Mirrorless Camera & New Full Frame Coming Second Half 2012? [CR2]

[itsnotmeyouknow]

It makes sense for it to be crappier than a 5DmkII if it is an "entry-level" FF camera. The term "entry-level" means exactly that. The "5D" line is not "entry-level" right? So it would be outlandish to think that the "entry level" FF camera would outperform the 5DmkII. Although the 5DmkII is 4 years old, it is still only 1 generation old so it is impossible for Canon to add another FF camera to the lineup that is deemed "entry level" but yet outperforms a higher end FF body that is likely still widely used by many many photographers.

Wrong.

The entry level FF camera only has to be inferior to the 5D3. Thus it could be almost identical to the 5D2. Consider that the current price point ($2199) of the 5D2 is almost exactly where an entry level full frame camera would be. Maybe plus or minus $200.

An entry level FF camera would be put into the product lineup relative to the 5D3 and the 60D or its successor.

What you just stated doesn't make any sense in the benefit to Canon in sales. If a new camera offers around the same performance as the 5DmkII at a similar price... then why would people buy it? They would just keep using the 5DmkII. So if Canon were to do exactly what you stated, they would have to spend a lot of money in developing, testing, producing, and marketing a different camera that would hurt their existing 5DmkII sales (since they are keeping the 5DmkII in production in the forseeable future). Note that Canon has not indicated that the 5DmkII will be discontinued when the entry level FF camera becomes available.

It would have to be inferior to the 5D3 in some sense as otherwise you would have many disgruntle mkIII owners (me being one of them) if a supeior model was cheaper. I wouldn't be surprised to see a FF version of the 7D. They might even call t the 7D mk II or 7DX

 

[nentraC]

It makes sense for it to be crappier than a 5DmkII if it is an "entry-level" FF camera. The term "entry-level" means exactly that. The "5D" line is not "entry-level" right? So it would be outlandish to think that the "entry level" FF camera would outperform the 5DmkII. Although the 5DmkII is 4 years old, it is still only 1 generation old so it is impossible for Canon to add another FF camera to the lineup that is deemed "entry level" but yet outperforms a higher end FF body that is likely still widely used by many many photographers.

Wrong.

The entry level FF camera only has to be inferior to the 5D3. Thus it could be almost identical to the 5D2. Consider that the current price point ($2199) of the 5D2 is almost exactly where an entry level full frame camera would be. Maybe plus or minus $200.

An entry level FF camera would be put into the product lineup relative to the 5D3 and the 60D or its successor.

I think you just nailed it! +1 to you

 

[danski0224]

What you just stated doesn't make any sense in the benefit to Canon in sales. If a new camera offers around the same performance as the 5DmkII at a similar price... then why would people buy it? They would just keep using the 5DmkII. So if Canon were to do exactly what you stated, they would have to spend a lot of money in developing, testing, producing, and marketing a different camera that would hurt their existing 5DmkII sales (since they are keeping the 5DmkII in production in the forseeable future). Note that Canon has not indicated that the 5DmkII will be discontinued when the entry level FF camera becomes available.

What if Canon discontinues the current 5DII?

Canon could use the current 5DIII sensor, a morphed 7D-like AF system and maybe something like no video. Throw in a current Digic5 and lower the FPS.

Then, put it all into a current chassis and sell it as a new model for $1595. The 5DII (or, another new model variant) could still be sold including 5DIII-like video features at the $1995 price point. This is actually pretty easy to do because most changes are in the firmware. Heck, Canon could include the hardware (video jacks for example) but disable it through the firmware. If you want to upgrade your "basic" FF camera, send it in to enable the firmware. This elimiantes 2 production lines and parts groupings. Win Win, as long as the firmware upgrades are possible in the future, even for second or third hand equipment. Just like computer software, there would be a point where upgrades on old gear is not possible.

Those that need what the 5DIII offers will buy that model instead. Therefore, it will not cannibalize 5DIII sales, but rather gain sales from those that can't swing or justify the 5DIII price point but still want the full frame experience... and more importantly, may be willing to choose a different brand.

Increased production of the 5DIII sensor only lowers costs and increases market share.

I predict that a ~$1500 basic full frame camera aimed at pictures and no (or limited) video would sell like hotcakes. What brand will release one first?

If Canon wants to increase market share, they need to do this. Once someone is invested in accessories, making a brand switch is more difficult.

