1Ds Mklll - and what comes next?

[macfly]

So today I was in my local camera store (Samys LA) picking up a couple of S95's for clients for Christmas, and got chatting to the sales team. Turns out that they haven't had a Mklll on the floor for well over twelve months, they simply can't get them, and no one wants them either, the 5d has obliterated its sales.

So, given that we are in a global recession, I'd say we are not likely to see another 1Ds type camera. It appears that the focus of market interest has shifted massively to video, both in the media and with the amateur, so that is where all the manufactures are looking too. Based on past twelve months sales performance of the Mklll it is pretty obvious that there simply isn't a market for the MkIV, meaning that the 5D Mklll will almost certainly be promoted to Canon's 'flagship' camera.

That leads to the question of what is the body that has been talked about here that will break with the EOS tradition?

 I suspect it will be a Red camera competitor with stills ability, because there simply isn't a market for a high end digital still only camera anymore. (Oh, yeah, they are selling only a very few medium format digi systems each month too, and that is at LA's busiest camera store, so I don't see much of a business case to chase that market segment.)

Thoughts anyone?

[Viggo]

I'm not going to say something about what I think or if I think there will be be another 1ds, but, the 5d will NOT take that segment. That is for sure, and this based on the fact that the 5d original and the 5dII are very simillar cameras, and for anyone who has ever used a 1d, the 5d as the main FF camera is not an option. Then they have to upgrade it so much that it becomes a 1ds anyway.

I think we will see a 1ds with twice the framerate in the 1dsmkIV and certainly very nice video with AF. It will be able to produce superlarge files for studio and still able to shoot faster action, and for the first time, be used along side the 1d, for example, as a goal camera with the 14mm f2,8 attached.


And maybe they do something crazy with a huge sensor, referring to the largest sensor ever amde and the 120mp 1,3x sensor they made earlier... 

[unfocused]

Actually, I'm more interested in your opinion Macfly. You are one of the few regular participants in this forum that clearly has standing as a successful, working pro. What do you need in a digital slr?

I think some trends may provide hints of where the manufacturers are going and it would be interesting to know if these trends are likely to meet your needs.

Some questions: With the trend lines moving toward higher megapixel counts coupled with further improvements in image quality and sensitivity is there still a need for medium format bodies in your work? Would a full frame body with pixel density comparable to the 7D (somewhere in the range of 40-50 mp) give you enough resolution for your images, even if they need to be used as billboards, etc?

Do you really need the "bomb-proof" build quality of the flagship bodies, or would the build quality of the 5D or 7D be adequate for the work that you do?

What features are deal-makers or deal breakers in a body? Frame-rate, autofocus points, autofocus speed, low-light sensitivity, micro-adjustment, articulating screen, continuous autofocus in movie mode?

If your only choices are the full frame 5D-type body or a more durable 1D body with 1.3 crop, which would you select?

My point here is that you are one of the few people (perhaps the only one) on this forum that has the professional experience and expertise to provide some guidance as to what a flagship camera should offer.

Here's my less-informed opinion:

I think medium format cameras are becoming dinosaurs. Each generation of sensor shows improved image quality, sensitivity and resolution. At some point very soon, any advantage a larger sensor may have will become academic and the traditional 35mm sensor size will become the modern-day equivalent of an 8x10 view camera.

There is a divergence in the needs of professional photographers. News, sports and wildlife photographers need bodies that can stand up to extreme abuse. Sensor size is not as important and as the technology advances it will become even less important. Commercial, studio, fashion and portrait photographers put a premium on image quality. While the build quality of the camera is important, it's not important enough to justify paying double or triple the cost of a camera with the same image quality.

Video can be important to both. Increasingly, clients want multimedia for their projects. If the videographer and the still photographer both carry the same basic equipment it reduces the risk of missing shots due to equipment failure. Having the ability to use the same model camera body for both videos and stills reduces the amount of equipment needed on assignment and increases redundancy in mission critical situations.

