26.4mp 5D Mark III Mid-year? [CR1]

[Sinsear]

This sounds plausible. I seriously, HIGHLY doubt that the 5D3 AF will be as good as the 7D. The whole point of the 1 series camera is to combine the features of the 7D (speed/AF) with the 5D (image quality). The maximum number of cross type AF points that the 5D3 will have is 9, with maybe 10 or so linear type AF points. This is probably the best case scenario (worst case is having exactly the same AF system as the 5D2).

 

[Portpix]

My one wish is they include dual CF card slots. For wedding photography and photo journal style a dual slot would be of great benefit. But alas I don't think it will :-(

 

[martijn]

The lack of any video details for the successor to the 5DII -the trailblazer for DSLR-based video, after all- makes me doubt this rumor, really...I still think it's unlikely we'll see this camera before the end of the year.

 

[Stuart]

I'd still like a popup flash on this camera - flame me.

With such modest specs, i think there has to be a few better hidden features, maybe dynamic range.
The fps seems to be a good step up and there must be a significant abount of processing going on to do the AF and get the images through fast enough at 26MP with one DigicV.

 

[foobar]

(worst case is having exactly the same AF system as the 5D2).

If that's the case, they'd better market it as a sort of retro-camera.
Seriously, the AF system has been the main point of critique on the 5D2 from day one.
If they screw this up...

I'd still like a popup flash on this camera - flame me.

+1, unless Canon implements a new radio-based flash triggering system.

 

[gmrza]

Canon has always introduced their new digic processors on 1 series cameras.

Not true. Digic IV was introduced on the 50D, then used in the 5DII, the 7D, the Rebel T1i, and even a bunch of PowerShots, before making it into the 1D IV. The 1DsIII still uses dual Digic III chips.

I had forgotten about the 50D before the 5DII ;-) - It seems that in the past, Canon have either regarded introducing a new DIGIC chip on a 1 series camera was either too high risk (whether due to real or perceived issues) or they needed the volumes of one of the cheaper models to get the cost of the chips down to a reasonable level.

 

[fred134]

Sounds very incremental. Thus, very credible If true, I suppose all the innovation would be on the video side.

On the stills side, I hope the AF area would be larger than 7D AF (not just copied on 24x36), else even 19 cross points don't look that much incredibly better than the single one of my 5 years old 5D1 (same AF than 5D2)...

 

[HughHowey]

My one wish is they include dual CF card slots. For wedding photography and photo journal style a dual slot would be of great benefit. But alas I don't think it will :-(

I'd rather dual SD slots, or at the very least: one of each. The speed of new SD cards is making the form factor of CF look dated. And really, there's no point sticking to one just because people have invested in one or the other. Memory is too cheap these days to use that rationale.

Just my opinion. I end up buying new cards for every camera I purchase, because the old ones go with the last unit when I hand it down to my wife or sell it (or keep it). Files keep getting bigger with each body, and so do my memory cards. Do any of you really stick your 256 *Mega* byte CF into any of your new bodies? Or do you go and purchase a new 133X card to handle the crazy increase in FPS and MP? Yeah, me too.

 

[lol]

On the surface, this sounds too conservative. A small change might be ok on a consumer model with annual refresh cycle, but this jump feels like too little to me. The open question would be what about the other features not mentioned in the rumour?

 

[mathino]

...maybe we'll see better high ISO performance with 'less' mexapixels than expected 30+ Mpx. That would be really nice to see in new FF body.

 

[mathino]

If this is true it's not very. 26MP is way to little. The 18MP of the crop bodies equals 46MP in FF. This will probably be increase so anything less than 50MP in a new FF is very bad. We pay a lot more for FF and want the same reach as with crop bodies.There are a few things that are neccessary in 5D3
>50MP
Better (or at least equal) DR than D3x
Better (or at least equal) high ISO performance than D3s
Significantly improved AF
No banding problem
Build in flash
Then there should probably be some improved/added features but that is not as important.

So basically it's very simple to make a something that will meet most peoples requirements, except the high frame rate shooters, and Canon should be aware about this.

+1 for high ISO preformance and improved AF. I think these things are what many of us want from new affordable FF body.

 

[kirillica]

The 18MP of the crop bodies equals 46MP in FF.

I wonder, how this number is calculated?

 

[kirillica]

The 18MP of the crop bodies equals 46MP in FF.

I wonder, how this number is calculated?

Canon has 1.6x crop bodies at 18MP
18x1.6^2=46MP
So, to not must have a crop as second body for better reach FF must currently have 46MP. They absolutely must fix this because I don't always want to carry a second body.
Since the only drawback of more pixels is file size and possibly frame rate, which both may be addressed in different ways, there is no reason to not fix this very severe problem.

Actually, this is not correct calculation. Size and point of point matters. If we will follow you computations, then my 5DmII is "just" 4 times better than my 5mp Nokia N96 built-in camera.

