5D3, 1D5 and 1Ds4 Timeline [CR1]

[ronderick]

As for the EF-s lenses, that would be cool. I heard somewhere (not sure if it's true), but doesn't Nikon have a 1.6x crop option on their full frames? That would be really cool for the new 5D3 for some extra reach, plus to match motion picture camera crops if you wanted to.

Yes, Nikon's FX bodies (FF) does have the option of using DX lens (the crop factor of Nikon is 1.5x).

Unfortunately, the catch is that you'll be shooting at half the megapixels (aka "crop" mode). So if you fit a 18-200 VRII onto a 12MP D3 body, you'll end up with roughly 6 MP shots.

 

[armando]

I think you're just hoping no 5D3 for 2 years, because you just bought one. Hehe... For the rest of us, especially video people, it can't come fast of enough. I'm hoping June, but it will probably be later.

lol guilty, dell does have a 90 day return item for business accounts, so.. we will see.

 

[iPrevailed]

i didnt give in yet :x and hopefully i wont

 

[Stone]

I think Canon will keep the 1DIV along side a new 1DV body, then photogs will have a choice between FF & APS-H. I would imagine a FF 1DV will cost well above 5K and could easily be the next flagship body, high performance and FF are no longer mutually exclusive, Nikon has proven it and Canon will definitely need to match it. I still don't see the purpose of another 1Ds body, people spending that kind of coin could easily step up to the higher end brands and I just can't imagine that Canon sells THAT many 1Ds bodies, hence the long hiatus as they decide if it's really worth it.

By the looks of it, Canon has no intention of competing in the midrange fast FF market, leaving it to the Nikon DXXX bodies, I see the 5DIII continuing to push the video niche without fast fps or sports oriented af. It's working for them, so who could blame them.

if the 1DV, is FF and hits 10fps, it will be my next body. If by some miracle, the 5DIII can do at least 8 fps with decent af, then I might go for that. An APS-H 7D might be the sweet spot. I still could give a flip about video so no opinion there.

god I love speculation....

 

[Stuart]

Global Shutter, to solve video jello, moving object curl, high speed flash sync.

 

[NotABunny]

Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?

Low light / high ISO performance is way more important to me than adding (what are in most cases) superfluous pixels.

Then scale down your images in post processing.

-> You get more per pixel noise with smaller pixels, yes, but not overall more noise.
Scale down your images and you have your 1MP noise free solution.

You might want to tell that to these people.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/consumer_camcorders/vixia_hf_m41#Features

Click on "Canon HD CMOS Pro Image Sensor"

They are comparing their sensor with something not specified. There are two possibilities:
* The unmentioned sensor is physically smaller, so the Canon sensor implicitly performs better (= the size of the pixels is marketing talk for people who believe in pixel size relevance).
* The unmentioned sensor has the same physical size but more pixels (like 3 MP instead of the HD's 2 MP, which makes pixels smaller) and when they record HD movie they use only 1920 * 1080 pixels, which means that the physical size of the used sensor is smaller, and this is why they perform worse than the Canon sensor.


I've just seen they were comparing it to the models from 2010. So, there you go: VIXIA HF M32 ( http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/consumer_camcorders/vixia_hf_m32#Specifications ) has a sensor of 1/4 (compared to 1/3) inches and 3MP.

 

[NotABunny]

It is much easier to scale down images than video.

Tell this to the pros taking 1000+ shots per event.

People (not pixel peepers) who look at the photos do NOT look at pixel level, they look at the whole picture on the display (or paper), which means the the photo viewer resizes them automatically to the display / printer resolution.

 

[Bob Howland]

Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?

Low light / high ISO performance is way more important to me than adding (what are in most cases) superfluous pixels.

Then scale down your images in post processing.

-> You get more per pixel noise with smaller pixels, yes, but not overall more noise.
Scale down your images and you have your 1MP noise free solution.

You might want to tell that to these people.

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/consumer_camcorders/vixia_hf_m41#Features

Click on "Canon HD CMOS Pro Image Sensor"

They are comparing their sensor with something not specified. There are two possibilities:
* The unmentioned sensor is physically smaller, so the Canon sensor implicitly performs better (= the size of the pixels is marketing talk for people who believe in pixel size relevance).
* The unmentioned sensor has the same physical size but more pixels (like 3 MP instead of the HD's 2 MP, which makes pixels smaller) and when they record HD movie they use only 1920 * 1080 pixels, which means that the physical size of the used sensor is smaller, and this is why they perform worse than the Canon sensor.


