5DIII will come

[neuroanatomist]

I was thinking more of the replacement for the 60D and 600D having 7D style AF, perhaps fewer but all 2.8 AF points. This would match with the iFCL metering of the current bodies

All f/2.8 points?  That would be a huge departure.  No Canon body except for the 1D X has more than one f/2.8-sensitive AF point (always the center one), and the 1D X has 5 of them (in a vertical row at the center).
[/quote] 

I'm not going to revisit old ground (I think that Neuro and I will have to agree to disagree for now), but I would predict that the 5D MkIII will have the 7D's 19pt AF system.  My reasoning is that it's inferior enough to the 1D X AF system, already developed (hence no R&D expenditure), and is used on the 7D; thus it would become Canon's new mid-market standard. 

I will admit that it's possible that the 5DIII will use the 7D-type AF, but you seem to be suggesting they'll re-use the actual AF sensor from the 7D, without compensating for the larger frame.  If they compensate for the larger frame, it means developing a new sensor.  If they don't, it means the 5DIII would have more AF points, and better ones, but the area coverage would be even less than that of the 5DII, as you can see in the attached image (5DII in blue, 7D in black).  Canon has expressed a willingness to take things away from new models, as discussed above with f/8 issue.  But the AF area coverage of the 5DII was already not a strong point.  When they released the 5DII, they touted the fact that the horizontal point spread was the same as the 1DsIII, conveniently ignoring the fact that the vertical spread was a full row shorter.  The 7D's AF sensor on the 5DII would mean the loss of a horizontal row, as well.

[te4o]

Regarding, using a 5dm2 to take a portrait of my daughter (hypothetical) Assuming 5dm2 and 85L 1.2 lens, why is using auto-focus (center point) and then recomposing not optimal? Why will the shots be OOF? Another words, if i lock focus on daughter's eye and then recompose shot, what is the reason it may produce an OOF shot? How do you correct this problem? Is this a function of the narrow dof at 1.2, the focusing system, etc. If you stop down the 85 1.2 1 or 2 stops, does this change the parameters? I'm new and just trying to learn.

Basically because when you recompose, the straight-line distance between the point on which you focused and the point at which the camera is ultimately aimed are different, so you end up focusing behind the intended focal plane.  If you stop down a bit, the DoF gets deeper and that will mask this type of error.  For a more detailed explanation of the issue, read this linked article.

+1

That why the old school togs use manual focus - and why they are fine with Zeis lens

I like old school and I like Zeiss glass especially on Ia 5D2 for this and the above reasons. Nevertheless what I'd do with your daughters portrait and an ultra thin DOF is point the centre AF at the eyes and keep the shutter going in spray and pray (that's why the new cam needs a little bit faster FPS). Then pick the one you like most and  best in focus and crop them - recompose after the shot...

[briansquibb]

I was thinking more of the replacement for the 60D and 600D having 7D style AF, perhaps fewer but all 2.8 AF points. This would match with the iFCL metering of the current bodies

All f/2.8 points?  That would be a huge departure.  No Canon body except for the 1D X has more than one f/2.8-sensitive AF point (always the center one), and the 1D X has 5 of them (in a vertical row at the center).

 

Sorry - I meant to say the centre point plus 4 expansion points to make tracking more accurate. Personally I dont use the outside points very often

[mrgazpacho]

the AF area coverage of the 5DII was already not a strong point. 

Given that the generally-agreed subject matter for the 5D tends to be slower-moving than the 7D, I can guess that Canon would be willing to make that tradeoff - as you said, they already have done that for the 1DX.

[traveller]

I will admit that it's possible that the 5DIII will use the 7D-type AF, but you seem to be suggesting they'll re-use the actual AF sensor from the 7D, without compensating for the larger frame.  If they compensate for the larger frame, it means developing a new sensor.  If they don't, it means the 5DIII would have more AF points, and better ones, but the area coverage would be even less than that of the 5DII, as you can see in the attached image (5DII in blue, 7D in black).  Canon has expressed a willingness to take things away from new models, as discussed above with f/8 issue.  But the AF area coverage of the 5DII was already not a strong point.  When they released the 5DII, they touted the fact that the horizontal point spread was the same as the 1DsIII, conveniently ignoring the fact that the vertical spread was a full row shorter.  The 7D's AF sensor on the 5DII would mean the loss of a horizontal row, as well.

