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

[V8Beast]

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) =)

I'd hardly call my equipment budget sizable. The IDsIII is like 200 years old now Trust me, every equipment purchase is a big deal. It certainly requires cutbacks in other areas!

 

[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

Huh? Where have you been hiding for the last year or so? The 1Ds has been MIA for quite some time now.

As of the 1DX, (not 1Dx), The 1Ds line is finished as is the 1D.

Pardon Me for my lack of capitalization on the "x", I figured the audience on here could percieve that 1Dx meant 1DX, and while the 1Ds has since past its prime, I mentioned it as a way to show the evolution of the 1D lineup and consistency of its price point. Obviously the 1Ds and 1D Mark IV will not be purchased at retail (possibly by collectors) with the arrival of the 1DX.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

I actually find the 5D2 center point more reliable at times than with the 7D. Only the 1 series seem to come close to being really consistent though.

And speaking of the 1 series AF, it would be nice to be able to get 1 series AF without having to get a giant, clunky brick along with it. Nikon allows that now. Sony is doing their best. Canon used to do it. So why is it always considered sooo insane that Canon do it now?

And once again, I will say that they really, REALLY, need to get this thing to 6fps. That would be reasonable and yet hardly threaten as a truly top pro action cam since those guys all insist on 8fps+ for the main body (and would Canon rather have a few who don't go for another 1DX/1D4 for their second body nab a new 5 series body or some old, used copy 1 series body? or think Nikon?)

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

Wow, so now you spend $1300-1400 more than a 5D2 release price point and same sluggish mirror and fps and only 4MP more and a few cross and assists added using the old 7D AF? That would even more of a fail than the rumor for the 5D3 since it offers nothing more but a few extra assists and yet has a much higher price and less MP. Those would be joke specs even for the 5D3 at the 5D2 price point! If all they do is toss in the 7D AF and add such a marginal amount of MP it has got to at least hit 6fps then, not stay at 3.9.

If they are going $4000 for it it has to hit 6fps and need something even better than 7D AF. 6fps is still a far cry from 12fps nevermind 10fps or even 8fps and even 1D3/1D4/improved 7D AF should be a big step from 1DX AF, so how much do you need them to protect the 1DX? They will protect it right into everyone just sticking with their 5D2s or maybe nabbing a 70D or 7D2 on the side as a less expensive way to get some more fps/the improved video or think seriously about Nikon bodies (where rumors are their top line AF, 6fps (with grip), 36MP, improved video).

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 you want people to sell their 5D2 and then buy this, say at $3000, so they spend around $1500 new money or so and get a loss of 3MP (doesn't matter a real ton, but) and the same slow fps and sluggish shutter and long mirror black out, maybe 1/2 to 2/3 stop better SNR and a bit better in some ways but perhaps even a trace worse in other ways AF system (sometimes I find 7D AF less reliable than 5D2 for certain things). And they also know that these are the improvements they have for the next 3-4 years.

Sure the video may be much better, but it surely will on the new Rebels and xxD and 7 series and maybe people just buy one of those cheap, if it's just the better video they care about, they nab a 70D or Rebel. If they care about fps and reach they will need an xxD or 7 series anyway and are people going to want to spend on a new 70D/7D2 and then also spend $1500 to get just a semi-minor update to their 5D2 (and maybe even call it minor when you consider the improved video they can get from their xxD/7 or maybe even Rebel purchase)? I bet a lot just keep their 5D2. I bet people not entrenched in a system go Nikon (of course it remains to be seen how the Nikon rumors pan out).

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.

But where are they going to get the 2+ stops better SNR from? There is no shockingly different tech in their new sensors and look at the current efficiencies in light capture and even how Canon says a good bit of the 1DX SNR improvement is just for in camera jpgs due to better in camera jpg NR. Early signs show hints that they may not have even been able to clean read noise enough and reduce banding enough to get the improved low ISO DR of the Sony sensors, although this remains to be seen and is clearly something they could reasonably techinically accomplish.

 

[mccrum]

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.

You should look into tethered shooting with a laptop and use Remote Capture (it's on the CD in the box). For those times you can't look through the finder but still want to see what the camera sees it's a huge help. You even have control over everything on the camera, from ISO to focus. There's a little lag because it's using the USB cable connection but you're adding functions and a new USB cable is certainly a whole lot cheaper than PocketWizards.

 

[viaissimo]

