You can leave out the dust cleaning, who wants something that can break, I just want iso 6400 or better yet 12,800 (I really don't care about the noise).
AF can break. Metering can break too, do you want to live without that?
Dust cleaning, at least on the Canon, consists of two piezo-electric elements that are attached to the low pass filter on the sensor. Even if a piezo-electric element fails (which is extremely unlikely since it's entirely solid state) then you've just lost the cleaning mode, the camera itself will not fail.
Antony wrote:
.. Lower end model will retail at sub $2000 and be basically a full frame 40D ...Smaller VF image than 5D due to reduced size of prism.....
I would have no problem with this except the smaller VF. ....
If this pricepoint is accurate then it would make very me hesitant to pick up the current 5D because it would really kill the current 5D's value in a hurry. And you thought the stock market's been falling quickly!!
Picture a 40D and a 5D going into a hotel room on sultry Saturday evening. The result 9 mos later is the 5DMk2. To do otherwise would be a RADICALL departure from Canon's camera-upgrade behavior.
Nikon pulled the D3 and 300 out of desperation - too many users were moving to Canon, it lacked low-noise CMOS, etc. I don't think Canon sees the situation as any where close to that dire. If they did, one example of them smelling that particular brand of coffee would be ceasing the embarrassing floundering re: the 1D3, and pull units in for a recall/refund and/or credit against other Canon products to slow the bleeding to Nikon et al.
Also, unlike Nikon, Canon has always had a clear feature and build dichotomy between it's 1 series and consumer lines and I'd expect that to continue.
gml1 wrote:
[Don't forget that Sony and Nikon are coming with axes too
Very soon there will be no market for an $8K FF camera.
There are two pro-spec FF cameras today: a 12Mp one at $5K and a 21Mp one at $8K. You might not think so, but $3K is still a reasonable cost delta for the extra resolution. For those who don't need the resolution, there is always the 5D, its successor(s), or the Nikon D3. I seriously doubt that Sony will find a way to offer a 24Mp FF camera dramatically cheaper than either Canon and Nikon. (But if so, good for us.)
Conner999 wrote:
Nikon pulled the D3 and 300 out of desperation - ....
Let's hope that Canon gets desperate soon. While I'm not all that fond of the D300, the D3 is intriguing. Were it not for the price (especially the price of running dual systems), I'd have one to accompany my 5D.
... the likelihood of seeing a successor to the 5D at Photokina is so high it can be called 'certain'. But specs? I'm not sure.
***D series
**D series
3D?
5D [exit?]
7D?
1D series
1Ds series
That seems awfully crowded for a product portfolio.
I expect to see
1. a 40D-like FF successor of 5D, with 16 MP, one Digic 3 chip and 4 fps (= equal throughput as in 40D), and
2. a FF version of 1D, with 16 MP (= equal pixels than in current APS-H 1D), with 1D body to compete with D3. If it manages to push 10 fps with full 16 MP, then it must have higher throughput than the current 1D, which could mean that also the 5D type camera might have 5 fps instead of 4 fps. AFAIK, the speculative name for the high speed FF camera is 1Dx.
This combination would keep the product portfolio less crowded than the 1D/3D/7D alternative, and still leave some room for 21+ MP übercameras.
Mar 10, 2008 at 01:03 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I had thought they were going to split the 5D line much as Anthony suggested, but I am persuaded by Lauri's analysis above. I think they might just bring out a camera with 40D type features (but with lower fps) and the 5D sensor at Photokina, and then next year try to overcome the 1D MKIII problems by introducing a full frame 16mp, 10fps, 1 series camera at PMA. If they priced it under the D3 and gave current 1D MKIII owners a $1,000 discount they would do a lot to stem the damage from the autofocus issues. Of course the camera would have to work as advertised. The higher level of the 5D split may have to wait until the get the 1 series straightened out. Of course this is only a guess. We will have to wait to see what really happens.
Firstly, I agree that Canon are known for incremental updates. But whatever you think, DSLRs are a high tech product, and 3 years is OLD tech in a fast moving market place.
Presumably, the 5D will be replaced after a 3 year cycle - which means it's fair to compare the difference between the 20D & 40D, which is actually not so incremental. I'm willing to bet that the 5DmkII (or whatever it's called) will actually be a 50D with a FF sensor, not a 40D. By that I mean:
- decent contrast based full time focussing in live view
- probably an improved AF system (40D + hidden points, maybe even better than that)
- third generation cleaning solution
- better sealing (than 40D)
- hopefully larger pixels than the 1DmkIII - beating the current 5D for low noise/high ISO (14 or 15 MP would be fantastic)
- improved buffer/DMA
- obviously more responsive
- bigger/brighter/better VF
- print button ;-)
None of the above is exactly rocket science either, given the current 40/450D specs. Actually, I'd say the above is a minimum requirement in a 2008 market.
I can't help notice but some of the talk here about the next bodies is what really pisses me off most about Canon's releases: they hold back on features, or skimp on AF - which is MOST important I think.