I was aware of the implications of using the 7D AF system in a future 5D, but I've never seen it drawn as well as you have done, so bravo.  I don't think that Canon would bother to design a new full frame version with a greater spread (although I hope I'm wrong).  AF point frame coverage vies with the lack of cross type sensors as the reason for the inadequacy of the 5D's AF system, even for people who don't shoot action.  You've previously mentioned the problem with the focus and recompose method of focusing at large apertures.  But marketing loves numbers and 19 is better than 9... I wouldn't like to make statements about the 1D X's AF system before it's been released or without any information about the design decisions made.  I personally favour the trade off explaination for the lack of any f/8 capable AF points.  Canon would have to be pretty confident to drop a good marketing differentiator just to try and sell people longer lenses; it's a hazardous enough move asking their customers to change formats without adding further risks to acceptance.  Having said that, many companies have made stupid decisions like this in the past! 

[Edwin Herdman]

I think it's fair to guess that the f/5.6 AF limit of the 1D X was not an intentional crippling, but rather was done to ensure the AF was working at its best.  Basically, they are trying to wean 1D series photographers off cheap lenses...

To be sure there's an engineering angle in this, but (as others have found and as I've stated) there is every reason to believe that the amount of light hitting the AF sensor, be it slightly more or slightly less, will correspondingly help or hinder the AF process.  The sheer density of the new 1D X AF sensor might have something to do with this, as well (actually that was my first thought, in typing this up).

I don't think Canon would be so bold as to tell users of the lower-end cameras to give up their lenses - but they shouldn't need to, since with the 1D X the f/5.6 limit is apparently becoming standard.  That signals no change for sub-1D series bodies, not evidence (to me) of a willingness to cripple them.

[neuroanatomist]

Basically, they are trying to wean 1D series photographers off cheap lenses...

Seriously?  Yes, Canon definitely wants to wean people off of those cheap lenses.   Wildlife photographers using the 500mm f/4L IS with a 2x TC should ditch that cheap piece of crap and buy themselves an EF 1200mm f/5.6L lenses...except that Canon discontinued those.  Why did Canon publish the MTF curves for the 500mm and 600mm f/4 MkII superteles (are they 'cheap') with the 2X III extender for 1000mm and 1200mm f/8 lenses, then eliminate the ability of the pro line to AF with that combination.

[dilbert]

Basically, they are trying to wean 1D series photographers off cheap lenses...

Seriously?  Yes, Canon definitely wants to wean people off of those cheap lenses.   Wildlife photographers using the 500mm f/4L IS with a 2x TC should ditch that cheap piece of crap and buy themselves an EF 1200mm f/5.6L lenses...except that Canon discontinued those.  Why did Canon publish the MTF curves for the 500mm and 600mm f/4 MkII superteles (are they 'cheap') with the 2X III extender for 1000mm and 1200mm f/8 lenses, then eliminate the ability of the pro line to AF with that combination.

I don't think that we can answer that question for another 3 or 4 years.

[Meh]

Basically, they are trying to wean 1D series photographers off cheap lenses...

Seriously?  Yes, Canon definitely wants to wean people off of those cheap lenses.   Wildlife photographers using the 500mm f/4L IS with a 2x TC should ditch that cheap piece of crap and buy themselves an EF 1200mm f/5.6L lenses...except that Canon discontinued those.  Why did Canon publish the MTF curves for the 500mm and 600mm f/4 MkII superteles (are they 'cheap') with the 2X III extender for 1000mm and 1200mm f/8 lenses, then eliminate the ability of the pro line to AF with that combination.

Now Neuro, might your sarcasm be a little quick out of the gate on this one?  While I also think that there may be technical reasons for the change (e.g. maybe they somehow achieved better focus performance/speed at f/2.8 by limiting the sensitivity to f/5.6 instead of f/8) marketing could also come into it.

