April 25, 2018, 07:13:57 AM

Author Topic: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?  (Read 23437 times)


  • Guest
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2011, 09:33:29 AM »
Hey jakeymate, relax dude! Damn, you should be a novelist :D

First of all, I said the last image wasn't acceptable in the first place. I gave it to them anyway, because I didn't have any better possibilities to shoot there as it was dark as hell. They didn't pay for that image though :) 

And of course.. I would like for ISO 12800 to be cleaner, and I would like to see it with all the megapixels we have now, and I do like working with a D3s for the image quality (the only reason I haven't bought one - or actually - why I have switched to Canon is for 1080p video).

What you fail to see is that the OLD 5D Mark II (which it is) can despite it's age still beat everything that has hit the market since it came out but the D3s for IQ. The D700/D3 are only slightly better and have a lot less resolution, the D3s is a lot better BUT has a lot less resolution.

You argue the fact of having trouble editing noisier files... Upsizing a D700 image for a large print puts you in a disadvantage already and then you still have to start editing.

I say stop complaining, use the tools you have and if you prefer a D3s... buy one. I bet the only reason we are all waiting is because Canon is R&Ding the crap out of itself trying to come up with something that will keep both people searching for high resolutions happy and people like us who are on the "darkside" happy.

If Canon manages to come up with the rumored 26.4mp sensor and it gives me the same noise characteristics Nikon has + decent autofocus (like that of the 7D)... I'm buying. Deffo.

PS: No thanks & By the way, you do have a goodlooking daughter ;)
« Last Edit: June 30, 2011, 09:35:50 AM by hlphoto »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #15 on: June 30, 2011, 09:33:29 AM »


  • EOS 7D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 558
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #16 on: June 30, 2011, 10:07:25 AM »
I think there are a number of interesting points raised in this thread, and a lot of passion  ;D

The fact is, in the higher ends of the dSLR market the manufacturers do not make much money at all - margins are perhaps higher, volumes are a lot lower. Economics dictate that you focus on the markets which generate you the most money. The same is true of Photographers. Do you want to make money, or make an occasional shot which people admire but sells very little?

The development cycle for the higher end cameras is constrained by a number of things
- They won't release another camera until they recoup from the previous.
- I'm not sure how many Pro's upgrade that quick. Given the variety of photographers and therefore requirements, I'm not sure why Canon would focus on one sector who may want great video, super high iso etc.
- They won't want mega video capabilities overnight in their dSLR as this would just kill their Pro video camera market - it's a case of evolve products and maintain the status quo across your lines. Nikon does not sell video cameras so they're fine. Startups have no legacy nor breadth of products so they're ok as well
- Significant jumps in technology are not a 1 year development cycle. 2 at a push. And for what? For the small high end market?

Look at the tech in smartphones or indeed in PCs. Think they have changed much in the past 3 years? A faster processor, bit more memory, better screen. Revolution? Nope, not since Apple defined that market. Where there is benefit, and where all the Camera makers should take cue is from the software. iOS and Android continue to develop SW features as they're a lot easier to do. Canon et al should develop the same ecosystem. Either in the camera (touch screen, BT, wifi) or through SDKs available on smartphones.

Do I want better DR, better focusing, better ISO (higher & lower), perhaps even a few more MP - sure do.

But I also want

- Bring back tech into the camera such as the Depth mode that we had on Film cameras, or provide this in a nice I/F on the back of the screen
- Introduce tech such as voice control so I can focus on my subject and just tell it ISO 1600 or high burst. Not convinced about eye focus, but VC I think would be good for sports & nature and perhaps even paparazzi/wedding
- Consider square sensors - no rotation problems, higher quality MP
- Simple HDR to extend the DR
- Focus stacking tech - the camera provides focus bracketing, and SW stacks it all together
- Proper Auto-ISO where I can define what parameters I want to vary, what my min and max are for each parameter.
- Allow me to assign any button any function I want.
- Better quality screens - always articulated, and preferably touch sensitive.

So who does Canon listen to ?

I do like the idea of incremental upgrades to an existing model - nothing massive, but gives a mid-life kick to ensure the high end cameras are never over-shadowed by the entry level models. Even better, I would like replaceable backs (dealer only fitting is fine) so I don't have to replace the whole kit.

I personally think Canon and others need to simplify all their lines. Keeping all the models they have is just bewildering and must have a high overhead. Standardising on the underlying OS would be good for them across all models - again, to reduce the effort to maintain all the models. Plus if you open up the ecosystem to 3rd parties then they will not want to deal with such diversity - witness Google's attempts now to harmonise their OS across all phones.