The competition, not to mention names here, certainly has put an very impressive AF in their latest two cameras, and just wipes the floor with Canon's bodies when it comes to AF.
I hope that with the next bodies Canon will not hinder the lower end body just with features and capabilities just to have that same feature in a higher end body.
I have Canon when they do not give 100% their best!
PS. Mark Shaxted - I agree with you - this would be an acceptable body in todays market.If you look at the specs above, it seems very impressive, but if you throw in the competition and the other options there, yes, for Canon this would be a minimum out there for a $2000 body.
There's no chance the 5D II will not increase in res to 16.xMP. There's no point. The larger the pixel count, the larger the change has to be to make any worthwhile improvements; less than that would be a increase for the sake of an increase and basically achieve nothing. The 5D II will most likely have the 1D III pixel size/ fill factor but will have had 18 months improvement in NR etc. It's entirely possible it will be cleaner than the 1D III and D3 and could offer ISO 6400 as a normal ISO and 12800 in ISO expansion. It should also surpass the 450Ds live view, will more than likely offer a VGA LCD.
Canon would be smart to improve the feature set of the 5D significantly to silence any envious noises people make when looking at the D3 and D300. Improving the performance of the already superb 5D and offering a rich feature set would ensure the camera is a smash hit IMO. Just making it a FF 40D won't cut the mustard.
Personally, I'd really like a 256MP FF camera. With adjacent photosites 4 stops apart in ISO. Proper in camera DSP (pixel binning) giving more resolution, 4 stops more DR, and less noise to boot. This is where the technology is going, and I'd rather get there sooner rather than later. Fat chance
Personally i'd be happy with a 13MP 5dmkii. I just want it to have 1 series AF ala 1V. Weather sealing ala 1V. Decent High ISO performance. And most of all, a sensor that can capture more dynamic range! I think the 5d is very capable from what i've seen and would add one if the 5dmkii was not forthcoming.
Antony wrote:
5D will be split into 2 models. 1> Lower end model will retail at sub $2000 and be basically a full frame 40D with a 13MP sensor, built in flash and slow frame rate (3 fps). ISO to 6400. Smaller VF image than 5D due to reduced size of prism. Camera will be pitched at the high-end amateur seeking FF over speed.
2> Higher end model will retail for $3199 on launch and will feature watersealing on a par with 1 series, higher frame rate (4.5 fps), and a 16MP chip. ISO to 6400. Better focus inc. focus to f/8 at centre point and x type points at the extremities of the focus ellipse (however still 9 point). Camera will be marketed as a pro model, appealling to wedding photogs and those seeking smaller form factor (similar approach to the launch of the 5D). AF micro adjustment available. Both camera will launch at photokina. Expect a big fuss. ...Show more →
********************************************
so, Antony you are saying, the successor to the 5D will suddenly be exactly like a Toyota Camry. First, there will be a 4 cylinder model, with manual tranny and no A/C;
and then a 6 cylinder model, with power everything, A/C, and mag wheels, too.
It would be creative marketing, and make the dSLR business almost like the car business, However, in dSLRs, there has never been a track record of this happening.
IMO, even if a brilliant idea on the surface, this just won't happen!
Not in 2008, maybe talk to me in 5 years.
EOSMIKE wrote:
so, Antony you are saying, the successor to the 5D will suddenly be exactly like a Toyota Camry. First, there will be a 4 cylinder model, with manual tranny and no A/C;
and then a 6 cylinder model, with power everything, A/C, and mag wheels, too.
EltonTeng wrote:
I love reading these threads. The same speculations/wants/needs are repeated time after time.
I agree. While the speculations are funny, the wants/needs (really, just wants - these cameras do all we *need* them to do and a lot more) are really telling.
So many people want a digital 3. And by a digital 3, I take that to mean that they want a 5D + the 1 series weather proofing, layout, and AF. Its somewhat frustrating, because clearly Canon can fit a FF sensor in a gripless body (5D). And we know they can fit the AF of the 1 series in there (1V, 3). Just make the damn thing already.
I've got a 1V. I've got the HS grip, and every couple months, I'll put it on to see what a 1D would feel like. 20 seconds later, I take it off. I can't see myself buying a 1DIII (or II) - its just not what I want. At the same time, the 1 series layout is great - I don't particularly want to get a 5D.
So I'm waiting for Canon to release that 'pro' series body in a gripless body format. If they need to differentiate it from the 1D and 1DS, knock down its resolution. I think I would actually be happier if it was FF and only 10-12 mp instead of 16 or more. Bigger pixels are yummy.
Canon would be smart to improve the feature set of the 5D significantly to silence any envious noises people make when looking at the D3 and D300. Improving the performance of the already superb 5D and offering a rich feature set would ensure the camera is a smash hit IMO. Just making it a FF 40D won't cut the mustard.
The question then becomes: When exactly did Canon learn about Nikon's D300 and D3 plans? And more important, when did they realize its effect on the high-end dSLR market?
Because the lead time for a new model camera isn't a mere few months, so Canon might not have had time to make the 5D II the response to the competition that it needs to be.
