 70D to compete with Nikon d300S replacement.
> ...



How many sports shooters need more width than 18mm (14mm lens)?

If you are into UWA then ff is the way ahead


----------



## moreorless (May 2, 2012)

K-amps said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > I'v not seen it disucssed much recently but might one alternative be that Canon are looking to release a Foveon like sensor for the high resolution market? there was some talk about a pantent last year if I remmeber correct.
> ...



Yeah I'm sure they would, my point was that if the high resolution body did not feature video then it makes more sense to target the 5D3 which does more at the video market, hence the 22MP ideal for pixel binning and the strong AA filter.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 2, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> plutonium10 said:
> 
> 
> > nicku said:
> ...



I used the example of a 16-35 because the 14mm is a rather specialized and uncommon lens not really targeted at an "entry-level" market. Secondly, sports shooters may not need UWA, but many wildlife shooters also shoot landscape.

Anyway, the discussion was about replacing Canon's current "budget" FF camera (the 5D mk II) with an APS-H camera. This would leave a big gap in Canon's lineup for the reasons outlined in my previous post.


----------



## briansquibb (May 2, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > plutonium10 said:
> ...



Without a aps-h camera there is already a big gap in Canon's lineup. The 7D would continue in the same way as the 5DII so that gap would not happen.

PS Never seen a BIF taking landscapes with a 1D4 - they have a 5DII as a second body ......


----------



## plutonium10 (May 2, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> Without a aps-h camera there is already a big gap in Canon's lineup. The 7D would continue in the same way as the 5DII so that gap would not happen.



Don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea of a 7D mk II possibly being APS-H. The gap in the lineup I'm describing is the one that would be left if this new APS-H *REPLACED* the 5D mk II, and the MK II stopped being sold. What camera would people then buy if they wanted an affordable FF body?



briansquibb said:


> PS Never seen a BIF taking landscapes with a 1D4 - they have a 5DII as a second body ......



Once again, we are talking about entry-level. Most people in the prosumer segment probably don't want to buy a second camera body for wide-angle.


----------



## briansquibb (May 2, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > Without a aps-h camera there is already a big gap in Canon's lineup. The 7D would continue in the same way as the 5DII so that gap would not happen.
> ...



I am suggesting that the 7D and the 5DII continue

The 7DII would sit alonside the 5DIII

If an entry level ff is coming in then it would be a 5DII replacement


----------



## plutonium10 (May 2, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> I am suggesting that the 7D and the 5DII continue
> 
> The 7DII would sit alonside the 5DIII
> 
> If an entry level ff is coming in then it would be a 5DII replacement



Yeah, that makes sense, except in my personal opinion that would be one too many cameras in the lineup, which is why I like the idea of the 7D line staying APS-C and just being remade as the 7D mk II. I wonder what they will call the entry level FF camera though... 6D? 7Ds?


----------



## briansquibb (May 2, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > I am suggesting that the 7D and the 5DII continue
> ...



6D sounds good for the entry level ff
3D for the supersports 7DII?


----------



## plutonium10 (May 2, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Sure, but a 3D would cost more than a 5D3 and less than a 1DX. Are you sure about that?



Yeah, that's true. And 3D just sounds goofy for some reason. I think the only fitting names left are 2D, 4D (maybe for a high MP studio camera) and 6D (maybe for an entry level FF cam). After that all that's left is sticking "x", "s", "n", or some other noodle of of the alphabet soup on the end of a pre-existing model name.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 2, 2012)

dilbert said:


> IMHO, it was a mistake of Canon to call the 7D a 7D but then Canon's product numbering scheme for its DSLRs is in a world of hurt because they're fast running out of numbers that fit their prior pattern.



It is a crowded field right now, but sort out the new entry-level FF (6D?), replace the 7D (7D mk II) and 60D (70D) and then I don't think many new models are needed in that crowded little segment. They do, however, need to figure something out with the xxD names. What happens after 90D?


----------



## moreorless (May 2, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Sure, but a 3D would cost more than a 5D3 and less than a 1DX. Are you sure about that?
> ...



