# 5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 14, 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/2012/02/5d-mark-iiix-information-cr1/"></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/2012/02/5d-mark-iiix-information-cr1/" 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/2012/02/5d-mark-iiix-information-cr1/"></a></div>
<strong>aaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!

</strong>Tons of information coming in about possibly the most anticipated camera of 2012 (sorry Nikon).</p>
<p><strong>Announcement date of February 28, 2012?

</strong>I have received lots of emails saying that’ll be the announcement date. I cannot confirm it to 100% certainty, so for now it’s just a guess.</p>
<p><strong>Specs?

</strong>All the same specs are coming in. 22mp, 61pt af, 6.9fps. It could definitely take the spot of the 7D, if the previous rumor is true.</p>
<p><strong>Shipping?

</strong>Late March or early April is the mentioned ship times for the camera. If this is true, there should be real solid leaks coming soon.</p>
<p><strong>Where’s my megapixels?</strong>

A lot of people are wondering why 22mp is it, especially after Nikon announced their 36mp D800 last week. Canon’s Masaya Maeda had some interesting things to say about a large megapixel body.</p>
<blockquote><p>…Regarding how Canon responds to the competition from Nikon’s D800 and the concern of the successor of <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon5dmkii" class="pretty-link-keyword">5D Mark II</a>, Maeda indicates that although he cannot leak information about un-announced product, the way Canon develops new product is to satisfy the needs of professional photographers. For instance, the introduction of EOS-1D X is to satisfy professional photographers to photoshoot sports events like the Olympics, in terms of their requirement of high FPS and high image quality under high ISO settings. <strong>If Canon thinks the market wants the high resolution models such as the 30  MP of Nikon’s D800</strong>, <strong>they can easily develop such products…</strong></p></blockquote>
<p>The bolded part of the above quote basically translates to, “we have one, give us a bit to tear a D800 apart and make sure ours is better”.</p>
<p><strong>I still want a 5D2!</strong>

There has also been a few suggestions that the <a href="http://www.canonrumors.com/canon5dmkii" class="pretty-link-keyword">5D Mark II</a> could remain current, even after a perceived replacement is announced.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<div class="prli-social-buttons-bar"><a href="http://del.icio.us/post?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/delicious_32.png" alt="Delicious" title="Delicious" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.stumbleupon.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/stumbleupon_32.png" alt="StumbleUpon" title="StumbleUpon" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/digg_32.png" alt="Digg" title="Digg" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://twitter.com/home?status=RT @prettylink:  [url=http://www.canonrumors.com/]http://www.canonrumors.com/[/url] (via @prettylink)" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/twitter_32.png" alt="Twitter" title="Twitter" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.mixx.com/submit?page_url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/mixx_32.png" alt="Mixx" title="Mixx" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://technorati.com/faves?add=http://www.canonrumors.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/technorati_32.png" alt="Technorati" title="Technorati" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&t=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/facebook_32.png" alt="Facebook" title="Facebook" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.newsvine.com/_tools/seed&save?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&h=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/newsvine_32.png" alt="News Vine" title="News Vine" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://reddit.com/submit?url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/reddit_32.png" alt="Reddit" title="Reddit" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle?mini=true&url=http://www.canonrumors.com/&title=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/linkedin_32.png" alt="LinkedIn" title="LinkedIn" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a><a href="http://myweb2.search.yahoo.com/myresults/bookmarklet?u=http://www.canonrumors.com/&=" rel="nofollow" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.canonrumors.com/wp-content/plugins/pretty-link/images/yahoobuzz_32.png" alt="Yahoo! Bookmarks" title="Yahoo! Bookmarks" border="0" style="padding: 0 10px 0 0;" /></a></div>
```


----------



## GL (Feb 14, 2012)

"possibly the most anticipated camera of 2012"

God help Canon if they announce a crop 7D MkII in Feb. No amount of focus points or FPS will save them from the wrath of the 5Dx hordes... (myself included)


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 14, 2012)

with those specs quoted - if it also came with dual cf card slots, then i'd an extremely happy bunny and my pre-order is being submitted. Even more so if it has that nice battery grip 

As said, i', more than happy with 21mp and could happily drop back to 18mp - but i'd accept the slight increase if it pleased the video brigade and mp brigade.

If the 5D2 is going t be left on the market, might i suggest that Canon will knock its price down to that of the 7D or make it a replacement for the 60D? Blimey, wouldn't that upset the Nikon and Sony apple cart - having to compete with a 5D2 as an intro camera - or move up from your budget DSLR?

3 years old, but still providing IQ that must budget or mid price DSLR cameras aspire to!


----------



## RSBJ (Feb 14, 2012)

Wow Canon, give us a much improved auto-focus system, and you really are listening. Can't say I would spec my ideal 5DII replacement much differently than that. 

Highest on my wish-list was for better dynamic range, we'll have to see how much that improves on the 5DIII or 1DX. Exciting times.

Disregard AF comment, not quite awake yet I suppose! Wow, what a camera; assuming it's around $3k.


----------



## Astro (Feb 14, 2012)

Picsfor said:


> If the 5D2 is going t be left on the market, might i suggest that Canon will knock its price down to that of the 7D or make it a replacement for the 60D?



and it would be no big step.

7D ~1200-1300 euro
5D MK2 ~1750 euro

im all for it!!


----------



## NoWii (Feb 14, 2012)

I hope this rumor is true.
Once again, we'll get a great professional FF camera with superb video (as mpix count suggest). Looks like a solid and not suprising replacement for 5DmkII. It just got upgraded in al the aspects, with no change of aim.
This will fill the hole in canons lineup (between 5dmkii and 1dx). And the 5DmkII becomes that affordable FF camera, we all wanted.

The only thing missing is a high megapixel camera. There it is a question, if canon will even bother to make it. But I don't think that Canon will leave Nikon alone in this segment, no matter how small it is. Maybe the "cinema" DSLR will have a high Mpix count and low high iso performance (which would seperate it from c300). And cinema lenses are supposed to have like "super high" resolution (perfect for high mpix sensor).
Who knows..


----------



## Woody (Feb 14, 2012)

Canon's comment is not a surprise. They have already showcased their 100 MP APS-H sensor. On the other hand, if Canon does NOT think the pros want high pixel count cameras, then....


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

Hmmm, a 1 DX + this new 5D....


----------



## Mr.Magic (Feb 14, 2012)

At the moment I'm still thinking these specs are listed once somewhere and everyone one is repeating it, because it is so good, and almost everyone will be happy with it.

On the other hand, the nikon d800 specs were also always the same, and it appeared to be true. So where is the point of saying 'as from now these specs look really believeable instead of a probably wishlist'.... I don't know 
Canon being a conservative company let's me think the wishlist, Canon needing to produce a model that will be relevant for the next 3-4 years let' me think the other way  I'm just hoping this could be true, and we'll have to see then


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 14, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> <strong>If Canon thinks the market wants the high resolution models such as the 30 MP of Nikon’s D800</strong>, <strong>they can easily develop such products…</strong></p></blockquote>
> <p>The bolded part of the above quote basically translates to, “we have one, give us a bit to tear a D800 apart and make sure ours is better”.</p>



I love that...


----------



## JR (Feb 14, 2012)

I love those specs and I love where the new mkIII seem to be headed! As for the high MP body, I would bet Canon is much more advanced in their development then they led us to beleive in official statements. In fact, I bet you it is ready and right now they are playing their marketing game like they want. 

The 5DX spec we saw a few days ago here would likely be a Nikon killer...we'll see.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

JR said:


> I love those specs and I love where the new mkIII seem to be headed! As for the high MP body, I would bet Canon is much more advanced in their development then they led us to beleive in official statements. In fact, I bet you it is ready and right now they are playing their marketing game like they want.
> 
> The 5DX spec we saw a few days ago here would likely be a Nikon killer...we'll see.


I agree, Canon probably just wants to make sure theirs is better as the Admin stated


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 14, 2012)

Mr.Magic said:


> At the moment I'm still thinking these specs are listed once somewhere and everyone one is repeating it, because it is so good, and almost everyone will be happy with it.
> 
> On the other hand, the nikon d800 specs were also always the same, and it appeared to be true. So where is the point of saying 'as from now these specs look really believeable instead of a probably wishlist'.... I don't know
> Canon being a conservative company let's me think the wishlist, Canon needing to produce a model that will be relevant for the next 3-4 years let' me think the other way  I'm just hoping this could be true, and we'll have to see then



All that you've said is true and valid, right up until the appearance of the 1DX. Now i'm not so sure.

I have a feeling Canon has been doing a serious amount of home-work, and may have just got the strategies right.

All Canon using pro's are feeling rather smug about the 1DX when compared to the D4.

With the release of the D800, Nikon still haven't produced anything to match the 5D2.

If Canon release a 5D3/x with the specs announced - Canon may well mop up a whole load of Nikon D700 users who just wanted a 16/18mp version of the D700 and some improvement in DR and ISO.

The MP brigade have been given a hint that their much desired camera may well still appear in a fashion that will give the D800 serious competition. May personal view is that Canon have probably been working on this MP beast for longer than Nikon and have just sat and waited to see what the response is from people.

The world of Canon comes across to me as a changing world. They got a real kicking with the 1D3, and the initial black dot on the 5D2 and a few other various issues - i think they've looked at what they got wrong and have put it right.


----------



## wockawocka (Feb 14, 2012)

Despite ordering 2 x 1Dx's I would love the replacement 5D3 to mean I don't have to get them.

Not from the money front but the weight. The 5D2 was a lovely camera but the lack of shutter, aperture and iso limits along with the poor AF was a deal breaker for me.


----------



## Orion (Feb 14, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> The bolded part of the above quote basically translates to, “we have one, give us a bit to tear a D800 apart and make sure ours is better”.




Well if that mentality is true, then they could've have started at ISO and AF . . . . "easily."


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

Picsfor said:


> All Canon using pro's are feeling rather smug about the 1DX when compared to the D4.


where did you get that idea/info?


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 14, 2012)

The quote from Maeda certainly looks like Canon is playing the role of the front-runner. Apparently, they've got a bunch of tech and several prototypes, and were just waiting for Nikon to tip their hand so they can one-up them. Now, before everyone gets too excited, as I said in a previous post, Canon will not put *all* of their best tech in these cameras: they will do just enough to take a clear edge, and then profit from the next cycle as well.


----------



## torger (Feb 14, 2012)

I guess I'll stay with the 5D mark II then. Speed and AF is nice, but in those cases I almost always want more reach and use APS-C instead (7D). What I really desire is substantial sensor improvements at ISO100, and that is probably not going to happen.

It seems to me that the 5Dmk3 may be a mild evolved version, do as little as possible to please as many as possible, but no bold features. ISO performance will certainly be worse than 1DX, but will it be better than 5Dmk2? They don't need to make it better. Improving the AF is the only thing they really need to do, and then add some speed to differentiate from the competition.


----------



## psolberg (Feb 14, 2012)

> The bolded part of the above quote basically translates to, “we have one, give us a bit to tear a D800 apart and make sure ours is better”.



I don't think that's what he is saying at all. He is simply saying exactly what every other camera company is saying: if we think there is demand for it, we'll make one. However by the time that gets made if it is not already in development, it could be several years before it shows up. For instance, canon knew there was demand for a D700 fast fps camera competitor. how long did it take to make one? still waiting. 

Let's put the fan cap down and put the thinking cap on. Canon is betting that their audience will be ok with 22MP just like nikon used to bet that their audience would be happy with 12. They think there will be some benefits that will make the product appealing just like nikon knows there are some benefits that will make theirs appealing. 

I'm sure both companies are looking at each other and reasize they totally missjudged where the other was going to go. And off course both are capable of easily releasing models to trump each other again. Nikon could just as easly top the 5DIII with a D800s as canon could top the D800 with a 5DX. However expecting either one next month is just silly.

The interesting thing about a 22MP 5DIII is that once again the budget full frame is divided by two completely opposite camera models that essentially swapped places compared to the last generation. Nikon is now big MP game and a landscape/studio dream, canon is now fast fps game which should keep a lot of action/sports guys happy. 



> The quote from Maeda certainly looks like Canon is playing the role of the front-runner. Apparently, they've got a bunch of tech and several prototypes, and were just waiting for Nikon to tip their hand so they can one-up them. Now, before everyone gets too excited, as I said in a previous post, Canon will not put all of their best tech in these cameras: they will do just enough to take a clear edge, and then profit from the next cycle as well.



First of all, corporate guys talk like that. It's their job even if they have nothing in the drawing board. Nikon and others do this as well. as a matter of fact, several prototypes are the norm. Neither nikon nor canon can't create something the other can't match or surpass once the specs are known. It's the leap frog game and canon has gotten leapfrogged just as many time as nikon. Bring a phased out prototype to market is much more complicated. Both canon/nikon realized the other's position likely months ago but in the dev cycle and the big picture their bets are set. I think both are making good moves. However, their responses to the current models won't be seen for years.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 14, 2012)

> the way Canon develops new product is to satisfy the needs of professional photographers. For instance, the introduction of EOS-1D X is to satisfy professional photographers to photoshoot sports events like the Olympics, in terms of their requirement of high FPS and high image quality under high ISO settings.



I find this comment confusing.. if their 'way' is to develop products for professional photographers.. why are they making video cameras in SLR form? It really feels like videoographers, at minimal, share equal weight.. at this point probably more.


----------



## adamfilip (Feb 14, 2012)

Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.

7D - $1299

5Dm2 21mp FF - $1799

5DX - 22mp FF 61pt AF, 6.9fps - $2499

3DX - 40mp FF 61pt AF, 4fps - $3499

1DX - 18mp FF 61pt AF - 12fps - $5999


I hope canon also makes a budget FF camera. Imagine if the 7Dm2 was a 12mp FF for $1000 that would kill nikon


----------



## baldusi (Feb 14, 2012)

The true genius of the D800 was the D800E. I would gladly take an 22Mpx 5dmkIII. But I want to be able to have no anti alias filter. It makes a world of difference for sharpness, and it wouldn't hurt the sort of photography that the 5D shooters usually do. In any case, you could always buy it with the AA filter.
On the other hand, when pixel peeping the D3s and the D4, I find the high iso setting have lots of noise reduction and correspondingly very little sharpness. It's clear that the 1Dx has better underlying noise characteristics. So I hope to get that quality in the 5DmkIII, I don't care how many pixels.


----------



## adamfilip (Feb 14, 2012)

baldusi said:


> The true genius of the D800 was the D800E. I would gladly take an 22Mpx 5dmkIII. But I want to be able to have no anti alias filter. It makes a world of difference for sharpness, and it wouldn't hurt the sort of photography that the 5D shooters usually do. In any case, you could always buy it with the AA filter.
> On the other hand, when pixel peeping the D3s and the D4, I find the high iso setting have lots of noise reduction and correspondingly very little sharpness. It's clear that the 1Dx has better underlying noise characteristics. So I hope to get that quality in the 5DmkIII, I don't care how many pixels.



What would be awesome is if they could somehow enable or disable the AA filter via a menu setting.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

baldusi said:


> On the other hand, when pixel peeping the D3s and the D4, I find the high iso setting have lots of noise reduction and correspondingly very little sharpness. It's clear that the 1Dx has better underlying noise characteristics.


+1. I cannot shake the feeling that the D4 was a bit of a panic-reaction to the 1DX


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

adamfilip said:


> baldusi said:
> 
> 
> > The true genius of the D800 was the D800E. I would gladly take an 22Mpx 5dmkIII. But I want to be able to have no anti alias filter. It makes a world of difference for sharpness, and it wouldn't hurt the sort of photography that the 5D shooters usually do. In any case, you could always buy it with the AA filter.
> ...


I don't see how that could be physically achieved...


----------



## psolberg (Feb 14, 2012)

baldusi said:


> The true genius of the D800 was the D800E. I would gladly take an 22Mpx 5dmkIII. But I want to be able to have no anti alias filter. It makes a world of difference for sharpness, and it wouldn't hurt the sort of photography that the 5D shooters usually do. In any case, you could always buy it with the AA filter.
> On the other hand, when pixel peeping the D3s and the D4, I find the high iso setting have lots of noise reduction and correspondingly very little sharpness. It's clear that the 1Dx has better underlying noise characteristics. So I hope to get that quality in the 5DmkIII, I don't care how many pixels.



I don't think the few comparisons that have been made can reach that conclusion. IMO the nikon is about a half stop over the 1DX simply because of the larget photosites, but you need to keep in mind that comparing jpgs is a futile thing to do when they aren't even the same subject and light. Once somebody like DXO/ dpreview or other lab tests raws we will know for sure. However, as I said, I expect the lower MP nikon to fair better. However, the difference will certainly be smaller than with the past generation. 

The more relevant question is just how much better will 22mp be over nikon's 36mp. clearly canon will have the advantage in low light but the 5DII wasn't bad and what will a 36MP file resampled to 22MP look like? 



> +1. I cannot shake the feeling that the D4 was a bit of a panic-reaction to the 1DX


I don't think so. As I said, we've yet to see a real test. These cameras take years to develop. neither is a panic raction to anything.


----------



## torger (Feb 14, 2012)

baldusi said:


> The true genius of the D800 was the D800E. I would gladly take an 22Mpx 5dmkIII. But I want to be able to have no anti alias filter. It makes a world of difference for sharpness, and it wouldn't hurt the sort of photography that the 5D shooters usually do. In any case, you could always buy it with the AA filter.



I don't really understand not wanting megapixels because resolution is not important, but want to skip AA filter because, ehh, resolution is important? As I see it, it is only a good idea to drop the AA filter when the resolution of the sensor is high (like on the D800), meaning that diffraction will typically kill moire/aliasing problem and thus further blurring would be unnecessary.

No AA filter is better suited for those that has slow workflows with lots of PP, such as studio/landscape, that is for a megapixel monster, not for an all-around camera.


----------



## infared (Feb 14, 2012)

Slap the new 24-70mm f/2.8 II on the new 5D....and oh what fun! (not for my bank account though )


----------



## kubelik (Feb 14, 2012)

I'd buy a 22MP 5D-family camera with pro-AF and 6.9 FPS in a heartbeat. It's exactly what we dreamed the 5D Mark II could have been in an ideal world. at the end of the day, 22 MP is a decent all-around useful number, although I'd prefer a push to 24 MP or 28 MP (even if that brought shooting speed down fractionally to 6.3 FPS to match the former 50D). can't wait for this to drop, even though I'll be shooting my 5D Mark II until the shutter dies before I upgrade.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

psolberg said:


> I don't think the few comparisons that have been made can reach that conclusion. IMO the nikon is about a half stop over the 1DX simply because of the larget photosites, but you need to keep in mind that comparing jpgs is a futile thing to do when they aren't even the same subject and light. Once somebody like DXO/ dpreview or other lab tests raws we will know for sure. However, as I said, I expect the lower MP nikon to fair better. However, the difference will certainly be smaller than with the past generation.