The HW tech will continue to advance, never as quick as we would like it to, but I think the factors which affect this are a lot more complex and varied then we would like to think it is.

My hope is that when Nikon kicked Canon's butt 3 years ago (and I reckon that took Nikon 5+ years to develop), then Canon stepped back, looked at not only what they would need to do to match Nikon, but take into account that Nikon would not stand still. So the new Canon's need to develop 2 gens of technology to match what Nikon will release with the D4 series, or 3 to leapfrog them. I doubt they will leapfrog - technology takes longer than that to develop, but I hope they will match the D4 and come up with some innovations of their own.

FF will not die - the tech is no different from APS. In fact APS is more difficult, so the FF sensors will always benefit. Manufacturing & yeilds are the only challenges for FF. If I was Canon, I would drop APS, make the capabilities present in the Sensor / Digic V or VI, then have 1 sensor type across all their dSLR and 2nd for all their compact ranges. Simplify your development, drop 1 range of lenses in a single action and help you focus on maintaining a smaller, but quicker evolving range of cameras. They won't of course. Their mantra is to offer a wide range in the hope that someone will want *that* particular model and not from a rival. And until the profits falter significantly then the strategy will not change. Nikon's changed in the early 00's as they had no choice.

August / September will be an interesting month.

Ps. I don't subscribe to the view about tied to Canon because of the glass investment. There is a booming 2nd hand market and if you really believe after the new releases that Canon has lost it's way, then selling up and moving is the thing to do. Sticking with Canon if you feel Nikon has the better strategy is a bad idea IMHO. And yes, I have > £10K of Canon lenses.
If life is all about what you do in the time that you have, then photography is about the pictures you take not the kit that took it. Still it's fun to talk about the kit, present or future :)


  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 824
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #17 on: June 30, 2011, 10:22:09 AM »
I'd like three cams:

1) A killer 5-10 meg cam with flawless video sampled from the whole sensor. I'd lay down $4,000 for one right now as it would be in Red territory, and cheaper than an EX1. A no brainer for every video production house on a budget.

2) A 10-15 meg FF with excellent 12800 ISO and a good spread of cross focus points. I'll have one of those right now too. $3000 no problem.

I'm still paying less than a Nikon D3x and I've got two cameras, tailored for their purpose, instead of a jack of all trades.

3) A 20-35 meg camera with flawless 100 ISO and good noise to 1600, maybe 3200. I'd go $3000 on that one too.

... and this is why most photographers are photographers and not businessmen.

if canon could do all these things with minimal R&D and production line costs (unlikely), and these offerings would be superior to what Nikon is offering for $8000 ... why would I low-ball myself and charge far less than I could command on those?

your camera number 1 would be a video camera, not a photo camera, and would shoot right up into the $8000 range to compete with the new Super 35 format tailored-for-video cameras that Panny and Sony have just put out.

your camera number 2 is essentially a full frame 1D Mark IV.  why would canon sell that for $3000 when they're selling an APS-H with the same specs for $5000?

your camera number 3 is the Nikon D3x.  Again, if Nikon can charge $8000 for it ... why would Canon fork it over to you for $3000?

I also contest the assertion that because you haven't gotten a new FF replacement for the 5D II in 3 years that Canon isn't doing anything with that lineup:

1st - the 3 years isn't up yet, wait until the end of 2011 before you gripe about that.
2nd - how often did you get new EOS-1 series cameras back in the 80s and 90s?  how many crapcams were introduced in the meantime?

I'm not guaranteeing you'll like what you see when the updates do come.  I don't work for canon.  if you really think Nikon is better, as someone else has noted, sell your lenses and equipment at little cost and then buy into a Nikon system.  life is simple like that.


  • Guest
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #18 on: June 30, 2011, 10:30:38 AM »
Read a few interesting ones in the last half hour...

...about jumping systems: True. I started my digital photography with Konica Minolta, wasn't happy about the noise. Haven't had any trouble switching systems without losing money in the past. Recently I sold a 35L, 550D and 7D for more then I bought them for (brand new...).

Prices have went up so much this actually is the time to switch if you really want to.

PS: About buying a new model of an old cam: I would. I own a 550D today, bought it new after heavy use of the first one. I sold the first one just before the 600D came out. If prices wouldn't have gone up I would have done the same to my 5D Mark II: Sell it after about a year and get a new one to replace it.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2011, 10:33:53 AM by hlphoto »


  • Guest
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #19 on: June 30, 2011, 11:12:45 AM »
I pretty much agree with everything Jakeymate (sic?) says. For me, if a camera took a big evolutionary step, I would buy a new body every single year. For me, 5K a year in camera equipment is just par for course. The current 4 to 5 year product cyle that Canon on is absolutely HORRIBLE. They should be ashamed of themselves as a company.