The arguement I heard in the past was that the number 4 was considered unlucky in Japan, Nikon has just used it I spose but not on a comsumer level camera.

3D does sound a little goofy but then again 3D films are currently in vogue so it would play into that, if we did seen a Forevon like sensor that had 3 layers that would play into the name aswell.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 2, 2012)

moreorless said:


> The arguement I heard in the past was that the number 4 was considered unlucky in Japan, Nikon has just used it I spose but not on a comsumer level camera.



Yes, I forgot all about that. I think the word "four" sounds like the word "death" in Japanese. T4i anyone?


----------



## moreorless (May 2, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > The arguement I heard in the past was that the number 4 was considered unlucky in Japan, Nikon has just used it I spose but not on a comsumer level camera.
> ...



Thats only the monkier in the US, in the rest of the world it'll be the 650D.

I'd argue that using 2 has some negatives aswell given that its makes it clear that its NOT #1.


----------



## briansquibb (May 2, 2012)

dilbert said:


> Sure, but a 3D would cost more than a 5D3 and less than a 1DX. Are you sure about that?



Why is that? Same body as 5DIII but with cheaper sensor. As the current 1D4 is only slightly more than the 5DIII I would say they would be about the same, if not a bit cheaper.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 2, 2012)

elflord said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > I'd be fine with aps-c for the time being, but unfortunately aps-c is no equivalent alternative because the eos ecosystem is more geared toward ff - historically and marketing-wise. A lot of aps-c users who are ok with their sensor but want more sharpness or better lens build use ef lenses. While it is a strange side effect that ef lenses have an extended reach on aps-c, you can only use their full potential of on ff.
> ...



I don't list all lenses I have in my profile, just the ones current discussion might be about. Concerning "full potential": I don't know if a ff sensor uses a ef lens to the max, there is certainly unused space because the lens is round and the sensor is 2:3 - so 1:1 might be better, and Sony is rumored to do just that.

But I find it a little frustrating that I've paid for good ef glass whose weight I carry around that isn't used by my camera. Since the iq and the reach of the 70-300L + 18mp is very good, this may sound indeed perplexing, but it's my feeling and I guess I'm not the only one.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 2, 2012)

moreorless said:


> plutonium10 said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I forgot all about that. I think the word "four" sounds like the word "death" in Japanese. T4i anyone?
> ...



I guess we're both wrong. I had in my mind that Japan was also using the Rebel moniker but it's actually Kiss. The Rebel T3i is called the Kiss X5 in Japan. interestingly, the T2i WAS in fact called "Kiss X4" in Japan.


----------



## moreorless (May 2, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > plutonium10 said:
> ...



Ah yes I forgot about the Japnese label although even then the 4 is somewhat buried rather than being the main brand the camera is sold on. If there is an issue I'm guessing marketing rather than giant corperate superstition is where it lies.


----------



## elflord (May 3, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> But I find it a little frustrating that I've paid for good ef glass whose weight I carry around that isn't used by my camera.



But I don't see how the fact that the tele lens is built for full frame makes it that much heavier or more expensive. Most of the weight is needed because of the required size of the front element. You might be paying (money and weight) for unneeded extra optics to ensure that the image quality is up to scratch full frame corners, but I think the "bulk" of it largely goes to the necessary large size of a lens that long (even though that one isn't especially fast). 

For a wide angle lens, I'd be more inclined to agree with you, because you're basically paying your money to get a reasonably bright and sharp image in full frame corners -- for example, it doesn't make sense to pay for 24mm f/1.4 optics, and get a lens that has a 38mm-equivalent field of view.

Also with shorter teles, a full frame will give you a shallower dof -- you effectively make all those primes a stop faster (in dof terms)

But with a long tele, few would complain about the narrower fov. 



> but it's my feeling and I guess I'm not the only one.



One thing is for sure -- you're not the only one who wants a full frame as evidenced by the fairly robust demand. The good news is that there are three generations worth of 5D series bodies to choose from, so there's almost certainly something at a price you can afford. It really boils down to whether or not you think it's worth what the rest of the market thinks its worth.