I really don't think either Canon or Nikon will abandon the high end market. I don't think they make much money at that level, but it is important for other reasons, particularly for research and development and marketing. But, I do think they are taking a serious look at the market and trying to figure out if the old paradigms still meet the needs.

Anyway, I do appreciate your comments and participation in this forum and would love to hear your opinion.

[epsiloneri]

I think medium format cameras are becoming dinosaurs.

I know you asked for macfly's opinion, I'd just like to comment on this. I think medium format cameras will always find their audience, and as the sensors become better and cheaper, even more so than today! The number of pixels is not everything, cramming 50 mp into FF will not make it MF equivalent. The MF main advantage is not in their number of pixels, but in their larger sensor areas that are easier to produce excellent lenses for. I envision that in a not too distant future the sensor will be an insignificant cost of a camera, while lens prices will dominate the budget. In such a situation it is much cheaper to produce a MF camera with lens than a FF camera with lens that produces an equivalent quality picture. Today that's not the case, as MF sensors are very pricey. It's the same reason you need a really outstanding lens to produce as nice images on an APS-C as a mediocre lens is able on a FF, only amplified in the MF case.

[kubelik]

also waiting to hear mac's opinion, but in the meantime, my observations on the market:

medium format is a niche, but probably a niche that will survive.  it's not about pixels, it's about image quality and color rendition.  I don't know of any pros that shoot MF just to get huge files, they do it because there's a quality to the images they get out of the backs that DSLRs do not manage to do.  I'm waiting for DSLRs to shoot 16-bit TIFF still, to me that should be next on the evolutionary ladder for Canon.

nikon's recent d7000 shows that there's still room for APS-C and FF sensors to grow in terms of image quality as well, without having to get bigger (or go down in MP count if that's your thing).

while demand for the 1Ds seems to have died out, people still seem pretty interested in the 1D ... so it's possible that the next iteration of the 1D will simply be the 1D Mark V, shooting 10 FPS on a FF sensor.  the 5D will get the 1Ds AF system, build quality, viewfinder, and a well-designed accessory grip, and jump up in price ... I'd shell out 3K to 4K for a camera like that.

I agree that if Canon is serious about chasing the video market, and every signal so far shows that they are, they are going to be focusing heavily on improving the video aspect; eliminating jello, improving color rendition, outputting raw video, improved audio inputs... the list could go on for a long long time.  there are endless things that Canon needs to put into the 5D to make it truly, truly competitive as a video camera, but here's the thing: Canon already knows how to do all those things, evidenced by its experience in the film and TV industry.  so I have no doubt they could be very successful if they set themselves to do it.

if they do all that, it will no doubt push whatever camera this is into the traditional 1Ds price range... so I'm still not really sure what the final lineup would look like in order to make sense.

I'm sure there's some fair amount of debate in senior management at Canon over the same issue; seems to me they are battling to retain market dominance across several fronts, and that is always a difficult task.

[macfly]

Unfocused let me try to answer those questions...

Firstly let me explain that I really have two quite 2 separate types of work, even though they can be a part of the same job.
1.) Structured. This is mostly film posters, magazine covers, or CD booklets. This is all shot at 100asa using a Hasselblad H series camera with a P65 back.

2.) Free form. This is mostly inside pages of magazines, CD covers, press & pr shoots, bands on stage, etc. I have used the EOS range for all of this since 1991, transitioning to digital for certain client with the D60, and all clients with the 1Ds Mkl.

So could one camera do both?   
Yes, but honestly it would need to trump the pixel count of medium format to satisfy clients. They don't want to be driven in a Merc if the competition has a Rolls Royce, even though both will get you there just fine.
If Canon could put that 120MP chip in a fast body like the 1Ds, and have it work seamlessly with Capure One, which is the preferred software on most sets, then I think they would basicially kill the MF market stone dead overnight, much as the 5D Mkll did to the EOS.  (I absolutely hate the Hasselblad H series camera, it was designed by people who don't work with cameras, and made by people who shouldn't make toilets. I loved my Contax 645, that was a lovely system, and I really regret it not transitioning to the 'now', however I'd be thrilled to be all EOS all the time.)

