5D Mark II Replacement

[richy]

I guess the same folks who bought that 50mp sensor that canon made but never sold to the public, the spooks and banks will have had some. 120mp sensors would be awesome in a bank \ reserve security application

[Edwin Herdman]

There's a lot more to autofocus than the number of cross points [...]

Agreed with this and the rest of the post.

I would assume quite a large print size (why the heck else would you want a 120 MP camera?)

Low light performance, and oversampling is good (when it can be done correctly - a 120MP sensor wouldn't help aliasing in movies versus current sensors, it would make it worse in fact).

[oalali]

Here is my wish list:

a tweaked version of canon's 21 MP sensor.
dual digic IV (or V).
5-7 frames per second
Canon 1ds autofocus system . (to set it apart from the current 1d bodies)
same form factor and weather sealing as the current model.

 

Why don't you just buy a 1Ds MkIII then?

Because:
1)   1Ds is three years old and still manages to cost an arm or leg to buy.
2)   it is bulky & doesn’t have a video function.
3)   putting the MP count a side, Nikon Managed to do so with their D700. So I don’t think that it will cost Canon anymore to do it.
4)   if I’m going to wish then I’m going to wish for what I want and not what think Canon will release.

[Waleed Essam]

God, I just want a FF 7D... that's all I'm asking for.

I don't feel it should be that difficult! seriously! If you change the APS-C sensor for a FF sensor and charge 1000$ more that should really be easy to do.

I dont use ISO above 3200 in 90% of the situations so I seriously don't care about ISO12800 being the "best" etc I just want super IQ at low ISOs in a FF body.

Hell, if they just put the existing 5DII sensor, tweak it a bit to shut up all the banding claims and put it in the same 7D body I'll be happy.

It is much more difficult than you realise!  The sensor is so significantly larger that the casre has to be completely redesigned to accommodate the shutter & mirror mechanism, then there's the pentaprism which is also significantly larger.  Plus another issue which doesn't seem to get much discussion and that is the flatness & alignment of the FF sensor & the 5D MkII has had more than a few issues with miss aligned sensors.  Because thes FF unit is so much larger it suffers dissproportionately from miss alignment in both the vertical & more in the horizontal axis, but it also suffers from warping & rippling, caused by the heating & cooling of the silicon wafers in the manufacturing process.  One company has calimed that it can produce sensors which are perfectly aligned (can't remember who though!)

ISO 12800 is not a real Iso, it is a sofware one where the camera uses Iso 6400 increases the shitter speed and then drags the exposure back by software.  High Iso performance is desireable in a digital camera, because dynamic range is the difference between clipping & the noise floor, hence there is a higher dynamic range on a High Iso performing camera.

So no chance of putting it into a 7D body, it's not much larger anyway!

I don't think what I said has to mean EXACT same body.. by body you mean specs, sealing, AF, etc.
So what if they need to make it slightly bigger to accommodate the FF sensor? Remember the price difference between both cameras -on release- is about 1000$. I'm not a sensor engineer but I really believe 1000$ more can pay for the different in sensor size and extra adjustments to body size this might need.

And don't you think everybody who uses a dSLR by now know's that 12800 is not a real ISO, I don't understand what does this has to do with anything. And also, it's not CURRENTLY a real ISO, it will be real soon in future cameras like the 6400 has become compared to older cameras.

About Sensor miss-alignment, I honestly dont know any information about this, but this also has nothing to do with putting a FF sensor in a 7D (like) body, since it's in the manufacturing process of the sensor, not the body!

Anyways, to make what I meant by my original post more obvious:

I just wish the 5DIII to have all the specs of the 7D in addition to a tweaked FF sensor in the same range od 21 mpix, and I'm illing to pay 2600-2700 USD for it on release

[richy]

4)   if I’m going to wish then I’m going to wish for what I want and not what think Canon will release.

ohhh okies that sounds like fun. I'll go for a 6x7 40mp sensor with anti dust and some IS lenses to go with it.
Nothing too stupid, just a decent landscape \ portrait camera. 1-2fps would be fine. 7d af a must

[davidpeter]

It has been discussed here earlier, so please allow me to have a few words in connection with D700 vs 5DmkII.

I shoot low light events (weddings, sports such as martial arts, basketball and hockey, concerts) and let me say: the non-1 series bodies of Canon are far behind Nikon. I tried the 7D and the 5D mark II, but sold all my canon gear for a Nikon D700 and some lenses (70-200 f2.8 VR, 24-70 f2.8 instead of the same Canons). I could not be happier. It just works!

I think Canon is on the wrong way with the increasing MP count and with the decreasing features...

