5D Split? 5D X & 5D Mark III [CR1]

[lol]

A typical RAW from 18MP is about... 25MB. 45MP is about 2.5x that, so let's say we're looking at average raws of 65MB on a 45MP sensor. So you need 2.5x the storage, not really significant given that cards, hard disks, and CPUs are getting faster all the time. We're still looking in the ball park of 250 shots per 16GB CF card. 32GB are commonly available and more affordable than ever.

Put another way, if you're too cheap to handle 45MP files, you probably can't afford the body in the first place either so there's no problem!

As to two models of 5D, let's put aside the name and rephrase that: will Canon put out two sub 1D level full frame bodies. Easy answer - Why not? They can remove or add models as needed. Who saw the 7D coming before it came out?

[briansquibb]

A typical RAW from 18MP is about... 25MB. 45MP is about 2.5x that, so let's say we're looking at average raws of 65MB on a 45MP sensor. So you need 2.5x the storage, not really significant given that cards, hard disks, and CPUs are getting faster all the time. We're still looking in the ball park of 250 shots per 16GB CF card. 32GB are commonly available and more affordable than ever.

Put another way, if you're too cheap to handle 45MP files, you probably can't afford the body in the first place either so there's no problem!

As to two models of 5D, let's put aside the name and rephrase that: will Canon put out two sub 1D level full frame bodies. Easy answer - Why not? They can remove or add models as needed. Who saw the 7D coming before it came out?

Well stated

[LetTheRightLensIn]

A typical RAW from 18MP is about... 25MB. 45MP is about 2.5x that, so let's say we're looking at average raws of 65MB on a 45MP sensor. So you need 2.5x the storage, not really significant given that cards, hard disks, and CPUs are getting faster all the time. We're still looking in the ball park of 250 shots per 16GB CF card. 32GB are commonly available and more affordable than ever.

Put another way, if you're too cheap to handle 45MP files, you probably can't afford the body in the first place either so there's no problem!

As to two models of 5D, let's put aside the name and rephrase that: will Canon put out two sub 1D level full frame bodies. Easy answer - Why not? They can remove or add models as needed. Who saw the 7D coming before it came out?

Making backups though still takes forever. Backup up 3GB after 2GB after 2GB drives and so on is a pain, for now. But that said, bring it on, if people want tons of MP, let them have it.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don't see how file size is an issue here. You can get TB drives relatively cheap now and they will only continue to drop in price.

Once they recover from the floods and backlog, for this year they;ve only gone way up, but true enough it's just a temporary bump.

[Chuck Alaimo]

I don't see how file size is an issue here. You can get TB drives relatively cheap now and they will only continue to drop in price.

It is unless you are privately wealthy/with deep pockets/or pulling in tons of money.  It's like a chain of dominoes, f all of a sudden you triple the file size, its not just about after the shoot storage, you then have to triple the amount of CF cards you have.  Then there's workflow, with larger sized files comes the need for greater processor power.  I do a lot of HDR and panoramic stitching, and my PC already has some issues stitching panoramic (granted, that's when I'm trying to stitch 20+ shots).  Either way, add it all up, ok, so now i need new harddrives, CF cards, and potentially a new computer to process it...$100 here, $300 there, $1500+ there, it adds up.  I think one of the biggest flaws that I have heard about the D800 is that there's only 1 Raw option, and it puts out a gigantic file (around 75Mb per image?) - or 7360 x 4912 - how many wedding customers or portrait customers are looking for prints that are literally bigger than the walls of the houses they live in? 

I can see a camera like the D800 being an amazing thing to have if i was privately wealthy.  It would be the thing I'd use to shoot stuff for fine art, to print giant and sell for a giant price tag.  But, for most use (portraits, events, weddings), the file size of that beast would make it be the secondary cam, the one you pull out for the the ceremony, for the kiss and the formal portraits, then put the beast away and use something with a more manageble file size (i mean really, people will want prints in an album from a reception, but with the exception of the cake and dances, would they really want reception shots printed larger than 8x12?  Note, as I say that, to warrent 7360 x 4912 resolution, you have to be working for someone that not only wants prints larger than 40x60, but people that will cut it apart with a microscope to tell the difference. 

I think, the 5dx has the option to create sRaw, mRaw and RAW, then that right there makes it the better camera.

http://chuckalaimo.com/ 

[Chuck Alaimo]

A typical RAW from 18MP is about... 25MB. 45MP is about 2.5x that, so let's say we're looking at average raws of 65MB on a 45MP sensor. So you need 2.5x the storage, not really significant given that cards, hard disks, and CPUs are getting faster all the time. We're still looking in the ball park of 250 shots per 16GB CF card. 32GB are commonly available and more affordable than ever.

Put another way, if you're too cheap to handle 45MP files, you probably can't afford the body in the first place either so there's no problem!

As to two models of 5D, let's put aside the name and rephrase that: will Canon put out two sub 1D level full frame bodies. Easy answer - Why not? They can remove or add models as needed. Who saw the 7D coming before it came out?

