5D Mark III Brief Specs? [CR1]

[AprilForever]

If canon bought out a FF 22mp, Pro AF, 7-8fps 7dII at the same SRP of the original 7d, who would pay more then double that for a 1dX?

As Canon discovered with the 5D2, it's not about profit margin alone, it's about (profit margin) x (units sold).  Sure, you don't want to cannibalize sales from a camera with a much higher profit margin...unless you can sell enough extra units to make up for it.  It's well-understood (or at least widely reported) that P&S sales account for vastly more sales and profits than DSLR's, even with much lower profit margin; that same reasoning applies within the DSLR line.  It's all about maximizing profit and, if they believe they can do that with a 7d2, or a 5d3 that's essentially a FF 7D, they will.

I think the 7D Mk II needs to be put to bed now. In my view Canon would be mad to bring out the 7D Mk II...Its serving its purpose on the market so Canon wont touch it just now.

The 7D's Nikon competitor, the D300s, has apparently been retired in preparation for the D400.  We can only assume that the D400 is designed to take the "best sports crop" title away, so the 7D may not be serving its purpose on the market much longer.

To many the 1D+1Ds merger was a surprise; perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by more surprises.   

If Canon merges the 7D/5D lineup into a full-frame 5DX, Nikon D400 sales will skyrocket. Many people will rush to buy them. Likely, many of these will be Canon owners... 

[neuroanatomist]

It's well-understood (or at least widely reported) that P&S sales account for vastly more sales and profits than DSLR's, even with much lower profit margin

I love how people state assumptions as facts.  I have this old cheat sheet of phrase translations for scientific writing; a couple of those phrases apply here:

• "It's well undersood..." = "I think..."
• "It's widely believed..." = "A couple other people think so, too..." (It's an old sheet - today, "I read it on the Internet..." is probably more apt.)

So, P&S sales account for more profit than dSLR sales?  Do you have evidence to support this claim?  I'm going to guess no...and I'm saying that because Canon has presented that the true situation is the opposite of what you state - and getting more opposite by the quarter.  The screenshot below is a slide from Canon's 3Q11 financial presentation (that's the most recent one posted, you can find them all here), and I've highlighted the relevant part with a red oval.

According to Canon, in 3Q11, dSLR sales accounted for 29% of units sold, but 72% of revenue from camera sales.  If you look back historically (presentation materials at the link above), you can see that over the past several years, both the dSLR percentage of units sold and the percentage of camera revenue from dSLR sales has increased substantially (for example, 5 years previous to to 3Q11, dSLRs accounted for 12% of units and 34% of revenue).

On a side note, if you look at those numbers - more than a 100% increase in dSLR share of camera sales and revenue over the past 5 years - and also consider the overall dSLR market share, which went from a near tie to Canon dominating, it's easy to see how Canon could (and arguably should) feel that they have had a winning strategy for the past several years, and thus easy to see how they can justify sticking to that same strategy.  I'm not saying they should do that, but that's definitely the easy road, especially for a conservative company.

[sjprg]

As a landscape photographer. if Canon dosen't get off their arrogant position and give us some info on the
 1DS-IV, I for one am off to the Nikon D800 (36MP). I'll keep my 1DS-III as a backup. I don't need another PJ camera, but I would like a 40MP+ camera.

[Orangutan]

I love how people state assumptions as facts.  I have this old cheat sheet of phrase translations for scientific writing; a couple of those phrases apply here:

• "It's well undersood..." = "I think..."
• "It's widely believed..." = "A couple other people think so, too..." (It's an old sheet - today, "I read it on the Internet..." is probably more apt.)

Dude, you've really been getting a snarky edge lately.  No, I don't have any proof, which is why I explicitly said that it's been "widely reported."  Calm down a bit.  If you have better evidence, great, please present it.  Not all of us have jobs that let us spend our days searching for Canon sales figures.  My point still holds: it's not about per-unit profit margin, it's about overall profit.  If Canon believes a certain strategy will lead to a higher overall profit, they will follow that strategy.

P.S. Neuro makes an excellent point about science writing, and I would never have used such sloppy language in a serious forum.  It really is important to use precise, meaningful / non-weasel language in "real" science writing.  Neuro, you are right to point this out, but relax with the snark.

[neuroanatomist]

@ Orangutan - sorry, I do realize that came off as directed at you, didn't mean it that way.  I've read the same thing many places (those were the 'people', didn't mean to shoot the messenger!), and looking at the numbers, 5 years ago it was true - it's just not the case any more, and Canon obviously knows that. 

[dilbert]

I think the 7D Mk II needs to be put to bed now. In my view Canon would be mad to bring out the 7D Mk II  as sales are still doing well and its not nearly reached its end of life. It doesn't need to be replaced or upgrades right now. Its serving its purpose on the market so Canon wont touch it just now.

