# The Canon 5D line and AF...



## jrista (Jan 26, 2012)

So with all the rumors about the Canon 5D III, there is obviously a lot of speculation about what features it may have. I've noticed that when people post their ideas about what they expect in a 5D III body, they inevitably contain some form of "7D AF". I'm curious where that idea comes from. Personally, I see the 5D III positioned very differently, and as far as I can tell _very appropriately_, in the canon lineup compared to the 1D X and the 7D lines. I see the 5D line as a camera primarily (but not solely) tuned for landscape, weddings, studio, amateur astrophotography (know or know of a fair amount of people who use the 5D II for this), extreme macro (100mm f/2.8 and MP-E 65mm stuff...where low noise large pixel really helps gather the necessary light at necessarily tight apertures) and DSLR video work. In pretty much all of those cases, and many of the more fringe use cases, there does not appear to be a strong need for high FPS and super-awesome AF. When it comes to landscape, astrophotography, and video/cinematography, and macro autofocus is pretty much useless in any respect...manual focus really reigns king. The need for AF for other kinds of photography that you might use a 5D III for such as weddings, generally don't involve the kind of crazy high speed action you might find in motorcross; ski and snowboarding; baseball, football, soccer, etc; even wildlife and bird photography. 

Granted, the bottom-rung AF system the 5D II has is definitely not worthy of a professional-grade camera, and NEEDS to be replaced...however is a top of the line AF system designed for AI Servo type continuous tracking of high speed subjects really necessary? Am I missing something in thinking that the 5D III needs an improvement to its AF system, but nothing on the level of the 7D? Am I not fully realizing the primary ways that the 5D II is used that would warrant a high speed AF system, and why a 1D X wouldn't be used instead? I'm mostly just curious, but also wondering if Canon has positioned the 5D line incorrectly according to the people who are interested in buying one and expect a top notch AF system like the 7D's.


----------



## Jim K (Jan 26, 2012)

Are you saying that an AF move up to the level of the 50D would be OK with the market when the 7D AF has been around for a few years now? I would NOT expect to see 1D level AF in the 5D3 but something better than 9 cross points would be nice and probably expected by many purchasers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> Am I missing something in thinking that the 5D III needs an improvement to its AF system, but nothing on the level of the 7D? Am I not fully realizing the primary ways that the 5D II is used that would warrant a high speed AF system, and why a 1D X wouldn't be used instead?



I think you're essentially correct, but to be blunt, what you're 'missing' is human nature. People want a Porsche Carrera for the price of a Honda CR-V. People want a 5,000 sq. ft. house on three acres close to the city for the price of a condo in the suburbs. People want a 1D X for the price of a 5DII...or a T3 if they could get it. They hedge it back to sound reasonable - '5 fps is fine' or 'I'll even accept the now-outdated 1DsIII AF' or 'how about only 4,000 sq. ft. and one acre' but I think the rationale is the same. 

And let me go on record as saying that I'm certainly not opposed to any of that! But nor do I think it's realistic, and I am prepared to pay the 1D X price for the 1D X features. Now...where's my $400 24-70mm f/2.8 II kit lens to go with that 1D X? :


----------



## jrista (Jan 26, 2012)

@neuroanatomist: Hah! Yeah, it may be as simple as human nature. I have always tried to be realistic in my expectations...and perhaps that itself is not particularly realistic...it certainly doesn't seem "normal".


----------



## Axilrod (Jan 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> So with all the rumors about the Canon 5D III, there is obviously a lot of speculation about what features it may have. I've noticed that when people post their ideas about what they expect in a 5D III body, they inevitably contain some form of "7D AF". I'm curious where that idea comes from. Personally, I see the 5D III positioned very differently, and as far as I can tell _very appropriately_, in the canon lineup compared to the 1D X and the 7D lines. I see the 5D line as a camera primarily (but not solely) tuned for landscape, weddings, studio, amateur astrophotography (know or know of a fair amount of people who use the 5D II for this), extreme macro (100mm f/2.8 and MP-E 65mm stuff...where low noise large pixel really helps gather the necessary light at necessarily tight apertures) and DSLR video work. In pretty much all of those cases, and many of the more fringe use cases, there does not appear to be a strong need for high FPS and super-awesome AF. When it comes to landscape, astrophotography, and video/cinematography, and macro autofocus is pretty much useless in any respect...manual focus really reigns king. The need for AF for other kinds of photography that you might use a 5D III for such as weddings, generally don't involve the kind of crazy high speed action you might find in motorcross; ski and snowboarding; baseball, football, soccer, etc; even wildlife and bird photography.
> 
> Granted, the bottom-rung AF system the 5D II has is definitely not worthy of a professional-grade camera, and NEEDS to be replaced...however is a top of the line AF system designed for AI Servo type continuous tracking of high speed subjects really necessary? Am I missing something in thinking that the 5D III needs an improvement to its AF system, but nothing on the level of the 7D? Am I not fully realizing the primary ways that the 5D II is used that would warrant a high speed AF system, and why a 1D X wouldn't be used instead? I'm mostly just curious, but also wondering if Canon has positioned the 5D line incorrectly according to the people who are interested in buying one and expect a top notch AF system like the 7D's.



Hmmm, you don't have a 5DII in your sig, interesting that you bash and marginalize the camera's AF system. Is that all based on stuff you've read from other people? It's going on 4 years old, so sure it could be better, but it really isn't that bad. I think more of the problem is user error, using the wrong setting or combination of settings. 

Think about how many people bought 5DIIs that had barely any photography experience (I was one of them, although I had a T2i for 8 months beforehand). Now think about how easily those people may have overlooked something and how quick they may have been to judge. Plus you have a bunch of fools on the internet telling them "oh it sucks," so they go take 3 pictures and 1 is out of focus and they figure "oh well the internet said it sucks so it must suck, couldn't be me."

That's pretty much what happen to me, I played around with it, remembered that everyone had said that it sucked, and figured that it must have. But then months later I played around with the settings some more and realized that it really wasn't bad at all (and this was shooting my dogs running full speed).

And I'm sure tons of those people went out and tried to shoot sports and other fast-moving stuff, and that's setting yourself up for disappointment. The 5D was never marketed as a fast sports camera, not at all. Sure the 5D may not be the best, but if you're doing studio work it does absolutely fine. 

Neuro is right, people take the best aspects of multiple cameras and smash them all together and hope that they get one cure-all camera, but it just doesn't work like that. All of them are fantasizing and they all want a single, dirt cheap camera to come out that does everything that they personally want it to do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2012)

I wonder...do Hassleblad users complain about the number of AF points and fps (or is that spf)?


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 26, 2012)

I don't shoot sports or birds and for me, the 5DII AF system seems to work OK so far.

If I did shoot sports or birds, it sure seems that the +1.6x on my EF lenses would be nice on the 7D, which has a nice AF system (that I do not know how to use about 90% of).

Something between the current 5D and the 7D would be nice.

One thing I am sure of, is that it will take a LOT for me to move to the 5DIII and even more to move to the 1Dx.

New AF by itself won't do it.

It would take a new AF system and weather sealing at a minimum for me to move up. Even then, it needs to be priced no more than 1/2 of a 1Dx. 

