5D Mark III/X Information [CR1]

[Neeneko]

Well, that makes my point. You are saying they "could" but "won't" I suggested they "can't," but regardless of the reason, it isn't happening and isn't likely to happen.

I agree that it seems unlikely that they would keep the 5D2 around at a lower price point since they will probably just retool those assembly lines for other higher margin bodies.

Though I would not be too surprised if they (at some point) introduced an 'entry level' FF body that sits a little lower then the current 5D2 price point. Though even that I would not bet money on since they would then be competing with the used market for their own products, esp since the proposed 5D3 is not really that huge of an upgrade so 5D2s will probably retain a lot of resale value.

Oddly enough, I am personally hoping whatever they come up with pushes the used prices down a bit. I keep watching the 1Ds2 used market, but discounted 52Ds would be pretty enticing... sadly I hold little hope of the 1DX pushing 1Ds3s down into my price point....

 

[Loswr]

Production costs aren't the same. There's a scale factor of 100x between the Pro and consumer body production lines. A weather sealed FF pro body and a 1.6 crop consumer body have little in common beyond the nameplate.

Nice hyperbole, but that can't be true. The most expensive 1-series body sells for ~10x an xxxD body, there's not a 100x difference in production costs.

 

[Neeneko]

Nice hyperbole, but that can't be true. The most expensive 1-series body sells for ~10x an xxxD body, there's not a 100x difference in production costs.

Real numbers are pretty hard to come by, but I would wager 2-3x cost on the sensor (based off cost differences in machine vision cameras, which have a more even margin in general and no feature differences between models besides sensor size). The other bells and whistles it is hard to say.

 

[wtlloyd]

I don't read "scale factor of 100x" as "cost factor of 100x", but I'm not going to get into any arguments here.

In terms of number of cameras produced and sold, I think I'm well in the ballpark.

Production costs aren't the same. There's a scale factor of 100x between the Pro and consumer body production lines. A weather sealed FF pro body and a 1.6 crop consumer body have little in common beyond the nameplate.

Nice hyperbole, but that can't be true. The most expensive 1-series body sells for ~10x an xxxD body, there's not a 100x difference in production costs.

 

[psolberg]

I agree with you that comparisons are the only exact proof, but I don't believe Canon could allow itself to only use "mere ISO values in a marketing brouchure" and then not deliver in such high-end pro bodies, they would be the laughing stock then...I hope we will get blown away :-*

I think the 1Dmk4 (ISO102400) proves that Canon indeed can put in high ISO numbers in the camera just to make them show in the brochure, not caring about how it actually performs. Thus, I will remain skeptical until real RAW samples and tests appear.

I agree, but do keep in mind that for the 1D IV, ISO 102400 is the H3 setting, and the top native (non-expanded) ISO for the 1D IV is ISO 12800, vs. ISO 51200 for the 1D X.

While these super high ISO values are better than nothing, nobody considers them any good for day to day use. I think it will be another generation before anything over ISO 51200 are nothing more than a numbers game that these manufacturers like to play. Personally I couldn't care less. It's like upgrading your car to do 150mph when your tires are rated to 120mph. pointless.

I don't understand how do you guys see the X has high MP when the 1DX is NOT.

agreed. look at the G1X. high MP? IMO X doesn't stand for anything unlike with nikon where the X has a very specific meaning. It is just a marketing tool.

Having a lower MP number regardless of actual performance will be competitive towards a large group of users. I think many are turned off by having to deal with 36 megapixel files. In other words, lower MP can be a feature in itself, especially since D800 lacks sRAW and mRAW modes.

this was what was said about the 12MP nikon models compared to big 20MP (at the time) models. but at the end of the day it didn't matter because we're not talking about a 10x jump but a modest jump. Cards are always cheaper, pcs are always faster, 36MP is the new 20MP and 20MP is the new 12MP. less MP itself is not a feature. What is a feature is that having less MP allows for faster fps and less noise. I don't see high MP as a bad thing either, but I think canon is wise to differentiate themselves with a low MP body this time.

I agree. Buying a D800 also means investing in HDD's or NAS...

