Why did Canon Release the 5D MkIII (pure conjecture)

[V8Beast]

At that point, I don't think anyone would have dreamed that Canon would put a 61-point AF system with 41 cross-type points into the 5DIII, but they did, and now all of a sudden the camera is a POS? Anyone that suggested that the 5DIII might have 41 cross-type points at that stage was considered an idiot and flamed profusely.

I would like to point out that 61/41 point/cross point AF is old technology that Canon perfected in the EOS line over 15 years ago. It costs them essentially nothing to put it in any camera - no software development cost, no new hardware to develop. The marginal cost of the 61/41 point screen and AF sensor is essentially nil.  So yes it is an important feature, but hardly an advance of any kind.

Same for the ever so slightly higher frame rate (4 MkII vs 6 MkIII). That is a function of the size of the high speed memory buffer. It has nothing to do with the sensor. It is very old technology, with very little cost associated with the modest frame rate increase. It may have even cost less, given the drop in price of fast RAM since this MkII introduction.

I understand that these aren't important features to you, but for many people the new 61-point AF and faster burst rate are huge upgrades. Can we just leave it at that and move on?

[Cptn Rigo]

The DR is VERY BAD on this body! What do you mean a maybe? Have you even seen how it compares to, say D800? It is like comparing a Fiat to a nice BMW when it comes to DR! The IQ across all kinds of situations is evident by the sensor!

The DR is VERY BAD on the D800! Have you even seen how it compares to, say a welding camera? It is like comparing a Fiat to a nice BMW when it comes to DR! The IQ across all kinds of situations is evident by the sensor!

Wow... Records full UDR (Ultra-Dynamic-Range),  up to 1,000,000:1

[UrbanVoyeur]

I understand that these aren't important features to you, but for many people the new 61-point AF and faster burst rate are huge upgrades.

Actually, the 61 point auto-focus is a very important feature to me - as is the option of slaving the spot meter to the focus point, which I don't know if the 5D MkIII custom settings allow. It is one of my favorite features from the EOS 3 and the 1D line.

I do take exception to the 61 point auto-focus being touted as some great advance or new feature when it's really a freebie. As is the increased FPS from 4 to 6. To me, there is nothing in the MkIII that justifies the price.

I started this thread wondering how Canon could have ended up here, with a marginal upgrade at an inflated price that is completely out classed by an aggressively priced competitor with a massively improved sensor.

My thought was that Canon probably tried, but given the deadlines in manufacturing, just couldn't get their comparable sensor together in time for release. I do believe Canon has a high MP, low noise, high DR sensor at the same price point - there is nothing magical about the Sony sensor.

I hope Canon pulls it off in the near future and is able to manufacture it at scale, or they are in for a bumpy ride as lower cost derivatives of this Sony sensor filter through Nikon line up. I think we are seeing the first couple in the D3200 and upcoming D600. 

[V8Beast]

I started this thread wondering how Canon could have ended up here, with a marginal upgrade at an inflated price that is completely out classed by an aggressively priced competitor with a massively improved sensor.

From an IQ standpoint, I can see why some feel that the 5DIII is a marginal upgrade over the 5DII. I suppose it's all a matter of perspective, since I always thought that the 5DII was a marginal improvement over the 5DC. All it offered over the 5DC was an extra stop of DR and ISO, and 9 more megapixels. So if you were happy with the 5DC's IQ and resolution, there would be no point in upgrading. The 5DC's greatest flaws were its pathetic AF system, burst rate, weather sealing and build quality, and Canon didn't address any of them with the MKII.

IMHO, the MKII was a less revolutionary jump over the 5DC than the MKIII compared to the MKII, but again it all depends on your personal shooting needs.

On a broader scale, I'm not entirely convinced that the 1Dx represents a true merger of the 1D and 1Ds lines. The 1Dx is more of a 1DV than a 1DsIV. There were some rumors on this forum from a while back that suggested that the 1Ds line would morph into a small-form, gripless, studio-oriented body with a boatload of megapixels and a slow burst rate. I'd have no need for such a camera, but such a model isn't out of the question. Neither is an entry-level FF body slotted between the xxD line and the 5DIII.   

[briansquibb]

The 5DC's greatest flaws were its pathetic AF system, burst rate, weather sealing and build quality, and Canon didn't address any of them with the MKII.

It sounds like the D800 - same burst rate, weather sealing and build quality .......

