Geoff Costello wrote: "I posted on this topic in August 2007 way back in the old Photokina Rumour thread...." and much more.
Great post. And I'll admit that I probably think it is great because much of it is in line with my thinking - about the complexity of competition between 400D and 30D type camera; competition with Nikon and Sony and (I think) Pentax, the notion of a new and less expensive full frame camera (and a split in the non-1-Series full frame line), and so forth.
Matmi wrote:
I'd love to see a 400 f/4 IS (IS is important...), even above $3,000. Any chance ?
Have you considered a 300/2.8L IS with 1.4x extender?
Oh, and regarding 1.6x crop Pro body ideas ... how the bloomin' 'eck does that mesh with Canon's commitment to go Full Frame on anything except entry level? It kinda hints at ballistic pedicure to me. (That's shooting ones own foot, if you didn't get it )
Tentacle wrote:
Have you considered a 300/2.8L IS with 1.4x extender?
Good combination!
Oh, and regarding 1.6x crop Pro body ideas ... how the bloomin' 'eck does that mesh with Canon's commitment to go Full Frame on anything except entry level? It kinda hints at ballistic pedicure to me. (That's shooting ones own foot, if you didn't get it )
Depends on how you define "entry level". Is it just the Rebel/400D level, or is there a larger range that includes the xxD bodies? I believe the latter.
I've also read Canon's desire to "mainstream" full frame, and I think that the 5D goes far in that direction. But I also think that Canon recognizes that plenty of people WANT the 1.6 cameras, either for economic reasons, optical reasons (long-lens shooters), or due to having sunk a couple of grand in good EF-S lenses. And if Canon doesn't build what people want, they'll not be selling many cameras.
While a manufacturer can influence buying decisions through marketing and advertizing, it is ultimately the buyers that make the decision. And if buyer demand craves a high-level 1.6X camera for whatever reason, then someone or other will build it and will profit from it. Hopefully, Canon has a handle on this.
Tentacle wrote:
Have you considered a 300/2.8L IS with 1.4x extender?
Oh, and regarding 1.6x crop Pro body ideas ... how the bloomin' 'eck does that mesh with Canon's commitment to go Full Frame on anything except entry level? It kinda hints at ballistic pedicure to me. (That's shooting ones own foot, if you didn't get it )
Has Canon announced their "commitment to go FF on anything except entry level" I hadn't heard that. If so, that is disappointing for me as a bird and wildlife shooter. If Nikon had a better selection of telephoto lenses, I would consider switching to them for this reason alone if it were true.
Thing is that all the pro long lens people are using 1D mkII's for the AF, build and weather proofing, making a camera so that amatuers can get away with buying cheaper and shorter lenses (i.e. less profit for canon) is not going to be high on their priority. Seriously if I were Canon why the heck would I build a pro level 1.6X camera that will kill both the sales of my 1D mk(whatever) and the 400, 500 and 600mm lenses?
IMO it's wishful thinking on the part of hardup amatuers or those who don't make enough money on it to cart the lenses whatever the weight. For Canon to build a pro 1.6X line of bodies for a small niche of amatuer wildlife photographers is ludicrous. Canon know that their long lenses are cheaper in the main and are more featured (IS) than most of the Nikon offerings, I doubt they are worrying about people jumping ship to save the price of a 1D mkII over a 20D otherwise they might have given us the 5D with weather proofing and serious AF in the first place (I wish!).
FWIW, one of the larger Dutch retailers has just more or less confirmed upgrades to the 30D, 1D2N and 1Ds2 for PMA. Did not want to share any details though...or did not have any details to share...
Patrick Cox wrote:
Has Canon announced their "commitment to go FF on anything except entry level" I hadn't heard that. If so, that is disappointing for me as a bird and wildlife shooter. If Nikon had a better selection of telephoto lenses, I would consider switching to them for this reason alone if it were true.
August 2005, at the 5D touch-and-try press conference:
Brian Worley, product manager of D-SLR cameras at Canon Europa, said that it's a long way before all EOS models will have a full size sensor, but Canon's aim is to equip all models, except the cheapest, with a 35mm sensor in the future.
Beni wrote:
Thing is that all the pro long lens people are using 1D mkII's for the AF, build and weather proofing, making a camera so that amatuers can get away with buying cheaper and shorter lenses (i.e. less profit for canon) is not going to be high on their priority. Seriously if I were Canon why the heck would I build a pro level 1.6X camera that will kill both the sales of my 1D mk(whatever) and the 400, 500 and 600mm lenses?
