5D Mark III / 6D from India

[kubelik]

28-32 mpx seems reasonable. AF upgrade is a must (rumored 19 point would suffice). 1 more frame per second a must (5 fps). Improved sealing a must. Built in flash controller a must. Double memory card slots a must. Higher resolution screen would certainly help with all the manual focusing we do through live view. If they make it tilt that's fine with me. I'm finally on board with the luminous-landscape guys, a mirror lockup button is desperately needed. $5k is a-ok.

Justin, you and I are looking for the same camera. I think they could give us something like that for less than $5K, however. $4000-4500 seems more reasonable

 

[clicstudio]

Touch Screen!

I want a 4" Touch Screen! Little consumer cameras have them for $400 why can't a pro camera get one?
I want an iPhone like screen on my 1Ds IV!!!

 

[Flake]

Mirror lock up button is not needed! Most people use Live view which flips the mirror out of the way, and the zoom function allows critical focus (upto 10X). If it's combined with the silent shooting it's the most effective way to reduce vibration.

For macro shooters getting the mirror up is a must, see the MP-e 65mm thread on lenses for the link to an article which shows just how much sharper the live view method actually is.

 

[WarStreet]

Justin, you and I are looking for the same camera. I think they could give us something like that for less than $5K, however. $4000-4500 seems more reasonable

This is what I want too, with 2/3 stop better noise and improved DR. I will go even a bit lower in price, it should be similar to 5DII launch. Otherwise it won't be a 5DII replacement if it is on a different price level, and if we check history trend, these specs are in line of what we should expect with the same price range. Maybe no dual slot memory. I really wish to be able to get better fps with the grip, I guess that is asking too much

 

[Justin]

Well friend, two of us makes a market. Now we just need to get Canon to recognize us. And I like your negotiation skills. $4k is about perfect.

28-32 mpx seems reasonable. AF upgrade is a must (rumored 19 point would suffice). 1 more frame per second a must (5 fps). Improved sealing a must. Built in flash controller a must. Double memory card slots a must. Higher resolution screen would certainly help with all the manual focusing we do through live view. If they make it tilt that's fine with me. I'm finally on board with the luminous-landscape guys, a mirror lockup button is desperately needed. $5k is a-ok.

Justin, you and I are looking for the same camera. I think they could give us something like that for less than $5K, however. $4000-4500 seems more reasonable

 

[DetlevCM]

I can't imagine Canon killing the 5D name - as the first Full Frame DSLR (if I am not mistaken) it's a legendary name, that right now is worth retaining for it's own sake.

Maybe when DSLRs encounter some huge change in technology a new name might again become iconic - but as long as they are in the end "plain DSLRs" (and the basic ideas right now are the same as in the first 5D, just the Tech is newer and more capable) a change of name would be a large loss.

 

[Flake]

Yep you're mistaken! The first FF digital camera was the original 1Ds The 5D was the first affordable FF and sold in huge numbers.

If Canon decide to move the camera up or down market in a big way they might well decide to change the name to differentiate the new camera.

 

[leGreve]

A touch screen? Way to go consumer -.-

The last thing I need is a touch screen. Nothing I use for serious jobs would EVER have a touch screen, much less an articulated touch screen. Guess I have to save up for the 1ds again, if it indeed comes.

I know the monitors aren't 100% for assessing sharpness and what now, but why make it worse?

I call fail on this if it turns out to be true.

touchscreen??? on a pro level dslr? no no no!

Phase One has touchscreen on their new IQ1xx medium format camera backs, and the backs are supposed to work in rough conditions. Not sure how well the touchscreen works though.

Well... that doesn't make it ok. Touch screen is all hype... don't go put your sweaty fingers on the screen where you once in a while will try to view if the setup is ok. Just doesn't make sense.
----------

www.legreve.com

 

[bhavikk]

A touch screen? Way to go consumer -.-

Touch screen is all hype... don't go put your sweaty fingers on the screen where you once in a while will try to view if the setup is ok. Just doesn't make sense.

I have to agree, touch screen on a pro body would be terrible idea. I'm actually waiting for the 5D Mark III or equivalent to be released so that I can buy it. Touch screen + articulating screen would probably make me buy the 7D or save enough the next 1Ds or equivalent.

