# The Land of Crazy or.... ? [CR1]



## Canon Rumors Guy (Jun 22, 2011)

```
<div id="fb_share_1" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;;width: 55px;" name="fb_share"><div id="fb-root"></div><script src="http://connect.facebook.net/en_US/all.js#appId=125029517579627&xfbml=1"></script><fb:like href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6669" send="false" layout="box_count" width="55" show_faces="false" font="arial"></fb:like></div><div class="tweetmeme_button" style="float: right; margin-left: 10px;"><a class="tm_button" rel="&style=normal&b=2" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/?p=6669"></a></div>
<p>Rumors are flooding my inbox. Most of which I cannot substantiate to any degree. I figured it would be fun to post the most recent “roadmap” type of rumors.</p>
<p>Some of the below stuff has appeared on other rumor sites, as well as various blogs and tweets I’ve seen. I’ll give you my opinion on this stuff at the bottom.</p>
<p><strong>August 2011Ã‚Â 7D Mark II</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>24 Mega pixel Full Frame</li>
<li>Dual Digic V</li>
<li>Will be a partial replacement for the discontinued 1D Mark IV</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>September 2011Ã‚Â 1D Mark V</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>32 Mega pixel Full Frame</li>
<li>Dual Digic V</li>
<li>Will be a partial replacement for the discontinued 1D Mark IV and complete the merging of the 1D line</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>March 2012Ã‚Â 5D Mark III</strong></p>
<ul>
<li>32 Mega pixel Full Frame</li>
<li>Digic V</li>
<li>New 11 point AF system</li>
<li>Will have the best video features of the EOS line</li>
</ul>
<p><strong>CR’s Take

</strong>7D Mark II being a fullframe camera and “partially” replacing the Ã‚Â 1D Mark IV? Not likely for a couple of reasons.</p>
<ul>
<li>The model name “7D” would go against Canon’s naming strategy. I can’t see a Mark II of the current camera, overtaking the 5D Mark III in pricepoint and features. Name this camera “3D” and it makes sense. It was said the 70D would move to where the 7D current sits, an APS-C camera with lots of features above the Rebel. There could be some truth to that, the price difference between the 60D and T3i is tiny. I’m going to wager that any 7D direct replacement will remain an APS-C camera.</li>
<li>The other issue I see with this theory is folks that currently have a 7D with EF-S lenses. A lot of 7D buyers are very likely to have purchased a 10-22 and/or a 17-55 f/2.8 IS, not allowing them to bring their lenses to a Mark II version would be silly.</li>
</ul>
<p>The 1D/1Ds merger talk comes around a fair bit. I do believe it’s going to happen. When? Not sure.</p>
<p>5D Mark III not until 2012? There has been A LOT of talk in regards to the release of the 5D Mark III. Everything recently has said it will be announced next year. Next year is a Photokina year, although I’m not sure that influences Canon’s marketing. There is going to be a lot of talk about the camera, and none of the regulars that are correct have sent me any information.</p>
<p>One constant remains from the stream of stuff I’m receiving, there will be a shakeup in the lineup.</p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
```


----------



## adhocphotographer (Jun 22, 2011)

I can't see the 7D mkII being a FF... it could not really be a replacement then, but a change!!! 

What ever happens, i just hope for something new this summer, whatever is announced it will hint as to what else we can expect!

BRING ON THOSE ANNOUNCEMENTS!!!


----------



## Haydn1971 (Jun 22, 2011)

24 & 32mpx ? Sounds very Sony !

Canon have always appeared to be a step ahead on mpx count, I see little reason for that to change. Whilst I totally accept there is more to digital imaging than pure mpx count, I'd expect a leap above Nikon/Sony, which can only be determined by what Nikon actually release. I'd expect Canon to be currently sat on several FF/APS-C (and perhaps MF/APS-H) image sensor sizes and waiting to just gazump the competitors with which ever sounds "better" for the marketing people.


----------



## motorhead (Jun 22, 2011)

Haydn1971 said:


> 24 & 32mpx ? Sounds very Sony !
> 
> Canon have always appeared to be a step ahead on mpx count, I see little reason for that to change. Whilst I totally accept there is more to digital imaging than pure mpx count, I'd expect a leap above Nikon/Sony, which can only be determined by what Nikon actually release. I'd expect Canon to be currently sat on several FF/APS-C (and perhaps MF/APS-H) image sensor sizes and waiting to just gazump the competitors with which ever sounds "better" for the marketing people.



