What if the rumored 5Dx is actually a 4D?

[Chuck Alaimo]

Here are some quotes from nikon users:

" I would look for a used D700, D3, or D3s. The D800 files are going to be way too big for your needs. The D4 is somewhat overpriced for what you are going to need."

"D3s is the leader for low light, D4 is a piece of junk. D800 is crap unless you're in a studio. Wouldn't touch a canon unless 5DMrkIII"

" Best wedding camera on the market today is the D3s. The best value wedding camera on the market today is the D700."

" I agree with Brady, D3s is a beautiful camera. Shooting with 2 32GB CF cards with one for immediate backup is a great way to shoot a wedding with confidence! D800 is a body geared towards the landscape/commercial world but not for weddings. D4 was a dud."

I have seen my share of professional and/or accomplished photographers giving poor advice. ("yeah, sonny, get one of them cameras with large pixels, those will have less noise"). I have no idea if the  people you quote give good advice.

-h

OK, here are the sites of some of those quoted --

http://www.nealurban.com/splash

http://www.bradydillsworth.com/

http://www.drewzinckphotography.com/

http://argentophotography.com/

LOL...I find it funny that as opposed to hearing the other side of the fence recommending lower mp'ed bodies for weddings in your mind = obviously bad advice.  Why is it so hard to accept that if you don't need to shoot to print 40x60 or larger a lower mp camera is bad??   What I find even funnier is that in a standard photography forum (not nikon or canon), you see many nikon users telling younger photogs that the 5d3 is a great idea if your upgrading to FF and are not invested in glass?  File size does matter if you shoot 2000 images or more per event you shoot. 

[Hobby Shooter]

For someone who doesnt't have years of experience with the Canon product line. What caracterized the 1DsIII?

For its time, the 1DsIII was the king of resolution and overall IQ, which made it the go-to workhorse for many studio photogs. However, it's state of the art (for its time) AF and respectable 5 FPS burst rate made it an extremely versatile tool that could be used for occasional action and sports photography as well.

Other than high-ISO improvements, the 5DIII doesn't offer much if any improvement in overall IQ or resolution, but then again, the 5DIII is less than half the price of what the 1DsIII sold for when new. If I already owned a 1DsIII I'd probably still be shooting with one, but I didn't own one, so I'm more than thrilled with my 5DIII

I never owned an 1DsIII either, not my budget anyway. But coming from a 30D my 5DIII is a huge step up and it blows me away...anytime I pick it up. If it doesn't it's always the dude behind ;-)

Thanks Mr Beast!
Pedro, same for me, I came from 60D to the 5D3 and although I am far from being able to use it to its full capacity I am often stunned by its capabilities. Bad pictures are because of me.

[bdunbar79]

I owned a 1Ds Mark III.  It was amazing how accurately it could reproduce skin tones.  I'd say no other camera can get skin tones as "correct" as the 1Ds Mark III can.  With that said, it couldn't go anywhere near ISO 800 or higher like the 5D Mark III can.  Overall, the 5D Mark III is much more versatile and has outdated the 1Ds Mark III and I probably wouldn't even consider getting one, especially since a new 5D Mark III is often cheaper.

However, it wasn't made to do the same things the 5D Mark III was made to do.  That's why I think the 1Ds Mark II and Mark III are both excellent studio cameras.  But if you show me a studio photo from a 1Ds Mark III shot and a 5D Mark II shot let's say, you won't be able to tell which is which.  The only difference is skin tone.  I still can't get over how well those cameras could do.

With a newer, higher MP camera, I'm sure it will be the true successor to the 1Ds Mark III.  It'll be 39-46 mp, will be low fps, and low-ISO only.

[pedro]

Here are some quotes from nikon users:

" I would look for a used D700, D3, or D3s. The D800 files are going to be way too big for your needs. The D4 is somewhat overpriced for what you are going to need."

"D3s is the leader for low light, D4 is a piece of junk. D800 is crap unless you're in a studio. Wouldn't touch a canon unless 5DMrkIII"

" Best wedding camera on the market today is the D3s. The best value wedding camera on the market today is the D700."

" I agree with Brady, D3s is a beautiful camera. Shooting with 2 32GB CF cards with one for immediate backup is a great way to shoot a wedding with confidence! D800 is a body geared towards the landscape/commercial world but not for weddings. D4 was a dud."

I have seen my share of professional and/or accomplished photographers giving poor advice. ("yeah, sonny, get one of them cameras with large pixels, those will have less noise"). I have no idea if the  people you quote give good advice.

