*UPDATE* The Next 5D on March 2, 2012 [CR3]

[Canon-F1]

If Canon priced this camera too high, and the market refuses to accept it, it will bomb ... But if Canon got it right .. it will be another best seller ... like the 5DmkII.

the last 18 month i knew i would buy the 5D MK3 so i put aside some money i need for an upgrade form my 5D MK2.

3000-3500$ is not cheap these days but you don´t need a 5D MK3 to make good pictures.
there are plenty of cheaper cameras in the canon lineup.

if you want a porsche you have to pay for a porsche.
and in the end.. lets face it... you can hardly use it´s full potential.   

show someone A4 prints from a 550D and a 5D MK2 and 99% can not say what is what.



 

[CJRodgers]

If Canon priced this camera too high, and the market refuses to accept it, it will bomb ... But if Canon got it right .. it will be another best seller ... like the 5DmkII.

the last 18 month i knew i would buy the 5D MK3 so i put aside some money i need for an upgrade form my 5D MK2.

3000-3500$ is not cheap these days but you don´t need a 5D MK3 to make good pictures.
there are plenty of cheaper cameras in the canon lineup.

if you want a porsche you have to pay for a porsche.
and in the end.. lets face it... you can hardly use it´s full potential.   

show someone A4 prints from a 550D and a 5D MK2 and 99% can not say what is what.

 

That depends if it was shot under very low lighting

Good point though!

[alipaulphotography]

If Canon priced this camera too high, and the market refuses to accept it, it will bomb ... But if Canon got it right .. it will be another best seller ... like the 5DmkII.

the last 18 month i knew i would buy the 5D MK3 so i put aside some money i need for an upgrade form my 5D MK2.

3000-3500$ is not cheap these days but you don´t need a 5D MK3 to make good pictures.
there are plenty of cheaper cameras in the canon lineup.

if you want a porsche you have to pay for a porsche.
and in the end.. lets face it... you can hardly use it´s full potential.   

show someone A4 prints from a 550D and a 5D MK2 and 99% can not say what is what.



 

Unless shooting in low light with a wide aperture prime. I could definitely tell you which is which But I can see what you mean.

I would far rather an expensive camera with all the features I need to do my job than a cheaper camera that is 'crippled' in some way.

From all the previous polls - everyone was completely satisfied with the performance of the 5DMKII but the autofocus was ridiculous for what was otherwise a superb camera. They have answered the customers demand and given us a hell of a lot of autofocus points.

I think it is going to be my perfect camera.

To all those 'threatening' to jump to nikon - I do wonder at what sized print you will see a difference between 22mp and 36mp?

[Canon-F1]

Unless shooting in low light with a wide aperture prime. I could definitely tell you which is which But I can see what you mean.

well others have said that and proved wrong (in magazine tests and you can read it on luminous landscape).   

medium format prints vs. prints from G10:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19" prints from an Epson 3800 printer made on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk paper which were then hung side by side on my floor-standing print viewing box. This collection of seven people included experienced photographers, people from the commercial print industry, and other trade professionals. Between them there was at least 200 years of photographic industry shooting and printing experience.
.....

The Results

In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.

In fact it was the H2 system's narrower depth of field that occasionally was the only clear give-away. Some viewers eventually figured out that the prints with the narrower depth of field were from medium format, while other photographers chose the G10 images because with its wider depth of field it created an overall impression of greater sharpness.

Needless to say there was much shaking of heads and muttering. Could this be? Could a $500 digicam equal a $40,000 medium format digital system in image quality, at least in prints up to 13X19" (Super A3)?

it´s a bit like modern art experts.
they think they now modern art ... until you show them pictures painted by monkeys....   

[moreorless]

It's all good.... my 7D is plenty enough for now and I must say 22mp can't be the real number given the D800 specs... Why would Canon develop a sensor of this size when the 18mp 1Dx sensor would suit just fine AND lower costs??? A 4mp difference is stupid, so I'm calling bull on these specs.

The sensor has to either be:

Crazy high mp equal or higher than the D800
1Sx sensor @ 18mp

This makes very good sense. I cant either understand why they would have a 18MP and a 22MP sensor.
Perhaps they have designed them completely different with lower read noise and DR for the 22MP and only focused at high ISO for the 18MP sacrifying over all image quality?
Or perhaps they just sacrified IQ at all ISO for the 18MP to be able to get higher FPS?