I'm not sure about that. Why would Canon give the 1DX a native range up until 51,200 where the D4 is limited to 12,800 (not talking about digital boost, they reach the same)? I don't think Canon would do that unless they're pretty sure they can at least match the performance, not to say surpass it by 2 stops...


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 14, 2012)

psolberg said:


> I don't think that's what he is saying at all. He is simply saying exactly what every other camera company is saying: if we think there is demand for it, we'll make one.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> First of all, corporate guys talk like that. It's their job even if they have nothing in the drawing board.



Though I can't cite particular instances (Neuro, is your index handy?) I believe Canon execs have, in the past, made very different statements when they didn't have a direct competitor. I believe (going by memory) they have said things such as "we don't believe there's a market for X" when they haven't had a competitor ready. I have to agree with CR Guy: I think that was a clear signal that Canon is ready to produce as soon as they've finished assessing the D800 and the market.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 14, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> All the same specs are coming in. 22mp, 61pt af, 6.9fps. It could definitely take the spot of the 7D, if the previous rumor is true.



Sorry - wrong. When I'm focal-length or magnification limited, I want pixel density, not pixel count. At 22MP, it could replace the 20D, but it would need 46MP to replace the 7D and, frankly, I want more pixel density than that, not less. This is why it either needs to be really high in pixel count or they need a 7D replacement too, preferably above 22MP.


----------



## mathino (Feb 14, 2012)

Astro said:


> Picsfor said:
> 
> 
> > If the 5D2 is going t be left on the market, might i suggest that Canon will knock its price down to that of the 7D or make it a replacement for the 60D?
> ...



Here in Slovakia price for 5D Mk II brand new is alerady at 1770 Euro.


----------



## pakosouthpark (Feb 14, 2012)

'Shipping? Late March or early April is the mentioned ship times for the camera. If this is true, there should be real solid leaks coming soon.'

that early? i would be impressed! now i want to see a 'solid leak'!


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 14, 2012)

I've done my share of D800 humping lately, but a 22 mp 5DIII with a 61-point AF system and 6.9 FPS would be one heck of a camera. Throw in one or two additional stops of DR and ISO over the 5DII, and this sucker will be irresistible. Do it, Canon  My Canon glass gives me wood every time I use them, and I really don't want to switch systems. 



psolberg said:


> The interesting thing about a 22MP 5DIII is that once again the budget full frame is divided by two completely opposite camera models that essentially swapped places compared to the last generation. Nikon is now big MP game and a landscape/studio dream, canon is now fast fps game which should keep a lot of action/sports guys happy.



The funny part is that despite the role reversals, both the Canon and Nikon fan boys are still waving their Canon and Nikon flags. If you're a Nikon fan boy that loved the D700, and gladly sacrificed resolution for FPS and ISO, it would seem odd to embrace the D800, but they do anyways. If you're a Canon fan boy that went poo poo on speed in favor of resolution, it would seem odd to embrace a 22 mp 5DIII with vastly improved AF and FPS, but they will anyways.


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 14, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> Picsfor said:
> 
> 
> > All Canon using pro's are feeling rather smug about the 1DX when compared to the D4.
> ...



Simple - where have you had Nikon pros jumping for joy with the D4? 
Heck Joe Mcnally's launch blurb produced nothing that any one could get excited about.
Most with D3s's for weddings etc. are not even bothering to upgrade!

Canon guys on the other hand have got a camera that comfortably claims the Pro model crown. Which part of the 1DX improvements are not beneficial? 61pt AF? ISO to 51k? 12FPS? Gbit Ethernet? Dual CF? Duplication of controls for portrait and landscape mode? Video improvements? 

The only issue is the moving from APS-H to FF, and for most users that will end up becoming a minor adjustment in real world terms.


----------



## JLM (Feb 14, 2012)

Something that Canon should do to jump way ahead of Nikon in the Video world is to have 8 bit 4:2:2 in camera compression. Being a Nikon user, I would get a new 5D ? for video use.


----------



## psolberg (Feb 14, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think the few comparisons that have been made can reach that conclusion. IMO the nikon is about a half stop over the 1DX simply because of the larget photosites, but you need to keep in mind that comparing jpgs is a futile thing to do when they aren't even the same subject and light. Once somebody like DXO/ dpreview or other lab tests raws we will know for sure. However, as I said, I expect the lower MP nikon to fair better. However, the difference will certainly be smaller than with the past generation.
> ...



I don't think mere ISO values in a marketing brouchure tell anything. the proof will be in the raws. who's to say canon isn't just boosting too and they decided to market it as non boosted? How would we know? At the end of the day the proof will be in proper comparisons which is all that matters. Maybe Canon will be on top? not sure, , but not by much if so. certainly nowhere near 2 stops. But I'm highly skeptical... I've never shot with either but those fortunare enough to have gotten the D4 swear it is better than the D3s at low light. 



> Something that Canon should do to jump way ahead of Nikon in the Video world is to have 8 bit 4:2:2 in camera compression. Being a Nikon user, I would get a new 5D ? for video use


I think the video market will move to much higher end bodies. the days of the 5D as a primary video tool in the high end markets are numbered with things like the red and the canon c300 among competition from sony.


----------



## torger (Feb 14, 2012)

Those that expect large ISO improvements in RAW files are in for disappointment. From market reasons it must be less good than 1Dx, and the 18 megapixel 1Dx may be as good as the 12 megapixel D3s in RAW performance. The D3s is about 1 stop better than 5Dmk2 (plus it can do very high ISOs which 5Dmk2 can't).

I'd say that a realistic expectation is that a 22 megapixel 5Dmk3 sensor is about 0,5 stop better than 5Dmk2 up to ISO6400, plus that the ultra high ISOs (ISO12800+) is more useful than on 5Dmk2.


----------



## coltsfreak18 (Feb 14, 2012)

Hate to break it to you, Tuggen, but you are simply wrong. What reports are you hearing? And there is absolutely no chance that the D800 beats or ties the 1DX in high iso performance!


----------



## maxxevv (Feb 14, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> The first reports says that 1DX and D800 will have about the same high ISO performance, D800 is better than D700/D3 and 5Dmk2 att all ISO:s and that D4 is about 0.5 stop better than D800 and 1Dx.
> 
> Guess we will have to wait for final confirmation but it's sounds likely.
> If this is correct then one might wonder what Canon will do with 5D3 to compete. Perhaps it will beat the 1Dx by 0.5 stop at high ISO?



Interesting ... gotta a link ? Would certainly like to have a read..


----------



## Tijn (Feb 14, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> The first reports says that 1DX and D800 will have about the same high ISO performance, D800 is better than D700/D3 and 5Dmk2 att all ISO:s and that D4 is about 0.5 stop better than D800 and 1Dx.
> 
> Guess we will have to wait for final confirmation but it's sounds likely.
> If this is correct then one might wonder what Canon will do with 5D3 to compete. Perhaps it will beat the 1Dx by 0.5 stop at high ISO?


Wait, you're saying you seriously think that the 5D mk3 will outperform the 1Dx on ISO performance and resolution, while costing over two times less?

Continuing that line I'd love to see the next 650D do 1,5 stops better than the 1D X on ISO performance at 26MPx, costing 750eu...


----------



## psolberg (Feb 14, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> The first reports says that 1DX and D800 will have about the same high ISO performance, D800 is better than D700/D3 and 5Dmk2 att all ISO:s and that D4 is about 0.5 stop better than D800 and 1Dx.
> 
> Guess we will have to wait for final confirmation but it's sounds likely.
> If this is correct then one might wonder what Canon will do with 5D3 to compete. Perhaps it will beat the 1Dx by 0.5 stop at high ISO?



Well, define compete. IMO competitive doesn't need to mean undisputed best at everything. There is no such thing from any manufacturer, and if so, it never lasts long. I think even if they don't beat the D4 in high ISO, half a stop is barrely the difference between competing and not competing. I think the 1DX combined with the canon lens system is extremelly competitive and has a few better areas compared to the D4. Likewise the 5DIII is a great competitor offering many distinct features over the competition even if it falls in others. Then there is price. The 1DX/D4 are great but price wise they are absurd. The 5DIII can easlily compete against them by thousands of dollars less.



> Hate to break it to you, Tuggen, but you are simply wrong. What reports are you hearing? And there is absolutely no chance that the D800 beats the 1DX in high iso performance


I think he meant D4.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 14, 2012)

baldusi said:


> The true genius of the D800 was the D800E. I would gladly take an 22Mpx 5dmkIII. But I want to be able to have no anti alias filter. It makes a world of difference for sharpness, and it wouldn't hurt the sort of photography that the 5D shooters usually do. In any case, you could always buy it with the AA filter.



See, what I would love to see is an option for no CFA ^_^ Though I am fully aware that Canon will probably never produce such an option...


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 14, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> baldusi said:
> 
> 
> > The true genius of the D800 was the D800E. I would gladly take an 22Mpx 5dmkIII. But I want to be able to have no anti alias filter. It makes a world of difference for sharpness, and it wouldn't hurt the sort of photography that the 5D shooters usually do. In any case, you could always buy it with the AA filter.
> ...



There's nothing saying canon WONT introduce either option. It's still early and so many things can still change up until the day it is released.


----------



## torger (Feb 14, 2012)

psolberg said:


> Well, define compete. IMO competitive doesn't need to mean undisputed best at everything. There is no such thing from any manufacturer, and if so, it never lasts long. I think even if they don't beat the D4 in high ISO, half a stop is barrely the difference between competing and not competing.



I agree. Half stop up or down is what fanboys can argue about, but won't make a difference on the whole. I don't think Canon will come out on top concerning sensor image quality this time around either, but it will not matter. Even if the sensor performs worse in terms of ISO than the 36 megapixel Nikon many users will just be happy with the fact that they don't need to deal with 36 megapixel files. Just as high megapixels attract some users (resolution for landscape/studio), a low number attract others (faster workflow, lower storage requirements). Finding out exact ISO performance is more complicated so I think most don't do that at all.

The high megapixel count may cause the D800 to look as a highly specialized camera, regardless if it performs really well at high ISOs. A more moderate count like 22 megapixels may attract more users just because it seems more all-around and sane, regardless of its actual performance.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

psolberg said:


> I don't think ISO values in a marketing brouchure tell anything. the proof will be in the raws. who's to say canon isn't just boosting too and they decided to market it as non boosted? How would we know? At the end of the day the proof will be in proper comparisons which is all that matters. Maybe Canon will be on top? not sure, , but not by much if so. certainly nowhere near 2 stops. But I'm highly skeptical... I've never shot with either but those fortunare enough to have gotten the D4 swear it is better than the D3s at low light.


I agree with you that comparisons are the only exact proof, but I don't believe Canon could allow itself to only use "mere ISO values in a marketing brouchure" and then not deliver in such high-end pro bodies, they would be the laughing stock then...I hope we will get blown away :-*


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 14, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> There's nothing saying canon WONT introduce either option. It's still early and so many things can still change up until the day it is released.



It is very, very unlikely. Canon does not even produce IR or astro camera at this point and has shown no interest in moving outside its comfortable mass market devices. Photography oriented cameras without a CFA pretty much exist only a niche products at the high end (I think the cheapest one I have seen was 12k for the digital back alone) as MF backs, and I have not seen one in a DSLR package since the Kodak 760m. 

Conventional marketing wisdom says there is not enough market for them and that software conversion is 'good enough'.. and Canon is not really known for taking risks or serving niches at this point.

So while I agree it is, in theory, possible, and I would love Canon to introduce such a camera.. I do not see it happening. Which makes me a sad panda....


----------



## torger (Feb 14, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> I agree with you that comparisons are the only exact proof, but I don't believe Canon could allow itself to only use "mere ISO values in a marketing brouchure" and then not deliver in such high-end pro bodies, they would be the laughing stock then...I hope we will get blown away :-*



I think the 1Dmk4 (ISO102400) proves that Canon indeed can put in high ISO numbers in the camera just to make them show in the brochure, not caring about how it actually performs. Thus, I will remain skeptical until real RAW samples and tests appear.


----------



## psolberg (Feb 14, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think ISO values in a marketing brouchure tell anything. the proof will be in the raws. who's to say canon isn't just boosting too and they decided to market it as non boosted? How would we know? At the end of the day the proof will be in proper comparisons which is all that matters. Maybe Canon will be on top? not sure, , but not by much if so. certainly nowhere near 2 stops. But I'm highly skeptical... I've never shot with either but those fortunare enough to have gotten the D4 swear it is better than the D3s at low light.
> ...



my point being, who cares how they achieved a number if the images are good. Let the pictures tell the story. Obsessing over marketing numbers is pointless. Once we see image A vs image B, let the best image win.



> I think the 1Dmk4 (ISO102400) proves that Canon indeed can put in high ISO numbers in the camera just to make them show in the brochure, not caring about how it actually performs. Thus, I will remain skeptical until real RAW samples and tests appear.



I agree. honestly all cameras, including the D4/D1X at that ISO setting are just playing marketing game. Nobody in their right mind would be happy with their results.


----------



## smartysmart34 (Feb 14, 2012)

Hm. While I do not need more than 21 or 22 mPixels I think a 5dIII/X would still need

- Better AF (seems to be on board)
- Better DR / Noise (nothing mentioned)
- Better sealing (is a must for me)
- a second CF slot (should be pretty standard in that price range now)

Compared to a D800 - even if the 5dIII has all the above it would have to be cheaper then the D800.
if the above doesn't come (means: Only AF improvement) I would not switch from my 5dII. AF on the MkII is a pain in the neck but not worth upgrading if it's the only improvement.

Cheers,
Martin


----------



## kennykodak (Feb 14, 2012)

there's more to image quality than megapixals. i'll take low noise for what i'm doing.


----------



## blarygake (Feb 14, 2012)

This is GREAT.
I have the 5D II and I really would like better AF but I don't care at all about higher MP.

As somebody mentioned, better Dynamic Range would be nice.
Prettier noise would be nice.
And better color production. I still feel like the XTi did better with flesh tones than the 5DII.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2012)

torger said:


> DzPhotography said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with you that comparisons are the only exact proof, but I don't believe Canon could allow itself to only use "mere ISO values in a marketing brouchure" and then not deliver in such high-end pro bodies, they would be the laughing stock then...I hope we will get blown away :-*
> ...



I agree, but do keep in mind that for the 1D IV, ISO 102400 is the H3 setting, and the top native (non-expanded) ISO for the 1D IV is ISO 12800, vs. ISO 51200 for the 1D X.


----------



## torger (Feb 14, 2012)

blarygake said:


> And better color production. I still feel like the XTi did better with flesh tones than the 5DII.



I hope you mean skin tones ;-)


----------



## blarygake (Feb 14, 2012)

haha I did indeed


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> torger said:
> 
> 
> > DzPhotography said:
> ...


Thank you Neuro (+1) I was NOT talking about boost values, as stated in my earlier post :


----------



## jwphotography (Feb 14, 2012)

It seems clear to me that Canon is going with the "X" nomenclature for some new models. I expect a 5D3 with the rumored 22mp and a 5DX or possibly 3DX with huge mp count to match or surpass the Nikon D800. Or maybe the 22mp 5D replacement will be 5DX and then there will be another camera... like 5DXs or something with the big mp count. Anyway, I expect another "X"!


----------



## daveswan (Feb 14, 2012)

What I'd like from a 5Dx

1080p video that actually *resolves* 1080p without obvious moire / aliasing

8 bit (10 for pref) 4:2:2 codec, preferably 100+ mbps I-frame (AVC-Intra does 1080p 100 mbpa 10 bit 4:2:2).

12+ stops DR in video

I could care less about audio since I go double system anyway, and I'd gladly swap 2 stop high ISO for 2 stops DR

A price I can afford without courting bankruptcy ;D

In other words video that's worthy of a £2500+ camera and that isn't embarased by a £600 Seaquake-hacked GH2


----------



## digishooter (Feb 14, 2012)

Given what Canon has released in the last 3 years, it's becoming more apparent that they are depending more on brand loyalty than worrying about what the competition is doing.

I expected all along that the 5d2 replacement would be a very minor upgrade with slightly better AF, video, and sensor performance. It's the same thing they did when they released the 1d4, which many 1d3 owners including myself skipped over because it wasn't worth spending the money for a slight upgrade. If the 5d3 is a 22mpx sensor with only slight improvements elsewhere, there will be almost no point in upgrading for about 90% of 5d2 users unless they either need a 2nd body or just want to upgrade for the fun of it. Of course, Canon loyalists who have not yet experienced a full-frame body will likely flock to it.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

digishooter said:


> Given what Canon has released in the last 3 years, it's becoming more apparent that they are depending more on brand loyalty than worrying about what the competition is doing.
> 
> I expected all along that the 5d2 replacement would be a very minor upgrade with slightly better AF, video, and sensor performance. It's the same thing they did when they released the 1d4, which many 1d3 owners including myself skipped over because it wasn't worth spending the money for a slight upgrade. If the 5d3 is a 22mpx sensor with only slight improvements elsewhere, there will be almost no point in upgrading for about 90% of 5d2 users unless they either need a 2nd body or just want to upgrade for the fun of it.


Slightly better AF? Holy crap, if this rumor is true it's worlds apart.... :


----------



## Ekefe (Feb 14, 2012)

Finally Canon has definitely got the message! (I hope so).... not two specific bodies for two specific purposes but one body for all the seasons. With not an huge number of Mpx (how many times you have to print an image 2X3 mt, but FF fast and reactive. Hoping that the leak will be confirmed! Let's leave the 30+ Mpx to the medium format ultra pro bodies!


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 14, 2012)

kubelik said:


> I'd buy a 22MP 5D-family camera with pro-AF and 6.9 FPS in a heartbeat. It's exactly what we dreamed the 5D Mark II could have been in an ideal world. at the end of the day, 22 MP is a decent all-around useful number, although I'd prefer a push to 24 MP or 28 MP (even if that brought shooting speed down fractionally to 6.3 FPS to match the former 50D). can't wait for this to drop, even though I'll be shooting my 5D Mark II until the shutter dies before I upgrade.



You obviously didn't jump from a 5D to a 5DII, it was a HUGE improvement. Almost double the megapixels, big jump in ISO performance, video, etc. You make it sound like you were disappointed with the 5DII, it's one of the most celebrated DSLR's of all time!