IMO it's wishful thinking on the part of hardup amatuers or those who don't make enough money on it to cart the lenses whatever the weight. For Canon to build a pro 1.6X line of bodies for a small niche of amatuer wildlife photographers is ludicrous. Canon know that their long lenses are cheaper in the main and are more featured (IS) than most of the Nikon offerings, I doubt they are worrying about people jumping ship to save the price of a 1D mkII over a 20D otherwise they might have given us the 5D with weather proofing and serious AF in the first place (I wish!)....Show more →
As important as it is to them, the pro market represents a relatively small percentage of Canon's sales. Their real money comes from well heeled amateurs buying better than entry level bodies and expensive lenses. The reason that they would be interested in a near pro-level 1.6x body is because they have a market for it, and it is not just birders. It is all the Moms and Dads shooting their kids baseball and soccer games who are never in a million years are going to buy a Series 1 body or a 600 mm lens.
Imagine a Canon user in that market segment standing next to Nikon parent and having to admit that their camera only does 3 FPS. Holy lexus, can't have that! Even worse, imagine if they look through the Nikon with the same 200mm lens that they have and can actually see little Johnnie's face when he is standing on second base.
This group and many others, don't give a rat's ass about FF and you can waste an entire day trying to convince them that FF is better and all you will get is a glazed look. The salesman in the camera store though isn't going to spend all day trying to tell them why FF is so much better. He is just going to sell them a Nikon or a Sony which is why Canon will make such a camera.
PS. By your logic (no offense intended) Canon should not have introduced and can never upgrade the 5D because it will hurt 1DsMkII sales.
The 5D was intentionally crippled and badly so to protect the 1Ds mkII and even so Canon certainly felt the 5D hitting it's bigger brothers sales. If that camera had decent AF and weather sealing then a huge portion of potential 1Ds mkII buyers would have been lost given the better noise control and almost the same resolution. The EOS 3 didn't have the frame rate or same level of weather proofing as the 1V which protected the flagship camera and made it the pros field choice, as the 1Ds mkII has no real frame rate advantage the only real difference (not quibbling about the added resolution) is the body build which is why the 5D had to be crippled and cannot be upgraded till the 1Ds mkIII is a serious generation ahead in almost everything.
Not sure why that is all relevant here....
Oh yeah, if the 40D gets weather proofing and better AF then it will hurt 1D mkII sales, possibly seriously given that budget media outlets will buy them in instead and many many journalists/wildlife shooters will be using them as backup if not as their main bodies. Is the difference between 5 and 8fps that much for the budget conscious or the non fast sports shooters? (I don't know. That was a serious question, I've never used machine gun mode in my life!)
Nikon don't have a 1D mkII, they have the D2H but that is for journalists hitting headlines seconds after a game where 4 megapixels is plenty. The real equivelent they have is in all truthfullness the D2X. Therefore the D200 doesn't damage their line up in any way even with all it's features. I personally think that the 40D will be 10 megapixels with an anti dust feature and the 5D's AF and that is it! Oh and it will be significantly cheaper than the D200, i.e. competing with the D80.
The 5D will probably still not get weather proofing or the 45 AF system unless the 1Ds mkIII is somthing way way impressive. The fact is that for most pro photographers 13 megapixels with that level of noise is just fine thank you very much so there needs to be incentive to sell at 1Ds prices. Bump up the 5D's feaure set too much and bam it's gone...
Which leaves us with the 40D competing with the D80 (not too hard), the 5D and D200 not really competing unless for usage rights, i.e. Canon takes the wedding/studio/low light/landscape shooters and Nikon the rest, and at the top level the 1D mkII competes with the D2X for the sports/wildlife crowd and the 1Ds mkIII still sits alone on it's throne competing with the D2X for just about everyone else. In other words nothing really will change at all from the competition between the big two in 2006.
Beni wrote:
The 5D was intentionally crippled and badly so
Uhh...what? How is a camera built on a prosumer body "badly crippled" by not having features only found in more expensive pro bodies? The 5D is a prosumer full frame, NOT a smaller pro camera. That was how it was priced and that's how it was marketed.
RikWriter wrote:
Uhh...what? How is a camera built on a prosumer body "badly crippled" by not having features only found in more expensive pro bodies? The 5D is a prosumer full frame, NOT a smaller pro camera. That was how it was priced and that's how it was marketed.
Beni is absolutely right. The 5D was crippled intentionally from the get go. The cost to add in the better AF and a few other up tweaks is absolutely and relatively minimal but to have done that would have doomed 1DsMkII sales and limited its application to those who really needed a war tested body. The same is true across the product line. How much do you think it would have cost to add those six invisible AF points on the 5D to the 30D? They aren't on the 30D to keep the price down, they aren't there to differentiate the products.