With the C300, Canon made a statement about how the time to bring it to market was a record short time for them at around 2 years.

It's more realistic to assume that a camera takes 3 to 4 years to bring to market and that they arrive in the market place when they are finished.

Lets assume that the design work on the 7D Mark II started before the 7D was released as the tail end of the project schedule (lets assume 3 months) will be for ensuring that production is ready, working, marketing knows what it has to do, etc.

So in September 2009, Canon announced the 7D, even as it is likely that the 7D mark II was already being talked about inside Canon. The roadmap for the project will have been laid out assuming that everything would proceed according to plan. Assume the same for the 5D Mark III. Now throw in a couple of natural disasters (earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding) and a man made on (nuclear reactor) just for good measure and project plans are suddenly obsolete with respect to a final delivery date - but not the product itself.

So at this point in the project we're maybe a year out from the 7D mark II being released. In light of that, the camera design has probably been whittled down to just a few different models that are now starting to find their way into the hands of testers and over the course of the next few months, feedback on usability, image quality, etc, will make its way back in and one will be chosen.

Whatever the number of megapixels are now, it is likely too late to change it as it would mean a new sensor and new circuit board design for the camera internals.

Similarly, delaying its release is not something that they will have planned for and that it will hit the market irrespective of how good or bad the current sales of the 7D are.

Delaying the product risks moving it further out into the future where its feature set may be more vulnerable to other, newer, cameras, that started design later and are thus able to use new components, etc.

[parsek]

A mere 22MP output would be incredibly disappointing for me, despite how great the rest of it will turn out. It would make me drop my plans of upgrading to the 5D Mark III entirely. Unless of course it has 18+ f-stops of dynamic range.

I see this a bit differently.  Having a 22MP sensor is probably the best chance we have to see some tangible ISO improvement in the 5D mkIII with a new processor, as opposed to getting a super high MP sensor like 36MP and having ISO performance remains the same or even beeing less then today.

Of course all this are compromise, but we have to assume Canon will pick the compromise that suit the most people so as to generate the most sales...

Jacques

Well I completely agree on your assessment. I just happen to be one of those photographers, who for most of my landscapes do not care for improvements in ISO, since I almost exclusively shoot at ISO 100. If I have problems with movement I never go beyond ISO 500, and find the quality acceptable for smaller prints. I would be absolutely fine with ISO handling remaining at the current level of MkII, if I could get twice the MP count and higher dynamic range to go with it. But then again, I dont do concert photography any more. I understand that low light high ISO perfection is a holy grail to many. Just like processing power is. I am just looking for a different kind of camera.

[bigblue1ca]

I would like a 40MP+ camera.

May I suggest a Hasselblad?

[bigblue1ca]

On a side note, if you look at those numbers - more than a 100% increase in dSLR share of camera sales and revenue over the past 5 years - and also consider the overall dSLR market share, which went from a near tie to Canon dominating, it's easy to see how Canon could (and arguably should) feel that they have had a winning strategy for the past several years, and thus easy to see how they can justify sticking to that same strategy.  I'm not saying they should do that, but that's definitely the easy road, especially for a conservative company.

I would think that anecdotal evidence supports the DSLR portion of Canon's overall camera revenue is growing as well, and I assume Nikon for that matter too.  All you have to do is look around and you'll see that traditional P&S cameras are slowly disappearing from the general public.  I know I used to go to any number of events: grads, concerts, parties, bars, parks, beaches, etc. and you'd see lots of people with their P&S cameras. 

Now, I seldom see my non-photographer friends with P&S cameras, the reason is obvious, why carry a P&S when you have a iPhone, Andriod, or Blackberry.  So now they use their phones to take their snap shots and those who don't use their phones have DSLR kits (Rebel).  In fairness I still see some P&S cameras, but it certainly seems that the middle ground between phones and DSLRs is disappearing. 

Having said that I recently bought a waterproof/shockproof P&S camera for a vacation in Mexico, but all I used it for was snorkelling.  I'll take it skiing with me at Spring Break, next winter on my next trip to the Caribbean, and in the summer I'll use canoeing at the lake with my kids (it's not unheard of for us to dump occasionally ).  In the mean time, my kids use it, it's actually good for them, it's shockproof to 6'6"/2m.

[simonxu11]

As a landscape photographer. if Canon dosen't get off their arrogant position and give us some info on the
 1DS-IV, I for one am off to the Nikon D800 (36MP). I'll keep my 1DS-III as a backup. I don't need another PJ camera, but I would like a 40MP+ camera.

Well, I think it's too early to get any info of 1ds iv,at most you will hear some rumors from other sources, but they won't be solid!
From Canon?? Their new flagship is not on the market yet and you want some info of the next flagship model??
Like other said there are some brands do offer 40mp+ cameras, if money isn't the problem!
Or just go for Nikon!

