The Future of the 1Ds & 5D Lines [CR2]

[gene_can_sing]

And how many professionals are using camcorders with 2/3", 1/2" and 1/3" sensors. There seem to be an awful lot of models listed at B&H under "Professional Video". Just how small does a sensor have to be to be considered "small"?

Bob, I hate to break this to you, but the small sensor video camera era is rapidly, and thankfully coming to an END. I work in TV commercials and promos in Los Angeles, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the professionals I know DON'T want to use cameras with small sensors anymore. Everyone I know always uses a RED (large sensor) or on budget projects, the Canons.

Comparing a 5D to a tiny consumer camcorder is.... well... basically, one the 5D can be used for professional work (even more so when the new one comes out hopefully) and the consumer camcorder is for dad's home movies. Big difference.

[neuroanatomist]

... the small sensor video camera era is rapidly, and thankfully coming to an END ... Comparing a 5D to a tiny consumer camcorder is.... well... basically, one the 5D can be used for professional work (even more so when the new one comes out hopefully) and the consumer camcorder is for dad's home movies. Big difference.

Out of curiousity, where does that blurry line fall?  Canon's XA10 ($2000) and XF100 ($3300) professional camcorders use a 1/3", 2.37-megapixel CMOS sensor.  As a dad, I shoot my home movies with a Vixia HF M41 (which I'd call relatively tiny - it's bigger than my PowerShot S95, but a lot smaller than my 24-105L).  The Vixia HF M41 also uses a 1/3", 2.37-megapixel CMOS sensor, presumably the same sensor as used in the two pro camcorders mentioned above.  Sure, the pro models have more aperture blades, handles with XLR connectors, etc., but if you compare the top 'consumer' camcorder (HF G10) to the bottom 'pro' camcorder (XA10), they are essentially the same camera except for that handle with the XLR connectors...

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Still photographers don't want the video

I surely beg to differ! A FEW still photographers don't care, while many love having the video option built-in.

and Video people don't need a huge mega-pixel count because it causes aliasing and line-skipping.

The new digic should be fast enough to properly sample video from a 20-something MP camera I'd imagine.

But it's obvious that Canon cannot make both camps happy, so they should just do 2 versions of the 5d3.

I really hope not because the entire middle will but shut out! THe stills gripers will have video removed and the msotly video only guys will have their camera but the giant middle who like both will be left out. If they do that and Nikon does not I may finally switch to Nikon.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The market is evolving, and Canon needs to change with it.

That's just it.  Canon seems to lag quite a bit behind in their evolution.  Not that they're using stone knives and bear skins, but they don't have a history of 'skating to where the puck's going.'  I think they put video into the 5DII and were caught by surprise at the outcome.  Three short years is not enough for them to catch up to the crest of that wave (or quite likely, they'll not want to risk doing so).

Agreed! How they could have been so silly as to not even imagine people would want manual control over ISO/aperture/shutter is simply beyond me. How short-sighted can you get? It's because they use these dumb hyper targeted focus groups and get a few PJs saying they don't have time to set this or that for video or what not. And their products surveys where they ask people to list the single biggest reason or two for getting a certain model (and then when 3fps 5D users say they didn't get it for speed and that this proves the 5D user doesn't want speed, come on, it doesn't prove that at all, it's a self-fulfilling circular loop). And the same for locked audio gains. Or for stills it's taken them years to barely even understand how AutoISO should work. For years they locked it out of M mode which is the one place it made the MOST sense! And they still refuse to draw a box around the histogram so you can actually see where it ends when outdoors (or to provide basic things like overexposure point flashing for video (which even some hackers were able to add in without even having programming docs!).

[gene_can_sing]

... the small sensor video camera era is rapidly, and thankfully coming to an END ... Comparing a 5D to a tiny consumer camcorder is.... well... basically, one the 5D can be used for professional work (even more so when the new one comes out hopefully) and the consumer camcorder is for dad's home movies. Big difference.

Out of curiousity, where does that blurry line fall?  Canon's XA10 ($2000) and XF100 ($3300) professional camcorders use a 1/3", 2.37-megapixel CMOS sensor.  As a dad, I shoot my home movies with a Vixia HF M41 (which I'd call relatively tiny - it's bigger than my PowerShot S95, but a lot smaller than my 24-105L).  The Vixia HF M41 also uses a 1/3", 2.37-megapixel CMOS sensor, presumably the same sensor as used in the two pro camcorders mentioned above.  Sure, the pro models have more aperture blades, handles with XLR connectors, etc., but if you compare the top 'consumer' camcorder (HF G10) to the bottom 'pro' camcorder (XA10), they are essentially the same camera except for that handle with the XLR connectors...