If you were runing out of room anytimes soon with 20MP files, the fact of the matter is that 36MP won't matter. Likewise if you had room to spare, 36MP won't push you over all that much faster. you fire that 5DIII at 7fps a lot and you'll probably end up needing more room

 

[Loswr]

I don't read "scale factor of 100x" as "cost factor of 100x", but I'm not going to get into any arguments here.

In terms of number of cameras produced and sold, I think I'm well in the ballpark.

I would be extremely surprised if Canon sold one 1-series body for every 100 consumer bodies. I suspect the ratio is much lower (1:300 at least, likely lower still). There's a reason Canon produces xxxD bodies and kit lenses in Taiwan instead of (or in some cases, in addition to) Japan.

Nice hyperbole, but that can't be true. The most expensive 1-series body sells for ~10x an xxxD body, there's not a 100x difference in production costs.

Real numbers are pretty hard to come by, but I would wager 2-3x cost on the sensor (based off cost differences in machine vision cameras, which have a more even margin in general and no feature differences between models besides sensor size). The other bells and whistles it is hard to say.

Ultimately, though, production costs are essentially irrelevant (this was discussed recently, not sure if that was in this thread or elsewhere on CR). Sales pricing is determined by amortization of R&D costs, market size, and related factors. Canon expects to sell fewer 1-series bodies, they have to charge more for them.

I work in the pharmaceutical industry - a small pharma company recently got approval for a drug that is a very effective treatment for cystic fibrosis, for the 5% of the patient population with a particular form of the disease. The whole CF population is small, and 5% of that means a very small market for this drug. Chemically, the molecule is pretty simple, and easy to synthesize. The per-pill production costs are not significantly different from Tylenol or an over-the-counter antihistamine. A year's worth of Tylenol would cost you about $30. A year's worth of ivacaftor will cost you $294,000.

 

[AshtonNekolah]

Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.

7D - $1299

5Dm2 21mp FF - $1799

5DX - 22mp FF 61pt AF, 6.9fps - $2499

3DX - 40mp FF 61pt AF, 4fps - $3499

1DX - 18mp FF 61pt AF - 12fps - $5999


I hope canon also makes a budget FF camera. Imagine if the 7Dm2 was a 12mp FF for $1000 that would kill nikon

Nice idea but i never saw a real budget ff camera yet, i guess that's why there are crop's, even when i was shopping for one i notices its either you spend the money on one now or never, the mark2 prices will fall more so that will be a good buy. I wish they kept the same battery in these cameras thou. but then again more demands more power or less.

 

[Orangutan]

A year's worth of ivacaftor will cost you $294,000.

And if they could find a way to make it affordable to the entire 5%, they'd earn themselves some major karma. 8)

 

[EYEONE]

Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.

7D - $1299

5Dm2 21mp FF - $1799

5DX - 22mp FF 61pt AF, 6.9fps - $2499

3DX - 40mp FF 61pt AF, 4fps - $3499

1DX - 18mp FF 61pt AF - 12fps - $5999


I hope canon also makes a budget FF camera. Imagine if the 7Dm2 was a 12mp FF for $1000 that would kill nikon

If Canon has a 5Dx, 3Dx, and a 1Dx all at the same time I'll eat my underwear for breakfast. If the 5D"x" comes out at $2499 I'll eat my gym socks for desert.

 

[DzPhotography]

Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.

7D - $1299

5Dm2 21mp FF - $1799

5DX - 22mp FF 61pt AF, 6.9fps - $2499

3DX - 40mp FF 61pt AF, 4fps - $3499

1DX - 18mp FF 61pt AF - 12fps - $5999


I hope canon also makes a budget FF camera. Imagine if the 7Dm2 was a 12mp FF for $1000 that would kill nikon

If Canon has a 5Dx, 3Dx, and a 1Dx all at the same time I'll eat my underwear for breakfast. If the 5D"x" comes out at $2499 I'll eat my gym socks for desert.

don't forget about the G1X

 

[Jerrad245]

Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.