It's not a matter of of too cheap to handle it - its more the matter of being able to handle it all the time, every shot, no option to scale it down without shooting to jpeg which means you loose a lot of options in post process.    As someone in their second year as a tog, I made very little money the first year, and close to 14k the second, i hope to double that this year and be able to afford full frame but - lets add it up - if 75 MB is the only option, to handle, manage and process that your looking at multiple upgrades

$3000 for body
$2000 + to upgrade computer
$400 on hardrives
$400 on CF cards

No thank you (while saying that ---if i could do that....lol.... I would!!!!).  So yeah, give me size options!

Oh, and lets also add to the mix glass.  Many are already stating that a 30+ MP body outclasses even the best glass on the market.  Canon has already put out their new beast of a 24-70 (given the specs and the price, I do believe that the only way you'll get the most out of that is on a 30+ MP body), so to really get the full benefit of all those MP's, time to buy new glass!

[stefsan]

A typical RAW from 18MP is about... 25MB. 45MP is about 2.5x that, so let's say we're looking at average raws of 65MB on a 45MP sensor. So you need 2.5x the storage, not really significant given that cards, hard disks, and CPUs are getting faster all the time. We're still looking in the ball park of 250 shots per 16GB CF card. 32GB are commonly available and more affordable than ever.

Put another way, if you're too cheap to handle 45MP files, you probably can't afford the body in the first place either so there's no problem!

If storage were the only concern, you would probably be right. But if you want to post process your 45 MP pics you also need the processing power to get the job done within reasonable time. A lot of people would have to add a new computer to the shopping list… not to mention the new glass you probably would need as well. 

[lol]

In general people moving or already shooting full frame have decent enough lenses already. And again, 45MP full frame is similar in density to the 18MP crop, and there is no major problem feeding that. Still, assuming both rumoured models eventually come out, people can pick and choose whatever suits them. 45MP certainly wont be for everyone, but it is certainly interesting to more than a few.

[briansquibb]

$3000 for body
$2000 + to upgrade computer
$400 on hardrives
$400 on CF cards

wow! a lot of big assumptions being made here and based on those assumptions some very big dollar upgrades

Just bought two external 2Tb drives (Samsung) for equiv $300. As I rigorously go through and delete the not so good photos I dont want to keep I reckon I could get well over 2 years worth of 45gb files on them (sync'd)

I couldn't reckon on a new computer - mine is a 4 year Core 2 Duo that still does the job, and even if does take longer on each file, as a hobbyist that means I wont have to rush the cup of tea I did 550 file adjustments in less than 2 minutes in DPP.

If DxO or something simillar is being used it then perhaps a faster workflow would benefit.

Bring on the best IQ and the biggest mp, providing it is an improvement I will upgrade when it is convenient

[AUGS]

$3000 for body
$2000 + to upgrade computer
$400 on hardrives
$400 on CF cards

wow! a lot of big assumptions being made here and based on those assumptions some very big dollar upgrades

Just bought two external 2Tb drives (Samsung) for equiv $300. As I rigorously go through and delete the not so good photos I dont want to keep I reckon I could get well over 2 years worth of 45gb files on them (sync'd)

I couldn't reckon on a new computer - mine is a 4 year Core 2 Duo that still does the job, and even if does take longer on each file, as a hobbyist that means I wont have to rush the cup of tea I did 550 file adjustments in less than 2 minutes in DPP.

If DxO or something simillar is being used it then perhaps a faster workflow would benefit.

Bring on the best IQ and the biggest mp, providing it is an improvement I will upgrade when it is convenient

For me at least, there may be a reduction in processing.  As a landscape photographer, the larger MPix may mean less pre-processing, photo-stitching, post processing to get the image size I'd like to print (I print up to 36inches wide at the moment).  Also, photo-stitching only really works when there aren't moving elements in the image (I do seascapes, so this can be an issue), so the rumoured 46mpix could be a one-shot solution for me.  And coming from a film/transparency perspective, the cost of medium format film ($15-20) and processing ($15-20) for 6x17 images, and their subsequent scanning (anywhere from $50-90 per frame) is become far too restrictive (ignoring the film supply may dry up).  These scanned files can easily exceed 500MB.

So for me personally, these 2 new offerings hit the mark. Whatever the final products are, we will get something truly fantastic, and something I can work with either way.

[moreorless]

The rumor doesn't make sense.
Why should the ISO range between the III and X be different? The ISO performace will be the same if the same technology is used since basic physics tells us that the pixle size has neglectable impact at high ISO performance.Why should the ISO range for the X version be the same as for 7D? The sensor is more than twice as large and will have more than 1 stop better ISO performace than 7D, and be better than 5Dmk2, even with no improvements what so ever. Will Canon release a new DSLR with a sensor that is worse that something they made already several year ago?

This rumor is obvioiusly not the truth.

Because this is clearly not the case.

