5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

[Beautor]

...If they do so, they can also build an pretty unexpensive 5DX, namely a 7D with FF losing video functions.
Don't complain about that, IMO the time will come when people are fed up with SLRs featuring more video than photo and demand pure photo SLRs, so why don't bring out a photo SLR right now?

I seriously doubt that Canon (or any other DSLR manufacturer) will ever make another DSLR without video capabilities. All that is required to add video to a DSLR is a microphone and a few more lines of code in the firmware. Heck, with MagicLantern you can add video to the 50D, albeit without audio. Video capabilities are a cheap way for the manufacturer to add value and appeal to any camera, which then helps it to sell to a larger market, which hopefully pays for the R&D and brings on the rebates and price drops sooner.

[EYEONE]

I'm envisioning for a "full line" X-series refresh:

* EOS 1D X
* EOS 5D X (possibly split to include a high MPX EOS 3C - NOT D)
* EOS 10D X New top line APS-C body, *possibly* revising form factor to 1.4 or 1.5 X sensor - just under whatever the magic size is to allow EF-S lenses to still work, and justifying a kit zoom range of 20-65 for 28-90 equivalency.
* EOS 100D X / Rebel Xi
* EOS 1000D X

And, of course, the PowerShot G1 X.

  - Woody -

Why is everyone obsessed with putting an "X" and the end of everything.  I really think the 1Dx was a special case. And the G1x was a Powershot, which as never had any naming similarities to the DSLRS.

[WoodyWindy]

Why is everyone obsessed with putting an "X" and the end of everything.  I really think the 1Dx was a special case. And the G1x was a Powershot, which as never had any naming similarities to the DSLRS.

I'm not personally obsessed with it, but I went that way in this post because Canon has already rebooted the number scheme on two key cameras, and it would make sense (as we get perilously close to running out of digits) for the whole line to get the same treatment.

Of course, you completely ignored what I thought was the big point in the post - upsizing the APS C sensor (but not quite to the level of APS H).

[EYEONE]

Why is everyone obsessed with putting an "X" and the end of everything.  I really think the 1Dx was a special case. And the G1x was a Powershot, which as never had any naming similarities to the DSLRS.

I'm not personally obsessed with it, but I went that way in this post because Canon has already rebooted the number scheme on two key cameras, and it would make sense (as we get perilously close to running out of digits) for the whole line to get the same treatment.

Of course, you completely ignored what I thought was the big point in the post - upsizing the APS C sensor (but not quite to the level of APS H).

It wasn't just you necessarily. Everyone seems to be thinking everything new will have the X. They stated many times why they went with 1Dx. It wasn't renaming an old line at all really, it was creating a new line all together. But, what do I know?

And I didn't see your comment about 1.4x or 1.5x. Now that I have I don't see why Canon would do that.  And yes, I understand they EF-S could still work with 1.4x but the whole EF-S system is built around 1.6x. They absolutely could change the size of their APS-C sensor.  But it would be a lot of work and money that wouldn't really be a benefit to them. But, again, what do I know? 

[Neeneko]

I seriously doubt that Canon (or any other DSLR manufacturer) will ever make another DSLR without video capabilities. All that is required to add video to a DSLR is a microphone and a few more lines of code in the firmware. Heck, with MagicLantern you can add video to the 50D, albeit without audio. Video capabilities are a cheap way for the manufacturer to add value and appeal to any camera, which then helps it to sell to a larger market, which hopefully pays for the R&D and brings on the rebates and price drops sooner.

While I can not find details, I suspect the 50D had disabled video capability on it already rather then the Magic Lantern people developing the software needed to add the capability from scratch, kinda like how the 300D had a bunch of 10D features switched off in firmware in order to justify the higher 10D cost.

It is true that adding this ability increases the market for individual bodies, do not think for an instant that it comes for 'free' or even 'cheap'.  Adding video to an embedded system requires non-trivial development and testing increases, not to mention requiring either more or more general chips.

If it were that 'free' the MF manufacturers would have thrown it in too, but for that market the interest is small enough that the increased sales do not justify the increased development costs.  I question if they are even justified for the 1Dx, though I imagine after the success of the 5D2 the internal mantra in Canon right now is 'video on everything!'.

It is hard to say what the long term market will be like.. 'all in one' vs 'single purpose' tends to come in waves and adding video in to each model will require incremental development costs that down the road might not be worth it once enthusiasm for the combination wears off.

