EOS 3D & 5D Mark III Mentions

[Haydn1971]

The 9D hasn't been used yet...

1Dx - Pro FF 18mpx fast framerate good autofocus etc, mid range HD video
5DIII - Studio FF High mpx slow framerate basic autofocus etc, mid range HD video
7DII - APS-C high mpx fast framerate, mid range autofocus, basic HD video
9Dx - The new 5D classic, FF 18mpx from the 1Dx, slow framerate, basic autofocus, basic HD video

High end HD video covered with separate range

[traveller]

I still find it remarkable that people have come to expect deliberately hobbled autofocus systems from Canon's below-1D-series lines.  Once upon a time Canon pioneered AF technology; now we seem to be accepting the message that if you want cutting-edge AF and don't want a 1D, you should have bought a Nikon.  Don't oblige the little men in Canon's marketing department by passively accepting inferiority; Nikon manage to put their best AF systems into their mid-range cameras and so could Canon.  The only thing that's stopping them from doing this is the fact that they believe that people like us will buy their marketing cr*p!

[aaronofnero]

I would likely have to agree. Although, at this point, I don't see why Canon WOULD continue to upgrade video features in their photo-intensive cameras simply because they appear to be segregating the video from photo into a new grouping of sorts.

I can think of two reasons. The first is that regardless of the cinema line, the market expects it. One of things that made the 5D2 so successful is the combination of photo and video features. The option NOT to buy a separate camera was and still is a HUGE deal to a lot of people. Both from a usability/convenience point if view and value wise. I am not so sure that saying to these costumers that while in '08 you could buy a great stills camera AND a video camera for 3K, now you have to pay 3K + 3,5 or 10K. Sure, the 5D3 will do video better than the 5D2, but will it improve it enough to be considered as great as the 2 was in '08?

Secondly, while Canon now has its cine line, Nikon doesn't. That means that Nikon will probably push the video capabilities in its new DSLRs to the max. Can Canon afford to play second fiddle to Nikon in the DSLR stills/video hybrid department? I'm not so sure that Canon can easily afford reviews that go something like "Canon X is just as good as Nikon Y in the stills department, but lags way behind it on the video side".

Oh I can certainly understand that. However, if such were the case, then why start a cinema line that would differentiate itself from the photo line? If they supply a 5dmkIII with incredible video features for $3k, then how will they sell any of their cinema line DSLR, let alone the C 300? If they instilled a clarity and quality that is on par with the C 300 in the 5dmkIII, then of course everyone would be buying the latter and saving 13 grand (Unless you REALLY needed the HD-SDI outputs and the built in ND filters). The market may demand it, but it would seem like a mistake for Canon to have bothered with a Cinema line if they were to keep their video DSLR revolution in motion with the momentum the unintentionally started it with. From a business standpoint, either the photo line will get limited, or the cinema line will prove to be somewhat fruitless. At least as best as I can for see it. Nonetheless, I could certainly be completely wrong, and Canon may be completely comfortable just offering more models with similar options. After all, that seems to work for the Auto industry to an extent.

As for Nikon, you make a very valid argument - one that could be precedent in Canon's decision to make their photo line equally competitive. Although, I don't believe Nikon has much of a video department dedication. I can't see them making too many leaps and bounds into the video world, but I can definitely be wrong there too. It would be exciting to see what the come up with, no doubt.

[DavidRiesenberg]

I absolutely agree that from what we know so far, it seems that Canon strives for a clear cut diversification between its stills and video line. I just personally think that this might not be such a smart move. Sure, I am not being objective because as a costumer I want a 5D/C300 hybrid for 3K but if Canon leaves an open gap in the market someone else will surely step in to fill it. Especially since Canon themselves proved how successful that combination of price/features can be.

[aaronofnero]

I absolutely agree that from what we know so far, it seems that Canon strives for a clear cut diversification between its stills and video line. I just personally think that this might not be such a smart move. Sure, I am not being objective because as a costumer I want a 5D/C300 hybrid for 3K but if Canon leaves an open gap in the market someone else will surely step in to fill it. Especially since Canon themselves proved how successful that combination of price/features can be.

and I absolutely relate to you there, good sir. As far my personal consumer taste goes, I feel that Canon somewhat shot themselves in the foot with the cinema line. Imagine a 5dmkIII for $3500 that did basically everything the C 300 can do. The sheer uproar of support they would receive would be borderline immaculate. Of course, my personal opinion here only warrants consideration to my own interests than those of a billion dollar business haha

[Axilrod]

Well now that we've got the 1DX announced, seems people want:

- A 1DX sensor in an ungripped, less fps/AF body for $3-3.5k (lets call this one the 5Dmk3).

