Canon's Next Full Frame Camera [CR2]

[Trovador]

I heard from a Canon sales rep (he asked not to be named, sorry) that the entry level FF was going to be 52mp, usable ISO 50-204,000 expandable to 816,000, 12fps, weather sealed, 20 steps dynamic range, radio wireless pop-up flash, 124 point auto focus, 4 simultaneous Digic 6+ processors, and will accept lenses from all brands. US$1,599. It will only be available in bright pink and lavender. Late September launch.

True story.

 

[fman]

I've used the very best point and shoots and bridge cameras, and for my tastes they simply cannot compare to even the lowest level DSLRs (e.g. Rebel T3).

Have you also choose to ignore that I was talking about interchangeable lens micro 4/3 (like Olympus E-M5 or Panasonic GH2) and not point and shoots and bridge cameras?

Just because if you cannot make a difference between micro 4/3 and point & shoot/bridge then probably there is no point in any further discussion...

Don't even bother to make a bit of search with terms like "GH2 beats 5D". I did not need to search as I have personal experience both with Canon DSLR and e.g. GH2.

 

[dawgfanjeff]

I heard from a Canon sales rep (he asked not to be named, sorry) that the entry level FF was going to be 52mp, usable ISO 50-204,000 expandable to 816,000, 12fps, weather sealed, 20 steps dynamic range, radio wireless pop-up flash, 124 point auto focus, 4 simultaneous Digic 6+ processors, and will accept lenses from all brands. US$1,599. It will only be available in bright pink and lavender. Late September launch.

True story.

Bummer. I was hoping for 126 pt auto focus 124 simply won't do. Oh well. Guess I'll have to switch to Nikon now

 

[briansquibb]

I've used the very best point and shoots and bridge cameras, and for my tastes they simply cannot compare to even the lowest level DSLRs (e.g. Rebel T3).

Have you also choose to ignore that I was talking about interchangeable lens micro 4/3 (like Olympus E-M5 or Panasonic GH2) and not point and shoots and bridge cameras?

Just because if you cannot make a difference between micro 4/3 and point & shoot/bridge then probably there is no point in any further discussion...

Don't even bother to make a bit of search with terms like "GH2 beats 5D". I did not need to search as I have personal experience both with Canon DSLR and e.g. GH2.

Are you really suggesting that a GH2 is better than my 1DS3 with 200 f/2? ... then probably there is no point in any further discussion...

 

[thepancakeman]

I've used the very best point and shoots and bridge cameras, and for my tastes they simply cannot compare to even the lowest level DSLRs (e.g. Rebel T3).

Have you also choose to ignore that I was talking about interchangeable lens micro 4/3 (like Olympus E-M5 or Panasonic GH2) and not point and shoots and bridge cameras?

Just because if you cannot make a difference between micro 4/3 and point & shoot/bridge then probably there is no point in any further discussion...

Don't even bother to make a bit of search with terms like "GH2 beats 5D". I did not need to search as I have personal experience both with Canon DSLR and e.g. GH2.

No need to get snippy. If you're saying that mirrors will go away, then yes I believe you are correct. I don't really care if it's a SLR or a DLR or a NLNR (no lens no reflex, and yes I'm just making it up). If you're talking about sensor sizes...again, most people don't really care. Give them the IQ they want with the compatibility of their lenses and an ability to print the size that they need and they won't care exactly how the engineers accomplished that (except for other engineers and people who like to hang out on forums arguing tech specs.)

Most people that I know who are dedicated to DSLR, it's the viewfinder vs. the screen and lens selections that are the issues. I seriously doubt many people care whether or not it actually has a mirror (kinda like saying "I'll only by a car if it has a Getrag transmission"). It's not the transmission, it's the whole package. And when the whole package gives a similar (or better) experience, then L in DSLR will go away.

 

[ishdakuteb]

I heard from a Canon sales rep (he asked not to be named, sorry) that the entry level FF was going to be 52mp, usable ISO 50-204,000 expandable to 816,000, 12fps, weather sealed, 20 steps dynamic range, radio wireless pop-up flash, 124 point auto focus, 4 simultaneous Digic 6+ processors, and will accept lenses from all brands. US$1,599. It will only be available in bright pink and lavender. Late September launch.

