More Full Frame Cameras on the 2012 Horizon? [CR2/CR1]

[dilbert]

10+ yeas ago, everyone had full frame cameras.

And 10 years from now, almost no-one will own  a full frame camera.

Stop living in the past

Why does living in the present or the future require me to accept and use a lesser product than what I have owned previously?

This is a very good remark. However, this is exactly the answer to your previous post! If Canon makes an entry level FF camera it is mostly certain they'll discontinue 5DII. So they will have replaced a decent FF camera with a lesser one! (and force someone who does not like this to pay the exorbitant amount of 3500 for the 5DIII)

You're assuming that they won't introduce a new full frame camera that is better than the 5DII (in some way) and lesser than the 5DIII. In some ways, it would be hard for them to introduce a full frame camera that is worse than the 5DII.

[tron]

10+ yeas ago, everyone had full frame cameras.

And 10 years from now, almost no-one will own  a full frame camera.

Stop living in the past

Why does living in the present or the future require me to accept and use a lesser product than what I have owned previously?

This is a very good remark. However, this is exactly the answer to your previous post! If Canon makes an entry level FF camera it is mostly certain they'll discontinue 5DII. So they will have replaced a decent FF camera with a lesser one! (and force someone who does not like this to pay the exorbitant amount of 3500 for the 5DIII)

You're assuming that they won't introduce a new full frame camera that is better than the 5DII (in some way) and lesser than the 5DIII. In some ways, it would be hard for them to introduce a full frame camera that is worse than the 5DII.

It is very easy to produce a camera worse than 5DII.

1. They can use a 600-like body
2. They can omit Lens Micro Adjustment
3. They can put a worse viewfinder

Even the use of an SD card although of course NOT WORSE by itself may mean that many CF users who have put a lot of money to buy very good CF cards will have to buy again cards...

[Marsu42]

It is very easy to produce a camera worse than 5DII, 1. They can use a 600-like body, 2. They can omit Lens Micro Adjustment, 3. They can put a worse viewfinder. Even the use of an SD card although of course NOT WORSE by itself may mean that many CF users who have put a lot of money to buy very good CF cards will have to buy again cards...

They wouldn't dare to leave out afma for a ff body because the dof is even thinner than on crop. I think they'll cut back on the usual points you mentioned, too: worse af than 5d3, less processing power = lower fps, less sturdy body. And seeing sd cards on the 5d3, too, I think they'll go for these in the future.

But the main cut from the 5d3 & 5d2 imho will be what Canon marketing usually does: less customization & build in a lot of tiny annoyances that are somewhat workable around by an amateur with time on his hands, but hinder a pro and make him buy the "real thing".

[dilbert]

It is very easy to produce a camera worse than 5DII.

1. They can use a 600-like body
2. They can omit Lens Micro Adjustment
3. They can put a worse viewfinder

Even the use of an SD card although of course NOT WORSE by itself may mean that many CF users who have put a lot of money to buy very good CF cards will have to buy again cards...

The body counts for almost nothing. I don't get those who care about what the body is made from. It is never a deciding factor in any of my purchasing decision making.

There is precedence for AFMA being in lower end cameras. As was said in another comment, I don't believe they can get away with excluding this because of the engineering variations and thinness of DOF for FF cameras.

The viewfinder is almost certainly likely to be an area of compromise, but on the same note, if it is too bad then it will get panned by reviewers.

[tron]

The body counts for almost nothing. I don't get those who care about what the body is made from. It is never a deciding factor in any of my purchasing decision making.

The body counts very much if it is 600-like. I admit I didn't explain it completely. By mentioning body I was not focusing on plastics, polycarbonate, etc.

I was focusing to the controls. No top LCD and mainly NO Thumb Wheel.

[Cgdillan]

It is very easy to produce a camera worse than 5DII.

1. They can use a 600-like body
2. They can omit Lens Micro Adjustment
3. They can put a worse viewfinder

Even the use of an SD card although of course NOT WORSE by itself may mean that many CF users who have put a lot of money to buy very good CF cards will have to buy again cards...