Why would an 18 Megapixel sensor "just sacrifiece IQ at all ISO"? surely it would make it easier to improve image quality at higher ISO's while also allowing for faster FPS.

Each sensor seems like its tailored to its purpose for me, the 1DX likely having better ISO/FPS and the 5D3 better Resolution/Video.

I'm sure marketing is a big issue aswell, even if the 1DX sensor offered superior actual resolution to the 5D mk2 it would be difficult to sell a reduction in megapixels.

[Martin]

If you've got the funds to jump around year after year to which system has the newer update, you're gonna get pretty tired...

The thing is that i don't have such a funds, and I am tired right now, it;s not my goal to have to most up to date gear. I bought canon gear a year ago, thinking that they launch a new 5d3 soon, with really good specs (good for  me-AF and better dynamic range, better iso 100). Thought that it is the right choice.  I was not satisfied with 5d2, i hated it to be honest. I just preferred to work with my d300 with rather poor lens even I have much better or very good lens from canon. I just hated the camera, as i used to work with nikon, having no problems at all, where camera does not make it difficult to take the picture. I felt like waking up in the past with 5d2. I know, i know- photographer takes pictures, not a camera...and it's not about that.

About Mpix-I personally don't need 36, 21 was ok, around 25 would be perfect these days. But Nikon didn't have such a camera with d700,5d2 price tag. So I choose Canon for studio work. Having now a high mpix camera launched from Nikon, tell me an argument for buyin Canon, is there anything which can push a customer to buy it? OK-let's say-a customer have no camera and gear.

[ramon123]

If the 5D3 is going to be $500 more than the D800 then it one respect it gives the D800 an advantage. As said before Canon have always been better priced than the Nikon so hopefully this will continue. I'd say people would be happier with a 5D3 body at $3000. (which is still a nice increase from the current 5D2 model)

[CJRodgers]

Unless shooting in low light with a wide aperture prime. I could definitely tell you which is which But I can see what you mean.

well others have said that and proved wrong (in magazine tests and you can read it on luminous landscape).   

medium format prints vs. prints from G10:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Over a two day period I invited photographers and local industry professionals to come to my print studio and look at a series of 13X19" prints from an Epson 3800 printer made on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk paper which were then hung side by side on my floor-standing print viewing box. This collection of seven people included experienced photographers, people from the commercial print industry, and other trade professionals. Between them there was at least 200 years of photographic industry shooting and printing experience.
.....

The Results

In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.

In fact it was the H2 system's narrower depth of field that occasionally was the only clear give-away. Some viewers eventually figured out that the prints with the narrower depth of field were from medium format, while other photographers chose the G10 images because with its wider depth of field it created an overall impression of greater sharpness.

Needless to say there was much shaking of heads and muttering. Could this be? Could a $500 digicam equal a $40,000 medium format digital system in image quality, at least in prints up to 13X19" (Super A3)?

it´s a bit like modern art experts.
they think they now modern art ... until you show them pictures painted by monkeys....   

Sorry I couldnt see the bit about low light? Am i missing it?

[BillyBean]

Wow - lots of posts overnight ! But there seems to a be a lot of confusion about prices. Let's try and bring some reality to this discussion:

Canon do not determine prices - we do, collectively, through our purchase decisions. If no one buys this thing (or insufficient to Canon's production line being kept busy) the price will drop. If it drops below some profit margin floor, they will cease production, and do something different.

Our willingness to purchase depends, as some have stated, on whether we have the cash or not (of course) but also on the perceived benefit compared to the alternatives: namely, swap to Nikon, or more likely stick with what we have already, and wait until something better comes along.

If the specification is not deemed by you and me to be worth $3500, the price will drop, regardless of exchange rates, cost to produce, hedging or anything else for that matter.

Contrary to popular opinion, price bears NO resemblance to the cost of producing these things. If it cost $2 to produce, they would still sell it at $3500 if they could - this is the delight of capitalism! If it costs them $3000 to produce, and Nikon forces them to sell at $2700 becuase of the D800, they have hard choices to make - sell at a loss to maintain market share whilst they think of something better, or reduce cost to produce (maybe move production to Thailand or whatever) or they choose to exit this market segment.

But to be be clear, Canon are driven by us, not the other way around. You can bet someone from Canon marketing is reviewing this site from time to time (or the Japanese equivalent), and who knows, maybe they are even changing price tickets as we speak...

