Does 1DX mean Canon is reshuffling their pro lineup?

[heavybarrel]

Do you think the 1DX coming out with the features it has means a shift in Canon's FF lineup? In the past, the 1Ds was the ultimate camera and it was the choice of a lot of studio photographers. The 1D was the action camera, where conditions in the field mattered more. The 5D was the entry level FF that ended up providing IQ so good that some pros were using it to replace their 1Ds in the studio.

Most of the features that make the 1DX such a unique and amazing camera are pretty useless in a studio, where it will be sitting on a stand, being manually focused and set at 100 ISO. In those cases a camera with 3 processors, 12 fps and 200k+ ISO is completely overkill. And medium format is coming down in price to actually compete with Canons.

The area where all the crazy new capabilities are being expanded are in action photography... advanced metering, focus, ISO, and fps. That's why I'm hoping the 5D3 will be cheaper maybe... and be Canon's representative in the studio, super IQ area. Maybe one Digic V, one card, minimal video abilities, and a 24-32mp sensor that just takes amazing pictures. No other frills.

They can fill in the gap with a 3D... advanced video features, 18mp sensor from the 1DX, faster shutter and faster AF.

I don't know... maybe I'm just rationalizing a reason for Canon to make me my 5D3 the way I want it lol. The same as my 5D2, just a little better AF and metering.

 

[kubelik]

hi heavy, I don't think you're wishful thinking at all here. I believe the same thing, which is that the 5D Mark III will very clearly differentiate from the 1D X by being a high MP-count, slower frame rate body. before, they could increase the specs on the 5D-series without cannibalizing the 1Ds. yet, it happened anyway. so I think Canon learned from that mistake, and now with the 1D X being as amazing as it is, there is plenty of room for the 5D III to improve on the 5D II, while not damaging sales for the 1D series.

my guess for specs is:

30+ MP
5 FPS
improved AF (similar to 7D-quality)
single or CF+SD card slot
still plenty of video options

I don't think at that point that there is a gap that needs filling. also, I think we're at the limit of what people want to do with filming using a DSLR form factor. Canon can easily appropriate its breakthrough sensor technology from the 5DII and put it into low-cost videography equipment (low cost compared to other pro-level video gear) in a form factor that's much more useful for people trying to use it primarily for video.

the 7D will probably come up in specs in the next iteration to maintain its difference from the 5D line, my guess is

~20 MP
10 FPS
perhaps also a new AF system
definitely CF+SD dual slots
still APS-C

I think that's enough choice in the XD cams to give everyone what they want and need; if there is a niche located somewhere between these three cameras, it's probably too small of a niche for Canon to address specifically. look at Sony with its spray-and-pray variety of cameras ... where has that gotten them? redundant R+D, confusing marketing... nothing good comes of over-differentiation of product lines. I think Canon has a good strategy moving forward in terms of providing choice without muddying the waters.

 

[mdoher1]

My take on this, FWIW...

I think that Canon are essentially taking a new direction in their camera strategy. I expect that they will announce a new, effectively, medium format camera for studio users. I think this will be in the range 30 to 50 megapixels (I expect around 40 for first generation). Part of me says that this will be with a new lens system...the other part of me says they will stick with the EF mount. I also half expect the new MF camera to be mirror-less...

I think the camera will have a new designation. It seems strange that they would announce the amalgamation of the two one series cameras to then split them, so I think this hints at the new series number...The studio requirements as stated by many on this and other forums are completely different from the sports/1DX users.

I think the 5DIII will be in the late 20 megapixel range and share some of the features of the 1DX...but obviously not too many. Looking at the timeline...I think this will be announced in Feb next year.

The 7D will be bumped up in resolution a tiny bit and some extra features...again I think Feb next year looks favorite for this. I also expect to see a three series in the next 24 months, bridging the gap between the 5D and 1D series...with some features from both.

I've ordered my 1DX...and I am looking forward to better noise handling at much higher ISO's...in fact, I expect this camera to be the industry leader in this respect (for at least a couple of days <vbg>)...I hope I am not going to be disappointed!

Just my 2 cents worth!

