5D Mark III Brief Specs? [CR1]

[maciej.urbanski]

Let me throw-in my calculation.
In image processing algorithms such as ones used in cameras we do have linear scaling. So adding second CPU gives almost 100% more processing bandwidth. In most cases workload distribution is extremely simple - schedule processing to first free CPU. In short: two Digics - twice FPS.

Since 1DX has 14FPS (with mirror lockup, see here) and 18MP it means that one Digic5+ can do 126MP/s (=18*14/2).

If 5Dmk3 would have 22MP with 7.5FPS it would need 165MP/s. It's either two Digic5+ (not probable), significantly less per-pixel processing (even less probable, since processing is done in ASIC it would new Digic HW version) or either MP or FPS is incorrect.

Just for comparison: using 18MP sensor with one Digic5+ gets 7FPS which is optimal from development point of view (reusing sensor from 1DX and one Digic5+).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Let me throw-in my calculation.
In image processing algorithms such as ones used in cameras we do have linear scaling. So adding second CPU gives almost 100% more processing bandwidth. In most cases workload distribution is extremely simple - schedule processing to first free CPU. In short: two Digics - twice FPS.

Since 1DX has 14FPS (with mirror lockup, see here) and 18MP it means that one Digic5+ can do 126MP/s (=18*14/2).

If 5Dmk3 would have 22MP with 7.5FPS it would need 165MP/s. It's either two Digic5+ (not probable), significantly less per-pixel processing (even less probable, since processing is done in ASIC it would new Digic HW version) or either MP or FPS is incorrect.

Just for comparison: using 18MP sensor with one Digic5+ gets 7FPS which is optimal from development point of view (reusing sensor from 1DX and one Digic5+).

Nope, check out all the past cameras generations and you'll see that adding a dual-digic in all cases only gave 50% rather than 100% boost.

 

[briansquibb]

I have to say, I did not expect 7.5 FPS. I think I'll buy one... maybe two.

The implication is that based on this rumor, you expect it now? :

18 MP x 12 fps / 2 Digic5+ = 108 MP/s per chip / 22 MP = 4.9 fps (or 5.7 fps for JPG). 7.5 fps means dual Digic5 at least. IMO - unlikely.

Why not - the cheap 7D has dual processors??

 

[VerbalAlchemy]

[I suspect that the company in question would have known this, they would have counted on it, and not allowed the leak (which is why I clearly cannot choose the wine in front of them; dizzying, isn't it?).

I'm rather surprised no one's remarked on the Princess Bride reference.

Inconceivable!

 

[lol]

We don't know the maximum potential of the processors. The 1D X is only telling us a minimum power the processors are capable of. Even if there are two of them in there, it doesn't mean you have to use them to 100%. There *might* be enough power in a pair of them to cope with a hypothetical 22MP at 7.5fps, and they just have some processing power left over on the 1D X.

Assuming the body as 22MP at 7.5fps, is this close enough to the "3D" people want? Assuming the AF is up to scratch of course. You can add me to the camp of why 22MP if they already done an 18MP FF sensor, unless it is to help prevent the deep pocketed uninformed from MP confusion with the lower bodies (18MP APS-C)?

 

[Wrathwilde]

Why not - the cheap 7D has dual processors??

Exactly, and It wouldn't surprise me if the 5DMK2 is actually cheaper for Canon to build than the 7D. I know there are fewer sensors per wafer in production, but I seriously doubt they cost Canon more than a few dollars more per chip than the 7D's sensor, and by every other measure the 7D is a better built camera. So either it's a wash in cost to produce, or, more likely, the 7D actually costs Canon more per camera.

 

[pakosouthpark]

these days are getting really exciting, with every other day 5d mkiii rumours LOVE IT!

not always the best rumours though.

 

[maciej.urbanski]

Nope, check out all the past cameras generations and you'll see that adding a dual-digic in all cases only gave 50% rather than 100% boost.

I've checked:
5Dmk2 - single Digic4: approx. 82,3 MP/s processing
1Dmk4 - double Digic4: approx. 160 MP/s processing (80MP/s per Digic4)
7D - double Digic4: approx. 145MP/s processing (72.5MP/s per Digic4)

In future - please check your facts before responding.

 

[NotABunny]

Since 1DX has 14FPS (with mirror lockup, see here) and 18MP it means that one Digic5+ can do 126MP/s (=18*14/2)

There is another possibility: the DIGIC5 can do more than 126 MP/s and the reason for "only" 14 FPS of 1DX is not the processing power (but either mechanical or electrical).


