Canon's Full Frame Future [CR2]

[scyrene]

How about a 1dxNV
NO Bloody Video

Putting video in to press cameras is causing rights issues at football grounds where moving images are rights reserved.
Then it adds at least £1000+ to the body price.
The video is a gimmick, we are not all film makers with a team of focus pulling experts on hand, a small compact like a Sony hx50 will win hands down anyway.
What we want is lower price and a good stills camera, at present if you see a tog with a 1DX they are either from one of the main agencies or a weekend warrior.
They have priced themselves out of the freelance tog market.
By knocking out the video, it saves VAT as well, in we could see nearly a £2000 drop in cost.
We dont want it, we dont need it.
Just make a bloody camera !

there is no way adding video adds 1000 pounds, if anything it might slightly reduce the cost due to higher sales

and i doubt an hx50's video will touch a7rii quality (nor even, for 1080p, 5D3 ML RAW)

having video means its taxed a lot more.

Video cameras are taxed differently in the EU, but that's why recording times are artificially limited on DSLRs, to get round it. So a stills-only camera and a 29:59-recording length-limited camera are in the same tax bracket.

And given the RRP of the 5D3 is ~£2000-2500, are you really saying it adds up to 50% on to the price? I've heard this myth touted a few times, but never in quite such an extreme way.

 

[NancyP]

I suspect that the 5Ds/r are not going to be popular as a generic camera, that's the 5D3 niche. Sony does have the mirrorless small size advantage, which is important for those who like to carry a large kit. Sony A7II plus 3 lenses ought to be lighter than 5D3 plus 3 lenses. However, the analogous Sony is the not-yet-released A7R II. I am guessing that there are some people out there who are waiting to see the Sony before they make a decision on the 5Ds/r.

 

[Zeidora]

Checking with a local camera shop that sells to professionals and avid hobbyists I am surprised to learn the new 5Ds are not selling well.

According to the sale droids the new Sony A7rII seems to really have caught folks attention.

If this holds true across the larger market (and not just this isolated instance) then Canon might very well have missed the mark with their new Wonder Device.

As is sometimes said: Stay Tuned

There is more to success than number of units sold, such as margin and break-even-point. Those are tightly guarded secrets.

You can look at Zeiss and their rather low volume. I would not consider them "missing the mark", they are spot on for a very specific clientele. Or look at Tesla (I drive a MS), another niche product, also high-end, and quite successful, despite low production numbers compared to large brands.

Where Canon did miss the mark with the 5ds/r is a) not ditching the video, b) no easy user-replaceable focusing screen as on the 5d2. For a) it might me more difficult to remove video, than to leave it in. For b) I have no explanation, but it seems not to be too difficult on the 5d3, so I expect I won't have problems when my 5dsr arrives to try both the Eg-S and the Eg-S mod by focusingscreen.com.

Re future, I'm set for a while. None of the rumored features in 5d4 etc hold any appeal. I got the 5d2 as my first dslr (after Contax RTSIII), but did not see anything in the 5d3 to make it worth getting it. The 5dsr meets my most important need for larger file sizes. As I do also 4x5", I am already a slow photographer, hence, taking care with set-up on the 5dsr is nothing new.

I will be paying close attention to new Zeiss lenses.

 

[Adelino]

Checking with a local camera shop that sells to professionals and avid hobbyists I am surprised to learn the new 5Ds are not selling well.

According to the sale droids the new Sony A7rII seems to really have caught folks attention.

If this holds true across the larger market (and not just this isolated instance) then Canon might very well have missed the mark with their new Wonder Device.

As is sometimes said: Stay Tuned

There is more to success than number of units sold, such as margin and break-even-point. Those are tightly guarded secrets.

You can look at Zeiss and their rather low volume. I would not consider them "missing the mark", they are spot on for a very specific clientele. Or look at Tesla (I drive a MS), another niche product, also high-end, and quite successful, despite low production numbers compared to large brands.

Where Canon did miss the mark with the 5ds/r is a) not ditching the video, b) no easy user-replaceable focusing screen as on the 5d2. For a) it might me more difficult to remove video, than to leave it in. For b) I have no explanation, but it seems not to be too difficult on the 5d3, so I expect I won't have problems when my 5dsr arrives to try both the Eg-S and the Eg-S mod by focusingscreen.com.

Re future, I'm set for a while. None of the rumored features in 5d4 etc hold any appeal. I got the 5d2 as my first dslr (after Contax RTSIII), but did not see anything in the 5d3 to make it worth getting it. The 5dsr meets my most important need for larger file sizes. As I do also 4x5", I am already a slow photographer, hence, taking care with set-up on the 5dsr is nothing new.

I will be paying close attention to new Zeiss lenses.

You mention Tesla is successful, are they making money? They are (hopefully) five years away from making money at that point you can call them successful. But I get your point about other small and successful companies.

