Canon EOS 3D X [CR1]

[RLPhoto]

However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.

For what reason? Unless you plan to buy another super computer for 46MP - raw file ;D

I feel canon should have waited a bit longer on releasing the 5D3 with a better sensor, speaking for the 3500$ price its placed for.

 

[tg]

I think the lack of people talking about bit depth is surprising, I think it should be the main thing to consider, more so than mp. I'd much rather have 16bit version of 5dmkiii than a 14bit higher mp camera. It's the main aspect I'm considering investing in medium format.

There is much debate about the "16-bit myth." From what I've read on the matter, I don't believe that a 16-bit camera would produce any tangible improvement over a 14-bit camera, because those extra bits are not actually doing anything useful, just quantizing noise.

I don't mean to say the difference is enormous, and it comes down to it being a small/modest development, but I have seen many examples of medium format 16 bit sensors delivering beautiful, more natural skin tone renditions due to the ability to capture more colors; I've noticed for a while dslrs often have a somewhat, and sorry for maybe not describing this appropriately, but, plastic tonal renditions from light to dark especially over skin tones (the range of tone seems flatter, local, less subtle variations).
Much like every iteration of cameras today, once you have that little bit more/better/broader range of information/techinik, you are happy to have it and will notice the difference the more you use it.

 

[Fishnose]

Will this shoot 3D?


;D

Of course!!

If it's called the 3D, it has to.....
Can you imagine all the returned cameras, and all the struggles sales people will have every day trying to explain to customers that it's NOT 3D.

 

[Chuck Alaimo]

The 5DIII was targeted to event and wedding photographers who need clean images at higher ISOs. They won't be upset when this surfaces.

... but still many will because they shelled out $3500 to get the latest gimmick on the block, and the arguably the "clean images at high iso" advantage compared to the 5d2 is minor and the 3d shows a real step forward.

I doubt this. For me at least, it is a clear difference between wants and needs vs benefits (IE Income potential). For me right now, the mk3 kicks major wedding ass. This new megapixel beast would be nice to have for shooting wedding formals, outdoors in bright light. But necessary? No. If your a studio guy, yeah, this camera makes sense. Landscape guys, you bet this makes sense. But for the kind of work I'm doing, its more of a want than a need.

Oh, and btw...the mk2 would never pull down usable images at ISO 12,800 ...and thats more than just a gimmick!

 

[Fishnose]

Nikon fanboys dislike this news ;D

This camera will cost twice as much as a D800, so I doubt it.

 

[bdunbar79]

The 5DIII was targeted to event and wedding photographers who need clean images at higher ISOs. They won't be upset when this surfaces.

... but still many will because they shelled out $3500 to get the latest gimmick on the block, and the arguably the "clean images at high iso" advantage compared to the 5d2 is minor and the 3d shows a real step forward.

I doubt this. For me at least, it is a clear difference between wants and needs vs benefits (IE Income potential). For me right now, the mk3 kicks major wedding ass. This new megapixel beast would be nice to have for shooting wedding formals, outdoors in bright light. But necessary? No. If your a studio guy, yeah, this camera makes sense. Landscape guys, you bet this makes sense. But for the kind of work I'm doing, its more of a want than a need.

Oh, and btw...the mk2 would never pull down usable images at ISO 12,800 ...and thats more than just a gimmick!

Post of the day right here. Finally someone with some good sense.

 

[RGomezPhotos]

This is a total studio camera. From what I see, Canon did everything right. Dual Digic 5 to handle that massive data. Top end ISO limited to 6400 to improve dynamic range. I also think the SD/CF combo is smart too. Shooting tethered is a pain and Eye-Fi cards is a cheap way to transfer data off. Yes it would be relatively slow, but if you're in the studio you aren't shooting rapid-fire style. Data transfers should be fine. I think it will be called the 1DXs personally.

Editing these files... You will definitely need the fastest machine you can get X2. People already complain about the D800 files. But again, you shouldn't need to edit many files if you're in the studio.

Price I think will be $5000 - $5500 and for the designated user, I think is very reasonable. I think it's going to dust the Nikon D800, but should NOT be direct competition due to the price difference.

For the full-time pro, I think this camera is a huge home-run. I'd consider picking up this camera in a couple of years unless Canon comes out with a medium format camera....

 

[preppyak]

Is this just a defensive rumor started by Canon to stop people from defecting to Nikon and buying the D800?

I doubt that. Anyone who wanted to defect would have already, since they've had several months to consider it. The D800 is real, a Canon variant isn't, for someone who needs the MP, they've moved already. Especially since there was no indication Canon was gonna match the D800 in price.

Price I think will be $5000 - $5500 and for the designated user, I think is very reasonable. I think it's going to dust the Nikon D800, but should NOT be direct competition due to the price difference.