True story.

great and awsome specs... okae... in this forums, to people who current have 5d iii. as if anyone wants to sale it back for half price of the up coming new entry level camera with above specs, i'll get them all

 

[ishdakuteb]

How does this make sense? Why would I want a $2000 plastic 5DII equivalent when I can have the real thing for the same money? And I don't believe there is any noticeable difference between the 5DII and 5DIII sensor. So what gives?

Good points. CR2, however it's hard to believe that this set of specs makes any sense.

+1. The CR indicated same sensor as MKIII, not MKII. So how about "a plastic MKIII equivalent" for $2K with a bit less features (instead of MKII equivalent)? All of a sudden it starts looking quite atteractive, huh?

if canon put following into mark II, it would be nice
1. new sensor (does not have to be digic 5+, can be digic 5 like t4i)
2. 7d focus system
3. firmware upgrade including 7d new firmware feature

i guess, sale volume will be massive as if they are doing this... anyone agree to buy this kinda camera for $2000? i think i would and yes it is in between 5d ii and 5d iii. (both side happy, canon's customers and canon owners.)

 

[7enderbender]

Do people realize many of the L lenses incorporate plastic or are mostly plastic, yet are weather sealed???

True. And sad. Any time I compare my so called "L" lenses to my old "non-L" FD lenses I can only shake my head. Yes, the EF lenses are mostly, shall we say, decent. But that's about it. And I know they won't be around for 25 years or longer.

 

[distant.star]

.
Sorry, not good enough. I won't be satisfied until each pixel is its own individual AF point. And no IR capability either?

And I heard the Nikon version of this camera is 128MP. Canon will still be in last place!

I heard from a Canon sales rep (he asked not to be named, sorry) that the entry level FF was going to be 52mp, usable ISO 50-204,000 expandable to 816,000, 12fps, weather sealed, 20 steps dynamic range, radio wireless pop-up flash, 124 point auto focus, 4 simultaneous Digic 6+ processors, and will accept lenses from all brands. US$1,599. It will only be available in bright pink and lavender. Late September launch.

True story.

 

[briansquibb]

I heard from a Canon sales rep (he asked not to be named, sorry) that the entry level FF was going to be 52mp, usable ISO 50-204,000 expandable to 816,000, 12fps, weather sealed, 20 steps dynamic range, radio wireless pop-up flash, 124 point auto focus, 4 simultaneous Digic 6+ processors, and will accept lenses from all brands. US$1,599. It will only be available in bright pink and lavender. Late September launch.

True story.

I am going to wait for the high mps version

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Think of it, if ISO 12,800 on an mk3 looks like ISO 3200 on a mk2, then, if you can achieve similar quality (not even equal, lets say ISO 6400 looks like ISO 3200 on an mk2...then yeah that would be enough to make me say give me this entry level FF as my backup...)

I have a 5DII and I will upgrade to 5DIII, but high ISO performance is NOT that much better unless you shoot only JPG. Who does that on a 5D series camera?

Comparing ISO performance using out-of-the-camera jpeg shots is nonsense.

The only place you get 2 stops of improvement is in video. That is cool on it's own. For photos it is about 1/2 a stop improvement.

Other than that, I agree the 5DIII is an awesome camera with a ton of upgrades over the 5DII.

Actually, I was talking about RAW files. I've had mine for about 2 weeks now and have done some pretty nutty ridiculous low light shots, all in RAW. My frame of reference is mostly from the 7D, but, I have talked with many who have used the mk2 more than me and they are saying the same thing...basically 12800 ISO is the new 3200 ISO, and where 6400 used to be i'd go there if i had too, its now totally usable (seriously 6400 looks like 1600 on my 7d).

 

[idimoe]

Hmm Photokina in 2 months. Anyone else excited?

I hope Nikon and Canon will have supplies on hand for this holiday season. These entry FFs should be a huge hit.

 

[Etienne]

Think of it, if ISO 12,800 on an mk3 looks like ISO 3200 on a mk2, then, if you can achieve similar quality (not even equal, lets say ISO 6400 looks like ISO 3200 on an mk2...then yeah that would be enough to make me say give me this entry level FF as my backup...)

I have a 5DII and I will upgrade to 5DIII, but high ISO performance is NOT that much better unless you shoot only JPG. Who does that on a 5D series camera?

Comparing ISO performance using out-of-the-camera jpeg shots is nonsense.

The only place you get 2 stops of improvement is in video. That is cool on it's own. For photos it is about 1/2 a stop improvement.