For example, Canon says that:

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/news/canon_reveals_flagship_eos_1d_x.do
16-channel readout to facilitate a high speed continuous shooting at up to 14 frames per second (fps)

So, the limit is not the processing power.


Interestingly enough:

http://www.learn.usa.canon.com/resources/articles/2012/digic_processors.shtml
A DIGIC 5 processor is approximately six times faster than DIGIC 4. A DIGIC 5+ is approximately three times faster than DIGIC 5, and 17 times faster than DIGIC 4.

(There doesn't appear to be a DIGIC 4+)

 

[jimmy156]

I don't understand why people think the 7d replacement would be full frame.

If canon bought out a FF 22mp, Pro AF, 7-8fps 7dII at the same SRP of the original 7d, who would pay more then double that for a 1dX?

If canon do bring out another highish fps FF camera, it wont be called the 7dII (or the 5dIII for that matter). They might do this, call it something else, end the 7d line and bring the 70d/80d up to fill the gap. but i doubt it.

 

[Rank_90]

I don't understand why people think the 7d replacement would be full frame.

If canon bought out a FF 22mp, Pro AF, 7-8fps 7dII at the same SRP of the original 7d, who would pay more then double that for a 1dX?

If canon do bring out another highish fps FF camera, it wont be called the 7dII (or the 5dIII for that matter). They might do this, call it something else, end the 7d line and bring the 70d/80d up to fill the gap. but i doubt it.

I think the 7D Mk II needs to be put to bed now. In my view Canon would be mad to bring out the 7D Mk II as sales are still doing well and its not nearly reached its end of life. It doesn't need to be replaced or upgrades right now. Its serving its purpose on the market so Canon wont touch it just now.

The 5D Mrk III or the 5D X (who knows what they will call it) will be cam on the leaked pics. Thats what the majority of people know/think so can we kill the full frame 7D II idea as its a little off the mark.

Thanks,

 

[Loswr]

Since 1DX has 14FPS (with mirror lockup, see here) and 18MP it means that one Digic5+ can do 126MP/s (=18*14/2).

Depends on the card they use - if it's the XQD, fine, but if it's a regular CF keep in mind that the 14 fps speed of the 1D X is limited to JPG only, which is why I stated, "18 MP x 12 fps / 2 Digic5+ = 108 MP/s per chip / 22 MP = 4.9 fps (or 5.7 fps for JPG)."

Nope, check out all the past cameras generations and you'll see that adding a dual-digic in all cases only gave 50% rather than 100% boost.

That's a confound - the limitation probably isn't the Digic processor(s), it's the mirror. Even on the 1D X, the Digic5+'s aren't the whole story, else why is 12 fps the max for RAW and 14 fps is only JPG? That speaks to a buffer/card speed limitation.

Regardless, I doubt we'll see two Digic processors in a 5-series camera, and I really doubt we'll see 7.5 fps. But...I'd like to be proven wrong!

 

[parsek]

A mere 22MP output would be incredibly disappointing for me, despite how great the rest of it will turn out. It would make me drop my plans of upgrading to the 5D Mark III entirely. Unless of course it has 18+ f-stops of dynamic range.

 

[JR]

A mere 22MP output would be incredibly disappointing for me, despite how great the rest of it will turn out. It would make me drop my plans of upgrading to the 5D Mark III entirely. Unless of course it has 18+ f-stops of dynamic range.

I see this a bit differently. Having a 22MP sensor is probably the best chance we have to see some tangible ISO improvement in the 5D mkIII with a new processor, as opposed to getting a super high MP sensor like 36MP and having ISO performance remains the same or even beeing less then today.

Of course all this are compromise, but we have to assume Canon will pick the compromise that suit the most people so as to generate the most sales...

Jacques

 

[Orangutan]

If canon bought out a FF 22mp, Pro AF, 7-8fps 7dII at the same SRP of the original 7d, who would pay more then double that for a 1dX?

As Canon discovered with the 5D2, it's not about profit margin alone, it's about (profit margin) x (units sold). Sure, you don't want to cannibalize sales from a camera with a much higher profit margin...unless you can sell enough extra units to make up for it. It's well-understood (or at least widely reported) that P&S sales account for vastly more sales and profits than DSLR's, even with much lower profit margin; that same reasoning applies within the DSLR line. It's all about maximizing profit and, if they believe they can do that with a 7d2, or a 5d3 that's essentially a FF 7D, they will.

I think the 7D Mk II needs to be put to bed now. In my view Canon would be mad to bring out the 7D Mk II...Its serving its purpose on the market so Canon wont touch it just now.