-h

OK, here are the sites of some of those quoted --

http://www.nealurban.com/splash

http://www.bradydillsworth.com/

http://www.drewzinckphotography.com/

http://argentophotography.com/

LOL...I find it funny that as opposed to hearing the other side of the fence recommending lower mp'ed bodies for weddings in your mind = obviously bad advice.  Why is it so hard to accept that if you don't need to shoot to print 40x60 or larger a lower mp camera is bad??   What I find even funnier is that in a standard photography forum (not nikon or canon), you see many nikon users telling younger photogs that the 5d3 is a great idea if your upgrading to FF and are not invested in glass?  File size does matter if you shoot 2000 images or more per event you shoot.

According to my shooting habits the highest amount of files I get while shooting is near 200. Developing them in DPP and some PP in CS2 (old but suits my needs), piece by piece. Due to an old and slow PC I don't even shoot full res. mRAW is way enough for now. So MPs really count. IQ wise as well, if you aim at mostly high ISOs and available light. So for me to go far beyond the current MP count of my 5D3 in a next body cycle would be a loss. As the 5D3 is a great low light tool at a (still) decent price. Especially if your amateur budget is not apt for an 1Dx. I'd prefer a split: 5Dx ("revolutionary" 22 -24MP sensor, decent ultra high ISOs, 50-51k "native", 102 and 204k extended, 0.5-1 stop improvement in RAW in comparison to the 5D3) 5Ds (new high MP sensor, ISOs 50-25kmax, ultra high DR)

[petrosv]

I owned a 1Ds Mark III.  It was amazing how accurately it could reproduce skin tones.  I'd say no other camera can get skin tones as "correct" as the 1Ds Mark III can.  With that said, it couldn't go anywhere near ISO 800 or higher like the 5D Mark III can.  Overall, the 5D Mark III is much more versatile and has outdated the 1Ds Mark III and I probably wouldn't even consider getting one, especially since a new 5D Mark III is often cheaper.

However, it wasn't made to do the same things the 5D Mark III was made to do.  That's why I think the 1Ds Mark II and Mark III are both excellent studio cameras.  But if you show me a studio photo from a 1Ds Mark III shot and a 5D Mark II shot let's say, you won't be able to tell which is which.  The only difference is skin tone.  I still can't get over how well those cameras could do.

With a newer, higher MP camera, I'm sure it will be the true successor to the 1Ds Mark III.  It'll be 39-46 mp, will be low fps, and low-ISO only.

[petrosv]

I owned a 1Ds Mark III.  It was amazing how accurately it could reproduce skin tones.  I'd say no other camera can get skin tones as "correct" as the 1Ds Mark III can.  With that said, it couldn't go anywhere near ISO 800 or higher like the 5D Mark III can.  Overall, the 5D Mark III is much more versatile and has outdated the 1Ds Mark III and I probably wouldn't even consider getting one, especially since a new 5D Mark III is often cheaper.

However, it wasn't made to do the same things the 5D Mark III was made to do.  That's why I think the 1Ds Mark II and Mark III are both excellent studio cameras.  But if you show me a studio photo from a 1Ds Mark III shot and a 5D Mark II shot let's say, you won't be able to tell which is which.  The only difference is skin tone.  I still can't get over how well those cameras could do.

With a newer, higher MP camera, I'm sure it will be the true successor to the 1Ds Mark III.  It'll be 39-46 mp, will be low fps, and low-ISO only.

i totally agree with you . i also owned a 1dsIII  and for back up a 7d . So as my job go to tv and movies  stage photo shooting ,
i shell 1dsIII  for 5dIII ,high iso capabilities  and many others, but like you said ,skin tones  never be the same . the perfect accurancy  not there,  i think do antialising  filter is the reason.
sorry for my bad bad english....

[Normalnorm]

It seems the most logical path for Canon would be to make a 5Dmk3s/x or some such thing as an answer to the D800.
The need for a bulletproof body such as the 1D class for even most pros is dubious.

Canon is quite conservative and the demonstrated success of the D800 fairly calls out for  response.
The high status 1D bodies and D4 bodies do not garner nearly the attention (and certainly not  the sales) they used to. The 5D/D800/D600 bodies point the way to a segmentation of the higher volume FF landscape to come.
 

[bdunbar79]

It seems the most logical path for Canon would be to make a 5Dmk3s/x or some such thing as an answer to the D800.
The need for a bulletproof body such as the 1D class for even most pros is dubious.

Canon is quite conservative and the demonstrated success of the D800 fairly calls out for  response.
The high status 1D bodies and D4 bodies do not garner nearly the attention (and certainly not  the sales) they used to. The 5D/D800/D600 bodies point the way to a segmentation of the higher volume FF landscape to come.

While I agree with you in that Canon needs a higher MP body, the 5D Mark III is actually much more successful at sales than the D800.  So the masses of consumers/pros do not consider high MP necessary.  When you say "demonstrated success of the D800 fairly calls out for a response", that is actually not true, because in sales the 5D3 is selling way more than the D800.  I'd say the D800 therefore, wasn't all that successful compared to Canon.

