1Ds Mark IV Saga

[Mark D5 TEAM II]

That assumes that there aren't any new features or other tangible benefits that would make it worth an extra $1K. Remember the EOS-3 was basically an EOS-1 with no vertical grip plus ECF. And only those 2 model lines are hyphenated ("EOS dash 1/EOS dash 3"), so those lines would always have something special that the lower non-hyphenated bodies will never have. In any case, a 5D3 would be, and should be, spec'ed and priced at below $3K. Sandwich the D700 successor on price and features.

[neuroanatomist]

If they produce such a camera and try to charge $4K for it, people will just buy the D700 replacement.  I know I will.......

I'd pay the extra $1K for the Canon body.  I'd lose far more than $1K to convert thousands of $ worth of Canon lenses to the appropriate Nikon versions. 

[Bob Howland]

I want Canon to release 3D body (fullframe 7D body).

There is no affordable FF body for sports and action photography! That's shame!

Would you consider a 3D like body at around $4000 affordable?

IS D700, $4000?
Such camera must be below $3000.

The doesn't matter, just fast FF camera with at least 6-7fps and good working AF!

With how many pixels? We're talking about Canon, who seem obsessed with stuffing too many pixels into too small a sensor. I want a low-light specialist as good as or better than the D3s. If that means I can only have 12MP, just like my 5D, then so be it. I won't refuse more pixels but not if it means any reduction in DR or increase in high ISO noise.

D700 is two years old technology! From my experience with 1D Mark IV and the noise there, I'm sure that Canon now can make 21-24mp FF camera with noise equal or better to D700!

I said D3s, not D700. I also said as good as or better than. From the examples I've seen from the 1DMkIV, it is arguably as good as the D700, but not nearly as good as the D3s. In particular, the 102K is a pathetic joke.

[Stone]

If they produce such a camera and try to charge $4K for it, people will just buy the D700 replacement.  I know I will.......

I'd pay the extra $1K for the Canon body.  I'd lose far more than $1K to convert thousands of $ worth of Canon lenses to the appropriate Nikon versions.

Then it would make perfect sense for you to pay the extra $1K.  Since I currently shoot a crop body with all EF-S lenses, I'll be upgrading all of my glass either way when I move to FF.  This is why I'm being overly critical of Canon,  I'll keep my next body for several years so I won't be skimping on the specs.

[kubelik]

everyone's going to have a different take on it.

stone, I can see where you're coming from and I agree that there's no reason not to look at the Nikon system once you upgrade to FF.

it isn't reasonable to assume everyone will make that decision, as different people have different priorities.  for someone shooting architecture and landscapes, Nikon's AF system means little to me as I only actually ever use the one center AF point.  the FPS also doesn't matter, since I've long outgrown trying to shoot HDR brackets handheld (and for that matter, autobracketing isn't important either).  however, the 140g difference in weight and 9 MP difference in image size do matter to me.

I'm not sure where the $4000 price tag came from; you can wildly speculate about price all you want but until it comes from Canon it's quite meaningless.  I can't imagine a 5D Mark III would suddenly veer upwards with a 30% or 50% increase in MSRP over the 5D Mark II.  it could certainly be in the $3000-3500 range, which I think would be acceptable if they shoved the 7D's AF system into it and made some other updates

[Stone]

everyone's going to have a different take on it.

stone, I can see where you're coming from and I agree that there's no reason not to look at the Nikon system once you upgrade to FF.

it isn't reasonable to assume everyone will make that decision, as different people have different priorities.  for someone shooting architecture and landscapes, Nikon's AF system means little to me as I only actually ever use the one center AF point.  the FPS also doesn't matter, since I've long outgrown trying to shoot HDR brackets handheld (and for that matter, autobracketing isn't important either).  however, the 140g difference in weight and 9 MP difference in image size do matter to me.

I'm not sure where the $4000 price tag came from; you can wildly speculate about price all you want but until it comes from Canon it's quite meaningless.  I can't imagine a 5D Mark III would suddenly veer upwards with a 30% or 50% increase in MSRP over the 5D Mark II.  it could certainly be in the $3000-3500 range, which I think would be acceptable if they shoved the 7D's AF system into it and made some other updates

I agree kubelik,
 
The more I think about it, turning the 5DIII into a "do it all" camera doesn't make sense to me anymore.  Many looking to buy that camera will either buy it for the HD Video or the high MP for landscapes & studio work.  People looking at upgrading from other 5D bodies would want more of the same with a few upgrades to bring the camera current.  Canon would be foolish to change a successful formula for the 5DIII or price it dramatically higher than the current $2500 price tag.

A new high performance body is what's needed to sit above the 5DIII, and I contend that it doesn't need to cost $4K, not when the competition is doing it for much less....

[spam]

A follow-up on the D10 would be nice, especially since the D10 has the problem that the lens is to fragile under rough conditions!

A D10 successor would be nice because the D10 is u-g-l-y as hell.

Wouldn't make much sense to launch a D10 replacement now.

[Canon 14-24]

The 5D2 was released at around $2799USD body only.

Going by the assumption from past product releases, any new AF system is going to play a significant factor in an increase in price.  If Canon was afraid that its customers are going to be turned off at the increased price range for a FF, video capable, high MP, improved AF body... they might instead release it as another model like they did with the 7D and place it in a higher price bracket.  Again the D700 in its price bracket wouldn't have the video, or high mp count of a potential 3D canon model so you can't really compare or price them in the same price bracket.