So I'm not worried about "just" 26.4mp in 5DmIII, because I believe Canon can make an outstanding sensor. Like it does all the time

 

[foobar]

There are a few things that are neccessary in 5D3
>50MP
Better (or at least equal) DR than D3x
Better (or at least equal) high ISO performance than D3s

I'm pretty sure any manifacturer would love to build a sensor like that, but I guess technology isn't quite there yet.

Actually, this is not correct calculation. Size and point of point matters. If we will follow you computations, then my 5DmII is "just" 4 times better than my 5mp Nokia N96 built-in camera.

No, the calculation is correct. What is incorrect is that you assumed the same 1.6x crop factor for your N96 as well, but actually it has a 7,61x crop factor, which means it would equal 289mp on FF.

 

[kirillica]

Sorry, but you are wrong. My calculation is correct. I'm not talking about quality of the pixel. I'm talking about resolution of the final picture with same field of view.
Just compare current models. A 18MP 7D picture will easily outresolve a 8MP 5D2 picture with same field of view.
Since, as I wrote, there are only advantages and no real drawback with higher pixel density (within current manufacturing possibilities) there is no reason to increase density as much as possible.

Am not talking about incorrect numbers, but the logics you're using it. Number of pixels doesn't show anything in DSLR world: picture quality in battle 5DmII vs 7D is fatal (while mp diff is not so huge). Quality matters, and please stop counting megapixels

 

[Justin]

I'd still like a popup flash on this camera - flame me.

No thanks. Gets in the way of tilt shift lens movements.

 

[Bob Howland]

I'd still like a popup flash on this camera - flame me.

No thanks. Gets in the way of tilt shift lens movements.

I agree.

 

[DuLt]

" 19 point AF system, 3 cross-type points"
That is a few steps backward from the 7D. 7D is ALL 19 points cross.

I think they meant f/2.8 cross-type points, with the rest being f/5.6.

This is the one spec that kind of stands out to me; where would the 3 be? Seems kind of odd...I would think 5 would make more sense (1 center, 4 corners or 1 center and 1 on each side of the center). Being 3 it might be Center, then the one directly to the left and right of it.

The various comments about "3 focus points" makes for interesting reading because those who've been using Canon SLRs for longer than the "digital years" will be familiar with how Canon arranged auto-focus points on SLRs with of 3 them. Strange as it may seem, when there were only 3 auto focus points, I was still able to take photos that were in focus.

Strange as it may seem, people took good photos of all sorts of things before the viewfinder was full of autofocus points - heck, how many auto-focus points do you think Ansel Adams had? Photographers that are children of the Internet revolution are such babies.

Seconded.

I mostly use just the central focus point... all the other are just used to confirm focus on ladnscapes.

 

[Bob Howland]

If this is true it's not very. 26MP is way to little.

Cripes, do posters in this forum just plain refuse to use their brains?

What was the time lag between the 20D and the 5D Mark II?

That time lag is an indication of the amount of time required to go from an 8MP APS-C to 21MP FF. The 20D was released in August 2004. The 5D Mark 2 was September 2008. 4 years.

The 40D (10MP) was released Aug 2007. The full frame version of that sensor is 25.6MP. 4 years from Aug 2007 is Aug 2011. Not very far away...

I don't expect that you will see the 7D's sensor in a full frame camera any time soon.

One definition of superstition is seeing a pattern of correlation and/or causality where none actually exists.

 

[Loswr]

I mostly use just the central focus point... all the other are just used to confirm focus on ladnscapes.

How do you use off-center AF points to 'confirm focus' on landscapes? The only thing that comes to mind is when you shoot in automatic AF selection mode so every AF point on the plane lights up. Else, the AF system will just use whichever point is selected, and the other points are inactive.

Is your primary subject dead-center in all your shots? To me, that would make for boring, monotonous, and poorly composed shots. If I wanted that special Bob-the-American-tourist snapshot look, I'd just use a point-and-shoot with a fixed AF box right in the center. On the other hand, if you want to compose a shot with an off-center subject and you're shooting with a fast lens wide open (e.g. 85mm f/1.2), focus/recompose will get you a blurry shot every time - thus the need for off-center AF points, and frankly, on the 5DII those just aren't adequate in terms of performance.

Strange as it may seem, people took good photos of all sorts of things before the viewfinder was full of autofocus points - heck, how many auto-focus points do you think Ansel Adams had? Photographers that are children of the Internet revolution are such babies.

I, too, started with an SLR in the manual focus era. Just because I can manually focus, doesn't mean I want to all the time, especially with the microetching on standard focus screens that improves brightness at the cost of masking the true DoF for fast lenses.

Heck, we could walk to work through the snow every day all winter, too. Commuters that are children of the automotive age are such babies...