split the 5d series like the 1D series please!

[Rattle]

While this would suit many persons pocket book what does it accomplish that they don't already offer.  Canon brought out the 5D to appease the many that wanted a FF camera but with the smaller footprint and cost.  If they take this body too close in technical aspects to that of the 1 series it will only hurt the sales of the 1 series.  I see this concept as a non starter. 

The 1 series is split for very good reasoning.  The 1D hits the sports and wildlife shooters and the crop factor in this body is an added bonus, imo.  The 1Ds with its full frame and higher resolution works better for the commercial shooter.  I have both of these in the II, III and the 1DmkIV.  By and large they serve different markets and serve them well. 

I already feel that there is too much commonality between the 1 series and the so called prosumer bodies to the point where it is diluting the sales of the 1 series bodies.  I have owned a number of crop bodies as well as the 5D original and there is still nothing like the 1 series to stand up to continued use.

[Artisttt]

No needs to split anything. Many people wants more pixels, let them have it in 5D III.
It`s obvious, Canon line is missing camera like Nikon D700. Canon just need to fill this hole and make it little bit better, not to be always behind Nikon.

Let`s call it 3D:

Small body (like 5D)
FF
12-16mp
5-6 fps
Good AF
Clean ISO 6400 or even 12800 (not just acceptable, but CLEAN!)
Could be without video if it helps to make it cheaper
Could be plastic body (like 60D) if it helps to make it cheaper
Price $2000

This camera will not compete with 1D or 1Ds or 5D, because it`s different.

1D - for sport;
1Ds - in studio; large prints;
3D - weddings, events;
5D - landscapes

[DetlevCM]

No needs to split anything. Many people wants more pixels, let them have it in 5D III.
It`s obvious, Canon line is missing camera like Nikon D700. Canon just need to fill this hole and make it little bit better, not to be always behind Nikon.

Let`s call it 3D:

Small body (like 5D)
FF
12-16mp
5-6 fps
Good AF
Clean ISO 6400 or even 12800 (not just acceptable, but CLEAN!)
Could be without video if it helps to make it cheaper
Could be plastic body (like 60D) if it helps to make it cheaper
Price $2000

This camera will not compete with 1D or 1Ds or 5D, because it`s different.

1D - for sport;
1Ds - in studio; large prints;
3D - weddings, events;
5D - landscapes

Why do people always want a fast full frame camera?
That's what the 1D or 7D are for - one a 1,3 crop the other a 1,6 crop.

I cannot see the point of having a lower resolution FF camera in Canon's lineup.

And before someone says noise - the current 7D does quite well with noise, the 1D MK IV is even better, noise is not a significant problem.

Adding another camera would be a problem  - simply because producing another sensor would be expensive.

[Artisttt]

Why do people always want a fast full frame camera?
That's what the 1D or 7D are for - one a 1,3 crop the other a 1,6 crop.

Where did you see "fast full frame camera"
5-6 fps is not 8-10 fps

I cannot see the point of having a lower resolution FF camera in Canon's lineup.

Many people can see this point.
They do not need huge files, that`s why 12-16mp is enough.

And before someone says noise - the current 7D does quite well with noise, the 1D MK IV is even better, noise is not a significant problem.

 Your "someone" is wrong. 7D and 1D MK IV are not good enough.
Not 7D or 1D can produce clean ISO 6400 or even 12800

Adding another camera would be a problem  - simply because producing another sensor would be expensive.

This camera would be a dream for wedding/event photography, it will be bestseller ever

[DetlevCM]

Why do people always want a fast full frame camera?
That's what the 1D or 7D are for - one a 1,3 crop the other a 1,6 crop.

Where did you see "fast full frame camera"
5-6 fps is not 8-10 fps

I cannot see the point of having a lower resolution FF camera in Canon's lineup.

Many people can see this point.
They do not need huge files, that`s why 12-16mp is enough.

And before someone says noise - the current 7D does quite well with noise, the 1D MK IV is even better, noise is not a significant problem.

 Your "someone" is wrong. 7D and 1D MK IV are not good enough.
Not 7D or 1D can produce clean ISO 6400 or even 12800

Adding another camera would be a problem  - simply because producing another sensor would be expensive.

This camera would be a dream for wedding/event photography, it will be bestseller ever

There is something called sRAW if you cannot handle a 21MP file - although my 2 years old laptop does fine on them. (2,5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM)

And ISO - there is something called post processing

Nobody on photography on the net is constantly whining for a fast FF camera from Canon.
On that note - 5-6fps, take the 1Ds - it's been around for quite a while.

It's only on here that people whinge about it - and why? Because their Nikon cameras don't resolve enough detail or what? At least I don't see people on a Canon forum calling for a low pixel count FF sensor.
Some people will ask for better dynamic range, maybe the odd one asks for better high ISO performance - but nobody is constantly whinging for a low pixel count FF camera.
It's only here.