The 7D and 5DII take some pretty damn good pictures as they are right now.

I would really like a split focusing screen for the 5DII...

$.02


----------



## Picsfor (Jan 26, 2012)

OK, i'm one of the biggest complainers of the 5D2 AF, i've had it for 3 years and was definitely shown how to use maximise it to its fullest - courtesy of Experience Seminars (they really are wizards where Canon are concerned).

I do not expect it to give me sports/ wildlife quality AF or AI Servo. I didn't buy it for those purposes.
I used it a kids football event last year and for the most part it handled the event very well.

What i always say, and i do not think it is unreasonable, is that ALL 9 points should be full cross type. If they could be spread out a fraction more, then i would be happy, but i'm realistic in how difficult it is to spread the AF points to the corners of the lens.

Oooh, split focusing - that was nice - and is available for the 5D2 - just buy the split focusing AF screen...

Now, human nature aside, am i asking too much? Especially on a 5D3/X or 3DXs Ultra Ti - what ever its called?
Furthermore, if, as seems to be the thinking, the 5D2 replacement is gonna stick at 22mp, then it needs something to get the likes of me to part with my cash, cos 1mp and an extra stop in ISO and DR ain't gonna do it! Even that wonderful battery grip (nice though it is), ain't gonna do it either.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 26, 2012)

An OEM Canon split screen is what I would like. Far as I know, this is only available through 3rd party vendors.

The 5DIII will need to be a game changer. I don't envision many people upgrading for incremental improvements "just because".

It will be interesting to see what is released.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> The 5DIII will need to be a game changer. I don't envision many people upgrading for incremental improvements "just because".



Will it? Playing devil's advocate here - I woner what percentage of 5DII sales came from 5D upgraders? Probably high at first, but sales of the 5DII have been strong since its release. I would think the 5D owners who were chomping at the bit (similar to many 5DII owners here) got their orders in fairly quickly, given the limited initial supply. At this point, how many people who don't own a 5DII are just waiting around for the newest 'affordable' FF camera rather than buying one that was released in 2008? Even if it's only a little better, they'd likely buy it. Plus, many people seem to _still_ be buying the 5DII! In other words, there may not be a tremendous desire/need on the part of Canon to make the 5DIII a game changer.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 26, 2012)

Yes, human nature is all fine and good, but the point is, amongst the professional photographer inner circle, the 5D2's AF is the butt of all jokes, especially looking at competition... Know how many conferences and seminars I go to in which the presenter shooting with a 5d2 has to throw in a slight that they cannot lock focus because of the cameras AF... As any wedding photographers how many times they wanted to take a photo in a dim room just to have the canon's AF hunt and miss the shot. Heck, I used the camera in a family fun center and the AF struggled in one shot AND continuous... And it's not like we're asking for all new R&D considering the 7D has it and even the even older 50D has a slightly better AF in that all points are cross sensors. If the 7D didn't have it and nikon did, well we can talk about tradeoff's MP vs AF and the dark side, etc... But now that the 7D has it, It'd be like the bottom of the line mustang having a stronger faster engine than the models above it.


----------



## traveller (Jan 26, 2012)

I think that the argument that 5D users don't need and don't really want a top-of-the-line AF system because they mainly shoot static subject is a case of the tail wagging the dog. 5D users don't tend to shoot action with it because it's a pretty poor tool for this task when compared to most of the Canon prosumer range. If you read a lot of members signatures who own the 5D MkII, they often also own the 7D; my guess is that they're using the latter for action photography. The argument is often made that Canon makes more money pursuing this strategy because people buy two cameras. This may be true, but the other way of looking at it would be to ask how many people who only own a 7D would have bought a 5D if it had a better AF system? 

The other famous line is that we shouldn't expect a pro quality AF system in a non-pro camera; presumably this privilege is now reserved for Nikon shooters only! I find it interesting that the price charged for these 'non-pro' bodies now exceeds what a film era pro body used to cost. I know that we're paying for a sensor and associated electronics, but the affordability point remains. In the film era there were many 'serious amateurs' that could afford to buy the top of the line camera, but these days the vast majority of photographers that don't earn a living from their art, simply cannot afford or cannot justify the enormous price tags associated with the 1D X and D4 etc.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 26, 2012)

What about the D800 effect


----------



## jrista (Jan 26, 2012)

traveller said:


> I think that the argument that 5D users don't need and don't really want a top-of-the-line AF system because they mainly shoot static subject is a case of the tail wagging the dog. 5D users don't tend to shoot action with it because it's a pretty poor tool for this task when compared to most of the Canon prosumer range. If you read a lot of members signatures who own the 5D MkII, they often also own the 7D; my guess is that they're using the latter for action photography. The argument is often made that Canon makes more money pursuing this strategy because people buy two cameras. This may be true, but the other way of looking at it would be to ask how many people who only own a 7D would have bought a 5D if it had a better AF system?



Sure, it does indeed seem to be common, and as soon as the 5D III/X comes out, I'll be another one in that camp. But, that also begs the question...if you are willing to spend $2800 on a 5D II and $1800 on a 7D, plus a few hundred bucks to get a battery grip for each...your nearing $5000 in list price cost. For such individuals, wouldn't just buying a 1D IV or a 1D X give them everything they need in a single package...and one that is likely to have a much longer lifespan, for $6000-$6800? If you really NEED it all, and regularly switch back and forth between the two bodies, a more capable camera that actually does meet all your needs seems more logical than pining away for the end-all, be-all solves-every-problem 5D III. 



traveller said:


> The other famous line is that we shouldn't expect a pro quality AF system in a non-pro camera; presumably this privilege is now reserved for Nikon shooters only! I find it interesting that the price charged for these 'non-pro' bodies now exceeds what a film era pro body used to cost. I know that we're paying for a sensor and associated electronics, but the affordability point remains. In the film era there were many 'serious amateurs' that could afford to buy the top of the line camera, but these days the vast majority of photographers that don't earn a living from their art, simply cannot afford or cannot justify the enormous price tags associated with the 1D X and D4 etc.



I never claimed that the 5D line did *not* need a better AF system. I think I made an explicit point about stating the current 5D AF is indeed bottom of the barrel, and needs some improvement. My curiosity is about why, when I look at the "wish lists" of everyone who is dying for a 5D III...7D AF (not 7D-esqe or 7D like, but 7D actual) is always on the list. In the cases where its not the 7D AF, its the 1DsIII AF, or something similar. YES, the 5D III/X needs better AF...but does anyone who is "predicting" what they think the 5D III will be REALLY believe that it will get a TOP of the line (not just Pro grade, but best pro grade) sports-ready AF system? 

Just doesn't seem logical to me. And I think neuro nailed it...its just human nature to want everything for the price of nothing.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 26, 2012)

I respect Neuro's views in the analogy of people expecting wine on a beer budget, however it must also be appreciated that Canon cripples functionality in some models to protect other models.... it is *this* spread that at least I refer to where Canon can offer more for the same price. We have given Canon our business,our support and our loyalty... we should be able to expect that which the competition gives out in similar models ... and what some people give out for free without thinking we are not getting treated fairly. I will probably upset a couple of folks here, but I just hold Canon to a slightly higher standard.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 26, 2012)

K-amps said:


> I respect Neuro's views in the analogy of people expecting wine on a beer budget, however it must also be considered that Canon cripples functionality in some models to protect other models.... it is *this* spread that at least I refer to where Canon can offer more for the same price.



