Sounds like fake stats to me. Canon would not produce a 5D replacement with the same megapixel rating, even with a lower price point. What's the point? No one would upgrade.
Ben Horne wrote:
Sounds like fake stats to me. Canon would not produce a 5D replacement with the same megapixel rating, even with a lower price point. What's the point? No one would upgrade.
mmm... why not (on the MP)? Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with the 5d mark II even if it still had 12.8 MP.... I just want weather sealing, even better high ISO perf., higher frame rate, and more AF points.
For the MP, You'd almost have to to get better noise performance to combat something like the D3/D700.
Ben Horne wrote:
Sounds like fake stats to me. Canon would not produce a 5D replacement with the same megapixel rating, even with a lower price point. What's the point? No one would upgrade.
You alluded to insider knowledge in a separate post so I assume you will let us know exactly what the deal is when the "sales meeting" starts tomorrow.
orangefirefish wrote:
mmm... why not (on the MP)? Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy with the 5d mark II even if it still had 12.8 MP.... I just want weather sealing, even better high ISO perf., higher frame rate, and more AF points.
For the MP, You'd almost have to to get better noise performance to combat something like the D3/D700.
Canon is very strategic when it comes to new cameras. They want people to upgrade, but they don't want to step on the toes of their existing cameras. Otherwise, they are not going to sell a lot of cameras. If they are going to produce the same general camera at just a lesser price point, it simply makes no sense. Why would anyone buy it??
Canon obviously cannot compete with the D700 when it comes to build quality and feature set. However, they can easily produce a camera with higher resolution, the same sort of body as a 5D, and keep the price point high to justify the resolution. Existing 5D owners would be tempted to upgrade because of more resolution, a hair better image quality, and some half-ass weather sealing. I'm willing to put money on the fact that the 5D replacement will NOT be 12MP. It will be more... at least 14, and most likely 16.
Ben Horne wrote:
I'm willing to put money on the fact that the 5D replacement will NOT be 12MP. It will be more... at least 14, and most likely 16.
My thought's exactly. Though I think they certainly COULD compete with the D700 in terms of AF / Weather sealing, etc. It just remains to be seen whether or not they will.
Ben Horne wrote:
Sounds like fake stats to me. Canon would not produce a 5D replacement with the same megapixel rating, even with a lower price point. What's the point? No one would upgrade.
You are assuming megapixels are the only thing worth considering. Its not. As I mentioned to a friend last night, I'd gladly forgo more megapixels for an extra stop worth of dynamic range over the previous model. Landscapers would love it. The rest of the specs certainly bring the camera inline with ever other model releases in the last 18 months (live view, sensor dust reduction system, 14-bit color). This specs given are perfectly acceptable...if Canon is dividing the 5D line into two cameras. If this is the sole model replacing the 5D after 3 years, yes, there would be hell to raise, but chances are it is not. It is by no means a D700 killer, but it would be FF at the D300 price point (albeit minus quite a few D300 features like the 51 pt AF). It is a low end FF model and hopefully the mythical 3D will become reality providing a semi-pro/prosumer alternative between the 5D and 1Ds. That is the model you should expect great things from (better AF system, weather sealing, micro-adjust AF, etc). There is a massive hole between the $2000 three-year old 5D and $8000 1Ds Mk3, especially since many don't trust the 1D Mk3 and that camera isn't FF.