 

[WorkonSunday]

one benefit for high volume sales is driving down the per-unit cost for even higher quality product. look at 70-200mm F4 L non-is. no other brands can offer anything remotely similar in IQ for the price.

 

[Loswr]

No AA has been widely denounced here as being an invitation for disaster with moire.

Widely? :

Couldn't possibly be that because everyone is an expert here.

Not everyone, dilbert...clearly not everyone.

 

[GuyF]

Checking with a local camera shop that sells to professionals and avid hobbyists I am surprised to learn the new 5Ds are not selling well.

I was at a seminar last Friday where the Canon Ambassador was saying they are amazed at the demand for the new cameras. Back orders up the wazoo (looking on a map, I think that's near Shit Creek). So who's right? The cameras might not be selling well in your location but on a global scale, they appear to be selling better than expected. Sure, the cynical among us may think the Canon Ambassador would say that but I have no reason to doubt him.

Whilst there, I asked a Canon rep about the 1DX mk2 and he only knew of rumours about rumours (maybe CR needs a sister website to deal with those). His suggestion was, if you want that sort of camera, just buy the current 1DX now and it'll last you years. This, to me, is a veiled indication they want to sell off their current stock prior to announcing the replacement

 

[scyrene]

No AA has been widely denounced here as being an invitation for disaster with moire.

Widely? :

Well in the interests of saving time, here's the first reference from yourself saying that you want the AA filter because you don't want to deal with moire:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18987.msg355245#msg355245
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18987.msg356354#msg356354

... a thread full of people saying how bad moire is when using a digital camera and how essential the AA filter is to digital photography.

Yet on three leading digital camera sales websites, the camera without the AA filter is harder to obtain than the one with.

I'll leave it to you and others to reconcile that difference for yourselves.

If the 5DsR continues to outsell the 5Ds, then that to me would be a market indicator to Canon that not having the AA filter in the camera is the preferred option.

Of course, that assumes both were made in the same numbers. If the manufacturer assumed the AA-filtered one would sell better, they may have produced more of them.

You might be right, but there are a lot of unknowns in this situation - certainly too many to judge whether moiré is indeed an issue.

 

[Loswr]

No AA has been widely denounced here as being an invitation for disaster with moire.

Widely? :

Well in the interests of saving time, here's the first reference from yourself saying that you want the AA filter because you don't want to deal with moire:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18987.msg355245#msg355245
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18987.msg356354#msg356354

... a thread full of people saying how bad moire is when using a digital camera and how essential the AA filter is to digital photography.

Yet on three leading digital camera sales websites, the camera without the AA filter is harder to obtain than the one with.

I'll leave it to you and others to reconcile that difference for yourselves.

If the 5DsR continues to outsell the 5Ds, then that to me would be a market indicator to Canon that not having the AA filter in the camera is the preferred option.

Oh, I see. A few people highlighting the risk of moiré in certain situations (architecture, feathers, some fabrics) is a wide denouncement and guarantee of disaster.

Conversely, the fact that more people might be buying the 5DsR means that moiré won't be an issue for them.

More facts from dilbertland, thanks for sharing your expert knowledge.

 

[docsmith]

While Canon wouldn't put something out on the market that they didn't expect to sell, I never had the impression that the 5Ds /sR were aimed at a mass market, but rather a niche of the market. That said, the 5Ds is available at Amazon, B&H and Adorama...where the 5Ds R is on backorder at all three locations. So it could be that the niche going for the high MP is skipping over the 5Ds and going straight to the 5Ds R.

Don't you hate it when the public at large don't get the message?
I mean who would want a 5DsR with that huge moire problem just waiting to reach out and bite you on the ass?

No AA has been widely denounced here as being an invitation for disaster with moire.
Clearly something is wrong if more people are buying/ordering the "please give me moire" version of the camera than the one without.

That or the average poster on CR that has criticized the lack of AA filter doesn't know what they're talking about. Couldn't possibly be that because everyone is an expert here.

All I know is that, at least thus far, lensrental/TDP have shown that there is a bump in resolution going from the "s" to the "s R" and I've only seen one example of moire from the 5Ds R (bird feathers) with several people trying to create moire. I am sure more will come up, but given the effort some have put into this and the difficulty they had in producing moire, the extra resolution (and $) would be worth it to me for the "s R"....if I wanted to deal with 50-100 MB files. Which...I don't.

 

[mistaspeedy]

I'm really curious as how Canon will get video from the upcoming 5D mark IV. If there is any hope of getting a nice 4K video stream from the camera, it will need to be one of two resolutions (or crop from a larger resolution)
4K sensor for 4K video = 3840 * 2560 (stills) and 3840 * 2160 (video)
8K sensor for 4K video = 7680 * 5120 (stills) and 7680 * 4320 (video)

The problem being that 9.8 megapixels (full sensor for stills) seems way too small, and 39.3 seems like too much.

