A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]

[Stuart]

AF type? Nikon seems to have a better AF approach - will canon improve theres for live view?

[neuroanatomist]

Neuro...  -realistically, what physical/manufacturing cost savings would leaving out a reasonable auto-focus system provide?  I'm thinking in terms of raw material it's next to no extra costs, and in terms of manufacturing techniques, it's nominal for them to make the extra effort

Handicapping the 5DIII AF isn't a production cost-saving measure, it's a marketing strategy to drive differentiation.  As whatta correctly points out, including AFMA in the 60D would have been essentially free (there's no hardware component, and the algorithm was already done), but they chose not to do that.  Fundamentally, they need to have market separation between the 1D X and the 5DIII (and between any other lines, as well), and AF performance is one way to do that - it's one that Canon has a long history of using.  IMO, especially if Canon puts a >21 MP sensor in the 5DIII, they'll need to have other ways to differentiate it more strongly from the 1D X than if they use the same 18 MP sensor as the 1D X. 

Think of features as a set of sliders like you see in financial/loan calculators, and set has to sum to a fixed final ranking.  So, the 1-series has all the sliders pegged to the right-hand side (100%), and the xxxxD has them all pegged to the left (0%).  For models in between, think of xxxD at 25%, xxD at 50%, and xD at 75%.  Compare 7D to 5DII - the 7D has sensor size and MP bumped down (APS-C is not as good as FF, 18 vs. 21 MP), so the frame rate and AF sliders are bumped up, as is weather sealing.  If the 5DIII has FF, higher MP, equivalent AF as 7D, 5 fps, better sealing, etc., it becomes 90%, not 75%, and that's too close to the 1D X.  In other words, the better the sensor in the 5DIII, the worse (relatively) the other features.  For example, a 5DIII with a 28 MP FF sensor with the ISO improvements approaching the 1D X would likely mean using the exact same AF as the 5DII, lower FPS and perhaps even reduced build quality/sealing.  These trade-offs aren't necessarily determined by costs, but rather by marketing strategy.

AF type? Nikon seems to have a better AF approach

True - Nikon doesn't differentiate the pro line from the semi-pro line with AF.  Instead, they differentiate based on sensor resolution.  You can get 'pro' AF short of the D3x, but then you're limited to 16 MP APS-C or 12 MP FF.  If you want high MP and pro AF, you're stuck with the $8K D3x.

[Jettatore]

thanks Neuro

[awinphoto]

Just to play devils advocate with the removing the AFMA with the 60d... it is a tough recession, not just for us little people but big corporations... and when they added the AFMA they weren't deep in a recession or just starting to get into one which no one would reasonably say anyone could have predicted just how bad it would be... I could argue that the average person who had that option didn't need to spend money to have canon recalibrate their cameras/lenses and or seeked other repair options for their equipment... So perhaps while it didn't have them anything to remove it, it was a way to drive more revenue in their repair facilities? 

[AprilForever]

Hmmm... this seems interesting... but not enough to get me to jump... maybe some used 5fII's will flood the market...

[mccrum]

Hmmm... this seems interesting... but not enough to get me to jump... maybe some used 5fII's will flood the market...

If the autofocus isn't improved and the MP are, you won't be seeing mine on the market.  I have a feeling a lot of people will feel the same way. 

I shoot low-light and the AF is the biggest flaw.  I don't want more points, as I can just use the center cross point and recompose I want a *better* point.

[Jettatore]

Just to play devils advocate with the removing the AFMA with the 60d... it is a tough recession, not just for us little people but big corporations... and when they added the AFMA they weren't deep in a recession or just starting to get into one which no one would reasonably say anyone could have predicted just how bad it would be... I could argue that the average person who had that option didn't need to spend money to have canon recalibrate their cameras/lenses and or seeked other repair options for their equipment... So perhaps while it didn't have them anything to remove it, it was a way to drive more revenue in their repair facilities?

Daw...  Those poor Canon share holders.  How will they ever survive the rough economy.  I hope they have somewhere warm to sleep during the coming cold winter months...  Let's not pretend like the hired inventors, engineers and factory workers make the bulk of the profit from their creative and laborious works here.  Well paid, I'm sure some of them are, but they are just employees, punching the clock.  Hell even million plus $ paid CEO's at large companies like this aren't even seeing the real green.  I've got my eyes set on the day when we collectively decide to obliterate patent law.  Anyways, I don't really want to get into politics or economics, but change is in the wind.  This just isn't cutting it anymore, and global economy(s) that are rapidly imploding on themselves suggest as much.  Removing features for which the R&D is already complete, simply to artificially bolster a forced product line is not acceptable or sustainable behavior.  It's wasteful, and in a sane system would be considered a form of pollution.

[jbwise01]

Its seems like the 5D Mk III News is all over the board... One week its definately not over 18MP, the next its it seems like 30MP... with news like this its hard to either get excited or upset over this cameras potnetial specs...

We should think of what this camera should be and wait for more credible specs to be released.

Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
-   to be a sports camera
-   to make large prints similar to 4” x 5” + film

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
-   photo-journalist type work
-   wedding/event photographers
-   walk around FF camera (landscape enthusiasts)
-   indie videographers
-   making most photos less than 16” x 20”

Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or  $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

[awinphoto]

Its seems like the 5D Mk III News is all over the board... One week its definately not over 18MP, the next its it seems like 30MP... with news like this its hard to either get excited or upset over this cameras potnetial specs...

We should think of what this camera should be and wait for more credible specs to be released.

Please be realistic about what the 5D is actually meant to do. And the market it is intended to address.