And for Nikon users - complain to Nikon - your company decided to take a different approach - don't complain about Canon users liking their detail.

And on performance - the 5D MK II apparently is favoured by a lot of wedding photographers
And to get back to ISO - I'm not sure where you live - but I cannot imagining you needing ISO 12800 for anythng planned like a wedding - it would have to be near total darkness.
Now if you are shooting for news stories going to accidents etc. I can see the point - but anything like a wedding - there is more than enough light for current cameras.

And about selling numbers - I'd doubt it - the extra sensor development costs would make it rather high-priced - possibly in the 1D range would be my guess.

[Stone]

No needs to split anything. Many people wants more pixels, let them have it in 5D III.
It`s obvious, Canon line is missing camera like Nikon D700. Canon just need to fill this hole and make it little bit better, not to be always behind Nikon.

Let`s call it 3D:

Small body (like 5D)
FF
12-16mp
5-6 fps
Good AF
Clean ISO 6400 or even 12800 (not just acceptable, but CLEAN!)
Could be without video if it helps to make it cheaper
Could be plastic body (like 60D) if it helps to make it cheaper
Price $2000

This camera will not compete with 1D or 1Ds or 5D, because it`s different.

1D - for sport;
1Ds - in studio; large prints;
3D - weddings, events;
5D - landscapes

Why do people always want a fast full frame camera?
That's what the 1D or 7D are for - one a 1,3 crop the other a 1,6 crop.

I cannot see the point of having a lower resolution FF camera in Canon's lineup.

And before someone says noise - the current 7D does quite well with noise, the 1D MK IV is even better, noise is not a significant problem.

Adding another camera would be a problem  - simply because producing another sensor would be expensive.

The 7D does well at high ISO with it's cropped sensor but that comes at the expense of noise in the lower ISO ranges.  There are many examples out there of noise showing up in 7D shots at ISO 800 and below where virtually no noise has become the norm and is expected.  The 1DIV has excellent noise handling but it's a $5K body and a larger sensor so noise handling SHOULD be better, it's still noisier than the best FF sensors.

Honestly, I don't care if producing another sensor is expensive.  Last I checked Canon is a multi-billion dollar company so I don't feel sorry for them if they have to come out of pocket to produce something that their customers want.  Canon has no love for you or for me, ultimately we are just entries on a balance sheet so make them earn your business.  To believe Canon is doing the absolute best that they can for their customers is laughable.  They could have made a fast, FF camera several years ago but were quite happy letting their customers buy 2 bodies instead and if the D700 hadn't crashed the party, they would be just as happy to continue the status quo.

I want

-- 8+ fps for my kids sports and any other fast moving action I might want to shoot
-- FF for wide-angles, better DOF at smaller apertures and IQ that still can't be matched by a cropper
-- Cleaner high ISO because I shoot often in low light and spraying speedlites all over the place is getting LESS acceptable

My current company of choice is Canon as I have been using their products for years.  I'm giving them time to give me what I want as a consumer even though they could have done it long ago.  If they don't, I'll support the company that tries to do so.  When it comes to my wallet, loyalty to any manufacturer is a losing proposition........

[Artisttt]

There is something called sRAW if you cannot handle a 21MP file - although my 2 years old laptop does fine on them. (2,5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM)

And ISO - there is something called post processing

Nobody on photography on the net is constantly whining for a fast FF camera from Canon.
On that note - 5-6fps, take the 1Ds - it's been around for quite a while.

It's only on here that people whinge about it - and why? Because their Nikon cameras don't resolve enough detail or what? At least I don't see people on a Canon forum calling for a low pixel count FF sensor.
Some people will ask for better dynamic range, maybe the odd one asks for better high ISO performance - but nobody is constantly whinging for a low pixel count FF camera.
It's only here.

And for Nikon users - complain to Nikon - your company decided to take a different approach - don't complain about Canon users liking their detail.

And on performance - the 5D MK II apparently is favoured by a lot of wedding photographers
And to get back to ISO - I'm not sure where you live - but I cannot imagining you needing ISO 12800 for anythng planned like a wedding - it would have to be near total darkness.
Now if you are shooting for news stories going to accidents etc. I can see the point - but anything like a wedding - there is more than enough light for current cameras.

And about selling numbers - I'd doubt it - the extra sensor development costs would make it rather high-priced - possibly in the 1D range would be my guess.