- A video-split, we know it's coming, possibly C300 sensor in a 1D-sized body (a 3840*2560 sensor is 10MP for stills, or a clean 4:1 binning would be a 39MP sensor).

- A high-MP (30-36MP) FF in an ungripped body for $3-3.5k.

- An APS-H 18-25MP in whatever body with 45pt and f/8 AF and uber-sealed, to upgrade from 7D/replace 1D4 for $3.5-4k

- An APS-C 20-25MP as above, pro-sealing and 45pt f/8 AF is more likely for $3k.

- 7D2 will keep same sealing, AF, fps, and features for $2k and probably be 20-24MP.

So which of those above is the 3D? I'd be guessing it's the High-MP studio camera, the video split will have a new naming convention, either of the bodies with the 45pt f/8 AF is a bit more of a dream...

That actually sounds somewhat plausible, the 3D could be the Concept Cinema DSLR.

[Axilrod]

I would likely have to agree. Although, at this point, I don't see why Canon WOULD continue to upgrade video features in their photo-intensive cameras simply because they appear to be segregating the video from photo into a new grouping of sorts.

I can think of two reasons. The first is that regardless of the cinema line, the market expects it. One of things that made the 5D2 so successful is the combination of photo and video features. The option NOT to buy a separate camera was and still is a HUGE deal to a lot of people. Both from a usability/convenience point if view and value wise. I am not so sure that saying to these costumers that while in '08 you could buy a great stills camera AND a video camera for 3K, now you have to pay 3K + 3,5 or 10K. Sure, the 5D3 will do video better than the 5D2, but will it improve it enough to be considered as great as the 2 was in '08?

Secondly, while Canon now has its cine line, Nikon doesn't. That means that Nikon will probably push the video capabilities in its new DSLRs to the max. Can Canon afford to play second fiddle to Nikon in the DSLR stills/video hybrid department? I'm not so sure that Canon can easily afford reviews that go something like "Canon X is just as good as Nikon Y in the stills department, but lags way behind it on the video side".

Oh I can certainly understand that. However, if such were the case, then why start a cinema line that would differentiate itself from the photo line? If they supply a 5dmkIII with incredible video features for $3k, then how will they sell any of their cinema line DSLR, let alone the C 300? If they instilled a clarity and quality that is on par with the C 300 in the 5dmkIII, then of course everyone would be buying the latter and saving 13 grand (Unless you REALLY needed the HD-SDI outputs and the built in ND filters). The market may demand it, but it would seem like a mistake for Canon to have bothered with a Cinema line if they were to keep their video DSLR revolution in motion with the momentum the unintentionally started it with. From a business standpoint, either the photo line will get limited, or the cinema line will prove to be somewhat fruitless. At least as best as I can for see it. Nonetheless, I could certainly be completely wrong, and Canon may be completely comfortable just offering more models with similar options. After all, that seems to work for the Auto industry to an extent.

As for Nikon, you make a very valid argument - one that could be precedent in Canon's decision to make their photo line equally competitive. Although, I don't believe Nikon has much of a video department dedication. I can't see them making too many leaps and bounds into the video world, but I can definitely be wrong there too. It would be exciting to see what the come up with, no doubt.

I agree, Canon didn't know that the 5D2 was going to take off in the video world like it did. And when they did notice, they began to adjust accordingly, they aren't dummies.  Bottom line is the 5DII is a stills camera and it doesn't make sense for people that only want it for video to have to pay for photography features. 

I suspect the 5DIII will shoot improved video but still be geared towards still photographers.  And I suspect that the Cinema DSLR will be what the 5D2 video users are looking for.  I know a lot of people watched the Cinema EOS event unfold and were disappointed when they saw the price tag of the C300.  I think Canon showed the Concept DSLR to reassure prosumers that they didn't forget about them.  I mean how many other products does Canon preview that far in advance? 

It's possible that they were worried that people would get frustrated after waiting that long and start looking for something else. 

[pedro]

"I suspect the 5DIII will shoot improved video but still be geared towards still photographers."

I hope things will turn out like that: 5DIII geared towards still photographers. +1 here.

[pwp]

Does anyone know the reason why these rumours all want to call it the 3D?
But why the 3D? I only say this because when you say 3D all i think of is "3D" pictures and movies.

Yes, 3D does the Avatar 3D movie thing to me too. Since the original 3D film camera the term 3D has taken on a whole new significance.

I doubt Canon will use it.

X seems to be the flavor of the moment. Maybe it will be the XD. Canon could stun us all and call it the CR1.

3D? It's fun to perpetually have a "mythical" camera floating elusively in the mist of the near future. It's enjoyable!

Paul Wright