Do you really need the "bomb-proof" build quality of the flagship bodies?
That is an interesting question, I'd say yes because I like solid, well made things, but based on the sales figures that started this thread I'm in the minority of one! The 5D is easy to replace if you break it, and you can have three of them for the price of one EOS, so it has that going for it.

What features are deal-makers or deal breakers in a body? Frame-rate, autofocus points, autofocus speed, low-light sensitivity, micro-adjustment, articulating screen, continuous autofocus in movie mode?
They are all important factors in the current market, but I would certainly put image quality at the top of the list. If Nikon is giving you better images then you are doing your clients a disservice by working with a Canon. Quite honestly quality trumps everything, again that is why I spend so many days shooting with the P65, and now the Nikon D3s - they provide my clients with the best quality files.

If your only choices are the full frame 5D-type body or a more durable 1D body with 1.3 crop, which would you select?
I'd say the 5D, again because quality is king.

I also do agree with your opinions.
(I have a friend who works in satellite imaging systems, and they are already exceeding the quality of a 8x10 on a FF chip, so it is coming - eventually)



kubelik, you touch on something every notable, Canon in both braodcast and cinema make some of the finest lenses and equipment, and could well bring that qulity to our world if they thought they could make it profitable. I suspect that it would be hard based on the current cost of Canon's cine lenses...
 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/423758-REG/Canon_HJ11X4_7B_II_KLL_SC_HJ11x47BKLLSC_11x_2_3_Cine.html

As you can tell by the price above we are in an odd area where our market is really being defined the term 'pro-sumer' and these days that seems to be to the detrement of the 'pro', which is in part why I started the thread, to see what others would say, or want.

[NotABunny]

any advantage a larger sensor may have will become academic and the traditional 35mm sensor size will become the modern-day equivalent of an 8x10 view camera.

Nothing stops sensor developers to use the same technology in medium frame sensors, which means that because of their larger size they would provide better quality.

Phase One P65+ has a sensor of 53.9 x 40.4mm, which gives it an advantage of 1.3 stops over a full frame sensor.

[unfocused]

Thanks Macfly for taking the time to respond. It's educational to hear the real-world viewpoint of a working pro. Too many times, we get bogged down in esoteric debates over this or that feature and don't focus enough on what really counts – the image.

Your images, by the way, are incredible. Perhaps we can get CR Guy to sponsor a workshop with you.  I'd vote for Chicago or St. Louis.

[macfly]

Thank you unfocused, I feel incredibly lucky to get to do what I love for a living.

[kubelik]

As you can tell by the price above we are in an odd area where our market is really being defined the term 'pro-sumer' and these days that seems to be to the detrement of the 'pro', which is in part why I started the thread, to see what others would say, or want.

mac, lots of prosumers here so we can definitely discuss that segment of the market.

for me and what I see of the prosumers I personally know and shoot with, in terms of priority, it all comes down to price-to-image quality ratio.  there's a lot of ways to calculate bang-for-the-buck, but I think this is the one that goes through most people's heads.  this is why the 5D and the 5DII were such major sellers.  the FPS rate is unimpressive.  the AF is paleolithic.  the weathersealing is good but just enough to leave you wondering what the tipping point really is.

the 7D is an interesting counterpoint to the 5DII, as it is basically the option for people who favor FPS and AF over image quality.  it sells well, but not as well as the 5DII, and especially not if it were priced like the 5DII.  that tells you something, that image quality is still the most important thing.

prosumers are willing to spend lots of money on something, provided it's worth it.  there are prosumers out there who buy big (really big) white lenses, because in the end, a lens like the 300 f/2.8 or 500 f/4 is actually still great bang for the buck -- it's a class leading lens that you can use for years and years in all sorts of environments.

canon seems to be taking the opposite approach in crafting its lineup.  even to me, a happy canonite, I currently feel that canon is trying to see how little bang-for-the-buck they can put in each body to hit a price point.  it's frankly very disturbing, I don't think it's a positive way to approach any business, and it is most certainly not sustainable.