Also I don't want to be cleaning the screen every 2 minutes. Your nose and fingers will leave marks all over it.

 

[unfocused]

The last thing I need is a touch screen.

I won't entirely dismiss a touch screen, but I do wonder how that would work. As it is, every time I look through the viewfinder I end up with smudges on the screen. I wonder how they'd prevent me from changing settings with my nose.

Keep in mind too, that with phone touch screens, you have to have special gloves for the winter. Never say never, but I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that this would be a good thing.

 

[bvukich]

The last thing I need is a touch screen.

I won't entirely dismiss a touch screen, but I do wonder how that would work. As it is, every time I look through the viewfinder I end up with smudges on the screen. I wonder how they'd prevent me from changing settings with my nose.

Keep in mind too, that with phone touch screens, you have to have special gloves for the winter. Never say never, but I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that this would be a good thing.

The proximity sensor will probably disable the touchscreen when it is up to your face. Much like phones do. The screen already turns off when triggered by the proximity sensor.

That being said. I want a touchscreen about as much as I want a swivel screen, which is not at all.

 

[Etienne]

The last thing I need is a touch screen.

I won't entirely dismiss a touch screen, but I do wonder how that would work. As it is, every time I look through the viewfinder I end up with smudges on the screen. I wonder how they'd prevent me from changing settings with my nose.

Keep in mind too, that with phone touch screens, you have to have special gloves for the winter. Never say never, but I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that this would be a good thing.

Swivel screen and touch screen is fine with me. The 60D screen stays smudge free because I keep it turned in. Whenever I open it, it's clean and scratch free.

 

[ronderick]

I would definitely want an articulating mirror.... which gives me the simple pleasure of simply reversing the LCD so there's no more wipe-your-nose-with-screen problem ;D

As for touch screen, I won't mind if there's a way to disable this function w/o endangering any controls or comprimising weather/dust seal in any ways. Of course, adding a touch screen would no doubt raise the price tag of the camera...

 

[DetlevCM]

There is one thing I'd find very bothersome with a touchscreen....

-> they tend to kill off buttons, and not everybody can use them well.

On my old laptop with a Synaptics touchpad I found that my index finger isn't good for a capacitive touch device - I can tap a touchpad without a response.... -> on a DSLR a touchscreen would only work as a gimmick, as nobody needs a potentially unresponsive interface with no feedback.

When you press a button you know you pressed it - when you tap the screen you - ehm, yes? You do NOT know whether the screen has registered it or not. And no, some shading, or colour overlay doesn't count, I don't need to look at a button to use it, on a screen I have to - unless it's covered by my finger.

My MP3 player let's me deduce one thing: Touch is nice for one function, and one function only - scrolling. On that note though, the scrollwheel on my 5D MK II is more responsive and more accurate than a touchscreen. Besides, considering the loading time per image, a touchscreen scroll wouldn't work unless the cameras mode of operation were redesigned.

And thanks for the correction above
Still makes the 5D iconic though - even if it wasn't the first digital FF.

 

[Titanium]

The last thing I need is a touch screen.

I won't entirely dismiss a touch screen, but I do wonder how that would work. As it is, every time I look through the viewfinder I end up with smudges on the screen. I wonder how they'd prevent me from changing settings with my nose.

Keep in mind too, that with phone touch screens, you have to have special gloves for the winter. Never say never, but I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that this would be a good thing.

The proximity sensor will probably disable the touchscreen when it is up to your face. Much like phones do. The screen already turns off when triggered by the proximity sensor.

That being said. I want a touchscreen about as much as I want a swivel screen, which is not at all.

