Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]

[justsomedude]

Canon is obliged to meet the challenge imposed by Nikon D800. I believe this camera will appear. The price tag will be around ( in my opinion) $4499 - 4990.

Based on the 5D2, 5D3 and 1DX pricing, I agree that the price will likely be in the $3,995 ballpark, if not breaking $4k entirely, as you suggest. 

However, this really puts Canon in a pickle if it's running next to the D800.  They'll have to make significant improvements over the D800 to justify the pricing, and market it in a class of its own, since anyone can be off and running at 36MP for only $2,995 right now.

My point, as I hoped others would notice: there is a real, tangible, visible difference in MF files vs dslr files when it comes to colour. (think transitions/gradations/subtleties in skin tone) It's not necessarily 'more' ,like mega pixels, but rather higher sensitivities...

There was a

D800 vs. Hasselblad	Small | Large

video review done by some NYC commercial photographers that got into this issue.  But this was really their only primary complaint.  If you're not a $20,000/wk fashion photographer, or selling your photos to Christian Dior for the next 50' banner ad in Times Square, it's hard to justify the investment in a Hasselblad H back.  That said, what you get for 3 grand in a D800 is still mind blowing as far as I'm concerned.  If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.

[tg]

  If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.

If you're recommending something like that, you're really not getting my point...

I get the feeling some are obsessed with matching Nikon and their mega pixels and not worried about the conversation of how a photo can look... however minute the change can be.
I hear it time and again, when you have MF quality, the difference is there. When you have a dslr, most will try to appease themselves and insist MF, for some tech/scientific/'I read somewhere' reason, is not worth it and not even advantageous anymore.
I'm very happy with the 5dmkiii, very happy... it's much better than I thought it would be over the 5dmkii. But, there's always room for improvement, usually in aspects very difficult to make better, unlike MP which is where all the attention gets placed.
You don't have to be a high paid fashion/car photographer to be able to appreciate that.
 

[bdunbar79]

  If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.

If you're recommending something like that, you're really not getting my point...

I get the feeling some are obsessed with matching Nikon and their mega pixels and not worried about the conversation of how a photo can look... however minute the change can be.
I hear it time and again, when you have MF quality, the difference is there. When you have a dslr, most will try to appease themselves and insist MF, for some tech/scientific/'I read somewhere' reason, is not worth it and not even advantageous anymore.
I'm very happy with the 5dmkiii, very happy... it's much better than I thought it would be over the 5dmkii. But, there's always room for improvement, usually in aspects very difficult to make better, unlike MP which is where all the attention gets placed.
You don't have to be a high paid fashion/car photographer to be able to appreciate that.

If they do make a super high MP camera, I'm not going to buy.  I'll keep my 5D Mark III and 1DX because they take the images I need.  I don't need anymore.  Good post.

[Marine03]

Canon is obliged to meet the challenge imposed by Nikon D800. I believe this camera will appear. The price tag will be around ( in my opinion) $4499 - 4990.

Based on the 5D2, 5D3 and 1DX pricing, I agree that the price will likely be in the $3,995 ballpark, if not breaking $4k entirely, as you suggest. 

However, this really puts Canon in a pickle if it's running next to the D800.  They'll have to make significant improvements over the D800 to justify the pricing, and market it in a class of its own, since anyone can be off and running at 36MP for only $2,995 right now.

My point, as I hoped others would notice: there is a real, tangible, visible difference in MF files vs dslr files when it comes to colour. (think transitions/gradations/subtleties in skin tone) It's not necessarily 'more' ,like mega pixels, but rather higher sensitivities...

There was a D800 vs. Hasselblad video review done by some NYC commercial photographers that got into this issue.  But this was really their only primary complaint.  If you're not a $20,000/wk fashion photographer, or selling your photos to Christian Dior for the next 50' banner ad in Times Square, it's hard to justify the investment in a Hasselblad H back.  That said, what you get for 3 grand in a D800 is still mind blowing as far as I'm concerned.  If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.

Having just watched that video I know I'm not a pixel peeper or maybe im not overly critical, but seriously the Hasselbad IMO is a waste of money, is it 20K better of a camera or is the pic 20K times better, no way!  Now from the pro point of view they had to defend the Hasselbad because they own a 20K cam and get paid big bucks so they need to basically tell clients look, no one on the street shoots with this its SOOO good.  But serisouly look at a magazine for print tell me that a 1D3 or D800 etc isn't good enough for like 90% of work.

[justsomedude]

  If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.

If you're recommending something like that, you're really not getting my point...

You don't have to be a high paid fashion/car photographer to be able to appreciate that.