----------



## briansquibb (May 3, 2012)

dilbert said:


> briansquibb said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



The prices drop on most products well before they could be classified as old. MSRP is just used as an opening price.

The street price of the 1D4 hasn't significantly changed since June 2010, apart from the tsunami blip

http://www.camerapricebuster.com/Canon_EOS_1D_Mark_IV_Body_pc.html


----------



## moreorless (May 3, 2012)

At the end of the day if naming conventions and pricing the camera to its market come into conflict I'm pretty certain the latter is going win out.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 3, 2012)

elflord said:


> But I don't see how the fact that the tele lens is built for full frame makes it that much heavier or more expensive. Most of the weight is needed because of the required size of the front element. You might be paying (money and weight) for unneeded extra optics to ensure that the image quality is up to scratch full frame corners, but I think the "bulk" of it largely goes to the necessary large size of a lens that long (even though that one isn't especially fast).



I didn't know so much is dependent on the front element, so that's a bit relieving. However, it would be interesting to know how much tele lenses would cost if they didn't care about corner sharpness and it would still produce the same pictures on aps-c. But in the case of the 70-300L the reviews said they maybe did just that - it's said to be a bit soft in the corners on ff.



elflord said:


> One thing is for sure -- you're not the only one who wants a full frame as evidenced by the fairly robust demand. The good news is that there are three generations worth of 5D series bodies to choose from, so there's almost certainly something at a price you can afford.



The bad news is: The combination of the two things you wrote ff body prices are still high, so until an application really needs a ff sensor, I guess I'll continue to buy ef lenses rather than a ff body :-o ... and I really would like to try the 5d2 if I could, it is an older generation than my 60d and the af and auto wb is said to be outdated, I don't know how much that would bother me.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 3, 2012)

I just couldn't handle the 5D II's AF system after using the more advanced features of the 7D's 19-point system for the last 2+ years. That's also the one reason I bought 7D instead of 60D.


----------



## briansquibb (May 3, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> I just couldn't handle the 5D II's AF system after using the more advanced features of the 7D's 19-point system for the last 2+ years. That's also the one reason I bought 7D instead of 60D.



Get hold of a 5DIII or a 1D4 and you will wonder how you managed with the 7D's poor AF then ...


----------



## plutonium10 (May 3, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> plutonium10 said:
> 
> 
> > I just couldn't handle the 5D II's AF system after using the more advanced features of the 7D's 19-point system for the last 2+ years. That's also the one reason I bought 7D instead of 60D.
> ...



Yeah, too true. I think a 5D mk III may enter my life in the near future... But I'll wait just a month or two and see what happens next in the camera world.


----------



## Albi86 (May 3, 2012)

I guess Canon is struggling with Nikon's offer and its price point.

With the 5D3 Canon managed to give event photographers the best low-light shooting instrument on the market, as it is supposed to be coupled with 70-200 L f/2.8 IS USM and the new (a coincidence?) 24-70 L f/2.8. Rumours about new L-grade 50mm and/or 85mm would complete the line-up, so I find them quite likely to be true.

On the other hand, to anyone who is not a pro event photographer, I would suggest to buy D800 and a couple of third-party primes over the 5D3. More MP, more DR, more color depth... less money. Much less.

So what about new FF cameras? Canon is forced to produce a high MP camera to compete (if for nothing else, at least just for the sake of its reputation) with Nikon, but in which price segment will it be? 5D3 is already considerably more expensive than D800, where would you place a higher-end camera? They cannot compete if there is a 1000€ gap in price. Note how Nikon's D3200 forced Canon to rush the release of a 650D, which honestly no one was craving for. Most people still have been buying the 550D over the 600D. A new high-MP FF body should lye in the same price league as D800, and in my opinion Canon at the moment is simply not capable to do so.