For the full-time pro, I think this camera is a huge home-run. I'd consider picking up this camera in a couple of years unless Canon comes out with a medium format camera....

Yep, these I can see being about right. And I think Nikon actually made a mistake pricing the D800 so low. There are quite a few people that switched because it was affordable to do so, only to realize they didn't need or want 36MP, and now they are changing back. I've seen it a bunch for wedding/pj types, where the hassle of the extra storage and extra processing isn't worth it

 

[traveller]

However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.

For what reason? Unless you plan to buy another super computer for 46MP - raw file ;D

I feel canon should have waited a bit longer on releasing the 5D3 with a better sensor, speaking for the 3500$ price its placed for.

They had three and a half years, how much longer did they need? ;D

Besides, these high megapixel camera rumours must be false - Canon has stopped developing new sensors as with the current generation, they have attained perfection!

 

[art_d]

I think the lack of people talking about bit depth is surprising, I think it should be the main thing to consider, more so than mp. I'd much rather have 16bit version of 5dmkiii than a 14bit higher mp camera. It's the main aspect I'm considering investing in medium format.

There is much debate about the "16-bit myth." From what I've read on the matter, I don't believe that a 16-bit camera would produce any tangible improvement over a 14-bit camera, because those extra bits are not actually doing anything useful, just quantizing noise.

I don't mean to say the difference is enormous, and it comes down to it being a small/modest development, but I have seen many examples of medium format 16 bit sensors delivering beautiful, more natural skin tone renditions due to the ability to capture more colors; I've noticed for a while dslrs often have a somewhat, and sorry for maybe not describing this appropriately, but, plastic tonal renditions from light to dark especially over skin tones (the range of tone seems flatter, local, less subtle variations).
Much like every iteration of cameras today, once you have that little bit more/better/broader range of information/techinik, you are happy to have it and will notice the difference the more you use it.

I think you've misinterpreted. I'm not saying medium format sensors don't deliver better images. But they don't do so because of a 16 bit data pipe.

Sure MF sensors produce smoother color transitions, because of the quality of the sensor itself. MF cameras can't make use of the full 16 bits anymore than DSLRs....those 2 extra bits, even in MF sensors, are not doing anything useful. Those bits are not really delivering actual information, all the data in those 2 bits is just noise. (The only tangible thing that happens is the size of the raw files increases.)

The upshot of this is that it doesn't matter if you change a DSLR sensor from 14 bit to 16 bit. That change will not make a DSLR-sized sensor behave like a MF sensor.

 

[mjbehnke]

JMHO - Since there was no mention of any video features, maybe to keep costs down, this will be a Photo Only Camera??? Good for Landscape and Portrait type work, than it really won't see much video work.

Thoughts?

Matthew

 

[CharlieB]

Past experience with Canon suggests, no such thing as a 6D, or 4D or any even number for a single digit camera. Won't say it can't happen, just its out of place in their corporate thinking.

The film line had the EOS-1 line, then the EOS-5 (A2/A2e), then the EOS-7 (Elan), then the EOS-3. That has been their pecking order as far as numbers, and sequence go.

As you recall, the "1" was top dog, even without having all the latest greatest features in every feature category.

The "5" line brought eye control and fast (for its time) 5fps shooting. The "7" line had superior focus, and the EOS-3 had all the bells and whistles, but wasn't quite pro-level in build.

I expect the same to be true of the EOS 3D. Higher pixel count... sure. I'd expect something more though. Maybe something like integrated *** and/or integrated WiFi, and/or integrated wireless flash triggering. Canon's way as been to include some "nifty" stuff on the number 3 in the lineup. I would be surprised if they disappoint this time around.

As the EOS-5DmkII sells off, and along with competition, probably more price drops - OR - instead of a 6D, you'll see a 5Ds or 5Di or something like that in the name. Its Canon's way. So, if there's an "entry level" full frame, expect it to have a 5 in its name, with some other suffix after it.

I see an EOS-3 selling in the sub $4500 league to start, getting sub $4000 rather quickly thereafter.

 

[marekjoz]

(...)
Maybe something like integrated *** and/or integrated WiFi, and/or integrated wireless flash triggering. Canon's way as been to include some "nifty" stuff on the number 3 in the lineup. I would be surprised if they disappoint this time around.
(..)

Obviously. They will put a fan as someone suggested before

 

[KitsVancouver]

However this camera turns out, 5D3 owners will be burned.

For what reason? Unless you plan to buy another super computer for 46MP - raw file ;D

Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be? If it's just about double those on the 5D Mark II then I don't know why people are suggesting you need a super computer. I admit the transfer of images from memory card to computer could be a bit onerous, but any decent computer (last few years) will easily handle the file sizes from the 5D Mark II. I don't do multiple layers, etc, but my computer manipulates my 5D Mark II images almost instantly.