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
-   to be a great professional landscape camera
-   to be a sports camera
-   to make large prints similar to 4” x 5” + film

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
-   photo-journalist type work
-   wedding/event photographers
-   walk around FF camera (landscape enthusiasts)
-   indie videographers
-   making most photos less than 16” x 20”

Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or  $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

+1  amen

[blacktiger0802]

I'm sure Canon got a lot of the Hasselbad market by releasing the 5D mark 2. ^

About what Mr. Baldy is saying on this site, I agree.

5D mark 3 will have a crazy high MP, something along the lines of 30-40. I don't doubt that and they'll stick in a crippled AF system too. Why? People who want the 7D mark 2 are going to have to wait too.

Now when you have a really high MP camera, you can see the flaws in the lenses optical quality, so I can bet you 2012 will be the year which Canon L lenses will be upgraded because when you have a 30 MP sensor and a 16-35, you can drastically tell the difference between the 2.

[awinphoto]

Just to play devils advocate with the removing the AFMA with the 60d... it is a tough recession, not just for us little people but big corporations... and when they added the AFMA they weren't deep in a recession or just starting to get into one which no one would reasonably say anyone could have predicted just how bad it would be... I could argue that the average person who had that option didn't need to spend money to have canon recalibrate their cameras/lenses and or seeked other repair options for their equipment... So perhaps while it didn't have them anything to remove it, it was a way to drive more revenue in their repair facilities?

Daw...  Those poor Canon share holders.  How will they ever survive the rough economy.  I hope they have somewhere warm to sleep during the coming cold winter months...  Let's not pretend like the hired inventors, engineers and factory workers make the bulk of the profit from their creative and laborious works here.  Well paid, I'm sure some of them are, but they are just employees, punching the clock.  Hell even million plus $ paid CEO's at large companies like this aren't even seeing the real green.  I've got my eyes set on the day when we collectively decide to obliterate patent law.  Anyways, I don't really want to get into politics or economics, but change is in the wind.  This just isn't cutting it anymore, and global economy(s) that are rapidly imploding on themselves suggest as much.  Removing features for which the R&D is already complete, simply to artificially bolster a forced product line is not acceptable or sustainable behavior.  It's wasteful, and in a sane system would be considered a form of pollution.

All politics aside, not trying to be sympathetic towards shareholders and such, but the reality is when companies see profits decline, even assuming they are still making profits nonetheless, they start cutting... cutting jobs, cutting marketing, cutting benefits, cutting operating expenses, etc... I shoot professionally as a commercial photographer and I see this every day not just from Canon but my other clients who are cutting advertising, cutting here and there even though they are still solvent but not making projected margins... It's made my job very ahhh, lets say interesting the last 3 years dealing with said companies and drumming up new work... Plus if Canon isn't proving to be as profitable to their shareholders, someone has to pay... whether it's the loss of jobs at a repair center meaning longer turnaround times for customers, longer production cycles, maybe less upgrades per new cameras, or maybe loss of product lines...  Like it or not that is the way the business is.. It sucks at times but we gotta roll with the punches and become better people/photographers from it. 

[Jettatore]

Judging by the overwhelming demand for this new camera, I don't see how your points apply.  This camera is theoretically going to be a massive profit unless people decide not to buy it, and I don't see that happening regardless.  But I digress, I'm bowing out until the next day/rumor, I don't want to get too deep into this sort of conversation.  cheers

[Drizzt321]

The market for a 5D Mrk III is for:
-   photo-journalist type work
-   wedding/event photographers

This is where I'm at most of the time. This is where better AF system (I don't expect 1D-X) would be great. Heck, the 7D would probably be good enough from what I hear. And really, if the 1D-X AF system doesn't vastly out perform the 7D's, there's something wrong with it. So putting in the 7D's AF system would still keep a good differentiation between the 5Dm3 and 1D-X.

Plus, at least keep the high ISO performance, or improve it. More MP, great, sure, I'll take it as long as the the ISO performance is the same or better.

[awinphoto]

Judging by the overwhelming demand for this new camera, I don't see how your points apply.  This camera is theoretically going to be a massive profit unless people decide not to buy it, and I don't see that happening regardless.  But I digress, I'm bowing out until the next day/rumor, I don't want to get too deep into this sort of conversation.  cheers

No worries... these are all rumors/speculation and should be taken with a pinch of salt...

[neuroanatomist]

Just to play devils advocate with the removing the AFMA with the 60d... it is a tough recession, not just for us little people but big corporations... and when they added the AFMA they weren't deep in a recession or just starting to get into one which no one would reasonably say anyone could have predicted just how bad it would be... I could argue that the average person who had that option didn't need to spend money to have canon recalibrate their cameras/lenses and or seeked other repair options for their equipment... So perhaps while it didn't have them anything to remove it, it was a way to drive more revenue in their repair facilities?

All politics aside, not trying to be sympathetic towards shareholders and such, but the reality is when companies see profits decline, even assuming they are still making profits nonetheless, they start cutting... cutting jobs, cutting marketing, cutting benefits, cutting operating expenses, etc... someone has to pay... whether it's the loss of jobs at a repair center...

I grant that the current global economic situation has forced cutbacks.

The problem with this argument is the timing.  When do you usually notice a problem that AFMA could correct, assuming your camera has that feature?  Either when you buy the camera, or when you buy a new lens, right?  Since that means warranty coverage applies, for any repairs performed by Canon the cost would be borne by Canon, not by the customer.  Providing warranty service means a net loss for the manufacturer - the only one who profits is the shipping company.  Thus, the elimination of a feature which would likely mean lower costs for the repair division must be driven by the expectation that it will lead to greter revenues elsewhere (i.e. a Marketing-driven differentiation decision).