[Bobster]

If the specs and price are true... then i will order a 5Dmk2 for $2200 ( where i live ) for studio work and a 7D for outdoor.

The final result will be $3650... for a 5Dmk2 and a 7D..... HMMMMMMM

To me, if the specs are correct, then this new 5D(?) is an excellent alternative to having to buy these two cameras (neither of which are exactly what I was after).
I've been holding off buying either a 5Dii or a 7D (as an upgrade from my trusty but ageing 40D) because neither offered the ideal package for my type of photography. I do shoot landscapes, but also birds, sports and other fast moving subjects.
With the 5Dii, I love the IQ, but the AF and FPS rate was going to struggle with fast moving subjects.
I really liked the specs of the 7D (with the fast moving stuff in mind), but have been put off by seeing sample shots which  (to my eyes anyway), compared with results from the 5Dii, were noisier and softer.

This new 5D(?) sounds like an excellent tool for most types of photography and just the sort of ideal mix that I've been waiting for.
It might not do 8 FPS, but nearly 7 would be plenty enough for me I think. A combination of great IQ and AF in a relatively compact body sounds very appealing to me.
I'd considered the 1Div, but besides being quite large, it has remained expensive and hasn't effectively dropped in price in the UK since July 2010.

[Canon-F1]

Sorry I couldnt see the bit about low light? Am i missing it?

it´s ONE example.... that´s what your missing.

i have a magazin somewhere where they made a similiar test with higher ISO´s.
you can go to 1600-3200 ISO and see no difference in A4 prints (550D vs 5D MK2).

now if low light starts at 6400 for you that might be different.. sure.
but then only 5-6% of my images are shoot above iso 3200 so i don´t care much.

[BXL]

perhaps something that caters more to those who need higher resolution will be released by end of year.

The 1Dx and the 5D (III/x) are both the right cameras for the Olympics and the Euro 2012 (soccer). Later this year there is the Photokina. The right place to launch a professional high mp camera (and maybe a prosumer-grade APS-C Body).

[Gcon]

It's all good.... my 7D is plenty enough for now and I must say 22mp can't be the real number given the D800 specs... Why would Canon develop a sensor of this size when the 18mp 1Dx sensor would suit just fine AND lower costs??? A 4mp difference is stupid, so I'm calling bull on these specs.

The sensor has to either be:

Crazy high mp equal or higher than the D800
1Sx sensor @ 18mp

This makes very good sense. I cant either understand why they would have a 18MP and a 22MP sensor.
Perhaps they have designed them completely different with lower read noise and DR for the 22MP and only focused at high ISO for the 18MP sacrifying over all image quality?
Or perhaps they just sacrified IQ at all ISO for the 18MP to be able to get higher FPS?

What's not to understand? 22MP is a full 22.2% more than 18MP - this is still a substantial difference. the 1Dx photosites effectively gets approx 22% more light. This helps with high ISO, and also there's less data to move into the CF cards. It's all about high ISO and fast frames per second.  Great for sports, news & reportage.

The 5Dx will be a champion all rounder - not as fast, not as good at high ISO, but prints can be a bit bigger, or have more "crop-ability", and a great res for video.  Great for wedding photogs, enthusiasts and also good for landscapers.

The problem with ultra-dense pixels like the D800 is that you need a lot faster shutter or better a tripod, to gain anything from those extra pixels. It's because the sensitivity to movements increases quite a lot - smaller movements can shift light falling onto one photosite into the adjacent photosites. So instead of your shutter speed rule being 1/focal length it becomes 1/2x(focal length).  The 7D also suffers from this. You need much faster shutter speeds on a 7D to get sharp images compared to a 5D and even the 5D2.

Canon would be much better suited developing a medium-format camera, than stuffing 36MP into a full-frame camera, for high-end landscape use. I guess they'll site back and gauge feedback/sales for the D800 and then react accordingly.

[Astro]

i have a magazin somewhere where they made a similiar test with higher ISO´s.
you can go to 1600-3200 ISO and see no difference in A4 prints (550D vs 5D MK2).

i spend some time comparing both cameras on dpreview some time ago and i think that is right.

you can pixelpeep the differences but it would be nearly impossible i think to make a decision based on A4 prints.

[Astro]

What's not to understand? 22MP is a full 22.2% more than 18MP -

in pixels but not resolution.

the 1Dx photosites effectively gets between 22% more light

but the sensor area gets the same amount of light... how much of it is "used" is more based on quantum efficiency then photosite size.