[L-Fletcher]

YMMV.

Indeed, it is a tad annoying that Canon feels it necessary to raise the resolution for each newly-released body, but the 5D MK II does excel in the studio. That said, it also holds up well for landscape/fine art/weddings/events in general - it handles noise well, considering that it has less than 3 million pixels off twice that of the D700 (said in a confusing way ).

[davidpeter]

Yep, I mean underperforming. For example auto focus. The AF of th 5D series is simply insufficient for sports and barely usable on low light concerts.  I tried, I failed. Perhaps it is my fault, perhaps not, bit facts are simple: the D700 just works. I prefer the Nikon ergonomics too, especially the flash control, the AF switch button and the programmable auto ISO. They are awesome!

I never needed the 20+ MP count. The one and only feature I miss is the beautiful  video. I need nothing but my stills for my job, but I enjoyed playing with the video. Both the 5 and the 7 could do that fine.

However, throwing away them and start a new life worth that cost.

[richy]

Its just a choive. The 5d2 af is good but not excellent. The d700 lacks the res for large prints. Just pick which one suits you Saying the 5d2 af doesnt work in low light is like saying a ferrari isnt great for hauling cement, really ?? The 5d2 is a budget portrait \ landscape camera and in that context it rocks, the 7d is a budget sports camera and rocks, the d700 is a budget all rounder and again it rocks but it isn't perfect and as someone else pointed out the 5d2 has nearly twice the pixel count. They already made a 5d2 with great af, the 1ds3
Its great canon and nikon took different approaches as you can have a choice.

[Osiris30]

Hey guys,

Here's a thought.. at 28mp Canon could actually have a low-light pixel binning mode at 7MP which significantly less noise.. Food for thought (or will they reserve that for the 1Ds?).

Osiris

[x-vision]

With a Bayer sensor a 2:1 binning (14mp) is good enough. A special color-filter arrangement is needed, though.

It would also be nice if Canon implements in-camera crops modes - 5:4, 1.2x, etc..
Good solution for reducing file size in cases where full resolution is not needed.

[Osiris30]

With a Bayer sensor a 2:1 binning (14mp) is good enough. A special color-filter arrangement is needed, though.

It would also be nice if Canon implements in-camera crops modes - 5:4, 1.2x, etc..
Good solution for reducing file size in cases where full resolution is not needed.

But if I'm not mistaken (and it's far too late for me to do the math) isn't a 4:1 *far* easier to implement and would it not offer significantly better snr than a 2:1 bin, without needing to redo the CFA layout and that risking other weird problems.

Cheers,
O

[Flake]

I've had the 5D MkII out in the dark against a D700, and 70 - 200mm f/2.8 sigma lenses on both of them.  The Nikon refused to focus where the 5D MkII carried on albeit a bit slower than normal.

[neuroanatomist]

I've had the 5D MkII out in the dark against a D700, and 70 - 200mm f/2.8 sigma lenses on both of them.  The Nikon refused to focus where the 5D MkII carried on albeit a bit slower than normal.

But...but...the D700 has over 5 times the number of AF points.  So the Nikon AF has to be better, right??   

[unexposure]

I've had the 5D MkII out in the dark against a D700, and 70 - 200mm f/2.8 sigma lenses on both of them.  The Nikon refused to focus where the 5D MkII carried on albeit a bit slower than normal.

But...but...the D700 has over 5 times the number of AF points.  So the Nikon AF has to be better, right??   

I guess, the autofocus-feature on 5d mkII is rather a nice "giveaway" from canon, rather than really needed for the typical usage of the camera. It should just make it some more flexible. ;-)

- When using it for Movies (and this is probably the most obvious) you don't need an af.
- When using it for studiowork, you'll have all the time in the world to set a properly focus manually. As mkII tethered usage performs quite well, it's, in my opinion, the far superior method to focus manually than letting the af do the photographers job.
- When doing (wide) Landscape, there's in 9 out of 10 cases only one applicable setting to your focus-ring.
- When doing (narrower) Landscape and makro-stuff, manually focussing while in live-view and tripod-using has proven do be a good choise, regarding precision.

So for most cases, you would consider making use of a 5d mkII, it's probably the better option to do manual focus.

For shooting stuff like Wildlife the crop-cams are (due to the longer focal-length) far superior. 7d is, in this case also a better choise over 5d because of some few more fps...
For shooting sports it might either be the best choise to get a 1d-body or go with the 7d, as burst-rate is far superior compared to 5d mkII.
And in both cases - either 1d oder 7d - you get LOADS of more af-points of which you can actually make use of!

(don't take this whole post from me to serious!!!)