I agree totally. Canon are very unlikely to roll over and play dead for Nikon's benefit. It's certainly the case that Canon do historically wait until the oppositition have shown their hand before producing their trump card.


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 22, 2011)

motorhead said:


> It's certainly the case that Canon do historically wait until the oppositition have shown their hand before producing their trump card.



case in point, D3s announced Oct 14. 1Dmk4 announced Oct 20.

But the D3X is only just over 2 1/2 years old, the 1Ds3 is pushing 4 years. Do we have to wait for the D4(x) before a new 1ds4?

and the 5D2 came out 2-3 months after the D700, do we have to wait until nikon replaces that (whatever number it is in their randomly-generated sequence) before we see a 5D3?


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 22, 2011)

A FF 7DMk2 qualifies as crazy. There are good reasons for using a crop camera for shooting sports, wildlife etc with long lenses in good light, particularly if you have to walk around a lot. A $2500, full pro-quality APC-C 7DMk2, with improvements in image quality, high ISO noise and DR plus 18MP (or less) would be perfect with the new 200-400.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Jun 22, 2011)

At this point, they just need to release something... anything to let us know that they have actually been doing research. Canon is lagging.


----------



## Guybrush (Jun 22, 2011)

Can't seem to buy a 5DII here in Holland right now. Big Media Markt store in The Hague didn't even have a place holder for the 5DII on their DSLR display when I was in there last Thursday...

cameraland.nl and kamera-express.nl been out of stock for a while now it seems.


----------



## WarStreet (Jun 22, 2011)

7D II with FF and partial replacement of the 1DIV ? is similar to 1DIV partial replacement will get FF and will change it's name to 7D II just to confuse the market. Then what it will be named the camera replacement with the spec/price slot covered by the 7D ? Maybe 1DV ?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 22, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> A FF 7DMk2 qualifies as crazy. There are good reasons for using a crop camera for shooting sports, wildlife etc with long lenses in good light



Agreed. The same logic holds true for the APS-H format, where excellent high ISO performance and a fast frame rate are coupled with a modest crop factor. I see the logic of merging the 1Ds/1D lines IF they can manage 10 fps with the FF sensor. A high enough pixel density on the FF sensor would allow for sufficient MP in a 1.3x simulated crop, but that would mean at least 16 MP in the crop, more likely 20 MP for a reasonable 'improvement' over the 1DIV. So, the FF sensor must be at least 33 MP to support a 20 MP 1.3x crop. If they add in a 1.6x crop mode, that only yields 12.6 MP, so I doubt they'll bother.

As has been stated, they could merge the lines to deliver high MP, low fps and lower MP, high fps in a single body. _Could_ does not mean will. There's a certain cachÃ© for the flavors of the 1-series. Also, if they do merge the lines, the price point will almost certainly be set based on the 1Ds-like features - probably even higher, since this would ostensibly be better than the 1Ds in that it would offer a fast frame rate option. That would leave a really big gap in the lineup between a (hypothetical) 5DIII in the $3K range and the new 1Dm (merged) in the $8K range, a place formerly held by the 1D in the $5K range. Maybe a place for a 3D (but I still don't see them using that number for anything except a 3-dimensional camera).


----------



## dr croubie (Jun 22, 2011)

Guybrush said:


> Can't seem to buy a 5DII here in Holland right now. Big Media Markt store in The Hague didn't even have a place holder for the 5DII on their DSLR display when I was in there last Thursday...
> cameraland.nl and kamera-express.nl been out of stock for a while now it seems.



tried fotokonijnenberg.nl? 2 stops the other side of centraal on tram 2/6.
... ok, just checked their website, 5d2 ook op.
http://www.guusverschuren.nl is claiming 5-10 werkdagen, somehow i doubt it...


----------



## EYEONE (Jun 22, 2011)

gene_can_sing said:


> Canon is lagging.




Lagging behind who exactly? Nikon? Sony?

Goodness no.

The only thing anyone as refreshed in the year is entry level/enthusiast stuff. No one has release a pro(sumer) camera in years.


----------



## x-vision (Jun 22, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> A FF 7DMk2 qualifies as crazy. There are good reasons for using a crop camera for shooting sports, wildlife etc .



+1000.

The 7D going FF is the most unbelievable rumor so far.

Other than that, there will be big changes in the lineup for sure. 
The 1DV is going FF and the 60D is not positioned right, so it will undergo another makeover very soon. 

These changes will affect the entire lineup in a big way.