I've just seen they were comparing it to the models from 2010. So, there you go: VIXIA HF M32 ( http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/consumer_camcorders/vixia_hf_m32#Specifications ) has a sensor of 1/4 (compared to 1/3) inches and 3MP.

Canon is also comparing it with the Canon S-series from 2010 which has 6.01MP "effective" instead of 2.07MP. (See the last sentence under "Superb Low-Light Performance [1.5 lux]".) If you'll check all my previous posts in this thread, you'll see that I previously pointed out that the sensor is larger in the new series.

 

[Bob Howland]

It is much easier to scale down images than video.

Tell this to the pros taking 1000+ shots per event.

People (not pixel peepers) who look at the photos do NOT look at pixel level, they look at the whole picture on the display (or paper), which means the the photo viewer resizes them automatically to the display / printer resolution.

And besides, resizing 1000 images is just a step in a Photoshop action run as a batch on images selected on Adobe Bridge.

 

[Justin]

Speculation is tons of fun. I think the next 1D will be full frame and will include a dynamic crop mode. The 1Ds will be something more along the lines of the Pentax 645D, dare I say Canon 645D? Maybe not a bigger sensor, but improved sensor tech that gets us into the high 40 mp range on a 35mm-sized wafer. There needs to be a compelling reason to drop 10k on a camera and it needs to be about screaming medium format-like image quality and dynamic range with the niceties of an slr camera.

Then we just need a mirror-less solution from Canon to complete the lineup. I dont' see that coming too soon, but here's to hoping that it is an aps-c sized sensor solution and a slew of EF-S prime lenses in pancake formats: think 15, 21, 30, 50 mm (24, 35, 50, 85 mm equivalents).

5D3 should reach 5 fps and have the AF capabilities of the 7D. This is going to be my go-to camera for a variety of work.

I think Canon will keep the 1DIV along side a new 1DV body, then photogs will have a choice between FF & APS-H. I would imagine a FF 1DV will cost well above 5K and could easily be the next flagship body, high performance and FF are no longer mutually exclusive, Nikon has proven it and Canon will definitely need to match it. I still don't see the purpose of another 1Ds body, people spending that kind of coin could easily step up to the higher end brands and I just can't imagine that Canon sells THAT many 1Ds bodies, hence the long hiatus as they decide if it's really worth it.

By the looks of it, Canon has no intention of competing in the midrange fast FF market, leaving it to the Nikon DXXX bodies, I see the 5DIII continuing to push the video niche without fast fps or sports oriented af. It's working for them, so who could blame them.

if the 1DV, is FF and hits 10fps, it will be my next body. If by some miracle, the 5DIII can do at least 8 fps with decent af, then I might go for that. An APS-H 7D might be the sweet spot. I still could give a flip about video so no opinion there.

god I love speculation....

 

[DetlevCM]

Just to comment on the mirrorless aspect:

It might be fun for a consumer model, and a rangefinder has an appeal to certain customers, but the ability to look through the lens is very valuable.
A screen (electronic viewfinder) will never (in the next few years) be able to match the resolving power of the human eye.

Besides - another issue I can think off... eye strain, especially in dark environments.
Currently the viewfinder is darker or equally bright compared to the surroundings, in a dark environment a screen will be brighter and lead to eye strain.

 

[mccrum]

Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?

Low light / high ISO performance is way more important to me than adding (what are in most cases) superfluous pixels.

I'm with you. I've found that because of space and my personal requirements I mostly shoot at RAWs1. For more artsy stuff and rare opportunities I'll jump up to the 21mp, but to add another 8mb per shot on hard drives would mean that I'm expanding my 1tb drives even further. I just don't need them, it seems like marketing going insane (do people still buy one camera over another because of megapixels?)

 

[jeremymerriam]

It is much easier to scale down images than video.

Tell this to the pros taking 1000+ shots per event.

Shoot in small format RAW rather than the large format. Besides, if you are having trouble with processing 1000+ images, you either need a new computer or starting using Lightroom.

 

[st sebastian]

Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?