I think more likely a
1. similar sensor as mkII
2. 7d-like body
3. digit 5 (not 5+)
4. similar to 7d AF
5. slow burst - same MP or 5-6 fps and fewer MP

[K-amps]

They wouldn't dare to leave out afma for a ff body because the dof is even thinner than on crop. I think they'll cut back on the usual points you mentioned, too: worse af than 5d3, less processing power = lower fps, less sturdy body. And seeing sd cards on the 5d3, too, I think they'll go for these in the future.

Here we go again...  Dof is thinner on a crop in absolute terms, it is only because you need to come closer to the subject (to get same framing) that the DoF in FF is thinner... or in other words, in crop you need to back off and the added distance between you and the subject being more, thickens the Dof... or in still other words, keep both FF & Crop the same distance from the subject, crop has thinner Dof.

[tron]

It is very easy to produce a camera worse than 5DII.

1. They can use a 600-like body
2. They can omit Lens Micro Adjustment
3. They can put a worse viewfinder

Even the use of an SD card although of course NOT WORSE by itself may mean that many CF users who have put a lot of money to buy very good CF cards will have to buy again cards...

I think more likely a
1. similar sensor as mkII
2. 7d-like body
3. digit 5 (not 5+)
4. similar to 7d AF
5. slow burst - same MP or 5-6 fps and fewer MP

Really???

You just described a much much better 5DmkII !!!

Same sensor, similar body, better electronics (Digic 5), better autofocus...

This is the camera between 5DII and 5DIII not an entry level...

I want one

[Marine03]

It is very easy to produce a camera worse than 5DII.

1. They can use a 600-like body
2. They can omit Lens Micro Adjustment
3. They can put a worse viewfinder

Even the use of an SD card although of course NOT WORSE by itself may mean that many CF users who have put a lot of money to buy very good CF cards will have to buy again cards...

I think more likely a
1. similar sensor as mkII
2. 7d-like body
3. digit 5 (not 5+)
4. similar to 7d AF
5. slow burst - same MP or 5-6 fps and fewer MP

Really???

You just described a much much better 5DmkII !!!

Same sensor, similar body, better electronics (Digic 5), better autofocus...

This is the camera between 5DII and 5DIII not an entry level...

I want one

What seems ridiculous to me is that the 5D2 was released 3+ years ago, you don't think with thousands and thousands of them on the streets that the cost of manufacturing can't be reduced to say 1,500?   Who cares if it used to cost 10 thousand dollars eventually things become cheaper.  If you could show me that there were not newer better camera's coming out anytime soon, how can I as a 450D user justify 2,000 on a nearly 4 year old body.   

As others have said this could make FF reasonable starter camera
 
60D Body
7D Autofocus
6FPS
no LCD on top
no weather proofing
No video  (i personally never take video) 

So put this camera where the 7D use to be at 1500, now when the 5DX comes slot that at like 2500 and then drop the 5D2 completely or price ijt at like 1200 

[preppyak]

No video  (i personally never take video) 

So put this camera where the 7D use to be at 1500, now when the 5DX comes slot that at like 2500 and then drop the 5D2 completely or price ijt at like 1200

No video instantly kills the market for that camera, and makes it impossible for Canon to sell it cheap. You want them to use a sensor they've already made (keeps cost down), in which case, video costs them nothing to add in. I can put video on a 50D, which wasn't sold with it, so it's clearly just a firmware/software addition. There may be a few hardware pieces to make it look better, but ultimately, it's cheap if not free. But, having it means way more people buy the camera, which means the cost of manufacturing is cheaper for Canon (offsets R&D, etc over many more consumers). Taking it out would definitely not offset the sales loss.

I agree that the body would have to be 60D like, the AF would probably be the 7D one, but I don't think they can put 6FPS in it, even if the camera can handle it. It'd have to be the same FPS as the 5dII. Even then, it probably still retails for $2k. I'd basically expect a 5dII with very slight improvements that allow them to be manufactured cheaper.