Did I ask to stop making 5d with hi pixel count? 5D III will have even more pixels, especially for you, I don`t mind.
I was talking about DIFFERENT, inexpensive full frame camera with the main feature as excellent ISO performance. In my opinion it`s better to have variety of FF cameras then variety of Rebels.
Now 5D for wedding is a compromise, because there is no better suited camera from Canon.
In 10-15 years every entry level DSLR will have clean ISO 12800 and I`m sure Canon can do it in today's FF cameras.
And please, don`t tell me about post-processing   

[DetlevCM]

There is something called sRAW if you cannot handle a 21MP file - although my 2 years old laptop does fine on them. (2,5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM)

And ISO - there is something called post processing

Nobody on photography on the net is constantly whining for a fast FF camera from Canon.
On that note - 5-6fps, take the 1Ds - it's been around for quite a while.

It's only on here that people whinge about it - and why? Because their Nikon cameras don't resolve enough detail or what? At least I don't see people on a Canon forum calling for a low pixel count FF sensor.
Some people will ask for better dynamic range, maybe the odd one asks for better high ISO performance - but nobody is constantly whinging for a low pixel count FF camera.
It's only here.

And for Nikon users - complain to Nikon - your company decided to take a different approach - don't complain about Canon users liking their detail.

And on performance - the 5D MK II apparently is favoured by a lot of wedding photographers
And to get back to ISO - I'm not sure where you live - but I cannot imagining you needing ISO 12800 for anythng planned like a wedding - it would have to be near total darkness.
Now if you are shooting for news stories going to accidents etc. I can see the point - but anything like a wedding - there is more than enough light for current cameras.

And about selling numbers - I'd doubt it - the extra sensor development costs would make it rather high-priced - possibly in the 1D range would be my guess.

Did I ask to stop making 5d with hi pixel count? 5D III will have even more pixels, especially for you.
I was talking about DIFFERENT, inexpensive full frame camera with the main feature as excellent ISO performance. In my opinion it`s better to have variety of FF cameras then variety of Rebels.
Now 5D for wedding is a compromise, because there is no better suited camera from Canon.
In 10-15 years every entry level DSLR will have clean ISO 12800 and I`m sure Canon can do it in today's FF cameras.
And please, don`t tell me about post-processing 

Different and inexpensive don't go hand in hand.
Neither do inexpensive and full frame.

If Canon made another full frame camera it would be in the price range of a 1D.

[Artisttt]

There is something called sRAW if you cannot handle a 21MP file - although my 2 years old laptop does fine on them. (2,5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM)

And ISO - there is something called post processing

Nobody on photography on the net is constantly whining for a fast FF camera from Canon.
On that note - 5-6fps, take the 1Ds - it's been around for quite a while.

It's only on here that people whinge about it - and why? Because their Nikon cameras don't resolve enough detail or what? At least I don't see people on a Canon forum calling for a low pixel count FF sensor.
Some people will ask for better dynamic range, maybe the odd one asks for better high ISO performance - but nobody is constantly whinging for a low pixel count FF camera.
It's only here.

And for Nikon users - complain to Nikon - your company decided to take a different approach - don't complain about Canon users liking their detail.

And on performance - the 5D MK II apparently is favoured by a lot of wedding photographers
And to get back to ISO - I'm not sure where you live - but I cannot imagining you needing ISO 12800 for anythng planned like a wedding - it would have to be near total darkness.
Now if you are shooting for news stories going to accidents etc. I can see the point - but anything like a wedding - there is more than enough light for current cameras.

And about selling numbers - I'd doubt it - the extra sensor development costs would make it rather high-priced - possibly in the 1D range would be my guess.

Did I ask to stop making 5d with hi pixel count? 5D III will have even more pixels, especially for you.
I was talking about DIFFERENT, inexpensive full frame camera with the main feature as excellent ISO performance. In my opinion it`s better to have variety of FF cameras then variety of Rebels.
Now 5D for wedding is a compromise, because there is no better suited camera from Canon.
In 10-15 years every entry level DSLR will have clean ISO 12800 and I`m sure Canon can do it in today's FF cameras.
And please, don`t tell me about post-processing 

Different and inexpensive don't go hand in hand.
Neither do inexpensive and full frame.

If Canon made another full frame camera it would be in the price range of a 1D.

Without video, in small plastic body, 5fps - price like 1D??? I don`t think so.