I think for most people, a 2x crop in the Panasonic GH2 and the AF 101 are considered a "Large" sensor. A 1.6x APS-c crop is even better IMO because it's the same crop as 35mm motion picture cameras. A 5D Full frame has a special, really shallow focus look that's new to video.

I think the definition of "Pro" video is rapidly changing. A few years ago, a 1/3 sensor was considered Pro because there was no APS-c or Full Frame video that was affordable. But since the 5D / 7D come out, the definition of Pro has been elevated a bit, at least for TV commercials, music videos and indy film where aesthetics are really important. I think for something like broadcast news or local news, a smaller sensor would be better because it's so run and gun and focus is obviously a lot easier with smaller sensors. SO there will be a market for those types of cameras also, especially when it's about speed and not aesthetics.

Now that large sensor video is affordable, nobody want to go back. If someone gave me an XA10 for free, it would be an expensive paper weight.

[bp]

I think people are getting carried away with the "split" concept.  I don't think CR was implying that the "stills" version would have NO VIDEO AT ALL, but rather that it won't have additional, advanced video features that they may add to the "video" version.

Why would Canon go so far as to disable video all together, when even the new Rebels have basic video functions?  They wouldn't.  But not forcing still-only people to pay extra for features they wouldn't use (and furthermore, would come to sites like this and gripe about it all day) would be a very smart move for Canon.

Sign me up for the video version.  Waiting to buy 4 of them, with baited breath.  Extra grand apiece, no problem - just give me full HD out without overlays, 4K or RAW video would be even better, timecode, maybe a grip with XLR inputs, and I'm a happy camper.  And yeah, for the still-shooter-gripers who want to say that DSLR video is a fad, and no real pro's use them... uh, OK.    You go on and think that while they continue to pop up, on pro sets all over the country, and the crews still using smaller sensor camcorders (regardless of a "professional" designation on B&H website) continue to wonder why their footage looks like $#!+ compared to that of their competitors.   Its not a fad folks, face the music.  Canon has.

[V8Beast]

I'd like to see one of two things happen:

1) Merge the 1D and 1Ds line into a single pro body with a 45-plus point AF system, 10-plus frames per second, and best-in-class image quality and high ISO performance. Megapixels? I don't really care, as I'm sure Canon will squeeze as many megapixels as their next generation of sensors and processors allow. This would obviously be the flagship body aimed at working professionals who need both image quality and speed. As others have already asked, the big question is if a camera like this would sell for $5,000 like the 1DMKIV, or $7,000 like the 1DsMKIII? My money is on the latter.

2) Update the 5D with the a decent AF system similar to the 7D's with a bump to 7 frames per second. IMHO, this is the bare minimum Canon can get away with considering how badly the Nikon D700 trounces the 5D MKII in terms of AF and FPS. The 5DII is already a great camera, just painfully slow with a pathetic AF system, so Canon doesn't need a revolutionary update to this body. IMHO, the 5D line is best geared toward for static/landscape/portrait work, and Canon has already carved a niche in the market with it's balance of image quality and affordability, so there's no sense in messing with that formula. In order to remain competitive with Nikon, the price needs to stay at around $2,500.

This scenario would create a huge gap in the Canon lineup between the 1D ($7,000) and 5D ($2,500). Canon's stuff has been pretty lame the last few years, but who knows, maybe they still have some surprises up their sleeves. What about a full-fame 7D MKII, built in the same gripless body as the current 7D, but with the 1D's AF system, high ISO performance, and 8 FPS for $4,000? Now that would be a game changer. The current 1D MKIV and 7D are aimed at sports shooters and photojournalists, where tons of megapixels aren't as important anyways, so Canon could conceivably offer fewer megapixels, slightly fewer FPS, in a smaller and lighter body to help distinguish it from the flagship 1D/1Ds replacement.

Now for the high-end prosumer line, a camera similar to current 7D with a 1.6:1 sensor would more or less be the next 70D. There are more than enough Rebels to fill the void that would be created if the 60D were replaced by something more like the 7D.

[Roimund]

*my english is bad, sorry *

The way I see it, is that the EOS-1 line will from now on be a 7.000$ full-frame 30mp++ flagship with high-ish fps, the shake will be done with the introduction of the 3D line, that will be a full-frame 1d mk5, with more fps than the new "1" line, less MP (20-ish) and an in-camera crop mode. The 5D mk3 will have a "HDSLR" version like the 7D now has a "Studio Version", it will have a crop mode, that will make away the line skipping but have the same sensor than the normal 5D mk3 but with more advanced movie focus, some fancy video modes will be a bonus as well (RAW) (i doubt that the line skipping will be dealt with optically, but for the light gathering it would make more sence).