Anyone dreaming of a 3D model of an improved AF system in a 5D2 like camera, under 3K is dreaming.  I can just see it now, people are going to be whining like those XXD/rebel users looking to upgrade when the 7D was released and it was out of their price range.

[Lawliet]

I can just see it now, people are going to be whining like those XXD/rebel users looking to upgrade when the 7D was released and it was out of their price range.

Thats quite subjective, a few weeks after the release the 7D was about as much as my 30D was when I got it - just don't think a new body has to be at the same time at the same price point as the model it replaces.

Now as for placing the D700 in a differnt bracket: that might have worked back then. But its successor will feature video at the D7000's level as well as resolution fitting the time. And that would be the competention for a 3D. A few more megapixels otoh loose their appeal once you realize that the returns only grow with about the third root  of the actual increase. Just do a double blind test.

[Canon 14-24]

Thats quite subjective, a few weeks after the release the 7D was about as much as my 30D was when I got it - just don't think a new body has to be at the same time at the same price point as the model it replaces.

Now as for placing the D700 in a differnt bracket: that might have worked back then. But its successor will feature video at the D7000's level as well as resolution fitting the time. And that would be the competention for a 3D. A few more megapixels otoh loose their appeal once you realize that the returns only grow with about the third root  of the actual increase. Just do a double blind test.

Yep, and with the economy and the way how improvements on lenses and cameras are going I would subject that newer models are going to be released at a price point not the same as previous models, but HIGHER.

I'm sure whatever new model comes from Canon will have a few additional surprises and innovative features to go against the competition beyond just megapixels or AF.  However going back to the issue of the price of a 3d-like model being over $3k, don't get me wrong...I would totally want to be proven wrong and have it priced under $3k, but right now I just can not see that happening, as I don't think Canon will release a stripped down version with less megapixels and/or less video or less viewfinder coverage, etc. just to cut down on the price, but release it with an improved AF system.  The only example I could think of this ever happening recently, was the G10-G11, but then again they didn't really improve the AF on the newer model...and I think the AF is the biggest issue over megapixels for a good amount of people.

[kubelik]

I'd like to see something priced above $3K ... and worth the price.

I think most people would pay for a FF that came in at that price and earned its sticker with beefy AF, high IQ, and great build.  definitely do-able for Canon, question is simply, are they going to?

[Stone]

I just wanna know when $3K started equaling stripped down.  Nikon has already proven that $3K = a lot of camera, Canon has its users thinking that you can't get high performance & FF for a reasonable price and I call BS, tech gets cheaper, not more expensive.  If Canon's users start demanding more out of their bodies, then Canon will comply, plain and simple.  Don't be fooled into thinking you can't get a fast, FF body with excellent AF for 3K or less.  It's well within Canon capabilities to produce such a body. 

[Canon 14-24]

I just wanna know when $3K started equaling stripped down.  Nikon has already proven that $3K = a lot of camera, Canon has its users thinking that you can't get high performance & FF for a reasonable price and I call BS, tech gets cheaper, not more expensive.  If Canon's users start demanding more out of their bodies, then Canon will comply, plain and simple.  Don't be fooled into thinking you can't get a fast, FF body with excellent AF for 3K or less.  It's well within Canon capabilities to produce such a body.

and Canon has proven with the release of the 5D2 it's a lot of camera in other ways than the Nikon.
Because Canon can, like they did with the 7D over the 50d/60d.  XXD users wanted a model with an improved AF and they got it, but a different model in higher price bracket.  Same thing can happen with the 5D2 with the release of a possible "3D" as the price bracket with the 5D and 5D2 have just slightly been under $3k to boot.  What I'm getting at is, you guys are doing the same in saying to Canon I want a 7D(5D3/3D) for around $1099($2.7-3k) starting like the XXD(5D) models with just an improved AF and I don't need the more higher pixel count or video options.  Did Canon do that no, but Canon could have and probably stripped some features to get it within that price range as the Nikon equivalent has shown, however each brands/cameras have each their own perks, different features, and different directions they are going in.

On a side similar note, in regards to the particular users within this website, if Canon really listened to our demands they'd release a 24-70 2.8 IS and 14-24 2.8 by now or a year ago because they have the capabilities to do so (again it MAY profit them in doing so by converting Nikon users over to Canon with the unique lenses, but they have yet to).  Also if they did release such a 24-70 IS lens (that so many people on this site seem to want), it could also be released at an initial price like $1999-2199 which may have some of them upset or choking on like the 70-200 2.8 II IS at well over $2k or $2499 starting.  My point is don't be surprised if what you want from Canon is initially released in a price bracket well over what you think is deemed fair.

[Jan]

Anyone dreaming of a 3D model of an improved AF system in a 5D2 like camera, under 3K is dreaming.

I wanted to write exactly the same thing... but than I checked the prices for the 5DMkII and the D700. Here in Germany each body costs about 2000 EUR. I thought, the D700 was more expensive, while offering a much better AF system, higher frame rates (up to 8fps*), etc...
It seems as if Nikon offers a lot more camera for the same price (50D vs 50D, 60D vs D7000, 5DMkII vs D700)...
__
* with battery grip. I didn't think that obviously the only reason for a lower framerate (5 vs 8 fps) is the power supply, but so may it be...