Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]

[ishdakuteb]

The rumored specs have me a bit confused...

For $2000 you get:

22mp 5D3 sensor?

19 point AF - Ok, this sounds reasonable.

4fps - Makes sense.

ISO 100-51200 - Taking into consideration that this camera will have a 5D3 sensor; wouldn't this mean that ISO performance at ISO 51200 would be the same as 5D3? Canon just eliminated ISO 102400... but 102400 is unusable anyway... Logic tells me that this new entry level FF camera will not perform the same as a 5D3... but then that would mean that Canon just de-tuned the heck out of the 5D3 sensor and it's capabilities... Lose money lol

3"LCD - Ok

Smaller than 5D Mark II - If it's smaller, than does this mean that there is no quick reference display on the top of the body? Or does this simply mean that it may be "slightly" smaller than a 5D2? Maybe the size of a 60D? In which case, it being the size of a 60D is pretty irrelevant information since it's not that much smaller than a 5D2...

More plastic than metal in the construction - So this camera will be packed with what sounds like great performance features but will be built like a toy?

Pop-up flash - Ok

$1999 USD at launch - Ok

Launched with new non-L full frame kit lens - Whatever

Compatible with full frame STM lenses - Whatever

So in a nutshell, for $1500 less than a 5D Mark 3 you get the same sensor and ISO performance (up to ISO 51200), a crappier AF system, and 2fps less continuous shooting speed, but have to live with the thing being built like a toy... On that note, for $100-$200 less than a 5D Mark 2 you get a way better sensor, ISO performance, AF system, and 1fps more continuous shooting speed, but have to live with the thing being built like a toy because even the 5D Mark II was mostly metal in construction. Does anyone else think these specs don't seem realistic?

ahaha... love you comments.  it is so true... (built like a toy).

[PhotoCharlie]

Oh, and as for terminating posts and posters, a word to the you know who. There's a strong Judeo-Christian bias in that neighborhood; something as innocuous as the "F" word will get you terminated here in the gentleman's club.

One of the elements I have appreciated about canonrumors forums is the generally cordial attitude and posts.  If the Moderator has to pull a few comments to keep it that way then so be it.  Censorship only occurs when people can't censor nor control themselves.  I really can't stand to spend much time on NikonRumors because of the frequent F bombs, name calling and general uncivil attitude.  Thanks CanonRumors for a better environment.

[Bosman]

If there is plastic and it is smaller than the 5dm3 then if it was in a 7d body it would be smaller and as for the plastic, a pop-up flash would be plastic, probably nothing else.

[takoman46]

The rumored specs have me a bit confused...

For $2000 you get:

22mp 5D3 sensor?

19 point AF - Ok, this sounds reasonable.

4fps - Makes sense.

ISO 100-51200 - Taking into consideration that this camera will have a 5D3 sensor; wouldn't this mean that ISO performance at ISO 51200 would be the same as 5D3? Canon just eliminated ISO 102400... but 102400 is unusable anyway... Logic tells me that this new entry level FF camera will not perform the same as a 5D3... but then that would mean that Canon just de-tuned the heck out of the 5D3 sensor and it's capabilities... Lose money lol

3"LCD - Ok

Smaller than 5D Mark II - If it's smaller, than does this mean that there is no quick reference display on the top of the body? Or does this simply mean that it may be "slightly" smaller than a 5D2? Maybe the size of a 60D? In which case, it being the size of a 60D is pretty irrelevant information since it's not that much smaller than a 5D2...

More plastic than metal in the construction - So this camera will be packed with what sounds like great performance features but will be built like a toy?

until here it´s ok.. but then it´s nonsense.. try to break such a "toy" camera.
i have abused my cheap 550D in every way except droping/exposing it into water.

i can tell you it´s hard to break such a "toy".

my 5D MK2 sure feels better.. but i have NO reservation to abuse my 550D under hard conditions. i dropped it a few times. thank good with no lens attached.

I'm not saying that it will break if it's plastic, but rather wouldn't you expect a $2000 camera body to have better build quality; especially if it is going to cater to upper end enthusiasts and possibly professionals? I think it's pretty risky to be taking a plastic camera to shoots where you might encounter rain, high humidity, and extreme temperature changes (such as shooting outdoors in the cold and then going inside into a warm climate controlled environment where condensation will rapidly build on the camera). A plastic body will probably not have the same weather sealing as a metal body. When I first started shooting DSLR, I had my Rebel XT glitch out when condensation built on the body. But I vacuum sealed it with a few desiccant packs for a couple days and that luckily saved it.

[AdamJ]

ahaha... love you comments.  it is so true... (built like a toy).

ishdakuteb, please stop trolling.

[Canon-F1]

the one thing is weather sealing.. the other a magnesium alloy.

sure weather sealing would be nice.. but you can have that without a metal body.

[takoman46]

the one thing is weather sealing.. the other a magnesium alloy.

sure weather sealing would be nice.. but you can have that without a metal body.

I agree that it is possible for a non-metal body to be weather sealed. All the underwater housings for DSLRs prove that as they are all made of plastic. But I have never seen a plastic DSLR body that was weather sealed. So based upon past trends in construction, a plastic body would indicate no weather sealing.