 

[cliffwang]

Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be? If it's just about double those on the 5D Mark II then I don't know why people are suggesting you need a super computer. I admit the transfer of images from memory card to computer could be a bit onerous, but any decent computer (last few years) will easily handle the file sizes from the 5D Mark II. I don't do multiple layers, etc, but my computer manipulates my 5D Mark II images almost instantly.

I also don't see a problem here. However, I guess many people here are PRO and making money by photos. They need to process couple hundred photos daily. The view points are very different.

 

[marekjoz]

Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be? If it's just about double those on the 5D Mark II then I don't know why people are suggesting you need a super computer. I admit the transfer of images from memory card to computer could be a bit onerous, but any decent computer (last few years) will easily handle the file sizes from the 5D Mark II. I don't do multiple layers, etc, but my computer manipulates my 5D Mark II images almost instantly.

I also don't see a problem here. However, I guess many people here are PRO and making money by photos. They need to process couple hundred photos daily. The view points are very different.

I try to imagine a post processing when trying to make a timelapse based on full size RAWs

 

[preppyak]

Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be?

Well, for the D800, a 14 bit uncompressed RAW file is 75mb according to Nikon. And that is off a 36MP sensor. A 45+ MP sensor, you're probably looking at 100+mb for a RAW file, which is about quadruple what the current file size is. That adds up very quickly when you are shooting 100's of images at a time.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

46MP and 3.7fps would leave performance on the table judging by what dual digic 5+ 1DX can push, if it did what it could it should drive 46MP at 4.7fps

(myself, I'd rather it 36MP and 6fps, especially since I doubt it will remotely do low iso shadows close to the D800 and thus still won't be as good of a landscape camera as the D800 so may as well not try to beat the D800 MP but simply tie them and then stomp all over it with better AF and 6fps FF 36MP vs 4fps 36MP FF/5fps 25MP/6fps 16MP of the D800 (and 46MP really, really gets piggish with the hard drive space). But i'm sure canon will try to push MP in this one like mad. I kinda of see sticking with my 5D3 since 3.7fps would be way to slow if it didn't have D800 ISO100-performance and it would seem like only a half way done landscape cam, all the MP but none of the DR (and none of the speed) and the dual digic also means little chance for magic lantern for it for video and since canon cripples the junk out of video on non C-class cameras ML is kind of important sadly, but then again this is speculating on speculation on speculation. ;D But I'd rather wait for a 6fps+ , 36MP+ with good DR body (hopefully the 5D4, possibly the D900) before getting another one than a 46MP+, avg DR, slow fps body)

(at least just cut a couple MP off and get it from 4.7 to a true 5fps)

(of course they could give it an APS-C crop mode to help save storage space for distance limited wildlife shots and also drive that at greater fps, nikon gets a ton more out of their bodies by doing stuff like that, but knowing Canon, since Nikon does that, they never will, no matter how much sense it would make)


EDIT: OK i misread the rumor, it mentions industry leading LOW ISO so forget what I wrote above. If it has industry leading low ISO DR and 46MP it will be a landscape and studio beast! ;D

 

[preppyak]

JMHO - Since there was no mention of any video features, maybe to keep costs down, this will be a Photo Only Camera??? Good for Landscape and Portrait type work, than it really won't see much video work.

Thoughts?

Video costs Canon very little to implement. Seeing as Magic Lantern made the 50D a camera capable of recording video, I can tell you that the implementation is fairly cheap software. It may not be amazing video, but its video. If you would be fine with the camera not having Live View, then sure, they could possibly leave video out and save some money. Otherwise, once the tech is there, the choice to not record video is just silly and saves them nothing. But it does cost them buyers (a bunch might but the video-enabled D800 instead), and that means a higher price on the camera. Chances are Canon would have to charge 20-30% more for a video-less camera, which is why you will probably not ever see one

 

[art_d]

Does anyone know what the RAW file size would be? If it's just about double those on the 5D Mark II then I don't know why people are suggesting you need a super computer. I admit the transfer of images from memory card to computer could be a bit onerous, but any decent computer (last few years) will easily handle the file sizes from the 5D Mark II. I don't do multiple layers, etc, but my computer manipulates my 5D Mark II images almost instantly.

I also don't see a problem here. However, I guess many people here are PRO and making money by photos. They need to process couple hundred photos daily. The view points are very different.

Don't forget that "hundreds of photos daily" is not the way all pros shoot. Just a couple of weeks ago I shot an interior design job where over the course of four hours I depressed the shutter maybe 30-40 times, and delivered around 15 processed shots. For the type of slow deliberate shooting I do, I'd take larger files without hestitation.

And I would add that digital medium format photographers have been processing large file sizes for years.

It's all about what tool is right for the type of work you do.