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

[DuLt]

@ neuroanatomist

Sorry I meant "others".

 

[traveller]

If these specifications are true, I can see the D800 selling well. Sorry, but Canon haven't had the full frame market to themselves for a generation now, it's no good them crippling cameras to protect the 1D series. I fully understand that people were capable of taking great photos before the AF era, but hey people were capable of driving cars before synchronised and automatic gearboxes -it doesn't mean that I would enjoy double declutching on a moden car: expectations change.

For marketing purposes, if nothing else, a 5D MkIII needs at least the 7D's AF system and 5fps. Simply re-iterating the same package with a higher resolution sensor won't cut the mustard; 21MP is already enough for most people's printing needs.

 

[hsoftdev17]

I'm actually kinda surprised to see Digic V without CFast being mentioned anywhere. It seems to me that if Digic V is proclaiming amazing throughput, it would need the amazing throughput of CFast behind it.

 

[ronin8600]

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.

I'm new to digital photography so the following could be a stupid questions.

Are you talking about doing the crop in post to simulate the same effect of a crop sensor?

Also I read an interesting article the other day from a National Geographic photographer (http://photocinenews.com/2010/10/22/nat-geo-shooter-ben-horton-compares-canon-glass-to-zeiss-glass/) saying that the 5d mark II sensor can capture more detail than the Canon L lens can give it, so would we really benefit from 46 MP with the current lenses?

Would Canon need to make new and more expensive lenses to take advantage of 46MP? I looked at the prices for some medium format camera lenses and they seem to be significantly more expensive

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.

Does ISO performance/sensitivity get sacrificed at the cost of higher pixel densities since the pixels are a lot smaller?

 

[yellowbull]

What about Exposure Bracketing improvements? Nikon will go up to 9 increments!

 

[transpo1]

I don't see how it would be possible for Canon to crank up manufacturing for a new camera over the summer when they are straining to meet current production needs...unless they are hoarding components for a yet to be announced model.

 

[gmrza]

" 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.

I was actually wondering how many people only use the centre auto-focus point. 8)
For subjects that are not moving, I still tend to prefer to focus and recompose. I have to admit that the 7D's cluster of focus points in the centre is a nice-to-have feature.
Better low-light performance is probably far more important to more autofocus points. - Even for people like wedding shooters.

 

[DuLt]

@ gmrza
With slow-lenses (f4 and up) it's quite faster than pressing all the buttons required to select a point.

 

[traveller]

Yes, 5D3 needs significantly improved AF.
However 21MP is not enough for anyone who likes tele photo. When you crop a little you soon end up in less than 5MP. For anyone who sometimes use a 1.4x tele converter double number of pixels seems to be a very much perfered option since you will always have it on and don't have to change anything.
Increasing the number of pixels is one part of improved image quality. All PP, cropping, angeling, resampling, whatever you want to do, will benefit to start from higher resolution.

OK, but telephoto users are often the most demanding of a cameras AF system, so boosting the resolution without addressing AF and fps is surely pointless because the camera will not appeal to them.

 

[Bob Howland]

High ISO performace is not affected in a negative way by higher pixel density (within reasonable manufacturing possibilities). 7D has much higher pixel density than 5D2 but performs equaly or better than 5D2 per area at high ISO. High ISO performance is correlateded to sensor size and efficiency not pixel size.

So the 5D3 will be as good at ISO 51200 as the Nikon D3s. We'll see.

 

[HughHowey]

High ISO performace is not affected in a negative way by higher pixel density (within reasonable manufacturing possibilities). 7D has much higher pixel density than 5D2 but performs equaly or better than 5D2 per area at high ISO. High ISO performance is correlateded to sensor size and efficiency not pixel size.

Yeah, but the sensor sizes in the 5D and 7D are fixed, so adding pixels == increasing density == worse high ISO performance. The only way manufacturers have been able to get around this is to increase pixel sensitivity and decrease bleed-over. Also, the crystalline structure of the sensors have been improved, creating channels for the light to enter each pixel and not its neighbor.

This is really is the nano-engineering from yesterday's science fiction. It just crept up so slowly, it doesn't seem as amazing as it should.

 

[Etienne]

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.

I'm new to digital photography so the following could be a stupid questions.

Are you talking about doing the crop in post to simulate the same effect of a crop sensor?

Also I read an interesting article the other day from a National Geographic photographer (http://photocinenews.com/2010/10/22/nat-geo-shooter-ben-horton-compares-canon-glass-to-zeiss-glass/) saying that the 5d mark II sensor can capture more detail than the Canon L lens can give it, so would we really benefit from 46 MP with the current lenses?

Would Canon need to make new and more expensive lenses to take advantage of 46MP? I looked at the prices for some medium format camera lenses and they seem to be significantly more expensive

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.

Does ISO performance/sensitivity get sacrificed at the cost of higher pixel densities since the pixels are a lot smaller?

Yes, I'm talking about cropping myself.

The author of the article unfortunately don't know what he is talking about.

High ISO performace is not affected in a negative way by higher pixel density (within reasonable manufacturing possibilities). 7D has much higher pixel density than 5D2 but performs equaly or better than 5D2 per area at high ISO. High ISO performance is correlateded to sensor size and efficiency not pixel size.