7D - $1299

5Dm2 21mp FF - $1799

5DX - 22mp FF 61pt AF, 6.9fps - $2499

3DX - 40mp FF 61pt AF, 4fps - $3499

1DX - 18mp FF 61pt AF - 12fps - $5999


I hope canon also makes a budget FF camera. Imagine if the 7Dm2 was a 12mp FF for $1000 that would kill nikon

If Canon has a 5Dx, 3Dx, and a 1Dx all at the same time I'll eat my underwear for breakfast. If the 5D"x" comes out at $2499 I'll eat my gym socks for desert.

This is my first post, but if Canon does in fact follow this, sign me up for a 3DX! i am a wedding & portrait photographer, and my biggest needs are color rendition, skin tones, and pure image quality. I know im no expert on what type of performance a 40mp Camera would have, but those are my main priorities. I love my 5D2, so I am in no need for an upgrade but would be more than willing to spend if my needs (wants) were met.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The quote from Maeda certainly looks like Canon is playing the role of the front-runner. Apparently, they've got a bunch of tech and several prototypes, and were just waiting for Nikon to tip their hand so they can one-up them. Now, before everyone gets too excited, as I said in a previous post, Canon will not put all of their best tech in these cameras: they will do just enough to take a clear edge, and then profit from the next cycle as well.

Hah that sounds more like following than front-running, if you hold back everything and only release in minimum response to what the other guy does...

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

the way Canon develops new product is to satisfy the needs of professional photographers. For instance, the introduction of EOS-1D X is to satisfy professional photographers to photoshoot sports events like the Olympics, in terms of their requirement of high FPS and high image quality under high ISO settings.

I find this comment confusing.. if their 'way' is to develop products for professional photographers.. why are they making video cameras in SLR form? It really feels like videoographers, at minimal, share equal weight.. at this point probably more.

Because many news outlets are now equally hungry for video clips as for stills and of course small scale film makers are and even the big boys have need for them. Some say that the 5D2 actually sold more copies to those using it mostly for video, not sure what the truth is.

 

[MacPaul]

Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.

7D - $1299

5Dm2 21mp FF - $1799

5DX - 22mp FF 61pt AF, 6.9fps - $2499

3DX - 40mp FF 61pt AF, 4fps - $3499

1DX - 18mp FF 61pt AF - 12fps - $5999


I hope canon also makes a budget FF camera. Imagine if the 7Dm2 was a 12mp FF for $1000 that would kill nikon

That's quite okay, but the 5D Mk. II would have to go, the 3D would be the 5D Mk. III with twice the pixel count compared to 1DX/5DX while the 5DX should have the same 18MP as the 1DX and being a pure photography SLR. By doing this, you could reduce price near to 7D level while the 7D (7D Mk. II/70D, whatever) could get cheaper to counter Sony.
One should never forget that Sony will most probably doing big with A77/65 just because of their pricing and video features, all weaknesses of the two put aside. Canon should counter that with more attractively priced cameras with better features (here the antiquated 9 point AF system is the most annoying thing).
If they do so, they can also build an pretty unexpensive 5DX, namely a 7D with FF losing video functions.
Don't complain about that, IMO the time will come when people are fed up with SLRs featuring more video than photo and demand pure photo SLRs, so why don't bring out a photo SLR right now?

 

[Neeneko]

I would be extremely surprised if Canon sold one 1-series body for every 100 consumer bodies. I suspect the ratio is much lower (1:300 at least, likely lower still). There's a reason Canon produces xxxD bodies and kit lenses in Taiwan instead of (or in some cases, in addition to) Japan.

My google-fu is failing, but I recall seeing stats a while back and yeah, it was in that order of magnitude... so somewhere between 1:100 and 1:1000

Ultimately, though, production costs are essentially irrelevant (this was discussed recently, not sure if that was in this thread or elsewhere on CR). Sales pricing is determined by amortization of R&D costs, market size, and related factors. Canon expects to sell fewer 1-series bodies, they have to charge more for them.

I am not so sure here. The R&D costs between bodies is actually probably pretty flat. That sensor though, producing FF or MF sensors actually is a lot more expensive (much higher failure rate) and the FF cameras also use one or more processing chips that are also, because of the number of transistors, more expensive to produce.

Keep in mind, with chips, it is not as simple as 'X failure rate and Y per batch', imperfections are spread around so not only do you get fewer chips per batch but the percentage of bad chips goes up as the physical size increases.