 

[AdamJ]

hi heavy, I don't think you're wishful thinking at all here. I believe the same thing, which is that the 5D Mark III will very clearly differentiate from the 1D X by being a high MP-count, slower frame rate body. before, they could increase the specs on the 5D-series without cannibalizing the 1Ds. yet, it happened anyway. so I think Canon learned from that mistake, and now with the 1D X being as amazing as it is, there is plenty of room for the 5D III to improve on the 5D II, while not damaging sales for the 1D series.

my guess for specs is:

30+ MP
5 FPS
improved AF (similar to 7D-quality)
single or CF+SD card slot
still plenty of video options

I don't think at that point that there is a gap that needs filling. also, I think we're at the limit of what people want to do with filming using a DSLR form factor. Canon can easily appropriate its breakthrough sensor technology from the 5DII and put it into low-cost videography equipment (low cost compared to other pro-level video gear) in a form factor that's much more useful for people trying to use it primarily for video.

the 7D will probably come up in specs in the next iteration to maintain its difference from the 5D line, my guess is

~20 MP
10 FPS
perhaps also a new AF system
definitely CF+SD dual slots
still APS-C

I think that's enough choice in the XD cams to give everyone what they want and need; if there is a niche located somewhere between these three cameras, it's probably too small of a niche for Canon to address specifically. look at Sony with its spray-and-pray variety of cameras ... where has that gotten them? redundant R+D, confusing marketing... nothing good comes of over-differentiation of product lines. I think Canon has a good strategy moving forward in terms of providing choice without muddying the waters.

This is 100% my expectation too.

 

[AdamJ]

My take on this, FWIW...

I think that Canon are essentially taking a new direction in their camera strategy. I expect that they will announce a new, effectively, medium format camera for studio users. I think this will be in the range 30 to 50 megapixels (I expect around 40 for first generation). Part of me says that this will be with a new lens system...the other part of me says they will stick with the EF mount. I also half expect the new MF camera to be mirror-less...

Just my 2 cents worth!

How would EF lenses work with medium format? The image circle wouldn't be big enough.

 

[J. McCabe]

I think that Canon are essentially taking a new direction in their camera strategy. I expect that they will announce a new, effectively, medium format camera for studio users. I think this will be in the range 30 to 50 megapixels (I expect around 40 for first generation). Part of me says that this will be with a new lens system...the other part of me says they will stick with the EF mount. I also half expect the new MF camera to be mirror-less...

Why would Canon use the EF mount for a medium format camera ?

As far as I understand ...

If the camera would have a mirror, the flange distance would change, so lenses wouldn't be interchangeable due to optical reasons.

If the camera wouldn't have a mirror, most of the current lenses wouldn't work due power of coverage, so a whole new set of lenses would be required. Canon has problems with already announced lenses, why start manufacturing a new set ?

 

[ianhar]

hi heavy, I don't think you're wishful thinking at all here. I believe the same thing, which is that the 5D Mark III will very clearly differentiate from the 1D X by being a high MP-count, slower frame rate body. before, they could increase the specs on the 5D-series without cannibalizing the 1Ds. yet, it happened anyway. so I think Canon learned from that mistake, and now with the 1D X being as amazing as it is, there is plenty of room for the 5D III to improve on the 5D II, while not damaging sales for the 1D series.

my guess for specs is:

30+ MP
5 FPS
improved AF (similar to 7D-quality)
single or CF+SD card slot
still plenty of video options

I don't think at that point that there is a gap that needs filling. also, I think we're at the limit of what people want to do with filming using a DSLR form factor. Canon can easily appropriate its breakthrough sensor technology from the 5DII and put it into low-cost videography equipment (low cost compared to other pro-level video gear) in a form factor that's much more useful for people trying to use it primarily for video.

the 7D will probably come up in specs in the next iteration to maintain its difference from the 5D line, my guess is

~20 MP
10 FPS
perhaps also a new AF system
definitely CF+SD dual slots
still APS-C

I think that's enough choice in the XD cams to give everyone what they want and need; if there is a niche located somewhere between these three cameras, it's probably too small of a niche for Canon to address specifically. look at Sony with its spray-and-pray variety of cameras ... where has that gotten them? redundant R+D, confusing marketing... nothing good comes of over-differentiation of product lines. I think Canon has a good strategy moving forward in terms of providing choice without muddying the waters.

This is 100% my expectation too.

+1

 

[Loswr]

my guess for specs is:

30+ MP
5 FPS
improved AF (similar to 7D-quality)
single or CF+SD card slot
still plenty of video options

the 7D will probably come up in specs in the next iteration to maintain its difference from the 5D line, my guess is

~20 MP
10 FPS
perhaps also a new AF system
definitely CF+SD dual slots
still APS-C

I agree that there will be a 5DIII and a 7DII. But, I disagree on the particulars.

It seems clear that Canon got burned by the 5DII cannibalizing 1DsIII sales, and they'll avoid that this time around. The 7DII is a bit easier, because of the APS-C sensor. They give it a pair of Digic5's, maybe a Digic4 for AE/AF, a slight AF bump (maybe more f/2.8 points and new algorithms), same 8 fps, and the 'big' story is a new 21-24 MP APS-C sensor.

