akclimber wrote:
Canon, it's simple, produce a FF 3D or something very close. If you don't, my next cam and lens purchases will likely not be Canon.
I'm with you on this, except that I can get by with the mk2. I really would love Canon's 21 megapixel version of the 700D, or as you call it, FF 3D.
Be sure to email Canon to tell them how you feel. I will too. If enough people pester them and explain that this is what they want, who knows, maybe Canon will notice. But there's little point speaking to Canon by posting here. I don't believe they have time to monitor FM threads.
Steve Spencer wrote:
IMO, the 3D type cam just isn't possible yet because of computing limitations. There is still only so much data you can push through a camera and that wasn't an issue with the EOS 3. Is the D700 a 3D type camera? Not in my opinion. I have a good friend who has one and he loves it. I borrowed it, and it is a great camera, but he still keeps his D2X for wildlife and action. For that type of shooting the D2X is just a whole lot better and the D700 really isn't suited very well for it. The closest thing to cameras that can do everything are the 1Ds MKIII and the D3X, and it is their greater pixel density that allows them to do so. Neither of them shoot at close to the speed of the 1D or D3, however, and there is a reason for this--only so much data can be pushed through the system. With this limitation, in my view the APS-H is a reasonable compromise. You still get decent pixel density and a high frame rate. If they made it full frame like the D3 and D700, then you lose on either density or frame rate. Things will improve, however, computing power should grow by the next generation of cameras (i.e., the MK V's) that should allow a 21 megapixel FF camera that can shoot 10 fps. That is when I expect Canon to shift the 1D to full frame. ...Show more →
Hmmmm, I'd say the D700 is pretty close to a 3D type all around cam but it lacks enough pixels. I didn't say (or mean to imply) that I'm looking for a 21+ MP FF DSLR that shoots at 10fps. For me, "enough pixels" starts at about 16-18MPs and "enough fps" starts at 6 (OK, maybe 8). I shoot everything from whales and bears and eagles to landscapes to still lifes to architecture and need a true all around DSLR (or 2). I'm pretty sure it's within tech limitations to produce a 16-18MP FF DSLR that shoots at 6+ fps and utilizes a pro quality AF module all stuffed into a weather resistant body while keeping the price reasonable. Heck, the 24 MP Sony A900 shoots at 5 fps, is housed in a weather resistant body, has a reportedly very accurate (altho limited coverage) AF module, decent high ISO performance (up to at least 800 if you shoot RAW) and is priced less than $3000. That's awful close to being a great all around DSLR - almost in the same league as the much, much more expensive D3X abnd 1Ds3.
These are interesting times! I hope Canon steps up to the plate but if not I'm gonna try and remain open to alternatives.
nathanlake wrote:
Why do you hope they don't up the Mp. I would assume that R&D is ongoing that allows Canon to increase Mp while controlling the sideeffects (noise, etc).
You could have made the same request when the 1Ds was released in FF with 11Mp.
Simple. If you are happy with the current pixel count then that same r&d work will result in better noise performance than it would if it were coupled with an increase in pixel density.
n0b0 wrote:
Why is it bad news? Just because 50D doesn't have a good reputation for good IQ, doesn't mean it's because of the MP. For all we know, it could've been caused by the new gapless microlens technology.
Besides, 50D uses APS-C sensor which is smaller than APS-H. If 12MP on APS-C 450D can be excellent, I don't see why 15MP on an APS-H sensor can't be great as well.
and at the print level the 50D isn't any worse than the other APS-C cameras anyway.
A 14MP APS-C would have photosites no smaller than a 5D2 and it would use newer technology so it should have even better noise characterstics.
I sort of think they should try to do more like FF 18MP myself for the 1D4 but doesn't sound like it.
brainiac wrote:
I'm with you on this, except that I can get by with the mk2. I really would love Canon's 21 megapixel version of the 700D, or as you call it, FF 3D.
Be sure to email Canon to tell them how you feel. I will too. If enough people pester them and explain that this is what they want, who knows, maybe Canon will notice. But there's little point speaking to Canon by posting here. I don't believe they have time to monitor FM threads.
michael49 wrote:
I wouldn't disagree with this, but why couldn't they have made the 5DmkII 6fps in sRAW? Most times when I need high fps I don't need 21mp. This would have been a nice compromise.
Because they wanted to re-use the old mid-end FF mirror box they used in the 5D and other cameras perhaps back to the 1980's. AFAIK, the mirror box is simply not rated past 4fps. It would have been very awesome had it been able to toss say the centermost 8-11MP at high speed.
timbop wrote:
DxoMark's tests are flawed. Look at the 20d and 30d; same sensor yet there is a big difference. Then look at the 5d classic compared to the rest of canon's lineup. Sorry, their tests are meaningless.
