I'm going to be kind of disappointed when the 5DIII comes out and I have to go back to threads that endlessly debate megapixels, sensor size, and ISO noise.
Really though, I Keep thinking that all Canon really needs to do with the next 5D to make still photographers happy is put the 7D autofocus system in it and call it good. Oh...and put out a new battery grip that has a wheel on it. Which means they need to change the specs enough so that the old grip won't work with the new model and maybe you need new batteries as well. (Yes, they may throw in a few other bells and whistles, but no "game changers")
I can hold firmly to this position until the 5DIII is announced and I'm proven wrong. But, here is my logic:
- Hardly anyone complains about anything except the autofocus;
- There has to be enough room between the 5DIII and the 1Dx to justify the cost differential;
- Ultra-high ISO speeds are a necessity for the 1Dx market, but an option for most 5DIII users;
- Bomb-proof construction and weather-sealing is a necessity for the 1Dx market, but an option for most 5DIII users.
If Canon is truly interested in moving APS-C customers up to full frame, this offers an affordable path, since the price can be kept at or close to the 5DII's price.
I still think that any big changes in the 5DIII will be concentrated in the video realm. I think Canon sees video as the growth market. (Their recent product releases indicate that). I firmly believe Canon had no idea how popular the 5DII would be for video. They are now watching the massive growth in internet and independent video and comparing that to the anemic growth in DSLR sales. They know that they currently own the DSLR video market and want to protect that market. (Face it guys: we still DSLR photographers are dinosaurs)
So, my logic: give the still photographers the minimum that they want: better autofocus; and give videographers more than they hoped for.
Good arguments, and I agree that the AF is probably the only thing that has kept me from just biting the bullet buying a 5D II. It really is bottom of the barrel. I'm still curious why it has to be 7D AF though. Is there not some kind of happy medium that would satisfy the "pro grade", without also being top end? I mean, 19 CROSS-TYPE AF points, with all the zone and expansion selections, is fairly expensive...not as expensive as 40, but expensive nonetheless. How would a more advanced AF system like that affect the cost of a 5D III? I am really hoping for a $2800 price tag...I don't want to have to spend $3200 or $3500 for all the extra features like high end AF that I already have on my 7D (which, coincidentally, is better for the action stuff anyway given its cropped sensor and greater "reach".)