I don’t get it why Canon is that much eager to get rid of their customers in the ambitious hobby segment, just let me point out my story.
I have seen a lot of Canon EOS cameras, beginning with EOS 10 (to measure camera-shaking would be useful for IS too), 5, 50E to EOS 3 and 1V and therefore have a lot of lenses and accessories for full-frame. Besides my 28-135 EF IS I did like my Sigma 12-24 most (ok, you can say “switch to the 8-16” on APS-C instead), with telephoto-lens (75-300 IS) I did work quite seldom (so much on the “advantage of the crop-factor”). Switching to digital APS-C format was a very heavy drawback for the wide-angle-lens-range. I did find myself at the first well priced digi-cam (EOS 300d) in an awkwardly shifted focal-range at lenses and system-flashes confronted with some plastic EF-S lenses as crappy workaround. The APS-H format is nearly the same petty with crop. So I started to wait for a full-frame digital and went along with film in the meanwhile. Nevertheless waiting for developed slide-films and scanning them in was not very thrilling compared to the speed and workflow for digital, especially RAW pictures.
So end of 2009 I was confronted with the decision between EOS 500D, 50D and 5D Mk 2. 500D was no option of the missing upper LCD, so 50D vs. 5D Mk 2 were left. I have to say I do photography in a broad range, doing some studio-tabletops, studio-portraits but also portraits on location, rock-concerts (there I suffer from the AF at low light), cities & landscapes, parties, weddings, night-shots, experiments. I don’t earn a single cent with my photos (never tried), that’s all for fun. So the money I spend is of course quite a lot in total, but still limited when it comes to the decision for single components, as you have to go for family, house and living as well. So I would say I’m the typical hobby-photo-enthusiast, who spends quite a lot of money on that hobby but wants to get an above-consumer-level-average-allround-camera, let’s say I want to get value for money. And you can say I’m one of the “half having my money in my mattress waiting for the camera that doesn’t exist” as mentioned above.
I don’t need highend framerates (3-4 fps is really enough), I don’t need that robust cam-bodies (but some weather-sealing would be very nice), I don’t need a second CF-card-slot (I don’t want to switch to SD as well), I don’t need 45 AF-sensors (even when I did like them with eye-control in EOS 3 we haven’t ever seen since digital EOS, except for focus-tracking that much sensors make no sense without eye-control, and, shame on the “inventor” Canon, Nikon is doing 50+ area-AF in nearly all mid- to high-range-cams), I don’t want a built-in portrait-battery-grip (that’s great to have for portraits, but sometimes it’s unnecessary bulky & heavy), I don’t need video (maybe just for playing around a little bit), I don’t need 20+ MPx (not for photo-prints, not for computer-monitor; I would like to see higher ISO instead, clean 12.800 would be really great; lower MPx together with small framerates lowers cost in terms of less need for DIGIC-power), I don’t want to buy every accessory new (e.g. like battery and memory-card if you switch from 50D to 60D, ok 60D was intended as marketing-gag to get x00D-users up a notch in the product-line as Canon did hope to get 40/50D-users to 7D) or take two kinds of accessories with me if I take a second camera for backup with me (as I wouldn’t sell my 50D for a new cam). That’s to point out where there is room for segmentation in the EOS-lineup and not to say I want the highend EOS 1D xy for 100 bucks. By the way, view-finder shouldn’t be less than 100% in digital era, 90-100% was ok for cropping on film.
If you did compare 50D to 5D Mk2 two years ago you’d get a 50D for 850 EUR and the 5D Mk2 for about 1.900 EUR, that’s twice as much. But it’s not worth it, as you get “only” video and high-MPx on full-frame for extra 1000 EUR, but you suffer built-in-flash (ok, bad light, but on occasion I like to get a bad picture compared to get no picture at all; I also thought remote-control of flashes as in 7d would bring built-in-flash to the top-lineup, but 1DX), AF-assist-beam (I don’t get it why this is only done via system-flash in a camera featuring 6.400 ISO without high-range, it seems Canon has never heard the word “available-light-photography” before), no DEP-program (I’m sorry to don’t even see the much worse DEP-A anymore in the EOS-lineup; DEP, a seldom used, very often misunderstood, but hard to substitute great feature of Canon EOS), lower X-Sync (of course out of the larger format), worse light-meter-range, worse AF-sensors (as this has been discussed once again above, there are 6 additional AI-Servo-Sensors, but less cross-type and no X-type-sensor compared to 50D, not to speak of the 7D; of course for the phase-AF there also is the advantage of the larger full-frame-format; but low-light and tracking of movement suffers a lot at 5D Mk2 I hear, not the 7D made the difference, the AF was complaint about also in 5D Mk1; remember also, with limited budget you don’t spend money for 2.8-(zoom)-lenses all the time (I do have some 1.8 fixed ones), so AF should work at 5.6 or even 8.0), to mention the major drawbacks. So you can say a photo-video-hybrid (there would be much smaller sales-figures for the 5D Mk2 if it wouldn’t have quite a lot of pure video-users, so the DSRL-market is I think split up in two parts; the (indie) video-guys pushing prices as they come from the more expensive pro-videos down to the 5D, the still-guys pulling the prices from the value-for-money lower EOS-segments) with a pro-1D-sensor in a x00D-housing for a lot of money. As mentioned above, of course APS-C format is 2.5-times more dense compared to full-frame, that’s I guess the reason why 50D just goes up to 12.800 ISO where the 5D Mk2 saves one full stop with about half its pixel-density, one more reason for me to go with full-frame!
I would in some way agree to the decision between 7D crop and expensive 1DX mentioned above. I would like to see in some respect a kind of “7D full-frame”, but with this rumor I fear the “mid-range-full-frame-gap” won’t be filled even with a 5D Mk3 (hope I’m wrong). Can’t Canon start to sell customized cameras like car-sellers do (when you go through this blog there are nearly as much different opinions on what’s needed as there are writers), “I want the FF 5D with 12MPx, not the 21MPx or 36MPx version, max. framerate 3fps, but 100k high ISO, no video, good 9-point AF, flip-screen LCD, 100% viewer,… What will it cost and when can it be shipped?” I think the 5D Mk3 will be the second time when I start thinking about moving to Nikon, as some Pros I know have done in the last 2 years, but this time I’m not going to wait another 3-4 years for my “full-frame value for money cam”.
Maybe this is only one of the rumors Canon just throws to test us, the community, and decide which of the prototypes to release in the future – Canon, I hope you take the right decisions also for ambitious hobbyists!!!
P.S. one word on the money: I’m always puzzled how easy some of you guys say “just go and buy a 1DX”.I think I don’t get paid that bad, but 6.000+ EUR for a camera, I wouldn’t even think one second about buying a camera in this price-segment! Don’t know where you guys get the bucks from, at least if you don’t do photos for living…