----------



## gene_can_sing (Jun 22, 2011)

If Canon does wait until next summer of 2012 to release the 5D3, all I know is that it better be the BEST camera of all time. The longer they wait, the higher the expectations.

If they wait that long, it better just be able to magical make photographic masterpieces for you at the touch of a button.

Anything short, and the camera will be a failure because of the long delay and huge expectations.

So I think it's safer if they just make their 3 year cycle and release it in September, when they should. Otherwise, if it's not that great, Canon will lose serious credibility for making people wait that long.


----------



## fotoray (Jun 22, 2011)

adhocphotographer said:


> I can't see the 7D mkII being a FF... it could not really be a replacement then, but a change!!!
> 
> What ever happens, i just hope for something new this summer, whatever is announced it will hint as to what else we can expect!
> 
> BRING ON THOSE ANNOUNCEMENTS!!!



+1. The 7D has its own place in the EOS family, and it has been/is very successful. And it was introduced less than 2 years ago. A true second-generation 7D would remain APS-C - and compatible with EP-S lenses (like the 10-22 and 17-55 as CR points out). 

I note that 7D rebates have just been introduced. What does this suggest relative to this 7D rumor?


----------



## Tarrum (Jun 22, 2011)

The last time a certain camera line changed its sensor? Right, just like the 7D probably won't go FF, that would be ridicolous.

But even if the 1Ds and 1D merge, how is 1 model going to compete with 3 Nikon models, D4, D4x and D4s (if they decide to put them out like that again). I don't think we're going to see a merge so soon, if at all. And the 5D Mark III is probably going to compete with D800. 

As before, 1Ds line came first, then the 5D was announced a few months later with the same sensor. I'm betting on 1Ds MK IV this year, then perhaps the 5D late or early 2012 and 7D at Photokina.


----------



## RandomDude (Jun 22, 2011)

I registered just to throw out an idea I've had for awhile about these rumors, and this seemed like an appropriate time to lay it down and see what you folks think of it:

Recurring rumor: "3D" camera between 5D and 1D.

Recurring rumor: 1D and 1Ds lines merging

Given the advancements in CPU's over the past several years, there isn't any reason I'm aware of that Canon couldn't produce a Digic V with enough horsepower to produce a 40+ MP camera at 8+ fps with a 1.3x crop mode at 24+ MP and over 10 fps. So a full-size, dual-chip (and/or multi-core) combined 1D/1Ds flagship camera ought to be technically feasible. Let's call this one the 1Ds MkIV. However, marketing might be an issue, but that's been discussed elsewhere. 

The "3D" name is problematic, as is often pointed out, but many (myself included) think there's a market for a camera in this slot. Create a grip-less version of the 1Ds body, with the same AF, fully weather-sealed, same FPS (give or take) but lower resolution. (Lower resolution means fewer and/or slower processors = good battery life despite losing the grip.) Call this the 1D MkV and price it slightly below the current 1D price-point. No silly "3D" name, but it fills the market slot for the proposed 3D and the 1D market that isn't covered by the new 1Ds. It also covers the folks that want a full-Pro camera, but don't want the extra size and weight of the current 1D/1Ds-size cameras.

I don't expect any re-shuffling on the 5D's market space, it seems to sit in a pretty good place. If there is a "Video" version, I would expect it to be a fairly minor ergonomic deviation - an "edition" - rather than substantially different hardware.

Full-frame 7D doesn't make sense, but my proposed 1D MkV/"3D" would fit a similar slot.

If Canon has something special cooking, the 1Ds MkIV would be the logical place for it to go, both technologically and from a market standpoint. That is, if the 1Ds IV used a SiOnyx sensor (for example) to give it better image quality that would also better distinguish it from the less-expensive cameras (and might explain the unusually-long delay between updates.) Just my amateur armchair analysis...

TL;DR? "3D" gets called the new 1D MkV and while the 1D/1Ds lines merge as the new 1Ds Mk IV.


----------



## J-Man (Jun 23, 2011)

I can see the 7DII gaining 1D features and an increase in price bur remain 1.6x, with the 70D moving up market position.

1DV as a FF high fps pro body is believable, it's harder to say what will happen with the 1DsIII replacement,
will it be a 1 series? or some new line, how about the "EOS Ω" "Your search for the ultimate camera has ended."

5DIII will have better ergonomics, and they will have actually put some thought into where the buttons will go for video, it may gain some modularity in the video version.

I still think there is a market for a 3D, a 1DsII the size of a 5D but with current controls and lcd, and a refreshed sensor.