[DanielW]

The rumored specs have me a bit confused...

For $2000 you get:

22mp 5D3 sensor?

19 point AF - Ok, this sounds reasonable.

4fps - Makes sense.

ISO 100-51200 - Taking into consideration that this camera will have a 5D3 sensor; wouldn't this mean that ISO performance at ISO 51200 would be the same as 5D3? Canon just eliminated ISO 102400... but 102400 is unusable anyway... Logic tells me that this new entry level FF camera will not perform the same as a 5D3... but then that would mean that Canon just de-tuned the heck out of the 5D3 sensor and it's capabilities... Lose money lol

3"LCD - Ok

Smaller than 5D Mark II - If it's smaller, than does this mean that there is no quick reference display on the top of the body? Or does this simply mean that it may be "slightly" smaller than a 5D2? Maybe the size of a 60D? In which case, it being the size of a 60D is pretty irrelevant information since it's not that much smaller than a 5D2...

More plastic than metal in the construction - So this camera will be packed with what sounds like great performance features but will be built like a toy?

Pop-up flash - Ok

$1999 USD at launch - Ok

Launched with new non-L full frame kit lens - Whatever

Compatible with full frame STM lenses - Whatever

So in a nutshell, for $1500 less than a 5D Mark 3 you get the same sensor and ISO performance (up to ISO 51200), a crappier AF system, and 2fps less continuous shooting speed, but have to live with the thing being built like a toy... On that note, for $100-$200 less than a 5D Mark 2 you get a way better sensor, ISO performance, AF system, and 1fps more continuous shooting speed, but have to live with the thing being built like a toy because even the 5D Mark II was mostly metal in construction. Does anyone else think these specs don't seem realistic?

I mostly agree with you, except on the "toy" thing. I do have a 60D (my first dSLR), and although I would have to agree that magnesium alloy bodies feel much better (took a couple shots with a friend's 5DmIII the other day), I don't think plastic is as bad as you put it. In other words, I can live with a little (too much) plastic. Sure I'll have to take care, but I would anyway, since I'll have paid $2,000 for it! (And, well, it's cheaper for a reason, after all.)
Many amateurs folks like me who are current Rebel and 60D owners and just can't justify $3,000+ on a camera will welcome the specs, I think, as it lets us into the FF world and plastic would be no step backwards anyway. I'd rather have a better focus system, better low-light capabilities and a pop-up flash than a better body, if I'm to choose (and I am, since I won't make any money -- at least soon -- from it). If I didn't care about money I would just buy a 5DmIII, another flash and a bunch of L lenses, but I'd probably have more camera than I need.
Well, that's just me, anyway... I understand that photographers who own lots of gear already won't be missing pop-up flashes and that kind of thing, but for a first FF, well, I think it'll be a great camera. It'll be just another soon-to-be-obsolete thing of the many things I own anyway, but one that was not so expensive and that fits my needs. Couldn't ask for more.
Plastic? Give me some! I can take it!

[takoman46]

But I have never seen a plastic DSLR body that was weather sealed. So based upon past trends in construction, a plastic body would indicate no weather sealing.

until now.

sorry i have to mention nikon again.
one of the rumors about the D600 say it will have no metal body or more plastic then metal and it will be weather sealed.

we will see..

Apologies. I am not aware of specs regarding Nikon cameras. If they have weather sealed a plastic body, then I would certainly hope that Canon follows suite. It's not that I'm a Canon fanboy for not following Nikon cameras; but just that I have no place in my budget to even begin considering to purchase a Nikon camera, build a lens collection, and incorporate it into my shooting.

[AdamJ]

I'm not saying that it will break if it's plastic, but rather wouldn't you expect a $2000 camera body to have better build quality; especially if it is going to cater to upper end enthusiasts and possibly professionals? I think it's pretty risky to be taking a plastic camera to shoots where you might encounter rain, high humidity, and extreme temperature changes (such as shooting outdoors in the cold and then going inside into a warm climate controlled environment where condensation will rapidly build on the camera). A plastic body will probably not have the same weather sealing as a metal body. When I first started shooting DSLR, I had my Rebel XT glitch out when condensation built on the body. But I vacuum sealed it with a few desiccant packs for a couple days and that luckily saved it.

It isn't going to cater to upper end enthusiasts and pros. That's what the 5DIII is for. This is an entry-level FF body. You pays your money, you takes your choice.

[Canon-F1]

Apologies. I am not aware of specs regarding Nikon cameras. If they have weather sealed a plastic body, then I would certainly hope that Canon follows suite. It's not that I'm a Canon fanboy for not following Nikon cameras; but just that I have no place in my budget to even begin considering to purchase a Nikon camera, build a lens collection, and incorporate it into my shooting.

it´s just a rumor yet .. but i see no reason why it should not be possible.
it would reduce the cost and a metal alloy is not needed... prefered yes.