 

[Loswr]

If Canon has a 5Dx, 3Dx, and a 1Dx all at the same time I'll eat my underwear for breakfast. If the 5D"x" comes out at $2499 I'll eat my gym socks for desert.

Suddenly, I'm not hungry anymore.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Here is how I see the new line up shaping up.

7D - $1299

5Dm2 21mp FF - $1799

5DX - 22mp FF 61pt AF, 6.9fps - $2499

3DX - 40mp FF 61pt AF, 4fps - $3499

1DX - 18mp FF 61pt AF - 12fps - $5999


I hope canon also makes a budget FF camera. Imagine if the 7Dm2 was a 12mp FF for $1000 that would kill nikon

Could be.

Although I'm not sure why everyone keeps calling the 3D the slow, fat MP body when the EOS 3 and the fabled 3D everyone has been going on about was always said to be a pro AF, high speed, compact FF.

So I'd swap your 5D3 and 3D names and I would raise the re-labelled 3D price to $2700+ and lower the 5D3 price to $3200.

In 2015 or so the 3D2 bumps up to 39MP and retains 6.9fps and top AF and then we really have a nice all around camera and the 5D4 get cancelled or becomes a much slower, less expensive 39MP body than the 3D2?

For now, some will prefer the D800 and some the 3D.

If the they have fixed up the DR on the 3D/5D3 and haven't crippled the 1DX AF in it more than a trace (and I don't think they should since the D800 will do 6fps in DX mode with grip and 36MP, two pretty decent things! plus have Nikon's very best AF attempt! and uncompressed 1080p out) it will be pretty cool, awesome video, great speed and performance, top AF, compact size. The only thing it will lack is reach, it will be somewhat weak for wildlife, and the detail for hyper ppi 13x19 or for 300 ppi very large size prints, everything else would be everything you want (other than pro sealing, pro durability, hyper fps for the most serious of action shooters, for the ones who must have that they will pay for the 1DX).

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I've done my share of D800 humping lately, but a 22 mp 5DIII with a 61-point AF system and 6.9 FPS would be one heck of a camera. Throw in one or two additional stops of DR and ISO over the 5DII, and this sucker will be irresistible. Do it, Canon My Canon glass gives me wood every time I use them, and I really don't want to switch systems.

It is not physically possible to improve the 5Dmk2 high ISO performance by 2 stops.

Not for say middle tone SNR, but for lowest ISO DR it could easily be improved to stops measured and closer to 3 stops usable.

 

[SomeGuyInNewJersey]

A year's worth of ivacaftor will cost you $294,000.

And if they could find a way to make it affordable to the entire 5%, they'd earn themselves some major karma. 8)

Karma doesnt pay for years of R&D and clinical trials... Or more importantly the years of R&D Clinical trials to get the NEXT drug to market. For every drug that gets to market there are many that do not, millions of dollars worth of clinical trails can tell you your compound doesnt work well enough to get a license and the closer it got to market before failing the more it costs. Believe me when you have worked for years on a compound that fails phase three clinical trials its not a great feeling for you or the company, I know from my time in the lab.

They could get a nice fuzzy feeling of good karma selling the drug cheap while they were signing the papers to lay off the R&D workforce that they can no longer afford... what about their karma?

Most people really dont understand the costs involved... they just see one little white pill and wonder how it can be hundreds of dollars, most of the cost was from working out (and then proving enough to be allowed to sell) that pill...

Same goes for Canon, although their R&D doesnt involve having to prove in clinical trials their ISO numbers and IQ etc before they are allowed to sell so manufacturing is a larger portion that for Pharma companies... Its what they make/spend in total that counts... all the years of R&D and things that never made it to production we never hear about have to get factored in too... not just the costs of the assembly and parts for particular models.

Now talking of Karma... I expect my karma number for this board to drop sharply after preaching like that

 

[psolberg]

Although I'm not sure why everyone keeps calling the 3D the slow, fat MP body when the EOS 3 and the fabled 3D everyone has been going on about was always said to be a pro AF, high speed, compact FF.

the 3D is anything you want it to be. It's the fan's outlet for matching whatever sony/nikon are doing.