The big question:
Will the Pellicle mirror return?
APS-H in an EVIL/iLC like the G12?


----------



## NXT1000 (Jun 23, 2011)

7D mk 2 full frame, what the hell are they smoking, they rumors mongers. 

Even if there is such a camera, the naming convention should change too. 

7D EF-S OK
7Dmk2 EF-S NOK? This is massively confusing for most end user. 

It will not happen. 

But timing of 5dmk3 coming mid next year sound pausible.


----------



## ronderick (Jun 23, 2011)

IMHO, while Canon can enjoy the waiting time until either:

1) Nikon plays its next card in the D700/D3s categories, or 
2) Q1 of next year.

Why Q1? There's that big thing in London next summer, so I doubt the waiting game can outlast the competition for the lines of pro-photographers at the sidelines. Q1 because it will take some time to make sure those photographers get the new gadget.

Either way, with or w/o any release this year, Canon and its competitors will need to show hand sometimes before the Olympics. For Canon, it should be either the 1DsIV or 1D5-merged-line (though I'm tending towards the 1DsIV).


----------



## bycostello (Jun 23, 2011)

a 7d with full frame sensor will be called 5dmk3...


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 23, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > A FF 7DMk2 qualifies as crazy. There are good reasons for using a crop camera for shooting sports, wildlife etc with long lenses in good light
> ...



I have a couple problems with in-camera cropping. If the FF camera can go 10FPS and cropping to APS-H doesn't speed things up, then why crop? Sure the file size will be smaller but, in this day and age of 600X CF cards, so what? Also, if the camera is going to crop, I want the viewfinder masked so that the crop area is glaringly apparent. This is also true for in-camera video cropping, which I think is going to happen really soon.

The big advantage of a dedicated crop camera, APS-C or APS-H, is that for a given price and resolution, it can be faster and, for a given speed and resolution, it can be cheaper. The tradeoff, in both cases, is that more light is required to get a good image, which is why I specified "in good light".

APS-H always seemed like a bad compromise. (Obviously, a lot of people disagree.) I'd rather have a FF 8FPS, 16MP lord of darkness camera and a 12FPS, 16MP APS-C sports speed demon than a couple 10FPS, 16MP APS-H cameras. Currently, I use a 4-year old 40D and 6-year old 5D; both are getting near their end of life.


----------



## motorhead (Jun 23, 2011)

It might sound odd, but I have been completely forgetting about the "London Olympics" when thinking about the cameras Canon are likely to release next.

Did'nt the 1D got updated in time for the last Winter Games which I imagine means it's OK as it stands? But the 1Ds is a completely different kettle of fish, its so ancient it needs a walking frame. It MUST be getting a new lease of life (or a replacement) before the Olympics actually start! And I for one will be seriously annoyed if 32mp is all we see in the "merged 1D line" when other manufacturers will be offering 40 or more mp.


----------



## Stone (Jun 23, 2011)

If there is a 1D1V replacement in the pipeline and I still have my doubts about that, it would definitely be announced and released before the 2012 Olympics, Canon wouldn't miss the opportunity to have it's new sports flagship in the hands of all those photogs, you just can't buy advertising like that. I'm sure all the new long primes will be ready for the Olympics though.

As for the merging of the 1 series, how do you market a more than likely 6-8K body that competes against both a cheaper D4 & equally priced D4x. That wouldn't be much incentive for me to switch if I were a Nikon shooter, there has to be a new model in there somewhere for this strategy to work. You just can't go from a 2.5K 5 series body to a 6-8K 1 series body with no intermediate upgrade. Canon NEEDS 3 FF bodies going forward to be competitive, but I still think they're at a disadvantage if Nikon manages to nail video this time around.

5DIII vs D800: Assuming Nikon gets comparable video, the D800 still has a large af & fps edge and I don't see that changing Canon's just too conservative with those features. In the past, the D700 has always been the better value of the two, it's the closest thing to a do it all camera in this price range.

1DV vs D4: A FF 1DV is probably a wash against a new D4. Comparable size, weight, af & fps. It probably boils down to how much you have invested in glass from either manufacturer. I don't see either stealing customers in this price range.

1DsIV vs D4x: Prices are both similarly high, D3x is currently the high iso, dynamic range champ so Canon is already playing catch up here. However; these customers generally want the best they can get short of moving to MF and they can likely afford to switch systems more easily than us mere mortals but only if Canon can exceed the stellar performance of a new D4x which won't be easy. I still think it boils down to how much glass you own and that not many will switch in this market either.

