A Bit About the 5D Mark III? [CR1]

[Loswr]

Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

No, I don't understand the reasoning behind your statement, but I do understand that you are easily swayed by fatuous opinions and pseudofactual babble. Ever used a tripod? If so, KR thinks you're an idiot (yes, that's a direct quote). The clause, 'great article by Ken Rockwell' is an oxymoron. KR himself is just the plain old vanilla sort of moron.

 

[arussarts]

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
- to be a great professional landscape camera
Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

You could not be more wrong !

Some of the best landscape photograpers here in the Netherlands use the Canon 5D Mark 2 and these people do shoots all over the world all year long at the most beautifull and sometimes difficult to reach places as I learned in a seminar of one of them.

Being there at JUST the right time , catching the moment with magical light , the right season etc etc thats what counts in getting greater pictures in landscape.
They use big Gitzo tripods and Lee ND filters but seem to be very satisfied with 'just' a Canon camera.

Actually you are somewhat correct, I'm not saying the 5D Mk II wont produce great results as a landscape camera. You must realize my point, the quality of a digital sensor at 21.1 MP is NOTHING compared to 4" x 5" film processed with a pro scanner. A real professional landscape photographer can get prints for museum displays and large prints over 3' x 4'. You absolutely CANNOT get high quality large prints using the 5D Mk II, the larget print you could get at 300 dpi is about 13" x 19".

source = http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

Using 4" x 5" film and a high quality drum scan process, you can get an approximately a 500 MP image. The quality difference is simply to great.

Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Do you think Ansel Adams would use a digital camera for landscapes?

You're right technically speaking. Here is another article discussing film vs. digital that I think illustrates why us high-MP people want more MP's: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

I think it's interesting to note that both of these articles were written in 2006. Arguably, much has changed within the digital realm, and while technically speaking you're right, the 5d2 is incapable of producing 300dpi prints at 30x40. I can assure you, from experience, a 30x40 from 21MP is still a beautiful print coming off of an Epson 9880. Most consumers do not pixel-peep like we do and do not notice the difference. Realistically, a 30+MP camera would be acceptable considering all the other variables and the ongoing obsolescence of film.

I think we, and by we I mean, REAL working pro landscape photographers, absolutely use the 5d2 for exhibition prints. But it still isn't as good as we'd like it to be. I'd love to have 300dpi at even 20x24. To me this would be more than adequate for exhibition printing. Anything over that and you're standing too close anyway.

I think it really comes down to form factor. Why drag a ton of gear and film out when we can pop everything we need into a backpack and really get to the rarest places on earth. Not to mention, it's getting harder and harder to find places to process our film.

As to the Ansel/Digital question... I believe he would absolutely be shooting digitally! Probably with a P45, but definitely digitally. The man is best known for his beautiful landscapes but what often gets lost in his history is that he was a technological innovator. He was literally pushing, and pulling, film and printing to its limits.

 

[jbwise01]

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
- to be a great professional landscape camera
Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

You could not be more wrong !

Some of the best landscape photograpers here in the Netherlands use the Canon 5D Mark 2 and these people do shoots all over the world all year long at the most beautifull and sometimes difficult to reach places as I learned in a seminar of one of them.

Being there at JUST the right time , catching the moment with magical light , the right season etc etc thats what counts in getting greater pictures in landscape.
They use big Gitzo tripods and Lee ND filters but seem to be very satisfied with 'just' a Canon camera.

Actually you are somewhat correct, I'm not saying the 5D Mk II wont produce great results as a landscape camera. You must realize my point, the quality of a digital sensor at 21.1 MP is NOTHING compared to 4" x 5" film processed with a pro scanner. A real professional landscape photographer can get prints for museum displays and large prints over 3' x 4'. You absolutely CANNOT get high quality large prints using the 5D Mk II, the larget print you could get at 300 dpi is about 13" x 19".

source = http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

Using 4" x 5" film and a high quality drum scan process, you can get an approximately a 500 MP image. The quality difference is simply to great.

Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Do you think Ansel Adams would use a digital camera for landscapes?

Even Ansel Adams moved to medium format in his latter years as film emultions improved and he got too old to lug around a huge pack full of large format kit. Go and have a look at the weight of a large format camera system and compare it to a DSLR, not to mention the amount of set up time required for each shot (and the expense of the film). That's not to say that the quality of large or medium format isn't better, it's a trade off of quality versus convenience (if you don't agree -why aren't you carrying around a 8" x 10" instead of mere 4" x 5"?). There are plenty of landscape photographers out there using DSLRs or digital medium format as it allows them to be more experimental and prolific in their shooting style. It's far better to get the shot on a smaller, faster format than to miss it messing around trying to set up large format kit. Large format is already on the wane as more landscape photographers move to the ever improving digital medium format systems. It's all about convenience...

I don't dispute that the 5D II is a more than capable landsape camera. It is quite good at many things, which speaks to its popularity amongst photographers worldwide. The landscape photographers that use the 5D II seem to crave more MP for obvious reasons. Canon will most certainly introduce a medium format digital in the near future to fill this void and compete with pentax and hasselblad.

My point is that the main purpose of the 5D series is to be a photo-journalism camera/event/ walk around full frame AND an HD video camera. Many people forget that the 5D II was the digital SLR with full HD video recording capabilities. Canon sticks to its roots and will most certainly improve on the video cpabilities of the 5D in the next upgrade. The 5D III will also be a great landscape camera, but I don't expect it to be a 30+ MP camera. I expect the camera to greatly improve ISO perfromance which would drastically improve the cameras video capabilities and low light perfromance. I expect a minimal auto-focus upgrade, an articulating screen like the 60D (but maybe not bc of weather sealing issues), and some minor viewfinder improvements.

 

[briansquibb]

If I use the 5DII for landscape I take multiple shots and stitch them. A 5 photo lanscape has IQ as good as a MF (except perhaps the DR)

 

[jbwise01]

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
- to be a great professional landscape camera
Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

You could not be more wrong !

Some of the best landscape photograpers here in the Netherlands use the Canon 5D Mark 2 and these people do shoots all over the world all year long at the most beautifull and sometimes difficult to reach places as I learned in a seminar of one of them.

Being there at JUST the right time , catching the moment with magical light , the right season etc etc thats what counts in getting greater pictures in landscape.
They use big Gitzo tripods and Lee ND filters but seem to be very satisfied with 'just' a Canon camera.

Actually you are somewhat correct, I'm not saying the 5D Mk II wont produce great results as a landscape camera. You must realize my point, the quality of a digital sensor at 21.1 MP is NOTHING compared to 4" x 5" film processed with a pro scanner. A real professional landscape photographer can get prints for museum displays and large prints over 3' x 4'. You absolutely CANNOT get high quality large prints using the 5D Mk II, the larget print you could get at 300 dpi is about 13" x 19".

source = http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

Using 4" x 5" film and a high quality drum scan process, you can get an approximately a 500 MP image. The quality difference is simply to great.

Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Do you think Ansel Adams would use a digital camera for landscapes?

You're right technically speaking. Here is another article discussing film vs. digital that I think illustrates why us high-MP people want more MP's: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

I think it's interesting to note that both of these articles were written in 2006. Arguably, much has changed within the digital realm, and while technically speaking you're right, the 5d2 is incapable of producing 300dpi prints at 30x40. I can assure you, from experience, a 30x40 from 21MP is still a beautiful print coming off of an Epson 9880. Most consumers do not pixel-peep like we do and do not notice the difference. Realistically, a 30+MP camera would be acceptable considering all the other variables and the ongoing obsolescence of film.