----------



## kubelik (Feb 14, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > I'd buy a 22MP 5D-family camera with pro-AF and 6.9 FPS in a heartbeat. It's exactly what we dreamed the 5D Mark II could have been in an ideal world. at the end of the day, 22 MP is a decent all-around useful number, although I'd prefer a push to 24 MP or 28 MP (even if that brought shooting speed down fractionally to 6.3 FPS to match the former 50D). can't wait for this to drop, even though I'll be shooting my 5D Mark II until the shutter dies before I upgrade.
> ...



axilrod, quite the opposite. I went from a 30D to the 5D Mark II, and I absolutely love my 5D Mark II. My point was, I can't really ask for much to be improved on the 5D Mark II, except the AF and fps rate. give me improvements in those two areas and I'm really quite set for life 8)


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2012)

kubelik said:


> My point was, I can't really ask for much to be improved on the 5D Mark II, except the AF and fps rate. give me improvements in those two areas and I'm really quite set for life



Indeed. That and the joystick on the battery grip as icing on the cake, and I begin to rethink my decision to get a 1D X.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> coltsfreak18 said:
> 
> 
> > Hate to break it to you, Tuggen, but you are simply wrong. What reports are you hearing? And there is absolutely no chance that the D800 beats or ties the 1DX in high iso performance!
> ...


I can't believe that a 36MP with a native ISO of max. 6400 will ever beat a 18MP with native 51,200 : Even better, should they even have the same ISO-range the 18MP has the advantage due to lower pixel density... :


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> kubelik said:
> 
> 
> > My point was, I can't really ask for much to be improved on the 5D Mark II, except the AF and fps rate. give me improvements in those two areas and I'm really quite set for life
> ...


I might get both


----------



## torger (Feb 14, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> No, I'm not saying anything about 5D3. I'm just thowing out a question of what Canon may have to do to make 5D3 competive if anything in the rumored specification is true. By the few specification points on paper it seems to have nothing compared to D800 so 0.5 stop better in high ISO performace could have been something to compete with.



As I said earlier I don't think that the masses care about detail differences in image quality. Less than 1 stop in ISO performance is details to the general user, they just conclude "it's about the same, as it has always been".

Having a lower MP number regardless of actual performance will be competitive towards a large group of users. I think many are turned off by having to deal with 36 megapixel files. In other words, lower MP can be a feature in itself, especially since D800 lacks sRAW and mRAW modes.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 14, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> Slightly better AF? Holy crap, if this rumor is true it's worlds apart.... :



Depends on your use-case. The rumored AF improvements will help some, but have minimal impact on others.
Personally, AF improvement is petty low on my list, and any fancy new setup will produce only marginal real life difference for me. Thus I would also describe it as a 'slightly better' AF since the domains where it is 'much' better do not really apply.

Crow, if they offered a MF only body for cheaper I would probably by that ^_^. I can not remember the last time I used AF in the first place.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

torger said:


> Tuggen said:
> 
> 
> > No, I'm not saying anything about 5D3. I'm just thowing out a question of what Canon may have to do to make 5D3 competive if anything in the rumored specification is true. By the few specification points on paper it seems to have nothing compared to D800 so 0.5 stop better in high ISO performace could have been something to compete with.
> ...


I agree. Buying a D800 also means investing in HDD's or NAS...


----------



## almograve (Feb 14, 2012)

This is good news! That would also mean PREORDER for me.
However, I'm really scarred about the pricing.

I'd thought that I would be getting a 24-70 II for the same price or maybe with IS and I've been prove 1000$ wrong and no IS!!!

What if they price it a good 1000$ more than the mkII!? This is even scarier when the rumors says that they might keep the mkII! I do not see them lowering the price of the mkII in order to place the mkIII at the original price......

This could kill our dreams very very quickly....


----------



## almograve (Feb 14, 2012)

jwphotography said:


> It seems clear to me that Canon is going with the "X" nomenclature for some new models. I expect a 5D3 with the rumored 22mp and a 5DX or possibly 3DX with huge mp count to match or surpass the Nikon D800. Or maybe the 22mp 5D replacement will be 5DX and then there will be another camera... like 5DXs or something with the big mp count. Anyway, I expect another "X"!



I don't understand how do you guys see the X has high MP when the 1DX is NOT.
X could mean low DEF high ISO
and I/II/III would be kept for high MP

Don't you think?


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

almograve said:


> jwphotography said:
> 
> 
> > It seems clear to me that Canon is going with the "X" nomenclature for some new models. I expect a 5D3 with the rumored 22mp and a 5DX or possibly 3DX with huge mp count to match or surpass the Nikon D800. Or maybe the 22mp 5D replacement will be 5DX and then there will be another camera... like 5DXs or something with the big mp count. Anyway, I expect another "X"!
> ...


+1 I agree


----------



## Picsfor (Feb 14, 2012)

almograve said:


> I do not see them lowering the price of the mkII in order to place the mkIII at the original price......



No, i see the price of the 5D2 being lowered to below £1500, maybe as low as £1300.
Why? Well, the 5D2 production line owes Canon absolutely nothing. Anything it is getting now is pure profit over and above. So, if it is still a crowd pleaser, why get rid of it?
How many times have we read people say 'they'd like a 5D2 but can only afford a 7d?'
And if the 5D3 sits around the £2200 mark on release, that is a huge extra outlay over a £1300 5D2. A win win all round for Canon. And once Canon get people onto FF, they then encourage the purchase of L lenses (even if it is the cheaper end of 17-40 f4L, 24-105 f4 ISL and 70-200 f4 ISL), not to mention external flash guns!

Almost every one wins


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 14, 2012)

Picsfor said:


> almograve said:
> 
> 
> > I do not see them lowering the price of the mkII in order to place the mkIII at the original price......
> ...



I could see this... finally a full frame is within everyones grasp, but there will be PLENTY of separation between the 2 and 3 in terms of camera quality


----------



## unfocused (Feb 14, 2012)

> A win win all round for Canon.



Unless they actually feel the need to turn a profit.



> Well, the 5D2 production line owes Canon absolutely nothing. Anything it is getting now is pure profit over and above.



Unless it actually costs something to produce camera bodies, sensors and electronics. 



> How many times have we read people say 'they'd like a 5D2 but can only afford a 7d?'



About as often as people say they would like a BMW, but can only afford a Hyundai. 

Don't mean to be mean or harsh, but really...products don't come free. If any manufacturer were able to make a 5DII-type camera and sell it for significantly less, why wouldn't they be doing it?


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 14, 2012)

5d2 is coming to an end, or Canon would never have dumped inventory the way they did in the USA this last December.

Doesn't matter if the tooling is paid for, it still costs to run production lines.

Consumers aren't total idiots about technology, and crazy house money is spent and gone forever. Don't expect swarms of average people to buy a $3K FF 30+ megapixel camera. 

There WILL be massive internet P&M about the new Nikons when it's realized that that sensor resolution is not a playground for the clueless.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 14, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Don't mean to be mean or harsh, but really...products don't come free. If any manufacturer were able to make a 5DII-type camera and sell it for significantly less, why wouldn't they be doing it?



Well, for starters, only Canon has the 5D2.
Partly though we are talking about an oligopoly, not a true free market. The barrier to entry in this industry is so high that there are only a few players, and all of them go by about the same playbook; charge what the market will bare with a combination of low cost entry level equipment and premium priced professional equipment, even though the manufacturing costs are pretty close across the board. They charge based off how much the bodies are worth, not on how much they cost to make.


----------



## unfocused (Feb 14, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > Don't mean to be mean or harsh, but really...products don't come free. If any manufacturer were able to make a 5DII-type camera and sell it for significantly less, why wouldn't they be doing it?
> ...



Well, that makes my point. You are saying they "could" but "won't" I suggested they "can't," but regardless of the reason, it isn't happening and isn't likely to happen.


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 14, 2012)

No.

Production costs aren't the same. There's a scale factor of 100x between the Pro and consumer body production lines. A weather sealed FF pro body and a 1.6 crop consumer body have little in common beyond the nameplate.





Neeneko said:


> Well, for starters, only Canon has the 5D2.
> Partly though we are talking about an oligopoly, not a true free market. The barrier to entry in this industry is so high that there are only a few players, and all of them go by about the same playbook; charge what the market will bare with a combination of low cost entry level equipment and premium priced professional equipment, even though the manufacturing costs are pretty close across the board. They charge based off how much the bodies are worth, not on how much they cost to make.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 14, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Well, that makes my point. You are saying they "could" but "won't" I suggested they "can't," but regardless of the reason, it isn't happening and isn't likely to happen.



I agree that it seems unlikely that they would keep the 5D2 around at a lower price point since they will probably just retool those assembly lines for other higher margin bodies.

Though I would not be too surprised if they (at some point) introduced an 'entry level' FF body that sits a little lower then the current 5D2 price point. Though even that I would not bet money on since they would then be competing with the used market for their own products, esp since the proposed 5D3 is not really that huge of an upgrade so 5D2s will probably retain a lot of resale value.

Oddly enough, I am personally hoping whatever they come up with pushes the used prices down a bit. I keep watching the 1Ds2 used market, but discounted 52Ds would be pretty enticing... sadly I hold little hope of the 1DX pushing 1Ds3s down into my price point....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2012)

wtlloyd said:


> Production costs aren't the same. There's a scale factor of 100x between the Pro and consumer body production lines. A weather sealed FF pro body and a 1.6 crop consumer body have little in common beyond the nameplate.



Nice hyperbole, but that can't be true. The most expensive 1-series body sells for ~10x an xxxD body, there's not a 100x difference in production costs.


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Nice hyperbole, but that can't be true. The most expensive 1-series body sells for ~10x an xxxD body, there's not a 100x difference in production costs.



Real numbers are pretty hard to come by, but I would wager 2-3x cost on the sensor (based off cost differences in machine vision cameras, which have a more even margin in general and no feature differences between models besides sensor size). The other bells and whistles it is hard to say.


----------



## wtlloyd (Feb 14, 2012)

I don't read "scale factor of 100x" as "cost factor of 100x", but I'm not going to get into any arguments here.

In terms of number of cameras produced and sold, I think I'm well in the ballpark.





neuroanatomist said:


> wtlloyd said:
> 
> 
> > Production costs aren't the same. There's a scale factor of 100x between the Pro and consumer body production lines. A weather sealed FF pro body and a 1.6 crop consumer body have little in common beyond the nameplate.
> ...


----------



## psolberg (Feb 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> torger said:
> 
> 
> > DzPhotography said:
> ...



While these super high ISO values are better than nothing, nobody considers them any good for day to day use. I think it will be another generation before anything over ISO 51200 are nothing more than a numbers game that these manufacturers like to play. Personally I couldn't care less. It's like upgrading your car to do 150mph when your tires are rated to 120mph. pointless.



> I don't understand how do you guys see the X has high MP when the 1DX is NOT.


agreed. look at the G1X. high MP? IMO X doesn't stand for anything unlike with nikon where the X has a very specific meaning. It is just a marketing tool. 



> Having a lower MP number regardless of actual performance will be competitive towards a large group of users. I think many are turned off by having to deal with 36 megapixel files. In other words, lower MP can be a feature in itself, especially since D800 lacks sRAW and mRAW modes.


this was what was said about the 12MP nikon models compared to big 20MP (at the time) models. but at the end of the day it didn't matter because we're not talking about a 10x jump but a modest jump. Cards are always cheaper, pcs are always faster, 36MP is the new 20MP and 20MP is the new 12MP. less MP itself is not a feature. What is a feature is that having less MP allows for faster fps and less noise. I don't see high MP as a bad thing either, but I think canon is wise to differentiate themselves with a low MP body this time. 



> I agree. Buying a D800 also means investing in HDD's or NAS...


If you were runing out of room anytimes soon with 20MP files, the fact of the matter is that 36MP won't matter. Likewise if you had room to spare, 36MP won't push you over all that much faster. you fire that 5DIII at 7fps a lot and you'll probably end up needing more room


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2012)

wtlloyd said:


> I don't read "scale factor of 100x" as "cost factor of 100x", but I'm not going to get into any arguments here.
> 
> In terms of number of cameras produced and sold, I think I'm well in the ballpark.



I would be extremely surprised if Canon sold one 1-series body for every 100 consumer bodies. I suspect the ratio is much lower (1:300 at least, likely lower still). There's a reason Canon produces xxxD bodies and kit lenses in Taiwan instead of (or in some cases, in addition to) Japan.



Neeneko said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Nice hyperbole, but that can't be true. The most expensive 1-series body sells for ~10x an xxxD body, there's not a 100x difference in production costs.
> ...



Ultimately, though, production costs are essentially irrelevant (this was discussed recently, not sure if that was in this thread or elsewhere on CR). Sales pricing is determined by amortization of R&D costs, market size, and related factors. Canon expects to sell fewer 1-series bodies, they have to charge more for them. 

I work in the pharmaceutical industry - a small pharma company recently got approval for a drug that is a very effective treatment for cystic fibrosis, for the 5% of the patient population with a particular form of the disease. The whole CF population is small, and 5% of that means a very small market for this drug. Chemically, the molecule is pretty simple, and easy to synthesize. The per-pill production costs are not significantly different from Tylenol or an over-the-counter antihistamine. A year's worth of Tylenol would cost you about $30. A year's worth of ivacaftor will cost you $294,000.


----------



## AshtonNekolah (Feb 14, 2012)

adamfilip said:


> Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.
> 
> 7D - $1299
> 
> ...



Nice idea but i never saw a real budget ff camera yet, i guess that's why there are crop's, even when i was shopping for one i notices its either you spend the money on one now or never, the mark2 prices will fall more so that will be a good buy. I wish they kept the same battery in these cameras thou. but then again more demands more power or less.


----------



## Orangutan (Feb 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> A year's worth of ivacaftor will cost you $294,000.



And if they could find a way to make it affordable to the entire 5%, they'd earn themselves some major karma. 8)


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 14, 2012)

adamfilip said:


> Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.
> 
> 7D - $1299
> 
> ...



If Canon has a 5D*x*, *3*D*x*, and a 1D*x* all at the same time I'll eat my underwear for breakfast. If the 5D"x" comes out at $2499 I'll eat my gym socks for desert.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> adamfilip said:
> 
> 
> > Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.
> ...


don't forget about the G1X


----------



## Jerrad245 (Feb 14, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> adamfilip said:
> 
> 
> > Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.
> ...



This is my first post, but if Canon does in fact follow this, sign me up for a 3DX! i am a wedding & portrait photographer, and my biggest needs are color rendition, skin tones, and pure image quality. I know im no expert on what type of performance a 40mp Camera would have, but those are my main priorities. I love my 5D2, so I am in no need for an upgrade but would be more than willing to spend if my needs (wants) were met.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 14, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> The quote from Maeda certainly looks like Canon is playing the role of the front-runner. Apparently, they've got a bunch of tech and several prototypes, and were just waiting for Nikon to tip their hand so they can one-up them. Now, before everyone gets too excited, as I said in a previous post, Canon will not put *all* of their best tech in these cameras: they will do just enough to take a clear edge, and then profit from the next cycle as well.



Hah that sounds more like following than front-running, if you hold back everything and only release in minimum response to what the other guy does...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 14, 2012)

Neeneko said:


> > the way Canon develops new product is to satisfy the needs of professional photographers. For instance, the introduction of EOS-1D X is to satisfy professional photographers to photoshoot sports events like the Olympics, in terms of their requirement of high FPS and high image quality under high ISO settings.
> 
> 
> 
> I find this comment confusing.. if their 'way' is to develop products for professional photographers.. why are they making video cameras in SLR form? It really feels like videoographers, at minimal, share equal weight.. at this point probably more.



Because many news outlets are now equally hungry for video clips as for stills and of course small scale film makers are and even the big boys have need for them. Some say that the 5D2 actually sold more copies to those using it mostly for video, not sure what the truth is.


----------



## MacPaul (Feb 14, 2012)

adamfilip said:


> Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.
> 
> 7D - $1299
> 
> ...


That's quite okay, but the 5D Mk. II would have to go, the 3D would be the 5D Mk. III with twice the pixel count compared to 1DX/5DX while the 5DX should have the same 18MP as the 1DX and being a pure photography SLR. By doing this, you could reduce price near to 7D level while the 7D (7D Mk. II/70D, whatever) could get cheaper to counter Sony.
One should never forget that Sony will most probably doing big with A77/65 just because of their pricing and video features, all weaknesses of the two put aside. Canon should counter that with more attractively priced cameras with better features (here the antiquated 9 point AF system is the most annoying thing).
If they do so, they can also build an pretty unexpensive 5DX, namely a 7D with FF losing video functions.
Don't complain about that, IMO the time will come when people are fed up with SLRs featuring more video than photo and demand pure photo SLRs, so why don't bring out a photo SLR right now?


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 14, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> I would be extremely surprised if Canon sold one 1-series body for every 100 consumer bodies. I suspect the ratio is much lower (1:300 at least, likely lower still). There's a reason Canon produces xxxD bodies and kit lenses in Taiwan instead of (or in some cases, in addition to) Japan.



My google-fu is failing, but I recall seeing stats a while back and yeah, it was in that order of magnitude... so somewhere between 1:100 and 1:1000



> Ultimately, though, production costs are essentially irrelevant (this was discussed recently, not sure if that was in this thread or elsewhere on CR). Sales pricing is determined by amortization of R&D costs, market size, and related factors. Canon expects to sell fewer 1-series bodies, they have to charge more for them.



I am not so sure here. The R&D costs between bodies is actually probably pretty flat. That sensor though, producing FF or MF sensors actually is a lot more expensive (much higher failure rate) and the FF cameras also use one or more processing chips that are also, because of the number of transistors, more expensive to produce.

Keep in mind, with chips, it is not as simple as 'X failure rate and Y per batch', imperfections are spread around so not only do you get fewer chips per batch but the percentage of bad chips goes up as the physical size increases.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Feb 14, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> If Canon has a 5D*x*, *3*D*x*, and a 1D*x* all at the same time I'll eat my underwear for breakfast. If the 5D"x" comes out at $2499 I'll eat my gym socks for desert.



Suddenly, I'm not hungry anymore.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 14, 2012)

adamfilip said:


> Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.
> 
> 7D - $1299
> 
> ...



Could be.

Although I'm not sure why everyone keeps calling the 3D the slow, fat MP body when the EOS 3 and the fabled 3D everyone has been going on about was always said to be a pro AF, high speed, compact FF.

So I'd swap your 5D3 and 3D names and I would raise the re-labelled 3D price to $2700+ and lower the 5D3 price to $3200.

