kewlcanon wrote:
Like the specs but where is it ? .
Me too.
I loved "5" from the beginning. That 5D III/X would prevent me from (thinking about) 1D X. Instead I would prefere to buy 2 bodies. The only advantadge of 1D X to me would be one ISO stop and 5FPS. To have that ISO stop would be fine, but the lesser frames are much enough for me. 22MP would be great if needed and great if not (that would make about 10-11 in sraw - enough for 85% of my jobs). And if JPG is as good as in 1D X I would shoot in jpg in 85% of all cases too, I guess.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Well, back to Canon EOS 5D MK III/X:
Northlight, for me the most accurate rumor site came with a new one yesterday:
"20th We've hearing of NDAs expiring on the 2nd of March.
Now we also hear of a 5D3 (and only a 5D3) spec for a launch on the 2nd
22MP, 6fps, 61 focus points (41 cross) same as 1DX system
100-25600 Basic ISO 1024k dots LCD display 3:2 wide (or 3.2" ?)
Best Video quality in a DSLR."
This would be a shocking departure from their long established strategy, which is why it won't happen. To expect canon to add only 1MP but include AF better than the 1d4 at the current 5d2 price point is an unrealistic wish list. It would be too much of a direct competitor to the 1dX, and canon just won't do that.
If they continue the strategy of the 5 series being all about high MP and high IQ with "good enough" AF, then they preserve segmentation. They haven't been updating their most popular glass for much higher resolution for no reason - there is a MP monster coming
That is wrong, timbop. The 5D MK II was, what made me thinking (and thousends of semi & pro photographers, too) there is no need for a 1Ds MK III. They stil did it and it was a success, 1Ds MK III made useless. Selling 20-50 instead of one makes sense. That is why Nikon did with D700, too. Do you really think a 1Ds III would cost much more in production than a 5D II? Its just a question of numbers. Pros who need it would still buy the 1D X (I would do it if I could). But 20-50 sold 5D IIIs would generate much more profit without loosing much 1D X sales. The question still is: Can I afford it, to get the job done well? Or can I get the job stil done with what I have (or better even with inbetween, but payable?).
If I would not have to look for money, I would purchase a 1D X, instead of waiting for what will come else.
Uh! Hell! I just got an idea. Maybe I just should go for what I want/need without thinking about the money? Money is spend anyway and not worth thinking about it after ...
Don't worry. The 5D III will have 61 focus points like the 1D X, but in a 'simpler' configuration. 'simpler' as in 'crippled' as in 'firmware disabled functions'.
Canon will not release a medium-high resoultion camera until they have seen that the D800/E has sold like hotcakes, and after the whole bunch of MF photographers and a lot from Canon have already switched to Nikon.
Go and have a view at Nikonians here. They think, it was over time for Nikon, doing something. But not a 36MP D800. It will not sell successful. It will just bring 36 MP to the consumer market. And the price of the (really good) D3s down to its worth (about $ 2.500). 24 MP at ISO 25k would have made them kings. With D800 and this D4 try of a 1D X copy they will become extinct.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Go and have a view at Nikonians here. They think, it was over time for Nikon, doing something. But not a 36MP D800. It will not sell successful. It will just bring 36 MP to the consumer market. And the price of the (really good) D3s down to its worth (about $ 2.500). 24 MP at ISO 25k would have made them kings. With D800 and this D4 try of a 1D X copy they will become extinct.
R.
Apparently fanboy doesn't even begin to describe you
Ralph Conway wrote:
Go and have a view at Nikonians here. They think, it was over time for Nikon, doing something. But not a 36MP D800. It will not sell successful. It will just bring 36 MP to the consumer market. And the price of the (really good) D3s down to its worth (about $ 2.500). 24 MP at ISO 25k would have made them kings. With D800 and this D4 try of a 1D X copy they will become extinct.
R.
But the Nikon D5XL demolishes them all. It's so good all other DSLR manufacturers will stop competing and drop out of the market entirely. Sorry to break it to you like that, but your team loses I am, of course, speaking of a camera that has yet to be released, so I suppose your statement holds more water......oh, wait a second...
Oh Marco. You know a better camera company than Minolta?
Not me.
Olympus?
Not me.
Nikon might be next, because Canon has much more power. They are world leader in photographic but this is less then 20 % of their business, I think ...