[neuroanatomist]

I would like to point out that 61/41 point/cross point AF is old technology that Canon perfected in the EOS line over 15 years ago. It costs them essentially nothing to put it in any camera - no software development cost, no new hardware to develop. The marginal cost of the 61/41 point screen and AF sensor is essentially nil.  So yes it is an important feature, but hardly an advance of any kind.

Same for the ever so slightly higher frame rate (4 MkII vs 6 MkIII). That is a function of the size of the high speed memory buffer. It has nothing to do with the sensor. It is very old technology, with very little cost associated with the modest frame rate increase. It may have even cost less, given the drop in price of fast RAM since this MkII introduction.

Wow, so Canon had an AF system with many f/4-sensitive crosses?  They had AF sensors with >19 points and even one f/2.8+f/5.6 dual-cross, much less five? Which models were those again, I must have missed them? You also claimed that Nikon has outsold Canon for the past few years. From what orifice do you pull out these non-facts?

BTW, what makes you think the sensor is the only restriction on frame rate?  You don't suppose they might...just might...have needed to redesign the mirror assembly to achieve 6 fps vs. 4 fps for a FF camera, do you?  Nah, that conflicts with the non-facts pulled from your...well, I'll quit while I'm you're, ummm, behind.

[V8Beast]

Wow, so Canon had an AF system with many f/4-sensitive crosses?  They had AF sensors with >19 points and even one f/2.8+f/5.6 dual-cross, much less five? Which models were those again, I must have missed them? You also claimed that Nikon has outsold Canon for the past few years. From what orifice do you pull out these non-facts?

BTW, what makes you think the sensor is the only restriction on frame rate?  You don't suppose they might...just might...have needed to redesign the mirror assembly to achieve 6 fps vs. 4 fps for a FF camera, do you?  Nah, that conflicts with the non-facts pulled from your...well, I'll quit while I'm you're, ummm, behind.

You know, I really get tired of your facts sometimes. If you'd stick with assumptions and half-truths like most everyone else on online forums, it would make for more interesting debates. But no, you have to pull out all these inconvenient facts.

[Chuck Alaimo]

I started this thread wondering how Canon could have ended up here, with a marginal upgrade at an inflated price that is completely out classed by an aggressively priced competitor with a massively improved sensor.

there goes that hyperbole again.  The d800 has a slight edge in some areas, and the mk3 ghas a slight edge in others...hopelessly outclassed?  That would be hyperbole right there.  Both are excellent cameras.  Buy the one that suits your needs best......

[UrbanVoyeur]

Wow, so Canon had an AF system with many f/4-sensitive crosses?  They had AF sensors with >19 points and even one f/2.8+f/5.6 dual-cross, much less five? Which models were those again, I must have missed them?

Yes, the EOS 3 and 1V film cameras, had 45 focus points, 11 of which were cross 7-11 of which were cross depending on CR settings and worked from max aperture of f/1.0 down to f/5.6, depending on the lens. Adding more cross points was done very early in the EOS 1D line. So yes, this is very old tech.

You also claimed that Nikon has outsold Canon for the past few years. From what orifice do you pull out these non-facts?

I never claimed that. Where did I say that? I don't know who outsold whom in the past several years, and in any case it is not germain to any of my arguments.

BTW, what makes you think the sensor is the only restriction on frame rate?  You don't suppose they might...just might...have needed to redesign the mirror assembly to achieve 6 fps vs. 4 fps for a FF camera, do you?  Nah, that conflicts with the non-facts pulled from your...well, I'll quit while I'm you're, ummm, behind.

Again, a misquote. I said that the sensor had nothing to do with the increase in frame rate from 4-6.  I said that the size of the high speed RAM buffer on the camera controlled the FPS. More buffer RAM = higher FPS.

The mirror system would not need to be redesigned. Canon EOS film cameras have been capable of 6 FPS at the lowest model end for over 20 years. Nearly every EOS film camera that took a winder could do 6 FPS with the stock mirror. I know. I own them. Same mirror, same flip action. That problem has been solved. Canon does use a more robust reflex system when going for 11+ FPS, but again, the timing issues and mechanism were worked out at least 20 years ago. It's just a part number for them now.

[rj79in]

Wow, so Canon had an AF system with many f/4-sensitive crosses?  They had AF sensors with >19 points and even one f/2.8+f/5.6 dual-cross, much less five? Which models were those again, I must have missed them?