Allow me to rephrase Edwin's comment to be less 'controversial' sounding;   by limiting the focus sensitivity to f/5.6 you can no longer, for example, carry a 300mm f/2.8 and a 2X TC to get 600mm so you have to buy a second lens such as a 600mm f/4 or a 500mm f/4 and use a 1.4X TC.  According to Canon and the reviews, the 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 Mark II and the Mark III tele-converters deliver much improved IQ which reduces the need to invest in 600mm and 800mm lenses for the better IQ... yes it's still better but the gap is narrowed.

[neuroanatomist]

Now Neuro, might your sarcasm be a little quick out of the gate on this one?  While I also think that there may be technical reasons for the change (e.g. maybe they somehow achieved better focus performance/speed at f/2.8 by limiting the sensitivity to f/5.6 instead of f/8) marketing could also come into it.

Allow me to rephrase Edwin's comment to be less 'controversial' sounding;   by limiting the focus sensitivity to f/5.6 you can no longer, for example, carry a 300mm f/2.8 and a 2X TC to get 600mm so you have to buy a second lens such as a 600mm f/4 or a 500mm f/4 and use a 1.4X TC.  According to Canon and the reviews, the 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 Mark II and the Mark III tele-converters deliver much improved IQ which reduces the need to invest in 600mm and 800mm lenses for the better IQ... yes it's still better but the gap is narrowed.

Not particularly.  I do think it's possible, even likely (and I mentioned before) that there are technical reasons for dropping the f/8 capability.

BTW, an f/2.8 lens with a 2x TC is f/5.6.

Point is, the problem isn't cheap lenses.  Well, in part maybe it is, if you consider a 300mm f/4L IS to be cheap.  That lens with a 2x TC on a 1D-series is a popular birding combo, as you have AF and can hike up mountains because it's light.  But the real problem is the combos for which there is no f/5.6 possibility (barring the 1200/5.6 as not a reasonable solution for many reasons).  For example, 800/5.6 + 1.4x TC, 500mm + 2x TC.

[Meh]

Now Neuro, might your sarcasm be a little quick out of the gate on this one?  While I also think that there may be technical reasons for the change (e.g. maybe they somehow achieved better focus performance/speed at f/2.8 by limiting the sensitivity to f/5.6 instead of f/8) marketing could also come into it.

Allow me to rephrase Edwin's comment to be less 'controversial' sounding;   by limiting the focus sensitivity to f/5.6 you can no longer, for example, carry a 300mm f/2.8 and a 2X TC to get 600mm so you have to buy a second lens such as a 600mm f/4 or a 500mm f/4 and use a 1.4X TC.  According to Canon and the reviews, the 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 Mark II and the Mark III tele-converters deliver much improved IQ which reduces the need to invest in 600mm and 800mm lenses for the better IQ... yes it's still better but the gap is narrowed.

Not particularly.  I do think it's possible, even likely (and I mentioned before) that there are technical reasons for dropping the f/8 capability.

BTW, an f/2.8 lens with a 2x TC is f/5.6.

Point is, the problem isn't cheap lenses.  Well, in part maybe it is, if you consider a 300mm f/4L IS to be cheap.  That lens with a 2x TC on a 1D-series is a popular birding combo, as you have AF and can hike up mountains because it's light.  But the real problem is the combos for which there is no f/5.6 possibility (barring the 1200/5.6 as not a reasonable solution for many reasons).  For example, 800/5.6 + 1.4x TC, 500mm + 2x TC.

Yes, sorry about the incorrect example.  Should have used the 300mm f/4 with the 2X TC that would now have to be replaced with a longer, faster, or second lens to get 600mm on the 1DX.

You're right, the issue is not "cheap" lenses which was the "controversial" part of Edwin's comment I was attempting to rephrase into a more palatable example.

[Edwin Herdman]

Basically, they are trying to wean 1D series photographers off cheap lenses...

Seriously?  Yes, Canon definitely wants to wean people off of those cheap lenses.   Wildlife photographers using the 500mm f/4L IS with a 2x TC should ditch that cheap piece of crap and buy themselves an EF 1200mm f/5.6L lenses...except that Canon discontinued those.  Why did Canon publish the MTF curves for the 500mm and 600mm f/4 MkII superteles (are they 'cheap') with the 2X III extender for 1000mm and 1200mm f/8 lenses, then eliminate the ability of the pro line to AF with that combination.