[nzmargolies]

i can't see why this camera doesnt make sense:
16-18mp
6.5 fps
full frame
body like 5D II
quality iso, comparable to what the nikon d700 offers, (hopefully better, that camera is aging)
the af system of the 1d, scaled down to 19 points
$2700-2800 body only

this makes all the sense in the world, and the d700 has proven such a camera can be successfull
(if anything, make these numbers better or the price lower)

people know how to pp out a lot of noise, but taking a picture you know is going to require a lot of work is never fun (or, not as fun as knowing it will be perfect SOOC)

[Stone]

i can't see why this camera doesnt make sense:
16-18mp
6.5 fps
full frame
body like 5D II
quality iso, comparable to what the nikon d700 offers, (hopefully better, that camera is aging)
the af system of the 1d, scaled down to 19 points
$2700-2800 body only

this makes all the sense in the world, and the d700 has proven such a camera can be successfull
(if anything, make these numbers better or the price lower)

people know how to pp out a lot of noise, but taking a picture you know is going to require a lot of work is never fun (or, not as fun as knowing it will be perfect SOOC)

Other than MP and video capabilities Canon is playing catch up to the D700.  Those aren't bad specs, but they will almost certainly be beaten by the D700 replacement which will up the MP and add video.   FPS & AF seem to be the things Canon is trying to keep exclusive to their 1 series cameras and this simply won't fly anymore.  I'm noticing that the Nikon bodies also seem to have better weather sealing across their advanced amateur/professional product line as well.  I hate to keep beating up Canon, as I love their bodies and would prefer not to learn a new system, but this is getting ridiculous, the 60D just got pimp slapped by the D7000.  Come on Canon!!!

[nzmargolies]

i can't see why this camera doesnt make sense:
16-18mp
6.5 fps
full frame
body like 5D II
quality iso, comparable to what the nikon d700 offers, (hopefully better, that camera is aging)
the af system of the 1d, scaled down to 19 points
$2700-2800 body only

this makes all the sense in the world, and the d700 has proven such a camera can be successfull
(if anything, make these numbers better or the price lower)

people know how to pp out a lot of noise, but taking a picture you know is going to require a lot of work is never fun (or, not as fun as knowing it will be perfect SOOC)

Other than MP and video capabilities Canon is playing catch up to the D700.  Those aren't bad specs, but they will almost certainly be beaten by the D700 replacement which will up the MP and add video.   FPS & AF seem to be the things Canon is trying to keep exclusive to their 1 series cameras and this simply won't fly anymore.  I'm noticing that the Nikon bodies also seem to have better weather sealing across their advanced amateur/professional product line as well.  I hate to keep beating up Canon, as I love their bodies and would prefer not to learn a new system, but this is getting ridiculous, the 60D just got pimp slapped by the D7000.  Come on Canon!!!

Couldn't agree more.  I was beginning to understand the logic behind the 60D before the D7000.  Now, i think it is verging on embarrassing...

[Jan]

i can't see why this camera doesnt make sense:
16-18mp
6.5 fps
full frame
body like 5D II
quality iso, comparable to what the nikon d700 offers, (hopefully better, that camera is aging)
the af system of the 1d, scaled down to 19 points
$2700-2800 body only

this makes all the sense in the world, and the d700 has proven such a camera can be successfull
(if anything, make these numbers better or the price lower)

people know how to pp out a lot of noise, but taking a picture you know is going to require a lot of work is never fun (or, not as fun as knowing it will be perfect SOOC)

Other than MP and video capabilities Canon is playing catch up to the D700.  Those aren't bad specs, but they will almost certainly be beaten by the D700 replacement which will up the MP and add video.   FPS & AF seem to be the things Canon is trying to keep exclusive to their 1 series cameras and this simply won't fly anymore.  I'm noticing that the Nikon bodies also seem to have better weather sealing across their advanced amateur/professional product line as well.  I hate to keep beating up Canon, as I love their bodies and would prefer not to learn a new system, but this is getting ridiculous, the 60D just got pimp slapped by the D7000.  Come on Canon!!!

Couldn't agree more.  I was beginning to understand the logic behind the 60D before the D7000.  Now, i think it is verging on embarrassing...

Totally agree.

I think it's really funny when people are arguing a 3D (FF with high fps and good AF) would be too expensive and impossible in that combination at this price point. Just take a look: the D700 is at the same price as the 5DMkII. Having a 51-sensor-AF and up to 8fps...

[neuroanatomist]

Just take a look: the D700 is at the same price as the 5DMkII. Having a 51-sensor-AF and up to 8fps...

Bingo.  So, c'mon, Canon - bring it on!

[papa-razzi]

Just take a look: the D700 is at the same price as the 5DMkII. Having a 51-sensor-AF and up to 8fps...

Bingo.  So, c'mon, Canon - bring it on!

There is such a thing as building and marketing to specs.  All these companies do it.  More MP doesn't always mean a better sensor.  As an example, people on this forum are asking for lower MP because it is believed that is the answer to better ISO performance.  Similarly, more AF points doesn't equate to a better AF system either.

The true test is in the actual performance of the camera.  It is too easy to get sucked into evaluating a product on published specs alone.  If you do that you will be misled.  I would bet that most buyers look at all the specs to make the purchase decision then keep the camera mode dial set to the green box.  Very few buyers really know how to properly evaulate the finer points betwen simliarly priced cameras, so they default to looking at the list of published specs.