In 2015 or so the 3D2 bumps up to 39MP and retains 6.9fps and top AF and then we really have a nice all around camera and the 5D4 get cancelled or becomes a much slower, less expensive 39MP body than the 3D2?

For now, some will prefer the D800 and some the 3D.

If the they have fixed up the DR on the 3D/5D3 and haven't crippled the 1DX AF in it more than a trace (and I don't think they should since the D800 will do 6fps in DX mode with grip and 36MP, two pretty decent things! plus have Nikon's very best AF attempt! and uncompressed 1080p out) it will be pretty cool, awesome video, great speed and performance, top AF, compact size. The only thing it will lack is reach, it will be somewhat weak for wildlife, and the detail for hyper ppi 13x19 or for 300 ppi very large size prints, everything else would be everything you want (other than pro sealing, pro durability, hyper fps for the most serious of action shooters, for the ones who must have that they will pay for the 1DX).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 14, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> V8Beast said:
> 
> 
> > I've done my share of D800 humping lately, but a 22 mp 5DIII with a 61-point AF system and 6.9 FPS would be one heck of a camera. Throw in one or two additional stops of DR and ISO over the 5DII, and this sucker will be irresistible. Do it, Canon  My Canon glass gives me wood every time I use them, and I really don't want to switch systems.
> ...



Not for say middle tone SNR, but for lowest ISO DR it could easily be improved to stops measured and closer to 3 stops usable.


----------



## SomeGuyInNewJersey (Feb 14, 2012)

Orangutan said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A year's worth of ivacaftor will cost you $294,000.
> ...



Karma doesnt pay for years of R&D and clinical trials... Or more importantly the years of R&D Clinical trials to get the NEXT drug to market. For every drug that gets to market there are many that do not, millions of dollars worth of clinical trails can tell you your compound doesnt work well enough to get a license and the closer it got to market before failing the more it costs. Believe me when you have worked for years on a compound that fails phase three clinical trials its not a great feeling for you or the company, I know from my time in the lab. 

They could get a nice fuzzy feeling of good karma selling the drug cheap while they were signing the papers to lay off the R&D workforce that they can no longer afford... what about their karma? 

Most people really dont understand the costs involved... they just see one little white pill and wonder how it can be hundreds of dollars, most of the cost was from working out (and then proving enough to be allowed to sell) that pill...

Same goes for Canon, although their R&D doesnt involve having to prove in clinical trials their ISO numbers and IQ etc before they are allowed to sell so manufacturing is a larger portion that for Pharma companies... Its what they make/spend in total that counts... all the years of R&D and things that never made it to production we never hear about have to get factored in too... not just the costs of the assembly and parts for particular models.

Now talking of Karma... I expect my karma number for this board to drop sharply after preaching like that


----------



## psolberg (Feb 14, 2012)

> Although I'm not sure why everyone keeps calling the 3D the slow, fat MP body when the EOS 3 and the fabled 3D everyone has been going on about was always said to be a pro AF, high speed, compact FF.


  the 3D is anything you want it to be. It's the fan's outlet for matching whatever sony/nikon are doing.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 14, 2012)

kennykodak said:


> there's more to image quality than megapixals. i'll take low noise for what i'm doing.



But don't forget that the 24MP D3x has a lot higher ISO 100 DR than the low MP D3s.
So it's not so simple.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Feb 14, 2012)

I'm envisioning for a "full line" X-series refresh:

* EOS 1D X
* EOS 5D X (possibly split to include a high MPX EOS 3C - NOT D)
* EOS 10D X New top line APS-C body, *possibly* revising form factor to 1.4 or 1.5 X sensor - just under whatever the magic size is to allow EF-S lenses to still work, and justifying a kit zoom range of 20-65 for 28-90 equivalency.
* EOS 100D X / Rebel Xi
* EOS 1000D X

And, of course, the PowerShot G1 X. 

- Woody -


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 14, 2012)

WoodyWindy said:


> I'm envisioning for a "full line" X-series refresh:
> 
> * EOS 1D X
> * EOS 5D X (possibly split to include a high MPX EOS 3C - NOT D)
> ...


why not 7DX?


----------



## Beautor (Feb 14, 2012)

MacPaul said:


> ...If they do so, they can also build an pretty unexpensive 5DX, namely a 7D with FF losing video functions.
> Don't complain about that, IMO the time will come when people are fed up with SLRs featuring more video than photo and demand pure photo SLRs, so why don't bring out a photo SLR right now?



I seriously doubt that Canon (or any other DSLR manufacturer) will ever make another DSLR without video capabilities. All that is required to add video to a DSLR is a microphone and a few more lines of code in the firmware. Heck, with MagicLantern you can add video to the 50D, albeit without audio. Video capabilities are a cheap way for the manufacturer to add value and appeal to any camera, which then helps it to sell to a larger market, which hopefully pays for the R&D and brings on the rebates and price drops sooner.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 14, 2012)

WoodyWindy said:


> I'm envisioning for a "full line" X-series refresh:
> 
> * EOS 1D X
> * EOS 5D X (possibly split to include a high MPX EOS 3C - NOT D)
> ...



Why is everyone obsessed with putting an "X" and the end of everything.  I really think the 1Dx was a special case. And the G1x was a Powershot, which as never had any naming similarities to the DSLRS.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Feb 14, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> Why is everyone obsessed with putting an "X" and the end of everything.  I really think the 1Dx was a special case. And the G1x was a Powershot, which as never had any naming similarities to the DSLRS.



I'm not personally obsessed with it, but I went that way in this post because Canon has already rebooted the number scheme on two key cameras, and it would make sense (as we get perilously close to running out of digits) for the whole line to get the same treatment. 

Of course, you completely ignored what I thought was the big point in the post - upsizing the APS C sensor (but not quite to the level of APS H).


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 14, 2012)

WoodyWindy said:


> EYEONE said:
> 
> 
> > Why is everyone obsessed with putting an "X" and the end of everything.  I really think the 1Dx was a special case. And the G1x was a Powershot, which as never had any naming similarities to the DSLRS.
> ...



It wasn't just you necessarily. Everyone seems to be thinking everything new will have the X. They stated many times why they went with 1Dx. It wasn't renaming an old line at all really, it was creating a new line all together. But, what do I know?

And I didn't see your comment about 1.4x or 1.5x. Now that I have I don't see why Canon would do that. And yes, I understand they EF-S could still work with 1.4x but the whole EF-S system is built around 1.6x. They absolutely could change the size of their APS-C sensor. But it would be a lot of work and money that wouldn't really be a benefit to them. But, again, what do I know? :


----------



## Neeneko (Feb 14, 2012)

Beautor said:


> I seriously doubt that Canon (or any other DSLR manufacturer) will ever make another DSLR without video capabilities. All that is required to add video to a DSLR is a microphone and a few more lines of code in the firmware. Heck, with MagicLantern you can add video to the 50D, albeit without audio. Video capabilities are a cheap way for the manufacturer to add value and appeal to any camera, which then helps it to sell to a larger market, which hopefully pays for the R&D and brings on the rebates and price drops sooner.



While I can not find details, I suspect the 50D had disabled video capability on it already rather then the Magic Lantern people developing the software needed to add the capability from scratch, kinda like how the 300D had a bunch of 10D features switched off in firmware in order to justify the higher 10D cost.

It is true that adding this ability increases the market for individual bodies, do not think for an instant that it comes for 'free' or even 'cheap'. Adding video to an embedded system requires non-trivial development and testing increases, not to mention requiring either more or more general chips.

If it were that 'free' the MF manufacturers would have thrown it in too, but for that market the interest is small enough that the increased sales do not justify the increased development costs. I question if they are even justified for the 1Dx, though I imagine after the success of the 5D2 the internal mantra in Canon right now is 'video on everything!'.

It is hard to say what the long term market will be like.. 'all in one' vs 'single purpose' tends to come in waves and adding video in to each model will require incremental development costs that down the road might not be worth it once enthusiasm for the combination wears off.


----------



## Flake (Feb 14, 2012)

It will be of interest (to me at any rate!) to see whether a new model with 61 pt autofocus will be given the same degree of flexibility of the 1Dx or if bracketing will allow for more than three shots, or if finally we will be able to select the fps rather than a high med setting.

Just firmware / software really.


----------



## kede (Feb 14, 2012)

Hi everyone,

Before buying a Nikon D800 I'm asking myself what could Canon do with the 5D MKIII in term of video.

First of all i'm 99,99% sure that it will be 1080p. I talked a lot with a (drunk) Canon representant and he told me that "there won't be any 4K system from Canon before te 4k become a reference as the HD is now".

As they just launched the EOS C300, It can't be possible that the 5d MK3 video will looks better and propose
more things.

What do you think Canon will do with the 5D MKIII video?

I know you're probably Pro Canon but do you think I can go to the D800 "with eyes closed"? (I've got Zeiss 35/50/85 1.4 Nikon mount (but it can be changed easly for some money) )

Excuse me for my english...


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 14, 2012)

kede said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Before buying a Nikon D800 I'm asking myself what could Canon do with the 5D MKIII in term of video.
> 
> ...



I'm not a huge video guy, but what real advantages does the D800 have for video? Besides clean HDMI.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 14, 2012)

You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:

1) generally the same 21M sensor as today
2) the 7D functional feature set (AF system, metering, horizon guide, auto ISO, etc.)
3) a Digic-V processor or dual Digic-IV's like the 7D
4) a slight improvement in the high ISO noise, say 1/2 stop better due to improved sensor manufacturing
5) a 5-6fps shoot rate
6) used the same batteries and grip as the 5Dmk2
7) added a 60 fps video frame rate
8 ) additional firmware options

This for $2499......

How many people would be completely happy with that camera?

You're basically looking at off the shelf technology and mainly adaptation costs involved in the construction and integration, along with improved firmware. Yet what you'd have would kick the crap out of 80% of the market.

I know that for a lot of mid-range, general studio, and wedding shooters, that's a solid camera and offers just about all that is needed in that market segment. When you realize the image quality of a 3 year old 5Dmk2 still beats a vast majority of the competition, these tweaks remove the negatives of the current body and flesh out it's feature set nicely.

Looking at prosumer and up, it would still leave room for a 7Dmk2, an enhanced version of the 7D, same 18M pixels, but improved APS-C sensor, 10 fps. It leaves room for a 5Dx with higher megapixels, and the 1Dx for the pro market.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 14, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:
> 
> 1) generally the same 21M sensor as today
> 2) the 7D functional feature set (AF system, metering, horizon guide, auto ISO, etc.)
> ...



A variation of this has been asked before, but me. I would buy that camera.
As long as the AF had broader coverage.


----------



## kubelik (Feb 14, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:
> 
> 1) generally the same 21M sensor as today
> 2) the 7D functional feature set (AF system, metering, horizon guide, auto ISO, etc.)
> ...



I would have been perfectly happy with that camera. in fact, even right now, I'd still be happy with that.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Feb 14, 2012)

EYEONE said:


> And I didn't see your comment about 1.4x or 1.5x. Now that I have I don't see why Canon would do that. And yes, I understand they EF-S could still work with 1.4x but the whole EF-S system is built around 1.6x. They absolutely could change the size of their APS-C sensor. But it would be a lot of work and money that wouldn't really be a benefit to them. But, again, what do I know? :



OK, it may be a little out there, but bear with me (especially since I lost the first version of this post...  )...

Let's assume that, as seems likely based on the last several products, the current APS-C sensor has pretty well reached its maximum (in Canon's view) usable quality. They want to introduce a new technology - maybe back-illumination, maybe tricolor pixels. In any case, tried and true as it may be, all of the old tooling has to be replaced. Thus, the 1.6x APS-C form factor is no longer sacred from a legacy manufacturing standpoint. Everyone else has an advantage (however slight) on thier sensor size. Thus, they decide to investigate whether going a smidge larger might be possible.

Now, let's say they analyize the image circle on the existing EF-S lenses, and they all would fit a somewhat larger sensor with acceptable levels of vignetting, and still clear the larger mirror that would be required. Maybe the only exception was the 18-55, or maybe the sensor would be large enough that the crop factor would no longer work for a walkabout range. For the sake of argument, consider that a 1.4x factor would give the previously rumored 20-65 a 28-91 equivalent range. Very typical for a kit lens. 

The larger sensor would also give Canon bragging rights, and room to grow this new technology (whatever it is).

Now does this seem quite as far-fetched?


----------



## Maestro (Feb 14, 2012)

Picsfor said:


> With the release of the D800, Nikon still haven't produced anything to match the 5D2.


 Huh?


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 14, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:
> 
> 1) generally the same 21M sensor as today
> 2) the 7D functional feature set (AF system, metering, horizon guide, auto ISO, etc.)
> ...


i would rather have the current rumoured camera at 3k


----------



## kapanak (Feb 14, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:
> ...



I concur. I would not upgrade from my 5DII to what you are proposing. I would rather pay 3-3.5K for a 5DII replacement with the ergonomics of the 7D and 5DII combined, as well as better low ISO, less noise in high ISO and 1DX's AF.


----------



## gmrza (Feb 14, 2012)

Canon Rumors said:


> Announcement date of February 28, 2012?
> 
> All the same specs are coming in. 22mp, 61pt af, 6.9fps. It could definitely take the spot of the 7D, if the previous rumor is true.



If Canon is pitching the next generation 5D camera as a replacement for the 5DII and 7D, this could be an announcement that Canon views as being significant enough to mark the 25th anniversary of the EOS system - which would make an end February or early March announcement plausible. I still think that Canon will want to make some sort of a splash to mark the 25th anniversary of the EOS system.

I know a lot of people are complaining about the rumours only being about a 21MP sensor, however for a lot of uses that is probably enough. For very many photographers, a 36 or 46 MP sensor won't give them better prints than a 22MP sensor. - Yes, there are niche uses where more pixels are better, but Canon probably is focusing on the masses first.
Regarding the argument of 22MP not being enough to replace the 7D - because a 1.6x crop would not give enough pixels - Canon will probably argue that users should use a 1.4x TC to get the extra reach. - I am not saying this will get the results people are looking for - just that that is what I would expect Canon to argue.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:
> 
> 1) generally the same 21M sensor as today
> 2) the 7D functional feature set (AF system, metering, horizon guide, auto ISO, etc.)
> ...



That sounds more like what the 5D2 might have been, that's too little to last until 2015. 

The D800 would already, just six months later have had 50% more MP, possibly 2 stops better low ISO DR, same fps with grip, vastly better video (if it used the dual digic iv in your list instead of the digic 5), better AF.

Way too conservative.


----------



## Smith (Feb 15, 2012)

Canon is a very conservative company. They will not be doing anything revolutionary in the 5DIII/X. For video they there's not much more they can do other than tweaking the CODEC to improve the quality. You can be certain that they will not offer a clean HDMI output. 

Regarding the sensor it seems that Canon has not been making as much progress on per pixel quality as the Sony/Nikon sensors over the past few years. The pixel quality of the Nikon D7000, Sony NEX-7, and D800 are pretty darn good. The early reports are showing that the D800 is producing noise similar to a D700 which is insane considering the D800's 4.88um pixel pitch compared to the D700's 8.45um. Canon has gone on record to claim that the 1DX has a 2 stop improvement in noise, for JPEG only, and will not go on record to say anything about RAW. This 2 stop improvement is also comparing the 1DX's 6.95um pixel pitch to the 5.7um pitch of the 1DIV. One can reasonably assume that Canon has not drastically improved the QE of their pixels and/or read out noise. 

The 22MP specs of the rumored new 5D seems consistent with Canon's conservative strategy. I would expect no more than a 0.5 stop improvement in noise and better AF. Although this seems like something that most people are happy with here's the problem. Canon is going to rape us on the price. Looking at their latest pricing strategy for their lenses I wouldn't be surprised if these modest 5D improvements will come at a very steep price increase.

It seems that Canon's executive management has changed strategy to focus more on improving profit margins rather than gaining market share. The best way to do this is to drastically increase prices. They probably figure that it's time to harvest the benefits of the fantastic market share gain they have earned over the past 5 years. Now that people are locked into the Canon system it's time to jack up the price.


----------



## jaduffy007 (Feb 15, 2012)

Am I to expect the same 61pt AF system that's in the 1D X?


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 15, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> Am I to expect the same 61pt AF system that's in the 1D X?


the rumour says same but simplified which might be a good thing


----------



## RedEye (Feb 15, 2012)

Everybody sure is poo pooing the potential specs for a new camera - but guys, it's been almost 4 YEARS since the last major release, and potentially longer if one were to measure the unknown internal development cycles of their labs. Let's keep our hopes up, chins up, wallets stacked, and hard disk space free..... The next one could be the last one you ever need .


----------



## kapanak (Feb 15, 2012)

RedEye said:


> Everybody sure is poo pooing the potential specs for a new camera - but guys, it's been almost 4 YEARS since the last major release, and potentially longer if one were to measure the unknown internal development cycles of their labs. Let's keep our hopes up, chins up, wallets stacked, and hard disk space free..... The next one could be the last one you ever need .



Last one before the next one comes out. 8) :-*


----------



## Ivar (Feb 15, 2012)

What I'm mostly worried about is the DR. Not only it has been less on the Canon side than the competition by raw figures for quite some years already, it is also less usable, shadow area does not tolerate much pushing. 

Btw DR is not a goal by itself, but the tool to overcome harsh lighting conditions, targeting pleasant non-hdr like output. Add wrong exposure to the list, being it a different user wish after the shoot or biased mesurement due to tricky light conditions etc.


----------



## Birdshooter (Feb 15, 2012)

gmrza said:


> Regarding the argument of 22MP not being enough to replace the 7D - because a 1.6x crop would not give enough pixels - Canon will probably argue that users should use a 1.4x TC to get the extra reach. - I am not saying this will get the results people are looking for - just that that is what I would expect Canon to argue.



Sorry don't agree with you:
7D + 400 MM F4 + 1.4x = 896  @ F5.6 (autofocused) (560 * 1.6)
5D (or 1D) + 400 mm F4 + 1.4x = 560  @ F5.6 (autofocused)


To add antother 1.4 behind it would be a 2x (1.4 * 1.4) resulting in:
5D (or 1D) + 400 mm F4 + 2x = 800  (still shorter) @ F8 (Manual focused)


----------



## te4o (Feb 15, 2012)

RedEye said:


> Everybody sure is poo pooing the potential specs for a new camera - but guys, it's been almost 4 YEARS since the last major release, and potentially longer if one were to measure the unknown internal development cycles of their labs. Let's keep our hopes up, chins up, wallets stacked, and hard disk space free..... The next one could be the last one you ever need .