Canon is almost a monopoly in the camera industry. Their biggest competitor is Nikon, and they're not really even close in terms of overall camera sales. So once you buy into the Canon system, you are stuck with little to no choices.

I find it disturbing that Canon as a company, is so keen on completely milking their customers dry. It leaves a very bad taste, but there is nothing you can really do about it, because there are basically only 2 other choices, Nikon or Sony who offer a complete system.

I am a video guy, and I could get the Panasonic GH2 of AF 101 for video, which does have a better resolved picture. But at the same time, Canon has much better, faster zooms than Panny, and Canon color is so much better than Pannys. Plus, Micro 4 3rds is hard for me to swollow. But yeah, mostly it goes back to the lens question, since I'm stuck with so much money in Canon lenses.

When I bought into the system several years back, I knew there were flaws in the video, but I figured Canon knew about them and would fix them in the next camera re-hash. But it never happened. They just kept on milking and milking.

Canon needs to release something this year. Something new, not just their usual re-hash of something old. Hate to say it, but they've really become a lackluster company content to just sit on their laurels.

And NO, the earthquake has nothing to do with it.


  • Guest
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #20 on: June 30, 2011, 11:37:34 AM »
I don't think there is a free lunch in fixing the 5D Mk2 problems decently.
The Panasonic GH2 and AF101 both have problems of their own and both can only deliver their resolution advantage when fiddled with in the right way. It's like comparing a 5D Mk1 to a 7D for stills: Yes, 18mp is more than 12.8, now go out and make that 7D resolve more than the 5D does. I bet you'll have a hard time to say the least during most work.


  • Guest
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2011, 11:42:15 AM »
I actually ask mostly in all seriousness, and with a little humour to boot.

I'm a pro photographer, and the last time Canon released a FF was almost 3 years ago, with the 5D Mk2. There is no 'official' word at all of any new FF, whether it's 1D, 3D, 5D etc.

i doubt you are a pro photographer.
and i now a lot because i sell gear to them.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #21 on: June 30, 2011, 11:42:15 AM »


  • EOS 5DS R
  • ******
  • Posts: 824
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #22 on: June 30, 2011, 01:09:49 PM »
"I also contest the assertion that because you haven't gotten a new FF replacement for the 5D II in 3 years that Canon isn't doing anything with that lineup:"

FACT: Last FF camera announced by Canon? 5D Mk2, August 2008.

yeah, so we're on the same page.  unless you find a 3 year replacement cycle surprising for some reason?  that's what canon's always run with their pro bodies.  nikon is typically 4 years.  we're in the photography market, not the desktop CPU market ... I'm just confused why you're treating this as some affront from Canon that we were suckered into.

1. FF Epic is ... $12K for body only?  from what I recall in your first post, you were saying Canon should put out a competitor at around $3000?  forgive me for not knowing anything, but last time I checked I thought only the 2/3" RED sensor bodies were down at around 3K?  don't get me wrong, I'd love to see 4:2:2 and no jello and no jaggies and 120p options and no moire in my video.  HECK YES to all that.  getting it for 3 grand, I just don't think that's realistic.

2. everyone knows that today we're no longer paying for the megapixels.  come on, you know that too.  otherwise, why is a 1D IV more expensive than a T2i?  it's all in the body, AF, build quality, etc.  I agree the D3S has some awesome noise characteristics, ridiculously clean files.  but if Nikon can go from D700 to D3S in terms of image quality per pixel, there's no reason Canon can't go the same on their 21MP sensor, in terms of per pixel IQ.  lots of demonstrations showing that the 5DII's 21MP sensor downscaled to 12MP pretty much matched the D700's 12MP sensor exactly.  so it's a wash.  I also don't think you're going to get much faster shooting rates than the 10 FPS that pro bodies are currently maxing out at.  there's a limit as to how fast you can clear electrical current from a given sensor size to prevent ghosting.

3. you're right, a 5DIII is likely around the corner, and will be costing you $3000 ... but with video.  so... is there a complaint in there?  sounds pretty good to me.  again, I don't get the griping about product release timeline when it's been a fairly consistent release timeline.  it's like complaining about not seeing any birthday presents about a month ahead of your birthday... just have a wait and see.  I don't think Canon is seriously going to go another year without releasing a new-and-much-improved FF body.  if they do pull that stunt then, why yes, you're given a free pass to complain all you want, because that would be really terrible of Canon.  but do you really think you're not going to see a release announcement in august or september?