Canon will continue having 3 high end sensors like now and will have no "oh, the 1D came out, so the 1Ds will soon to, as they are one line"..

I do hope they have a separate sensor for the 7D mk2.. i do not like sharing one with the xxD and xxxD line.. the IQ that is..  would have nothing againts a renewed 18Mp sensor with 5D per-pixel sharpness.. and as for the new 5D.. i hope they stick "Dual Digic V" and go for 5-6 fps via 7D AF.. and as for the 7D vs 5D.. you pay more.. you get more.. but.. the 7D mk3 will have more of a 1D-ish AF, 30+ AF points... I have a feeling the mk2 will get burned by the D400..

[funkboy]

Why would Canon go so far as to disable video all together, when even the new Rebels have basic video functions?

because professional sports & event photographers are worried about event policy forbidding them to use devices with built-in video capability like the 1DIV...

[funkboy]

I would love to see Canon "break the mold" as they did in the late '80s with the Colani-inspired T90 pro camera, back when a "pro" camera looked like an F-1.  They then did it again shortly thereafter by redesigning their lens mount from scratch to incorporate autofocus.

The video DSLR explosion is a similar paradigm shift in the camera world, as is the compact large-sensor camera (though to a somewhat lesser degree).  I think that there's a lot of overlap in both areas, as they have several things in common:

• don't necessarily require a mirror (or at least don't require an optical viewfinder,) & as a result,
• does not look like a traditional SLR.  can be made smaller, or at least "less bulky"
• don't necessarily require traditional EOS system lenses, but should at least be easily adapted to them
• requires at least an APS-C size sensor to be competitive, & FF if they want to continue to milk the 5DII video cow
• success heavily dependent upon video features
• very young market, no established "standard" solution

It would make a lot of sense for them to create, say, a 5Dv specifically for video from an ergonomic & control perspective, outside of the traditional EOS lineup.  As a previous poster suggested, lower MPs (say, the original 5D sensor brought up to date with modern techniques.  Knowing Canon they'd probably go for the highest MP they could get away with without excessive video artifacts at 1080p).

& I do mean "break the mold".  Big time.  This is not an established product line, so they're free to come up with something new (e.g. something like this:  http://www.jtt-e.com.tw/pdf_sample/sample_technical_003_e.pdf). If said mold is to be broken, things like

• new storage based on PCIe or SATA
• wireless detachable high-resolution OLED display
• lenses designed specifically for video, as well as the more compact body

must be included.  A huge business decision for Canon will be to decide whether the large-sensor video market & the compact large-sensor camera market are convergent enough that they can be covered by the same product line...

[funkboy]

On a side note, another effect of having such a sensor would be the possibility to create a direct competitor to the D3s.  Give the camera enough FPS & durability & it could easily replace the current 1D line...

So, then, as a wild-ass guess, if Fukushima hasn't broken the back of their R&D budget & they're still on the "compete directly with Nikon" theme in EOS land, we're looking at the following new Digic V powered stuff in the pipe:

• 1Ds monster-MP flagship: FF, 10fps, & dual digic v
• low-light master, son of 5D & 1DIV:  1/2 the MP of 1Ds, FF, 10fps & single digic v (same sensor as 5Dv)
• eventually, 7DII:  APS-C flagship

And, if they decided that large-sensor compacts are convergent with large-sensor video cameras, a 5Dv flagship (or whatever they'd call it, EOS DV is another guess), and an APS-C version...

[tomscott]

Lets be honest the question we need to ask is... where is the professional sector going? The professional sector has been struggling for years. With the event of everything turning digital it has made it even easier for people to get into the industry and be good at it. Also making it very hard for pros to make as much money. Look at other companies that are struggling in their professional line up:

Apple - Apple's success and saviour was its professional following, they have now pretty much deserted these customers with pro hardware and software that is taking 2-3+ years to replace/update infuriating customers (2-3 years is a long time in the computer world). Instead they are concentrating on their consumer products, macbook pros and imac outsell mac pros 1000:1 the market isnt as strong in this sector anymore so putting money into it isnt as worth it. Upgrading them every 6s months makes sense and costs alot less because of the volume sales.

The same can be said for most companies, there isnt enough innovation to create a very secure product range in the camera world. This has been extremely obvious by most pros leaving the 1D market and moving to the 5D or 7D. Nearly half the set up costs and these cameras more than produce adequate imagery for newspapers and magazines.