Hrow wrote:
Beni is absolutely right. The 5D was crippled intentionally from the get go. The cost to add in the better AF and a few other up tweaks is absolutely and relatively minimal but to have done that would have doomed 1DsMkII sales and limited its application to those who really needed a war tested body. The same is true across the product line. How much do you think it would have cost to add those six invisible AF points on the 5D to the 30D? They aren't on the 30D to keep the price down, they aren't there to differentiate the products. ...Show more →
No, he's absolutely wrong. He wasn't speaking only of the AF points, anyway, he was also talking about weather sealing, which is only featured in dedicated Canon pro bodies. As for the AF system, I don't know this for sure, but I would venture a guess that the electronics they used in the 5D aren't up to the computing level of the pro bodies, again because it is NOT a pro camera. The fact that it doesn't have what he WISHES it had doesn't make it "crippled."
Beni wrote:
Thing is that all the pro long lens people are using 1D mkII's for the AF, build and weather proofing, making a camera so that amatuers can get away with buying cheaper and shorter lenses (i.e. less profit for canon) is not going to be high on their priority. Seriously if I were Canon why the heck would I build a pro level 1.6X camera that will kill both the sales of my 1D mk(whatever) and the 400, 500 and 600mm lenses?
IMO it's wishful thinking on the part of hardup amatuers or those who don't make enough money on it to cart the lenses whatever the weight. For Canon to build a pro 1.6X line of bodies for a small niche of amatuer wildlife photographers is ludicrous. Canon know that their long lenses are cheaper in the main and are more featured (IS) than most of the Nikon offerings, I doubt they are worrying about people jumping ship to save the price of a 1D mkII over a 20D otherwise they might have given us the 5D with weather proofing and serious AF in the first place (I wish!)....Show more →
Unfortunately I can't disagree with your logic. And yes, I am one of the "hard up amateurs" you speak of. I guess I better keep savings my nickels.
Kenergy_007 wrote:
The new Canon imagePROGRAF printers can handle 16bit files so I predict the new 1Ds will produce 16bit color space images.
Any half decent image editing package deals in 16 bit colour space, so 16 bit printers are simply using the data given to them - rather than letting the printer driver convert into 8 bit colour space. I don't think you can read anything into this.
EDIT - unless of course the new printers are designed for studios who use the direct print button...
My 5D is crippled? That's news to me -- I make wonderful photos on that camera. I guess I'll have to go home and delete all my images, and take them with a better camera! Or, I can use whatever body I own and purchase from any camera manufacturer and use them to the best of my ability.
All too often, people spend more time bragging about the features of their equipment or whining about some sort of incremental upgrade that was hoped for but not delivered by Canon, Nikon, or any other manufacturer. Instead, they could be improving their photographic skills and using their camera(s) to make great photos.
This is just my opinion, and after many hundreds of posts on FM, this is my first sarcasticly annoyed post.
Rick, i beg your pardon. "The 5D is a prosumer full frame, NOT a smaller pro camera. That was how it was priced and that's how it was marketed."
the 5d is an entry level professional camera and is marketed as such. the 5d counts as a qualifying pro camera body for Canon Professional Services.
ones logic is flawed. the 5d is an entry level professional camera for those that are entering the proffessional ranks but can not afford the 1D bodies. the 5d allows young pros to capture pro level images at an affordable cost. the image quality is outstanding. it is primarily, as mentioned above, a camera that performs well in "wedding/studio/low light/landscape". the 5d is truely in a class all by itself.
pranic wrote:
My 5D is crippled? That's news to me -- I make wonderful photos on that camera. I guess I'll have to go home and delete all my images, and take them with a better camera! Or, I can use whatever body I own and purchase from any camera manufacturer and use them to the best of my ability.
Out of curiosity, do you believe that the 5D shoots 3fps because the shutter mechanism is physically not capable of shooting at 5fps, or rather because Canon chose to cripple it's performance via software?
It's certainly minor, but it is something that Canon could have allowed it to do at zero cost, but they intentionally chose to not do so.
Most cell phone customers in the USA deal with phones that have been almost totally crippled by their service providers, but never notice that those features have been disabled. Pretty sad what we are willing to take.
)
I hadn't heard that. If so, that is disappointing for me as a bird and wildlife shooter. If Nikon had a better selection of telephoto lenses, I would consider switching to them for this reason alone if it were true.
)