What exactly was he thinking? Personally, I'd have grabbed the camera as soon as I realised the wave was bigger than I was expecting -who cares about getting wet feet!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
mine gets left all over!! half seems to be on my desk right now... maybe i should have a better system for storage!
I will admit that it's possible that the 5DIII will use the 7D-type AF, but you seem to be suggesting they'll re-use the actual AF sensor from the 7D, without compensating for the larger frame. If they compensate for the larger frame, it means developing a new sensor. If they don't, it means the 5DIII would have more AF points, and better ones, but the area coverage would be even less than that of the 5DII, as you can see in the attached image (5DII in blue, 7D in black). Canon has expressed a willingness to take things away from new models, as discussed above with f/8 issue. But the AF area coverage of the 5DII was already not a strong point. When they released the 5DII, they touted the fact that the horizontal point spread was the same as the 1DsIII, conveniently ignoring the fact that the vertical spread was a full row shorter. The 7D's AF sensor on the 5DII would mean the loss of a horizontal row, as well.
Heck, even 5DIII's sales would suffer because of it's increased price (highly advanced AF would obviously cost more). Why would Canon take such a risk?
If so then we could expect the next D4 to be low in MP like the 1DX and maybe also expect a new body from Nikon between the D4 and the D800 with smaller MP (like a D4) and a smaller form factor compared to the D4 right?
The D300s replacement (D400?) would fit perfectly in that spot, in the 18-24MP range, to compete with 7DII
I also expect D4 to be quite close to 1DX, in almost all areas.If this is true, then Nikon are being very strange as well... This D800 will more or less kill off the D3x.
andThe D4, which will presumably be presumably lower resolution to get better high ISO & frame rates for action shooters, is due for release first (Olympic year)? So maybe it's both Canon and Nikon that see no future for a large body, high resolution camera? Roll on the 5D MkIII at 30 0MP+!
It will kill the D3x but not the D4, no, they will be in different leagues.
Mindful also of the age of the 21mpx FF sensor, I'm of the view that the 18mpx FF sensor will be pushed into a cheaper body, but also that some photographers are also very keen to see a higher pixel count. My current view is as follows...
1Dx - FF 18mpx Sports and photojournalist
5DIII - FF 35-40mpx studio / landscape camera - 2013 launch perhaps
7DII - APS-C 28-32mpx top end crop - 2013 launch perhaps
9D - FF entry level 18mpx - helps keep cost of 1Dx sensor down - early 2012 launch
70D - APS-C 28-32mpx prosmer small body - 2 year cycle 2012 launch
650D - APS-C stick with current 18mpx crop sensor, pushing up a few mpx with the 700D and so on
1100D as is now, 1200D drops on whichever sensor canon deems cheap to manufacture, 15mpx, perhaps even 18mpx
G1x APS-C mirror less solution using EF-S lenses - 2012 perhaps
G100x compact mirror less solution using bespoke EF-G lenses, 1/1.6" perhaps ? - 2013 perhaps
G1000x compact mirror less solution using fixed zoom lens
Partner with a phone manufacturer for Canon lens/sensor on a phone - 2012/2013 ?
I was wondering if Canon would ever do such a thing or would the 1Dx sensor make more sense? Economies of scale already tells Canon to make the same APS-C sensor for every crop body, so why should the FF camp be the exception to the rule?
The FF camp is the exception to the rule because the number of sensors they get from each wafer is substantially smaller than the number of APS-C sensors. And that's just the raw numbers. Then you've got to allow for fabrication errors, meaning that you will never have a 100% yield.
So whilst the R&D for the sensor may evaporate over time, the actual manufacturing cost does not. Originally the machines they used to "print" the sensors on wafers (steppers) needed to do two passes for FF sensors but only one for APS-C (another source of increased manufacturing cost relative to APS-C.) I'm not sure if this has yet changed.
What market are we talking about here? Is Canon really competing with Nikon or Sony at this level? How many people jump into dSLR photography by buying a camera costing >$2K? The 'competition' is in the P&S and entry-level dSLR arena. At the higher levels, for the most part, buyers are already invested in a system. High profile 'defections' notwithstanding, there's a lot of inertia to changing brands when you have lenses, flashes, etc. So, I contend that for a 5DIII, Canon's greatest need for differentiation is from their own lines, not Nikon/Sony/etc. That's why the 5DII got the same AF as the 5D (given the alignment of release dates for 5DII and D700, Canon surely 'knew'. That's why they had no problem eliminating f/8 AF from the 'awesome' AF system of the 1D X - no doubt they knew it would piss off a lot of current 1-series users, and they didn't care. When they gift it back with a 1D X Mark II, the 'awesomer-ness' of the update will be another method of internal differentiation.
Put another way, Nikon has been offering more AF points in comparable bodies for years...and yet from 2007 to 2010, Canon went from 40% to 45% dSLR market share while Nikon fell from 41% to 30%. Canon has no reason to change...so, they'll keep using AF for inter-line differentiation, and hobble the 5DIII's AF.
There's my organ grinding for the night...