The 5DIII is a bigger challenge. It will certainly have more MP - probably 30+. Because that 'sounds' a lot better than 18 MP, they'll need to incorporate some significant handicaps compared to the 1D X, especially since it will have sufficient MP for an APS-H-size crop with more resolution than the 1D IV. They can't knock the video - likely that will be slightly better too, with 1080p at 60fps. So - what's left? Unfortunately, the obvious features to differentiate on become frame rate - likely a slight bump, to between 4 and 5 fps, but no higher; the other lacks will be weather sealing and the AF system. Since the high MP count can be pitched as studio/landscape use, where AF is of less importance, I think those hoping for a 7D-like AF will be disappointed. There will be a few more cross-type points (5? 9?) and they may make the 6 invisible points selectable so they can bill it as 15-pt, but no zones, no spot AF, and no sophisticated customization, and no better in low light. Many 1-series users ended up shooting with the 5DII instead; most of those can live without weather sealing and high fps. If the AF is too good, with a higher MP count as well, the 5DIII will take a bigger bite out of 1D X sales than the 5DII has out of 1Ds sales. If Canon didn't give 1Ds/1D users the perfect camera (high MP, high fps, great AF), it's pretty unlikely they'll give it to 5DII users.

Just my 2¢.

 

[csnyder103]

Has anyone brought up the possibility that there could be an APS-H sensor in the successor to the 7D? They have always marketed it as a pro-body and that way XXD line would keep the APS-C sensor. It seems to me the 7D and the 60D are so closely specd that they compete against themselves. Just a thought.

 

[JR]

All this make sense to me and I too agree with heavy here. The one thing I a problem with is the AF of a new 5D mkIII. Many seem to think it might not be improved or not even to the level of the 7D. If this was the case, I think Canon would make a big mistake. If we just look at Nikon, the D700 had a kick ass AF system and if we judge but the rumor of the upcoming high MP D800, its AF too will be significant. I think it would be a mistake for Canon to only look at its internal lign-up to decide the AF strategy. They need to consider the competition.

Nikon will respond to the 1DX, but I expect them to respond in the next few weeks with a 5Dmk II killer that Canon cannot ignor. I am personally fed-up with the poor AF capability of my 5D mkII and not sure I want to buy a 1DX to fix that!

my two cents...does any of this make sense?

 

[lol]

While I can see Canon not wanting to compete against themselves, they still have to compete against Nikon, and increasingly Sony who are also due a new full frame model in the not so distant future. I think Canon have only got away with the 5D AF for so long as Nikon don't have anything in that space, and Sony didn't really do it better. But you can be sure their next generation cameras wont stand still, and Canon shouldn't either. I think there will be an update to the AF, but I wouldn't know where to start guessing how much of an improvement.

 

[Loswr]

While I can see Canon not wanting to compete against themselves, they still have to compete against Nikon, and increasingly Sony...

I don't agree, in terms of this discussion. The competition between Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. really takes place in the entry-level dSLR space (and of course, the P&S space). The number of people who's first dSLR is a FF body is an insignificant fraction of the market. So, by the time someone buys a FF body, they have brand familiarity and likely a set of lenses - Canon will have the data to support that (that's why the online product registration collects info on other products already owned). The reality is that very, very few people switch brands (despite the frequent threats to do so, which are mostly empty). Sure, there are high profile 'defections' where Canon or Nikon provides incentives, but for the majority, if you have a lens or two there's too much inertia to change brands.

Regarding updating the AF, history has shown there's no need. First off, Nikon's AF isn't necessarily 'kick-ass'. Just like more MP doesn't automatically make a sensor better, more AF points don't automatically make for better AF. Nikon's systems have never had the high-precision points that Canon offers, for example. More importantly, Canon can look back at sales records. The 40D, 50D, and 60D use the same AF. The 5DII was a huge success, using the same AF as the 5D but with more MP. So who's to say a 5DIII with even more MP and still the same AF won't sell, especially stacked up against a 1D X with less MP?

I know it's not a popular opinion, but don't be surprised to see the 5D's AF reused on the 5DIII, or if not that, a token improvement. If they give it a high MP sensor, compared to the 1D X, they've got to not give it something else. Weak AF, only one Digic5+ so the frame rate drops lower that the Rebel line, some kind of handicap will be there. Pick your poison...

 

[lol]

Interesting thoughts there. While "normal people" are unlikely to switch due to the lens burden, some will still switch or go multiple systems to get the best of all worlds.

