*UPDATE* More 5D Mark III / 1D Mark V & Lenses [CR2]

[foobar]

Some of use would pay it, gladly. Hell, I'd pay $10,000 for a 200-500 f/2.8-4, especially if they could keep the maximum aperture at f/2.8 from 200mm to 350mm. (350mm/2.8 = 500mm/4 = 125mm)

Maybe this is what you're looking for: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/200-500mm-f28-apo-ex-dg-sigma

[JLN]

AFAIK there's no room for a flash in the hump -- the FF pentaprism fills it pretty much up.

It should be possible with a slight redesign, the d700 uses a FF pentaprism and fits a flash.

[Canon 14-24]

Like how people hoped the features of the 7d would be in the 60d, I would predict the same thing is going to happen with Canon in the FF segment (5D3 and 3D anyone?). 

Save the 5D3 for later and put out a 3D in a higher price bracket ($2999.99 or 3499.99 seem fair starting prices body only).  Give it 100% viewfinder coverage, built in wireless, throw in a couple more pixels, iso-stop improvement, 60fps and video crop features?, and improved AF like how the 7D did on top of the xxD series.

[Grummbeerbauer]

Therefore, since cameras are finite, how could canon improve the 5DIII without damaging the 1DS series ? Only by merging 1DS with 1D with a price a bit above the 1DIV. They can't force the current 1D pro users to pay much higher prices. It is a possibility that the new merged 1D to be an FF high res camera with 5fps, with 1.3 crop ability reaching 10fps? With this, canon can give the 5DIII a 7D AF without a problem, since it will still be a 4fps camera, without special functionality and durability of the 1D, and the price difference with the new 1D is smaller too. The more we get near the limit of what we need, the more the prices will drop. The 60D is an example, and I feel the new 1Ds/1D will be next. I have doubts about the pricing of the 5DIII.

This is just what I am predicting, but I am 100% sure that I will get the 5DIII

You think too much like a Canon executive, and to little like a Canon customer. 

After all, Nikon has the D700, which (with battery grip) came pretty close to Nikon's top model at the time of its appearance -- same AF system as D3, very high fps with grip (8fps, 5fps without), same resolution. And it seems Nikon was still selling D3(s) at that time.
I feel that a 5D Mk.III (although I think it might end up being the infamous "3D", see below) should compete with a D700 (or rather its successor), i.e., should offer an improved AF and higher FPS. At the same price point as the D700(or successor) I am willing trade some of the D700 extra fps and some of its 50+ AF points for the higher res of the 5D Mk.II. So they should make it 24+MP, give it the 7D AF and spec it at ~6fps (if it were 8fps I wouldn't mind, though ). 
And about damaging the 1Ds series: the 1Ds Mk.III is begging for a replacement, so while a 5D Mk.III as I sketched it above would of course overshadow the current Mk.III in many aspects, the overdue 1Ds Mk.IV will restore order in Canon's camera line up.

This camera will definitely be a tad more expensive than the current 5D MkII (yes, despite Nikon having the D700 at a price below the 5D Mk.II, which beats the 5D Mk.II in every regard except resolution, canon will try to continue with their customer rip off).
However, with that spec, there would be space for for a 5DMk.IIn (essentially the current one, perhaps the same sensor as the camera I sketched above), but lower fps, simpler AF, but adding some of the gimmicks of the day (in particular a 3:2 screen and the movie switch from the 7D).
This camera could then continue occupying the price point of the current 5DMk.II or D700.

[Bob Howland]

Some of use would pay it, gladly. Hell, I'd pay $10,000 for a 200-500 f/2.8-4, especially if they could keep the maximum aperture at f/2.8 from 200mm to 350mm. (350mm/2.8 = 500mm/4 = 125mm)

Maybe this is what you're looking for: http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/200-500mm-f28-apo-ex-dg-sigma

I was thinking of something weighing a little less than the current 400 f/2.8. The Sigma lens weighs more than the Canon 200 f/2, 300 f/2.8, 400 f/2.8 and 500 f/4 lenses combined. Its front element has to be at least 178mm or 53mm more than the 500 f/4 and my proposed zoom and 28mm more than the 600 f/4.

[kubelik]

Bob, any idea of how to do a rough calculation to see if that would be possible?  I have no idea how these things are formulated but it seems wild that a 2.5x zoom with the same max aperture as a prime would be able to weigh less than the prime?

[Bob Howland]

Bob, any idea of how to do a rough calculation to see if that would be possible?  I have no idea how these things are formulated but it seems wild that a 2.5x zoom with the same max aperture as a prime would be able to weigh less than the prime?

The "free aperture" of a lens, meaning the diameter of the lens aperture "hole" can be calculated by dividing the lens focal length (350mm) by the f-value [f/2.8]. The front element of a lens must be at least as large as its free aperture [which is why the 120-300 f/2.8 Sigma isn't a 120-300 f/2.8] and the weight of a telephoto lens is largely determined by its focal length and the size of its front elements. With a zoom, the calculation has to be made at multiple focal lengths but the worst case is almost always the longest focal length and the f-value at that focal length. This is always true for lenses with fixed maximum apertures. For example, for the 200-500 f/2.8, the clear aperture is 71mm at 200mm and 178mm at 500mm. For my proposed lens, the clear aperture is 71mm at 200mm and 125mm at 350mm through 500mm.