Low light / high ISO performance is way more important to me than adding (what are in most cases) superfluous pixels.

I'm with you. I've found that because of space and my personal requirements I mostly shoot at RAWs1. For more artsy stuff and rare opportunities I'll jump up to the 21mp, but to add another 8mb per shot on hard drives would mean that I'm expanding my 1tb drives even further. I just don't need them, it seems like marketing going insane (do people still buy one camera over another because of megapixels?)

Me too. I don't print photos large enough to require 21MP.

An issue I have is that DxO does not read mRaw & sRaw, so I have to choose between photo size and ability to process the photo with DxO.

 

[Loswr]

Shoot in small format RAW rather than the large format.

So, do you believe Canon's little whilte lie marketing position that sRAW is 'all the flavor without all the fat,' so to speak? With sRAW, you're losing resolution (not the best possible trade-off for a file size reduction), and you're adding processing artifacts to your image. Have a look.

 

[motorhead]

I agree, more pixels will show even at A4, never mind A3 or A2 print sizes. The improvements will get more subtle as pixel counts of 21mp are compared to 32 or 40, but it IS visible in print. I will never throw away pixels. It's difficult to explain the difference in appearance. I would describe it thus: the whole image seems smoother, more "depth".

 

[Etienne]

Is anyone else not happy about Canon packing more mega-pixels in?

Low light / high ISO performance is way more important to me than adding (what are in most cases) superfluous pixels.

I'm with you. I've found that because of space and my personal requirements I mostly shoot at RAWs1. For more artsy stuff and rare opportunities I'll jump up to the 21mp, but to add another 8mb per shot on hard drives would mean that I'm expanding my 1tb drives even further. I just don't need them, it seems like marketing going insane (do people still buy one camera over another because of megapixels?)

Hard drive space is a complete non-issue. A 2 TB drive is about $80, and can hold about 80,000 RAW files at 25 MB each (from Canon 5DII). That's 40,000 images per year for two years. Even with a second drive for full backup it's still only $160 in hard drive space, or $80 per year. This is a trivial cost compared to other costs of photography.

As long as low light performance is not compromised I'm ok with high MP counts, however it doesn't seem to work that way, so I'm in favor of sacrificing some pixels in order to get great low light performance.

 

[Chewy734]

Hard drive space is a complete non-issue. A 2 TB drive is about $80, and can hold about 80,000 RAW files at 25 MB each (from Canon 5DII). That's 40,000 images per year for two years. Even with a second drive for full backup it's still only $160 in hard drive space, or $80 per year. This is a trivial cost compared to other costs of photography.

I'm not sure that everyone can say that. Perhaps for you it's a non-issue. But for me, if I'm going on a 2 week vacation with my camera, you're looking at only ~650 of those RAW files on a 16gb card, max. I usually don't take my laptop, and even if I do, that means I'll need to also take an external hard-drive along with it? Many times it's just not practical.

That being said, I agree with you, that if you're doing a 1-day or afternoon photo shoot, and then come home to a laptop/desktop with TBs of storage space (which isn't all that expensive any more), then having 25mb+ RAW image files is fine. Keep in mind though, if you have to do some batch editing on thousands of those, it will take noticeably longer on larger files than smaller ones. Anyways, just my opinions on the matter. I'm sure I'll be first in line once Canon actually releases these beasts.

 

[ronderick]

In addition to bigger harddrives, the cost of bigger files also comes with possible upgrade of your computer parts to stuff like USB 3.0 (not to mention thunderbolt, eSata, etc.) or BD-R compatible drives (an empty BD-R disc is still too expensive), as well as more memory space... the list can grow quite a bit.

Of course, while upgrading the entire system might not be as costly as some camera parts, they still involve a certain degree of financial commitment...

 

[Flake]

One of the biggest issues I have with high MP count cameras is the problem with lenses which are far from perfect. While centre resolution might be quite capable of high performance, corners and borders certainly aren't, and the higher the MP count the worse the effect appears. It's not such an issue with longer lenses or primes with fast apertures which blur this area deliberately. Wide angle is the worst with lenses like the 17 - 40mm L having almost no resolution in the corners.

For me low light performance isn't such an issue, and when it is a bit dark there's always the option of flash, it's very rare for me not to have the option. If you do need low light performace then perhaps the 5D MKII/I is not the right camera for you?