* 12MP
* 5fps, Up to 21 RAW files
* Dust removing system
* 15-point TTL CMOS sensor
* Center point additionally sensitive with lenses of F2.8 or faster
* 96% frame coverage
* Magnification: 0.71x
* 3.0" 640x480 TFT LCD (920,000 pixels)
* ISO 50-3200 extended to 12800 and 25600
* DIGIC III, 14-bit
* Canon EF lens mount (not EF-S)
* Live View Mode
* The body is very similar to the 5D, similar handgrip
* Surprisingly cheap, US$ 1,899
Think its an D700 answer to crash it. When canon wents back to 12MP after 3 years they have a sensor that blows of evrything existing others. Maybe its at 12800 what Nicon does ad 6400? Still shure they will introduce 16 MP - maybe at 3.000$. Or they will to in spring next year . Anyway it would break Nikons back - no matter about features. It wouöd through them back where they where half a year ago. A horizon line is nice for those who do not watch through their viewfinder. But it does not make IQ better. And what me concerns, I would not pay additional $ 1.500 for it. ...Show more →
Northlight is simply a parrot site. Rumors dredged up from anywhere (mostly from the DPR gutter) are collected, posted, and then becomes self-referential on DPR again. once the ball gets rolling, it's like a perpetual motion machine.
If this is what Canon released as a 5d replacement, they might as well close the doors because this is such a total snoozer it's embarrassing. If this is the low-end, entry level FF, then fine.
Now if they're thinking this is competitive with the D700, then there's a clear answer... Nope...
Craig Gowens wrote:
You are assuming megapixels are the only thing worth considering. Its not. As I mentioned to a friend last night, I'd gladly forgo more megapixels for an extra stop worth of dynamic range over the previous model. Landscapers would love it. The rest of the specs certainly bring the camera inline with ever other model releases in the last 18 months (live view, sensor dust reduction system, 14-bit color). This specs given are perfectly acceptable...if Canon is dividing the 5D line into two cameras. If this is the sole model replacing the 5D after 3 years, yes, there would be hell to raise, but chances are it is not. It is by no means a D700 killer, but it would be FF at the D300 price point (albeit minus quite a few D300 features like the 51 pt AF). It is a low end FF model and hopefully the mythical 3D will become reality providing a semi-pro/prosumer alternative between the 5D and 1Ds. That is the model you should expect great things from (better AF system, weather sealing, micro-adjust AF, etc). There is a massive hole between the $2000 three-year old 5D and $8000 1Ds Mk3, especially since many don't trust the 1D Mk3 and that camera isn't FF....Show more →
Yes, there is more than megapixels. However, the whole appeal to the 5D when it came out was that it offered significantly more resolution than the competition. It was a very special camera. Therefore, it deserved a 3k price point. Canon needs to market this as a high end consumer camera capable of pro level work. If they are using the same resolution as before, it becomes just another consumer camera that happens to be full frame. There is no longer anything special about it, and it will be a flop.
I'm using the 1DsIII right now, but I have owned the 5D and 1DsII. You can say all you want that megapixels don't matter that much these days, but I can tell you that they REALLY do matter. Once you get use to a camera with more resolution, you will wonder how you went so long with anything less. Yes, I would like all the extra dynamic range, but without the added detail, it's not going to get you as far. 12 megapixels is nice and all, but quite honestly, it's not all that much these days. Your lenses can do better. Canon knows the sex appeal of a 16 megapixel camera that will lure 5D owners to upgrade. If existing owners do not continue the upgrade cycle, Canon is not going to stay in business. Canon cannot depend on cross over former nikon owners anymore.
ulrikft wrote:
The problem is the propable lack of pro af, lack of weather sealing, lack of spot-metering at all af-points, lack of af-microadjust.. :/ I have no doubts that it will perform superbly at iso 100 in good weather
Why is AF-micro adjustment necessary? This is not a great feature IMO. All other cameras, since I've been using them anyway, have gotten by without this one problematic "feature". Put a lens on the body, it works. Nikon seems to be able to make their cameras and lenses work together. Every other mfg that has ever produced lens/body combinations seems to have mastered it. Why can't Canon?
Personally, this is not a feature I want/need. The last lens I purchased was a 300mm f/2.8. I put it on a body, it worked. No adjustment. That's what I want.
Ben Horne wrote:
Sounds like fake stats to me. Canon would not produce a 5D replacement with the same megapixel rating, even with a lower price point. What's the point? No one would upgrade.