I think we, and by we I mean, REAL working pro landscape photographers, absolutely use the 5d2 for exhibition prints. But it still isn't as good as we'd like it to be. I'd love to have 300dpi at even 20x24. To me this would be more than adequate for exhibition printing. Anything over that and you're standing too close anyway.

I think it really comes down to form factor. Why drag a ton of gear and film out when we can pop everything we need into a backpack and really get to the rarest places on earth. Not to mention, it's getting harder and harder to find places to process our film.

As to the Ansel/Digital question... I believe he would absolutely be shooting digitally! Probably with a P45, but definitely digitally. The man is best known for his beautiful landscapes but what often gets lost in his history is that he was a technological innovator. He was literally pushing, and pulling, film and printing to its limits.

Trust me, I would absolutely love for the 5D III to have 30 MP, 4-5 FPS, ISO 25600 + expanded, 45 opt AF, and be less than $3000, but i think if we are being realistic, we would know taht Canon can't make this happen. The would have to choose between high ISO, Pro AF and High MP. I think they will chooose high ISO becase of the benifit to video recording.

 

[JR]

Trust me, I would absolutely love for the 5D III to have 30 MP, 4-5 FPS, ISO 25600 + expanded, 45 opt AF, and be less than $3000, but i think if we are being realistic, we would know taht Canon can't make this happen. The would have to choose between high ISO, Pro AF and High MP. I think they will chooose high ISO becase of the benifit to video recording.

Why not have Canon launch such product for $5000? Call it 3D or 2D or whatever you want, or even 1DXs but I think there is room for more than one EOS pro body (currently only the 1DX) with the spec you described.

I would buy one...

 

[eaw213]

As for the AF, what I REALLY REALLY want is more of the center AF type placed elsewhere in the frame. That's it. AF groups, modes, and algorithms be damned, I just want a solid AF point I can choose in single point mode that lies much nearer the Rule of Thirds lines. If the 5DIII had 5 total points, one in the center and one for each intersection of the thirds lines, I'd be happy. It's so limiting to use my 85 f1.2 and 135 f2 because I either can't trust my outer points to focus well, or I can't trust my subject to stay in focus after using the focus-shift technique.

I really don't think that asking for better quality points elsewhere in the frame is asking for much of Canon, much less asking for pro level AF since that entails a lot more beyond what I've said.

I do think we'll see better quality points elsewhere in the frame - the 5DIII will almost certainly have many (if not all) its points as cross-type, and the center point will likely be the dual cross type.

But, as much is it needs greater point spread, I don't believe that the 5DIII will get greater point spread. Canon made a promotional statement that the lateral spread of the 5DII AF points was the same as the 1DsIII, but of course neglected to mention that the vertical spread was much less, meaning the 'corner points' get no where near the 'rule-of-thirds' intersections. The 1D IV and 7D are about tied for maximum horizontal-vertical extent relative to frame, and both get an AF point adjacent to the 'rule-of-thirds' intersections. Even though Canon touts the 1D X as having the most AF coverage area, while the horizontal extent is the same as the 1D IV (and thus greter than the 1DsIII), the vertical extent is actually less than the 1D IV, meaning the 1D IV is actually getting closer to (and a little beyond in one dimension) the 'rule-of-thirds' lines. You can see the relative coverages with and without the grid in the mouseovers in this article on TDP.

AF point spread is as much of a differentiator as number/type of points, and thus is another way for Canon to differentiate lines. I don't think we'll see greater spread in the 5DIII.

Agreed about the spread on the 5D MarkII, but it's somewhat relative. If you took a 1.6x or 1.3x crop from the center of the frame, then the points would be closer to where you see them on the 7D. Still, as long as whatever points they give me at the corners are much better quality, I'd be happy.