For the pros, it would be nice for, myself included, to have a high MP, low fps, low ISO, 1D body like the 1Ds Mark III.  Replacing the 5D Mark III already, considering it's sales success, makes no sense.  It will most certainly be a higher-end body.

[Dick]

what if the rumored high MP body is actually a 4D?

Does the name of the rumored new body matter? We don't know what it will be like anyway. 5D X or 4D... I won't buy it based on the name.

[Chuck Alaimo]

I have seen my share of professional and/or accomplished photographers giving poor advice. ("yeah, sonny, get one of them cameras with large pixels, those will have less noise"). I have no idea if the  people you quote give good advice.

...LOL...I find it funny that as opposed to hearing the other side of the fence recommending lower mp'ed bodies for weddings in your mind = obviously bad advice.  Why is it so hard to accept that if you don't need to shoot to print 40x60 or larger a lower mp camera is bad??...

Do you think that your reply was an honest interpretation of what I was saying?

-h

Yeah, kind of did feel like you were saying my way is the way and no one should ever do it different, therefore things like mRAW and sRAW should never be installed or use cause I never use it.  My whole point was that different systems appeal to different users...big mp's, while desired, aren't what we all need...

[JohnJ851]

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I can only speculate on what drives the purchasing decisions of other people.  From my experience of owning alll the 5D series of Canon cameras as well as most of the xxD series as well as a Nikon D800 and D800E, I have never needed to use a small raw format ever.  However I do find that the various cropping sizes on the D800 are very useful.  The most useful is that I can use full frame or aps-c lenses on the same camera.  This would be revolutionary for Canon.  But what Canon could do is to allow DX (aps-c) crop mode on an full frame camera.

Where do I use it.  Let us say I'm using my 300mm for a landscape shot accross a bay and then I spot an some wildlife where I need a longer reach.  I can quickly go into crop mode and choose the amount of crop by choosing the image area thereby saving the file in a smaller raw file as well as having a faster FPS.  Canon could do this but so far they haven't because their full frame cameras don't have enough MP to do the crop and still have enough MP for the frame.  Someday will really high MP, perhaps all cameras will allow a digital crop size so you can get any framing that you want (maybe even square - Nikon D800 has a very pleasant 5x4 format choice that saves some Raw size).

You don't get longer reach you just change you FOV, still the same pixel pitch on your sensor.
I can do the exact same on my PC by cropping.
JohnJ

[Bruce Photography]

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I can only speculate on what drives the purchasing decisions of other people.  From my experience of owning alll the 5D series of Canon cameras as well as most of the xxD series as well as a Nikon D800 and D800E, I have never needed to use a small raw format ever.  However I do find that the various cropping sizes on the D800 are very useful.  The most useful is that I can use full frame or aps-c lenses on the same camera.  This would be revolutionary for Canon.  But what Canon could do is to allow DX (aps-c) crop mode on an full frame camera.

Where do I use it.  Let us say I'm using my 300mm for a landscape shot accross a bay and then I spot an some wildlife where I need a longer reach.  I can quickly go into crop mode and choose the amount of crop by choosing the image area thereby saving the file in a smaller raw file as well as having a faster FPS.  Canon could do this but so far they haven't because their full frame cameras don't have enough MP to do the crop and still have enough MP for the frame.  Someday will really high MP, perhaps all cameras will allow a digital crop size so you can get any framing that you want (maybe even square - Nikon D800 has a very pleasant 5x4 format choice that saves some Raw size).

You don't get longer reach you just change you FOV, still the same pixel pitch on your sensor.
I can do the exact same on my PC by cropping.
JohnJ

True but since this response was made at the time we were discussing how to save space on our cards by use sraw and mraw out in the field, the image size options on the D800 certainly save card space, while you are out in the field on a shoot.  Birds in flight are a perfect example.  I've only got a 300mm for my Nikon gear for my longest tele.  A bird is very often just a relatively small part of the frame while in flight.  The image size command draws a visual box around the dx area in the viewfinder.  This allows me to see the bird in the viewfinder before he gets into my DX cropped area to photograph.  Sure I can do it in post but that extra 36 mp shot gets cut down to 15+ mp right there and the surrounding area is one that I would not be able to use anyway.  Just FYI.

[sagittariansrock]

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I can only speculate on what drives the purchasing decisions of other people.  From my experience of owning alll the 5D series of Canon cameras as well as most of the xxD series as well as a Nikon D800 and D800E, I have never needed to use a small raw format ever.  However I do find that the various cropping sizes on the D800 are very useful.  The most useful is that I can use full frame or aps-c lenses on the same camera.  This would be revolutionary for Canon.  But what Canon could do is to allow DX (aps-c) crop mode on an full frame camera.