  • Guest
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #23 on: June 30, 2011, 02:10:37 PM »
I have to agree 5d2 at 3200 and above, indoor shot, look pretty noisy on LCD at 100%, when print on paper it look better though. I hope the new version can improve on that aspect. Yes, d3 is better in noise, but it also has lower resolution. Canon made more money on consumer camera than on the pro, so they are putting there eggs where it matters for them.


  • Guest
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #24 on: June 30, 2011, 04:53:32 PM »
Personally, I highly doubt the video version of the 5D3 is going to cost 3k. I personally think, and hope there will be 2 version of the 5D3 (or maybe it will be the fabled 3D which is video optimized).

4:2:2 50mb codec + possible RAW to Recorder are charged a serious premium by the competition (Panny, Sony and RED). I doubt most still photogs want to pay a couple thousand extra for those features. I know that Sony's latest video camera is a 4:2:0 codec, and you have to pay an extra 3K for a hardware un-lock to access the 4:2:2 (Or it might be 4:4:4) codec. That's a really lame way to do business, but it shows that good video codecs do not come cheap.

As for Canon announcing something this year, I have my doubts for sure because of their poor track record. The last 1D (2007) has missed it's 3 year cycle by almost 1 year now. So Canon is officially on 4 year product cycles. Super lame.

 I think if Canon did yearly updates to their pro bodies, they will sell more cameras and make more people happy. The video stuff is moving so fast, that yearly updates are necessary. For example, the video Moire problem has been around for 3 to 4 years now! It should have been fixed after 1 year. I would have gladly bought a new model and paid a premium just to have that problem fixed. Then the next year they could fix the Jello problem, and I would have gladly bought that model also.

Instead, it's their yearly releases are just cameras with minor firmware updates. Shameful.

Canon is not evolving fast enough, and they don't care because once you buy a few L lenses, they know they own you.


  • Guest
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #25 on: June 30, 2011, 10:42:21 PM »
If only someone made 35mm sensors that can be used in a 'proper' cinema style video cam.

Can we think of anyone?  ;)
Arri Alexa, Panavision, and a little bit of red. We all know what those cost.

As for the money the salesmen would make.. I would say do put your money where your mouth is and invest in Nikon. If there's that much to spend the little loss to your lenses shouldn't be keeping you. A colleague swapped from a 1D3 to a D3s and he's a professional soccer photographer... so he had to sell a 200 f/2, a 300 f/2.8, a 400 f/2.8, a 500 f/4 and some "normal stuff" (24-70, 70-200 f/2.8, 100-400, 17-40, 15 fish). Even he didn't lose that much - what's keeping you?


  • EOS 6D Mark II
  • *****
  • Posts: 396
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #26 on: June 30, 2011, 11:31:10 PM »
I'm really starting to see why this profession needs some shaking up I have to say.

We are in a fast moving industry, we need tools that update faster than 3 years. And if YOU don't, what are you going to lose if they update every 18 months?

We were given a taste of video DSLR, new possibilities, then nothing.

No advances, and no fixes for obvious flaws. Again, if your happy, fine. I'm not. You can't build a new area of industry (DSLR) on a 3 year product cycle.

You know, our photography department should have you write their proposal for replacing their outdated fleet of 1DIII with the new 1DIV. I'm sure you'll be able to convince our boss the benefits of what the new bodies can do where the old ones can't.
Canon EOS 1D MKIV, EF 24-105mm F/4L, EF 70-200mm F/2.8L, TS-E 17mm F/4L, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro
FujiFilm FinePix X100


  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 42
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #27 on: July 01, 2011, 12:46:08 AM »
You know, our photography department should have you write their proposal for replacing their outdated fleet of 1DIII with the new 1DIV. I'm sure you'll be able to convince our boss the benefits of what the new bodies can do where the old ones can't.

Getting a tad fed up of sarcastic comments. Some people it would seem would be happy if Canon updated every 20 years or so.

The 1DMk4 is hardly new, it's older than an iPad 1 at 18 months.

What about no updates, ever? Happier now? Wow, i can do sarcasm too.

As I've said repeatedly, IF YOU are happy, or your department is happy with a 3 year or longer cycle, go for it.

Keep your cam till it's dies after years and years, and replace it with the same one if you like, I couldn't care less.

I have no issue with that. It's your choice to be in that environment. I don't want that. I want to give Canon money more often, they just don't seem to want it.

And if you have do a problem getting your bosses to buy current kit, get a new boss or become your own, because the fast moving independent photographer is eating this dusty industry alive, and it's easy to see why.