+1 Yes, I am with you RedEye, My thought exactly - how can a self-respecting Japanese company come 4+ years later on the market with just minor improvements and firmware updates ? They'd have to go harakiri right after the launch!! 
I'd bet the 25 yrs anniversary EOS has a lot of bang to offer, in fact so much that all of you will want to order 15 minutes later... Let's hope they make them fast and good enough. 
22 MP at least if not 24-26 - just to tease the Nikon D3 & 4 a bit, >6 fps, lots of software improvements, recognition of all possible faces, light kelvins etc etc, adjustments for backlight and so on - we've seen some of these on the P&S dwarfs. Video to go, I have no idea there, but not for engaged profis - C300...
And there was a guy who appeared on this forum a year ago and mentioned he had seen some testing in South Africa where they printed a picture of some grass and a horse wanted to eat it... ???
So, I hope our Waiting has been not in vain!
No Nikons for me - too old to change - and I believe that this year is Canon's year, they will get the edge.
Pedro, was this good enough for the optimists? 

Right Ivar, I agree with you too, 5D2 tolerates not much push, the next one will. I hate the red/green muddy shadows after serious PP. Taking PP back is always painful, isn't it?


----------



## Edwin Herdman (Feb 15, 2012)

gmrza said:


> Regarding the argument of 22MP not being enough to replace the 7D - because a 1.6x crop would not give enough pixels - Canon will probably argue that users should use a 1.4x TC to get the extra reach. - I am not saying this will get the results people are looking for - just that that is what I would expect Canon to argue.


Canon (at least their workshop guys) HAVE argued this, but as Birdfollower says, it doesn't make sense. Luckily the latest rumors seem to indicate Canon is having a hard rethink about this one.


Canon Rumors said:


> All the same specs are coming in. 22mp, 61pt af, 6.9fps. It could definitely take the spot of the 7D, if the previous rumor is true.


For some users, but you know the price will be higher and so there is really no correspondence here. The 7D still has a place. I just hope (looking at an earlier rumor) that Canon understands the need for a professional crop body. I feel vaguely betrayed that CR Guy isn't on board with this one, pushing for things that crop sensor users would like at a reasonable price. A full frame camera won't do it, on price concerns alone.


GL said:


> God help Canon if they announce a crop 7D MkII in Feb. No amount of focus points or FPS will save them from the wrath of the 5Dx hordes... (myself included)


What do you care about our crop bodies? And what if Canon releases a 5D X camera at the same time? That shouldn't mean anything to you, if you're set on a full frame body.


Maestro said:


> Picsfor said:
> 
> 
> > With the release of the D800, Nikon still haven't produced anything to match the 5D2.
> ...


Strictly speaking, isn't this true? If the D800 launches at a medium to high four figures, the 5D II still is fine in its segment.

Also, somebody earlier said that the "initial reports" said the D800's detail was stunning. I'm seeing it varying from picture to picture - maybe the guy who did the French library interiors for Nikon was having trouble, though; the other samples look great.


----------



## psolberg (Feb 15, 2012)

Smith said:


> Canon is a very conservative company. They will not be doing anything revolutionary in the 5DIII/X. For video they there's not much more they can do other than tweaking the CODEC to improve the quality. You can be certain that they will not offer a clean HDMI output.
> 
> Regarding the sensor it seems that Canon has not been making as much progress on per pixel quality as the Sony/Nikon sensors over the past few years. The pixel quality of the Nikon D7000, Sony NEX-7, and D800 are pretty darn good. The early reports are showing that the D800 is producing noise similar to a D700 which is insane considering the D800's 4.88um pixel pitch compared to the D700's 8.45um. Canon has gone on record to claim that the 1DX has a 2 stop improvement in noise, for JPEG only, and will not go on record to say anything about RAW. This 2 stop improvement is also comparing the 1DX's 6.95um pixel pitch to the 5.7um pitch of the 1DIV. One can reasonably assume that Canon has not drastically improved the QE of their pixels and/or read out noise.
> 
> ...



excellent argument. couldn't have said it better myself. they just replaced their top man in the hopes of jumpstarting what has been a dissapointing streak of financial results. Although I think in terms of marketshare they are in relatively weaker position than say 10 years ago and are facing really tough competition from nikon and sony to a degree they never did back when they were the only credible digital game in town. It used to be canon doing the leading, now you see others pushing the evenvelope with mirrorless, evf and EVIL systems, trasnlucent mirrors, embedding phase focus sensors in the image sensor, contrast based focus that is fast and works, in camera IS for slr bodies, bigger MPs in aps-c and 35mm, big ISO figures (although it seems canon did as least catch up here), list goes on.

this is off course a good thing for the consumer and should be received with open arms. I hope to see even stronger pressure from sony and nikon because that means canon will really have to push the bounds to stay relevant and we all benefit from that.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 15, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:
> ...



Understood. But you do realize the rumored camera will NOT have a better noise performance at high ISO (low light) than the 1Dx....it will be worse.

You might ask why....it's simple. The 1Dx has the latest 18M FF sensor and represents the best Canon can currently do with the sensor technology ready for mass production. A 22M FF sensor will have more pixels and won't be able to produce images with less noise at the same ISO settings. 

So, you're going to trade off more noise for those extra pixels for $3k. Frankly, I'd take what's in the package I outlined for $500 less and be able to use my existing grip and batteries making it about $800 less than the rumored option, and shoot cleaner images at ISO 3200 and 6400.


----------



## Mark D5 TEAM II (Feb 15, 2012)

More marketing bravado from Maeda, the same guy who said: "nobody complained about the 5D AF so we re-used that exact same AF module on the Mark II". :

The fact of the matter is if Canon had no idea what the specs were for the D800 before it was released then it would be too late now to add or tweak features to the Canon model that is intended to go up against it. I'm sure they had more than an inkling about what's coming out from Nikon, and the 5-6 prototypes they reportedly were testing included a mix of 18-22MP versions and 30+ MP versions.


----------



## JR (Feb 15, 2012)

I think we need to wait until the first real test report to make final judgement on the new camera performance. We have also seen the opposite claim that the D800 is so much worst then the D700 in noise and that Nikon users are frustrated.

The 1DX might end up to be one notch below the new D4 in noise comparaison but I would assume the opposite for the new 5DmkIII versus the D800. Either way until we see RAW image, it is very hard to assess...


----------



## Martin (Feb 15, 2012)

Canon do not care about me, as a customer. I need to wait to long for the new product which for me is 5dmarkIII. To be honest I do not think that they will do enything worth staying with them. Despite the fact i am heavy invested in Canon's gear, now i am considering switching back to nikon with it d800 and great AF and many many other benefits. I originally came from Nikon D300, to Canon's team, but i am really dissapointed with the gear. In my opinion Canon does not move forward, they make everything to let us think they make a huge steps, but thats only marketing., thats only few paid photographers who push good opinions in the web. I will lost a lot selling my Canon gear, but i really think thay its not worth staying with them. It's strange i know but-Canon is a step behing Nikon, they just dont have good ideas, they dont think in revolutionary way, they only slightly rebuild old products, the dont satisfy thier costumers, imho they just look at Nikon product and want to have something similar, but worse...why not...well...people will not sell their gear and switch to Nikon.hmmm i probably will . I am preaty sure thet 5d3 which is really awaited by many people will be so close to old one, that we will be badly suprised. Thats how i think about canon. Nikon always gives something extra in terms of value and imaging, something new, revolutionary and better, Canon just follow their ideas in let me say-unprofessional way. Give me one example of Canon product which was revolutionary (Camera-no, Lens-maybe (f1.2), Speedlight-NO!, ISO-NO, AF-NO NO NO!,dynamic range-NO!!!! etc etc,) look at Nikon to compare (D3, D3s, D3x, D800, Flashes, D7000)...no comment. Unfortunately I regret buying Canon at the moment. Few days ago a spoke with person who owns a camera service, and his opinion about Canon built quality was so bad, i could not belive. To proof he showed me a lot of in camera mechanisms of canon and nikon. After that i was really suprised. Only canon 1series are built nice. 5d and lower models are just toys in comparison to all Nikon models. I know it all sounds strange cause i am Canon owner, but I am trying to be honest with me and other people.


----------



## moreorless (Feb 15, 2012)

Smith said:


> Canon is a very conservative company. They will not be doing anything revolutionary in the 5DIII/X. For video they there's not much more they can do other than tweaking the CODEC to improve the quality. You can be certain that they will not offer a clean HDMI output.
> 
> Regarding the sensor it seems that Canon has not been making as much progress on per pixel quality as the Sony/Nikon sensors over the past few years. The pixel quality of the Nikon D7000, Sony NEX-7, and D800 are pretty darn good. The early reports are showing that the D800 is producing noise similar to a D700 which is insane considering the D800's 4.88um pixel pitch compared to the D700's 8.45um. Canon has gone on record to claim that the 1DX has a 2 stop improvement in noise, for JPEG only, and will not go on record to say anything about RAW. This 2 stop improvement is also comparing the 1DX's 6.95um pixel pitch to the 5.7um pitch of the 1DIV. One can reasonably assume that Canon has not drastically improved the QE of their pixels and/or read out noise.
> 
> ...



This seems to be an arguement based on very little hard evidense, some claims about two cameras that have yet to find there way into many peoples hands that offer very different features(most obviously high ISO capabilities).

The main negative of Canon's position to me seems to be that because all there DSLR sensors are made in house they tend to see the light of day less often. In reality we've not seen a new design since the 7D 2 1/2 years ago so its really impossible to judge whether they've kept up with Nikon/Sony's more recent advancements or not.

The pricing and features are really a total unknown aswell, of course the 5D mk2 lagged behind the D700 in AF and build but offered superior resolution and video. In terms of lenses Canon's prices seem very similar to Nikon's while in many cases(70-200's, looks like the new 24-70 aswell) offering superior performance.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 15, 2012)

gmrza said:


> Regarding the argument of 22MP not being enough to replace the 7D - because a 1.6x crop would not give enough pixels - Canon will probably argue that users should use a 1.4x TC to get the extra reach. - I am not saying this will get the results people are looking for - just that that is what I would expect Canon to argue.



And if I already use 3 stacked 1.4x TCs (or a 2x stacked with a 1.4x) on my 18MP 1.6-crop camera?

We don't have nearly enough pixel density right now to exploit good optics, especially in the center of the image circle.

The other problem with that argument is that they aren't proving f/8 AF sensor, making the TCs occasionally useless. Added pixel density doesn't have that problem.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 15, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:
> ...



I hear your points and I did include the D800 in my thoughts, but I will also point out that the D800 is going to sacrifice performance at ISO 1600, 3200, and 6400. The D800 images available so far (all well lit I might add) show it's no match for the 5Dmk2 at those ISO levels. Actually it looks a lot like the 7D in that regard.

Now, keep in mind what I said regarding the market....mid-range, general studio, and wedding. I didn't say video users or people looking for a MF in a DSLR. In addition, what's in the package I outlined for $500 less list is able to use the existing grip and batteries making it about $800 less than the rumored option with a similar configuration, and about $1200 less than the D800 with it's required grip and special battery to achieve it's rated performance. This option will shoot cleaner images at ISO 3200 and 6400, and give those in the target market all they will need at a significantly lower cost. Not to mention, Canon would have spent very little to make that camera, compared with a whole new body. That means rebates to further entice buyers.

I completely understand this may not be the market segment where you fit. It was an open hypothetical question and still is...we're just conjecturing here on what if's and you may still disagree after all is said and done. 

Personally I do hope the new 5D3/5Dx (whatever it's called) has all the specs that have been thrown around as it would make it an awesome camera for $3k. However, I seriously doubt that the 1Dx's AF system is going to be in this camera, nor will the 5D3/5Dx match the 1Dx in ISO noise performance. These will be lower in performance for the following obvious reasons: 

1) 1Dx uses 2 Digic 5+ processors and one Digic 4 (3 processors total).
2) The Digic 4 processor in the 1Dx is *dedicated* to the AF and metering system.
3) The new metering system plays a huge part in the ability of the AF to detect and lock focus in low light conditions.
4) To be able to shoot 22Mpix images at 7fps, handle the full 1Dx's AF and metering system, plus the rumored improvements to video, etc. would likely require the 5D3/5Dx to have 3 processors just like the 1Dx, something Canon will likely not do in a body of this rumored price. 
5) From what I've read so far (and this could be wrong), a single Digic 5 cannot handle 22Mpix at 7fps *and run all the other camera functions alone*, at bare minimum the 5D3/5Dx will require a Digic-5 and a Digic-4 to even have a prayer of coming close to the processing needs.
6) Noting the 1Dx has the latest 18M FF sensor and represents the best Canon can currently do with the sensor technology ready for mass production, a 22M FF sensor used in the 5D3/5Dx will have more pixels and won't be able to produce images with less noise at the same ISO settings.

This is why, when comparing the hypothetical 5D3/5Dx to the 1Dx for features and performance, folks are not factoring in reality in terms of whats needed to run that rumored body, nor are they realizing that the ISO noise performance, based on obvious sensor technology levels deployed by Canon, isn't going to be better than the 1Dx, it's going to be slightly worse. 

There is simply no way Canon's 18Mpix FF sensor in the 1Dx just released is going to under perform a Canon 22Mpix FF sensor in an about to be announced 5D3/5Dx. Expect it to be worse in noise performance.


----------



## necator (Feb 15, 2012)

Martin said:


> Give me one example of Canon product which was revolutionary (Camera-no, Lens-maybe (f1.2), Speedlight-NO!, ISO-NO, AF-NO NO NO!,dynamic range-NO!!!! etc etc,) look at Nikon to compare (D3, D3s, D3x, D800, Flashes, D7000)...no comment.



I'm sorry for you feeling to have the wrong camera.

But now for the (relative) revolutionary products from Canon:

f1.2 lenses (you already mentioned). NOWEHERE else to find.
Canon 5D (mk I): first affordable FF. Nikon for many years stated NOBODY needs a FF
Canon 5D mk II: Nikon just started to sell FF (obviously their earlier statement was wrong)---then stating NOBODY needs >12Mp -> well look at D800  (wrong again?). Oh, 5D mk II also added video capabilities which made the video-departments to rethink their products/prices.
Excellent tele lenses
Oh, they were the first with in lens image stbilisation (which actually worked)
Excellent Tilt/Shift lenses
Oh, and especially the 70-200 f2.8 II should be mentioned: As good as a lens can be.
Oh, and a dedicated macro-lens: mp-e 65mm. 5:1 magnification!
And that's for sure not all, and only recent history.
Now, I might sound like a canon-fanboy ... well, e.g. I hate the ergonomics of the 1-series. The flash-automatic-functions could be far better (nikon is said to deliver it). Canons 50mm lenses are medicore (yes, there is a f1.2 which is good for its aperture alone, but sharpness could be better) ...

Oh, and, the obvious question: What are you demanding for? Take me, e.g. a 5D and/or a 1Ds Mk II is still good enough for publications (Same would be true for Nikon, Pentax, ...). So, again, what is Canon actually lacking? Have your current cams stopped working? And why did you change from a D300 to Canon? That's not that long ago?! Could it be a gearhead speaking?


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 15, 2012)

necator said:


> Martin said:
> 
> 
> > Give me one example of Canon product which was revolutionary (Camera-no, Lens-maybe (f1.2), Speedlight-NO!, ISO-NO, AF-NO NO NO!,dynamic range-NO!!!! etc etc,) look at Nikon to compare (D3, D3s, D3x, D800, Flashes, D7000)...no comment.
> ...



It's true about the FF. Nikon was waaaaaay behind on getting to FF. It took Nikon a full 5 years to go FF after Canon did it. People complain a bit about Canon being behind the times these days but Canon was so far ahead for the first three quarters of the last decade it's not even funny. Now, Nikon did eventually come around, and no doubt that the D3 was a helluva camera that slapped Canon around a bit.

In the last year Canon has been doing far more in terms of "changing the game" than Nikon has. The D4 is "just" an upgraded D3, the D800 is "just" an upgraded D700. The 1Dx is much more of a change in strategy than the D4. Now, it sounds like I'm bashing Nikon a bit but I'm just saying it terms of doing something different Nikon doesn't get any points for the D4 and D800.


----------



## WoodyWindy (Feb 15, 2012)

And let us not forget the one innovation that is most relevant and critical to the current discussion:

EOS D30 - the first purpose-built DSLR (not derived from a film body)

Update: Self-correction, the Nikon D1 was first.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 15, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> The other problem with that argument is that they aren't proving f/8 AF sensor, making the TCs occasionally useless. Added pixel density doesn't have that problem.



See, you've struck upon something that has nagged at me about that lack of AF at f/8.....

Since the 1Dx is now a FF camera, 1D shooters have "lost" the 1.3x tele effect of the crop on the APS-H sensor. As a result, if you've been shooting at major sporting events with a 300mm or 400mm lens your net effect is:

390mm on 1DIV to 300mm on 1Dx, 90mm less effective reach
520mm on 1DIV to 400mm on 1Dx, 120mm less effective reach

(note, I've neglected accounting for the effect of going from a 16M to 18M pixel sensor on the overall cropping ability due to more pixels, but it's not a major factor in the results anyway)

Suddenly, as a pro sports or wildlife shooter, you find yourself with 30% less reach than you're used to shooting. That's not chump change, especially when you consider to make up for that a pro shooter using a 300mm in the past would have to go a 400mm lens, along with the added weight and significant costs.

Whats worse....if you've been shooting f/5.6 long tele-lenses, turning to a 1.4x extender to make up the difference puts you at f/8 and you lose AF when that happens. You don't have the option of going to another lens to make up the difference in some of these cases, either due to cost, weight, size, or the fact that a longer lens does not exist.

Part of me wonders if this isn't why Canon improved the 1.4x and 2x tele rev 3's as much as they did and specifically so for the super-tele lenses. They accounted for the move to full-frame and to ease the pain so to speak in the lost of the 1.3x tele crop effect, seriously improved the extenders for this reason, and gave shooters a reason to purchase the pricy 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 rev II L lenses.

Think about it...... if I was shooting a 400mm f/5.6 on a 1DIV (520mm f/5.6 effective), on a 1Dx that's a 400mm f/5.6. To make up the loss of reach, if I add a 1.4x tele, I get a 560mm f/8. *I make up the loss in reach with some to spare, but I lose AF.* 

My options? By the "new" 400mm f/2.8 IS L II, add the 1.4x tele rev3 "specially enhanced for that series of lens", and BANG!!! I have a 560mm f/5.6 lens.....at the budget busting cost of $8000 (not to mention the $6800 the 1Dx cost me as well).

End result...Canon sells a new body, new lens, and new tele-extender so you, the pro-shooter, can maintain the reach and AF capability you had previously. All three for the low price of $14,800.