+1 on that. Of course they do - they have to, from a marketing standpoint (do I beat that horse too hard?). 

Consider - the 1Ds series and 5 series are both FF cameras. For almost any component, once it's been developed for a 1Ds-line body, that component could be dropped into a 5-series body design with little or no additional R&D effort, and in many cases, such as the AF sensor and microlens arrangement, probably almost no additional production cost that would need to be passed along in the final price. They could have taken the 1DsII AF system and used it in the 5DII pretty easily, I would think. 

Consider firmware - I would think that firmware for a new camera would not be developed from scratch, but rather modified from the predecessor - if that's the case, they had to exert resources to _remove_ AFMA from the 50D's firmware when updating it for the 60D. 

So...Canon _can_ offer more for the same price - whether or not they actually do depends on their estimate of how particular features will affect sales, both against their other models and against other manufacturers.


----------



## thepancakeman (Jan 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> For such individuals, wouldn't just buying a 1D IV or a 1D X give them everything they need in a single package...and one that is likely to have a much longer lifespan, for $6000-$6800?



Except for a backup camera,  which IMHO is not a minor consideration for most shooting ops outside of landscape and chasing the kids around the house.


----------



## Picsfor (Jan 26, 2012)

Neuro made the point that 5D owners were chomping at the bit to upgrade to the 5D2 because...

Come on, let's be honest here - the 5D2 was as much a game changer as the 5D upon its release.
21mp FF - same sensor size as a £5k+ 1Ds3. HD Video. A usable 6400 ISO (remember, at this point the D3 was still fresh out the stable - D3s hadn't even been thought of as a rumour let alone released) - extending to 25k (which was the D3's range...).

As said, 3 years down the line, and in all fairness no one has still managed to match it.

So, to say that the 5D2 replacement has to be a game changer is not exactly an unfair expectation.
No, we do not expect 32mp, we do not expect 408k ISO, nor do we expect 14 fps and 1Dx focusing.

But their are a lot of areas that require small improvements that would make you think, 'sod it, i've had enough i'm trading up to a 5D3 cos i want this issue fixed and it is in the 5D3'

Improved AF would help, that battery grip with duplicated joystick would also be another factor for those of us who have our 5D2's bolted to one. Just examples - not the definitive list or argument.


----------



## unfocused (Jan 26, 2012)

I'm going to be kind of disappointed when the 5DIII comes out and I have to go back to threads that endlessly debate megapixels, sensor size, and ISO noise. 

Really though, I Keep thinking that all Canon really needs to do with the next 5D to make still photographers happy is put the 7D autofocus system in it and call it good. Oh...and put out a new battery grip that has a wheel on it. Which means they need to change the specs enough so that the old grip won't work with the new model and maybe you need new batteries as well. (Yes, they may throw in a few other bells and whistles, but no "game changers")

I can hold firmly to this position until the 5DIII is announced and I'm proven wrong. But, here is my logic: 


Hardly anyone complains about anything except the autofocus;
There has to be enough room between the 5DIII and the 1Dx to justify the cost differential;
Ultra-high ISO speeds are a necessity for the 1Dx market, but an option for most 5DIII users;
Bomb-proof construction and weather-sealing is a necessity for the 1Dx market, but an option for most 5DIII users.


If Canon is truly interested in moving APS-C customers up to full frame, this offers an affordable path, since the price can be kept at or close to the 5DII's price. 

I still think that any big changes in the 5DIII will be concentrated in the video realm. I think Canon sees video as the growth market. (Their recent product releases indicate that). I firmly believe Canon had no idea how popular the 5DII would be for video. They are now watching the massive growth in internet and independent video and comparing that to the anemic growth in DSLR sales. They know that they currently own the DSLR video market and want to protect that market. (Face it guys: we still DSLR photographers are dinosaurs)

So, my logic: give the still photographers the minimum that they want: better autofocus; and give videographers more than they hoped for.


----------



## t.linn (Jan 26, 2012)

This is a frustrating conversation to me, this "wine on a beer budget" analogy, because the analogy limps badly. As others have correctly pointed out, many features are not missing because of cost but because of positioning. Auto-ISO in manual mode, for example, is not missing because of cost.

I understand the importance of positioning and its relevance to profitability. But taken to the extreme it becomes the opposite of competing for a customer's business. It becomes a process of holding back as much value as possible in order to parcel it out in small portions at the customer's expense. Canon, more than any other camera company, seems to think it has enough momentum and market share to focus on maximizing profitability rather than customer satisfaction. Maybe they are right in the short term but I think this will cost them in the long term. I believe Sony, in particular, has the resources to eventually make them pay for this approach.

And this "the 5D was never intended for sports" argument is B.S. I shoot landscapes and wildlife but I'd also like to occasionally shoot my son's football games. It is NOT too much to expect a $2700 camera body to do both. When cheaper Canon DSLR's offer demonstrably superior AF systems, it is positioning rather than cost that is driving design. Nikon is certainly able to put their pro-AF system in a body at a 5DII price. 

But let's say price is no object. I should just buy a 1DX, right? No, I don't want to hike 10 miles into the backcountry with a cinder block in my pack. It's not just a question of wanting wine on a beer budget. It's about wanting the right tool for the job.


----------



## jrista (Jan 26, 2012)

thepancakeman said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > For such individuals, wouldn't just buying a 1D IV or a 1D X give them everything they need in a single package...and one that is likely to have a much longer lifespan, for $6000-$6800?
> ...



Certainly can't disagree on that point, and its an excellent point.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 26, 2012)

t.linn said:


> This is a frustrating conversation to me, this "wine on a beer budget" analogy, because the analogy limps badly. As others have correctly pointed out, many features are not missing because of cost but because of positioning. Auto-ISO in manual mode, for example, is not missing because of cost.
> 
> I understand the importance of positioning and its relevance to profitability. But taken to the extreme it becomes the opposite of competing for a customer's business. It becomes a process of holding back as much value as possible in order to parcel it out in small portions at the customer's expense. Canon, more than any other camera company, seems to think it has enough momentum and market share to focus on maximizing profitability rather than customer satisfaction. Maybe they are right in the short term but I think this will cost them in the long term. I believe Sony, in particular, has the resources to eventually make them pay for this approach.
> 
> ...



+1 well actually +100. For the price bracket, it needs to at least be able to keep up with my 4 year old... I'm not asking for it to keep up with pro athletes running at me in my direction. When a newly married coupld is slow dancing on their first dance and the AF locks on the grooms ear and not the eye... stuff like this needs to be fixed. I'm not asking for them to reinvent the wheel... Just give me 7d af, levels, custom button programming and maybe flash command or 7d sealing... the rest I'm willing to compromise to give the 1d flagship status.