The 40/50D AF I think did cost them some sales compared to D300(s) which wasn't somewhat addressed until the 7D arrived. So I think Canon do recognise they have weaknesses compared to Nikon and are addressing them.

The 5D2 success I think is for two different reasons: one is video which I'll park to one side, and the other is it didn't have much competition in the photographic space. The only thing close to it as a lower cost full frame high MP body was the Sony A850/900.

In my opinion, the 7D AF is not going to bother 1D sales if they drop it in a 5D class body. I think Canon have more to loose from a bad 5D2 replacement than they do from lost 1D sales.

As a wild card, I wouldn't be against Canon either moving the 5D3 up or giving it a different xD name. Still below 1D level, but above historic 5D level. With technology that is available now, my "wish list" camera would be a 7D body with a 30+MP full frame sensor dropped in, say 4 or 5fps. I'd pay above 5D level pricing for it. But I don't want a 1D style body even if it was the same price.

 

[JR]

Very interesting and maybe Canon would sell some 5D III simply with more MP. Not being an expert on the subject, I just find it odd that Nikon seem to have a different AF strategy differientiation than Canon. Nikon has the same or similar AF in the D700 and D3S for example while for Canon, huge difference exist between the 1 series and the 5 series (sort of the equivalent of the D700 in terms of "entry" level FF).

Now not having shot myself with a 1DIV for example, maybe I would find the AF not making much difference, or maybe I would realize it is time for me to also have a sport camera for my duaghter who starts moving faster and faster

 

[rocketdesigner]

They can fill in the gap with a 3D... advanced video features, 18mp sensor from the 1DX, faster shutter and faster AF.

I agree wholeheartedly ... but please, no "3D" naming convention :-[. As someone else pointed out on CR, lets not confuse it with 3-D technology.

Instead, how about naming their "video-specific" model 5DIIIv?

 

[AdamJ]

Regarding updating the AF, history has shown there's no need. First off, Nikon's AF isn't necessarily 'kick-ass'. Just like more MP doesn't automatically make a sensor better, more AF points don't automatically make for better AF. Nikon's systems have never had the high-precision points that Canon offers, for example. More importantly, Canon can look back at sales records. The 40D, 50D, and 60D use the same AF. The 5DII was a huge success, using the same AF as the 5D but with more MP. So who's to say a 5DIII with even more MP and still the same AF won't sell, especially stacked up against a 1D X with less MP?

I know it's not a popular opinion, but don't be surprised to see the 5D's AF reused on the 5DIII, or if not that, a token improvement. If they give it a high MP sensor, compared to the 1D X, they've got to not give it something else. Weak AF, only one Digic5+ so the frame rate drops lower that the Rebel line, some kind of handicap will be there. Pick your poison...

As I've mentioned before in these forums, I believe most 5D MkIIs are owned by amateur enthusiasts for whom it is their only body (other than the old Rebel from which they upgraded). As such, it has to have good capabilities in all types of photography if it is to to appeal to its largest audience. And yet, if internet forums are any guide, a large section of MkII users are often frustrated by its substandard ability to track moving subjects in AI Servo AF. Neuro, you yourself have said in the past how much better your 7D is at tracking.

I'm willing to accept all sorts of compromises in the 5D MkIII's spec but if the AF remained the same, I certainly wouldn't upgrade. AF is simply too fundamental to the camera's overall performance for it to be compromised for marketing reasons and I believe Canon will soon learn this if they leave the MkIII's AF system unchanged.

 

[moreorless]

While I can see Canon not wanting to compete against themselves, they still have to compete against Nikon, and increasingly Sony...

I don't agree, in terms of this discussion. The competition between Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc. really takes place in the entry-level dSLR space (and of course, the P&S space). The number of people who's first dSLR is a FF body is an insignificant fraction of the market. So, by the time someone buys a FF body, they have brand familiarity and likely a set of lenses - Canon will have the data to support that (that's why the online product registration collects info on other products already owned). The reality is that very, very few people switch brands (despite the frequent threats to do so, which are mostly empty). Sure, there are high profile 'defections' where Canon or Nikon provides incentives, but for the majority, if you have a lens or two there's too much inertia to change brands.

Regarding updating the AF, history has shown there's no need. First off, Nikon's AF isn't necessarily 'kick-ass'. Just like more MP doesn't automatically make a sensor better, more AF points don't automatically make for better AF. Nikon's systems have never had the high-precision points that Canon offers, for example. More importantly, Canon can look back at sales records. The 40D, 50D, and 60D use the same AF. The 5DII was a huge success, using the same AF as the 5D but with more MP. So who's to say a 5DIII with even more MP and still the same AF won't sell, especially stacked up against a 1D X with less MP?