If you look at the curves they are VERY similar, it looks like canon may have adjusted the rated ISO sensitivities though so comparing per ISO they look different, but comparing per equal sensitivity the curves are pretty close.
and who says they might not have changed amps or whatnot even the sensor is the same?
500D has less pattern banding than 50D and appears to use more or less the same sensor.
I think their results are generally pretty solid (although the 12800->25600 1.4 stop drop on the 5D2 makes no sense). I suppose the Nikon DR tests MIGHT be open for debate still, but there has been no proof yet of something bad and some field tests appearing to match.
akclimber wrote:
"If you want full frame for your landscape and portrait work, Canon provides a superb 5D Mark II and 1Ds Mark III"
Sigh, I certainly hope this isn't the official Canon thinking, that is that they see sports/action cams and landscape/still/portrait cams as separate beasts and that they have no intention of producing a relatively affordable FF camera that is adept at all aspects of photography, from action to stills to portraits (I'm curious about the features to be included on the 60D as well, that may give a good indication of the direction Canon's going to take when it comes to competing with Nikon and Sony). If that's the case, I really may have to move on or at least go to 2 systems for a while. I won't buy another APS-H cam and I've been waiting since the original 5D for a 3D type cam. I'll wait a bit longer but when next Spring rolls around (if not before) I'm upgrading my 5D + 1D2n (was supposed to upgrade to the 5D2 but I wasn't willing to keep living with a slow frame rate and AF not too suitable for action and the uncertain low ISO file quality). At this rate tho, I'll be very interested in an A900 replacement from Sony and whatever Nikon has out there. Too bad. Canon seems not to be interested in taking my money, even in this bad economy.
Canon, it's simple, produce a FF 3D or something very close. If you don't, my next cam and lens purchases will likely not be Canon.
it would be odd to see nikon actualy take over the FF world when they were not even a player just a couple years ago! (i.e. if they release a D700x-type beast)
Steve Spencer wrote:
IMO, the 3D type cam just isn't possible yet because of computing limitations. There is still only so much data you can push through a camera and that wasn't an issue with the EOS 3. Is the D700 a 3D type camera? Not in my opinion. I have a good friend who has one and he loves it. I borrowed it, and it is a great camera, but he still keeps his D2X for wildlife and action. For that type of shooting the D2X is just a whole lot better and the D700 really isn't suited very well for it. The closest thing to cameras that can do everything are the 1Ds MKIII and the D3X, and it is their greater pixel density that allows them to do so. Neither of them shoot at close to the speed of the 1D or D3, however, and there is a reason for this--only so much data can be pushed through the system. With this limitation, in my view the APS-H is a reasonable compromise. You still get decent pixel density and a high frame rate. If they made it full frame like the D3 and D700, then you lose on either density or frame rate. Things will improve, however, computing power should grow by the next generation of cameras (i.e., the MK V's) that should allow a 21 megapixel FF camera that can shoot 10 fps. That is when I expect Canon to shift the 1D to full frame. ...Show more →
akclimber wrote:
Hmmmm, I'd say the D700 is pretty close to a 3D type all around cam but it lacks enough pixels. I didn't say (or mean to imply) that I'm looking for a 21+ MP FF DSLR that shoots at 10fps. For me, "enough pixels" starts at about 16-18MPs and "enough fps" starts at 6 (OK, maybe 8). I shoot everything from whales and bears and eagles to landscapes to still lifes to architecture and need a true all around DSLR (or 2). I'm pretty sure it's within tech limitations to produce a 16-18MP FF DSLR that shoots at 6+ fps and utilizes a pro quality AF module all stuffed into a weather resistant body while keeping the price reasonable. Heck, the 24 MP Sony A900 shoots at 5 fps, is housed in a weather resistant body, has a reportedly very accurate (altho limited coverage) AF module, decent high ISO performance (up to at least 800 if you shoot RAW) and is priced less than $3000. That's awful close to being a great all around DSLR - almost in the same league as the much, much more expensive D3X abnd 1Ds3.
These are interesting times! I hope Canon steps up to the plate but if not I'm gonna try and remain open to alternatives.
Canon could do an 18MP 8 fps full frame camera and they still might, but I think it is unlikely that they will go below 10 fps on the 1D MK IV. As the rumors suggest it seems a 15MP 10fps APS-H camera is what is likely and it will be very well liked by wildlife shooter and others who will appreciate the high pixel density and therefore effective reach. Such a camera will have a lot greater pixel density than an 18 MP full frame (about 60% more), so some will love it. Other like you who are waiting for a faster, cheaper full frame will be disappointed, and it makes sense that people like you would consider other brands. The Sony a900 is definitely an interesting camera and they are trying hard to gain market share and may make the camera you seem to desire. I also wouldn't be surprised at all, if Nikon makes an 18 MP 8 fps D4 in about a year. So stay tuned. I think the increased competition will push all three companies that make full frame cameras, but I still think it won't be until the MK V that Canon switches the 1D to full frame.