[DarkKnightNine]

A typical RAW from 18MP is about... 25MB. 45MP is about 2.5x that, so let's say we're looking at average raws of 65MB on a 45MP sensor. So you need 2.5x the storage, not really significant given that cards, hard disks, and CPUs are getting faster all the time. We're still looking in the ball park of 250 shots per 16GB CF card. 32GB are commonly available and more affordable than ever.

Put another way, if you're too cheap to handle 45MP files, you probably can't afford the body in the first place either so there's no problem!

As to two models of 5D, let's put aside the name and rephrase that: will Canon put out two sub 1D level full frame bodies. Easy answer - Why not? They can remove or add models as needed. Who saw the 7D coming before it came out?

I agree. Most hobbyist talk about not needing a higher MP 5DIII but in my opinion most hobbits don't really need a 5DIII. I hate the fact that hobbyist feel that professional camera bodies should be dumbed down to fit their needs. If you truly are just a hobbyist or Prosumer, the 7D or 60D is probably where you should be anyways. Most professionals need detail and IQ to crop images as needed. That means more MP and more disk space. As we get paid to provide clients with the best images possible, that's a necessary investment.

[Maui5150]

A typical RAW from 18MP is about... 25MB. 45MP is about 2.5x that, so let's say we're looking at average raws of 65MB on a 45MP sensor. So you need 2.5x the storage, not really significant given that cards, hard disks, and CPUs are getting faster all the time. We're still looking in the ball park of 250 shots per 16GB CF card. 32GB are commonly available and more affordable than ever.

Put another way, if you're too cheap to handle 45MP files, you probably can't afford the body in the first place either so there's no problem!

As to two models of 5D, let's put aside the name and rephrase that: will Canon put out two sub 1D level full frame bodies. Easy answer - Why not? They can remove or add models as needed. Who saw the 7D coming before it came out?

It's not a matter of of too cheap to handle it - its more the matter of being able to handle it all the time, every shot, no option to scale it down without shooting to jpeg which means you loose a lot of options in post process.    As someone in their second year as a tog, I made very little money the first year, and close to 14k the second, i hope to double that this year and be able to afford full frame but - lets add it up - if 75 MB is the only option, to handle, manage and process that your looking at multiple upgrades

$3000 for body
$2000 + to upgrade computer
$400 on hardrives
$400 on CF cards

No thank you (while saying that ---if i could do that....lol.... I would!!!!).  So yeah, give me size options!

Oh, and lets also add to the mix glass.  Many are already stating that a 30+ MP body outclasses even the best glass on the market.  Canon has already put out their new beast of a 24-70 (given the specs and the price, I do believe that the only way you'll get the most out of that is on a 30+ MP body), so to really get the full benefit of all those MP's, time to buy new glass!

You must be on a Mac.  Only costs me about $200 - $400 every couple of years to more than double the speed of my PC and all depends if I have to upgrade my motherboard as well as the CPU. 

I can build an 8-Core 3.3 Mhz, 16 GB RAM, system with decent Graphics Card, case and Power Supply for under $800.

Now if you are throwing on a 30" monitor that handles 1 Billion colors, then I can see an extra $1200 to $2K, but outside of that, most people in the "PC world" can do seriously major upgrades for under $500

[sjprg]

I agree with Maui5150. Updateing a PC is relatively inexpensive. I did splurge this year and add an Nvidia 2000D Quadro card to my 3 year old I-920, 12 GB system. This system now batch processes 1DS3 CR2 files in under 2 seconds each. My MBP is now relagated to travel email and skype and my Driod is rapidly replaceing that.

DXO and PS really like using the CPL capability of the Quadro card, probably the best money I've spent on speedup in a long time.
I'm really looking forward to the Canon 45 MP if it materalizes. If not I'm off to the Nikon D800E.

[Maui5150]

I agree with Maui5150. Updateing a PC is relatively inexpensive. I did splurge this year and add an Nvidia 2000D Quadro card to my 3 year old I-920, 12 GB system. This system now batch processes 1DS3 CR2 files in under 2 seconds each. My MBP is now relagated to travel email and skype and my Driod is rapidly replaceing that.

DXO and PS really like using the CPL capability of the Quadro card, probably the best money I've spent on speedup in a long time.
I'm really looking forward to the Canon 45 MP if it materalizes. If not I'm off to the Nikon D800E.

Well the Quadro is definitely a powerhouse of a card.   I am getting excited for the new PS.  I don't have issues with Liquidfy layers as it is, but seeing some of the performance gains they have made, it looks much improved. 

Main reasons I have built my own PCs for close to the last 15 years:
-- Fairly easy to do
-- Pick and chose best equipment
-- Easier upgrading. 
-- Improved access to technology. 

Sort of like why I like MacGururs for external enclosures : They are designed to be upgradeable, so as USB 4.0 or what ever else comes out, they give you the ability to change out the controller and other components and still use hardware, that for the most part does not need discarding.