The 1Ds on paper doesn't offer a stupid amount more for its price tag compared to the 5D, £6000 compared to £1500 is a large amount for weather sealing and 45 AF points (as main selling points). Now in practise this is very different and these cameras feel and perform very differently and the 1Ds is a superb camera. But we are in the middle of recession and everyone wants to save money so in my opinion and obviously alot of others the switch was obvious!

What is the definitive factor that makes you buy the camera? It used to be a large factor between the amateur/semi/pro ranges but now they are tiny electronic factors that most people either um and arr about for ages untill the product is so old a new one is inevitable and the process starts again, the blog is filled with it! or people who arnt too bothered about it and will part with the cash. Most others will live without it and go with the cheaper option like we have seen apart from the die hard pros with the breed becoming thinner. The semi pro/pro line seems to be merging in every sense, the tech has got so good that people can do without the most expensive pro equipment because they offer very similar features.

People are complaining about the AF in the 5D yet alot of pros switched from the 1Ds, it must say something. Cost most probably and the fact the 5D will do! the extra £4500 goes along way! Canon will not put 45 in a 5D because that is the definitive feature that will finally kill the sales of the 1Ds range.

Now we see very similar features throughout the amateur/semi/pro ranges its hard to justify the cost. Now everyone has their needs but in the recession and if you could get by, by reducing your cost by 3/4s and you can still do the same job without all the bells and whistles people will.

Something big has to happen to jump start the pro scene, and at the moment in every sense it is dying because innovation is lagging. The other factor is how far can you go! what else can they pack into a DSLR? video is available from the £400 DSLRs all the way to £6000 the only difference is the quality, but higher up the quality is  less distinguishable.

Like in my previous posts I dont see the DSLR market to be the best market for video. There is only so much you can do. A new product range which is more ergonomic for the video user with fully fledged features based on the EF system would make more sense. I think the rumour about the 5D being split is ridiculous, but the more i think about it the more i feel that canon will go along this line but the rumour about it being split from the 5D to be slightly wrong not split but a new product range. Call it the 3D or what ever, it will use the same system but designed to incorporate all the essential equipment a videographer needs but also keep the small form factor of the DSLR.

A new homologation product.

[neuroanatomist]

Apple - Apple's success and saviour was its professional following, they have now pretty much deserted these customers with pro hardware and software that is taking 2-3+ years to replace/update infuriating customers (2-3 years is a long time in the computer world). Instead they are concentrating on their consumer products, macbook pros and imac outsell mac pros 1000:1 the market isnt as strong in this sector anymore so putting money into it isnt as worth it. Upgrading them every 6s months makes sense and costs alot less because of the volume sales.

I beg to differ.  In 1997, Apple's stock was at the lowest point in the past 25 years (just over $3/share), and the company posted a loss of nearly $1B.  One year later, the stock price had tripled, and the company was nearly $0.5B in the black.  Why?  A bubble-shaped, candy-colored  consumer product called the iMac.  In the early part of this century, they were again in a slump, and what came to the rescue?  Another consumer device called the iPod, which combined with the iTunes Music Store and more recently the iPhone - more consumer products - is largely the reason the stock price is now 100 times higher than that 1997 nadir.

Yes, MacBooks and iMacs outsell their other computers, but if you look at Apple's 2Q11 earnings, Macs only account for 15% of their revenue - iPhones account for over 75%.   

The pooint of all that is that the 'professional following' is really not important to Apple's bottom line, and it never has been.  The same is true for Canon - revenue from Rebels and sub-$250 consumer lenses is far greater than that from 1-series bodies.  The latter, like the supertele line, are developed and produced for a niche market, which is really mostly about prestige and brand recognition.

[UncleFester]

The pooint of all that is that the 'professional following' is really not important to Apple's bottom line, and it never has been.  The same is true for Canon - revenue from Rebels and sub-$250 consumer lenses is far greater than that from 1-series bodies.  The latter, like the supertele line, are developed and produced for a niche market, which is really mostly about prestige and brand recognition.

+1 This is why companies like Canon are not worried about customers jumping ship and switching to Leica. They only need to take care of the consumer market for a pro market to survive.

[c.d.embrey]

... while they might produce a $65,000 FF video camera like the Red, ...

Forget the RED (Super 35, not full frame). The real competition will come from Sony's $6.000.00 FS-100 (Super 35, E-mount) and Sony's $14,000.00 F3 (Super 35, PL mount).

With these Sony cameras there is no need to spend thousands of $$$ at ZacutoRock to have a useable video camera.

Canon could have done this ... but they didn't - you snooze you lose!

BTW for those who don't know, Super 35 is APS-C size and is what is used in 35mm film motion picture cameras and high-end digital motion picture cameras. Another words, the industry standard.