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

[DzPhotography]

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.

I just pointing out the strangenest with the small difference of a 18MP and 22MP sensors.
If there shall be any difference between them then they must have been designed very differently. If they have almost the same design but just different pixel size the 22MP will be the better one at all ISO, but it will be very close to a neglectable difference - So better use the same sensor for both.

One simple answer could be that the sensors are close to the same but they made a choice to sacrify IQ, of the 18MP, at all ISO to get the higher FPS. The sacrify would be very close to neglectable anyway. But then again - why not just use the same sensor for both

Another answer could be that they have a total different design. Then perhaps the 18MP could be targeted towards absolute best possible high ISO and the 22MP targeted toward hights possble DR. Then the 22MP could have a sligth edge at low ISO and the 18MP could have a slight edge at high ISO. It could also be the the oppisite but that sounds more unlikely.

Another horrible possibility is that the 18MP has a new improved design and the 22MP use the same poor technology they now have been using for many years with small upgrades for new generations. In this case the 22MP may only be a very minor improvement to the old 21MP while the 18MP is a significant improvement.
But why would they be stupid to do such a thing when it would result in very bad sales for 5D3.

No, I cant get it with the very strange small difference between the 18 and 22MP. We will have to wait and see.

I don't think 1DX will havbe worse IQ than new 5D, that would be nefast for Canon...

[sanj]

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.
[/quote]

Is this true?? Wow I learnt something new today. Can this be substantiated with further recommended reading? Thx.

[nicku]

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).

You are right regarding a high MP body......

regarding of a semi-pro APS-C body i believe launching after the Olympics and euro 2012 will be a huge mistake.

Many people (regular people) wants to take pictures at the Olympics and they want a APS-C sensor camera to have the reach. using the new 5d they will need a very expensive lens to match in reach a 7D with an 70-300mm attached.

[SebSic]

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.

I am a noob here, but if you multiply the number of photosites in a sensor that keeps the same dimensions, the photosite will be smaller and therefore will capture less light.
The ISO rising should be lower, and we will find back (slightly) the problem of multiplication of pixels on the sensors of compact cameras

[Steve Campbell]

No doubt this will be a nice camera. However, at $3500 for the body, my decision to grab a 5DII and a 24-105 kit last October for $2750 brand new is seeming like a better idea all the time. I picked up a mint, used 7D around the same time for $1100. Now I have an excellent full frame, a backup in the 7D that gives me advanced AF and fast FPS AND a very nice L lens. Plus I've been shooting all this gear for 5 months and enjoying. I have two buddies who did the same and they've produced some very nice images since then instead of sitting around waiting. And waiting.....

[traveller]

Behold. The time has come.
I'm just chuffed to comment first on what will no doubt go on for about 20 pages now...

First comment was definitely a CR3!

[psolberg]

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.

Is this true?? Wow I learnt something new today. Can this be substantiated with further recommended reading? Thx.

there is some truth to it. you don't have to increase shutter speed if you shoot steady, and IS can help a lot. But ultimately ALL cameras suffer from motion blur but the higher the resolution the more you'll see your flaws in technique. The higher resolution of the Nikon means you will have to have good support and technique to maximize your quality. This doesn't meant the camera is bad in any way. It just means you have to be better and mindful of what you're shoting with. However the D800 has one key advantage. If you did get careless and introduced motion blur at the pixel level, your image will not be any worse compared to what you'd get with a lower resolution camera once you resample it to that resolution. That's the benefit of high resolution. You can downsample when you goofed and will be greatly rewarded when you don't.

Ultimately I think the pros outweight the cons. Nikon themselves made a guide for their audience about how to maximize their gears potential....

http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/o/Y6wrkA9OU_z04IreazIXl_22UII/PDF/D800_TechnicalGuide_En.pdf

It is a very novice guide, but it explains it from nothing. Lloyd Chambers has for guide (not free) that is superb.
http://makingsharpimages.com/
 Then again every person knows here that even with the best gear, if you lack technique, you'll just get garbage.