For my proposed lens, I am making the "simplifying assumption" that (a) the larger free aperture of the 400 f/2.8 and (b) the longer maximum focal length and fact that my lens is a zoom will largely cancel each other out when estimating weight.

A lot of people seem to think of fixed maximum apertures as some sort of Holy Grail. I think it's very overrated for telephoto lenses. Consider the benefits of having a 120-300 f/2-2.8 that is still f/2 at 210mm, a 200-500 f/2.8-4 that is still f/2.8 at 350mm and a 300-800 f/4-5.6 that is still f/4 at 560mm. Whether lenses could actually be designed like that is another question but, hey, I'm just a frustrated marketing guru.

[neuroanatomist]

A lot of people seem to think of fixed maximum apertures as some sort of Holy Grail. I think it's very overrated for telephoto lenses.

For those who shoot in Manual mode, a variable aperture is a pain in the butt.  If you use an autoexposure mode (Av, Tv), it's much less of an issue.  I wouldn't say that it's overrated, though - a fixed aperture telezoom means one that's faster at the long end, meaning more useful in low-light situations, or sharper if you stop down since you're not shooting wide open at the long end.

But, I agree that people don't consider the tradeoffs - for example, would people who complain about the variable aperture of the Canon 100-400mm lens and wish it was a constant f/4 really want it to be 15" long and weigh 8 pounds, not to mention costing several thousand dollars more?  I think most people who want that constant aperture want it without having to pay the premium in weight and cost.

[kubelik]

Interesting info; thanks for sharing that.  Speaking of the sigmas, that's where I got the idea of a 150-450 f/4-5.6.  Sigma puts out numerous lenses roughly in that range but doesn't quite do any of them really right.  Perhaps a 200-500 f/4-5.6?  Both of these would have much easier focal length ratios to deal with, a larger max aperture at equivalent length to the existing 100-400, and justify the sticker price that would inevitably be a >50% increase over the 100-400.  Beyond that, these should be not only lighter than the 400 f/2.8, they should be lighter than the 300 f/2.8.

Most of all, if sigma can do at least a decent job with these lenses (as they've shown they can), canon should be able to make something really stunning out of these focal lengths

[stark-arts]

Ahh, but the built-in flash on the 7d is ALSO a wireless controller, and that's a cool and useful feature that I'd love to have on a 5dIII

JSP

Yes I use the 7D bulti-in as a wireless controller a lot, have never used it as a direct flash (so far :-) ). However, I've understood that built in flash is a bit of a compromise concerning weatherproofing, so on a more high end camera I rather do without.

[Bob Howland]

For those who shoot in Manual mode, a variable aperture is a pain in the butt.  If you use an autoexposure mode (Av, Tv), it's much less of an issue.  I wouldn't say that it's overrated, though - a fixed aperture telezoom means one that's faster at the long end, meaning more useful in low-light situations, or sharper if you stop down since you're not shooting wide open at the long end.

But, I agree that people don't consider the tradeoffs - for example, would people who complain about the variable aperture of the Canon 100-400mm lens and wish it was a constant f/4 really want it to be 15" long and weigh 8 pounds, not to mention costing several thousand dollars more?  I think most people who want that constant aperture want it without having to pay the premium in weight and cost.

When using my 100-400 in manual, I make sure that I initially set the aperture at 400mm. Since the maximum aperture there is f/5.6 and I'm setting the aperture at the camera not at the lens, the lens stays at f/5.6 when I zoom. (The opposite is true at minimum aperture, i.e., f/22-f/32. It has to be set at 100mm.) Back when I was using an FTb (manual focus and manual exposure), yes, you're right. variable aperture in a zoom would have been a real pain, which is probably why I never owned a variable aperture zoom until I bought the 100-400.

[OnteoEOS]

Makes sense moving the 5D in the higher market and merging the 1D series.

I would not be surprised if the 7D moved to APSH

[c.d.embrey]

Why do Canon owners want prosumer (hate the word) 7D focus, while Nikon owners get the same Pro focus/metering as the D3s with the D700.

Time to vote with your money. If the 5D III isn't what you want, DON"T BUY IT! And be very vocal about why you don't buy it!

I'm not advocating switching to Nikon. Just keep using your present camera, and write letters to Canon explaining why you aren't wasting your money on their new model. BTW Snail-Mail is much more effective than E-Mail.

[Justin]

Honestly, if there is no IS in a 24-70 refresh I am going to be extremely disappointed. It makes no sense to put it in the standard zoom lens APS-C compatible lens, but not the full frame equivalent.

[neuroanatomist]

It makes no sense to put it in the standard zoom lens APS-C compatible lens, but not the full frame equivalent.

It's already in the FF equivalent of the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS - that lens has a FF equivalent focal length and DoF for equivalent framing as a 27-88mm f/4.5 lens, so actually the 24-105mm f/4L IS used on a FF camera is wider, longer, and faster than the 17-55mm f/2.8 used on a 1.6x crop body.