Not really. Nikon needed 6 years to have something over Canon. They never really where able to understand what their customers wanted. The D800 shows it again. A D 750 would have been great for all Nikonians the last 3 years. But they still stuck in there lenses. Non of my favorite ones is offered by them. Of course, based on me I AM IMPORTANT. Nikon did not care about, Canon did (of course not because of me). Of course Nikon can learn. And I would like it. But I do not expect to much after 30 years now.
Ralph Conway wrote:
That is wrong, timbop. The 5D MK II was, what made me thinking (and thousends of semi & pro photographers, too) there is no need for a 1Ds MK III. They stil did it and it was a success, 1Ds MK III made useless. Selling 20-50 instead of one makes sense. That is why Nikon did with D700, too. Do you really think a 1Ds III would cost much more in production than a 5D II? Its just a question of numbers. Pros who need it would still buy the 1D X (I would do it if I could). But 20-50 sold 5D IIIs would generate much more profit without loosing much 1D X sales. The question still is: Can I afford it, to get the job done well? Or can I get the job stil done with what I have (or better even with inbetween, but payable?).
If I would not have to look for money, I would purchase a 1D X, instead of waiting for what will come else.
Uh! Hell! I just got an idea. Maybe I just should go for what I want/need without thinking about the money? Money is spend anyway and not worth thinking about it after ...
It has nothing to do with production costs - it's all about how much consumers will pay for a given set of features (and the corresponding profit canon makes). By having a 1ds3 with "pro" AF/build and a 5d2 with adequate AF, they were able to create 2 markets. Those that wanted the pro features paid the pro price; the rest of us paid the semipro price. By migrating the features of the pro body to the semipro one, far fewer customers will pay the pro price.
Nikon figured out that they hurt their pro camera too much with the d700 - the features were too close together and they lost sales of their pro body. With the d4 and d800, they have regained a balance without overtly "crippling" the d800. Since the d800 has so many pixels, they can justify a slow frame rate. There are now 2 segments for them again - the sports/PJ shooter who needs the frame rate and manageable file size, and those that want ungodly huge files and moderate frame rate.
But Canon does exactly the same. Offering the best pro tool available for pros and going on to offer the best prosumer equivalent (we will see). Difference is just Canon chooses better IQ then a gigant leap in pixels. That of course generates a new market. 10% pros, who need it and 90% who want it. Concerning this Canon will follow soon, I guess. The advantadge for us with Canon is just the fact that they instead of Nikon established a new semipro/pro range with 5D.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Not really. Nikon needed 6 years to have something over Canon. They never really where able to understand what their customers wanted. The D800 shows it again. A D 750 would have been great for all Nikonians the last 3 years. But they still stuck in there lenses. Non of my favorite ones is offered by them. Of course, based on me I AM IMPORTANT. Nikon did not care about, Canon did (of course not because of me). Of course Nikon can learn. And I would like it. But I do not expect to much after 30 years now.
R.
Ralph, what you don't seem to understand is that none of the cameras you've so quickly rated, both in terms of popularity/sales figures and performance, have yet to hit the shelves. You simply have nothing but a spec list and a few sample images to compare them yet you feel confidant enough to make unfounded declarations. Nikon has released plenty of very successful products over the past eight years, many of which you deem failures because they don't accommodate your personal needs--You're blinded by your own subjectivity. Now it's fine to say they don't offer you what you need/want but don't extrapolate and apply your needs to everyone else. Doing so is unbelievable silly--the same applies to treating a camera manufacturer like a hometown sports team.
Ralph Conway wrote:
But Canon does exactly the same. Offering the best pro tool available for pros and going on to offer the best prosumer equivalent (we will see). Difference is just Canon chooses better IQ then a gigant leap in pixels. That of course generates a new market. 10% pros, who need it and 90% who want it. Concerning this Canon will follow soon, I guess. The advantadge for us with Canon is just the fact that they instead of Nikon established a new semipro/pro range with 5D.
you have no idea what the ACTUAL MP will be in the 5d3' following Canon's recent trend in the past I would expect it to be in the 30-35MP range:
PRO EVOLUTION (moderate increases):
1d evolution (1dx is new line)
1d2 8MP -> 1d3 12MP -> 1d4 16MP
1ds evolution (1dx is a new line)
1ds 11MP -> 1ds2 16MP -> 1ds3 -> 21MP
.
(that would make about 10-11 in sraw - enough for 85% of my jobs). And if JPG is as good as in 1D X I would shoot in jpg in 85% of all cases too, I guess.
I am, of course, speaking of a camera that has yet to be released, so I suppose your statement holds more water......oh, wait a second...