A FF 7D makes absolutely no sense. If the rumor called for an APS-H 7D, then I could see the possibility because then the 70D could adopt many of the features found in the current 7D. The 7DII could move up a bit and wouldn't step on the toes of the entry level 5D FF, I actually like this scenario very much. Plus the IQ of APS-H is very, very good, comparable to FF in many cases. I can't see Canon shelving APS-H even if they've made great progress on APS-C & FF sensors.


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 23, 2011)

Stone said:


> I can't see Canon shelving APS-H even if they've made great progress on APS-C & FF sensors.



Where is the Canon ultra wide angle lens for APS-H, the one that corresponds to the 16-35 for FF and the 10-22 for APS-C?


----------



## Stone (Jun 24, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > I can't see Canon shelving APS-H even if they've made great progress on APS-C & FF sensors.
> ...



APS-H has always been a specialty sensor exclusive to Canon's defacto high performance sports body. More than likely, there's not been enough demand by sports photogs and people who require such performance for an ultra wide angle solution.

APS-C & FF buyers shoot everything from a to z hence the need for an ultra wide-angle solution. A better question would be when is Canon finally going to go true ultra wide and release a 12 or 14 mm zoom....


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 24, 2011)

Stone said:


> APS-H has always been a specialty sensor exclusive to Canon's defacto high performance sports body. More than likely, there's not been enough demand by sports photogs and people who require such performance for an ultra wide angle solution.



APS-H cameras 
1.3Ã—â€¡ â€” Canon EOS-1D Mark IV, 1D Mark IIIâ€  , 1D Mark IIâ€  (and Mark II N), EOS-1D?, Kodak DCS 460â€ , DCS 560â€ , DCS 660â€ , DCS 760â€ , Leica M8, M8.2

My Kodak DCS 460 which sold originally for $35,000 was APS-H before Canon ever made digital SLR's. A 6.2 mp sensor in 1995 was astounding technology. even the Original Canon 1D years later did not have 6mp.

http://www.mount-spokane-photography.com/Photography/DCS-460/DCS-460KodakDCS460001/863351237_Aqype-X2.jpg


----------



## Bob Howland (Jun 24, 2011)

Stone said:


> Bob Howland said:
> 
> 
> > Stone said:
> ...



Then what is Canon's general purpose professional photojournalist's camera?


----------



## Stone (Jun 24, 2011)

Bob Howland said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > Bob Howland said:
> ...



I've seen pro photojournalists use everything from rebels to 1Ds bodies. The camera used is not what makes one a professional, but you knew that already 

If I had to pick the Canon cameras I've seem used the most for photojournalism, it would be 5D bodies. When I was in Dubai, even though Nikon seemed to rule there, I saw an above average number of 1D bodies being used by the press, considering the weather conditions, that made perfect sense. There is a 3rd party option in the Sigma 12-24 if you need ultra wide on a 1.3, honestly I've never seen a photojournalist that lives exclusively in the ultra wide realm, they tend work throughout the zoom range. Your experience may be different.

I think you miss the point of my original post, so I'll restate it in a different way. The IQ of Canon's APS-H sensor is far better than it's APS-C sensor and gets very close to it's current FF sensor. Unless Canon makes great strides in it's next iteration of APS-C, I personally don't see the logic in shelving APS-H when it could be moved into another body and still give excellent IQ. If it's cost prohibitive to continue manufacturing APS-H sensors, then I can see why they would shelve the tech. I don't work for Canon and neither do you, these are my opinions only......


----------



## Stone (Jun 24, 2011)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > APS-H has always been a specialty sensor exclusive to Canon's defacto high performance sports body. More than likely, there's not been enough demand by sports photogs and people who require such performance for an ultra wide angle solution.
> ...



I was speaking from a Canon perspective, but very interesting indeed, I had no idea....


----------



## RuneL (Jun 24, 2011)

Is there a need for anything wider than a 10-something for crops?

Even the 16-35 is stupidly wide on fullframe and as I remember was only made because sensors were crop. 


Regarding the 1D V: 
35Mp let's say 50Mb for a raw @ 10+ fps = wat?

That will be something around 600mb/s (including overhead) - how is that possible? The you need a crazy fast CF-card - what about heat and power consumption? 

Or do you switch to crop/every other pixel turned off? Well, we'll see.

If it's 35mp @ 10 FPS then Canon has come up with some clever tech.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 24, 2011)

RuneL said:


> Even the 16-35 is stupidly wide on fullframe and as I remember was only made because sensors were crop.