I certainly would finally upgrade from my 10D
I imagine that current 5D owners may not. But they will just need to wait for the mythical 3D
Ben Horne wrote:
Yes, there is more than megapixels. However, the whole appeal to the 5D when it came out was that it offered significantly more resolution than the competition. It was a very special camera. Therefore, it deserved a 3k price point. Canon needs to market this as a high end consumer camera capable of pro level work. If they are using the same resolution as before, it becomes just another consumer camera that happens to be full frame. There is no longer anything special about it, and it will be a flop.
I'm using the 1DsIII right now, but I have owned the 5D and 1DsII. You can say all you want that megapixels don't matter that much these days, but I can tell you that they REALLY do matter. Once you get use to a camera with more resolution, you will wonder how you went so long with anything less. Yes, I would like all the extra dynamic range, but without the added detail, it's not going to get you as far. 12 megapixels is nice and all, but quite honestly, it's not all that much these days. Your lenses can do better. Canon knows the sex appeal of a 16 megapixel camera that will lure 5D owners to upgrade. If existing owners do not continue the upgrade cycle, Canon is not going to stay in business. Canon cannot depend on cross over former nikon owners anymore. ...Show more →
Agreed.
I've never used the 1Ds3, but I'm sure I'd get used to it quickly, but I'm not convinced that the 21MP vs. 16.7MP difference is great.
I'd be happy with a 16.5MP FF version of the 1D3 (new AF, new LCD of course) at a measly 8 FPS. I'll squeak by somehow....
Ben Horne wrote:
Yes, there is more than megapixels. However, the whole appeal to the 5D when it came out was that it offered significantly more resolution than the competition. It was a very special camera. Therefore, it deserved a 3k price point. Canon needs to market this as a high end consumer camera capable of pro level work. If they are using the same resolution as before, it becomes just another consumer camera that happens to be full frame. There is no longer anything special about it, and it will be a flop.
I'm using the 1DsIII right now, but I have owned the 5D and 1DsII. You can say all you want that megapixels don't matter that much these days, but I can tell you that they REALLY do matter. Once you get use to a camera with more resolution, you will wonder how you went so long with anything less. Yes, I would like all the extra dynamic range, but without the added detail, it's not going to get you as far. 12 megapixels is nice and all, but quite honestly, it's not all that much these days. Your lenses can do better. Canon knows the sex appeal of a 16 megapixel camera that will lure 5D owners to upgrade. If existing owners do not continue the upgrade cycle, Canon is not going to stay in business. Canon cannot depend on cross over former nikon owners anymore. ...Show more →
I don't entirely disagree. I'd prefer atleast a nominal bump in megapixels, say 14 or 16.7, as I do have the need to make prints up to about 36". I've had to limit those prints to stitched panoramas up to now for quality reasons. I'm hoping the 3D, or whatever it will be called if it truly exists, will be substantially better than the specs listed as that is the camera I'd like to get even if it costs $3-3.5K. That camera is the heir to the 5D, not the lower spec one. It'd make more sense if the 12MP camera is named a 7D for the reasons you lay out. Canon is seeing that there is a growing market for FF and it would behoove them to have an affordable entry level FF body. The 5D is synonymous with high res image quality and its mark II ought to raise that bar further, but I'd be interested in an even higher bar with a camera deserving of a 3D designation. Canon's problem is that if they make it too tempting, people won't buy the 1Ds. Nikon has boxed them in with the D300, D700 and D3 and rumored D3X. You are right in that there is little reason right now to switch from Nikon to Canon unless you are doing it for purely glass reasons. Nikon is mopping the floor with Canon on bodies and Canon is going to have to step up to the plate. Nikon need only put out a few better lenses before the trickle of switchers becomes a torrent and Canon is left with nothing but a few very low end users and very high end users.
jamesf99 wrote:
Why is AF-micro adjustment necessary? This is not a great feature IMO. All other cameras, since I've been using them anyway, have gotten by without this one problematic "feature". Put a lens on the body, it works. Nikon seems to be able to make their cameras and lenses work together. Every other mfg that has ever produced lens/body combinations seems to have mastered it. Why can't Canon?