----------



## jrista (Jan 26, 2012)

unfocused said:


> I'm going to be kind of disappointed when the 5DIII comes out and I have to go back to threads that endlessly debate megapixels, sensor size, and ISO noise.
> 
> Really though, I Keep thinking that all Canon really needs to do with the next 5D to make still photographers happy is put the 7D autofocus system in it and call it good. Oh...and put out a new battery grip that has a wheel on it. Which means they need to change the specs enough so that the old grip won't work with the new model and maybe you need new batteries as well. (Yes, they may throw in a few other bells and whistles, but no "game changers")
> 
> ...



Good arguments, and I agree that the AF is probably the only thing that has kept me from just biting the bullet buying a 5D II. It really is bottom of the barrel. I'm still curious why it has to be 7D AF though. Is there not some kind of happy medium that would satisfy the "pro grade", without also being top end? I mean, 19 CROSS-TYPE AF points, with all the zone and expansion selections, is fairly expensive...not as expensive as 40, but expensive nonetheless. How would a more advanced AF system like that affect the cost of a 5D III? I am really hoping for a $2800 price tag...I don't want to have to spend $3200 or $3500 for all the extra features like high end AF that I already have on my 7D (which, coincidentally, is better for the action stuff anyway given its cropped sensor and greater "reach".)


----------



## unfocused (Jan 26, 2012)

> I'm still curious why it has to be 7D AF though.



Candidly, I'm just using the 7D autofocus as shorthand for any improved system. I only referenced the 7D system because it's already developed and would probably be cheap to graft onto a 5D. Same could be said for the 1D autofocus I imagine. Or, it could be some hybrid.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> unfocused said:
> 
> 
> > I'm going to be kind of disappointed when the 5DIII comes out and I have to go back to threads that endlessly debate megapixels, sensor size, and ISO noise.
> ...



That's the problem... for them to reinvent a new AF such as 13 or whatever would be a whole new R&D and possibly new costs for doing such... 7D, all they need it to do is work for a FF sensor and bobs your uncle, it's good to go. Plus, those who are prior 7D users wont want to go from a 19 point AF to 13 let alone 9. I've made the jump/drop depending on how you look at it and it's a big jump/drop. Thank god I still have my 7d, but i'm holding on to that sucker until the 5d produces a product where I dont need the 7d any more.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 26, 2012)

t.linn said:


> I believe Sony, in particular, has the resources to eventually make them pay for this approach.
> It is NOT too much to expect a $2700 camera body to do both. When cheaper Canon DSLR's offer demonstrably superior AF systems, it is positioning rather than cost that is driving design.



+1: I have said it before, once Sony can release good lenses at reasonable prices, there will be a shift. I hope Canon is proactive about this.


----------



## jrista (Jan 26, 2012)

t.linn said:


> And this "the 5D was never intended for sports" argument is B.S.



I very much beg to differ! I think its been clear since the 5D that Canon is purposely positioning the 5D line to fill other markets, and they are intentionally protecting the market segment for their 1D line. Its not surprising, its expected, and responsible for the company to do that as well. The advanced AF features of the 1D line are incredibly expensive to design, develop, and manufacture. A single high precision diagonal cross-type sensor is no simple feat, and when there are 20, 40, or 60 of them in a system, that definitely increases cost. They need at least one market segment to help fund those advanced features, and the market segment that most needs them is the logical choice.

So yes, I strongly believe that the 5D was NEVER intended for sports. If it was, it would either be much more expensive, or the 1D sales would have disappeared.


----------



## awinphoto (Jan 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> t.linn said:
> 
> 
> > And this "the 5D was never intended for sports" argument is B.S.
> ...



Just the way the D700 and D300 and D300s made the D3, D3s and D4 disappear right? Different companies but just saying.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 26, 2012)

I would suggest the 1Ds3 AF system - already developed and has 45 points. Works very well


----------



## well_dunno (Jan 26, 2012)

Hello all,

Even though product crippling is a common way of market segmentation in the markets where there are huge amount of customers and only a few suppliers, it takes only one of the suppliers to "do otherwise" to change the rule of the game. Now DSLR market has an investment piece in it due to the interchangeable lenses which would slow down any change (yes, there are other marketing terms that could be added in favour of the slow down but change it would be nevertheless). 

I think we should also keep in mind that Sony and Panasonic have a lot of experience in this kind of markets - probably more than the other players in the DSLR market. I would not be surprised if they are just trying to close the tech gap in different areas and waiting for the "opportune moment" to take the lead. With that in mind, it would make sense for the usual DSLR players to play on the confidence of their customers, basicly, because that confidence might provide some additional time before people change brands and mean survival in the market ultimately.

Thus, I am hopeful about less crippled models in the near future. After all, didn't Canon state they would change the market segmentation this year?

Just my thoughts...

Cheers!


----------



## K-amps (Jan 26, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> Just the way the D700 and D300 and D300s made the D3, D3s and D4 disappear right? Different companies but just saying.





briansquibb said:


> I would suggest the 1Ds3 AF system - already developed and has 45 points. Works very well



+1 to both.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 26, 2012)

well_dunno said:


> Thus, I am hopeful about less crippled models in the near future. After all, didn't Canon state they would change the market segmentation this year?
> 
> Just my thoughts...
> 
> Cheers!



I hope you are right on less crippled models. Like I would not mind a $3.4k body like the 1dx with only life of 200k shutters instead of 400k... heck they could even reduce the fps to 6-7 and AF points form 61 to 30.5 

But on a serious note: Do you guys think 4 lines on the APS-C side is a bit too much? Either the xxx or the xx model needs to go.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 26, 2012)

K-amps said:


> well_dunno said:
> 
> 
> > Thus, I am hopeful about less crippled models in the near future. After all, didn't Canon state they would change the market segmentation this year?
> ...



Make the 70D replace the 7D
Add a 6D with APS-H with 22mp (for video)
Dump the 7D as an APS-C sensor will be left behind so not be a semi pro camera


----------



## waving_odd (Jan 26, 2012)

I remember people whined a lot about AF when they were expecting 5D2 to replace the old 5D.

5D2 is still a big blockbuster.

Now people are asking for 7D AF or similar (or even 1Ds3 AF or similar) on 5D3.

I guess there's nothing wrong to be wishful especially in the rumor lands. But don't be too optimistic since Canon is reading consumer behavior quite differently.


----------



## tooslick2k (Jan 26, 2012)

Is there any reason WHY the 5D3 should NOT have a 7D AF? Everyone is commenting about how we dont need it or how its not a sports camera, but nobody has come out with a good reason it should not receive an already developed AF which is doing a great job; but instead 7D users seem to want canon to develop one that is better than the 5D2 but not as good as the 7D. Everyone has their reasons for selecting their camera, however just cause you really like something thats on yours does not mean it cant be integrated into the next camera up. 

Am I wrong?


----------



## waving_odd (Jan 26, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> People want a Porsche Carrera for the price of a Honda CR-V.



Since the OP is not mentioning the price concern, I guess a closer analogy would be like that people love a Porsche Carrera for its performance (as IQ in case of 5D2) but think it will be more all-around if it can have 4 doors and better comfort for rear passengers (as AF in case of 7D / 1D)

So Porsche makes the Panamera.

And BMW makes a 4-door M3.

That's why I said Canon is reading consumer behavior or market demand differently either on purpose (by marketing analysis) or unintentionally (by ignorance).