 

[awinphoto]

You're right technically speaking. Here is another article discussing film vs. digital that I think illustrates why us high-MP people want more MP's: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

I think it's interesting to note that both of these articles were written in 2006. Arguably, much has changed within the digital realm, and while technically speaking you're right, the 5d2 is incapable of producing 300dpi prints at 30x40. I can assure you, from experience, a 30x40 from 21MP is still a beautiful print coming off of an Epson 9880. Most consumers do not pixel-peep like we do and do not notice the difference. Realistically, a 30+MP camera would be acceptable considering all the other variables and the ongoing obsolescence of film.

I think we, and by we I mean, REAL working pro landscape photographers, absolutely use the 5d2 for exhibition prints. But it still isn't as good as we'd like it to be. I'd love to have 300dpi at even 20x24. To me this would be more than adequate for exhibition printing. Anything over that and you're standing too close anyway.

I think it really comes down to form factor. Why drag a ton of gear and film out when we can pop everything we need into a backpack and really get to the rarest places on earth. Not to mention, it's getting harder and harder to find places to process our film.

As to the Ansel/Digital question... I believe he would absolutely be shooting digitally! Probably with a P45, but definitely digitally. The man is best known for his beautiful landscapes but what often gets lost in his history is that he was a technological innovator. He was literally pushing, and pulling, film and printing to its limits.

I was fortunate to watch a live feed of Canon's booth at the PhotoPlus Expo in New York a month or so ago thanks to Canon CPS... They had pro's such as vincent and such shooting 5d's and 7d's and outputting directly to the new Canon pro printer pumping out 20"x30" natively. I dont know off hand if they upscalled the print to 300DPI mind you or if they printed at native resolution but printed at 150DPI or lower? However from what I could see on the live feed they were great prints and basically canon wouldn't display such large prints from the camera if they weren't confident in the output. That being said, I think that size from these cameras are the exception to the rule.

I am torn on the debate on larger MP... I would love 30+ MP that could print gallery style prints and half the weight and gear of a MF or LF camera, however at a compromise where diffraction of the lenses become a nightmare, Noise and IQ performance, and other compromises in quality, I dont know how I'd feel about that option vs plunking 10k down on a digital back for my MF camera... Everything comes at a cost and a compromise... The problem Canon has with the 5d3 is everyone is hoping/wanting this to be the "dream" camera with all this extra goodies and want to pay the 5d2 price point... When canon misses a feature or three, they will denounce the camera as a disappointment/failure and Canon cant win...

 

[arussarts]

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
- to be a great professional landscape camera
Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

A real “pro” landscape photographer would be using medium or large format:
either 4” x 5” or 8” x 10” film (which is very affordable compared to digital a system),
or
a $12k+ Hasselblad cam system or $9,995 penta 645D. Im sure pentax and hasslblad arehaving a hard to meeting the demand for these cameras!

You could not be more wrong !

Some of the best landscape photograpers here in the Netherlands use the Canon 5D Mark 2 and these people do shoots all over the world all year long at the most beautifull and sometimes difficult to reach places as I learned in a seminar of one of them.

Being there at JUST the right time , catching the moment with magical light , the right season etc etc thats what counts in getting greater pictures in landscape.
They use big Gitzo tripods and Lee ND filters but seem to be very satisfied with 'just' a Canon camera.

Actually you are somewhat correct, I'm not saying the 5D Mk II wont produce great results as a landscape camera. You must realize my point, the quality of a digital sensor at 21.1 MP is NOTHING compared to 4" x 5" film processed with a pro scanner. A real professional landscape photographer can get prints for museum displays and large prints over 3' x 4'. You absolutely CANNOT get high quality large prints using the 5D Mk II, the larget print you could get at 300 dpi is about 13" x 19".

source = http://www.design215.com/toolbox/megapixels.php

Using 4" x 5" film and a high quality drum scan process, you can get an approximately a 500 MP image. The quality difference is simply to great.

Here's a great article comparing a digital cameras to film, after reading maybe you will under stand the reasoning I had behind my statement.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm

Do you think Ansel Adams would use a digital camera for landscapes?