I can think of a parallel in the car industry -- Toyota.  for a long time, toyotas were excellent at giving you bang-for-the-buck in terms of quality, leading a class in a combination of price, safety features, interior finishes and comfort, and reliability.  my entire family bought their cars for a decade and were happy to be loyal customers.  my last vehicle was a 2001 Corolla which, long before the recent recall debacle, demonstrated to me it was nowhere near the build quality of my 1991 corolla I had driven for 200,000 miles.  end of the story?  I am now a very proud hyundai sonata owner, because Hyundai is currently the manufacturer approaching its lineup from a perspective of "how can we generate the most added value" rather than the perspective of "how can we slash costs but still end up with acceptable product"

[macfly]

Very good parallel.

One of the things that mystifies me that I see in a lots of blogs, from DP review to Luminous Landscape even at times here, is people not wanting higher MP chips. I think that the Canon G12 for instance is a huge step backwards from the G10. I thought it was just me, but talking to the team at Samys the other day they are getting the same negative feedback on it from loads of people.

Making the quality of something worse seems really counter intuitive to me, but I bought the G12 to see if I could understand the 'static' for lower resolution chips. Well, I can't, and the fact that Canon has spoilt what was a good product, and was on the way to being a great one, with such a huge step back has really put me on notice that Canon may not really know what they are doing anymore.

On the other end of the scale the Leica, reviewed here earlier in the year, has shown how a company can come back from the brink with an incredible product, and take a chair at the top of the hill once more. I started my career on Nikon F2's an F3's, and so I would prefer to return to Nikon than say switch to Sony, but whoever takes the high ground will get my business, and for the first time in twenty years Canon is not the sure thing slam dunk it has been.

I see that Olympus has also taken out a bunch of patents for a modular camera, so maybe that is the path of the future, and maybe if someone can check the patent office it will show up what Canon are doing. I could see a single unit with a back optimized for video, another for super high quality stills, another for mad fast sports at 'medium' quality, all using the same glass, especially if it is of the quality of that cine lens I posted.

[Bob Howland]

It isn't that I don't want higher MP chips, it's that I need much more dynamic range and much lower noise at high ISOs much more than I need more pixels. I did a series of interior and exterior architectural photographs for a local historical village/museum with a Canon 5D and had to use Photomatix Pro for virtually all of them. A couple stops more DR would have made my life much easier.

I also tried to photograph Yuletide re-enactors at the same village/museum, in rooms lit by three candles. A typical exposure was 1/15 sec, f/1.4 at ISO 3200. High ISO image quality as good as a D3s at ISO 51,200 would allow me to use my 17-35 and 24-70 zoom lenses and get up to 1/60 sec.

[kubelik]

agreed on both issues.

I think the backtracking on the MP count was silly.  it's not true progress when you're regressing one part of your technology in order improve another feature.  that's side-stepping, and ultimately a waste of time.  as bob noted, the real focus should have been on how to get better image quality out of the same number of MP.

I'm going to go a step further and say, it's not just at high ISOs that I'm expecting to see better dynamic range and color rendition, I want to see improvements even at ISO 100.  an extra stop in the shadows and highlights and 16-bit color would be a huge step forward from what the 5DII is doing right now, for any kind of shooting, from landscapes to athletics.

I think the Leica example actually is heartening; just goes to show that you really just need to get it really really right with one camera and that can change everything.  so here's to hoping that either the 5DIII or 1Ds IV or 1D V is that camera.