Other than that, I agree the 5DIII is an awesome camera with a ton of upgrades over the 5DII.

Actually, I was talking about RAW files. I've had mine for about 2 weeks now and have done some pretty nutty ridiculous low light shots, all in RAW. My frame of reference is mostly from the 7D, but, I have talked with many who have used the mk2 more than me and they are saying the same thing...basically 12800 ISO is the new 3200 ISO, and where 6400 used to be i'd go there if i had too, its now totally usable (seriously 6400 looks like 1600 on my 7d).

I can believe 2 stops improvement compared to the 7D. Most of the reviews indicate only a modest improvement over the 5DII at high ISO, except apparently the in-camera JPGs. Reviews do indicate that high ISO in Movie mode improves enormously in the 5DIII.

Either way, you have a great camera, and I intend to get one too

 

[HurtinMinorKey]

Are you really suggesting that a GH2 is better than my 1DS3 with 200 f/2? ... then probably there is no point in any further discussion...

He must have been talking about video, in which case he is right (except in certain low light cases). Gh2 beats the best of the Canon dslrs. As for stills, the gh2 can't hang with the big boys.

 

[Daniel Flather]

Compatible with full frame STM lenses

Are not all Canon DSLRs compatible with full frame STM lenses?

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

Think of it, if ISO 12,800 on an mk3 looks like ISO 3200 on a mk2, then, if you can achieve similar quality (not even equal, lets say ISO 6400 looks like ISO 3200 on an mk2...then yeah that would be enough to make me say give me this entry level FF as my backup...)

I have a 5DII and I will upgrade to 5DIII, but high ISO performance is NOT that much better unless you shoot only JPG. Who does that on a 5D series camera?

Comparing ISO performance using out-of-the-camera jpeg shots is nonsense.

The only place you get 2 stops of improvement is in video. That is cool on it's own. For photos it is about 1/2 a stop improvement.

Other than that, I agree the 5DIII is an awesome camera with a ton of upgrades over the 5DII.

Actually, I was talking about RAW files. I've had mine for about 2 weeks now and have done some pretty nutty ridiculous low light shots, all in RAW. My frame of reference is mostly from the 7D, but, I have talked with many who have used the mk2 more than me and they are saying the same thing...basically 12800 ISO is the new 3200 ISO, and where 6400 used to be i'd go there if i had too, its now totally usable (seriously 6400 looks like 1600 on my 7d).

I can believe 2 stops improvement compared to the 7D. Most of the reviews indicate only a modest improvement over the 5DII at high ISO, except apparently the in-camera JPGs. Reviews do indicate that high ISO in Movie mode improves enormously in the 5DIII.

Either way, you have a great camera, and I intend to get one too

You'll just have to experience it yourself I guess...and when you do, you'll be saying wow a lot!

The attached shot - ISO 20,000 - f4, 1/40th, taken at night no flash...4th of july...this was on my second day with the mk3, was shooting the fireworks, played it safe for most of that night and used flash, once I had fulfilled my requirements decided to play and snap some candids at crazy high ISO just to see how it would handle it. I'd say, not so bad... ;D

 

[mrgazpacho]

Are not all Canon DSLRs compatible with full frame STM lenses?

I think the emphasis is on the full-time quiet video AF capability.

 

[ishdakuteb]

You'll just have to experience it yourself I guess...and when you do, you'll be saying wow a lot!

The attached shot - ISO 20,000 - f4, 1/40th, taken at night no flash...4th of july...this was on my second day with the mk3, was shooting the fireworks, played it safe for most of that night and used flash, once I had fulfilled my requirements decided to play and snap some candids at crazy high ISO just to see how it would handle it. I'd say, not so bad... ;D

were you shot that picture under raw or jpeg format? any noise reduction level were set? as if you allow me to ask...

thanks

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

shot RAW, no in cam noise reduction ---I reduced noise in lightroom, adjusted color temp, and lifted the shadows a bit

 

[ssrdd]

2000/-??????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Canon must be kidding.

Again it lost on
Nikon D600 24mp full frame under 1600usd.

How do you figure that the D600 will be better than the new Canon ff?

Neither have been announced nor tested - yet you are dissing Canon?

well look at the chronology of the canons price factor.
500$ less cheaper D800 beets the crap out of 500$ more expensive 5Dmk3.

so i guess D600 performs as well as price mentioned, but canon never did perform as their worth.