You're right technically speaking. Here is another article discussing film vs. digital that I think illustrates why us high-MP people want more MP's: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/Cramer.shtml

I think it's interesting to note that both of these articles were written in 2006. Arguably, much has changed within the digital realm, and while technically speaking you're right, the 5d2 is incapable of producing 300dpi prints at 30x40. I can assure you, from experience, a 30x40 from 21MP is still a beautiful print coming off of an Epson 9880. Most consumers do not pixel-peep like we do and do not notice the difference. Realistically, a 30+MP camera would be acceptable considering all the other variables and the ongoing obsolescence of film.

I think we, and by we I mean, REAL working pro landscape photographers, absolutely use the 5d2 for exhibition prints. But it still isn't as good as we'd like it to be. I'd love to have 300dpi at even 20x24. To me this would be more than adequate for exhibition printing. Anything over that and you're standing too close anyway.

I think it really comes down to form factor. Why drag a ton of gear and film out when we can pop everything we need into a backpack and really get to the rarest places on earth. Not to mention, it's getting harder and harder to find places to process our film.

As to the Ansel/Digital question... I believe he would absolutely be shooting digitally! Probably with a P45, but definitely digitally. The man is best known for his beautiful landscapes but what often gets lost in his history is that he was a technological innovator. He was literally pushing, and pulling, film and printing to its limits.

Trust me, I would absolutely love for the 5D III to have 30 MP, 4-5 FPS, ISO 25600 + expanded, 45 opt AF, and be less than $3000, but i think if we are being realistic, we would know taht Canon can't make this happen. The would have to choose between high ISO, Pro AF and High MP. I think they will chooose high ISO becase of the benifit to video recording.

Sounds like we basically agree... Canon needs to fill the void with two cameras!

 

[studio1972]

This rumour sounds like a bad move for Canon. They have a great sensor from the 1DX and decent AF from the 7D. Simply combining these two would be a winning combo and make it a great upgrade from the 5D2.

30+ MP means higher cost, real world ISO similar to the 5D2, and huge RAW files. This will only apeal to a niche crowd and the like of wedding photographers will just stick with the 5D2 IMHO.

 

[wickidwombat]

Trust me, I would absolutely love for the 5D III to have 30 MP, 4-5 FPS, ISO 25600 + expanded, 45 opt AF, and be less than $3000, but i think if we are being realistic, we would know taht Canon can't make this happen. The would have to choose between high ISO, Pro AF and High MP. I think they will chooose high ISO becase of the benifit to video recording.

Why not have Canon launch such product for $5000? Call it 3D or 2D or whatever you want, or even 1DXs but I think there is room for more than one EOS pro body (currently only the 1DX) with the spec you described.

I would buy one...

if it had a 1 in front of it it would be big fat heavy with integrated grip

 

[dr croubie]

Can I just point out something that's been bugging me? I'm not sure how many people realise it or not, but I hear a lot "just pull the 7D AF system and put it straight in the 5D3".
Yeah, that's not going to happen.
Why?
It's too small.

I've just made some images, not sure about the exact position of AF points on the 5D2, but the 7D points should be fairly close because I could reference to the gridlines.
First image is the 7D's 19pt AF, all f/2.8 cross type, second is the 5D2's 9pt AF (without servo-assist points), centre f/2.8 crosstype, rest f/5.6 lines.
Third image is what happens when you block copy-paste the 7D's 19 points to a Full Frame sensor. They're all chocked up together, because the 7D is an aps-c sensor.


"But why can't they just copy-paste it and increase the spacing". Yes, possible. I'm an electronic engineer, more specifically I design circuit-boards. We (especially I) love copy-paste. But it doens't always work like that. There's a lot more engineering work that goes into it than just a few key-presses, I've had systems that have taken more time to copy-paste from older designs that I was probably better off designing from scratch.

