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

[minestrone]

5DMIII, one body, slightly better ISO performance would be nice, and better AF for sure. As far as megapixel count, I wouldn't mind an increase, I'm not sure why people think that 12 MP is ok. All my clients ask for huge prints.

As far as video goes, I hope the 5DMIII is one unit that does both video and photography. I really don't feel like lugging more camera equipment then I already do.

Would be nice if Canon came up with a gyro solution for HD video, even with a red rock micro kit I sometimes feel that its not stable enough.

[awinphoto]

5DMIII, one body, slightly better ISO performance would be nice, and better AF for sure. As far as megapixel count, I wouldn't mind an increase, I'm not sure why people think that 12 MP is ok. All my clients ask for huge prints.

As far as video goes, I hope the 5DMIII is one unit that does both video and photography. I really don't feel like lugging more camera equipment then I already do.

Would be nice if Canon came up with a gyro solution for HD video, even with a red rock micro kit I sometimes feel that its not stable enough.

+1.  One thing (i'm sure most think it's a gimmick but...) I want the 2 way axis level on the LCD and viewfinder if possible like the 7D.  I know people dog the 7D because of the computerized VF screen which cant be replaced like you can the 5D but if they can find a compromise between the two I'd be game.  Also a Flash commander would be awesome.  I dont care if its through a popup flash or infrared, just get it in there some way.  If they can do that plus the above suggestions I'd be very happy.

[unfocused]

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%.

I did not know that. Does that mean that iPods now account for less than 10% of revenues? Wow! I knew the market was changing, but didn't realize it was changing that fast.   

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.

Comparing apples to oranges here. Nobody buys an iPhone because of Apple computers. But, there are plenty of people who buy Canon cameras because Canon has positioned itself well in the professional market.

 

The latter, like the supertele line, are developed and produced for a niche market, which is really mostly about prestige and brand recognition.

Okay, that's more accurate. Although it's more than just prestige and brand recognition. It's also about spreading R&D costs over the maximum product lines. And, it's about moving customers up the product line. This is much different than a company like Apple. I own an iPhone, but there is absolutely nothing about that phone that is going to make me want an Apple computer. On the other hand, Canon knows very well that a certain percentage of Rebel users will progress up their line. In fact, I'd love to see the statistics on the number of 1Ds owners whose first SLRs were Canon. I'd wager it's a high percentage.

Now, getting back on topic. If there is a divergence between video and still models of the 5D (or any other line), I believe it will be for design and engineering reasons, not marketing. It may be that Canon feels it cannot simultaneously optimize performance for both stills and video in the same camera. If that's the case, they may be forced to offer one version optimized for stills (with video capability) and one version optimized for video (with still capability). I think they would be loathe to do that, but design limitations could force that to happen.

Right now, the 5D has two major professional customer bases that Canon wants to protect: wedding and portrait studio photographers and independent and commercial film producers. If they feel they can satisfy both groups with one camera, they'll do it. If they find that the demands conflict, they may be forced to diverge the line.

[digishooter]

It would be very easy given the state of the current technology to integrate the 1-series into one body.  All they would have to do is have, say, a 40mpx full-frame sensor and then have a sports mode that would cut the mpx to half that, or slightly less, in order to get the frame rate back up to 10fps.  Sports shooters are not going to want huge files anyway, for a lot of shots even 20mpx is too big.  Then it would be a simple matter to switch back to the full mpx mode for other types of photos.

Despite the fact that a few people may not like the demise of APS-H, it's probably going to go away.

[Edwin Herdman]

I think this is most likely to do with the actual specifications of the cameras - the 1.3x crop boggles the mind a bit and the increasing quality of 1.6 crop bodies are encroaching on that space for wildlife shooters a bit.  They certainly could do a bit to overhaul that end.  I'm not sure that there needs to be more differentiation in the upper and middle ranges, just get something out there to really replace their last EOS-1D full frame mark, and improve (but not further differentiate) the middle range with the full-frame 5D replacement (maybe a 1.3x crop would be tolerated there; I don't know).  I don't think the actual names of the cameras are going to change, other than to perhaps squish a few of the most egregious naming conventions (i.e. adding -s); if you care to find out why:

Having two 1D bodies makes some sense in that they want to remain the go-to choice for professionals - if they will clearly represent differences in the best use of each camera (portrait / landscape vs. sports, or EV/dynamic range vs. sheer ISO, seems to be the usual balancing act).  It doesn't make sense to me that they might remove the 1D line; it has always represented their "#1" camera, even before there was a 1D there was a EOS 1.  If they do wipe out the moniker, they will doubtless still have a top tier of cameras with some designation that is similar in its meaning.  And if they wipe out the moniker 1D, then some real shakeup of the EF system is probably afoot, and I think video alone doesn't explain this (not sure of a EF system suited more to video - more on that in a moment - or an EF system with view camera type movements, which again wouldn't be well suited to the current group of EF lenses).  It would make even less sense (if this was suggested) to keep the 1Ds and drop the plain 1D.