I'd bet that has a lot to do with the rumors and statements that Canon is re-thinking the loss of AF at f/8....a lot of big shooters and agencies are probably not very happy about this.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 15, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> JR said:
> 
> 
> > I think we need to wait until the first real test report to make final judgement on the new camera performance. We have also seen the opposite claim that the D800 is so much worst then the D700 in noise and that Nikon users are frustrated.
> ...


Again, which reports are you talking about?


----------



## Martin (Feb 15, 2012)

According to lens u right- I even own 70-200 II IS (by the way-is nikon 70-200 worse??). You are also right about 1.2 lens, but i mentioned that in my post. What about cameras and flash system? Maybe Canon was, let my say "1st in FF cameras" but talking about past is nonsense at the present. I cant say about 1series as i didn't own one, only 5d2. But why only 1series have good ergonomics. Look at ergonomics in Nikon-even lower class cameras, look at quality, ISO,AF, and dynamic range ie. d7000, thay care about product. Trust me i would do a lot to stay in Canon and be happy with the company, but I just can't convience myself that would be good decision in any terms.A year ago I searched for studio camera, with rather hight pixel count and ISO 100. I could not afford Nikon D3x so i ve decided to go with 5dII and 6 lens. Now i have a better choice. D800 with iso 100, high mpix and xsynx 2 1/250 (by the way-my 5dII was sync. good at 1/125). Also d800 is probably very good for weddings, having it's AF in mind. It's hard to decide now what to do, but my heart as well as my brain says loudly-sell your gear even still on warranty and go with Nikon. Does anyone has good arguments for me to stay with Canon? Anything?, even in 1Dx?. Will 5dIII be better in any terms that D800??? If, yes i would be positively surprised...but reality is different in my opinion.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 15, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > I hear your points and I did include the D800 in my thoughts, but I will also point out that the D800 is going to sacrifice performance at ISO 1600, 3200, and 6400. The D800 images available so far (all well lit I might add) show it's no match for the 5Dmk2 at those ISO levels. Actually it looks a lot like the 7D in that regard.
> ...



Can you provide a link to any RAW comparisons as noted in your reply? I have not seen any and would love to see this analysis. The D800's I've seen today don't come close to a 5Dmk2 at ISO 1600 and higher. 

What ISO values did these people compare the D800 to the 5Dmk2 to make that statement? I have serious doubts that a 36mpix sensor is out performing the 5Dmk2 and would like to see this for myself.


----------



## chito (Feb 15, 2012)

DzPhotography said:


> Tuggen said:
> 
> 
> > JR said:
> ...



I don't know where Tuggen is getting his reports.. but fake Chuck Westfall is trashing the D800 IQ.. a LOT.. especially comparing it to the 1Dx


----------



## necator (Feb 15, 2012)

Martin said:


> Maybe Canon was, let my say "1st in FF cameras" but talking about past is nonsense at the present.


Well you asked for


Martin]
Give me one example of Canon product which [b]was[/b] revolutionary
[/quote]
But you're of course right: Of what help is it said:


> .A year ago I searched for studio camera, with rather hight pixel count and ISO 100. I could not afford Nikon D3x so i ve decided to go with 5dII and 6 lens. Now i have a better choice. D800 with iso 100, high mpix and xsynx 2 1/250 (by the way-my 5dII was sync. good at 1/125). Also d800 is probably very good for weddings, having it's AF in mind. It's hard to decide now what to do, but my heart as well as my brain says loudly-sell your gear even still on warranty and go with Nikon.


Funny. My 5D mk I can do xsync relieably (with skyports and elinchrom flashes) up to 1/160s. With 1/200s there is sometimes a hint of a shadow at the edge of the frame. Which flashes are you using? Was your old Nikon better with them? (Ok, I'd also be happy if the 5D would allow for faster xsyncs ...)

The 1dx is said to have a xsync of 1/250s, so 1/200 should be safe. But who kows, nobody can test for it until now. Same with the d800.



Martin said:


> Does anyone has good arguments for me to stay with Canon? Anything?, even in 1Dx?. Will 5dIII be better in any terms that D800??? If, yes i would be positively surprised...but reality is different in my opinion.



Perhaps the D800 is really for you. But also consider MF.
Or perhaps the Pentax 645D? Or even Hasselblad/Phase One? (xsync with special lenses faster than 1/1000s). But MF is, of course, a hefty investment.


----------



## kpk1 (Feb 15, 2012)

Hmmm, something is fishy.

First things first: After 1D X I quess we will see 1Dx mark II, not 1D XI or 1D Mark V; X means extreme by the ISO and speed, etc. and now it's related to the fact that is full frame.

Second: If the next 5D is the lower mpx camera and is in the same line, extreme, then it should be called 5D X or even 3D. It is not a replacement of the 5D2.
It's logical then to keep the 5D2 on the market for the lower price and replace it sometime in late 2012. 5D mark III by my expectations has to be the highest mpx sensor in the lineup, more or less functions. It's the landscape, studio body. It's he 5D logical follower.

That being said it doesn't make sense the name of the french book 5D mark III.


----------



## DzPhotography (Feb 15, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> You can start reading this and then search further yourself. If you don't read swedish it's confirming that D800 at pixel level noise is more or less the same as D7000 as other sources also do. (and therefor with no doubt is better than 5Dmk2 and D700).
> http://www.fotosidan.se/forum/showthread.php?t=138355&page=84
> Similar information is also to be found at DPreview.


Errrrm why do you think that if it's the same as D7000 then it's better than D700 or 5DmkII?  Excuse me but that doesn't make sense. 

And on a comic note:
http://fakechuckwestfall.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/nikon-d800-vs-canon-eos-1dx-image-quality/


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

jaduffy007 said:


> Am I to expect the same 61pt AF system that's in the 1D X?



Considering what Nikon offers, you should be expecting that only even more considering how resting on their laurels and holding as much back as possible and milking out every last penny rather than charging forward and blowing Nikon out of the water (which they easily could have done a few times over the last few years) and arrogant about their position they have become, quite possibly not. But you can hope. Maybe, maybe, maybe, Nikon/Sony have put enough fear into them to wake them up again.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

Ivar said:


> What I'm mostly worried about is the DR. Not only it has been less on the Canon side than the competition by raw figures for quite some years already, it is also less usable, shadow area does not tolerate much pushing.
> 
> Btw DR is not a goal by itself, but the tool to overcome harsh lighting conditions, targeting pleasant non-hdr like output. Add wrong exposure to the list, being it a different user wish after the shoot or biased mesurement due to tricky light conditions etc.



Yeah me too. It's a little worrisome that they aren't bragging about it. If they had gone to a new process where they could improve the 5D2 DR by 2 measured stops and 3 usable stops at ISO 100 then you'd think we'd already be hearing all sorts of claims about the 1DX. They did mention DR a bit when it came to the 1DX but they were unclear calling it DR in one spot and SNR in another and improved largely in JPG in another so it's hard to say, there is reason for hope for sure but also reason to doubt, i.e. nobody yet knows and we will see soon enough.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

Birdshooter said:


> gmrza said:
> 
> 
> > Regarding the argument of 22MP not being enough to replace the 7D - because a 1.6x crop would not give enough pixels - Canon will probably argue that users should use a 1.4x TC to get the extra reach. - I am not saying this will get the results people are looking for - just that that is what I would expect Canon to argue.
> ...



You can't do the math like that. What matter is pixels per duck and so you need to use the camera's photosite densities not whether they are FF or APS-H or APS-C. A 5D, a 5D2 and 1Ds2 and a 1DX all would need a different results, not the same result.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> wickidwombat said:
> 
> 
> > sublime LightWorks said:
> ...



If the 22MP lets them get better video quality and you don't lose 4MP (not that it matters so much, although at some point it becomes a slippery slope and since we had hoped to gain some even....) then why not? Seriosult what different does 18MP vs 22MP make for SNR and DR? Zero for DR and like what maybe 1/10th stop? 1/6th stop at worst for SNR? Who cares about that? Nobody can see the difference between a fraction of a stop difference for noise.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

chito said:


> but fake Chuck Westfall is trashing the D800 IQ.. a LOT.. especially comparing it to the 1Dx



There are no proper samples available to anyone not testing the cams to really compare them properly with, for starters (although he seems to be hinting that he is an official tester so maybe he actually has but he can't obviously use real samples to show). But he does appear to be mixing up some terms posterization and pattern banding, for one.


----------



## awinphoto (Feb 15, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> chito said:
> 
> 
> > but fake Chuck Westfall is trashing the D800 IQ.. a LOT.. especially comparing it to the 1Dx
> ...



Everyone has some sort of agenda, even you and me... Perhaps his agenda is trashing high MP, which was canon's mantra, now nikons... I dont know what his deal is but i'm sure once it's released you'll find as many who love the camera and those who will hate the camera... it's the cycle of life in the camera world.


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 15, 2012)

Smith said:


> You can be certain that they will not offer a clean HDMI output.



How/why are you so sure that they won't offer a clean HDMI out? Nikon did it with the D800, why does it seem so out of the question for Canon to follow suit?

I can understand if you're suggesting it based on the idea that the 5D series is a still camera at heart, and a clean HDMI out may be a feature that only a small percentage of buyers would use. But to suggest Canon is deliberately releasing a crummy camera just sounds kind of crazy. The next 5D is one of the most anticipated cameras of all time and people have been waiting on it for years. Canon would have to be run by a bunch of morons to only make minor updates.

This is a rumors forum, you can't be certain of anything...


----------



## Axilrod (Feb 15, 2012)

Martin said:


> Canon do not care about me, as a customer. I need to wait to long for the new product which for me is 5dmarkIII. To be honest I do not think that they will do enything worth staying with them. Despite the fact i am heavy invested in Canon's gear, now i am considering switching back to nikon with it d800 and great AF and many many other benefits. I originally came from Nikon D300, to Canon's team, but i am really dissapointed with the gear. In my opinion Canon does not move forward, they make everything to let us think they make a huge steps, but thats only marketing., thats only few paid photographers who push good opinions in the web. I will lost a lot selling my Canon gear, but i really think thay its not worth staying with them. It's strange i know but-Canon is a step behing Nikon, they just dont have good ideas, they dont think in revolutionary way, they only slightly rebuild old products, the dont satisfy thier costumers, imho they just look at Nikon product and want to have something similar, but worse...why not...well...people will not sell their gear and switch to Nikon.



You're right, I don't think Canon cares about your individual wants/needs, you're just one person in a giant market. It's arrogant to even think that a multi-billion dollar company should do everything based around what YOU want. Just because you aren't happy with a product doesn't mean that other people feel the same. "They don't satisfy their customers?" Then WHY does ANYONE own a 5DII, 7D, or anything else? Why are you on this rumor site trying to figure out what they are releasing next? That's crazy logic, "This company sucks, I'm not satisfied, what are they releasing next?!" Go ahead and head over to Nikon rumors, because bitching about Canon on this forum isn't going to bring about whatever it is you're looking for. 

You're pretty much saying you are going to switch to a Nikon camera (that was just announced, that you have never used) based on the idea that Canon's next camera won't be any good (even though it hasn't been announced). And it's kinda hard to say that Canon is a "step behind Nikon," this is all based on the D800 specs, Canon hasn't even had a chance to counter. 

Everyone just needs to chill out, we have 2 weeks until announcement, if the camera sucks then you can complain all you want. But until then everyone is just guessing and comparing numbers, none of these arguments are based on performance.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 15, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > Tuggen said:
> ...



Where, pray tell, has it been "confirmed" all over the place that pixel size has nothing to do with ISO noise performance? 

And, I'm still waiting for a link to a RAW comparison that shows the images.


----------



## EYEONE (Feb 15, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Everyone just needs to chill out, we have 2 weeks until announcement, if the camera sucks then you can complain all you want.



And complain they will. Some will switch to Nikon, but will it make them better photographers? Nope.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 15, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> jaduffy007 said:
> 
> 
> > Am I to expect the same 61pt AF system that's in the 1D X?
> ...



I seriously doubt the 5D? camera will have the same AF and metering as the full 1Dx system. 

Again, from the Canon doc on the 1DX, the AF and metering system have a dedicated Digic 4 processor. For the 5Dx to have this AF system, it would necessitate having similar processing power. At minimum, that means the 5Dx would have to be dual processor (Digic 5 for the images, video, and all other functions), and Digic 4 for the AF and metering. 

An 18Mpix FF image on a 1Dx at 12 fps is going to push (excluding all other items), 216Mpix thru those two Digic 5 processors. A 5Dx, based on the rumored specs, at 22Mpix and 7fps, will push 154 Mpix thru the processor(s). I do not believe a single Digic 5 can push that pixel load, and handle all other camera functions alone. 

If it could, then the 1Dx should be able to push approx 300Mpix thru (based on the 5Dx needs handled by a single Digic 5) and still handle all other functions (except the aforementioned AF and metering using the Digic 4). Now, if that is correct, then the 1Dx should not have to resort to JPEG only in the 14 fps burst mode, it should be able to handle RAWs (the mirror lockup in that burst mode has zero to do with the JPEG only ability of that mode, its the data being pushed that limits it). By estimation and basic scaling of the processors, the 1Dx should have nearly 80Mpix additional bandwidth available for processing.

So, based on this model, *the 5Dx would have to have 3 processors to handle the estimated pixel load*, the camera functions, and the 1Dx AF and metering. I don't think that is going to happen. As a result, I believe the AF and metering will be a subset of the 1Dx that does not require it's own dedicated processor.

Don't get me wrong my friend, I would LOVE for you to be right and it did have the full-on 1Dx AF and metering. I just think that's beyond what this body will have.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 15, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> If the 22MP lets them get better video quality and you don't lose 4MP (not that it matters so much, although at some point it becomes a slippery slope and since we had hoped to gain some even....) then why not? Seriosult what different does 18MP vs 22MP make for SNR and DR? Zero for DR and like what maybe 1/10th stop? 1/6th stop at worst for SNR? Who cares about that? Nobody can see the difference between a fraction of a stop difference for noise.



I hear you, but......

Based on what you're saying, why not put the 22Mpix sensor on the 1Dx? It certainly had to be ready last fall (in reality for this March release). If the noise is that little and there is no DR difference as you state....

Let's go further.....if we are to assume the 5Dx has a single Digic 5 to support 22Mpix at 7 fps and a single Digic 4 dedicated to the AF per the 1Dx specs (as you have stated you believe the 1Dx AF will be in this camera), then the two Digic 5 processors in the 1Dx should be able to handle 22Mpix full RAW at 14fps. 

There should be zero reasons for Canon NOT to put that sensor in the 1Dx. It would truly be the flagship camera body with the best image quality, top functional options, weather-seal, etc., all as stated in the brochures and news releases.

But they didn't do that. They put an 18Mpix FF sensor in the 1Dx, not this rumored 22Mpix FF sensor. If these are so close in image quality that nobody can see a difference as you state, why then is it not in the 1Dx?

Remember, Canon's own words:



> replacing both the *EOS-1Ds Mark III* and EOS-1D Mark IV models in Canon’s lineup.



I cannot see the 5Dx taking that IQ spot again and Canon having it jump the IQ lineup.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 15, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> But they didn't do that. They put an 18Mpix FF sensor in the 1Dx, not this rumored 22Mpix FF sensor. If these are so close in image quality that nobody can see a difference as you state, why then is it not in the 1Dx?



Because the 18Mpix (larger pix) is better for stills. The only reason to have the 22Mpix in the FF is so you can do better line skipping video at 1080p.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 15, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > But they didn't do that. They put an 18Mpix FF sensor in the 1Dx, not this rumored 22Mpix FF sensor. If these are so close in image quality that nobody can see a difference as you state, why then is it not in the 1Dx?
> ...



Correct....thank you. Which says exactly my point....the still images taken with the 1Dx will be a better IQ than the 5Dx. That 22Mpix sensor is NOT going to equal or surpass the 1Dx 18Mpix sensor in IQ. If it did, Canon would have put it in the 1Dx and been able to claim higher Mpixels and IQ.

They aren't stupid, they'd win both mindsets with that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Smith said:
> 
> 
> > You can be certain that they will not offer a clean HDMI output.
> ...



A Canon rep was quote a while back when demoing a 1DX that the 1DX didn't not have uncompressed HDMI out because Canon's video division didn't want that to happen. They didn't want the stills division to allow that. Simple as that. So they did very deliberately cripple that. Perhaps the D800 will make the higher up change his mind but you'd think they would've already known and had it in the 1DX then.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > jaduffy007 said:
> ...



So far none of the bodies with dual-digic have pushed 2 as much as single digic cameras. Some as low as 1.6x factor or less I think. If we called it 1.7x factor (and used 14fps instead of 12fps) then you might say 6.7 fps at 22MP or certainly 7fps if they re-used the 18MP sensor.

In the past I believe the AF was either controlled by the main CPU (which generally hadn't been the digics, but an additional chip AFAIK) or an additional AF only CPU.

On the 1DX they will use a Digic iv as the AF chip.

Most of the rumors have mentioned single digic V for image throughput and some have also mentioned digic iv for AF. Who knows if any of this stuff is for real, the 22MP or 7fps either.

Anyway I don't think 3 digics, if it came to that, shoud be a shock in the general sense (coming from Canon, yes, perhaps). How much do you think a digic iv costs? they use them in the lowest of lowest priced Canon P&S cameras. And, I forget, but I thought they added a separate CPU for AF even in the 7D, although not a digic chip.

Why is it so insane to think (other than because of the sort of company Canon has become)? Other companies do it. If you think it is all insane, in principle (in reality, perhaps you are correct), you've had too much of the Canon kool-aid.


----------



## Smith (Feb 15, 2012)

Axilrod said:


> Smith said:
> 
> 
> > You can be certain that they will not offer a clean HDMI output.
> ...



Are you being serious ? Canon has a very long history of purposely crippling their features to protect their other products. With the C300 and their new push towards high end video they will be even more protective than in the past. Nikon has no video market to protect so they can do whatever they want. The only limitation for Nikon is if they start affecting the sales of Sony's video market.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 15, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > If the 22MP lets them get better video quality and you don't lose 4MP (not that it matters so much, although at some point it becomes a slippery slope and since we had hoped to gain some even....) then why not? Seriosult what different does 18MP vs 22MP make for SNR and DR? Zero for DR and like what maybe 1/10th stop? 1/6th stop at worst for SNR? Who cares about that? Nobody can see the difference between a fraction of a stop difference for noise.
> ...



It is a bit odd. But I think it's either that:

1. the 22MP is something entirely made up and not based in reality, someone was ooh look 3x3 bin for video I bet it will use that and made up all this 22MP, 7fps stuff and sent it in and everyone else copied

or 

2. it will be 22MP but the 1DX didn't use it because they felt they needed to hit 12fps (14fps without mirror) and digic 5+ couldn't quite handle it or maybe it added just a bit too much extra heat to handle it or maybe some new ADC readout from the best low ISO DR couldn't run quite that fast with their tech, etc. OR maybe some types of pros were already complaining that 18MP was annoyingly large to deal with and they were afraid to push it even a bit higher without having them totally flip out on them and yet all the same Canon really did want 22MP badly enough for certain video reasons so they thought it worth it to spend money making two different sensors even though they are so close in MP?