[Independent]

If Canon introduces an "entry level" FF camera, will it likely have a built-in flash?  Why is that verboten on the 5ds but not on Nikon's D800?  Any photographer could benefit from fill-in flash on some shots.

[Marine03]

No video  (i personally never take video) 

So put this camera where the 7D use to be at 1500, now when the 5DX comes slot that at like 2500 and then drop the 5D2 completely or price ijt at like 1200

No video instantly kills the market for that camera, and makes it impossible for Canon to sell it cheap. You want them to use a sensor they've already made (keeps cost down), in which case, video costs them nothing to add in. I can put video on a 50D, which wasn't sold with it, so it's clearly just a firmware/software addition. There may be a few hardware pieces to make it look better, but ultimately, it's cheap if not free. But, having it means way more people buy the camera, which means the cost of manufacturing is cheaper for Canon (offsets R&D, etc over many more consumers). Taking it out would definitely not offset the sales loss.

I agree that the body would have to be 60D like, the AF would probably be the 7D one, but I don't think they can put 6FPS in it, even if the camera can handle it. It'd have to be the same FPS as the 5dII. Even then, it probably still retails for $2k. I'd basically expect a 5dII with very slight improvements that allow them to be manufactured cheaper.

Ok so video is important to sales. Take 5dmk3 sensor limit ISO to 12000 drop to 5fps put in a cheaper body and use 7d AF.  Seem like a good compromise?   I'm not even sure why they use metal chassis when I've never beaten up my 450D. The screen is the delicate part

[tron]

What seems ridiculous to me is that the 5D2 was released 3+ years ago, you don't think with thousands and thousands of them on the streets that the cost of manufacturing can't be reduced to say 1,500?   Who cares if it used to cost 10 thousand dollars eventually things become cheaper.  If you could show me that there were not newer better camera's coming out anytime soon, how can I as a 450D user justify 2,000 on a nearly 4 year old body.   

As others have said this could make FF reasonable starter camera
 
60D Body
7D Autofocus
6FPS
no LCD on top
no weather proofing
No video  (i personally never take video) 

So put this camera where the 7D use to be at 1500, now when the 5DX comes slot that at like 2500 and then drop the 5D2 completely or price ijt at like 1200

I think enough with the psychological problems!
If some one wants a FF camera to upgrade from a Rebel how can the fact that 5DII is 4 years old, be a problem? Is it or is it not a much much better body?

As far as the price is concerned they surely can lower the price and have profit, the problem is they obviously want more...

Why no LCD on top? Is that costly? Even the cheapest analog autofocus Canon cameras had LCD on top!!!
Still apart from this you described a better than 5DII camera! I still want one!

[moreorless]

I can't see Canon being THAT cheap on the body, handicapping AF, lowering FPS, reducing weather sealing yes but lower quality than the 60D seems unlikely to me given the target audience.

My guess is that whether its cheap or not Canon's next FF body will push MP, they hinted that they were taking a "wait and see approach" with the D800 and more recently that there might be some kind of response latter this year.

Seems like theres alot of room to produce a true sucessor to the 5D mk2 without stepping on the 5D mk3's toes to much to me. Maybe reduce the build a little, offer less FPS, limate the AF to a smaller number of widely spaced points, one card slot and a 40 MP sensor. Price that below the D800 by $600-800 and I think it could potentially do very well.

[Marine03]

What seems ridiculous to me is that the 5D2 was released 3+ years ago, you don't think with thousands and thousands of them on the streets that the cost of manufacturing can't be reduced to say 1,500?   Who cares if it used 
no more...

Why no LCD on top? Is that costly? Even the cheapest analog autofocus Canon cameras had LCD on top!!!
Still apart from this you described a better than 5DII camera! I still want one!

Basically your telling me just because the mk2 is still good there is no reason for change. My 1996 Acura integra was the worlds fastest FWD car when it came out but somehow they made other cars.    And with what Nikon etc are putting on the market now it's time to thank th mk2 for its service but say good bye