The current sensor in the 5D mark III is perfectly optimized for 1080p video... exactly 3 pixels width and 3 pixels height (a total of 9 pixels) reduce down to 1920*1080 nicely.

Also, what do you think about DCI 4K video (4096 x 2160 pixels)... it is featured in the Panasonic GH4, so it is possible that it could make its way into the 5D mark IV.
However, this would require different sensor resolutions to the ones I mentioned above.
It would require:
4096*2730 (stills) and 4096*2160 (video) = 11.3 megapixels full sensor (similar to Sony A7s)
8192*5460 (stills) and 8192*4320 (video) = 44.72 megapixels full sensor (higher than Sony A7rII)

Does anyone know how other sensor sizes would scale nicely into 4K video without being an exact multiple?

 

[meywd]

I'm really curious as how Canon will get video from the upcoming 5D mark IV. If there is any hope of getting a nice 4K video stream from the camera, it will need to be one of two resolutions (or crop from a larger resolution)
4K sensor for 4K video = 3840 * 2560 (stills) and 3840 * 2160 (video)
8K sensor for 4K video = 7680 * 5120 (stills) and 7680 * 4320 (video)

The problem being that 9.8 megapixels (full sensor for stills) seems way too small, and 39.3 seems like too much.

The current sensor in the 5D mark III is perfectly optimized for 1080p video... exactly 3 pixels width and 3 pixels height (a total of 9 pixels) reduce down to 1920*1080 nicely.

Also, what do you think about DCI 4K video (4096 x 2160 pixels)... it is featured in the Panasonic GH4, so it is possible that it could make its way into the 5D mark IV.
However, this would require different sensor resolutions to the ones I mentioned above.
It would require:
4096*2730 (stills) and 4096*2160 (video) = 11.3 megapixels full sensor (similar to Sony A7s)
8192*5460 (stills) and 8192*4320 (video) = 44.72 megapixels full sensor (higher than Sony A7rII)

Does anyone know how other sensor sizes would scale nicely into 4K video without being an exact multiple?

or they can do a crop mode for the 4k video

 

[unfocused]

No AA has been widely denounced here as being an invitation for disaster with moire.
Clearly something is wrong if more people are buying/ordering the "please give me moire" version of the camera than the one without.

That or the average poster on CR that has criticized the lack of AA filter doesn't know what they're talking about. Couldn't possibly be that because everyone is an expert here.

Typical uninformed comment. We don't know the ratio of models being manufactured or shipped, so it is impossible to say which is more popular until or if sales figures are released. If canon projected the no-AA filter model would sell at a ratio of one-to-twenty with the AA filter model and it is actually selling at one-to-10, there could be a shortage but that would still mean they are selling 10 times as many of the AA filter models.

 

[GuyF]

Further to the "AA or disabled-AA filter" war that is now starting :

During the seminar I was at last Friday, both S and SR cameras were talked about at length. Until then, the only image examples I'd seen were either in magazines (not the highest quality of printing) or on the web (quality of image examples vary immensely. (sidenote: why do Canon post small jpegs on their example pages?)).

Images were projected onto a screen approx 4ft wide. What I did see was the SR is capable of resolving the most incredible detail. One example shown was a crop of a flower bed and stone plant pot - the "plain" 5DS looked soft almost as if taken with a cheap lens whereas the 5DSR was crisp without being over-sharpened. No contest, night and day, quite staggering. However! We were also shown a shot from the 5DSR of a cloth jacket. Yikes. The moire was grim. Like, traffic accident grim.

So, where does that leave us? Simple, get the one that will suit your type of photography and ignore those who tell you you bought the wrong body.

More importantly, where's the 1DX replacement?

 

[jeffa4444]

No AA has been widely denounced here as being an invitation for disaster with moire.

Widely? :

Well in the interests of saving time, here's the first reference from yourself saying that you want the AA filter because you don't want to deal with moire:

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18987.msg355245#msg355245
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=18987.msg356354#msg356354

... a thread full of people saying how bad moire is when using a digital camera and how essential the AA filter is to digital photography.

Yet on three leading digital camera sales websites, the camera without the AA filter is harder to obtain than the one with.

I'll leave it to you and others to reconcile that difference for yourselves.

If the 5DsR continues to outsell the 5Ds, then that to me would be a market indicator to Canon that not having the AA filter in the camera is the preferred option.

Oh, I see. A few people highlighting the risk of moiré in certain situations (architecture, feathers, some fabrics) is a wide denouncement and guarantee of disaster.

Conversely, the fact that more people might be buying the 5DsR means that moiré won't be an issue for them.

More facts from dilbertland, thanks for sharing your expert knowledge.

For the majority of stills shots it will be fine and rarely bother. For video panning with certain materials etc. it could well be a problem and thats the reason so far you will not find any professional video camera without an OPLF.