Yes, the EOS 3 film camera, which had 45 focus points, and either 19 or 21 of which were cross and all worked from f/1.2 down to f/4-8, depending on the lens and available light. The old EOS 1 film camera also had 45 points, 19+ were cross. So yes, this is very old tech.

You also claimed that Nikon has outsold Canon for the past few years. From what orifice do you pull out these non-facts?

I never claimed that. Where did I say that? I don't know who outsold whom in the past several years, and in any case it is not germain to any of my arguments.

BTW, what makes you think the sensor is the only restriction on frame rate?  You don't suppose they might...just might...have needed to redesign the mirror assembly to achieve 6 fps vs. 4 fps for a FF camera, do you?  Nah, that conflicts with the non-facts pulled from your...well, I'll quit while I'm you're, ummm, behind.

Again, a misquote. I said that the sensor had nothing to do with the increase in frame rate from 4-6.  I said that the size of the high speed RAM buffer on the camera controlled the FPS. More buffer RAM = higher FPS.

The mirror system would not need to be redesigned. Canon EOS film cameras have been capable of 6 FPS at the lowest model end for over 20 years. Nearly every EOS film camera that took a winder could do 6 FPS with the stock mirror. I know. I own them. Same mirror, same flip action. That problem has been solved. Canon does use a more robust reflex system when going for 11+ FPS, but again, the timing issues and mechanism were worked out at least 20 years ago. It's just a part number for them now.

These 'facts' are making me really curious. While the EOS-3 was launched in 1998 having the 45 point AF, why Canon never implemented this in any of the cameras other than the 1 series? Was it the issue of cost of production being high or was Canon simply hiding this up its sleeve all this while?

Another interesting 'fact' is that EOS-3 was launched at a price of 185,000 yen which translated to roughly USD 1500 in 1998. On current exchange rates, these yen translate to USD 2,300. That's a whopping $ 800 hit on forex alone.

Anyhow, I don't see the reason why Canon shouldn't be recovering its R&D cost even now, when it put this system in a very select group of products in the first place. Its all subjective though, if you don't agree with the price, don't buy it

[UrbanVoyeur]

These 'facts' are making me really curious. While the EOS-3 was launched in 1998 having the 45 point AF, why Canon never implemented this in any of the cameras other than the 1 series? Was it the issue of cost of production being high or was Canon simply hiding this up its sleeve all this while?

I don't know.  I don't think it is that expensive to implement.  From what I understand of the AF technology, the number of focus points and cross points  is more a matter of software analysis rather than major changes to the AF detector. And of course, a focusing screen withe LED overlay.

Hackers showed that it was possible to unlock the more focus points on lesser models cameras, like the 20 & 30D  and even configure more AF cross points.

Canon also never brought back eye focus (which I loved) or for most of its line, slaving the 2% spot meter to a selected focus point.  Though here again, hackers showed that the spot meter to focus point link existed in the firmware. And that it could be made into a 1% meter on some models.

Edit note: I was right about the number of AF points (45) in the 3 and 1V, but wrong about the number of cross points (max 11, not 19 or 21) . I corrected it in my post and I wanted to make sure you knew of the change.

Another interesting 'fact' is that EOS-3 was launched at a price of 185,000 yen which translated to roughly USD 1500 in 1998. On current exchange rates, these yen translate to USD 2,300. That's a whopping $ 800 hit on forex alone. 

That may have been the retail price. Film cameras typically sold for much less. I paid about $800 for the body at Adorama around 1999/2000.

Anyhow, I don't see the reason why Canon shouldn't be recovering its R&D cost even now, when it put this system in a very select group of products in the first place.

I guess, but I think they recovered the cost of all the legacy technology (that shared with film bodies) a long time ago. Overall, I'm more concerned that people think the AF, FPS and prism coverage are expensive tech and justify a price increase, or even maintaining the old price. They don't. They are essentially give aways.

[rj79in]

These 'facts' are making me really curious. While the EOS-3 was launched in 1998 having the 45 point AF, why Canon never implemented this in any of the cameras other than the 1 series? Was it the issue of cost of production being high or was Canon simply hiding this up its sleeve all this while?

I don't know.  I don't think it is that expensive to implement.  From what I understand of the AF technology, the number of focus points and cross points  is more a matter of software analysis rather than major changes to the AF detector. And of course, a focusing screen withe LED overlay.

Hackers showed that it was possible to unlock the more focus points on lesser models cameras, like the 20 & 30D  and even configure more AF cross points.

