nads wrote:
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?
The 5D's 3fps limit has nothing to do with the shutter mechanism but everything to do with bandwidth. The 1Ds2 does do 4fps at 16mp but it has more data lines (and more data lines = more $$$) so no the 5D is not just cripped via software.
One thing that hasn't been discussed so far, is understanding what motivates a Japanese company. Canon released the 20Da, not to line the corporate bank account, but because it could - almost as if the management was giving the engineers an extra long leash and seeing what would happen. I really think the 5D was a similar case - although I think Canon was hoping for a better return on it.
It's already been mentioned that there was a danger of the 5D taking sales away from the 1Ds. But, in terms of the bottom line, that should be OK. Bear with me.
lets assume the following for arguments sake...(the numbers don't really matter)
a 5D cost 50% less to manufacture compared to a 1Ds (small sales, less R&D return). Considering a 1Ds shares R&D with the 1D, this is probably not a million miles off.
a 5D retails for 1/3 as much as a 1Ds.
Basic economics teaches us that demand increases as cost decreases. I'll bet that Canon would make far more money by selling lots of 5D's than a few 1Ds's(3 to 1). However, Canon choose to 'cripple' the 5D to protect 1Ds sales. Why is this?
Well, obviously, it's to protect it's status as the premier camera manufacturer. It needs a 'flagship' model that is far better than anything els on the market. To a degree, this is marketing earning it's money - the same reason we see lots of white lenses around every sporting event we see on TV... Although not every consumer wants a white lens, we all understand it's marketing value.
My point? Well, I think (contrary to what I posted before) that the 5D is the future in many ways. I believe that Canon (to it's cost) has learnt what the consumer is prepared to pay for FF, and that the consumer expects more from a camera than 'just' good IQ. Features rule. This is apparent in every product available - not just cameras. This is why Canon will soon dumb down the xxxD & xxD range of cameras, and really push FF as the best option for everyone. This will include new lens releases - esp. the UWA range, and not just L-series.
This won't all happen in 2007, but will certainly begin here. 2008/2009 will be when it gets interesting - Canon will seperate itself from the industry and do it's own thing - ie FF.
Actually I believe the 5D shoots at only 3 fps because it can't process the data fast enough to shoot at a higher rate. While the 1Ds MkII manages up to 4 fps at a higher resolution, it also has a separate processor for autofocus and other functions, and may even use higher speed memory or other components. I don't see any reason for Canon to limit the framerate of the 5D in software when the 20D and 30D already do 5fps.
Edit: damn, this thread moves fast, thedigitalbean beat me to it
thedigitalbean wrote:
The 5D's 3fps limit has nothing to do with the shutter mechanism but everything to do with bandwidth. The 1Ds2 does do 4fps at 16mp but it has more data lines (and more data lines = more $$$) so no the 5D is not just cripped via software.
If this was true, why can't you do it if you set the image to low quality JPG where bandwith to the card is absolutely not an isue? Keep in mind that we're talking about processing less information than the older 1D2 does at 8.5fps.
R.H. Johnson wrote:
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.
nads wrote:
If this was true, why can't you do it if you set the image to low quality JPG where bandwith to the card is absolutely not an isue? Keep in mind that we're talking about processing less information than the older 1D2 does at 8.5fps.
It's not bandwidth to the card that's the issue, but bandwidth between the sensor, processor, and associated memory. The camera also has to read and process all the data from the sensor, regardless of final output size, so that's a moot point.
Geoff Costello wrote:
The 5D has not sold as well as hoped in most markets except when rebates are offered.
Geoff, please provide a source for your information because all hard data that I've seen suggests that the 5D is doing quite well. Perhaps the small Australian market is an anomaly because in larger markets, such as Japan, 5D sales are doing quite well.
Look how steady the 5D sales have been. Look at how well it competes with cameras that are less than half its cost. Look at how those other cameras experience a surge in demand at introduction, which then tails off fairly quickly.
Edited by StevenPA on Jan 18, 2007 at 12:30 PM GMT
R.H. Johnson wrote:
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.
That's funny, I've never heard a Canon rep call the 5d a pro camera; at least not here in Boston. Professional or amateur photographers can use it but it was designed - for the wedding market - as a way to let those that wanted to get into the FF arena.
Why do I not think it's a pro camera? Lots of reasons, but image quality isn't one of them. The way to identify if a camera is fits into the professional level or not is by looking at how many features are present/missing. The 5d comes up short in almost every area.
Media - 1 series "Pro" camera uses both
Speed - 5d is slower that the 1DsMkII by about half (4 FPS at 17MP vs. 3 FPs at 13MP or 68MP vs 39MP). The 1DMkII produces 65MP/sec.
VF - 100% for Pro (5d is 95% or 96% and this is significant)
Body - OK, we won't mention weather sealing if you don't want to do so.
Custom Functions, Settings, options, etc. The "Pro" 1 series cameras have more in every case.