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 26, 2012)

tooslick2k said:


> Is there any reason WHY the 5D3 should NOT have a 7D AF?



Because they can have a better one?? 8) 8)


----------



## jrista (Jan 26, 2012)

tooslick2k said:


> Is there any reason WHY the 5D3 should NOT have a 7D AF? Everyone is commenting about how we dont need it or how its not a sports camera, but nobody has come out with a good reason it should not receive an already developed AF which is doing a great job; but instead 7D users seem to want canon to develop one that is better than the 5D2 but not as good as the 7D. Everyone has their reasons for selecting their camera, however just cause you really like something thats on yours does not mean it cant be integrated into the next camera up.
> 
> Am I wrong?



For one, the 7D AF is designed for an APS-C sensor, mirror, and viewfinder. I don't believe it would work without modification on a full-frame sensor camera, given point spread and mirror size/design and the like. From what I understand about AF units, they have to be designed for the size of the sensor and mirror unit. Given that, I don't think its quite as simple as simply using an already-designed AF unit from an APS-H or APS-C camera and just stuffing it inside of a 5D. It would take some development effort to develop a 7D-like AF unit for the 5D III to make sure it has the right frame spread, works with the larger 5D mirror, etc. Thats ultimately where my confusion boils down...sure, it would be nice to have 7D AF...for a 5D II price...but they would have to design something 7D-like FOR THE 5D III. 

The only other high-speed full-frame AF unit that I know of from Canon is the 1D X unit...so the options are fairly limited... You either develop a new 7D-style 19-point unit for the 5D, or suck in a far more advanced and considerably more expensive model from the 1D X (which would never happen, but for arguments sake). Either way, you increase the cost of the 5D III by a fairly considerable amount.


----------



## waving_odd (Jan 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> The only other high-speed full-frame AF unit that I know of from Canon is the 1D X unit...so the options are fairly limited...



There is the 1Ds III too.


----------



## briansquibb (Jan 26, 2012)

jrista said:


> The only other high-speed full-frame AF unit that I know of from Canon is the 1D X unit...



The 1Ds3 is ff and 21mp and has 45 point AF


----------



## tooslick2k (Jan 27, 2012)

jrista said:


> For one, the 7D AF is designed for an APS-C sensor, mirror, and viewfinder. I don't believe it would work without modification on a full-frame sensor camera, given point spread and mirror size/design and the like. From what I understand about AF units, they have to be designed for the size of the sensor and mirror unit. Given that, I don't think its quite as simple as simply using an already-designed AF unit from an APS-H or APS-C camera and just stuffing it inside of a 5D. It would take some development effort to develop a 7D-like AF unit for the 5D III to make sure it has the right frame spread, works with the larger 5D mirror, etc. Thats ultimately where my confusion boils down...sure, it would be nice to have 7D AF...for a 5D II price...but they would have to design something 7D-like FOR THE 5D III.
> 
> The only other high-speed full-frame AF unit that I know of from Canon is the 1D X unit...so the options are fairly limited... You either develop a new 7D-style 19-point unit for the 5D, or suck in a far more advanced and considerably more expensive model from the 1D X (which would never happen, but for arguments sake). Either way, you increase the cost of the 5D III by a fairly considerable amount.



I agree, getting a 1DX AF would NEVER happen. However when the only argument about the 5D2 not being perfect is that it has an outdated AF. 

I think if the price went up to account for a 19pt AF in the 5D3, I dont think it would affect anyone from not spending the extra money. After all its what everyone wants.


----------



## jrista (Jan 27, 2012)

tooslick2k said:


> I agree, getting a 1DX AF would NEVER happen. However when the only argument about the 5D2 not being perfect is that it has an outdated AF.
> 
> I think if the price went up to account for a 19pt AF in the 5D3, I dont think it would affect anyone from not spending the extra money. After all its what everyone wants.



Possibly. I guess it would depend on how much it affected price. A $3500 5D III is a significant increase over $2500-$2800. If you factor in a new 7D-style AF unit, an improved sensor, and other improvements (fix all the small things people complain about on a regular basis) and some significant improvements to video, maybe its not such a hard sell to most people...


----------



## tooslick2k (Jan 27, 2012)

jrista said:


> tooslick2k said:
> 
> 
> > I agree, getting a 1DX AF would NEVER happen. However when the only argument about the 5D2 not being perfect is that it has an outdated AF.
> ...



haha! could not agree more!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2012)

tooslick2k said:


> Is there any reason WHY the 5D3 should NOT have a 7D AF? Everyone is commenting about how we dont need it or how its not a sports camera, but nobody has come out with a good reason it should not receive an already developed AF which is doing a great job.
> 
> Am I wrong?



Yes and no. There is no technical reason why Canon cannot put a better AF system in the 5DIII, such as the AF system from the 1DsIII, now that it has been supplanted by the 1D X. 

But...answer me this - if there's no reason WHY the 5DIII shouldn't have a better AF system, WHY should the 5DII not have gotten a better AF system? There was the 1DsII AF, which had been supplanted by the 1DsIII. Heck, even the original 1Ds AF system was far better than the 5D's, and relatively old by then. 

So...WHY not? Market-driven segmentation of the camera lines. Those reasons applied then, and they apply now.

Put another way, Canon is looking at the entire dSLR market as a whole, and seeking the way to extract the maximum amount of revenue from that market with the minimum investment - i.e. the most profit they can make. That's going to result in complaints from many people...but as long as the *shareholders* are not the ones complaining, Canon can turn a deaf ear to everyone else. You and me included.


----------



## tooslick2k (Jan 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> tooslick2k said:
> 
> 
> > Is there any reason WHY the 5D3 should NOT have a 7D AF? Everyone is commenting about how we dont need it or how its not a sports camera, but nobody has come out with a good reason it should not receive an already developed AF which is doing a great job.
> ...



I figured that back when the 1Ds and 1D lines were still existent they wouldnt want to get all their lines so close together. Now that the lines merged its more practical to give it a much better AF so that the close the gap left by the 1Ds.... sort to speak. But maybe not.


----------



## waving_odd (Jan 27, 2012)

tooslick2k said:


> I think if the price went up to account for a 19pt AF in the 5D3, _*I dont think it would affect anyone from not spending the extra money*_. After all its what everyone wants.



Willing or not to spend the extra money is subjective.



jrista said:


> A $3500 5D III is a _*significant increase*_ over $2500-$2800.



Again, significant or not is really subjective.



neuroanatomist said:


> So...WHY not? Market-driven segmentation of the camera lines.



Bang on.

All of us just plays a small part in the market. Obviously Canon must have done some analysis of what the market wants. A lot of different people with different opinions make up the market. Canon won't satisfy each one of them, but aggregate them. Therefore there are trade-offs (features, prices, availability, competition). And the product with trade-offs is what they announce.

If they sell nicely, their analysis works and they will stick even closer. This might be the case of the 5D line.

If they sell poorly, they will re-work on the next model with different approach on the market analysis.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 27, 2012)

I would disagree.

I would suspect that there are many people sitting on the fence for a 5DII purchase, waiting for the 5DIII.

If/when the 5DIII comes out, one would assume that there needs to be enough differentiation between the two models to push people to buy the III. People are still buying the 5DI.