I'm not voicing my support for their decision.  I'm describing it as mainly business-driven, with perhaps the possibility of an engineering angle that is just plausible enough to give them cover.  Of course, they haven't really said enough to convince people there is a legitimate engineering reason (though I suspect I know what it is, as I said earlier) and so we're left to speculate and complain in a vacuum...as usual!

I suppose I could understand how Canon pride (and, more importantly, trying to repair or reinforce a reputation for reliable AF) would disallow having a somewhat underperforming AF system at f/8 (compared to f/5.6 and wider), while at the same time tweaking their newer TCs to reduce AF speed to ensure accuracy.  Actually, that seems consistent for me:  Even if you have to buy a new lens, at least you shouldn't be able to complain about AF misses (if people do have trouble in this area Canon will most certainly catch hell for it).

The upshot of all this, ironically, is to put me even and other shooters (especially wildlife / sports combo shooters) more firmly in the camp of the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, which is priced and performs just about perfectly to fill the niche opened by crippling the AF system.  It doesn't do anything to help the 500mm + 2X TC user situation, though.

[briansquibb]

The upshot of all this, ironically, is to put me even and other shooters (especially wildlife / sports combo shooters) more firmly in the camp of the Sigma 120-300mm f/2.8, which is priced and performs just about perfectly to fill the niche opened by crippling the AF system.  It doesn't do anything to help the 500mm + 2X TC user situation, though.

It doesn't help when you also lose the 1.3 crop to move to ff either.

[wickidwombat]

the 5d3 HAS to have a better AF It is not going to be competing with the 1DX its main oponent is going to be the D800 delayed or not.

at 36MP which will no doubt be outstanding quality no matter we try to consol ourselves as canon users I am sure it will perform well at high iso and low light. It WILL have a great AF system hell all recent Nikons AF kills canon AF except for the 1 series which are probably equivalent. With the D800 rumoured to be at a $4000 to $5000 price point I fully expect the new 5D to come in here and be a competitor. I think it's wishfull thinking of people to expect it to maintain its current price point. The most sensible business decision for canon IMO is to take take the AF from the 1DS3 and stick it straight onto whatever sensor they come up with for the 5D. 5D users really dont give a damn about FPS it could have 2 or 3 FPS for all they care (I'm guessing 90+%).
Alot of people want pro build and functions in a body that doesnt have an integrated grip like the 1D series, They are prepared to pay for it. There are 2 destinct markets that canon are at risk of alienating if they dont deliver competative products.

The High MP low FPS high quality but still want a decent focus system to shoot portrait and landscape

and then the Lower MP crop sensor (keeping the 1.3 would make alot of people happy i think especially if it keeps the f8 center focus point) High Iso Performing Higher FPS for sports /wildlife

the 1DX is trying to be the jack of all trades and it might work. I think a 1Dx and a 1D mk4 would make a nice combo but I'm a bit over carrying the bulky 1D bodies and I really would like to see pro level non integrated grips that address the above criteria ala 5D3 and 7D2 or whatever. I prefer to have 2 cameras than to change lenses too much.

Currently my combo of 5D2 and 1D3 works but I want to eventually replace the 1D3 with something that doesnt have the integrated grip and uses the same battery system as the 5D2 or 5D3. I dont mind paying for quality and dont expect canon to bring all this in at unrealistic price points but they have to be competative other wise people will jump platform if their competition that use Nikon manage to consistently produce better results.

I dont know but canon seem to be losing ground to Nikon

[Isaac]

We've said before that the 5D3 may have about a 10-12% price increase. I highly doubt Canon are going to jump the price as you hinted in your previous post. Here's a table of what Canon has done in the past (lens included)

Canon 5D  - $3499
Canon 5D2- $3299
Canon 5D3- $3650 (roughly 10% increase)

I doubt Canon are going to jump the price by 25-40% to around $4400! They simply would be losing a large part of a market that they have built up so well. I think people in that market segment could handle around 10-12% increase in price.

You also said that Canon are losing ground to Nikon. How is that so? The facts show the exact opposite. Canon have increased their market share to over 40% while Nikon's has been found to be around 30%.