How do you compose your shots 1 inch above the surface of water? Or freezing mud? What above those overhead shots with arms fully stretched out? How do you deal with camera mounted on a fully extended monopod peeking through the side of the helicopter, on a speedboat, over the balcony from 60th floor of a tower or a moving car tracking another?
Truth is, unless you hook up an external LCD monitor, you can't do any of these shots without the flip-out screen.
But these are extreme examples. Personally, I find a fully articulate screen on my G11 a true blessing. I am sick and tired of squatting and standing like a spaz behind my camera mounted on a tripod because I'm 6'5". My neck starts hurting, my knees wanna pop-out. I compose ALL of my shots on a flip-out screen and it's a dream come true because I always look at the camera from the most comfortable position. I dictate its place, not the other way round. Last time I used a viewfinder was on my Minolta Dynax 9Xi in 1998. I learned photography in the early 90s and of course used a conventional viewfinder. Looking back - I really don't I miss it. It's a remnant of another era. You can't see the image as sensor sees it. No DOF preview without dimming. No colour balance preview. No this, not that. Sorry, I can't accept that in 2011.
Today, I use the viewfinder only if LCD gets too dim in a direct daylight...which almost never happens.
This is how I see it: people feared cars when horses were the only means of transportation. No one appreciated photography 120 years ago because it wasn't considered a true art. Nobody wanted sound in the era of silent films and LCD screens were unheard of in 35mm film cameras. Get used to a good thing mate, it's here to serve you and make your life easy. Good ahead and flame me now.

 

[MCK]

thats a good one ;D

 

[DetlevCM]

The last thing I need is a touch screen.

I won't entirely dismiss a touch screen, but I do wonder how that would work. As it is, every time I look through the viewfinder I end up with smudges on the screen. I wonder how they'd prevent me from changing settings with my nose.

Keep in mind too, that with phone touch screens, you have to have special gloves for the winter. Never say never, but I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that this would be a good thing.

The proximity sensor will probably disable the touchscreen when it is up to your face. Much like phones do. The screen already turns off when triggered by the proximity sensor.

That being said. I want a touchscreen about as much as I want a swivel screen, which is not at all.

How do you compose your shots 1 inch above the surface of water? Or freezing mud? What above those overhead shots with arms fully stretched out? How do you deal with camera mounted on a fully extended monopod peeking through the side of the helicopter, on a speedboat, over the balcony from 60th floor of a tower or a moving car tracking another?
Truth is, unless you hook up an external LCD monitor, you can't do any of these shots without the flip-out screen.
But these are extreme examples. Personally, I find a fully articulate screen on my G11 a true blessing. I am sick and tired of squatting and standing like a spaz behind my camera mounted on a tripod because I'm 6'5". My neck starts hurting, my knees wanna pop-out. I compose ALL of my shots on a flip-out screen and it's a dream come true because I always look at the camera from the most comfortable position. I dictate its place, not the other way round. Last time I used a viewfinder was on my Minolta Dynax 9Xi in 1998. I learned photography in the early 90s and of course used a conventional viewfinder. Looking back - I really don't I miss it. It's a remnant of another era. You can't see the image as sensor sees it. No DOF preview without dimming. No colour balance preview. No this, not that. Sorry, I can't accept that in 2011.
Today, I use the viewfinder only if LCD gets too dim in a direct daylight...which almost never happens.
This is how I see it: people feared cars when horses were the only means of transportation. No one appreciated photography 120 years ago because it wasn't considered a true art. Nobody wanted sound in the era of silent films and LCD screens were unheard of in 35mm film cameras. Get used to a good thing mate, it's here to serve you and make your life easy. Good ahead and flame me now.

Actually, you can - you should know your camera good enough to estimate the filed of view.
With today's megapixel count you can easily frame a bit wider to allow you to level the image.

And it's not that difficult to do at all.

 

[Titanium]

The last thing I need is a touch screen.

I won't entirely dismiss a touch screen, but I do wonder how that would work. As it is, every time I look through the viewfinder I end up with smudges on the screen. I wonder how they'd prevent me from changing settings with my nose.

Keep in mind too, that with phone touch screens, you have to have special gloves for the winter. Never say never, but I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that this would be a good thing.

The proximity sensor will probably disable the touchscreen when it is up to your face. Much like phones do. The screen already turns off when triggered by the proximity sensor.

That being said. I want a touchscreen about as much as I want a swivel screen, which is not at all.