Same problem you would have with a entry level FF body. Nowadays you can buy a 5D2 body for about 1700€, but the AF alone keeps me (and many others, I guess) from buying it. The 5D2 looked already "old" in 2009 when the 7D came out with its significant better specs, if Nikon manages to produce a good modern FF camera (24-26 MP, good AF, DR, etc..) and to put it in that price league, again, there will be no competition.


----------



## kalmiya (May 3, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Same problem you would have with a entry level FF body. Nowadays you can buy a 5D2 body for about 1700€, but the AF alone keeps me (and many others, I guess) from buying it.


So true... And the 5D3's price keeps me from buying that one ^^ 
A "5D2" with a 'simple' 19 point AF like 7D, for a <2200 price would have my interest


----------



## nicku (May 3, 2012)

kalmiya said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Same problem you would have with a entry level FF body. Nowadays you can buy a 5D2 body for about 1700€, but the AF alone keeps me (and many others, I guess) from buying it.
> ...



I will definitely buy a 5Dmk2 (With the same specs, IQ and performance) but with 7D AF system.... i believe $2500 will be a fair price..... And for extra $1000 (5Dmk3) you will get better AF, faster shooting and better low light performance. sounds very plausible for a budget FF camera; don;t mention that canon have to change only the AF system ... not to redesign a new body to compete with nikon budget FF (if will be one).


----------



## Albi86 (May 3, 2012)

2500$ is not such a low cost. It's basically how much the 5D2 costed before the 5D3 was announced. At such conditions I would still buy the D800 for 3000$. 
Remember that spec-wise Nikon has much more room for manouvre. If their D600 has 24MP and 39 AF points like the D7000, it's a lot less than their D800 but still better than most of what Canon can even think to put on the market. And this would cost no more than 2000-2200$.
If Canon wants to be competitive, they have to take the lower tier at 1800$ or so.


----------



## briansquibb (May 3, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Same problem you would have with a entry level FF body. Nowadays you can buy a 5D2 body for about 1700€, but the AF alone keeps me (and many others, I guess) from buying it. The 5D2 looked already "old" in 2009 when the 7D came out with its significant better specs,



Have you ever owned a 5DII?

I would think 'better specs' is an interesting comment - perhaps the AF, but the the 5DII was never intended for sports (even though with skill it managed) - as for the picture IQ the 7D was not in the same room. As the picture is all that counts I would suggest then that your 'better specs' doesn't translate into better pictures


----------



## rafaelsynths (May 3, 2012)

Did anyone forget about the canon eos 3d?


----------



## Positron (May 3, 2012)

moreorless said:


> plutonium10 said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



Just like everyone calls Mac OS X "OS Ex" even though Apple internally calls it "OS Ten", Nikon has made their Japanese marketing clear that it's called the ディーフォア "Dee Foa", and since anyone who's superstitious wouldn't want to make the death allusion anyway, people stick with the canonical name.

Incidentally, though, when I was at a major electronics retailer in Japan, I was shown to one "Dee Nanahyaku" (D700), but a "Faivu Dee Maaku Tsuu" (5D2). I did immediately find it interesting that they rendered it in Japanese for Nikon and English transliteration for Canon, although I think it's the fault of the word "mark" that makes it awkward to say in Japanese. It would end up being rendered as something like 第２、５D "Dai Ni Go Dee", which looks and sounds ridiculous in addition to being reversed relative to the actual name printed on the camera body.

Well, I'm just rambling at this point, but I thought it was interesting.


----------



## moreorless (May 3, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> 2500$ is not such a low cost. It's basically how much the 5D2 costed before the 5D3 was announced. At such conditions I would still buy the D800 for 3000$.
> Remember that spec-wise Nikon has much more room for manouvre. If their D600 has 24MP and 39 AF points like the D7000, it's a lot less than their D800 but still better than most of what Canon can even think to put on the market. And this would cost no more than 2000-2200$.
> If Canon wants to be competitive, they have to take the lower tier at 1800$ or so.



I'd tend to agree with this, the D800 and 5D3 target somewhat different markets but if the 5D mk2 or a reheated version went up agenst a D600 with those specs then Canon are going to loose alot of market share.