If the III is plenty more $$$ than the II, then there needs to be a reason why.

For those that own the II, there needs to be a reason to buy the latest one, unless money isn't part of the decision making process.

Even if the 5DIII is given the 7D AF system, there is still the 1.6 crop thing. I can take pictures with a 7D + 200mm, but I would need at least 320mm with the 5DII. Others have said it before, the 7D is like a really nice teleconverter. Wide angle shots do not look "right" to me on the 7D, so there is the "need" for a full frame. Selling both and replacing both with a single FF body doesn't really work the same. I use my 5DII much more than the 7D, but I see no need to sell it right now (big hit on the used market).

Buying one of those $10k lenses isn't an option for me, either.

So, unless the 5DIII is a game changer, I'm keeping what I have until the next product cycle. I suspect I am not alone. I hope that someone at Canon feels the same.

My 20+ year old film camera works just fine. As a hobbyist, I can't justify $2 to $3k every few years unless there is a *really* big improvement in the product or my wallet.







neuroanatomist said:


> Will it? Playing devil's advocate here - I woner what percentage of 5DII sales came from 5D upgraders? Probably high at first, but sales of the 5DII have been strong since its release. I would think the 5D owners who were chomping at the bit (similar to many 5DII owners here) got their orders in fairly quickly, given the limited initial supply. At this point, how many people who don't own a 5DII are just waiting around for the newest 'affordable' FF camera rather than buying one that was released in 2008? Even if it's only a little better, they'd likely buy it. Plus, many people seem to _still_ be buying the 5DII! In other words, there may not be a tremendous desire/need on the part of Canon to make the 5DIII a game changer.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jan 27, 2012)

danski0224 said:


> If/when the 5DIII comes out, one would assume that there needs to be enough differentiation between the two models to push people to buy the III. People are still buying the 5DI.



People aren't buying the 5D from Canon, and Canon makes no profit from 5D sales today. It's not a meaningful factor for them. If they stop producing/selling the 5DII, people won't be on the fence between the models (from Canon's perspective), they will be on the fence about buying the 5DIII or not. 

Does the used market cut into sales? Not significantly - principally, only to the extent that people quit photography znd dump their gear onto the market. If, after the 5DII is discontinued and the 5DIII comes out (and judging by other releases, that is the correct order of events), if you decide the 5DIII isn't differentiated enough and just go get a 5DII, odds are you'd be buying it from someone who bought a 5DIII or 1D X - which means Canon still gets some of your money, albeit indirectly.


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 27, 2012)

Maybe we'll all find out in a couple of weeks, eh?


----------



## tooslick2k (Jan 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> People aren't buying the 5D from Canon, and Canon makes no profit from 5D sales today. It's not a meaningful factor for them. If they stop producing/selling the 5DII, people won't be on the fence between the models (from Canon's perspective), they will be on the fence about buying the 5DIII or not.
> 
> Does the used market cut into sales? Not significantly - principally, only to the extent that people quit photography znd dump their gear onto the market. If, after the 5DII is discontinued and the 5DIII comes out (and judging by other releases, that is the correct order of events), if you decide the 5DIII isn't differentiated enough and just go get a 5DII, odds are you'd be buying it from someone who bought a 5DIII or 1D X - which means Canon still gets some of your money, albeit indirectly.




+1

I love it when you post things that I want to say saving me the time of having to type it!


----------



## jrista (Jan 27, 2012)

waving_odd said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > A $3500 5D III is a _*significant increase*_ over $2500-$2800.
> ...



In some sense, yes. However were talking about prices that range from $500 to $7000. There is a finite cap on price when it comes to Canon (or pretty much any brand) DSLR cameras. In that respect, $3500 vs. $2500 is a 40% increase in price, and that is meaningful to more people than its not meaningful to. Subjective, yes, but meaningful.


----------



## Maui5150 (Jan 27, 2012)

As much as Canon makes money selling bodies, they also make a heck of a lot selling lenses, etc. 

So while Canon may not "make" money of 5D sales today, they will make money on the person who "upgraded" their body, as well as they will make money from the person who bought they 5D and buys lenses from them. 

While some may look at the used market as cutting into sales, it also allows the early adopters to to recycle their gear at a faster and greater rate than they could otherwise.


----------



## gmrza (Jan 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes and no. There is no technical reason why Canon cannot put a better AF system in the 5DIII, such as the AF system from the 1DsIII, now that it has been supplanted by the 1D X.
> 
> But...answer me this - if there's no reason WHY the 5DIII shouldn't have a better AF system, WHY should the 5DII not have gotten a better AF system? There was the 1DsII AF, which had been supplanted by the 1DsIII. Heck, even the original 1Ds AF system was far better than the 5D's, and relatively old by then.
> 
> ...



I think also, when Canon launched the 5DII, it was easy, from a marketing point of view, for Canon to argue that the 5DII had the edge on the D700 in terms of resolution. Canon probably felt that it had enough of an edge having a 21MP sensor, as opposed to the D700's 12.1MP sensor, not to have to worry about developing a new AF system for the 5DII. (My understanding is that the AF system is exactly the same as in the 5D - I stand open to correction however.)

Given the state of play, in terms of sensors, it will probably be much harder for either Canon or Nikon to argue that one of them has a significant edge in terms of IQ of their sensors now. If Nikon does introduce a 36MP D800, and Canon a 22MP 5DIII, in the consumer market (i.e. non-Pro users) Canon will need to find a different way to differentiate the 5DIII. In the semi-pro and pro market, 80% of users may not even care about the difference between 22MP and 36MP - a niche will prefer 36 over 22.
That would be one argument why Canon might not be able to stick with an AF system that harks back to the 5D. Just how much Canon might think it is necessary to improve the AF in the 5DIII, if Canon believes it is necessary, is an entirely different story.

The 5DII is often bought as a kit (with the 24-105 f/4L IS USM) - because it serves as an "entry level" camera for those moving to either serious enthusiast or professional photography. That means it is often purchased by people who do not already have a big investment in EF lenses. For those purchasers, there is no inertia caused by having an existing investment in glass to protect - they buy mainly on the camera specs. That means a direct comparison to whatever Nikon has to offer is a significant factor. Both Canon and Nikon will be looking to get the "overall recipe" right to win those customers - since they have a high probability of investing significantly in lenses in the future. For that reason, I think Canon will need to reconsider the AF system in the 5D series, and do something which comes closer to competing with Nikon, but at the same time still leaving significant differentiation from the 1DX.


----------



## K-amps (Jan 27, 2012)

Maui5150 said:


> As much as Canon makes money selling bodies, they also make a heck of a lot selling lenses, etc.
> 
> So while Canon may not "make" money of 5D sales today, they will make money on the person who "upgraded" their body, as well as they will make money from the person who bought they 5D and buys lenses from them.
> 
> While some may look at the used market as cutting into sales, it also allows the early adopters to to recycle their gear at a faster and greater rate than they could otherwise.



Well said, they made little money from me on the 5D, but I paid over $4k in lens purchases to dress up the 5D.

EDIT: >4k


----------



## unfocused (Jan 27, 2012)

> Well said, they made little money from me on the 5D, but I paid over $4k in lens purchases to dress up the 5D.