I know it's not a popular opinion, but don't be surprised to see the 5D's AF reused on the 5DIII, or if not that, a token improvement. If they give it a high MP sensor, compared to the 1D X, they've got to not give it something else. Weak AF, only one Digic5+ so the frame rate drops lower that the Rebel line, some kind of handicap will be there. Pick your poison...

You also have to consider price as a factor aswell i'd say, the 5D mk2's sucess was partly based on the relatively low cost while the Nikon D800 is rumoured to ge in the $4000 range. If the old AF system or a marginal improvement helps keep the 5d mk3 lower than that it could well increase the market signifcantly..

I'd say that if the 1Ds line is over the most pressing upgrades would be a 100% OVF and higher quality build. Both studio and landscape 1Ds users would I'd guess want the former with landscape users likely wanting the latter aswell.

To me the 1DX becoming the flagship seems like it might be more an acknowledgement of the strenghts and weaknesses of the EF/FF format. As a sports/jurno camera the 1DX can claim to be the very best tool for the job with its FPS/ISO/AF where as a 1Ds Mk4's sensor would be unlikely to beat medium format offerings. Its alot easier to sell something at a prenium when your at the top of the market afterall, espeically with the 645D pushing below £9K.

 

[mdoher1]

My take on this, FWIW...

I think that Canon are essentially taking a new direction in their camera strategy. I expect that they will announce a new, effectively, medium format camera for studio users. I think this will be in the range 30 to 50 megapixels (I expect around 40 for first generation). Part of me says that this will be with a new lens system...the other part of me says they will stick with the EF mount. I also half expect the new MF camera to be mirror-less...

Just my 2 cents worth!

How would EF lenses work with medium format? The image circle wouldn't be big enough.

I did say 'effectively' medium format...I was thinking more about pixel count rather than full medium format. I know pixel count doesn't in any way define medium format...but if Canon are to produce a Camera that competes for the next three years in the studio...it would seem to me that it would have to be in the 40 to 50 MP range...similar pixel counts to some of the leaf backs and Pentax 645D. But I also realise that this asks the question - are the current optics capable of supporting that sort of resolution? I don't believe that they are.

Could Canon cope with producing a new lens mount alongside the EF? Probably not at the moment. But I cannot believe that Canon are going to give up the prestige of producing a large pixel count camera to their rivals. Both Nikon and Sony are ahead in the raw numbers game...I'm sure Canon will respond in kind.

 

[moreorless]

I did say 'effectively' medium format...I was thinking more about pixel count rather than full medium format. I know pixel count doesn't in any way define medium format...but if Canon are to produce a Camera that competes for the next three years in the studio...it would seem to me that it would have to be in the 40 to 50 MP range...similar pixel counts to some of the leaf backs and Pentax 645D. But I also realise that this asks the question - are the current optics capable of supporting that sort of resolution? I don't believe that they are.

Could Canon cope with producing a new lens mount alongside the EF? Probably not at the moment. But I cannot believe that Canon are going to give up the prestige of producing a large pixel count camera to their rivals. Both Nikon and Sony are ahead in the raw numbers game...I'm sure Canon will respond in kind.

It has often been rumoured that Canon believe there more recent lenses can handle 40-50 MP and there performance on crop bodies does seem to suggest they've got a good deal more to offer on FF beyond 21 MP.

The real unknown to me seems likely to be whether were talking about one new 5D sized FF body or two, Personally I think that with the 1DX specs/price two has become much more likely since a single body would have to cover alot of ground between amatures moving up to FF to 1Ds users moving down for more megapixels.

Something like...

3D - 30-40 megapixels, 7D AF, 3-4 FPS, 100% viewfinder, pro build/sealing. - $3500-4000

5D mk3 - 18 megapixels, 7D AF, 5-6 FPS, less than 100% viewfinder, current build - $2000-2500

 

[Polansky]

Very interesting and maybe Canon would sell some 5D III simply with more MP. Not being an expert on the subject, I just find it odd that Nikon seem to have a different AF strategy differientiation than Canon. Nikon has the same or similar AF in the D700 and D3S for example while for Canon, huge difference exist between the 1 series and the 5 series (sort of the equivalent of the D700 in terms of "entry" level FF).

What you should consider is that Canon is selling its AF for big bucks while Nikon sells megapixels for big bucks.
So with Nikon you get a low number of megapixels but a good AF, while Canon sells you loads of megapixels but poor AF.

It has always been this way up until now and therefore I take the rumours of a D800 with a big grain of salt. Unless something has to go with Nikon.