Now, I don't design AF sensors for a living, but these are just some of the problems that occur. In actual fact, you're more likely to see the 1Ds' 45-pt AF copy-pasted with a lot of points deactivated/removed than a copy of the 7D. Even if the 5D3 does (but i doubt it) come out with 19 f/2.8 cross-type points, you can bet that it was still at least 80% new effort with only 20% copied from either the 7D or 1Ds' R&D.


Plus, don't forget processing power. 1D, 1Ds, and 7D all have dual-digic. The 1Ds3 to 1DX has reduced the megapixels, gone from dual digic3 to dual digic5+, and even then they needed another digic4 just to handle the AF increase from 45pt to 63pt (plus all the fancy face-tracking stuff)
The 5D2 has (and i'm putting money on 5D3 will also have) only a single Digic. Bumping the AF to 19 cross-type points (don't forget that a cross-type point takes twice as much processing power as a single-line point, ie 19-cross-types, 38 lines, takes 3.8x the processing power of the 8-single + 1cross = 10-lines of the 5D2), plus any megapixel increase are going to take a lot of processing power, more than you'd get from the increase from a single digic4 to digic5. Make the 5D3 dual-digic and you're bumping up the cost by a few hundred dollars, the battery life down, and then add to that the cost of a brand-new AF-system R&D...


Now, if you will excuse me, I just received a 40-year old Takumar 50/1.4 in the mail from ebay, and i'm going to go mount it on my 7D, and use all 0 of its 19 AF points.

 

[wickidwombat]

I personally like the 1Dmk3 AF 45 point with 19 selectable and the ability to drop it to 9 selectable, too many points to select means you have to mess around alot getting to the point you want, In reallity i only probably use 5 points but the same 5 points all the time its the invisible extra points that really help out with focus tracking and everything else. improving the ability of the points you can select is what is absolutly needed.

I definately think a rework of the 45point AF is the best way for them to go for the 5D3

 

[eaw213]

Agreed about the spread on the 5D MarkII, but it's somewhat relative. If you took a 1.6x or 1.3x crop from the center of the frame, then the points would be closer to where you see them on the 7D. Still, as long as whatever points they give me at the corners are much better quality, I'd be happy.

Can I just point out something that's been bugging me? I'm not sure how many people realise it or not, but I hear a lot "just pull the 7D AF system and put it straight in the 5D3".
Yeah, that's not going to happen.
Why?
It's too small.

Exactly what I was trying to say. Thanks for making it more visual.

 

[Loswr]

FWIW, here are the 7D's AF points (in black, with frame) accurately scaled onto the 5DII's AF points (in blue, with frame).

 

[Wrathwilde]

The purpose of the 5D Mrk III is not:
- to be a great professional landscape camera
Landscaper Shooters who keep saying this is so popular.. please be realistic.

You could not be more wrong !

Some of the best landscape photograpers here in the Netherlands use the Canon 5D Mark 2 and these people do shoots all over the world all year long at the most beautifull and sometimes difficult to reach places as I learned in a seminar of one of them.

Being there at JUST the right time , catching the moment with magical light , the right season etc etc thats what counts in getting greater pictures in landscape.
They use big Gitzo tripods and Lee ND filters but seem to be very satisfied with 'just' a Canon camera.

Just because some professionals use it as such, doesn't mean this was the purpose of the camera. In business, decisions are made, usually, to appeal to the largest possible market, and I guarantee you the wedding/portrait professional market dwarfs the professional landscape market, at a ratio probably greater than 500:1. That the 5DMk2's so-so AF keeps it from being the ultimate wedding/portrait camera, doesn't mean that landscape was it's intended target.

 

[LifeAfter]

``I personally like the 1Dmk3 AF 45 point with 19 selectable and the ability to drop it to 9 selectable, too many points to select means you have to mess around alot getting to the point you want, In reallity i only probably use 5 points but the same 5 points all the time its the invisible extra points that really help out with focus tracking and everything else. improving the ability of the points you can select is what is absolutly needed.