[Flake]

It will be of interest (to me at any rate!) to see whether a new model with 61 pt autofocus will be given the same degree of flexibility of the 1Dx or if bracketing will allow for more than three shots, or if finally we will be able to select the fps rather than a high med setting.

Just firmware / software really.

[kede]

Hi everyone,

Before buying a Nikon D800 I'm asking myself what could Canon do with the 5D MKIII in term of video.

First of all i'm 99,99% sure that it will be 1080p. I talked a lot with a (drunk) Canon representant and he told me that "there won't be any 4K system from Canon before te 4k become a reference as the HD is now".

As they just launched the EOS C300, It can't be possible that the 5d MK3 video will looks better and propose
more things.

What do you think Canon will do with the 5D MKIII video?

I know you're probably Pro Canon but do you think I can go to the D800 "with eyes closed"? (I've got Zeiss 35/50/85 1.4 Nikon mount (but it can be changed easly for some money) )

Excuse me for my english...

[EYEONE]

Hi everyone,

Before buying a Nikon D800 I'm asking myself what could Canon do with the 5D MKIII in term of video.

First of all i'm 99,99% sure that it will be 1080p. I talked a lot with a (drunk) Canon representant and he told me that "there won't be any 4K system from Canon before te 4k become a reference as the HD is now".

As they just launched the EOS C300, It can't be possible that the 5d MK3 video will looks better and propose
more things.

What do you think Canon will do with the 5D MKIII video?

I know you're probably Pro Canon but do you think I can go to the D800 "with eyes closed"? (I've got Zeiss 35/50/85 1.4 Nikon mount (but it can be changed easly for some money) )

Excuse me for my english...

I'm not a huge video guy, but what real advantages does the D800 have for video? Besides clean HDMI.

[sublime LightWorks]

You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:

1) generally the same 21M sensor as today
2) the 7D functional feature set (AF system, metering, horizon guide, auto ISO, etc.)
3) a Digic-V processor or dual Digic-IV's like the 7D
4) a slight improvement in the high ISO noise, say 1/2 stop better due to improved sensor manufacturing
5) a 5-6fps shoot rate
6) used the same batteries and grip as the 5Dmk2
7) added a 60 fps video frame rate
8 ) additional firmware options

This for $2499......

How many people would be completely happy with that camera?

You're basically looking at off the shelf technology and mainly adaptation costs involved in the construction and integration, along with improved firmware.  Yet what you'd have would kick the crap out of 80% of the market.

I know that for a lot of mid-range, general studio, and wedding shooters, that's a solid camera and offers just about all that is needed in that market segment.  When you realize the image quality of a 3 year old 5Dmk2 still beats a vast majority of the competition, these tweaks remove the negatives of the current body and flesh out it's feature set nicely.

Looking at prosumer and up, it would still leave room for a 7Dmk2, an enhanced version of the 7D, same 18M pixels, but improved APS-C sensor, 10 fps. It leaves room for a 5Dx with higher megapixels, and the 1Dx for the pro market.

[EYEONE]

You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:

1) generally the same 21M sensor as today
2) the 7D functional feature set (AF system, metering, horizon guide, auto ISO, etc.)
3) a Digic-V processor or dual Digic-IV's like the 7D
4) a slight improvement in the high ISO noise, say 1/2 stop better due to improved sensor manufacturing
5) a 5-6fps shoot rate
6) used the same batteries and grip as the 5Dmk2
7) added a 60 fps video frame rate
8 ) additional firmware options

This for $2499......

How many people would be completely happy with that camera?

A variation of this has been asked before, but me. I would buy that camera.
As long as the AF had broader coverage.

[kubelik]

You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:

1) generally the same 21M sensor as today
2) the 7D functional feature set (AF system, metering, horizon guide, auto ISO, etc.)
3) a Digic-V processor or dual Digic-IV's like the 7D
4) a slight improvement in the high ISO noise, say 1/2 stop better due to improved sensor manufacturing
5) a 5-6fps shoot rate
6) used the same batteries and grip as the 5Dmk2
7) added a 60 fps video frame rate
8 ) additional firmware options

This for $2499......

How many people would be completely happy with that camera?

I would have been perfectly happy with that camera.  in fact, even right now, I'd still be happy with that.