AF - This is almost a no brainer (with the exception of low light where the 5d wins according to Canon)
Do we need to continue??
The 5d is NOT a pro camera. It's a high-end amateur camera that any pro can use as well.
Mark Shaxted wrote:
Exactly - it's Canon testing the waters.
Most electronics companies test the waters with new technology/features on their lower line products. This is no different than what Canon has done in the past.
kisielk wrote:
It's not bandwidth to the card that's the issue, but bandwidth between the sensor, processor, and associated memory. The camera also has to read and process all the data from the sensor, regardless of final output size, so that's a moot point.
Clearly it's not the bandwidth to the card that's the issue... the 5D seems to test faster than the 1DII does with the same CF cards. The 5D is also using the same Digic II processor as the 1DII, only with 1.5 additional years of refinement to the processing algorithms. Funny that if the 5D were to process 5 frames of it's 12.8MP in a second, that would still be less data to process than the 1DII does in the same period of time.
You can simply state that 3fps is all the body can physically process... but where is the actual evidence? What really makes you think that the 5D cannot get data from the sensor as fast as the 1DII could? I'm not going to make the leap of faith to believe that Canon pulled all the stops to give the world the best possible non 1-series FF body that could possibly be made. Especially considering that there is absolutely no competition for such a product. Heck, the closest actual competition it has is the 1D2!
They've certainly and blatantly crippled their bodies before and since.. The 300D had almost all of the physical abilities of the 10D, but was intentionally crippled so as to not interfere with the sales of the 10D. Every wonder why the 30D can do 1/3 ISO stops but the 400D cannot? Sometimes holding back on a feature or two will mean sales down the road.
Rest assured, Canon has no good reason not to sandbag on Full Frame bodies other than the 1DS series.
David Manning wrote:
Most electronics companies test the waters with new technology/features on their lower line products. This is no different than what Canon has done in the past.
Of course not - and this is my point. I think Canon has learnt a lesson - FF is too expensive. And under featured (reduced spec) cameras don't sell so well. I think Canon will respond - they have too. I think we're going to see FF prices plummet (relatively) as Canon bid's to regain market share. The market is a very fickle place. It changes. Canon can do so too.
I think Canon's 2007 legacy will be bringing FF to the masses - millions of 35mm film SLR users are still waiting to embrace the digital age. That's a huge market which only Canon (at this point in time) can service.
Having said that, I can't wait till Sony produces a FF CMOS sensor - it's going to happen this year - I'm certain of that.
dcmiller wrote:
I'm printing this thread out to show people I'm not all THAT obsessive about equipment.
Thank you....... please return to your insanity.
Nor me - i have no intention of upgrading - however...
todays top of the line cameras will affect tommorows consumer crap
I want to embrace FF - even though I love the 1.6 crop format.
I'm interested in what tech dev can bring us all.
I want lower prices. This is enevitable.
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.
--------------------
Guess what....Canon Prof Services includes the 10D on the list too, so don't let their list get you too excited about the 5D!! http://www.cps.canon-europa.com/membership/apply.do
Now...the new 5D without the "auto print button"....ok....get excited!
For the record, professional photographers are not limited to 1-series cameras. Many shoot with 10D, 20D, 30D, and 5D bodies. A few shoot with the Rebel series as well. I'm not sure why people feel the need to classify cameras in stringent categories when the pro/am line is very blurred.
As for data throughput and frames-per-second, the 5D shares similar data throughput with the 20D & 30D in terms of bits-per-second so it stands to reason that the 12.8 Mpx images will not produce the same frame rate as the 8.2 Mpx images of the 30D. They use roughly the same processor and same supporting circuits. The 1-series has different electronic hardware. Don't let the name "Digic-2" fool you into thinking that the same exact processor is used in all Canon cameras that display the monoker - there is a family of Digic-2 processors just as there's a family of Intel Pentium-4 processors.
Lastly, put yourself into a dark room, say EV of about 0 or so. Put an 85/1.2 on a 5D and the same lens on a 1D II. Guess which one handles autofocus better? Yes, the 5D. It has larger focus sensors, and is more sensitive in low-light situations. The tradeoff is that the sensors are big enough that the AF indicators don't precisely indicate the size of the sensor.
How that translates into "crippled", I don't know. It's not a 1-series body, but it's a very capable camera. And it brings full-frame to a price level that many more can afford. That's significant.
10DFT wrote:
Cool, it's turned into another 5D bashing thread!
For the record, professional photographers are not limited to 1-series cameras. Many shoot with 10D, 20D, 30D, and 5D bodies. A few shoot with the Rebel series as well. I'm not sure why people feel the need to classify cameras in stringent categories when the pro/am line is very blurred.
Tom you've missed the point (as many 5D owners do) - we're classifying cameras here, not photographers.
It's the camera's design that makes it 'professional', not the user.