It does seem odd to me they would go to the expense to make a new sensor when they are seemingly so close though. Then again the 5D did use it's own sensor and I guess 12.7 and 16.2MP are somewhat close too but I thought Canon was happy with the savings from re-using the 1Ds3 sensor but maybe they simply felt something about it important enough on the video side of things???

All I know is that every tech paper I have ever seen strongly, strongly hints that any loss in high iso performance when the MP counts are so close (18MP vs 22MP) wouldn't really be noticeable to the eye, just some modest fraction of a stop, so I think it has to be due to some other reason. 



> Let's go further.....if we are to assume the 5Dx has a single Digic 5 to support 22Mpix at 7 fps and a single Digic 4 dedicated to the AF per the 1Dx specs (as you have stated you believe the 1Dx AF will be in this camera), then the two Digic 5 processors in the 1Dx should be able to handle 22Mpix full RAW at 14fps.



Although no dual digic body, so far, has ever had 2x the throughput as the single digic models, the scaling might not work quite so well due to various little things to let them get the full 2x.




> But they didn't do that. They put an 18Mpix FF sensor in the 1Dx, not this rumored 22Mpix FF sensor. If these are so close in image quality that nobody can see a difference as you state, why then is it not in the 1Dx?



As I speculated above.
And why would the 1DX need better sensor performance? It's more of the high speed above all else cam.


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 15, 2012)

D800 ISO test from ISO50-ISO25600
http://info.xitek.com/pzreview/hwtest/201202/14-75122.html

I cannnot find an English version although the website above claims it is from facebook

First pic is ISO3200, second is ISO6400

@6400 is very useable to my eyes


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 15, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> Where, pray tell, has it been "confirmed" all over the place that pixel size has nothing to do with ISO noise performance?



Smaller pixels perform better at high-ISO all the way until read noise starts to dominate (which is way, way out there for most sensors). These were shot at the same ISO, same shutter speed, same f-stop, same focal length, both use the same sensor area, both were shot in raw and processed in the same software. The pixel area is different by a factor of 16. The processed images on the far right column tell the story - the smaller pixels preserved more detail with less noise than the bigger pixels did even though they were set at their maximum ISO.

http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Pixel%20density%20test%20results.jpg


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 15, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It is a bit odd. But I think it's either that:
> 
> 1. the 22MP is something entirely made up and not based in reality, someone was ooh look 3x3 bin for video I bet it will use that and made up all this 22MP, 7fps stuff and sent it in and everyone else copied
> 
> ...



Gets you thinking, doesn't it? 

Regarding your last statement, of why the 1Dx would need better performance....because Canon clearly said in the 1Dx press release it was a merging of the 1Ds and the 1D to produce the best camera possible. I seriously doubt that Canon wants to put an IQ crown on a camera that is not the successor to it's 1Ds.

In effect, it would be repeating the same thing it did when the 5Dmk2 came out....steal the IQ crown from the 1Ds and put it on a camera that was not in it's 1D pro line. A camera, mind you that did not have weather sealing, had 3rd world AF and metering, and a whole host of other features missing.

Does Canon what to put it's IQ crown on a camera that costs $3k or on it's flagship camera that costs $6800? For sake of argument, if the new 5Dx has better IQ than the 1Dx, has the 1Dx's AF and metering, and shoots 7fps, is there ANY reason to by the 1Dx for studio use? Or wedding use? 

I can't think of a single reason (lone exception is if you shoot a lot of outdoor weddings and want the weather sealed body).

Again, I hope it's all true on the rumored specs and it is all that (and more) for $3k. I just have a hard time believing that, knowing what I do about marketing, etc. Canon would be guilty of telling the world "The 1Dx is the best we can offer, $6800." and then turn around 6 months later and whip out a 5Dx with 85% of the 1Dx features and better IQ at $3000.

That is a tough sell to me.

BTW, thx for a really good discussion on this, much appreciated.


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 16, 2012)

damn 12800 looks pretty useable IMO big drop in IQ next stop up but i'd probably be happy shooting that puppy in the 3200 to 12800 range. topaz denoise would clean that up just fine


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 16, 2012)

All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
https://rapidshare.com/files/498221805/D800_sample_by_Arnaud.rar


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > Where, pray tell, has it been "confirmed" all over the place that pixel size has nothing to do with ISO noise performance?
> ...



Ok, let's say this is correct (I'm not buying this as I can point to 1000 other examples of images taken where this is not the result). Can you explain why comparisons of exactly the same RAW images taken with a 5Dmk2 at ISO 3200 are so much cleaner than the 7D? The 7D has a far smaller pixel, but tests done on many sites comparing it to the 5Dmk2 clearly show the degraded IQ on the 7D at the same high ISO levels. And the 3Mpix difference between the 5Dmk2 and the 7D is not enough to account for that.

The 7D is also newer and has a newer sensor than the 5Dmk2. How would you explain that based on what you referenced and posted? 

DPReview has examples of this in their 7D review and analysis. And since I own both the 5Dmk2 and the 7D, I can tell you in the real world, the 7D cannot hold a candle to the 5Dmk2 at ISO 1600 or above.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
> https://rapidshare.com/files/498221805/D800_sample_by_Arnaud.rar



Thx for that link, very much appreciated....downloading now.......thank god I have UVerse.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

Tuggen said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > And, I'm still waiting for a link to a RAW comparison that shows the images.
> ...



Appreciate the link.  

My only pick at that is the images have been re-sized, which renders them with an averaging of the noise, not a true noise image. If I am shooting a 36Mpix camera and I have to resize the image to get it to look as good as my 5Dmk2, then what am I getting for 36Mpix?

I agree with you, a RAW, one-to-one comparison under identical conditions is whats needed. Until that happens, we will not know.

As for some of the comments running around here saying smaller pixels have less noise at high ISO's......some one needs to tell that to my PhaseOne 33Mpix back. I can assure you, it will laugh out loud for hours.

Now, for the record, I have and I am entertaining a move to Nikon as I like a LOT of what I see in the D800. I shoot two Canon bodies and a D800 with a D4 works very nicely in what I do, along with my PhaseOne that the wife is unaware of. : (if you guys don't hear from me again, call the cops and point her out as a suspect).


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 16, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> Tuggen said:
> 
> 
> > sublime LightWorks said:
> ...



i'm interested to hear how you have kept the phase one under the radar...

is that a medium format in your pocket or are you just happy to see me?


----------



## dunkers (Feb 16, 2012)

Seeing as we've transitioned into talking about the D800, can somebody explain to me what exactly "uncompressed HD signal out" means?

I've seen people talking about this all over, but nobody explains what it actually is and what it is useful for. As far as I'm aware, signal sent through HDMI is already uncompressed. So what is the all the fuss about, or is it a one of those features that nobody has any idea what it is and just brags about it?


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> In the past I believe the AF was either controlled by the main CPU (which generally hadn't been the digics, but an additional chip AFAIK) or an additional AF only CPU.
> 
> On the 1DX they will use a Digic iv as the AF chip.
> 
> ...



Definitely not drinking the Canon kool-aid, far from it. 

Let's drive on that idea of 3 processors. Could all that fit in a 5D body? I'm thinking no, but.....it's possible. Looking at the circuit board images of the 1Dx, I have a hard time thinking that hardware is going to fit in a 5D body. Gotta remember, that 1Dx has the advantage of the room offered by the built-in grip.

In the 7D it uses the dual Digic's for the AF as well....check the specs and the circuit board layout...nothing indicates another AF processor in addition to the Digics.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 16, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > sublime LightWorks said:
> ...



Because the comparison isn't done correctly. It's not done with the same sensor area used. It's done with both at 100% or both full-frame. Neither is correct if you're talking about pixel density. If you change nothing but pixel density, you have to assume the same amount of sensor area is used. If you do that, you'll find your 7D out-performs your 5DII. The reason the 5DII is better overall is because it has more sensor area.

Incidentally, those images I posted were from the 5D and the Canon S3IS compact. The compact won easily when the 5D didn't have the advantage of it's massively larger sensor.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > Tuggen said:
> ...



LOL....the method I used is called "don't say what your annual bonus actually was the past two years so you can sock away 1/3 of it, and make sure you get her something sparkly just in case." Very effective, and works better than a B-2 bomber on a moonless night.


----------



## Smith (Feb 16, 2012)

dunkers said:


> Seeing as we've transitioned into talking about the D800, can somebody explain to me what exactly "uncompressed HD signal out" means?
> 
> I've seen people talking about this all over, but nobody explains what it actually is and what it is useful for. As far as I'm aware, signal sent through HDMI is already uncompressed. So what is the all the fuss about, or is it a one of those features that nobody has any idea what it is and just brags about it?



This is a very common mistake that is repeated all over the net. You are absolutely correct that there is no such thing as compressed HDMI. Thus saying "uncompressed HDMI" is a misnomer. It comes about because people are trying to differentiate between compressed H.264 video, used internal to the camera, and the HDMI video stream which by definition is uncompressed. What people sometimes correctly convey is that an HDMI stream is "clean" since it can and is purposely crippled in Canon's implementation.

If you're unfamiliar with HDMI feeds of DSLRs this page gives a decent preview of how Canon purposely puts garbage into the feed to protect their video market. 

http://atomos.activehosted.com/kb/article/ninja/ninja-tests-with-popular-dslr-cameras


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



I'll need some time to wrap my head around what you are saying....been a long day at the office. Let me digest that, but if you can post a use-case as an illustration, that would help.

One question as a background item: do you know what the SNR is per pixel on say the 5Dmk2 and the 7D? My BSEE head says the smaller pixels (photodiodes) have more leakage (assuming similar generation sensors, not old stuff vs. new stuff) than larger ones and hence more noise.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 16, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > sublime LightWorks said:
> ...



Just what we're talking about - 1Dx versus D800. Same sensor size, different pixel size.



> One question as a background item: do you know what the SNR is per pixel on say the 5Dmk2 and the 7D? My BSEE head says the smaller pixels (photodiodes) have more leakage (assuming similar generation sensors, not old stuff vs. new stuff) than larger ones and hence more noise.



My MSEE head says leakage is a very, very minor issue on the very large pixels (and not much related to noise anyway). Remember, the state-of-the-art in pixel design is for cell phone cameras - 1-1.5 microns. 4-7 micron pixels like we use in our dSLRs are enormous by comparison.

Since you're an engineer, I can explain very easily why smaller pixels are better, as long as read noise doesn't dominate.

What do large pixels do compared to small ones? Spacial block averaging. Now, which do you think is more effective at preserving detail and removing noise, spacial block averaging or modern noise reduction algorithms? The answer is obvious - no one could sell any noise reduction software if it couldn't beat the daylights out of a simple block average approach, which is close to the lousiest filter you can imagine!


----------



## Radiating (Feb 16, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > Where, pray tell, has it been "confirmed" all over the place that pixel size has nothing to do with ISO noise performance?
> ...



That test is extremely poorly done. 

The reality of the situation is that generally the more pixels you have, the more noise a camera will have. Not because the pixels somehow cause the noise, but because it reduces the light gathering ability of the camera's sensor. To actually put more pixels on a sensor you have to make the pixel wells themselves smaller. It's like dividing a house up into rooms. A house with just one big room has a lot more space than a house with walls everywhere. On top of that the current generation of sensors has the wiring for the pixels on the front of the sensor, meaning the more pixels you have the more wiring you have which isn't capturing photons. Now between old low megapixel sensors and new high megapixel ones there have been a lot of advancements. For example micro lenses have been developed which basically help to bend the light around all the non-light gathering real estate of a sensor and focus it onto the light gathering real estate. Also technology has been devloped to make sure the photons are more accurately read.

So in general assuming everything is equal more pixels means more noise. The test you posted obviously has the variables skewed to show otherwise likely by comparing a body which isn't very advanced to one that is. Furthermore most camera manufacturers lie about their iso settings to the point where they are inflated by 80% in many cases. So the camera is shooting at iso 900 but it says iso 1600 on the display. So comparing cameras outside a lab setting isn't very useful. 

Anyways I encourage people to read about the quantum efficiency of a sensor:

http://www.sensorgen.info/

Often times a camera will go up from on generation to another both in reducing noise and increasing resolution, like the 1D III to the 1D IV through superior sensor design. Other times you have cases like the D3s and D3x where the D3x has twice as much noise and twice as much resolution than the D3s.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 16, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> Ok, let's say this is correct (I'm not buying this as I can point to 1000 other examples of images taken where this is not the result). Can you explain why comparisons of exactly the same RAW images taken with a 5Dmk2 at ISO 3200 are so much cleaner than the 7D? The 7D has a far smaller pixel, but tests done on many sites comparing it to the 5Dmk2 clearly show the degraded IQ on the 7D at the same high ISO levels. And the 3Mpix difference between the 5Dmk2 and the 7D is not enough to account for that.



Because he was talking about a normalized comparison and you were talking about a 100% view comparison.
Per area of sensor the 7D actually seems to have a tiny bit LESS noise than the 5D2, however, the 5D2 has a LOT more area. So long as you are willing to shoot wide open and this with the same ISO, aperture and shutter speed and can frame the shoot as you desire with the lens you have and don't need to crop way in onto a distant bird or something, the 5D2 result is better. But if you are distance limited then you end up comparing based on how well they do per area of sensor if you want to compare them fairly or by 100% view if you want to compare detail and in either case the 7D actually beats the 5D2 (although it's not by any amount to really care about when it comes to the noise).



> DPReview has examples of this in their 7D review and analysis. And since I own both the 5Dmk2 and the 7D, I can tell you in the real world, the 7D cannot hold a candle to the 5Dmk2 at ISO 1600 or above.



It can if you are distance limited. And the fair comparison here, in the general sense, would be to imagine the 7D sensor not being clipped off at APS-C size but extended to FF size, then with it's slightly better performance per area and equal area you'd see that it's actually doing a trace better despite having much, much smaller photosites. It does have newer technology, but even if it did not it probably would not end up looking more than maybe 1/2 stop worse at worst.

In rare cases it can even look better at ISO3200 even in a non-distance limited case if the scene consists mostly of deep shadows since it has less banding there. But usually, when you can frame as you desire and if oyu use the same exposure, yeah the 5D2 will look better than the 7D, but it's really because the 5D2 has an amazing 2.56x the surface area to collect light over due to the much larger sensor.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 16, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> My only pick at that is the images have been re-sized, which renders them with an averaging of the noise, not a true noise image. If I am shooting a 36Mpix camera and I have to resize the image to get it to look as good as my 5Dmk2, then what am I getting for 36Mpix?
> 
> 
> > re-sized/normalized is the only fair way to compare them
> ...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 16, 2012)

dunkers said:


> Seeing as we've transitioned into talking about the D800, can somebody explain to me what exactly "uncompressed HD signal out" means?
> 
> I've seen people talking about this all over, but nobody explains what it actually is and what it is useful for. As far as I'm aware, signal sent through HDMI is already uncompressed. So what is the all the fuss about, or is it a one of those features that nobody has any idea what it is and just brags about it?



For someone with the equipment to handle it it means you avoid some cheap on the fly compression adding posterization, blocking, robbing details, etc. Granted for the avg guy on the street it's somewhat just bragging rights. Although if you have the right device you might be able to grab it onto a laptop in the field and if you stick to short clips and then re-compress might not overflow your HD.

It could be nice for avg guy, at times, but generally it would be much more of a serious pro thing.

(I am assuming they are sending the video, as captured, out over HDMI during live filming, all the frames, non-skipped and before the internal compressor compresses it into h.264 or whatnot. Hopefully that is not a false assumption.)

And it would allow for better live monitoring, it won't be down-rezzed, or have frames skipped, or have had anything meddlesome done. I think the current DSLRS all did some combinations of those things during live previews. I have to say I haven't tried live preview of HDMI out yet so I'm not sure exactly what they are doing. I do know that you certainly can't get 1920x1080p full frame rate all frames with zero compression out of any of the Canons.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 16, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > In the past I believe the AF was either controlled by the main CPU (which generally hadn't been the digics, but an additional chip AFAIK) or an additional AF only CPU.
> ...



I'll have to check but I could swear they said they added a little chip for 7D AF.

Well the 7D proves they can fit two digics and an additional master cpu and maybe a small additional AF CPU.

However, the digic chips do seem to take up more surface area than any of the other chips. Is there room to fit in three digic chips? Not sure. I'd have to look at the boards and think. It's possible you could have a point there if there is nothing else they can shrink or move around.

OK, let me see, well a quick bit of google quickly turns up lots of references to a dedicated AF chip being used in the 7D. So I think it has, but I think this chip must be noticeably smaller than a digic sin emy vague recollection was a circuit board with two big digics and then a bunch of much small chips, if I recall correctly (and I might not be).

I managed to find a very, very tiny pic of the 7D mainboard, it's so small that it is hard to say, it looks like they might just be able to cram in another digic, but it depends. Image it too small to really tell and perhaps the Digic 5 is much larger, etc.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 16, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > sublime LightWorks said:
> ...



And yet, you have nothing to say what about it was poor except that the answer isn't what you expected it to be. Two cameras, same generation, same f-stop, shutter speed, focal length, ISO, light level, sensor size, capture method and processing. The only significant difference is the pixel size, and it's different by such a large amount (factor of 16) that it swamps out other minor effects.



> The reality of the situation is that generally the more pixels you have, the more noise a camera will have. Not because the pixels somehow cause the noise, but because it reduces the light gathering ability of the camera's sensor. To actually put more pixels on a sensor you have to make the pixel wells themselves smaller.



And there's more of them. The overall effective fill factor is about the same between the 5D and the G12. So I wouldn't hang the hat of your argument on that issue.


> It's like dividing a house up into rooms. A house with just one big room has a lot more space than a house with walls everywhere. On top of that the current generation of sensors has the wiring for the pixels on the front of the sensor, meaning the more pixels you have the more wiring you have which isn't capturing photons.



House rooms don't have microlenses.



> So in general assuming everything is equal more pixels means more noise.



No. It means the pixels have more noise, and the sensor has the same photon capture with more detail.



> The test you posted obviously has the variables skewed to show otherwise likely by comparing a body which isn't very advanced to one that is. Furthermore most camera manufacturers lie about their iso settings to the point where they are inflated by 80% in many cases. So the camera is shooting at iso 900 but it says iso 1600 on the display. So comparing cameras outside a lab setting isn't very useful.