 

[1982chris911]

Further to the "AA or disabled-AA filter" war that is now starting :

During the seminar I was at last Friday, both S and SR cameras were talked about at length. Until then, the only image examples I'd seen were either in magazines (not the highest quality of printing) or on the web (quality of image examples vary immensely. (sidenote: why do Canon post small jpegs on their example pages?)).

Images were projected onto a screen approx 4ft wide. What I did see was the SR is capable of resolving the most incredible detail. One example shown was a crop of a flower bed and stone plant pot - the "plain" 5DS looked soft almost as if taken with a cheap lens whereas the 5DSR was crisp without being over-sharpened. No contest, night and day, quite staggering. However! We were also shown a shot from the 5DSR of a cloth jacket. Yikes. The moire was grim. Like, traffic accident grim.

So, where does that leave us? Simple, get the one that will suit your type of photography and ignore those who tell you you bought the wrong body.

More importantly, where's the 1DX replacement?

Strangely what you say matches exactly what Canon told us here in the introduction for the 5DsR and 5Ds ...
So I guess they really intended the 5Ds for photographers who have an interest to control moire above absolute sharpness in details, where as the DsR is the opposite

Same as with D800 and D800E. Another thing is that the most detail critical pictures taken with MF backs are always taken without AA filter... simply because MF backs don't have an AA filter ... so I guess for professional fashion photographers that is not too much of a concern then ...

Back to the topic I really think it boils down to the personal requirement to decide which of two bodies is better suited as you say.

 

[Loswr]

One example shown was a crop of a flower bed and stone plant pot - the "plain" 5DS looked soft almost as if taken with a cheap lens whereas the 5DSR was crisp without being over-sharpened. No contest, night and day, quite staggering. However! We were also shown a shot from the 5DSR of a cloth jacket. Yikes. The moire was grim. Like, traffic accident grim.

The question is how were they processed? In one sense, logic would suggest they should be treated identically. That was how the initial D800/E comparisons were handled, and the increased sharpness in the absence of the AA filter. However, in practice one would actually process images as best for the images themselves, and with the D800 it became apparent that the AA-filtered images can be sharpened substantially more than the non-AA images. In that sort of comparison, the differences were much less apparent. The softening imparted by an AA filter is quite predictable and sharpening algorithms are very effective.

OTOH, removing moiré is far more problematic.

 

[GuyF]

Neuro,

The images were processed in DPP as the Canon Ambassador (David Clapp http://www.davidclapp.co.uk/) had the bodies on loan just for a week back in March. DPP was a beta at the time. I gather he applied a fairly minor amount of unsharp mask - no more than "2" or "3" to images.

Whichever way you slice it, both bodies produced very impressive images when seen on a large scale. A scale on which most users (non-professionals?) will never see their efforts. In my pixel-peeping capacity, the DsR would be the one I'd get, moiré be damned.

Regards.

 

[PureClassA]

I got the R and I haven't had moire issues yet even though I've deliberately shot some typical things I'd otherwise suspect should produce it. Granted I have not yet really put it through the ringer. I'm sure I'll get it eventually on certain models in satiny gowns. That being said, I've had good success removing moire when present with the LR tool. Seems to do a pretty darn good job of it with minimal side-effects.

One example shown was a crop of a flower bed and stone plant pot - the "plain" 5DS looked soft almost as if taken with a cheap lens whereas the 5DSR was crisp without being over-sharpened. No contest, night and day, quite staggering. However! We were also shown a shot from the 5DSR of a cloth jacket. Yikes. The moire was grim. Like, traffic accident grim.

The question is how were they processed? In one sense, logic would suggest they should be treated identically. That was how the initial D800/E comparisons were handled, and the increased sharpness in the absence of the AA filter. However, in practice one would actually process images as best for the images themselves, and with the D800 it became apparent that the AA-filtered images can be sharpened substantially more than the non-AA images. In that sort of comparison, the differences were much less apparent. The softening imparted by an AA filter is quite predictable and sharpening algorithms are very effective.

OTOH, removing moiré is far more problematic.

 

[mistaspeedy]

or they can do a crop mode for the 4k video

Yes, but if they crop, they are reducing quality by using a smaller surface area, instead of the whole surface.
A direct 4K (8.29 megapixel) crop from a 22 megapixel sensor means:
8.29 / 22 = 37.6% of the sensor is in use
or 8.29 / 18.6 = 44.5% of 16:9 available area in use
OR 18.6 / 8.29 = 2.24 crop factor.... significantly smaller than APS-C!
If they increase the resolution of the 5D mark IV, then this situation will only become worse, as a 1:1 crop of the sensor becomes a smaller and smaller part of the whole sensor.

Any other sizes will need some weird internal scaling (worsen quality) to get 4K video.