 

[sphax]

So if you sum up all of those last thoughts you had here a lot of people believe that Canon is gonna put in the market a new FF which would be better than the 5DmkII but priced around 2000$ ... I wonder how they can do that indeed, as for me the only option they have is to be better in some points (AF, processor) and worse on some others (body construction) in which case it shouldn't discontinue the sales of the 5DmkII as people could chose "do I want a better AF or a stronger body" ...
Or maybe I'm wrong and they have some magic trick to pay for development of something better than 5DmkII and really cheaper ... but I seriously doubt it ! Why ? Can I state here that you should see the latests announcements on "better-ization" of Canon equipments ? :

- Canon 5DmkII > 5DmkIII = roughly from 1900€ to 3300€ (sorry, I'm european)
- Canon 24-70L > Canon 24-70L II = from 1200€ to 2400€
- Canon 28mm F1,8 > Canon 28mm F/2,8 IS = from 450€ to 850€
- Canon 24mm F/2,8 > Canon 24mm F/2,8 IS = from 420€ to 850€

And those were all old designs so i'm pretty curious about how they can right now make something better than 5DmkII for even cheaper than the actual 5DmkII price .... !!!!

 

[danski0224]

so i'm pretty curious about how they can right now make something better than 5DmkII for even cheaper than the actual 5DmkII price .... !!!!

Utilization of existing components for a new model.

More parts made = lower cost per part.

Better amortization of R&D into new part.

Who knows what Canon's actual cost per unit is? Maybe, the 5DIII costs them $2k USD to make, they sell it to dealers for $3000 USD and fix MSRP at $3499. Just a guess, I have no idea.

If Canon sells another FF camera with the 5DIII sensor, body and most of the innards, the cost of manufacturing each 5DIII just went down, so profits increase as long as sales are still made to distributors.

 

[sphax]

so i'm pretty curious about how they can right now make something better than 5DmkII for even cheaper than the actual 5DmkII price .... !!!!

Utilization of existing components for a new model.

More parts made = lower cost per part.

Better amortization of R&D into new part.

Who knows what Canon's actual cost per unit is? Maybe, the 5DIII costs them $2k USD to make, they sell it to dealers for $3000 USD and fix MSRP at $3499. Just a guess, I have no idea.

If Canon sells another FF camera with the 5DIII sensor, body and most of the innards, the cost of manufacturing each 5DIII just went down, so profits increase as long as sales are still made to distributors.

Well yeah you can always make some kind of Frankenstein camera from different cameras ;D
But I guess you'll always have to develop some new once and then the price of development will have to be covered by the number of sales of course, because if you don't develop ANY new pieces how come that's a "new design" that people will wanna buy ?

 

[birdman]

New entry level FF camera? C'mon Rumors. You must be itching for a little more traffic.

I absolutely do NOT believe it.

 

[danski0224]

Well yeah you can always make some kind of Frankenstein camera from different cameras ;D
But I guess you'll always have to develop some new once and then the price of development will have to be covered by the number of sales of course, because if you don't develop ANY new pieces how come that's a "new design" that people will wanna buy ?

Frankenstein camera? I think not.

Just repackage the parts already being made.

Apple does the same stuff with the iPad. Do you *really* think there is an extra few hundred dollars worth of stuff in there from low end to high end?

 

[sphax]

Apple does the same stuff with the iPad.

Well everyone says here that this "entry-FF" should be more or less the same quality as the 5DmkII so you can't really compare : Apple just made a nice "four-times" multiplication on its screen resolution ... !

Anyway I think globally I just don't see the point of an entry FF who'd be about the same thing as a 5DmkII but re-designed, that's all.

 

[danski0224]

Well everyone says here that this "entry-FF" should be more or less the same quality as the 5DmkII so you can't really compare : Apple just made a nice "four-times" multiplication on its screen resolution ... !

Anyway I think globally I just don't see the point of an entry FF who'd be about the same thing as a 5DmkII but re-designed, that's all.

And that's all Apple provided is a nice screen. Worthwhile to some? Sure. The added processing speed and battery are directly related to the screen requirements. Apple did NOT include Siri in the New Ipad, for example. So, other than the display and the stuff to run the display, there is (gasp) nothing new, yet people are lining up to buy it. (glad the smite thing is gone )

But, I do believe you missed my iPad point. The prices range from $499 to $829. The only changes are internal memory and Wi-Fi or Wi-Fi + 4G.

Do you really think there is $330 in extra parts in there? (hell no)

Do you really think they are making 6 different physical versions? (possible, but not likely)

Canon could do the same thing with a "re-vamped" "entry level" "5D" lineup.

They have the sensor. They have a current camera body. Different features enabled by processing can be disabled or locked out.