What kind of improvement do you expect on a pro camera after "only" 18 months? Do you have any idea of the cost to develop new technology? Your 1 stop improvement for half step camera + 2 stops for next full step camera is just a joke and so ridiculous...
Look at the APS-C Canon cameras. They are almost all using the same sensor since 2 years now, because developing a new sensor is VERY expensive, difficult and requires time. So the only thing they improve is body/ergonomics/electronics.
So is that what you want in your 5Dm2.5? A tilting screen and 1 or 2 more buttons? Because that's all what Canon would offer to you for the same price. Then, happy you, you paid 3k dollars to have the same camera with slightly improved ergonomics. Excuse us, not so rich people, to prefer to keep or money for the next real upgrade.

What you ask to canon now is to develop 4 new FF sensors every 18 months, plus the new APS-C one(s) of course that are the real one(s) to bring money to Canon. OK, so be ready to pay 10k dollars each FF camera, because that's what it would cost.

If spending 10k dollars every 18 months is not a problem for you as you suggested earlier, why don't you also buy a Nikon Camera to do the job you need in low light if not happy with Canon. That would be the price to have the full Nikon set, and for the following years you can enjoy just changing bodies when they come out from the brand having the best offer.

By the way, why do you think no still camera can offer all the video options you and some other videographers are asking? Because it is today technologically impossible! Big sensors such as FF cannot have the same read speed as small sensors (cf rolling shutter). I am not saying it will never be possible, but until today, it was not, at least not at an acceptable price. Also, I wonder why there is so many people here complaining about video abilities of DSLR. Never saw so many videographers before, probably an american specificity. In Europe and Asia, people don't really care about doing serious movies with DSLR.
DSLR are not video-camera, have never been and it will never be their main purpose. That is just an option, a possibility. Do not expect much more. Especially for 5D series, which is a (semi-)professional tool for still photography.
Canon 5D MkII + 24-105mm f/4L + 70-200mm f/4L IS + 35mm f/1.4L + 85mm f/1.2L + 135mm f/2L + Sigma 50mm f/1.4EX + Samyang 14mm f/2.8

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #27 on: July 01, 2011, 12:46:08 AM »


  • Guest
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #28 on: July 01, 2011, 03:25:23 AM »
Same with low light.

In truth the Mk2 didn't improve raw ISO much, maybe a stop. The D3s proved not everyone was wanting 21 meg over pure image quality.

Canon could have eaten the video market alive by releasing a DSLR with a FF low meg sensor. 12800 ISO would be a reality, no jaggies, less jello, and every cinema wannabe would have bought one, as it would be simply so far ahead of the game.

In reality HD only needs a 2 meg sensor. How sensitive would a FF sensor be with only 2 million pixels?

It could literally shoot anywhere, with any available light. An indie filmmakers wet dream.

How hard would that be technically? Not very. It's actually a step back, away from the mg war, but a good step back.

Actually, a low resolution sensor is a wet dream of people who keep dreaming that the laws of physics are bendable, and who belive there is this magic recipe for low noise levels. There is none!

In current camera sensors, the size of the pixel (or resolution) has no VISIBLE effect on the noise level of the ENTIRE photo (= it only affects the noise level of the individual pixels). The only thing that matters is the size of the sensor (well, obviously, besides technology).

The reason why there are sensors for phones, for compact cameras, for DSLRs, for medium format, and... telescopes, is the sensor size, NOT the pixel size.

It's difficult for people to understand that a bigger sensor means that the photos contain more light for the same exposure. They ask themselves where does that light go because they don't see brigther photos. The answer is simple: the photos are scaled to the same physical size (but the scale factor is different, relative to the sensor size), so the light goes into annihilating the noise.

As for the so called superiority of D3s, you can look at actual photos and see that it has the same noise level as 1D4, per area of sensor (NOT per pixel, or entire photo for that matter since the sensor of 1D4 is smaller).

Why does the light matters (rather than ISO)? I don't know for certain (I have two reasons), but you can look at this shot taken with a 40D at ISO 3200, and at this taken with ISO 400. If the EXIF were to not say the ISO, would you belive your eyes?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2011, 03:27:06 AM by NotABunny »


  • Guest
Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2011, 04:02:18 AM »
I'm happy to put my money where my mouth is www.deanagar.com.au

Those photos look great, but since you're shooting with controlled lighting, why do you need the high ISO improvement? Note that at low ISO, the noise in the shadows is actually higher than the one from the same area but at high ISO (Neuroanatomist posted a link, but I don't recall what it was). Weird, but true, so it seems that photographers really need to wait for a company to create a sensor that can do multiple ISOs for the same shot (which would also allow us to do hand-held HDR).

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Do Canon still develop Full Frame Cameras?
« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2011, 04:02:18 AM »