Canon also never brought back eye focus (which I loved) or for most of its line, slaving the 2% spot meter to a selected focus point.  Though here again, hackers showed that the spot meter to focus point link existed in the firmware. And that it could be made into a 1% meter on some models.

Edit note: I was right about the number of AF points (45) in the 3 and 1V, but wrong about the number of cross points (max 11, not 19 or 21) . I corrected it in my post and I wanted to make sure you knew of the change.

Another interesting 'fact' is that EOS-3 was launched at a price of 185,000 yen which translated to roughly USD 1500 in 1998. On current exchange rates, these yen translate to USD 2,300. That's a whopping $ 800 hit on forex alone. 

That may have been the retail price. Film cameras typically sold for much less. I paid about $800 for the body at Adorama around 1999/2000.

Anyhow, I don't see the reason why Canon shouldn't be recovering its R&D cost even now, when it put this system in a very select group of products in the first place.

I guess, but I think they recovered the cost of all the legacy technology (that shared with film bodies) a long time ago. Overall, I'm more concerned that people think the AF, FPS and prism coverage are expensive tech and justify a price increase, or even maintaining the old price. They don't. They are essentially give aways.

You may be right in this and maybe we are being ripped off, but I guess it makes least difference to Canon and/or Canon's customers for whom this upgrade is a must. Those who have concerns will either wait for the price to come down or for the 5DM4 to see whether that camera satisfies them for features, tech and price.

That said, I know what I want to buy for myself this Christmas 

[NormanBates]

* if you have any doubts that Canon is ripping you off, just look at the video side of the market; BlackMagic is selling (still not shipping, but that will come in august) a camera that puts all the canon, sony, panasonic, etc, models to shame, for $3K (with $1500 of awesome software included); Canon could do the same, with a bigger sensor, for $4K; yet they prefer to sell it for $40K; good for them, but just don't expect me to buy it (ok, the C500 has some things that are better than the BMC, but some are worse too; definitely not worth the price difference unless $30K is just small change for you)

* the problem for Canon is that they (just like anyone else) are trying to hit a moving target; before the D800, all we wanted was a 5D2 with better AF, better construction and weather sealing, and cleaner video; and that's what the 5D3 is; the problem? in the meantime Nikon shipped a full frame camera with 36 Mpix and >14 stops of DR, for $3000; suddenly, better AF and construction is not enough; and at $3500 it's silly

* $3500 is silly not because it's more expensive than the 5D2 launch price; it's silly because a similar camera with much better IQ is selling for $3000

* one more reason to expect a price drop on the 5D3 once it's out of back-order:
aug-2010: Canon launches 60D at $1400
sep-2010: Nikon launches D7000 at $1200; it's better in some areas (noise, DR, color) but worse in others (mpix, video, swivel screen)
oct-2010: 60D has fallen to $1250, D7000 remains at $1200
since jan-2011: 60D almost always cheaper than D7000
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Canon-60D-3-0-Inch-18-135mm-Standard/product/B0040JHVC2
http://camelcamelcamel.com/Nikon-16-2MP-DX-Format-Digital-3-0-Inch/product/B0042X9LC4
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Compare-Camera-Sensors/Compare-cameras-side-by-side/%28appareil1%29/680|0/%28brand%29/Nikon/%28appareil2%29/663|0/%28brand2%29/Canon

[jrsforums]

BlackMagic....now that is a well known, trusted maker of cameras with a great track record of development, manufacturing, and support.   

[neuroanatomist]

Wow, so Canon had an AF system with many f/4-sensitive crosses?  They had AF sensors with >19 points and even one f/2.8+f/5.6 dual-cross, much less five? Which models were those again, I must have missed them?

Yes, the EOS 3 and 1V film cameras, had 45 focus points, 11 of which were cross 7-11 of which were cross depending on CR settings and worked from max aperture of f/1.0 down to f/5.6, depending on the lens. Adding more cross points was done very early in the EOS 1D line. So yes, this is very old tech.

The center point was an f/4 cross, the others required f/2.8 or faster lenses. With every 1-series digital body and with the 1V and 3 film cameras, an f/4 lens gives one and only one cross point (except certain specific f/4 lenses on more recent bodies), and an f/5.6 lens gives you no cross points at all.  On the 1D X and 5DIII, an f/4 lens means 41 crosses, an f/5.6 lens means 21 crosses, and an f/2.8 means 41 crosses and 5 dual crosses.  Old tech and AF sensor redesign, sure.