I don't think so. The 16-35mm MkI was released in 2001, and while that was just after the D30, the 16-35mm was the successor to the 17-35mm f/2.8L, and that lens (released in 1996) predates commercially-available dSLRs. The fact that the 16-35 is slightly wider than the 17-35 was probably just Canon pushing the envelope.


----------



## drummstikk (Jun 25, 2011)

> August 2011 7D Mark II
> â€¢ 24 Mega pixel Full Frame
> â€¢ Dual Digic V
> â€¢ Will be a partial replacement for the discontinued 1D Mark IV

It would certainly seem odd for Canon to make this camera and call it "7D Mk II." But whatever they call it (7Ds, maybe?), Canon does need to make this camera. 

It kind of blows my mind that Canon has gone this far into the "D3 era" with no full frame "sports" camera. 1Ds MkIII has 5fps, barely adequate and at an uber-premium price and overkill resolution for those of us who shoot almost exclusively for print or web publication. 5D MkII, at about 3fps, is fine for the 7-10 times a year I do "arena" lighting, but usually stays home on most other sports assignments. (I'm actually still using the original 5D Mark nothing.)

The 8fps on 7D rarely lets me down on sports jobs. Only in diving do I ever pine for anything faster. But it would be huge if I could put a (rented) 400mm f/2.8 on a full-frame camera and have it *LOOK* like a 400 2.8 with it's beautiful razor-thin depth of field. I don't see why this shouldn't be a "pro-sumer" option for those of us in the mid-markets that don't command the kind of rates that would justify the purchase of something like the 1Ds Mark III.


----------



## Stone (Jun 25, 2011)

drummstikk said:


> > August 2011 7D Mark II
> > â€¢ 24 Mega pixel Full Frame
> > â€¢ Dual Digic V
> > â€¢ Will be a partial replacement for the discontinued 1D Mark IV
> ...



In a nutshell, because Canon, Nikon, Sony etc. don't give a flip what you desire. They are only concerned with what you are willing to pay for. There's not a market leader in any industry that produces goods and/or services for the love of their craft. As an example, why would any big pharma cure HIV even if they could? For the good of humanity? LOL!!! There's no ongoing revenue stream in the cure but there's a constant revenue stream from the treatment, would you sacrifice your multi-billion dollar company for the good of humanity? I think not, that's why if you caught HIV 15 years ago, you'd already be dead (well except for Magic Johnson but he can afford it) but people today with the virus will more than likely make it into their 70s if they can afford the meds.....

Sometime in the 70s-90s era consumers caught amnesia and we've all been bending over ever since. It's why companies continue to spoon feed us technology instead of making huge leaps, do you really think Canon JUST figured out how to to push FF images at 10+ fps? Do you think they CAN'T make a virtually weatherproof body? People will pay for incremental advances in tech so they get incremental advances in tech. It's why Apple has made billions from a phone that only allowed you to send MMS message 3yrs ago when everyone else had been doing it for almost 8yrs. I could rant about this forever.

All it would take is 1 boycott of a major Canon product and you'd see the features you want in a more affordable body, of course it'll never happen because we've gotta have the next best thing, no matter how underwhelming the upgrade actually proves to be.....


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2011)

Stone said:


> As an example, why would any big pharma cure HIV even if they could? For the good of humanity? LOL!!! There's no ongoing revenue stream in the cure but there's a constant revenue stream from the treatment, would you sacrifice your multi-billion dollar company for the good of humanity?



Two drugs just approved by the FDA (boceprevir and telaprevir) have a reasonable cure rate for hepatitis C. Pharma companies develop vaccines to prevent disease, because that's better than treatment. Is that for altruistic reasons? No, it's for profit. To use your example, big pharma _would_ cure HIV if they could, again, for profit. Pharma and health insurance companies can tell you to the penny what HIV patients pay for lifelong treatment. A cure would be priced substantially higher than maintenance drugs, but still lower than lifetime cost - the result? Whichever pharma gets there first rakes in the bucks, because they get the whole pie, instead of the standard course of treatment, which comprises different drugs from different makers, and usually at least one generic that clearly eats into pharma's profits.

That's really what it's about - profit. If Canon had game-changing technology, they would bring it to market. Canon had the technology to mass produce a FF CMOS sensor. Did they sit on that? No. They released the 1Ds in 2002, and effectively monopolized the FF dSLR market share for the next *5* years, releasing MkII and MkIII versions of the 1Ds by the time Nikon made it to the FF game with the D3 in 2007. By then Canon had already scooped up two years of profits from the FF 'prosumer' market they created when they launched the 5D in 2005 - and Nikon would wait until 2008's 5DII to release their D700 into that market segment.