Sadly, if I include Canon strobes, I'm just about there with my 7D. (Don't tell my wife, please.)


----------



## bvukich (Jan 27, 2012)

unfocused said:


> > Well said, they made little money from me on the 5D, but I paid over $4k in lens purchases to dress up the 5D.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, if I include Canon strobes, I'm just about there with my 7D. (Don't tell my wife, please.)



Tell her what?


----------



## danski0224 (Jan 27, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> People aren't buying the 5D from Canon, and Canon makes no profit from 5D sales today. It's not a meaningful factor for them. If they stop producing/selling the 5DII, people won't be on the fence between the models (from Canon's perspective), they will be on the fence about buying the 5DIII or not.
> 
> Does the used market cut into sales? Not significantly - principally, only to the extent that people quit photography znd dump their gear onto the market. If, after the 5DII is discontinued and the 5DIII comes out (and judging by other releases, that is the correct order of events), if you decide the 5DIII isn't differentiated enough and just go get a 5DII, odds are you'd be buying it from someone who bought a 5DIII or 1D X - which means Canon still gets some of your money, albeit indirectly.



True, and also that "used gear" is good enough for someone.

Good enough to not buy new, if new is an option financially and if the product is available.


----------



## AprilForever (Jan 27, 2012)

unfocused said:


> > Well said, they made little money from me on the 5D, but I paid over $4k in lens purchases to dress up the 5D.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, if I include Canon strobes, I'm just about there with my 7D. (Don't tell my wife, please.)



Your secret is safe, mate. 8)


----------



## simonxu11 (Jan 27, 2012)

awinphoto said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > t.linn said:
> ...


+1000000000
Cannot believe someone is still saying"5D was Never intended for sports",so anything more than 9 point AF is intended for sports???   
Then Nikon d3000, d5000, d80 and d90 are all for sports(11 point AF)
Then Nikon d7000 is for super sports(39 point AF)
Then Nikon d300, d300s, d700, d3, d3s and d4 are for Mega sports(51 point AF)

Most of us are not insanely craving for a 1DX focus system not even the 1Ds Mark III's. We just want something close to the 7D's, isn't that too much for a $2500 camera which Nikon can get it done around $1500?????
Remember this 9 point AF was introduced in 2004 on 20D(if I am not wrong), then Canon used it on 20D-60D, 400D-600D, 5D and 5D Mark II(with certain updates of course, but still the basic is the same).
Don't We Deserve Something Better In 2012 Before THE END OF THE WORLD  

Sorry for my poor English, I am a Chinese


----------



## necator (Jan 27, 2012)

*My ideal AF-system*

My whish for a ideal AF-System would be:
9 points, all cross-type, all relieably focos on stills, and also in AF-Servo (So to say: 9 times the middle focus point of the current 5D/5DmkII)
Those 9 Points spread out to the thirds.

That would be Ideal for me, even on a 1D. I do not like those high numbers of focus-points, since changing them takes too long (I own also a 1Ds MK II and also only use the center-point, since changing takes to long).


----------



## jrista (Jan 28, 2012)

simonxu11 said:


> Cannot believe someone is still saying"5D was Never intended for sports",so anything more than 9 point AF is intended for sports???



Alright, lets get all the ducks in a row here. When I say "for sports/action", I think 1D series or D3 series. High end AF systems with loads of cross-type points, advanced tracking algorithms, quality servo control, etc. The 7D would be the lowest end system I can think of that would really qualify as intended sports and action. I see three different qualifications in this respect: designed for, capable of, unusable.

The 5D II with a 9-point AF with a single center cross-type point is NOT *designed for*, and barely *capable of* capturing sports and action. Its *usable for* sports and action, but its far from ideal. Having been stuck with the same type of AF system on my 450D for several years, a single center cross-type point is woefully ineffective to classify such an AF system as "designed for", and in the 450D's case, wasn't really even useful for it either (I shoot birds and wildlife, and so long a they remained very steady or mostly still, AF worked, outside of that, it was the most limiting factor of the camera by a long shot.)

The 7D with its 19-point all cross-type AF, adaptive zones and expansions, and broad point spread over the APS-C sensor area, barely qualifies for what I would say is *designed for*, but is most certainly *capable of and usable for* sports and action. The same would go for the Nikon D700 AF.

The 40/50/60D with its 9-point all cross-type AF is far from *designed for* sports, but is *capable of* and certainly *usable for* sports and action. The same would go for most Nikon AF systems such as the one used in the D7000, etc. (no question that Nikon has nailed AF on the majority of their models, regardless of grade.)

Given the design of the 5D's AF system, no...it was not designed for sports and action photography. If it instead had a thoroughly capable AF system like the 7D's from the start, or even the 40/50/60D AF, my opinion on that front would be different. But the 5D has always had Canon's WORST AF system, and there is no way, given that, you can logically classify it as a body _*intended*_ for sports.

I think the question everyone has is not whether it IS, but whether it SHOULD BE. The answer to that is obviously highly subjective, however I'm inclined to think that the 5D line is simply not positioned within Canon's lineup to be an awesome performer on the AF front. I think it certainly *DESERVES* the 60D AF system...there is no reason the 5D shouldn't have all 9 points fully cross-type, with a high-precision diagonal cross-type in the center. That would at least seem reasonable to me, and wouldn't require more R&D to design a full-frame version of the 7D 19-point AF. They could take the current 9-point design and replace the non-cross points with cross-type points and they should be good to go for a lot less cost than adapting the 7D design. I think it more logically aligns with how the 5D has been positioned in the past, and seems to be a _reasonable_ expectation from Canon regarding 5D AF...something I can be largely confident of actually receiving when Canon finally releases the next generation 5D.

Anyway...thats my reasoning.


----------



## tooslick2k (Jan 29, 2012)

unfocused said:


> Sadly, if I include Canon strobes, I'm just about there with my 7D. (Don't tell my wife, please.)



hahaha +2


----------



## tooslick2k (Jan 29, 2012)

jrista said:


> I think the question everyone has is not whether it IS, but whether it SHOULD BE. The answer to that is obviously highly subjective, however I'm inclined to think that the 5D line is simply not positioned within Canon's lineup to be an awesome performer on the AF front. I think it certainly *DESERVES* the 60D AF system...there is no reason the 5D shouldn't have all 9 points fully cross-type, with a high-precision diagonal cross-type in the center....
> Anyway...thats my reasoning.



Why does everybody insist on believing that the 7D holds a higher value in the line up than the 5D... With the 1d lines merged, the 5D is now in the second position still over the 7D. 

Also, with the 1ds out, shouldn't it get a similar AF to that? Which would mean its still more AF points than the 7D.

Am I wrong?


----------



## traveller (Jan 29, 2012)

jrista said:


> simonxu11 said:
> 
> 
> > Cannot believe someone is still saying"5D was Never intended for sports",so anything more than 9 point AF is intended for sports???
> ...