I definately think a rework of the 45point AF is the best way for them to go for the 5D3``

Exactly, that's right, too many points are not needed for 5dIII, maybe 19 or 45 reworked as you say. But more than 1 point that works good, not only the middle one.

 

[jbwise01]

I think most of this discussion has proved that there is a need for 2 cameras. If we look at this from a business perspective, i think it's much easier to anticipate features and price points of potential cameras.

EOS "x"D Lineup 2012

1D Line
1Dx - $6,800; 18.1 MP FF, 14 FPS, 61 pt AF, ISO 51200 Native, 2012
1Ds - $6,999; 21.1 MP FF, 5 FPS, 45 pt AF, ISO 1600 Native, 2007
1D IV - $4,999; 16.1 MP FF, 10 FPS. 45 pt AF, ISO 12800 Native, 2009

5D Line
5D III - no price/specs released
5D II - $2,499, 21.1 MP FF, 3.9 FPS, 9 pt AF, ISO 6400 Native, 2008

7D Line
7D - $1,400, 18.1 MP APS-C, 8 FPS, 19 pt AF, ISO 6400 Native, 2009

So looking at lineup shows me that there is a void between the the 1D and 5D which could be filled with a 3D which would probably feature ~25 MP FF, 4 FPS, 19 pt AF, ISO 12800 at about $3,999. This wouldn't completely cannablize the 1Dx bc it lacks the features some of the 1Dx market (sports) would be looking for, much lower FPS, ISO and AF performance.

Comparing across the line up also makes me realize that the price of the 5D III will most likely be in the $2,499-$2,999 range. Knowing that, it will probably feature 18 MP FF, 4 FPS, 19 pt AF, and an ISO bump up to about 12800 - 25600.

So from a business perspective.. the 5D III would get a healthy bump in ISO and AF perfromance over the 5d II. This makes sense, and considering the 1Dx stays is at 18.1 MP, I wouldn't expect a MP bump in the 5D III. Now if canon were to go for a medium format digital about 40MP, it would most likely intro above the EOS line at around $8,999 and price upwards from there. Canon has indicated that they have interest in develop such a product, but would not want to undercut the 1Dx or compete with that market.

SO.. maybe canon releases an M300 (made up name) at $8,999, with a new 40 MP sensor, 3.5 FPS, 9 pt AF, and ISO 6400.

 

[V8Beast]

Hopefully you don't give a rat's ass about cost.

Not really. Cost is a secondary issue. Besides, new bodies make good tax writeoffs.

you're just described the behavior of the AF system in a 1-series camera.

Not really. The 7D's AF system trounces the 5D's. No one is dumb enough to expect a 1D-caliber AF system in a 5D. Many people would be content with an AF system at least on par with the 7D.

So...problem solved - get a 1DsIII, 1D IV, or a 1D X when it comes out. I can almost guarantee that, given the requirements you outline, you're not going to be happy with the AF of the 5DIII.

I appreciate your generosity in trying to solve my problem for me, but I've already got it handled. I already own a 1DsIII. I'd just like to pick up a 5DIII as a backup, and for situations where it's smaller form factor is advantageous. There are many instances during a shoot when I have to rig my gear off a moving car. Fortunately, I haven't lost a body yet, but I'd much rather sacrifice a 5D than a 1D. The 5DII is great for this, since it's smaller size and lighter weight make it easier to rig, and it's IQ is outstanding. Unfortunately, whenever the subject moves just a bit, it struggles to readjust focus, which is a big problem when you're triggering it with PocketWizards since you can't actually look through the viewfinder.

 

[awinphoto]

Besides, new bodies make good tax writeoffs.

True dat... =) I wish I had your disposable income for a new camera... Even though I shoot professionally, every camera purchase for me has to be debated for by my boss (aka wife) =)