How many people just want Canon the 5DIII and 24-70mm f/2.8 IS already?

[Radiating]

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.

5D Mark III

- 32 Megapixels
- no more low iso noise problems
- 7D Autofocus
- Improved Dynamic Range
- Lower noise (signal to noise ratio not just noise reduction)

24-70mm F/2.8 IS

- Capable of resolving around 32 megapixels wide open or nearly wide open.

Seriously. They would sell these things faster than they could produce them.

[Meh]

It's not like Canon has all kinds of new products ready to ship and have just been holding on to them to watch everyone at canonrumors.com squirm.   The sensors and lenses we all talk about here are pretty much state-of-the-art (that can be mass produced for a reasonable cost) and it takes real R&D and manufacturing breakthroughs to get to a new level of performance.   It's different for low-end products because the manufacturers are simply integrating existing technology (trickle down from high-end products) at an approximate one-year cycle to drive sales.

Please realize that resolution and signal to noise ratio are opposing design choices... smaller pixels collect less light and therefore have a lower SNR and less dynamic range.  Hopefully, Canon will announce major technological advancements but don't count on it.  It's been 3 years and therefore the 5D3 will have improvements but it's going to be incremental improvements.

If Canon announces a new FF sensor of about 30 megapixels with the very low per-pixel noise achieved in the 1D4 sensor that would be quite good already.  And if Digic5 and current electronics can process the 30MP images at 10fps then I think the speculation of a merged 1 series line is what we will see because then there would be no need for two 1 series bodies.

[J. McCabe]

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.

5D Mark III

- 32 Megapixels

I know lots of people who have either FF or APS-C cameras, and never needed more than 8MP after cropping. People who need to crop more than 100% of the pixel regularily are either the exception or novice photographers.

I do know plenty of people who want cleaner images, more DR, higher ISO, higher FPS, and smaller images to improve performance (less processing time, less disk space, etc).

It's certainly not a no brainer - there are plenty of people who would prefer less MP. Of course there are people who do need more, but there's no reason their needs would decide what everybody else should have.

- no more low iso noise problems
- 7D Autofocus
- Improved Dynamic Range
- Lower noise (signal to noise ratio not just noise reduction)

That I'll sign with both hands and a foot.

I had a 24-70mm F/2.8, and I sold it. My priorities for buying a new one would be

1. Size. I don't deny the benefits of all pro lenses having 77mm filters, but if that what it takes, I would share 67mm filters with the 24-105mm f/4, or use step-up rings.

2. Performance wide open, especially corners at the wide end (24mm-35mm) and field curvature.

3. Image stabilizer, as I should hand held in evening light and shows. As it's a wide lens, this is not my top priority, and would be happy with 2 stops.

[kenraw]

With regard to the 5D MKIII having the auto focus of the 7D I wouldn't be wishing for that. I have two 7D's and both can produce amazingly sharp images even at f2.8 however these are far and few between. My friend has a Nikon D700 and I borrowed it for the day and shot wideopen all day at f2.8 at a drift racing event. It pains me to say but it rarely missed focus at all. It focussed how a camera should, select your focus point make sure your shutter speed is suitable for your subject and press the shutter...sounds too easy but thats how it should be. Not like my 7D's which require numerous shouts and techniques to get a tack sharp image.

[koolman]

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.

5D Mark III

- 32 Megapixels
- no more low iso noise problems
- 7D Autofocus
- Improved Dynamic Range
- Lower noise (signal to noise ratio not just noise reduction)

24-70mm F/2.8 IS

- Capable of resolving around 32 megapixels wide open or nearly wide open.

Seriously. They would sell these things faster than they could produce them.

The market today is being flooded with bodies. Prices of electronics are constantly dropping. The 7d did not sell well because of its high price bracket compared with the nikon D7000. In today's environment new bodies aimed at most of us - cannot be more then 2k - or they will not sell well. People are seeing tons of stuff pouring out every week, and they will wait. Existing 5d mark 2 people will not upgrade so fast - and send thousands more - unless it is a substantial upgrade.

The issue facing Canon is not tech development. I'm sure that they can produce outstanding stuff. Its a tricky business decision of how to eat the cake and keep in whole = bring out a winner body with substantiated advantages - that can be cost effective and attract a large audience of consumers.