The best counter to such a release would I'd say be to offer the rumoured higher MP sensor in a body similar to the 5D mk2(maybe with AF performanced upped a bit) offered at a price below both the 5D mk3 and the D800.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 3, 2012)

The ergonomics of the 7D and 5D III bodies are very nice. Any new FF camera would quite likely just use exactly the same shell as the 5D III with different internals. This would also help keep production costs down.


----------



## kalmiya (May 3, 2012)

nicku said:


> kalmiya said:
> 
> 
> > Albi86 said:
> ...


Believe me, I'm tempted - but I know I'm 'unhappy' with the AF of my 550D - and asking around in this forum gave the conclusion that the 5D2 has the same AF as the 550D... 

So, spending 1800 euro and getting a (great) camera with an AF which I'm not thrilled about doesn't seem right. It should be at least 'acceptable AF". On the other hand, paying 3500 for a top-of-the-line AF is the other extreme... as a hobbyist that's an unacceptable price ( not complaining , but it's the way it is in my specific situation).

So I'm looking for 5D2 with improved AF at a slightly increased price point - but if the market doesn't offer what I want, then that's the way it is. I'll happily use the hardware I own (with it's limitations) and see what the future brings. I'm not in a rush


----------



## grahamsz (May 3, 2012)

nicku said:


> I will definitely buy a 5Dmk2 (With the same specs, IQ and performance) but with 7D AF system.... i believe $2500 will be a fair price..... And for extra $1000 (5Dmk3) you will get better AF, faster shooting and better low light performance. sounds very plausible for a budget FF camera; don;t mention that canon have to change only the AF system ... not to redesign a new body to compete with nikon budget FF (if will be one).



I find it very hard to believe that the 5D2 will be a long term solution. It makes no sense for Canon to manufacture both a 21 and 22MP FF sensor. I suspect they'll discontinue the 5d2 in favor of an entry level version of the 5d3.


----------



## K-amps (May 3, 2012)

grahamsz said:


> ... entry level version of the 5d3.



5D Kiss ?


----------



## Marsu42 (May 3, 2012)

grahamsz said:


> ard to believe that the 5D2 will be a long term solution. It makes no sense for Canon to manufacture both a 21 and 22MP FF sensor. I suspect they'll discontinue the 5d2 in favor of an entry level version of the 5d3.



... but looking at the 5d3 stock at least in Germany, Canon might at continue to produce 5d2s for a while. But I absolutely agree: Naming the 5d3 as it is clearly implies that they'll dump the predecessor sooner or later.


----------



## elflord (May 4, 2012)

Albi86 said:


> Same problem you would have with a entry level FF body. Nowadays you can buy a 5D2 body for about 1700€, but the AF alone keeps me (and many others, I guess) from buying it. The 5D2 looked already "old" in 2009 when the 7D came out with its significant better specs,



I have no problem with autofocus on my 5D Mark II, maybe that means I'm doing something wrong ??? 

Despite this woefully inadequate autofocus, it was a popular SLR for event photography, weddings, portraits, and landscapes. It wasn't the best sports or bif photographers camera, but then it was never really marketed for that. If autofocus was really important for wedding photography, the market could have bought the D700 and got a more advanced AF system at a comparable price. 

There are several applications for which one shot autofocus with the center point works really well. I really wouldn't want to allow the camera to choose the AF point for most of the shooting I do, because I seldom have enough depth of field for that to work very well (if I did have enough dof for indiscriminate selection of focal point to work, I could also get the focus near enough with single point / one shot)

I suppose it could be due to ignorance on my part as I don't use the camera for anything that requires top of the line AF, but I have the sneaking suspicion that many of the AF complainers are unfamiliar with the AF system on the 5D -- the complaints are generally short on specifics. What subject matter, with what mode/settings are they shooting in that fails to deliver results ? What do they expect from the AF system on their cameras?