TG, I do get your point, and appreciate the "quality" improvements a Hasselblad offers over a 35mm camera.  To me, and for the work I do in photography, a MF camera simply has no real world practical application (especially at the $30k price tag).  That said, I think you're trying to compare cameras that are designed for totally different user groups, totally different markets and totally different applications. 

So while I understand there's "room for improvement", somehow wishing your dSLR to be a MF camera doesn't seem like a valid point to be making.  At least in my opinion.

[art_d]

And the idea that few people understand all the tech behind it, I agree. I am one of them, trying to learn more. But I'm definitely not convinced that the progression to 16 bit is a bad idea. It needs to be implemented properly, and I wouldn't be surprised if it became something we all understood a bit better in the coming year or two...

Going to 16 bit wouldn't hurt anything in the imaging process. It just isn't going to help anything. It's not going to  record better color transitions, just extra random noise. All it would do is make RAW files larger, because the files would now contain extra information on the random noise which previously was not being recorded. Larger files without any actual benefit to images is not something we should be asking for.

[marekjoz]

And the idea that few people understand all the tech behind it, I agree. I am one of them, trying to learn more. But I'm definitely not convinced that the progression to 16 bit is a bad idea. It needs to be implemented properly, and I wouldn't be surprised if it became something we all understood a bit better in the coming year or two...

Going to 16 bit wouldn't hurt anything in the imaging process. It just isn't going to help anything. It's not going to  record better color transitions, just extra random noise. All it would do is make RAW files larger, because the files would now contain extra information on the random noise which previously was not being recorded. Larger files without any actual benefit to images is not something we should be asking for.

Why are you so sure it will record just extra noise but no more useful information?

[AmbientLight]

I believe that the point about random noise coming in applies only if you compare a high quality, high MP sensor with a low quality, high MP sensor assuming of course that lens quality is similar. The question is of course left in the open, from where this high quality sensor may come from?

To me the answer is obvious:
On one side you have some small companies trying to survive in a specialized market niche, while on the other hand you have big corporations with disproportionate amounts of money to invest in R&D out to annihilate annoying niche market competitors. I have seen this situation in other lines of business and the end result is rather easy to predict.

[art_d]

And the idea that few people understand all the tech behind it, I agree. I am one of them, trying to learn more. But I'm definitely not convinced that the progression to 16 bit is a bad idea. It needs to be implemented properly, and I wouldn't be surprised if it became something we all understood a bit better in the coming year or two...

Going to 16 bit wouldn't hurt anything in the imaging process. It just isn't going to help anything. It's not going to  record better color transitions, just extra random noise. All it would do is make RAW files larger, because the files would now contain extra information on the random noise which previously was not being recorded. Larger files without any actual benefit to images is not something we should be asking for.

Why are you so sure it will record just extra noise but no more useful information?

People have studied this issue. See the following technical explanation related to noise and bit depth: http://theory.uchicago.edu/~ejm/pix/20d/tests/noise/noise-p3.html

Also, see this rather lengthy discussion: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=60672.0

In short, represntatives from a medium format digital back dealer essentially concede that when the term "16 bit" is applied to MF sensors, it is done so as marketing shorthand in order to convey to potential customers that the MF sensor will have better tonal qualities compared to DSLRs of equal megapixels, even though the actual reasons for those better tonal qualities lie elsewhere. This may be fine for MFDB buyers since they are not being misled and their camers do produce better tonal qualities. However the problem which has resulted from this seemingly innocent bit of marketing is that some people have been led to think that if you make DSLR sensors 16 bit they will produce the tonal qualities of MF.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

So, if the 3D is supposed to between the 5D and 1D series, that also means the price will be somewhere between $3500 and $6800.  If this is supposed to compete with the D800(E), then I think Canon seriously missed its price-point.

 If this is supposed to compete with medium format cameras a price between 3000$ and 6000$ is not a bad idea.

So you would pay thousands more to get from 36MP to 46MP while giving up the high DR at low ISO of a D800?

EDIT: OK i misread the rumor, it mentions industry leading LOW ISO so forget what I wrote above. If it has industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP it will be a landscape and studio beast! 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.

Not if it has the same old DR (i.e. not close to low ISO Nikon or MF), much slower fps, no chance for magic lantern, costs a lot more. You'd get better reach and detail but give up a lot since Canon won't give it cropped modes with speed or stay at a more reasonable 36MP to keep some speed and doesn't seem to have the sensor tech to deliver top quality low ISO pixels. I'd rather keep the 5D3 and wait for a 5D4 or D900 myself.
Of course, who knows, maybe they finally spring their miracle new sensor with this or it does have fast crops modes or better fps (46MP dual digic should go 4.7fps not 3.7fps and it could hit 6fps if they cut MP down a little).