How do you compose your shots 1 inch above the surface of water? Or freezing mud? What above those overhead shots with arms fully stretched out? How do you deal with camera mounted on a fully extended monopod peeking through the side of the helicopter, on a speedboat, over the balcony from 60th floor of a tower or a moving car tracking another?
Truth is, unless you hook up an external LCD monitor, you can't do any of these shots without the flip-out screen.
But these are extreme examples. Personally, I find a fully articulate screen on my G11 a true blessing. I am sick and tired of squatting and standing like a spaz behind my camera mounted on a tripod because I'm 6'5". My neck starts hurting, my knees wanna pop-out. I compose ALL of my shots on a flip-out screen and it's a dream come true because I always look at the camera from the most comfortable position. I dictate its place, not the other way round. Last time I used a viewfinder was on my Minolta Dynax 9Xi in 1998. I learned photography in the early 90s and of course used a conventional viewfinder. Looking back - I really don't I miss it. It's a remnant of another era. You can't see the image as sensor sees it. No DOF preview without dimming. No colour balance preview. No this, not that. Sorry, I can't accept that in 2011.
Today, I use the viewfinder only if LCD gets too dim in a direct daylight...which almost never happens.
This is how I see it: people feared cars when horses were the only means of transportation. No one appreciated photography 120 years ago because it wasn't considered a true art. Nobody wanted sound in the era of silent films and LCD screens were unheard of in 35mm film cameras. Get used to a good thing mate, it's here to serve you and make your life easy. Good ahead and flame me now.

Actually, you can - you should know your camera good enough to estimate the filed of view.
With today's megapixel count you can easily frame a bit wider to allow you to level the image.

And it's not that difficult to do at all.

I'm sure you can but why would you when there's technology that takes guesstimation out of the equation? I'll choose to control my composition versus shooting in the dark any day.

 

[DetlevCM]

The last thing I need is a touch screen.

I won't entirely dismiss a touch screen, but I do wonder how that would work. As it is, every time I look through the viewfinder I end up with smudges on the screen. I wonder how they'd prevent me from changing settings with my nose.

Keep in mind too, that with phone touch screens, you have to have special gloves for the winter. Never say never, but I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that this would be a good thing.

The proximity sensor will probably disable the touchscreen when it is up to your face. Much like phones do. The screen already turns off when triggered by the proximity sensor.

That being said. I want a touchscreen about as much as I want a swivel screen, which is not at all.

How do you compose your shots 1 inch above the surface of water? Or freezing mud? What above those overhead shots with arms fully stretched out? How do you deal with camera mounted on a fully extended monopod peeking through the side of the helicopter, on a speedboat, over the balcony from 60th floor of a tower or a moving car tracking another?
Truth is, unless you hook up an external LCD monitor, you can't do any of these shots without the flip-out screen.
But these are extreme examples. Personally, I find a fully articulate screen on my G11 a true blessing. I am sick and tired of squatting and standing like a spaz behind my camera mounted on a tripod because I'm 6'5". My neck starts hurting, my knees wanna pop-out. I compose ALL of my shots on a flip-out screen and it's a dream come true because I always look at the camera from the most comfortable position. I dictate its place, not the other way round. Last time I used a viewfinder was on my Minolta Dynax 9Xi in 1998. I learned photography in the early 90s and of course used a conventional viewfinder. Looking back - I really don't I miss it. It's a remnant of another era. You can't see the image as sensor sees it. No DOF preview without dimming. No colour balance preview. No this, not that. Sorry, I can't accept that in 2011.
Today, I use the viewfinder only if LCD gets too dim in a direct daylight...which almost never happens.
This is how I see it: people feared cars when horses were the only means of transportation. No one appreciated photography 120 years ago because it wasn't considered a true art. Nobody wanted sound in the era of silent films and LCD screens were unheard of in 35mm film cameras. Get used to a good thing mate, it's here to serve you and make your life easy. Good ahead and flame me now.

Actually, you can - you should know your camera good enough to estimate the filed of view.
With today's megapixel count you can easily frame a bit wider to allow you to level the image.

And it's not that difficult to do at all.

I'm sure you can but why would you when there's technology that takes guesstimation out of the equation? I'll choose to control my composition versus shooting in the dark any day.

Maybe because I still like to think that there is still some art to photography - which makes some people better at it, an some worse.

It's the same reason I don't really like Photoshop, but at the same time appreciate its features.
The most editing I feel that should be done is CameraRAW (which offers the same options as film).

 

[Titanium]

The last thing I need is a touch screen.

I won't entirely dismiss a touch screen, but I do wonder how that would work. As it is, every time I look through the viewfinder I end up with smudges on the screen. I wonder how they'd prevent me from changing settings with my nose.