[Bengt Nyman]

Can someone explain why Canon would provide any information to a waterproof housing manufacturer in advance of the release of a new camera, other than detailed engineering drawings and specifications for the external dimensions and button placements on that camera?

Because there are no such drawings. Products are designed on 3D CAD. You either send out the complete 3D CAD assembly model, and only a complete idiot would do that, or you send out a prototype 5DIII. There are many 5DIII out there right now, in different configurations, for test and evaluation. 

[neuroanatomist]

Can someone explain why Canon would provide any information to a waterproof housing manufacturer in advance of the release of a new camera, other than detailed engineering drawings and specifications for the external dimensions and button placements on that camera?

Because there are no such drawings. Products are designed on 3D CAD. You either send out the complete 3D CAD assembly model, and only a complete idiot would do that, or you send out a prototype 5DIII. There are many 5DIII out there right now, in different configurations, for test and evaluation.

Makes sense.  But CAD programs I've worked with in the past have all had the capability to output files with the information specified.  For example, Canon publishes graphics like this:



Which appear to have come from 3D CAD programs.

In the past, I've designed custom items to meet certain needs, and the engineering firms I worked with preferred the CAD output rather than a physical template, although the latter was desired at the prototype testing stage.

[Bengt Nyman]

All Canon has to do with the 5DIII is slightly improve the DR and ISO, while substantially improving the AF, and it will have a winner on its hands.

It is painful for us still photographers to learn that we hardly count any more. 90% of the efforts going on at Canon to develop the 5DIII has to do with pimping the 5D to become a sexier, cheap 5D video camera. I don't want no cheap video camera, less than half of which is designed to do high IQ still photography. Unfortunately Canon is doing the same with the 1DX. Yes, and Nikon is doing the same. Leica is no solution with the industries worst dynamic range and heavy handed, exaggerated contrast and saturation. I am beginning to think that if the camera has built in video, don't even consider it. Why? Because half the money you pay for the camera goes to subsidize the guy who buys if for video.  I want the very best still camera. You want video? That's your problem. 

[Bengt Nyman]

Can someone explain why Canon would provide any information to a waterproof housing manufacturer in advance of the release of a new camera, other than detailed engineering drawings and specifications for the external dimensions and button placements on that camera?

Because there are no such drawings. Products are designed on 3D CAD. You either send out the complete 3D CAD assembly model, and only a complete idiot would do that, or you send out a prototype 5DIII. There are many 5DIII out there right now, in different configurations, for test and evaluation.

Makes sense.

Of course the underwater people would rather have the 3D CAD data as well as a prototype. Canon would be fools to give CAD data outside a need to know basis. That's why they got a camera, and still abused the nondisclosure agreement.

[awinphoto]

All Canon has to do with the 5DIII is slightly improve the DR and ISO, while substantially improving the AF, and it will have a winner on its hands.

It is painful for us still photographers to learn that we hardly count any more. 90% of the efforts going on at Canon to develop the 5DIII has to do with pimping the 5D to become a sexier, cheap 5D video camera. I don't want no cheap video camera, less than half of which is designed to do high IQ still photography. Unfortunately Canon is doing the same with the 1DX. Yes, and Nikon is doing the same. Leica is no solution with the industries worst dynamic range and heavy handed, exaggerated contrast and saturation. I am beginning to think that if the camera has built in video, don't even consider it. Why? Because half the money you pay for the camera goes to subsidize the guy who buys if for video.  I want the very best still camera. You want video? That's your problem.

It's not that the majority of the client base wants or needs video, the simple fact that the majority of it's client base for the 5d and 1d cameras are professionals and like it or not, the professional industry is becoming more multimedia driven.  Not many professional photographers have grandeous visions of buying it and pumping out feature films, but for many photographers, it's proven invaluable sales tool... Wedding photographers, photojournalists (2 main target audience of the 5d), commercial photography (what client would turn down a 2-3 minute video they can shove on their website for a shoot you're doing ANYWAYS for a few hundred dollars/thousand dollars?  They cant even hire a videographer for as cheap) 

What extra bells and whistles do you really want out of stills camera?  High ISO... that's debatable and except for extreme situations, Noise is typically more than acceptable, especially coming from the film days where shooting over ISO 1000 was almost taboo.  More DR.. ok... every camera always seems to have some improvement in those two arenas...  What else?  Built in pocket wizards?  61 pt AF?  auto white optimizer and D-min optimizer?  Most other stuff is labeled "gimmicks and fluff"... so what would you "as a stills only" photographer want/need that you dont have right now?  I think we should be grateful that we continually get new features and upgrade in quality... In the film era... you couldn't get upgrades in slide film past ISO 25-50 on average... You'd buy a brick of film, test the first few rolls just to get the perimeters on how to shoot the rest of the brick... I'm not saying we have to embrace video... it's there, if you dont need it, dont use it, no harm no foul... But to harp over it's existence seems futile and a waste of energy.