Personally, this is not a feature I want/need. The last lens I purchased was a 300mm f/2.8. I put it on a body, it worked. No adjustment. That's what I want.
I think it's a great idea.
It's not a simple put a lens on a body and it works. The AF in modern cameras works through a complicated exchange of parameters and settings between the camera's and the lens computers. They talk to each other and make decisions. Not you. You are given an option to affect this process and shift the settings to your liking. You don't have to if you don't need.
In a way it's similar to an option to work with RAW images instead of relying on camera's jpeg interpretation.
jamesf99 wrote:
Why is AF-micro adjustment necessary? This is not a great feature IMO. All other cameras, since I've been using them anyway, have gotten by without this one problematic "feature". Put a lens on the body, it works. Nikon seems to be able to make their cameras and lenses work together. Every other mfg that has ever produced lens/body combinations seems to have mastered it. Why can't Canon?
In my opinion you are wrong. Ask Nicom users, Or all users, They all have pronlems with F/B - focus. A friend of mine brought back a 70-200 2.8 and got his money back, because Nikon was not able to serve the problem. Micro adjustment does give "pros" the chance not to wait for 6-8 weeks to get back their adjusted cams or lenses. They can not wait. They have to earn money. That is why it was done. And to safe money that has to be spend in adjusting, too. Adjusting a dearranged Rebell costs about € 175 - Canon is paying to CPS. What did that sold camera bring them at least? Nothing.
David Baldwin wrote:
"Surprisingly cheap, US$ 1,899"
Well, the UK and US economies are in trouble, it would make sense for Canon to bring out an inexpensive FF camera. If $1899 translated to £1000 I would definitely be saving up for this camera. Mind you here in the UK we always get stuffed on camera kit prices. You guys in the US don't know how lucky you are, your kit prices are sooooo cheap.
If I were American I would probably buy 2 of everything, one for the week, the other for sunday best
haha, my friend has a 20D in box, untouched in his closet to this day! not one shot taken on it!
worse, he has a car stored in his garage that has like 125 miles on it!
oh and yet worse he has another car in the other garage with like 400 miles on it!
crazy!!!!
(and then he bought a P&S on a trip because he didnt bring his 20D with him because he didn't want it to get 'bounced' on the flight over. crazy!)
anyway, it all seems expensive to me even with our lower prices.
ulrikft wrote:
The problem is the propable lack of pro af, lack of weather sealing, lack of spot-metering at all af-points, lack of af-microadjust.. :/ I have no doubts that it will perform superbly at iso 100 in good weather
good weather that is neither too overcast nor too sunny
Ben Horne wrote:
Sounds like fake stats to me. Canon would not produce a 5D replacement with the same megapixel rating, even with a lower price point. What's the point? No one would upgrade.
if it had at least 1.5 stops better high iso, more dynamic range, at least a bit better AF, liveview, 1-2 more fps, why would you not get it over the 5D?
orangefirefish wrote:
The Nikon 70-200 is sharp at all lengths, if I were still a nikon user, and if I switch back over, that would be a must have. It blows away the 2.8 IS by a lot.
Maybe on a crop camera, look at the edges on a FF or FX camera.
The 7D is supposed to be an entry-level $2,000 FF DSLR .... and it will certainly be better than the 5D, as it will have a high-def 3" screen, live view, 14-bit A/D converter, Digic III, and probably an improved AF system. For the price of a D700 you can probably get the 3D with 16-18 megapixels, dual-core Digic III, useable higher ISO i.e. lower noise, micro adjust, etc, etc.
skibum5 wrote:
if it had at least 1.5 stops better high iso, more dynamic range, at least a bit better AF, liveview, 1-2 more fps, why would you not get it over the 5D?
. Anyway it would break Nikons back - no matter about features. It wouöd through them back where they where half a year ago. A horizon line is nice for those who do not watch through their viewfinder. But it does not make IQ better. And what me concerns, I would not pay additional $ 1.500 for it. 