----------



## elflord (May 4, 2012)

kalmiya said:


> So I'm looking for 5D2 with improved AF at a slightly increased price point - but if the market doesn't offer what I want, then that's the way it is. I'll happily use the hardware I own (with it's limitations) and see what the future brings. I'm not in a rush



What is your reason for wanting a full frame ? 7D seems like a more natural choice if you're taking a lot of BIF pictures.


----------



## briansquibb (May 4, 2012)

elflord said:


> kalmiya said:
> 
> 
> > So I'm looking for 5D2 with improved AF at a slightly increased price point - but if the market doesn't offer what I want, then that's the way it is. I'll happily use the hardware I own (with it's limitations) and see what the future brings. I'm not in a rush
> ...



Doing BIF with FF is possible but requires a very different set of equipment and budget than with a crop.

An option might be a used 1D4, but even that requires (I would suggest) a minimum of a 500 f/4, whereas a 7D would be very reasonable with a 400 f/5.6


----------



## moreorless (May 4, 2012)

elflord said:


> Albi86 said:
> 
> 
> > Same problem you would have with a entry level FF body. Nowadays you can buy a 5D2 body for about 1700€, but the AF alone keeps me (and many others, I guess) from buying it. The 5D2 looked already "old" in 2009 when the 7D came out with its significant better specs,
> ...



The issue there was surely that the D700 offered inferior resolution with the difference between 12 and 21 MP being very relivant for the print sizes many event photographers produce. If Canon were giving up both resolution and AF performance to Nikon I'm guessing the end result would be very different.

I'd guess that the biggest issue for many 5D mk2 users wasnt nesserally the camera being unable to deal with sports or wildlife but rather the spacing and accuracey of the AF points. If a new high resolution FF body had an AF system with say 20ish AF points spread over the same area as the pro system I'm guessing alot of people would be more than happy with it.

If Canon have a higher resolution sensor to use putting it in a body like that at a lower price seems to make more sense than producing a "budget 5D mk3" which could potentially cannibalize its sales.

To me having a cheaper high resolution body and a more expensive all rounder seems to make better business sense than Nikon potentially doing the reverse. Pros will be willing to pay to have everything in one box where as amatures will be willing to put up with having to work around some weaknesses if it saves them money.


----------



## azmanms (May 4, 2012)

canon recently have design 120MP sensor. Could it be FF 120MP monster? 
http://www.canon.com/technology/pdf/tech2011e.pdf Page 65


----------



## Positron (May 4, 2012)

azmanms said:


> canon recently have design 120MP sensor. Could it be FF 120MP monster?
> http://www.canon.com/technology/pdf/tech2011e.pdf Page 65



It's not even that recent, I believe they said it was APS-H, and I'm about 99% certain they demoed it for marketing purposes/to scare competitors. They've _never_ revealed a sensor before actually going and using it, as far as I know.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 4, 2012)

Positron said:


> and I'm about 99% certain they demoed it for marketing purposes/to scare competitors. They've _never_ revealed a sensor before actually going and using it, as far as I know.



Sounds like water-cooled cpus @10ghz or two dual-gpu cards in a pc  ... there is no doubt any high-tech company can design impressive things, but really producing them at a competitive price and putting them in a product that is working in the real world is another thing. Canon can show off what they want, the impression that they are lacking innovations and are on the loosing side vs. Nikon/Sony will stick unless they either compete with lower prices or a surprising 70d & ff entry level body.


----------



## elflord (May 4, 2012)

moreorless said:


> The issue there was surely that the D700 offered inferior resolution with the difference between 12 and 21 MP being very relivant for the print sizes many event photographers produce. If Canon were giving up both resolution and AF performance to Nikon I'm guessing the end result would be very different.



OK, I buy that the market liked the extra megapixels. However, I maintain that if autofocus was terribly important, they had several other options. Apparently, autofocus took a back seat not only to megapixels, also to sensor size, and cost (you could have had both for a little more money). 



> I'd guess that the biggest issue for many 5D mk2 users wasnt nesserally the camera being unable to deal with sports or wildlife but rather the spacing and accuracey of the AF points. If a new high resolution FF body had an AF system with say 20ish AF points spread over the same area as the pro system I'm guessing alot of people would be more than happy with it.