Splitting the 5D line for video and non-video especially is a proposition that seems to carry more cons than pros, since video is simply (protestations about what we don't know about internal Canon engineering aside) a firmware feature requiring minimal hardware support, and a good buzzword and value extender for marketing purposes.

An EF mount video system might make somewhat more sense...but Canon already has its camcorders, and now (against my earlier predictions) entries in the PL-mount category - systems that are perfectly suited for the two traditional opposed genres in motion pictures of flexibility (news, many television shows) and ultimate control (movies and large-budget features).  There may be a slight argument to be made for professional DSLR video in certain circumstances, but it would be a small and specialist market.

If you theorize that you could split some camera lines, with some side having a sensor more suited to video (which seems possible to make), as the EF system stands it would still generally be a pretty woeful choice for professionals making video productions.  An EF system may not be far behind some other digital video systems, and at a good price (assuming you aren't gearing up for a professional production in which case investing that money in traditional gear, even just one lens, is preferable), but the number of lenses in the system that retain constant focus and/or that do not change their angle of view when zooming is small, and smaller still are the number of these that have sufficiently large maximum apertures and have focus rings up to the standards of professional focus pulling.  But hey, if Canon wants to refresh their whole line with f/2.8 parfocals with movie-quality focus rings, three cheers!

At this point, it seems most of this discussion is going into the realms of trying to get diminishing returns from a set paradigm, not unlike Nikon trying to futz autofocus support into a mount that also supports their earliest non-AI lenses.  To get the features mentioned here, Canon may well need a totally new mount - though, again, the fact they have now invested in both mounts (their proprietary camcorder mount as well as PL) means that this seems unlikely.  I already took a shot at guessing Canon was not going to go to an "open" standard like the PL Mount; they didn't misjudge that market (where the whole point is not to get locked into a single system) like I did.  Butchering the EOS series for the sake of iffy video support would be, quite frankly, a bigger betrayal of the EOS / EF ethos than anything Ken R. has ever had cause to complain about.

[Chaos411vm]

Splitting the 5D line would make absolutely no sense, logically and for business. Why do people in general like the current line of SLR's? It's the fact that they are of course hybrids. Yes the 5D has a full frame sensor but it's not unique to just Canon. If a somewhat serious videographer/professional is going to have to pay more for an SLR that is clumsy first and foremost to shoot video with and now also be weak in the Stills department they will move to other cameras that have those features. Why pay more money for a camera that can't be shouldered if it's main purpose is going to be the video? That wouldn't be a an SLR at all even though it would be built like one. Canon unfortunately has been sluggish with getting new stuff out and is now playing catch up with Sony. What would be amazing is if Canon decides to put the 5D mark III sensor in an actual Full body and not the clumsy SLR body with way more functions then that would be a different story and that I hope they can pull off.

[idigi]

I think someone from Canon initiated this discussion just to see customer reaction and get some ideas on what to do next.  I am sure Canon reps are having fun reading this thread and are putting check marks and crosses next to each idea/suggestion :-)

It started something like this:
Canon rep1: why not spilt 5d into two models?
Canon rep2: hmm, let's get some customer feedback first.
Canon rep1: hey, canonrumors, there is a rumor floating that...
Canonrumors: The future of the 5D line (CR2)!

[Justin]

I think someone from Canon initiated this discussion just to see customer reaction and get some ideas on what to do next.  I am sure Canon reps are having fun reading this thread and are putting check marks and crosses next to each idea/suggestion :-)

It started something like this:
Canon rep1: why not spilt 5d into two models?
Canon rep2: hmm, let's get some customer feedback first.
Canon rep1: hey, canonrumors, there is a rumor floating that...
Canonrumors: The future of the 5D line (CR2)!

Ha ha. If only Canon did more research based on geeked out tech rumor forums... I'd have my 5D3 (best features from the 5D2 + 7D with resolution and dynamic range to spare) in hand shooting like a champion.

[idigi]

Ha ha. If only Canon did more research based on geeked out tech rumor forums... I'd have my 5D3 (best features from the 5D2 + 7D with resolution and dynamic range to spare) in hand shooting like a champion.

Canon has the technology, but Canon is not going to give it all away at once, especially not packed into one model because:
1. They need to be making money all the time by adding just the right amount of features to keep you on their hook.
2. They need to differentiate between different models and make you choose between at least two models, or make you buy both, if you want to have it all.

Look at mobile phones as example.  You cannot get the best and most expensive phone with everything you want.  You'll have to sacrifice either camera quality, qwerty keyboard, screen size, and so on. You'll have to decide on the most important features for you and choose your model based on features/price ratio, just like you choose your dslr.