----------



## Stone (Jun 25, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > As an example, why would any big pharma cure HIV even if they could? For the good of humanity? LOL!!! There's no ongoing revenue stream in the cure but there's a constant revenue stream from the treatment, would you sacrifice your multi-billion dollar company for the good of humanity?
> ...



It's true Canon wanted to be the first to mass market a production FF sensor, but Pentax had announced a FF sensor 2 years earlier that never went into production. I'm not arguing that companies never innovate and push the market forward but I argue that they do it at their own pace when it will have the biggest impact on their bottom line and that it has far more to do with what you as a consumer will accept as opposed to the absolute best they have to offer at any given point in time. I learned a loong time ago, that marketing guys have a saying "don't give away now what you can sell later". Throughout my 20+ year consulting career, I've done business with a large number of fortune 5s from pharmas to defense contractors. You'll just have to trust me when I say, they sit on tech all the time, choosing instead to release incremental improvements.

Regarding boceprevir and telaprevir, you'd be amazed at how long ago those drugs were fully developed excluding clinical trials and the time it took to gain fda approval.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 25, 2011)

The fact that an item is announced or a prototype can be produced does not necessarily mean that the same item can be put into mass production, perhaps for technical reasons, perhaps for economic reasons. So, companies may 'sit on tech' not out of a desire to hold it back, but because it's not yet feasible to produce it. You say Pentax announced a FF sensor that never went into production. So? Canon announced a 120 MP APS-H sensor in 2010. By your logic, the 1D MkV should have that sensor, right? Else, Canon is 'sitting on their tech' and 'incrementally releasing it'. I'm pretty sure there are other factors that preclude mass production of a 120 MP APS-H camera, and will for some time to come.



Stone said:


> Regarding boceprevir and telaprevir, you'd be amazed at how long ago those drugs were fully developed excluding clinical trials and the time it took to gain fda approval.



No, I wouldn't - but the companies that developed them (one large pharma, one mid-sized pharma/biotech) certainly didn't 'sit on them'. In drug development, molecules that will eventually become drugs are patented long before a human is dosed with them, and every day that goes by prior to a drug launch is one less day at the other end - the patent expiration where a generic version will dramatically reduce revenues from that drug. 'Sitting on' Lipotor before it launched would mean a loss to Pfizer of $27 million per day after the patent expires this year. No one is sitting on anything in that industry.


----------



## Stone (Jun 25, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> The fact that an item is announced or a prototype can be produced does not necessarily mean that the same item can be put into mass production, perhaps for technical reasons, perhaps for economic reasons. So, companies may 'sit on tech' not out of a desire to hold it back, but because it's not yet feasible to produce it. You say Pentax announced a FF sensor that never went into production. So? Canon announced a 120 MP APS-H sensor in 2010. By your logic, the 1D MkV should have that sensor, right? Else, Canon is 'sitting on their tech' and 'incrementally releasing it'. I'm pretty sure there are other factors that preclude mass production of a 120 MP APS-H camera, and will for some time to come.



A prototype is a proof of concept, a display of the feasibility of a piece of tech. I'm referring completed tech that is either ready or can be immediately made ready for mass production.

As to your example, the current APS-H sensor is 16MP so you think they just decided to jump from 16 to 120? Or would it be more logical to assume that they incrementally increased the MP count until they reached the current stable maximum of 120MP? You can continue to believe that you get the absolute best that your favorite manufacturer is able to produce every year, and you would be no different than the rest of the populace that's a good thing, it means your favorite company's marketing department is doing its job. Unfortunately for me and a few of my peers, we learned differently many years ago, it really puts a damper on all these exciting press releases you see every day. We can just agree to disagree....


----------



## unfocused (Jun 26, 2011)

The great thing about conspiracy theories is that they can never be proven wrong, because any evidence to the contrary is just taken as further proof of how the conspirators are fooling everyone but the handful of people who "know" the truth. 

It's the same whether it's 200 mpg carburetors, Elvis is still alive, black helicopters, fluoridated water or super secret superior camera technology that's being purposely withheld from consumers.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 26, 2011)

Stone said:


> We can just agree to disagree....