Keep in mind too, that with phone touch screens, you have to have special gloves for the winter. Never say never, but I just have a hard time getting my head around the idea that this would be a good thing.

The proximity sensor will probably disable the touchscreen when it is up to your face. Much like phones do. The screen already turns off when triggered by the proximity sensor.

That being said. I want a touchscreen about as much as I want a swivel screen, which is not at all.

How do you compose your shots 1 inch above the surface of water? Or freezing mud? What above those overhead shots with arms fully stretched out? How do you deal with camera mounted on a fully extended monopod peeking through the side of the helicopter, on a speedboat, over the balcony from 60th floor of a tower or a moving car tracking another?
Truth is, unless you hook up an external LCD monitor, you can't do any of these shots without the flip-out screen.
But these are extreme examples. Personally, I find a fully articulate screen on my G11 a true blessing. I am sick and tired of squatting and standing like a spaz behind my camera mounted on a tripod because I'm 6'5". My neck starts hurting, my knees wanna pop-out. I compose ALL of my shots on a flip-out screen and it's a dream come true because I always look at the camera from the most comfortable position. I dictate its place, not the other way round. Last time I used a viewfinder was on my Minolta Dynax 9Xi in 1998. I learned photography in the early 90s and of course used a conventional viewfinder. Looking back - I really don't I miss it. It's a remnant of another era. You can't see the image as sensor sees it. No DOF preview without dimming. No colour balance preview. No this, not that. Sorry, I can't accept that in 2011.
Today, I use the viewfinder only if LCD gets too dim in a direct daylight...which almost never happens.
This is how I see it: people feared cars when horses were the only means of transportation. No one appreciated photography 120 years ago because it wasn't considered a true art. Nobody wanted sound in the era of silent films and LCD screens were unheard of in 35mm film cameras. Get used to a good thing mate, it's here to serve you and make your life easy. Good ahead and flame me now.

Actually, you can - you should know your camera good enough to estimate the filed of view.
With today's megapixel count you can easily frame a bit wider to allow you to level the image.

And it's not that difficult to do at all.

I'm sure you can but why would you when there's technology that takes guesstimation out of the equation? I'll choose to control my composition versus shooting in the dark any day.

Maybe because I still like to think that there is still some art to photography - which makes some people better at it, an some worse.

It's the same reason I don't really like Photoshop, but at the same time appreciate its features.
The most editing I feel that should be done is CameraRAW (which offers the same options as film).

I see. So by this logic, those who use camera's viewfinder are true photographers and artists and those who compose their shots with LCD screen...are not? Fascinating. Old 8X10 view camera used by Ansel Adams in the previous century didn't have the viewfinder either. Entire back of the camera was an 8x10 screen and picture was reversed. This is how he composed his legendary shots. He must've been a hack too I guess.

As for your comment regarding Photoshop - I think you're completely off the mark.
Greatest photographers in history spent HOURS and sometimes DAYS in the darkroom printing that perfect print from one single negative. Ansel Adams, America's greatest landscape photographer ever, wrote volumes of books on how to selectively adjust the lighting during the printing process in order to bring out the detail in the shadows and in the highlights. See Amazon.com for his incredibly literature.
He used dodging and burning (same tools exist in Photoshop today) to control the exposure levels across the print. He developed an ingenious lighting matrix (a grid of bulbs) with ability to control the intensity of light coming from each bulb during the printing of enlargements and that's how the bright skies in his prints always retained the detail, likewise, in the shadows. Isn't that a precusor or today's HDR? He was always removing intruding elements that peeked inside his composition such as branches of trees branches by carefully rotating negatives and cropping the outer edges of his exposed frames. He died in 1982, way before the advent of digital photography and computer image processing. What do you think he would've thought of today's tools?
He experimented with various chemicals, development times, types of print media, all in order to enhance colours, mood, vibrance or tonal ranges, etc - that's a today's equivalent of brightness/contrast/levels/curves/colour balance in Photoshop. In fact, most of the image adjustment tools in Photoshop today are inspired directly by the chemical/optical processes in the darkroom. Legacy of great masters.
Do yourself a favour. Learn how to use Photoshop -seriously-, don't just appreciate its features and frown upon it. Put it to good use and your photography will benefit from it greatly.