[Edwin Herdman]

Canon has the technology, but Canon is not going to give it all away at once, especially not packed into one model because:

At the lower end there certainly are features left out for price (and perhaps consumer-proofing), but at the top end they pretty much have to throw the kitchen sink in, else somebody else will.  The only reason to leave features out of top end models is for the sake of efficient and comfortable operation, i.e. no querty keyboard in camera models.  Any feature that can be added now to a top-end camera will likely be, else it isn't economical.  So what's the "hook' to future upgrades for a top-end camera?  Well, many features keep improving (though some don't).  I don't think Canon has a problem with putting out a "perfect" camera that nobody ever needs to replace, even if resolution and IQ eventually tapered off they'd still be making new sales of bodies and lenses.

The middle (upper) range is a strange area, and perhaps the most pure photographic tools belong there.  At the bottom end you have sharp differentiation by features and price, and at the top you have again sharp differentiation by intended uses.  For the middle-upper it's a bit fuzzier how you could meaningfully split a line; the cameras are not intended to compete with pro cameras but they are meant to be better than the low end.

[idigi]

Here is what I mean by saying that Canon has the technology:
Canon develops world's first 120 megapixel APS-H CMOS sensor
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10082410canon120mpsensor.asp

Notice: "It [sensor] offers full HD recording (using 1/60th of its surface area) and can deliver 9.5fps continuous shooting.

From CanonRumors:

I wonder about technology though, can you offer a 9fps+ capability in a 30+mp camera? There’s lots of technical people that know better than I do.

Well, if Canon can deliver 9.5fps in their prototype 120 mp sensor, then they can certainly make 9fps 30+mp camera.

So, even if Canon has no plans for APS-H sensors in the future, this proves that they are capable of producing 100-150 megapixel full frame sensor.  But instead, Canon (or Nikon, or Sony, or any other tech company for that matter) is going to milk its customers by gradually implementing new tech features. So, they'll bump up megapixel count to 30, 40, 50 mp for now to make an impression of being the latest and greatest, and also to stay competitive.

From CanonRumors:

It was also suggested APS-H in the EOS line is finished.

Well, if Canon developed 120 MP APS-H sensor, why would they abandon this format now?  This rumor seems to be very unlikely.

Pay attention to the following information in the same article: "This [120 mp sensor] follows a 50 million pixel sensor of similar format the company developed in 2007.

So, the technology they are going to put in cameras in 2011-2012, ~50 MP sensors, existed back in 2007.

I doubt Canon will split 5D series into video and non-video versions, especially since most, if not all, latest DSLRs, not just Canon, have video feature in them.  Instead, they may add 3D series to have something in between 1D and 5D, just like they filled up the gap between 5D and xxD series with 7D.

[x-vision]

Well, if Canon developed 120 MP APS-H sensor, why would they abandon this format now?  This rumor seems to be very unlikely.

Good find about the 120mp sensor, Idigi.

Note, though, that this is just a prototype sensor.
It indeed shows that Canon has the technology for a 30mp/9fps camera - at least in a testing/prototype phase.
It's in no way an indication, though, that the technology will be used to actually make APS-H sensors.

APS-H is just a very convenient and economical size for prototypes.
It showcases the abilities of a new technology to scale to FF sensors - while at the same time it's more economical and allows faster prototyping than FF.

APS-H is going away for sure.
From a marketing perspective it's a mistake to offer a lesser sensor in the flagship pro/sports camera when Nikon is offering a FF sensor in their equivalent.
Long term, the perception will be that Canon's flagship is either inferior than Nikon's (if priced lower) or that Canon is overcharging for a lesser camera (if priced the same/higher).

So, Canon actually has no choice but to put a FF sensor in the 1DV. APS-H will just hurt their business.

[distant.star]

My guess is the only Canon personnel who read this seriously are lawyers.

I think someone from Canon initiated this discussion just to see customer reaction and get some ideas on what to do next.  I am sure Canon reps are having fun reading this thread and are putting check marks and crosses next to each idea/suggestion :-)

It started something like this:
Canon rep1: why not spilt 5d into two models?
Canon rep2: hmm, let's get some customer feedback first.
Canon rep1: hey, canonrumors, there is a rumor floating that...
Canonrumors: The future of the 5D line (CR2)!

[c-law]

idigi, developing a 120MP APS-H sensor that can capture at 9.5 frames/sec is very different from developing one that works in a camera and is mass-produceable. Notice that in the link you posted that they state they had to develop new processors and circuits to get it to read-out accurately.

I may have miscalculated but I believe that sensor would produce over 1GB of data every second it is shot. The changes required to put that in a camera involve the DIGIC processor and the storage media at least.

Remember that a lab test experiment used to create buzz at a camera show is very different than what it takes to bring everything together in a functional camera.

Chris

[Tarrum]

idigi, developing a 120MP APS-H sensor that can capture at 9.5 frames/sec is very different from developing one that works in a camera and is mass-produceable

I agree with you on that one, but still, they did it.

Now of course they will not put out a seriously amazing body, as that would hurt them in the long run. It's just the way technology is like - put in something new with every new model. Take Apple for example. Once you see a new product, you can't understand how you could live without it on the first one.