I don't know that we're actually disagreeing.  My point is that a manufacturer is going to release a technology/product at the time when they predict it will yield the greatest profit. Likewise, they're not going to 'waste' money on R&D with no expectation of an ROI - and as a general rule, an early ROI is better than a delayed ROI, unless it's predicted that there's substantially more profit to be gained from a delayed release. 

In the example of the 120 MP APS-H sensor, I actually doubt they produced incrementally increasing versions - that may not have been cost effective. If it were my R&D money, I'd have had a team do some computer modeling to suggest the maximum feasible density, then attempted to produce three versions - that predicted max, and something lower and something higher. Three shots on goal, simultaneous, rather than racheting it up with repeated costs for each increment. But honestly, I can't speak to any sort inside knowledge of how they did it. 

Certainly, in some industries technology is 'held back' - you mentioned defense, so compare consumer GPS systems with military GPS systems. The latter is always ahead of the former (although the companies are still making a profit from their technology, albeit from a different sector.

Back to releasing a product when it will generate the maximum product, I do think that's the key driver - and I definitely acknowledge that that is not always as soon as the technology is available and producible. In the specific case of boceprevir and telaprevir, and the general case of drug development, the maximum profit results from the earliest possible release. If a cure for HIV were developed (and some are being actively worked on), it would be released as soon as possible (and I do speak from direct knowledge in this case - I happen to hold a senior position in a large pharma company).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 26, 2011)

Little doubt that companies are for profit. There are still those who claim gasoline companies are holding back inventions that let a automobile run on water! The flat earth society is pretty well defunct though.

Everyone would like a camera that can do everything, high ISO capable, high resolution, improved DR, and super high quality high speed video, plus a lot more.

However, its a tradeoff, to improve one area often makes another worse, and increasing the speed and bandwidth of the processor requires more power, so its a balancing act. By designing cameras that focus more closely on specific users, you can shift the balance say towards higher fps, or you can make a studio camera with higher DR and resolution, or one optimized for video. Try to do them all, and compromises will be made. I'd prefer having different camera models that are specialized to having one that is compromised but does a little of everything.


----------



## Stone (Jun 26, 2011)

unfocused said:


> The great thing about conspiracy theories is that they can never be proven wrong, because any evidence to the contrary is just taken as further proof of how the conspirators are fooling everyone but the handful of people who "know" the truth.
> 
> It's the same whether it's 200 mpg carburetors, Elvis is still alive, black helicopters, fluoridated water or super secret superior camera technology that's being purposely withheld from consumers.



You REALLY think this is a conspiracy theory in the realm of things like we never went to the moon and the illuminati? It's not that serious, try a conspiracy of marketing and it won't seem so devious..LOL!!! 

I guess once a "sane" person labels something as a conspiracy theory, they no longer have to think critically, nothing I've said is out of the question once you know what drives a corporation and to whom they owe their allegiance. I'll give you a hint, it ain't you, and that's well known, no conspiracy necessary.


----------



## Stone (Jun 26, 2011)

neuroanatomist said:


> Stone said:
> 
> 
> > We can just agree to disagree....
> ...



Well put and I do see your point, we're not that far off. If that large pharma is one of the ones located in Princeton, NJ then we may very well have done business either recently or in the past, I was last out there in Oct 2010.


----------



## nova_dream (Jun 26, 2011)

Very strange. The actual 7D is placed right in the middle between the 60D (with its lacks of pro options) and the 5D Mark II (with its complete pro bundle). Now the 7D Mark II would enter the Full Frame category and even partially replacing the 1D Mark IV? Now I don't see the point of getting a 5D Mark III if the 7DII will be doing what a 5DII can.


----------



## Stone (Jun 26, 2011)

nova_dream said:


> Very strange. The actual 7D is placed right in the middle between the 60D (with its lacks of pro options) and the 5D Mark II (with its complete pro bundle). Now the 7D Mark II would enter the Full Frame category and even partially replacing the 1D Mark IV? Now I don't see the point of getting a 5D Mark III if the 7DII will be doing what a 5DII can.



I don't think the 7D would get a FF sensor, that would definitely screw things up in the lineup making it a far better buy than the 5DIII due to it's high performance characteristics. I will however argue that the current 5DII does not represent a pro bundle, yes, many, many pros use it daily and it arguably has the best video in the lineup, the build quality, weather sealing and ancient AF based on the 20D disqualify it as a pro build. Have a look at the D700 which is the closest competitor and it's very solidly built with a far more modern auto focus system. I know many pro photogs who will use nothing but the center af point on a 5DII. It's definitely in need of a substantial overhaul....


----------