None of that is relevant because f-stop, shutter speed and focal length were the same. Thus, the number of photons that struck the sensor was the same. ISO calibration is irrelevant.



> Anyways I encourage people to read about the quantum efficiency of a sensor:
> 
> http://www.sensorgen.info/
> 
> Often times a camera will go up from on generation to another both in reducing noise and increasing resolution, like the 1D III to the 1D IV through superior sensor design. Other times you have cases like the D3s and D3x where the D3x has twice as much noise and twice as much resolution than the D3s.



The sensors I tested were of the same generation and of about the same QE.


----------



## x-vision (Feb 16, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> http://photos.imageevent.com/sipphoto/samplepictures/Pixel%20density%20test%20results.jpg



Sorry but this is an apples vs oranges comparison. 

Due to higher production volumes and economies of scale, the small sensors in digicams and cell phones are made on newer and more advanced technologies than the larger sensors in DSLRs. 

So, it’s not the small pixel size that makes image quality better but the newer, more advanced tech used in the small sensors. 

For the same technology, the house wall analogy applies: a larger number of rooms leads to increased wall area and decreased living space (for any given area). 

And no, no microlens magic can (fully) compensate for loss of active area on a sensor.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 16, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> The sensors I tested were of the same generation and of about the same QE.



That's not true at all. The G12 has an extremely advanced sensor that has a QE of 55% the 5D has a QE of 25%. That's more than a stop of difference. You're comparing stone age technology to the space shuttle. 

I think the problem with your test is that you have to account for the number of t/stops in each camera's respective lens. If you actually shot the images above at the same f/stop, shutter speed and iso and didn't just try to get the exposure the same, then most likley the lens you were using transmitted twice as much light onto your 5D as the lens on the G12 due to the quality of the glass.

In any case. The point is that while it is possible to make a 300 megapixel monster of a camera with 55% quantum efficiency, they haven't done so. My guess is that the cost of scaling up the G12 sensor makes it not cost effective. 

I'm positive that Canon has the technology to make a camera that has 36 mp and performs better than the D3s in low light and dynamic range. Unfortunately what is most likley going on is that they realize that such a camera would end up costing more more than creating 2 seperate bodies, one for resolution and one for low light.


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 16, 2012)

Radiating said:


> Lee Jay said:
> 
> 
> > The sensors I tested were of the same generation and of about the same QE.
> ...



It actually doesn't matter whether Canon has that kind of technology or not, nobody denies that Canon has excellent R&D in this industry.

It just doesn't mean anything to end-users if Canon don't put the technology in their products. Someone mentioned Canon is a conservative company which I totally agree. 

Canon can still maintain their sales figure ahead anybody else just because there's no company like Apple in this industry.

IMO, Nikon focus on how to make better DSLRs and Canon focus on how to sell more DSLRs .


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 16, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> Radiating said:
> 
> 
> > Lee Jay said:
> ...



You can't sell more cameras with making them better. Their sales are ahead because they're marketed well, and their product is good.


----------



## torger (Feb 16, 2012)

When I see Canon products coming out today I get the impression that pretty much everything except the sensors are great. I'm very impressed with the lenses coming out for example. However, to some of us the sensor is quite an important part of a camera. When it was D700 vs 5Dmk2 it was not a hard choice, about the same performance plus a lot more resolution.

Then Nikon started to impress with sensors, D3s, D3x, D7000 and now D800. This is really tough competition concerning dynamic range, low light capability and now resolution. Canon is now lagging behind. Will 1DX or 5Dmk3 change that? I doubt it, but we'll see once the products are out and properly tested.


----------



## D.Sim (Feb 16, 2012)

torger said:


> When I see Canon products coming out today I get the impression that pretty much everything except the sensors are great. I'm very impressed with the lenses coming out for example. However, to some of us the sensor is quite an important part of a camera. When it was D700 vs 5Dmk2 it was not a hard choice, about the same performance plus a lot more resolution.
> 
> Then Nikon started to impress with sensors, D3s, D3x, D7000 and now D800. This is really tough competition concerning dynamic range, low light capability and now resolution. Canon is now lagging behind. Will 1DX or 5Dmk3 change that? I doubt it, but we'll see once the products are out and properly tested.



the dynamic range on the nikons isnt so much the sensor, but more their active-d lighting. Canon has their HTP, which isn't as good IMo, but if you shoot RAW.... 

That and since Nikon are using Sony sensors =P



that said, it might seem that Canon are lagging behind slightly - but the product is still brilliant - and if you were to threaten to jump ship because of that you're failing to see the big picture, or have too much cash. If Nikon *did* somehow win this round - and they haven't because Canon hasn't even revealed their cards yet - theres still no reason to jump ship, Canon will come right back, because thats the way it is.


----------



## torger (Feb 16, 2012)

D.Sim said:


> the dynamic range on the nikons isnt so much the sensor, but more their active-d lighting. Canon has their HTP, which isn't as good IMo, but if you shoot RAW....
> 
> That and since Nikon are using Sony sensors =P
> 
> that said, it might seem that Canon are lagging behind slightly - but the product is still brilliant - and if you were to threaten to jump ship because of that you're failing to see the big picture, or have too much cash. If Nikon *did* somehow win this round - and they haven't because Canon hasn't even revealed their cards yet - theres still no reason to jump ship, Canon will come right back, because thats the way it is.



Yes on-chip ADC of Sony sensors seems to be key for DR. I hope they don't have a patent for it . I only consider RAW, so I'd say the practical DR is due to the Sony Exmor and the fact that they don't have as much pattern noise which subjectively kills some of Canon's usable DR.

Since I'm in the low ISO high resolution niche I'm a bit worried though, Canon seems to be that kind of player that care more about maximizing profit than to than to care for for all their users, including the less profitable niche users. But as you say, Canon hasn't revealed their cards yet. We'll see.

I would not "jump ship" though before we start to see what Canon will and can deliver. The latest three lenses suggest an interest for video (IS on wide angles) but also for high resolution (the 24-70 without IS but great MTF).


----------



## NotABunny (Feb 16, 2012)

The idea that "pixel (= singular) equates image (all pixels)" is wrong. Having smaller pixels reduces the amount of light gathered by individual pixels, not by the ENTIRE sensor.

Besides this, noiser images isn't even equivalent to worse looking images for a human. http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise-2.htm shows that a higher resolution (= smaller pixels) is perceived as "less noisy".

The explanation is: "If the two patches above were compared based solely on the magnitude of their fluctuations (as is done in most camera reviews), then the patch on the right would seem to have higher noise. Upon visual inspection, the patch on the right actually appears to be much less noisy than the patch on the left. This is due entirely to the spatial frequency of noise in each patch."

(Search for this explanation and look at the images above it.)

sublime LightWorks, you have claimed to have images that prove otherwise. Please show them. Please show images taken in identical conditions: amount of light, shutter speed and aperture. Also use cameras with similar technology, don't compare techonology separated by years of development.





Radiating said:


> That test is extremely poorly done.
> 
> The reality of the situation is that generally the more pixels you have, the more noise a camera will have. Not because the pixels somehow cause the noise, but because it reduces the light gathering ability of the camera's sensor.
> 
> ...



I'll take physical evidence instead. If you have any that supports what you're saying, please show that. Please show images taken in identical conditions: amount of light, shutter speed and aperture. Also use cameras with similar technology, don't compare technology separated by years of development.



Here is my previous post on this endless battle about comparing IMAGES with IMAGES: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,3143.msg66274.html#msg66274

You can read a detailed explanation about how to compare IMAGES (not pixels) (with a link to samples from 1D4 and D3s) here: http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php/topic,255.msg3911.html#msg3911


And by the way, Radiating, the normalized images appear to have a simlar noise despite your claim that QE has a visible effect. D3s has 57%, 1D4 has 44%.


----------



## Ivar (Feb 16, 2012)

Lee Jay said:


> Smaller pixels perform better at high-ISO all the way until read noise starts to dominate



I'm in no way scientist but looking at the D800 examples and per area comparison of phone cameras there must be some truth in it.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > Ok, let's say this is correct (I'm not buying this as I can point to 1000 other examples of images taken where this is not the result). Can you explain why comparisons of exactly the same RAW images taken with a 5Dmk2 at ISO 3200 are so much cleaner than the 7D? The 7D has a far smaller pixel, but tests done on many sites comparing it to the 5Dmk2 clearly show the degraded IQ on the 7D at the same high ISO levels. And the 3Mpix difference between the 5Dmk2 and the 7D is not enough to account for that.
> ...



Ah.....ok, I see where you're going. Have to chew on that a bit.

Office schedule today is ugly, so I may not be back until Friday with a followup, but thx for that slice of info. It helps.

-B


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



There's a big blowup of the 7D circuit board on the DPReview of it. The only two chips marked are the Digic's, none of the others have any markings, but there are a couple small chips on the board. Compare that to the 1Dx and that's a pretty big up in real estate circuit board.

A fast scan of the online info at Canon's site did not reveal any mention of an additional chip, nor did the DPReview article, but I know I have a white paper from Canon on the 7D AF I downloaded when I was tearing into how to properly use the AF system (coming from the 40D, 50D, and 5Dmk2 experience). I see the AF chip mentioned in some google articles as you noted, and will look into those as well. 

If the 5Dx does turn out to have the full 1Dx AF and metering, I have to venture a guess that one Digic-5 can handle the pixel load at 7fps, along with the remaining camera functions, with the Digic-4 doing the AF per the 1Dx system.

And I hear you on the scaling not necessarily being a 2x in performance with two processors, we can witness that in multi-core processors not scaling by 100% per core. I'm typing this on a 6-core AMD box I built and frankly, unless it's running well-threaded code or several apps at once, it's not that much faster than the 4-core CPU it replaced. Since we don't know how well threaded Canon's software is, we really can't determine the final scaling factor.

Which brings up another interesting point.....if they can put dual and quad core processors in a cell phone, why hasn't Digic gone to dual or quad core? Maybe that's the next rev.....could you imagine the ability of a couple of dual core Digic-5's, or mounting a quad core single Digic in a 7Dmk2?

-B


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

NotABunny said:


> sublime LightWorks, you have claimed to have images that prove otherwise. Please show them. Please show images taken in identical conditions: amount of light, shutter speed and aperture. Also use cameras with similar technology, don't compare technology separated by years of development.



NotABunny, please re-read and take a few mins to comprehend what I posted:



> DPReview has examples of this in their 7D review and analysis. And since I own both the 5Dmk2 and the 7D, I can tell you in the real world, the 7D cannot hold a candle to the 5Dmk2 at ISO 1600 or above.



As I stated, comparing real world images, in similar circumstances (shot same day, same conditions, same ISO), you can clearly identify the 5Dmk2 image when placed next to the 7D image. This is not just me, its observed by several who looked at the shots taken, including clients and other photographers.

This was not some test, not some scientific analysis, not Consumer Reports labs. There was no claim to have images that "prove" anything other than that simple observable fact...equivalent images from both cameras show the 5Dmk2 looks superior to the 7D. If that result is more from the 5Dmk2 sensor size than the pixel size, as several have indicated in replies, then that is helping me to understand the specifics of the physics and optics involved in the image produced by the camera.

Just as others here have observed that, to them, the D800 images look as good or better than the 5Dmk2, it's currently by observation of that effect. There has been no RAW comparison to date to prove this. Your demand that I produce such images that "prove" fails to understand my statement: *when shown side by side, the 7D images appear "grainier" and "noisier" at ISO's 1600 and 3200 than a similar photo taken by the 5Dmk2.* The IQ in the 5Dmk2 simply looks superior to a given equivalent shot on from a 7D. If the reasons for this apparent image superiority are not due to pixel size/pixel noise and that pixel size has little to contribute the actual noise levels witnessed, then that knowledge is educating me and is most welcome.

Further, your request to "Please show images taken in identical conditions: amount of light, shutter speed and aperture. Also use cameras with similar technology, don't compare technology separated by years of development" seems to indicate there is something to prove here and you're out to "win" this discussion. Wrong my friend, for one I don't have a plethora of equipment available to me to satisfy your adhoc conditions and I seriously doubt you could do the same. Second, I could care less about "proof" when all the proof I personally require is what my client sees when comparing a couple of images. It's their cash, satisfaction, and job referrals that is the proof enough for me.

I don't view this as some contest to see who is right and who is wrong. It's an attempt to foster a discussion and in the process, understand the underlying technology, how it's applied, and how to make better purchasing decisions when considering the various options in the marketplace. If you're looking for a forum discussion trophy by "winning" something, you're engaging the wrong person and I suggest you go elsewhere to find a deer to mount on your wall. Homie don't play dat.

***** To all the others who have replied on this topic*, I greatly appreciate your time, efforts, and willingness in describing the physical principles and technologies involved. While I have a BSEE (1984), I don't get to use the damn thing these days, my BSCS and MBA play a much bigger role in my IT director position. But I still fully understand the technical details of the discussed (and much more).


----------



## NotABunny (Feb 16, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> As I stated, comparing real world images, in similar circumstances (shot same day, same conditions, same ISO), you can clearly identify the 5Dmk2 image when placed next to the 7D image.
> 
> *when shown side by side, the 7D images appear "grainier" and "noisier" at ISO's 1600 and 3200 than a similar photo taken by the 5Dmk2.* The IQ in the 5Dmk2 simply looks superior to a given equivalent shot on from a 7D. If the reasons for this apparent image superiority are not due to pixel size/pixel noise and that pixel size has little to contribute the actual noise levels witnessed, then that knowledge is educating me and is most welcome.



The reason why the *entire* image from 5D2 looks cleaner is because it has a sensor that is 1.6 * 1.6 (= the crop factor) times larger than that of 7D. This is 2.56 times, meaning that it's log2( 2.56 ) = 1.35 stops cleaner. This is the expected difference.

This happens because images have a physical size, and this size is the size of the sensor. The larger sensor captures more light for the same photo. This can't be seen practically because the images are always scaled to display / paper size (= the same physical size), but with different scales. The images made by a sensor as large as a display don't need to be scaled at all (compared to a small FF sensor) and would therefore show stupefyingly low noise levels (for the entire photo). Unfortunately, the lens needs to be proportional in diameter.


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 16, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > All the sample pics I've just posted can be downloaded from here
> ...


Geez, all the pics were shot by 5d mark ii! It has been confirmed! 
A Canon fanboy did this and posted them to a Nikon forum, then he hided in shadow while hearing all the compliments about how good the D800 is from all Nikon users!


----------



## libertyranger (Feb 16, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > simonxu11 said:
> ...



That is awesome!! What forum?


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > simonxu11 said:
> ...



Are you freaking kidding me??? LOL....that is hilarious.....

I'd love a link to that discussion.


----------



## sublime LightWorks (Feb 16, 2012)

NotABunny said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > As I stated, comparing real world images, in similar circumstances (shot same day, same conditions, same ISO), you can clearly identify the 5Dmk2 image when placed next to the 7D image.
> ...



I'm hearing you....and thank you for the well written reply.

When you say "This is 2.56 times, meaning that it's log2( 2.56 ) = 1.35 stops cleaner. This is the expected difference.", I'm assuming you also meant to add "Given the same technology generation." Otherwise, without it, that would question why a sensor of the same size in another camera shows a different level of noise.

That said, if I understand what you are saying......

"Generally, given a sensor of the same size and technology level/generation, and operated at the same sensitivity level (ISO), the one that has more pixels (smaller pixel size) will demonstrate a visibly lower level of noise in comparison to its larger (fewer) pixel sibling. The pixel size is not a factor in the noise generated, but the greater number of pixels in the same sensor area has the effect of reducing the overall level of noise in the captured image."

That about right?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 16, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> D800 ISO test from ISO50-ISO25600
> http://info.xitek.com/pzreview/hwtest/201202/14-75122.html
> 
> I cannnot find an English version although the website above claims it is from facebook
> ...



How can you tell when they are downsized to 2MP?


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 16, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > simonxu11 said:
> ...



Haha, well my point about them having been too downsized to be able to tell anything is now entirely moot.
Even if they had been it still would be hard to tell, even if they were full 36MP and from the D800, who knows about lighting, exposure, processing, etc. But any it's all moot haha.


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 17, 2012)

sublime LightWorks said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > sublime LightWorks said:
> ...


If you guys can read Chinese


----------



## DBCdp (Feb 22, 2012)

Wow! The arguments that go on and on comparing the 7D to the 5D MkII. I owned the 5D, 7D, and 5D MkII at the same time. Used all 3 in weddings. The 5D Classic had cleaner images than the 7D right up to 1600 ISO. The 7D simply does not compare in image quality to the 5's, either of them. Which is why I will be passing my 7D on and getting either another 5D MkII or the new 5D? in the next week, announced or not.

I just looked at hundreds of pictures today, thinking new glass might be my best bet, and the final result of that is that the 7 just simply doesn't take the clarity of pictures I've come to expect from the full frame cameras. Period. And of course, that's my opinion based on the camera bodies I had in my hands, so anyone else's experience may differ from mine. But even at sporting events in broad daylight, the images from the 7 just didn't have that crystal clear you-were-there look to them that has become my standard.


----------



## EchoLocation (Feb 22, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> sublime LightWorks said:
> 
> 
> > simonxu11 said:
> ...


My Fiance is Chinese. I need to see this if you have a link. I can get some good translations in later if you have a link.
Sounds epic.


----------



## simonxu11 (Feb 22, 2012)

EchoLocation said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > sublime LightWorks said:
> ...


I have deleted the link!

The guy who did this has apologized to all forum members, so if you got the link please don't post to other forums. Thanks


----------



## jwong (Feb 22, 2012)

NotABunny said:


> The reason why the *entire* image from 5D2 looks cleaner is because it has a sensor that is 1.6 * 1.6 (= the crop factor) times larger than that of 7D. This is 2.56 times, meaning that it's log2( 2.56 ) = 1.35 stops cleaner. This is the expected difference.
> 
> This happens because images have a physical size, and this size is the size of the sensor. The larger sensor captures more light for the same photo. This can't be seen practically because the images are always scaled to display / paper size (= the same physical size), but with different scales. The images made by a sensor as large as a display don't need to be scaled at all (compared to a small FF sensor) and would therefore show stupefyingly low noise levels (for the entire photo). Unfortunately, the lens needs to be proportional in diameter.



Just curious, but what is the tradeoff between size of the photosites versus low light performance? If I understand the thesis correctly, a higher density wouldn't hurt in uncropped situations but would help for cropping situations, but how about in extremely low light situations. How does the noise floor for larger photosites compare to smaller photosites? Signal strength could be thought to be proportional to area (L^2), but how about noise? Is it something less than than L^2? If it is, then there is a trade between resolution and low light performance.


----------