 

[Fleetie]

Er, this is to be taken as constructive criticism or as a helpful suggestion:

Posting that much text as one solid block of text will put many or most people off reading it. Honestly, I can't be bothered jumping into that brick-wall-of-text.

Firstly, do you need to write that much in one post anyway?

Secondly, try to break up text into distinct paragraphs separated by one blank line.

Honestly, you will find that you get more interest if you make your text less daunting!

Not trying to be nasty; just trying to make a suggestion. I hope you don't mind.

 

[elflord]

If you did compare 50D to 5D Mk2 two years ago you’d get a 50D for 850 EUR and the 5D Mk2 for about 1.900 EUR, that’s twice as much. But it’s not worth it, as you get “only” video and high-MPx on full-frame for extra 1000 EUR,

The 5D Mark II is full frame. If you wanted a full frame camera, what were your other choices and how much did they cost? If you didn't/don't want a full frame, buy an APS-C and don't worry about how expensive full frame is.

P.S. one word on the money: I’m always puzzled how easy some of you guys say “just go and buy a 1DX”.I think I don’t get paid that bad,

Well, given your stated requirements, that seems like the right model for you. You're not the only one who would like a beamer on a kia budget, but it's not going to happen, so the rest of us need to pick our own sweet spot in the price continuum. For me (and many others it seems) the 5D Mk II makes sense. For others, the Rebel offers excellent value. For those who just have to have it all, the flagship model and the associated sticker price is the only choice.

 

[candyman]

Can’t Canon start to sell customized cameras like car-sellers do (when you go through this blog there are nearly as much different opinions on what’s needed as there are writers), “I want the FF 5D with 12MPx, not the 21MPx or 36MPx version, max. framerate 3fps, but 100k high ISO, no video, good 9-point AF, flip-screen LCD, 100% viewer,… What will it cost and when can it be shipped?”

As customer I really understand this. I really do! I would love to have this freedom.

Ah, but you see in order to continue to sell products and be competitive, a company must have a competitive (costs/productionsimplicity/quality/marketshare etc) strategy. Which is, supply strategy and NOT demand strategy (customised offers). This is a development in many companies worldwide.
Now, having a range of limited amount of products based on supply strategy means the company has to make choices but MUST be based on customers / market demands - "what is it our customers want". And of course, you can't always please everyone. And surely, one product is easier to offer in different flavours than other products. yes, you can order a car in different colors, option packages etc. But, productionwise might not be cost effective for camera's.

just my 2cents

ps pardon my english, it is not native so I may have expressed myself not as well as I would do in my native language.

 

[jrista]

Can’t Canon start to sell customized cameras like car-sellers do (when you go through this blog there are nearly as much different opinions on what’s needed as there are writers), “I want the FF 5D with 12MPx, not the 21MPx or 36MPx version, max. framerate 3fps, but 100k high ISO, no video, good 9-point AF, flip-screen LCD, 100% viewer,… What will it cost and when can it be shipped?”

Not a chance. Comparing a DSLR manufacture to car manufacture is like comparing apples to rambutan. Cars are easy to customize. They are huge, composed of thousands of parts, and key functionality is often a composition of many interchangeable parts. Its possible to have or not have ABS, its possible to have or not have a CD player in the stereo, etc. The vast majority of features people want to customize are in the sensor...a SINGLE PART! The megapixels, the ISO, the max readout speed, etc. are all fabricated using incredibly high tech light etching processes in ungodly-expensive crystal wafers. The same goes for the processing chips, such as DIGIC, that handle things like AF, video, etc. Manufacturing dozens of different varieties of the same basic sensor or DIGIC chip would increase the average cost to the customer by ten fold at least. Cars are easy...thousands of interchangeable parts. DSLR's are not, with few highly integrated parts.

Not a chance.

 

[tt]

sales may correlate with marketshare, but not necessarily indicate profit share of the total market or submarkets.
e.g. Amazon Kindle Fire will soon have a chunk of the tablet market. But they're barely breaking even on the sale of the product. Or Sony making a loss on HDTV sales.

Anyone know the difference in profit between the dSLRs out and the recent bridge cameras?