Yes, the placing does make them less useful -- they are all pretty close to the middle. They also don't work very well besides the center point. 

The part I don't really get though is how someone taking portraits, street, family or wedding pictures would take advantage over the enhanced AF capabilities. You can manually select an AF point with the joystick but the interface is a bit cumbersome -- I find focus and recompose more convenient (though maybe that's because I'm more proficient to focus and recompose). So the advantage is reduced to being able to avoid inaccuracy that may be introduced by focus and recompose -- a plus, but not a make-or-break. 

This leaves me suspecting that most of the AF complainers are either expecting to bang away on the shutter button with all points enabled and have the camera choose what to focus on (at which point AF is pretty much guaranteed to have limited accuracy, unless camera can read your mind) or are simply complaining for the sake of complaining.


----------



## moreorless (May 5, 2012)

elflord said:


> OK, I buy that the market liked the extra megapixels. However, I maintain that if autofocus was terribly important, they had several other options. Apparently, autofocus took a back seat not only to megapixels, also to sensor size, and cost (you could have had both for a little more money).



Yes I wouldnt disagree there, I think it was more a case of Canon putting the cash into the sensor rather than "crippling" the AF.



> Yes, the placing does make them less useful -- they are all pretty close to the middle. They also don't work very well besides the center point.
> 
> The part I don't really get though is how someone taking portraits, street, family or wedding pictures would take advantage over the enhanced AF capabilities. You can manually select an AF point with the joystick but the interface is a bit cumbersome -- I find focus and recompose more convenient (though maybe that's because I'm more proficient to focus and recompose). So the advantage is reduced to being able to avoid inaccuracy that may be introduced by focus and recompose -- a plus, but not a make-or-break.
> 
> This leaves me suspecting that most of the AF complainers are either expecting to bang away on the shutter button with all points enabled and have the camera choose what to focus on (at which point AF is pretty much guaranteed to have limited accuracy, unless camera can read your mind) or are simply complaining for the sake of complaining.



Its not something that cannot be worked around in many situations I agree but if a rival camera is offering a superior sensor AND better AF why put yourself though that?

I do think that the D800 once again prooves that the largest market at FF is for high resolution, espeically with amatures. If Canon could offer a high resolution sensor at a lower price they could perhaps get away with using the 5D AF again although as I said I think a slightly upgraded system with more widely spaced points would be a better option.

40 MP sensor.
5D3 body.
100% viewfinder.
20ish point AF more widly spaced.
Single card slot.
3 FPS.

Offer that for $500 less than the D800 and I think it would potentially sell very well.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

moreorless said:


> 40 MP sensor.
> 5D3 body.
> 100% viewfinder.
> 20ish point AF more widly spaced.
> ...



If they had the tech for a $2500 camera with a high-performance 40mp sensor, they would have put something a little more special than a slightly improved 5D II sensor in the 5D III.


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> moreorless said:
> 
> 
> > 40 MP sensor.
> ...



A slightly improved 5DII sensor in the 5DIII?

I think you need to do your homework before you make statements like that


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> plutonium10 said:
> 
> 
> > moreorless said:
> ...



Well yeah, maybe that was badly worded. But compared to the evolution from D700 to D800, the 5D III's improvements do seem quite lack-luster, especially in DR.


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> Well yeah, maybe that was badly worded. But compared to the evolution from D700 to D800, the 5D III's improvements do seem quite lack-luster, especially in DR.



I think you are a victim of the DR brainwashing brigade.

I suspect you also need to look at the specs of the D700 and D800 when you will find the D800 is not in the same market segment as the D700


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

I had recently seen samples of the DR the D800 can produce on several websites and it seems to be a fair improvement over the 5D III. Has DxO been giving me the wrong ideas?

... And I was under the impression that the D700 competed directly with the 5D II and was very much in the same market segment. Is this not the case?