Where do I use it.  Let us say I'm using my 300mm for a landscape shot accross a bay and then I spot an some wildlife where I need a longer reach.  I can quickly go into crop mode and choose the amount of crop by choosing the image area thereby saving the file in a smaller raw file as well as having a faster FPS.  Canon could do this but so far they haven't because their full frame cameras don't have enough MP to do the crop and still have enough MP for the frame.  Someday will really high MP, perhaps all cameras will allow a digital crop size so you can get any framing that you want (maybe even square - Nikon D800 has a very pleasant 5x4 format choice that saves some Raw size).

You don't get longer reach you just change you FOV, still the same pixel pitch on your sensor.
I can do the exact same on my PC by cropping.
JohnJ

True but since this response was made at the time we were discussing how to save space on our cards by use sraw and mraw out in the field, the image size options on the D800 certainly save card space, while you are out in the field on a shoot.  Birds in flight are a perfect example.  I've only got a 300mm for my Nikon gear for my longest tele.  A bird is very often just a relatively small part of the frame while in flight.  The image size command draws a visual box around the dx area in the viewfinder.  This allows me to see the bird in the viewfinder before he gets into my DX cropped area to photograph.  Sure I can do it in post but that extra 36 mp shot gets cut down to 15+ mp right there and the surrounding area is one that I would not be able to use anyway.  Just FYI.

I'd think all other things remaining equal, I'd prefer to crop in post as opposed to cropping while shooting since that gives more flexibility. I can choose whether and how to crop.
However as I said a bigger image in the viewfinder is preferable to me- probably the one advantage of a crop sensor (for the same focal length lens).

[CarlTN]

It seems the most logical path for Canon would be to make a 5Dmk3s/x or some such thing as an answer to the D800.
The need for a bulletproof body such as the 1D class for even most pros is dubious.

Canon is quite conservative and the demonstrated success of the D800 fairly calls out for  response.
The high status 1D bodies and D4 bodies do not garner nearly the attention (and certainly not  the sales) they used to. The 5D/D800/D600 bodies point the way to a segmentation of the higher volume FF landscape to come.

While I agree with you in that Canon needs a higher MP body, the 5D Mark III is actually much more successful at sales than the D800.  So the masses of consumers/pros do not consider high MP necessary.  When you say "demonstrated success of the D800 fairly calls out for a response", that is actually not true, because in sales the 5D3 is selling way more than the D800.  I'd say the D800 therefore, wasn't all that successful compared to Canon.

For the pros, it would be nice for, myself included, to have a high MP, low fps, low ISO, 1D body like the 1Ds Mark III.  Replacing the 5D Mark III already, considering it's sales success, makes no sense.  It will most certainly be a higher-end body.

Well said Bdunbar. 

And again, I also agree with Nikon's idea of being able to crop the image at capture.  I like both Canon's and Nikon's methods of downsizing the file at capture, while storing them as a RAW, or "small RAW".  So Canon needs to put both into a camera.  It just seems like these aspects of in-camera processing or modification, aren't, or shouldn't be...all that difficult to implement, or require a lot of processing power (as opposed to the other processing aspects).

[AprilForever]

Seems strange to me that Nikon didn't offer a mRAW and/or sRAW on their D800. To me it suggests they're slightly out of touch with what people actually want

I never use small or medium raw, nor do I know why anyone would. The point of raw is non-processed information; down-interpolation is processing.

Different strokes.  mRAW is what I shoot the majority of the time because full RAW is overkill.  That gets right back to the point of the other reply I left here, that I hope this would be a spit in either the 1d or 5d line - not a replacement.  There are many of us who don't need mega giant files.  The 5d3 is a great all around camera workhorse.

Crop mode would be kind of useless for me as the vast vast majority of the time I want the FOV of a FF camera.  With the exception of the formal portraits, anything more than mRAW is overkill.  I'm not swaying there isn't a time and a place for what a mega mp body can do, but for me the benefits just aren't there.  plus there is the extra $$$$$ that would need to be spent on CF cards, HD's and upgrading my PC because as a wedding shooter something like the d800 would triple/quadruple the the overall memory used.  Hell, if it takes 20 minutes to transfer 16 to my computer - on a d800 I would need at least 4 more 16 gig cards - that's over an hour extra just to get the files on the computer.  Then comes the culling, which again will take much longer.  The majority of these shots will only be printed up to 5x7, so yeah, mega MP is overkill.  Unneeded for me. 

Spit the line - a mega mp body will not kill 5d3 sales as each cam is meant for different things (same goes for 1D series, sports shooters for sure woud rather have fps that MP).   

I seriously need every ounce of help I can with nord photography, which is usally in low light with distant, moving targets. mRAW will never get there.