[NotABunny]

Considering that the Euro price is going to be about the same but in euro, this camera better bake cookies as well.

(Even) If it it's up to my expectations, I'll have to abandon my plans to buy one of the new L lenses. A flash with a custom white balance is still on the table.

[Himanshu]

Anyone heard of 'anchor pricing' - the idea is to establish the idea of a price in someone's head (whether they can afford it or not). Then discount it. People think the vendor is doing them a huge favour. If I were Canon, I would be seeding these rumours into the market in just the way we have seen today, and everyone is "ooh, can I afford it, ouch", etc. Then announce it next week at say $3000 or $3200, and everyone thinks - "wow what a bargain!". Maybe they are right, and it is a bargain. But for me, just like with eBay purchases, the only thing that matters is 'is it worth it' not how much it has been discounted or what the exchange rate is...

That sounds really smart and would for sure catch me!

Thats make a lot of sense. Thats what companies do on a regular basis infact. Exactly what Nikon did with the D800. There were rumors that the D800 would cost around $3500, and the D800E around $4000. Then they ended up pricing the D800 at $2999.95, and it suddenly started to look like it was such a great deal for that kind of a camera.

[sublime LightWorks]

Everyone needs to understand the difference between LIST and STREET prices. The Canon 5D Mark II when released listed for US$2799, however (rebates/sales excluded) usually streets for about US$2499 (body only). Average price range for the 5D II can be anywhere from $2000 to as high as $4000 with an extended kit, factoring in rebates and sales.

Adjusting the original 2008 list price of $2799 for inflation through now in 2012, the list price would land squarely at $3000 adjusted. So the difference is not really $1500 for better AF and an extra megapixel (and probably a vastly improved sensor like the 1D X's)...the difference when you adjust for inflation is about $500...which is FAR, FAR more reasonable if you ask me, and certainly easier to swallow than a $6800 price tag for the 1D X.

Nice....but.....

That logic does not hold for the 1Dx pricing when you analyze the 1D4 and 1DsIII that it supposedly replaced.  Recalling, the 1D4 was $5000 list and the 1Ds3 was $9000 (or possibly higher), the average between the two is $7000+.  Given your cost of inflation, the price should be even higher than the $7k average here.

It's not....it's $6800, despite a couple of years after the 1D4 and several years after the 1Ds3.

[K3nt]

I know this means I'll be working a bit more overtime to fund this bad boy for my upcoming travels later in the year. *quick calculations in head----mmm, yes... 6k total* Loads of dough, but manageable, I have 10 months time. 

[CowGummy]

Behold. The time has come.
I'm just chuffed to comment first on what will no doubt go on for about 20 pages now...

First comment was definitely a CR3!

Not even 24 hours since CRGuy posted this and we're already on page 21!

[tt]

Canon seems to be meeting distributors in the UK for more info regarding this.

Might be worth checking your UK Canon supplier regarding their preorder list - and in the uk getting some info or a name on the list before Focus in March.

[jbwise01]

It all comes down to competitiveness. If canon really thinks that people will switch to to Nikon because of price, they will most certainly drop the price. Based on what Nikon sells the d800 to distributors for, around $2690 USD, you would think that Nikon is clearly being aggressive with its initial price point on the d800 at $2999. It was mentioned earlier that canon could also be releasing some higher pricing info to stir things up a little bit. If everyone thinks the price should be $2799 then all of a sudden canon comes out with "around $3500" it will make people think less about the initial price if it comes out at $2899, everyone will start talking about how huge of a deal it is, and canon will also slap Nikon in the face with a dslr that will undercut them once again, growing their lens buying consumer base and broadening their market share.

[jbwise01]

One other thing that has been bugging me, all those out there talking about the d800 and the high MP problems, all that can be addressed by simply shooting in RAW-M ( 5,520 x 3,680 = 20.3 MP) that would basically give you a close match to the current 5dII. I think the d800 is intriguing bc you CAN shoot up to 36 mp if you need too, but for most walk around shooting you will be able to shoot at RAW-M 20.3 mp or even RAW-S at 9 MP and get great results with the enhanced metering features and af.