[ablearcher]

So... if its gonna be the same sensor, same processor, same image quality as MKIII and a decent AF (comparing to MKII) I seriously do not understand what people complain about here. This is an entry level FF body, priced (lets assume the specs and price are correct) $1.5K less than MKIII, so something is gotta go in terms of body features. Plastic body - so what - this is not a toy like plastic (I had a Rebel and it did not feel like a toy to me). For $1.5K less you get the same sensor as in MKIII, plus a (the way it sounds) decent AF. What else do you expect from an entry level model? You want MKII for the metal body - go for it, buy it now while they have it new or wait a bit and get a cheap used once this new FF is announced. Do you seriously expect a lot more from an entry level FF considering that even with these specs it will hurt MKIII sales. Read the forums and see how many people are sitting on the fence for a less expensive FF, who do not want MKII with its crippled AF and who do not think they can justify $3500- $3700 for MKIII.  Some of these folks are still potential MKIII buyers - maybe not now, but in a year or so.

Lots of comparison with MKII. Why do you judge these new FF specs based on an assumption that this is supposed to be an upgrade from MKII?  MKII was never positioned as an entry level FF. If you think the new sensor and AF are not worth the upgrade and you prefer to have MKII with metal body - go for it.  But coming from 7D I do not want to compromise on AF. Not to that extent.

If Canon can give us MKIII less metal body, some fps, dual card slots, weathersealing and $1.5K off the price - I'm in.

[takoman46]

I mostly agree with you. I do have a 60D (my first dSLR), and although I would have to agree that magnesium alloy bodies feel much better (took a couple shots with a friend's 5DmIII the other day), I don't think plastic is as bad as you put it. In other words, I can live with a little (too much) plastic. Sure I'll have to take care, but I would anyway, since I'll have paid $2,000 for it! (And, well, it's cheaper for a reason, after all.)
Many amateurs folks like me who are current Rebel and 60D owners and just can't justify $3,000+ on a camera will welcome the specs, I think, as it lets us into the FF world and plastic would be no step backwards anyway. I'd rather have a better focus system, better low-light capabilities and a pop-up flash than a better body, if I'm to choose (and I am, since I won't make any money -- at least soon -- from it). If I didn't care about money I would just buy a 5DmIII, another flash and a bunch of L lenses, but I'd probably have more camera than I need.
Well, that's just me, anyway... I understand that photographers who own lots of gear already won't be missing pop-up flashes and that kind of thing, but for a first FF, well, I think it'll be a great camera. It'll be just another soon-to-be-obsolete thing of the many things I own anyway, but one that was not so expensive and that fits my needs. Couldn't ask for more.
Plastic? Give me some! I can take it!

We'll have to see what actually becomes of this rumored entry level FF. As Canon-F1 just pointed out, the Nikon D600 is a plastic body that will be weather sealed. If Canon's version is equipped similarly, then I'm sure it will fit the demands of many more photographers. Heck, I might even buy one as a back up... Maybe get rid of my 5D Mark II's if it proves to be better.

[johnroberts]

Having worked on various products I'd say metal, plastic, natural materials etc all have their place. My film EOS-3 has a "plastic" exterior with weather seals. I have never found it wanting even against the EOS-1V.

I'd be disapointed if it was built like an older style rebel but the newer ones  like the 550 and up feel pretty good (minus any toxic grip issues like the 650D).

the one thing is weather sealing.. the other a magnesium alloy.

sure weather sealing would be nice.. but you can have that without a metal body.

I agree that it is possible for a non-metal body to be weather sealed. All the underwater housings for DSLRs prove that as they are all made of plastic. But I have never seen a plastic DSLR body that was weather sealed. So based upon past trends in construction, a plastic body would indicate no weather sealing.

[DanielW]

So... if its gonna be the same sensor, same processor, same image quality as MKIII and a decent AF (comparing to MKII) I seriously do not understand what people complain about here. This is an entry level FF body, priced (lets assume the specs and price are correct) $1.5K less than MKIII, so something is gotta go in terms of body features. Plastic body - so what - this is not a toy like plastic (I had a Rebel and it did not feel like a toy to me). For $1.5K less you get the same sensor as in MKIII, plus a (the way it sounds) decent AF. What else do you expect from an entry level model? You want MKII for the metal body - go for it, buy it now while they have it new or wait a bit and get a cheap used once this new FF is announced. Do you seriously expect a lot more from an entry level FF considering that even with these specs it will hurt MKIII sales. Read the forums and see how many people are sitting on the fence for a less expensive FF, who do not want MKII with its crippled AF and who do not think they can justify $3500- $3700 for MKIII.  Some of these folks are still potential MKIII buyers - maybe not now, but in a year or so.

Lots of comparison with MKII. Why do you judge these new FF specs based on an assumption that this is supposed to be an upgrade from MKII?  MKII was never positioned as an entry level FF. If you think the new sensor and AF are not worth the upgrade and you prefer to have MKII with metal body - go for it.  But coming from 7D I do not want to compromise on AF. Not to that extent.

If Canon can give us MKIII less metal body, some fps, dual card slots, weathersealing and $1.5K off the price - I'm in.

It looks like we're sitting on the same fence