The New EOS [CR3]

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Well, I won't be buying a 18mpx full frame camera. Just not going to happen. I'm sure it'll be great for wedding photogs. It's going to be much less useful for studio, sports, and landscape shooters.

I've said before and I'll repeat. This makes very little sense to me.

So how is 12 FPS and 61 AF points "less useful" for sports? 

Sports photographers (Pros) use their 1D MK IV cameras along with their 400mm f/2.8 lenses. 

All of a sudden, they will need a 520mm f/2.8 lens to get the same field of view, or crop to a 10MP image rather than the 16mp image they now have once again to get the same field of view.

I'd say that would be less useful for them.

[Haydn1971]

Sorry folks, I'm just not seeing the market stomach the range topping camera droping 3mpx after three years progress....  Sure ok, I can see the 1Ds being 18mpx full frame, even considering the cost involved in development of a new full frame sensor, but with a 24mpx Sony full frame sensor out there, the 24mpx APS-C also, talk of 36mpx at Nikon, I'm smelling lots of brown stuff here and if this proves to be true in terms of a 1Ds suspect a 1D being out soon after with a big jump or some kind of change to the 1D range where the sensor is upgradable, in the same way as the medium frame cameras - a data back solution.

[thepancakeman]

I'm willing to bet that the other performance aspects of this camera are over the top and I'm fairly certain at least someone somewhere once took a good sports photo at 18MP.   

Sure they did.  But would it have been as good if they had to crop it to 10 MP to get the framing they wanted?  What about the shooters with 400/2.8 lenses - often you need f/2.8 for the stop of light, so the 500/4 is not a good solution to get back the 1.3x, not even considering the cost...

I agree, but in my mind that's what the 7D is for.  Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if this camera were 40MP if that didn't come with a cost in other areas.  But I think the 1.3x is kinda no man's land for a lot (most?) of us--either go FF or 1.6.

[kubelik]

I agree with the folks who are unhappy about an 18 MP full frame sensor, I'd much rather see something in the high 20's or low 30's.

However, let's take a step back and see how this does make sense:

1. Nikon's competing "sports" camera is only 12.1 MP.  So 18 can still carry the day.  It's a bit of a shock from the extended reach we used to get with a 1.3x crop factor but ... in time we will adjust.  And, if the ISO quality improves significantly, then using a 500 f/4 may not be a step back from 400 f/2.8.

2. Everyone knows that, for all intents and purposes, the 5D2 killed the 1DsIII.  so why not just have a sports-shooting 1D series body, and then a high-MP 5D III?  I think this is where it's going.  hopefully the 5DIII gets some serious AF and weathersealing improvements to compensate.

that's my guess at where Canon is headed, and as the potential buyer of a 5D3 ... it makes me very excited.

[awinphoto]

If this is the 1d/ids series specs... I hate to see the 5d specs... maybe the 5d mark II is starting to look more appealing... but wont believe a word till i read the specs on the press release...

[Bob Howland]

An 18MP FF camera has the same pixel size as a 10.6MP APS-H camera or roughly what an 1D3 was. A FF sports camera with "enough" pixels allows loose framing, a real benefit when photographing activities where the action is unpredictable, such as rugby and football (both American and international).

Sports Illustrated has run 2-page spreads from 4MP images. They looked fine.

[bchernicoff]

And what if it is a 18mp full-frame Foveon type sensor with no AA filter? IQ would be better than the 21mp current sensor.

UPDATE: the more I think about it, this is the only way an 18mp spec would make sense. We've seen that Canon has a patent for a Foveon-style, full-color at each pixel sensor. If they ditched Bayer, went full-color at each pixel, ditched the anti-alias filter, image quality should be much better than the Bayer 21mp sensor. This could be great news.

[unfocused]

I'm still very skeptical. I just cannot imagine Canon releasing a camera that drops in MPs as their new flagship.