 

 

[EYEONE]

With regard to the 5D MKIII having the auto focus of the 7D I wouldn't be wishing for that. I have two 7D's and both can produce amazingly sharp images even at f2.8 however these are far and few between. My friend has a Nikon D700 and I borrowed it for the day and shot wideopen all day at f2.8 at a drift racing event. It pains me to say but it rarely missed focus at all. It focussed how a camera should, select your focus point make sure your shutter speed is suitable for your subject and press the shutter...sounds too easy but thats how it should be. Not like my 7D's which require numerous shouts and techniques to get a tack sharp image.

Explain how the 7D doesn't allow you to select your focus point, make sure your shutter speed is correct and press the shutter. I'm not 100% sure what you are talking about. The control layout? The AF speed? I hardly think anyone would complain about the flexibility of the 7Ds AF. If I miss focus on a shot it's because I'm doing it wrong.

The market today is being flooded with bodies. Prices of electronics are constantly dropping. The 7d did not sell well because of its high price bracket compared with the nikon D7000. In today's environment new bodies aimed at most of us - cannot be more then 2k - or they will not sell well. People are seeing tons of stuff pouring out every week, and they will wait. Existing 5d mark 2 people will not upgrade so fast - and send thousands more - unless it is a substantial upgrade.

The issue facing Canon is not tech development. I'm sure that they can produce outstanding stuff. Its a tricky business decision of how to eat the cake and keep in whole = bring out a winner body with substantiated advantages - that can be cost effective and attract a large audience of consumers.

The market today is not flooded with bodies. Canon's 1Ds Mark III is 4 years old. Nikon's D3s is almost 2 and the D3x is almost 3 years old. The 5D Mark II is over 3 years old. When these camera's come out people will be all over them like piranhas. Just because you or me are not interested in a camera over 2K right now doesn't mean there aren't tons and tons of people who are. In a few years I will absolutely pay over 2K for a camera.

[7enderbender]

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.

5D Mark III

- 32 Megapixels
- no more low iso noise problems
- 7D Autofocus
- Improved Dynamic Range
- Lower noise (signal to noise ratio not just noise reduction)

24-70mm F/2.8 IS

- Capable of resolving around 32 megapixels wide open or nearly wide open.

Seriously. They would sell these things faster than they could produce them.

Non of this would excite me or make me "upgrade". And I don't think we need a new lens in order to resolve 32MP (or whatever). And I would certainly hope they don't put IS into the 24-70, though I might then be able to pick up the current version cheaper to compliment my 24-105 instead of trading it.

The limitations of AF are a different problem. What I'd like to see in the future are AF points that are spread out much further then even on the 1 series. And I would finally like to see a digital body that allows for very good manual focus. That is the bigger problem for me since I'm really not all that fond of AF in general but "modern" SLRs are not build for anything else really.

[photophreek]

I agree with EYEONE about the 7d.  I bought a brand new 100-400 and did some test shots yesterday.  I did exactly what KENRAW said his 7d does not do and got amazingly sharp pictures 100% of the time. 

I will not buy the 5d III if it does not have a 7d like focusing system.  I'll buy the 1D Mk IV instead.  As far as the 24-70mm is concerned, it won't matter to me if the new version is released with IS or not.  My 24-70mm is built like a brick, weighs as much as a brick and is incredibly sharp and does the job for me quite nicely.

[scottkinfw]

Count me in for the 5dIII

[distant.star]

Hell, I'd send them $5000 today if they'd promise to put that under my Christmas tree in 2012.

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.

5D Mark III

- 32 Megapixels
- no more low iso noise problems
- 7D Autofocus
- Improved Dynamic Range
- Lower noise (signal to noise ratio not just noise reduction)

24-70mm F/2.8 IS

- Capable of resolving around 32 megapixels wide open or nearly wide open.

Seriously. They would sell these things faster than they could produce them.

[kenraw]

With regard to the 5D MKIII having the auto focus of the 7D I wouldn't be wishing for that. I have two 7D's and both can produce amazingly sharp images even at f2.8 however these are far and few between. My friend has a Nikon D700 and I borrowed it for the day and shot wideopen all day at f2.8 at a drift racing event. It pains me to say but it rarely missed focus at all. It focussed how a camera should, select your focus point make sure your shutter speed is suitable for your subject and press the shutter...sounds too easy but thats how it should be. Not like my 7D's which require numerous shouts and techniques to get a tack sharp image.