5DII high ISO performance is much better than the 7D, it will take you 30seconds with google to find the evidence.

 

[EYEONE]

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.

I'm new to digital photography so the following could be a stupid questions.

Are you talking about doing the crop in post to simulate the same effect of a crop sensor?

Also I read an interesting article the other day from a National Geographic photographer (http://photocinenews.com/2010/10/22/nat-geo-shooter-ben-horton-compares-canon-glass-to-zeiss-glass/) saying that the 5d mark II sensor can capture more detail than the Canon L lens can give it, so would we really benefit from 46 MP with the current lenses?

Would Canon need to make new and more expensive lenses to take advantage of 46MP? I looked at the prices for some medium format camera lenses and they seem to be significantly more expensive

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.

Does ISO performance/sensitivity get sacrificed at the cost of higher pixel densities since the pixels are a lot smaller?

Yes, I'm talking about cropping myself.

The author of the article unfortunately don't know what he is talking about.

High ISO performace is not affected in a negative way by higher pixel density (within reasonable manufacturing possibilities). 7D has much higher pixel density than 5D2 but performs equaly or better than 5D2 per area at high ISO. High ISO performance is correlateded to sensor size and efficiency not pixel size.

5DII high ISO performance is much better than the 7D, it will take you 30seconds with google to find the evidence.

I agree. It doesn't really take much research and you can see that the 5DII has at least a 1 stop advantage over the 7D in terms of ISO performance.

 

[prestonpalmer]

I bought a 2nd 5DII instead of the 7D. I was NOT impressed with the 7D's iso handling.

 

[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

Just take a picture of an object that fills a smaller part of 5D2 frame. Then take a picture of the same object with same lens at the same distance using a 7D. Look at wich image will give best resolution to the object. Then you will have learned that is was your logic that were incorrect.

Please correct if I'm wrong: do you take a crop-factor as an advantage of DSLR? If "yes", then you should be more than happy using mobile devices for shooting
I'm talking about the same size object on photo using both cameras. I was tried both and, to be honest, it's very difficult to find advantages shooting 7D when you don't need high speed and this new-fancy AF (for example, in studios)

 

[NotABunny]

5DII high ISO performance is much better than the 7D

Tuggen didn't say that the 5D2's high ISO performance is the same as the 7D's. He said that the 5D2's high ISO performance is the same as the 7D's per UNIT AREA of sensor.

The reason why there are DSLRs, crop factors, medium frame format, is because the SENSOR SIZE DIFFERS, not because there are more or less pixels.

Of course the 5D2 outputs cleaner images than 7D since it has a 1.6 ^ 2 times bigger sensor, but each square millimeter has the same noise level (I haven't checked this, the cameras' technologies may have differences since they are separated by quite some time, but it verifies for 1D4 and D3s).

 

[fernando]

Dunno if this is relevant or not but the the site that posted this rumor says that they've talked to the source before.

I feel better about our Canon EOS 5D Mark III tip than this one because I’ve conversed with that source before -CGG

At least it's not from a random/new/unknown source. Cheers for a 5DMKIII by mid-year

 

[Loswr]

5DII high ISO performance is much better than the 7D

Tuggen didn't say that the 5D2's high ISO performance is the same as the 7D's. He said that the 5D2's high ISO performance is the same as the 7D's per UNIT AREA of sensor.

Of course the 5D2 outputs cleaner images than 7D since it has a 1.6 ^ 2 times bigger sensor, but each square millimeter has the same noise level

Ok, fine, but s/he is still wrong. There are two main factors that affect noise - sensor size and pixel size. Some will argue that pixel size alone determines noise, which is also incorrect. The total light-gathering capability (i.e. size) of the sensor is the primary factor, but smaller pixels do collect fewer photons per pixel, meaning less signal and a lower SNR. With a strong signal (i.e. good light), photon noise dominates and there is effectively no difference in noise from different size pixels. But as light levels drop and gain is applied, read noise has a greater contribution. In that scenario, the smaller pixels of the 7D are going to produce more noise per unit area than the larger pixels of the 5DII.

 

[kirillica]

Ok, fine, but s/he is still wrong. There are two main factors that affect noise - sensor size and pixel size. Some will argue that pixel size alone determines noise, which is also incorrect. The total light-gathering capability (i.e. size) of the sensor is the primary factor, but smaller pixels do collect fewer photons per pixel, meaning less signal and a lower SNR. With a strong signal (i.e. good light), photon noise dominates and there is effectively no difference in noise from different size pixels. But as light levels drop and gain is applied, read noise has a greater contribution. In that scenario, the smaller pixels of the 7D are going to produce more noise per unit area than the larger pixels of the 5DII.

Huh, at least someone got I've meant. Nr of pixels means nothing when we compare FF and crop, but they still insists: if we have 18Mp on crop, then Canon should show us 46Mp on FF with all other fancy stuff. ;D

 

[transpo1]

Still don't see how Canon could produce a 5DIII by mid-year with the current supply issues...and why would they announce one mid-year if it wasn't shipping until the Fall? Wouldn't that drastically cut down on existing 5DII sales?