I cringe thinking of the reaction we'll get from people like MacFly who actually buy and use these cameras for work.

If this is correct (and I will believe it when I see it), I can only see this as a "Lord of Darkness" camera with incredible low light sensitivity and dynamic range -- a completely new camera rather than a replacement for the ID or IDs.

As far as sports and wildlife shooters go, I think Canon may feel that there is so little difference between the image quality of the next generation of 1.6 sensors and the 1.3 sensor that they will quietly move this market over to the APS-C line, perhaps with a full-fledged professional model above the 7D.

On the other hand, there's the possibility that all of this is wrong and the real announcement next week is for the new version the Calculator Mouse.

[Shnookums]

Sorry folks, I'm just not seeing the market stomach the range topping camera droping 3mpx after three years progress....  Sure ok, I can see the 1Ds being 18mpx full frame, even considering the cost involved in development of a new full frame sensor, but with a 24mpx Sony full frame sensor out there, the 24mpx APS-C also, talk of 36mpx at Nikon, I'm smelling lots of brown stuff here and if this proves to be true in terms of a 1Ds suspect a 1D being out soon after with a big jump or some kind of change to the 1D range where the sensor is upgradable, in the same way as the medium frame cameras - a data back solution.

If the 1D line truly merge, I would expect to see things like 18mp @ 12 fps... But! I would also expect that you can switch to 5 or 6 fps and gain resolution. Trade resolution for speed. Im no good at calculating stuff but what kind of data moving around are we talking about with 18 mp @ 12 fps? And what would be the resolution if the same amount of data per secs was moved @ 6 fps?

That to me would be the real merge of the 1D line.

[nikkito]

18 mp?

[digishooter]

IF that is what they are announcing, it's not what their customers are wanting.

I know 1dIV buyers are going to be pretty ticked off for one thing, since this would be the camera the 1dIV SHOULD have been, and the replacement cycle is pretty short.

A 5d3 or 1DsIV would make more sense.  But, Canon hasn't made sense before.

[Ricku]

I dont understand what all the instant naysayers are whining about. Its all like "noo please dont take my megapixels blabla".

Stop and think. What if this camera has "supernatural" low light performance and almost zero noise at ISO 6400? That might be the reason to why Canon decided to go with 18MP, and if that is the the case then = Camera of the year 2012!

Imagine being able to use ISO 1600 - 2000 as base ISO, because it looks just as good as ISO 100.

[neuroanatomist]

Camera just needs to be better than current Nikon D3s

Canon needs to do better than beating a 2 year old camera - they need to be competitive with whatever Nikon brings forth to replace the D3s.

[Polansky]

Sports photographers (Pros) use their 1D MK IV cameras along with their 400mm f/2.8 lenses.

All of a sudden, they will need a 520mm f/2.8 lens to get the same field of view, or crop to a 10MP image rather than the 16mp image they now have once again to get the same field of view.

I'd say that would be less useful for them.

Who cares about the handfull of sports photographers while most professionals are wedding photographers, portrait photographers and photographers for editorial stuff.

The count is easy.
For every sports photographer there are at least 10 other pro's that rather prefer to have a full frame camera then a crop camera.

I bet Canon would like to see all those pro's that now choose the 5D above the 1Ds to come back to the 1 series and this is the way to reach that goal. Especially when it turns out that this 18MP camera is actually a foveon sensor like camera...

Its what all others pro photographers except for those handfull sports photographers have been hoping for.

[Bob Howland]

I dont understand what all the instant naysayers are whining about. Its all like "noo please dont take my megapixels blabla".

Stop and think. What if this camera has "supernatural" low light performance and almost zero noise at ISO 6400? That might be the reason to why Canon decided to go with 18MP, and if that is the the case then = Camera of the year 2012!

Imagine being able to use ISO 1600 - 2000 as base ISO, because it looks just as good as ISO 100.

Unless, of course, the Nikon D4 is just as good.