Explain how the 7D doesn't allow you to select your focus point, make sure your shutter speed is correct and press the shutter. I'm not 100% sure what you are talking about. The control layout? The AF speed? I hardly think anyone would complain about the flexibility of the 7Ds AF. If I miss focus on a shot it's because I'm doing it wrong.

The market today is being flooded with bodies. Prices of electronics are constantly dropping. The 7d did not sell well because of its high price bracket compared with the nikon D7000. In today's environment new bodies aimed at most of us - cannot be more then 2k - or they will not sell well. People are seeing tons of stuff pouring out every week, and they will wait. Existing 5d mark 2 people will not upgrade so fast - and send thousands more - unless it is a substantial upgrade.

The issue facing Canon is not tech development. I'm sure that they can produce outstanding stuff. Its a tricky business decision of how to eat the cake and keep in whole = bring out a winner body with substantiated advantages - that can be cost effective and attract a large audience of consumers.

The market today is not flooded with bodies. Canon's 1Ds Mark III is 4 years old. Nikon's D3s is almost 2 and the D3x is almost 3 years old. The 5D Mark II is over 3 years old. When these camera's come out people will be all over them like piranhas. Just because you or me are not interested in a camera over 2K right now doesn't mean there aren't tons and tons of people who are. In a few years I will absolutely pay over 2K for a camera.

The 7D does obviously let you set the focus point shutter speed etc its just I'm not getting consistant shots in focus. I know its not me because I managed to get tack sharp shots all day at 2.8 with my friends Nikon. I can only assume I'm going to have to set the micro adjustment and see if that sorts the problem.

[Picsfor]

W/E doing 5D2's for £1590 + £200 Manfrotto tripod.

Tell me that's not just a loss leader?

You may get a 5D3 sooner than you think...

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Like everyone else, I'd like a upgrade, mine will be three years old on December 5, and it has many more good years left.  The only things that will convince me to upgrade are a stop better low light ISO and improved DR.  AF is just fine, and its the best camera for low light AF.

I have a 7D and just sold my 1D MK III, they are very good, but for low light, I reach for the 5D.  I do not use the video, because it does not autofocus while shooting, so its only good for someone willing to use it on static pre-focused scenes.  Certainly not for sports or anything where continuous AF is needed.

[Radiating]

I don't know about anyone else, but I've been waiting for 2 years for Canon just to release these two products. In my mind it's an absolute no brainer for Canon.

5D Mark III

- 32 Megapixels

I know lots of people who have either FF or APS-C cameras, and never needed more than 8MP after cropping. People who need to crop more than 100% of the pixel regularily are either the exception or novice photographers.

I do know plenty of people who want cleaner images, more DR, higher ISO, higher FPS, and smaller images to improve performance (less processing time, less disk space, etc).

It's certainly not a no brainer - there are plenty of people who would prefer less MP. Of course there are people who do need more, but there's no reason their needs would decide what everybody else should have.

With regard to the megapixel debate, I'm a high end professional digital artist and a low end pro photographer. If you look at the software side of the equation more megapixels means that noise reduction and sharpening alogrithms are going to be much much much more effective. This is one of the driving forces behind how modern photos with high noise look so good compared to photos from just a few years ago. While I do agree that point and shoot cameras have too many megapixels already, they are the ones which are at the dividing line where the net benefit of more megapixels doesn't outweigh the net loss. If you scaled the pixel density of a point and shoot to a full frame, you'd have a 350 megapixel camera, so we are very very very far from being anywhere near having more megapixels being worse on full frame. More megapixels means cleaner, sharper images when taken a higher iso.

[silver_dot]

[quote author=J
It's certainly not a no brainer - there are plenty of people who would prefer less MP. Of course there are people who do need more, but there's no reason their needs would decide what everybody else should have.
[/quote]

Let me smile reading your two sentences.

I ever said the same thing, just let me tell it in the same way:

It's certainly not a no brainer - there are plenty of people who would prefer DSLR with built-in video. Of course there are people who do need more, but there's no reason their needs would decide what everybody else should have.
[/quote]

 I just remark that for a few people  wanting video implemented on a DSLR,  but there's no reason their needs would decide what everybody else should have. So, all DSLR bodies must have now video, even if  video pisses off the the majority of the  owners  forced to buy it when  just wanting  a still photo camera.

Canon don't care about our preferenecs, just wanting to sell more cameras and lenses, putting  video in each one.