EDIT: OK i misread the rumor, it mentions industry leading LOW ISO so forget what I wrote above. If it has industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP it will be a landscape and studio beast! 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Being CR1, this is just someone's fantasy camera.  It has no more credibility than any of us just randomly emailing the CR guy with what we'd like to see in a big megapixel camera.  With the 1DX, 5DIII, T4i, and mirror less I just don't see another body being released so soon. 

There were tons of CR2's for months prior to all the previously mentioned cameras and not one for this camera, we would have heard something by now if there was a camera this big on the immediate horizon.

true enough, surely someone is sitting somewhere laughing at the 9, 10, 30, 100 pages being written on his random rumor submission. 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

  If you're that bothered by the skin tone reproduction by today's DSLRs, hire a professional processing lab to do the final touches on your shots.

If you're recommending something like that, you're really not getting my point...

I get the feeling some are obsessed with matching Nikon and their mega pixels and not worried about the conversation of how a photo can look... however minute the change can be.
I hear it time and again, when you have MF quality, the difference is there. When you have a dslr, most will try to appease themselves and insist MF, for some tech/scientific/'I read somewhere' reason, is not worth it and not even advantageous anymore.
I'm very happy with the 5dmkiii, very happy... it's much better than I thought it would be over the 5dmkii. But, there's always room for improvement, usually in aspects very difficult to make better, unlike MP which is where all the attention gets placed.
You don't have to be a high paid fashion/car photographer to be able to appreciate that.

I've never used MF (well not in digital) or even looked at any test data from them but they might be using very tight color filters, perhaps, that make them less color-blind so they can distinguish more subtle shading differences in color and may have better DR at low ISO.

[justsomedude]

Nikon fanboys dislike this news 

why?? I'd rather 36MP a tons of DR than 46MP and old school DR. I'd rather options for 5 and 6fps than stuck at 3.7fps no matter what.  I'd rather a 5D3 or D800 than these potential specs.

You've made reference to poor DR in two posts now, regarding a possible 3DX sensor's performance.  First, a huge caveat - we're all arguing about a presently fictitious/rumored camera body - so claiming the status quo will remain, or that Canon will make some giant leap is in the realm of pure speculation.  That said, I'm going to speculate... 

The key thing I draw from the "leaked specs" is the point about it having improved heat dissipation for "industry leading low ISO performance."  This is supported by the leaked specs capping ISO at 6400, with ISO 50 being native, expandable to ISO 25.  As a result, I would anticipate significantly improved noise and DR over existing sensors.  Otherwise, Canon would be dead in the water with a 46 MP camera that is essentially a 5D3 with double the resolution.  Not much to gain there, and no one would dump the money on it.  But hammer home some sick new low ISO performance, and it could be a hot item.  I think this will be an offering on an entirely new level ... something we haven't seen yet from Canon.

As I've stated before, I just hope it's real.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Nikon fanboys dislike this news 

why?? I'd rather 36MP a tons of DR than 46MP and old school DR. I'd rather options for 5 and 6fps than stuck at 3.7fps no matter what.  I'd rather a 5D3 or D800 than these potential specs.

You've made reference to poor DR in two posts now, regarding a possible 3DX sensor's performance.  First, a huge caveat - we're all arguing about a presently fictitious/rumored camera body - so claiming the status quo will remain, or that Canon will make some giant leap is in the realm of pure speculation.  That said, I'm going to speculate... 

The key thing I draw from the "leaked specs" is the point about it having improved heat dissipation for "industry leading low ISO performance."  This is supported by the leaked specs capping ISO at 6400, with ISO 50 being native, expandable to ISO 25.  As a result, I would anticipate significantly improved noise and DR over existing sensors.  Otherwise, Canon would be dead in the water with a 46 MP camera that is essentially a 5D3 with double the resolution.  Not much to gain there, and no one would dump the money on it.  But hammer home some sick new low ISO performance, and it could be a hot item.  I think this will be an offering on an entirely new level ... something we haven't seen yet from Canon.

As I've stated before, I just hope it's real.

OOPS my bad, I was so used to Canon being behind at low ISO and doing very well at high ISO that I read the 'specs' too quickly and thought it said industry leading HIGH ISO but you are entirely correct about everything. I agree with all you say above.

Well, first off these specs are probably just from some random person making stuff up, but whatever, yeah between ISO50 standard and "industry leading low ISO" and all you are correct, if we take the rumor at heart at does hint at superb low ISO so ignore all my posts above, oops.

If it had industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP that WOULD be a total landscape and studio beast! 
In that case the 3.7fps for FF mode wouldn't be so bad at this point in time.

Once again ignore my series of dumb posts earlier in the thread.

(Although it would still be awesome if Canon gave it a crop mode at more fps, ala D800, because then it could be a total wildlife shooting camera beast as well as just a landscape/studio beast.)