[WoodyWindy]

And I didn't see your comment about 1.4x or 1.5x. Now that I have I don't see why Canon would do that.  And yes, I understand they EF-S could still work with 1.4x but the whole EF-S system is built around 1.6x. They absolutely could change the size of their APS-C sensor.  But it would be a lot of work and money that wouldn't really be a benefit to them. But, again, what do I know? 

OK, it may be a little out there, but bear with me (especially since I lost the first version of this post... )...

Let's assume that, as seems likely based on the last several products, the current APS-C sensor has pretty well reached its maximum (in Canon's view) usable quality. They want to introduce a new technology - maybe back-illumination, maybe tricolor pixels. In any case, tried and true as it may be, all of the old tooling has to be replaced. Thus, the 1.6x APS-C form factor is no longer sacred from a legacy manufacturing standpoint. Everyone else has an advantage (however slight) on thier sensor size. Thus, they decide to investigate whether going a smidge larger might be possible.

Now, let's say they analyize the image circle on the existing EF-S lenses, and they all would fit a somewhat larger sensor with acceptable levels of vignetting, and still clear the larger mirror that would be required. Maybe the only exception was the 18-55, or maybe the sensor would be large enough that the crop factor would no longer work for a walkabout range. For the sake of argument, consider that a 1.4x factor would give the previously rumored 20-65 a 28-91 equivalent range. Very typical for a kit lens.

The larger sensor would also give Canon bragging rights, and room to grow this new technology (whatever it is).

Now does this seem quite as far-fetched?

[Maestro]

With the release of the D800, Nikon still haven't produced anything to match the 5D2.

Huh? 

[wickidwombat]

You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:

1) generally the same 21M sensor as today
2) the 7D functional feature set (AF system, metering, horizon guide, auto ISO, etc.)
3) a Digic-V processor or dual Digic-IV's like the 7D
4) a slight improvement in the high ISO noise, say 1/2 stop better due to improved sensor manufacturing
5) a 5-6fps shoot rate
6) used the same batteries and grip as the 5Dmk2
7) added a 60 fps video frame rate
8 ) additional firmware options

This for $2499......

How many people would be completely happy with that camera?

You're basically looking at off the shelf technology and mainly adaptation costs involved in the construction and integration, along with improved firmware.  Yet what you'd have would kick the crap out of 80% of the market.

I know that for a lot of mid-range, general studio, and wedding shooters, that's a solid camera and offers just about all that is needed in that market segment.  When you realize the image quality of a 3 year old 5Dmk2 still beats a vast majority of the competition, these tweaks remove the negatives of the current body and flesh out it's feature set nicely.

Looking at prosumer and up, it would still leave room for a 7Dmk2, an enhanced version of the 7D, same 18M pixels, but improved APS-C sensor, 10 fps. It leaves room for a 5Dx with higher megapixels, and the 1Dx for the pro market.

i would rather have the current rumoured camera at 3k

[kapanak]

You have to wonder, if Canon had released a 5Dmk3 in September (before the 1Dx was announced) and it basically had:

1) generally the same 21M sensor as today
2) the 7D functional feature set (AF system, metering, horizon guide, auto ISO, etc.)
3) a Digic-V processor or dual Digic-IV's like the 7D
4) a slight improvement in the high ISO noise, say 1/2 stop better due to improved sensor manufacturing
5) a 5-6fps shoot rate
6) used the same batteries and grip as the 5Dmk2
7) added a 60 fps video frame rate
8 ) additional firmware options

This for $2499......

How many people would be completely happy with that camera?

You're basically looking at off the shelf technology and mainly adaptation costs involved in the construction and integration, along with improved firmware.  Yet what you'd have would kick the crap out of 80% of the market.

I know that for a lot of mid-range, general studio, and wedding shooters, that's a solid camera and offers just about all that is needed in that market segment.  When you realize the image quality of a 3 year old 5Dmk2 still beats a vast majority of the competition, these tweaks remove the negatives of the current body and flesh out it's feature set nicely.

Looking at prosumer and up, it would still leave room for a 7Dmk2, an enhanced version of the 7D, same 18M pixels, but improved APS-C sensor, 10 fps. It leaves room for a 5Dx with higher megapixels, and the 1Dx for the pro market.

i would rather have the current rumoured camera at 3k

I concur. I would not upgrade from my 5DII to what you are proposing. I would rather pay 3-3.5K for a 5DII replacement with the ergonomics of the 7D and 5DII combined, as well as better low ISO, less noise in high ISO and 1DX's AF.