The 7D's Nikon competitor, the D300s, has apparently been retired in preparation for the D400. We can only assume that the D400 is designed to take the "best sports crop" title away, so the 7D may not be serving its purpose on the market much longer.

To many the 1D+1Ds merger was a surprise; perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by more surprises. ;D

 

[simonxu11]

A mere 22MP output would be incredibly disappointing for me, despite how great the rest of it will turn out. It would make me drop my plans of upgrading to the 5D Mark III entirely. Unless of course it has 18+ f-stops of dynamic range.

Well, it cannot satisfy everyone

 

[traveller]

I've tried to do all the calculations based upon previous Digic generations, but I've found that it's very difficult to come up with precise figures for processing power. Take the Digic 4 generation:

1D Mk4 = 16MP x 10fps = 160/2 = 80MP/s
7D = 18MP x 8fps = 144/2 = 72MP/s
60D = 18MP x 5fps = 90MP/s

So there's a range from 72 - 90MP/s that they Digic 4 seems to be capable of processing; so are the 1D X's Digic 5+s at the higher end or lower end of their capability range? There is also the complicating factor that the 1D X has a separate Digic 4 processor dedicated to AF and metering. It could be entirely possible that a camera using dual Digic 5 for both image processing and AF & metering, might only be capable of 7.5fps. Alternatively, this could be all that marketing would allow for a sub-1D series full frame camera. Of course, it is far more likely that this rumour is total BS!

 

[zim]

The 7D2 will be so water proof it won't need a housing. so it must be the 5D for all you fair weather photographers out there

 

[AprilForever]

If canon bought out a FF 22mp, Pro AF, 7-8fps 7dII at the same SRP of the original 7d, who would pay more then double that for a 1dX?

As Canon discovered with the 5D2, it's not about profit margin alone, it's about (profit margin) x (units sold). Sure, you don't want to cannibalize sales from a camera with a much higher profit margin...unless you can sell enough extra units to make up for it. It's well-understood (or at least widely reported) that P&S sales account for vastly more sales and profits than DSLR's, even with much lower profit margin; that same reasoning applies within the DSLR line. It's all about maximizing profit and, if they believe they can do that with a 7d2, or a 5d3 that's essentially a FF 7D, they will.

I think the 7D Mk II needs to be put to bed now. In my view Canon would be mad to bring out the 7D Mk II...Its serving its purpose on the market so Canon wont touch it just now.

The 7D's Nikon competitor, the D300s, has apparently been retired in preparation for the D400. We can only assume that the D400 is designed to take the "best sports crop" title away, so the 7D may not be serving its purpose on the market much longer.

To many the 1D+1Ds merger was a surprise; perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by more surprises. ;D

If Canon merges the 7D/5D lineup into a full-frame 5DX, Nikon D400 sales will skyrocket. Many people will rush to buy them. Likely, many of these will be Canon owners... :'(

 

[Loswr]

It's well-understood (or at least widely reported) that P&S sales account for vastly more sales and profits than DSLR's, even with much lower profit margin

I love how people state assumptions as facts. I have this old cheat sheet of phrase translations for scientific writing; a couple of those phrases apply here:

• "It's well undersood..." = "I think..."
• "It's widely believed..." = "A couple other people think so, too..." (It's an old sheet - today, "I read it on the Internet..." is probably more apt.)

So, P&S sales account for more profit than dSLR sales? Do you have evidence to support this claim? I'm going to guess no...and I'm saying that because Canon has presented that the true situation is the opposite of what you state - and getting more opposite by the quarter. The screenshot below is a slide from Canon's 3Q11 financial presentation (that's the most recent one posted, you can find them all here), and I've highlighted the relevant part with a red oval.

According to Canon, in 3Q11, dSLR sales accounted for 29% of units sold, but 72% of revenue from camera sales. If you look back historically (presentation materials at the link above), you can see that over the past several years, both the dSLR percentage of units sold and the percentage of camera revenue from dSLR sales has increased substantially (for example, 5 years previous to to 3Q11, dSLRs accounted for 12% of units and 34% of revenue).

On a side note, if you look at those numbers - more than a 100% increase in dSLR share of camera sales and revenue over the past 5 years - and also consider the overall dSLR market share, which went from a near tie to Canon dominating, it's easy to see how Canon could (and arguably should) feel that they have had a winning strategy for the past several years, and thus easy to see how they can justify sticking to that same strategy. I'm not saying they should do that, but that's definitely the easy road, especially for a conservative company.