The 5D MkII has the same af system as the 5D ('classic'), which at the time of the 5D's introduction _was_ Canon's 2nd best af after the 1D series (and EOS 3). It was designed to cover a greater horizontal area than the 20D's 9 point af system, as well as having 6 assist points when using AI Servo mode. Thus it was designed to be superior to the XXD series without treading on the 1D series' toes. I don't buy the argument that the 5D series was never designed for action. It was obviously not designed to be as capable as a 1D series, but not all action is professional sports photography, even 5D owners want to be able to take pictures of their kids running around! 

The 5D series af system fell behind the XXD series when the 40D was introduced and for whatever reason, Canon did not choose to develop a new af system for the 5D MkII. Possibly this was because Canon believed that the 21MP sensor and HD video was enough of a selling point that they didn't need to go to the expense of developing a new af system; possibly the D3 generation Nikons caught them with their pants down (i.e. too late in the 5D MkII's development programme to respond to the fact that Nikon were going aggressive on af). 

With the launch of the 7D, the 5D series has fallen even further behind its juniors and I don't think that Canon will be able to get away with anything less than the 7D's af system this time around (certainly not with 'only' 22MP). To me, it makes no sense to develop a brand new 9 point af system for the 5D MkIII (or whatever they plan to call it). Why go to all the development expense for a system that is inferior to a lower model in the lineup? I can't see that even the 1D X's 61 point system is actually that much more expensive to make than any other in Canon's lineup once the development costs have been met. OK, for really budget cameras, where every penny counts (like the Rebels) this matters, but for the higher price cameras, I don't think that the af system is actually a major cost consideration, otherwise how could Nikon put their 51 point system in the D300? I believe that it is mostly for marketing reasons that all Canons below the 1D series have inferior af systems.


----------



## tt (Jan 29, 2012)

What was the state of play for AF when the 5D Mark II was coming out? Was it middle of the road, quite good for it's time?


----------



## traveller (Jan 30, 2012)

tt said:


> What was the state of play for AF when the 5D Mark II was coming out? Was it middle of the road, quite good for it's time?



Like I stated in my post above, when the 5D MkII came out its AF system was obsolescent as it has been surpassed by the 40D and 50D in terms of number of cross-type sensors (although neither of those cameras had the 6 'invisible assist AF points' that the 5Ds have). Really, Canon should have upgraded the AF of the 5D MkII to 9 cross-type AF points and made the 6 AF assist points selectable (and obviously, visible). I think that Canon needs to go beyond this, with the 7D now on the market and increasing competition in the sector from Nikon and Sony that was only just appearing when the 5D MkII came out.


----------



## jrista (Feb 2, 2012)

tooslick2k said:


> jrista said:
> 
> 
> > I think the question everyone has is not whether it IS, but whether it SHOULD BE. The answer to that is obviously highly subjective, however I'm inclined to think that the 5D line is simply not positioned within Canon's lineup to be an awesome performer on the AF front. I think it certainly *DESERVES* the 60D AF system...there is no reason the 5D shouldn't have all 9 points fully cross-type, with a high-precision diagonal cross-type in the center....
> ...



I don't think anyone who understands the lineup believes the 7D "holds a higher value" in the lineup than the 5D. I think its more of a side-by-side positioning, with the 5D covering one role and the 7D covering another role. I don't think either one is really "higher value" or "lower value" from a functional and practical standpoint than the other...they serve different purposes. I think a significant part of the cost difference, $2500 5D II vs. $1800 7D, is the sensor in the 5D II...much lower yield, and more expensive to produce to start with because of the much greater area. So I don't think cost is particularly a solid indicator of which one is "better" than the other...they simply solve different problems, and cost what they cost.


----------



## jrista (Feb 2, 2012)

traveller said:


> The 5D MkII has the same af system as the 5D ('classic'), which at the time of the 5D's introduction _was_ Canon's 2nd best af after the 1D series (and EOS 3). It was designed to cover a greater horizontal area than the 20D's 9 point af system, as well as having 6 assist points when using AI Servo mode. Thus it was designed to be superior to the XXD series without treading on the 1D series' toes. I don't buy the argument that the 5D series was never designed for action. It was obviously not designed to be as capable as a 1D series, but not all action is professional sports photography, even 5D owners want to be able to take pictures of their kids running around!
> 
> The 5D series af system fell behind the XXD series when the 40D was introduced and for whatever reason, Canon did not choose to develop a new af system for the 5D MkII. Possibly this was because Canon believed that the 21MP sensor and HD video was enough of a selling point that they didn't need to go to the expense of developing a new af system; possibly the D3 generation Nikons caught them with their pants down (i.e. too late in the 5D MkII's development programme to respond to the fact that Nikon were going aggressive on af).
> 
> With the launch of the 7D, the 5D series has fallen even further behind its juniors and I don't think that Canon will be able to get away with anything less than the 7D's af system this time around (certainly not with 'only' 22MP). To me, it makes no sense to develop a brand new 9 point af system for the 5D MkIII (or whatever they plan to call it). Why go to all the development expense for a system that is inferior to a lower model in the lineup? I can't see that even the 1D X's 61 point system is actually that much more expensive to make than any other in Canon's lineup once the development costs have been met. OK, for really budget cameras, where every penny counts (like the Rebels) this matters, but for the higher price cameras, I don't think that the af system is actually a major cost consideration, otherwise how could Nikon put their 51 point system in the D300? I believe that it is mostly for marketing reasons that all Canons below the 1D series have inferior af systems.



I don't think I disagree with most of that. 

I think there are some significant differences between the 51 point system in the D300 and the 61 point system in the 1D X, though. For one, the D300 AF system only has 11 cross-type points, its frame spread is less extensive, and it only has cross-type sensors in the center. The 1D X AF system has 41 cross type points, in three groups...center and to both sides. All of its sensors are double strip sensors....both single line, cross type and high precision (diagonal) cross type. The 1D X AF unit also apparently has the most extensive frame spread of any AF unit to date...from what I've read and the videos I've watched, its pretty much at the physical limit...any greater spread would require some radical rethinking of how an AF unit works due to light falloff as you approach the edge of the lens (a real problem, since the AF unit effectively polarizes light and splits the remainder into two beams that are then used to sense phase shift...not a lot of light to work with period.) The 1D X AF unit is far more complex and much more advanced than the D300 AF unit. Its also still buried under R&D costs that would need to be recouped. 

So, I do think there could be a cost, possibly a hefty cost, to using the exact same 1D X AF system in the 5D III/X. Its not quite the same class as the D300 AF unit...its a class beyond.


----------



## chengpenguin (Feb 2, 2012)

jrista said:


> traveller said:
> 
> 
> > The 5D MkII has the same af system as the 5D ('classic'), which at the time of the 5D's introduction _was_ Canon's 2nd best af after the 1D series (and EOS 3). It was designed to cover a greater horizontal area than the 20D's 9 point af system, as well as having 6 assist points when using AI Servo mode. Thus it was designed to be superior to the XXD series without treading on the 1D series' toes. I don't buy the argument that the 5D series was never designed for action. It was obviously not designed to be as capable as a 1D series, but not all action is professional sports photography, even 5D owners want to be able to take pictures of their kids running around!
> ...



Yup I agree... especially the last sentence. Cost is also a major consideration for upgraders. As much as I'll like a 1DX AF system in 5D3, I'll rather they build it with a 7D alike AF system. That's enough for me


----------