----------



## briansquibb (May 5, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> I had recently seen samples of the DR the D800 can produce on several websites and it seems to be a fair improvement over the 5D III. Has DxO been giving me the wrong ideas?
> 
> ... And I was under the impression that the D700 competed directly with the 5D II and was very much in the same market segment. Is this not the case?



DxO testing is debatable

D700 is 12mp only


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

briansquibb said:


> DxO testing is debatable



Fair enough.

This is the article which has led me to "bash" Canon today. (I dont make a regular habit of it.)
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/19/dxomark-verdict-nikon-d800-95-canon-5d-mark-iii-81.aspx/


----------



## elflord (May 5, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> I had recently seen samples of the DR the D800 can produce on several websites and it seems to be a fair improvement over the 5D III. Has DxO been giving me the wrong ideas?



The D800 and more generally, newer Sony sensors have delivered big performance improvements at low ISOs. This is only relevant if the performance of the Canon sensor at ISO 100 is not good enough for you. 

If you do a lot of your shooting at ISO800 or higher, the difference is largely academic.

In particular, if you don't keep your ISO set to 400 or less (make that 200 if you're using an APS-C body) for fear of degrading the image quality, those differences are largely academic. 

I'm not dismissing the DxO results or trying to say that there's anything wrong with them, just that they get blown way out of proportion, and people jump on the numbers too quickly without looking at what the implications are to realistic shooting scenarios.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

elflord said:


> plutonium10 said:
> 
> 
> > I had recently seen samples of the DR the D800 can produce on several websites and it seems to be a fair improvement over the 5D III. Has DxO been giving me the wrong ideas?
> ...



Actually, I do shoot all of my landscapes at ISO 100 or 200 except on the rare occasion where the light isn't good enough and I haven't brought a tripod. That gives you an idea of how bad a pixel peeper I am!


----------



## Neeneko (May 6, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> Actually, I do shoot all of my landscapes at ISO 100 or 200 except on the rare occasion where the light isn't good enough and I haven't brought a tripod. That gives you an idea of how bad a pixel peeper I am!



*nod* I tend to do my landscape work at 100 or 200 also.

I am starting to think the 'high ISO' has become the new megapixel war.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> I am starting to think the 'high ISO' has become the new megapixel war.



This would make sense, seeing that the aps-c/lens combination is about to be maxed out sooner or later when it comes to mp. The improvement potential on noise (low or high iso) is still large. And marketing needs something to distinguish products.

But I think there's a difference to mp. Every little mp increase is nice but not really that important (yes, computing power rises, yes, I've read in the 5d3 threads I'm not supposed to want more mp in spite of shooting macro and cropping a lot). But a little iso noise decrease is nothing, you don't notice it after pp. What would make a difference is a bigger, real leap ahead, diminishing the need for the current heavy and expensive "low light" 2.8 zooms.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 6, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> This would make sense, seeing that the aps-c/lens combination is about to be maxed out sooner or later when it comes to mp. The improvement potential on noise (low or high iso) is still large. And marketing needs something to distinguish products.



Yes. I'm excited to see what effect Digic V will have on APS-C image noise.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> Yes. I'm excited to see what effect Digic V will have on APS-C image noise.



My prediction: none, at least in raw. And I can do smarter, adaptive denoising in pp just fine... A faster cpu is nice for more fps (see dual 7d digic4 with its problems) and hopefully better video contrast af - but imho that's about what you can expect from it.


----------



## Neeneko (May 7, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> This would make sense, seeing that the aps-c/lens combination is about to be maxed out sooner or later when it comes to mp. The improvement potential on noise (low or high iso) is still large. And marketing needs something to distinguish products.



I keep hoping that they will take all this new tech and cheaper manufacturing and focus it towards larger sensors with lower pixel density instead. The MF/LF market is just itching for something competitive that drags prices down to something sane.... and there are still very few affordable view camera solutions which I suspect eventually people are going to rediscover and want to work with again.

Though I suspect instead, next year, we are going to see 'well, OUR camera can go up to 1M ISO!' 'well, OUR camera can go to 1.2M ISO!'.


----------