So, now that people have voiced their opinions on what the new model will most likely have, who is going to step up and slap down 4500 bones before any extensive users reports start rolling in? To begin the beta testing........
Unfortunately Canon CAN'T move the 1D to full frame because a great many photographers still (erroneously IMO) believe that there is some 'reach' advantage in smaller sensors in pro cameras. I think it's mad, and clearly so does Nikon, but Canon's installed base of APS-H experts will probably continue to spoil the party in Canon's market research. Who knows if this entrenched prejudice will ever die. Perhaps when the last pro moves to Nikon Canon will see the light. Crop sensors in pro bodies with full frame lenses: wooohoooo!
For me, it's all about AF coverage. Thus, from that PoV, APS-H is better than FF. As long as they keep the same AF system for both 1D and 1Ds series I'd much rather the APS-H format.
I had the 1D and loved it. I wanted to buy the 1D Mk III but refrained due to the AF problems. Now, if I may assume Canon will not do the same mistake and will listen to RG before launching then I'd be more than happy to help them with their payments' balance.
brainiac wrote:
Unfortunately Canon CAN'T move the 1D to full frame because a great many photographers still (erroneously IMO) believe that there is some 'reach' advantage in smaller sensors in pro cameras. I think it's mad, and clearly so does Nikon, but Canon's installed base of APS-H experts will probably continue to spoil the party in Canon's market research. Who knows if this entrenched prejudice will ever die. Perhaps when the last pro moves to Nikon Canon will see the light. Crop sensors in pro bodies with full frame lenses: wooohoooo!
I still hear many people talk about the extra 'reach' of smaller sensors. All I can do is roll my eyes at Canon's marketing of that idea.
Yakim Peled wrote:
For me, it's all about AF coverage. Thus, from that PoV, APS-H is better than FF. As long as they keep the same AF system for both 1D and 1Ds series I'd much rather the APS-H format.
Brainiac should be making a post clearly showing that the APS-H format offers absolutely no objective AF coverage advantage in 3.. 2.. 1..
Yes, I know Richard's arguments all too well but unfortunately, the don't work for me.
1. It's much better from the compositional PoV i.e. when you shoot.
2. Call me old fashion but I'd much rather have an APS-H body with fewer MP count than a FF body with a multitude of MP's and then crop back in PS. What's the use of having so much MP's if you (read: I) keep throwing so many away?
3. If you have less MP and all other stuff remains the same then you can have more FPS. Yes, I know it's not an AF coverage issue per se. It's just an added bonus.
4. Another nice bonus of the APS-H format is that it's significantly cheaper.
Summary: For me an APS-H format is vastly better than an FF one.
Yakim Peled wrote:
2. Call me old fashion but I'd much rather have an APS-H body with fewer MP count than a FF body with a multitude of MP's and then crop back in PS. What's the use of having so much MP's if you (read: I) keep throwing so many away?
brainiac wrote:
Unfortunately Canon CAN'T move the 1D to full frame because a great many photographers still (erroneously IMO) believe that there is some 'reach' advantage in smaller sensors in pro cameras. I think it's mad, and clearly so does Nikon, but Canon's installed base of APS-H experts will probably continue to spoil the party in Canon's market research. Who knows if this entrenched prejudice will ever die. Perhaps when the last pro moves to Nikon Canon will see the light. Crop sensors in pro bodies with full frame lenses: wooohoooo!
another thing since they only put top AF in series and in 1 series they only make the 1Ds at $8000 FF if you want top AF you pay $8000 if you also want to shoot wide angle with a typical lens setup (17-50/17-55 on APS-C or 24-whatever on FF, APS-H the 24mm are not quite wide enough and the 17-40 is kind of short and slow)
you have to feel that nikon will have a reasonably high MP D700-like camera out with top AF way before canon ever well, which would be ridiculous considering how far ahead canon used to be, especially with FF.
again not to bash the 5D2 since I do like it a lot, but still, you just hope canon is not shooting themselves in the foot....
>Yakim Peled wrote:
>Yes, I know Richard's arguments all too well but unfortunately, the don't work for me.
>
>1. It's much better from the compositional PoV i.e. when you shoot.
otoh, it can make it easier in that sense, otoh when tracking action the lesser FOV makes it harder to see what is going on and a little hard to track and compose
>2. Call me old fashion but I'd much rather have an APS-H body with fewer MP count >than a FF body with a multitude of MP's and then crop back in PS. What's the use of >having so much MP's if you (read: I) keep throwing so many away?
to some extent it can be true for sports, for all the players far off, but what about when they come near? suddenly they overflow the APS-H frame.... not so good.
and waht about when you do landscapes and such?
>3. If you have less MP and all other stuff remains the same then you can have more >FPS. Yes, I know it's not an AF coverage issue per se. It's just an added bonus.
if the mirror box can keep up
>4. Another nice bonus of the APS-H format is that it's significantly cheaper.