So yes, I really believe Canon could offer a stills oriented "new 5D" for $1499 if they wanted to. If the firmware side was upgradeable to enable video stuff, people would buy it. Same for AF features available within a given module.

 

[danski0224]

It would have to be inferior to the 5D3 in some sense as otherwise you would have many disgruntle mkIII owners (me being one of them) if a supeior model was cheaper. I wouldn't be surprised to see a FF version of the 7D. They might even call t the 7D mk II or 7DX

Not superior, different.

 

[sphax]

Well everyone says here that this "entry-FF" should be more or less the same quality as the 5DmkII so you can't really compare : Apple just made a nice "four-times" multiplication on its screen resolution ... !

Anyway I think globally I just don't see the point of an entry FF who'd be about the same thing as a 5DmkII but re-designed, that's all.

And that's all Apple provided is a nice screen. Worthwhile to some? Sure. The added processing speed and battery are directly related to the screen requirements. Apple did NOT include Siri in the New Ipad, for example. So, other than the display and the stuff to run the display, there is (gasp) nothing new, yet people are lining up to buy it. (glad the smite thing is gone )

But, I do believe you missed my iPad point. The prices range from $499 to $829. The only changes are internal memory and Wi-Fi or Wi-Fi + 4G.

Do you really think there is $330 in extra parts in there? (hell no)

Ah ok then for that that's for sure that Apple is screwing people when you buy versions with more memory. Everyone knows that. Just buy the basic 16Go + WiFi it's far enough (although not really with the new screen but anyway, photo forum !)

Repeat after me:

"The 5DmkII is 3.5 years old"


The list of things that I could see being different to the 5D3 are:
- autofocus - it will need to be a completely new design
- sensor is anyone's guess, from the 1DX sensor to the 5D3 sensor to something completely new.

The 5DmkII is 3.5 years old
The 5DmkII is 3.5 years old
The 5DmkII is 3.5 years old


new autofocus and sensor and most likely new body shape also or it would be not a really new design ... well, sorry but that sounds pretty expensive to me Anyway time will tell who's right ! I bought 5DmkII and I'm freakin' happy about it

 

[darryl]

So yes, I really believe Canon could offer a stills oriented "new 5D" for $1499 if they wanted to. If the firmware side was upgradeable to enable video stuff, people would buy it. Same for AF features available within a given module.

No offense but that's dumb. If the product is capable of being able to do video with just a software change people will hack it and you will have video on that "still only" camera in less than a year. Magic latern. Go wiki it.

Also I think the current market trending is offer more in one product. Not less. The more one thing can do the bigger you're market becomes. Less production cost and bigger market. Win win. The 5DII made a revolutionary killing because it offered not just stills but video. People who don't care about stills bought it for the video. People who don't care about video bought it for the stills. You snagged 2 markets with just one product.

 

[grahamsz]

I suspect a cutdown mk3 would be cheaper to produce than keeping the mk2 around. If Canon can standardize on a new Digic and on the single 22MP sensor than that'll likely save them money in the long run versus keeping the other one around.

Still I do feel like the mk3 is maybe more of a 3D than it is a 5D. I suppose in my mind I think the 5 series is a little more cutting edge and the 1s and 3s are the more refined, polished and better built big brothers.

Another thought, how many bad pixels can a sensor have before Canon will trash it? I assume all dslr sensors have some number of black or hot pixels like an LCD might - canon most likely detect them and map them out. However I presume at some threshold, that becomes unacceptable in a pro level product. Perhaps if they dropped the resolution with some pixel binning, then could make an 11MP full frame rebel with the discarded 22MP sensors.

 

[danski0224]

No offense but that's dumb. If the product is capable of being able to do video with just a software change people will hack it and you will have video on that "still only" camera in less than a year. Magic latern. Go wiki it.

Also I think the current market trending is offer more in one product. Not less. The more one thing can do the bigger you're market becomes. Less production cost and bigger market. Win win. The 5DII made a revolutionary killing because it offered not just stills but video. People who don't care about stills bought it for the video. People who don't care about video bought it for the stills. You snagged 2 markets with just one product.

No offense taken.

Sure, it can be hacked. I know a little (very little) about Magic Lantern, and I have no interest in it.

There are plenty of hacks or jailbreaks out there. Not everyone will take advantage of those things.

There is almost continual mention on this forum about stills and video. Some want one or the other and fewer want both.

I think that is a very logical point to provide a price break. Whether or not the logic carries through in real life, I have no idea.

I can say that if I got just the 5DIII sensor, better AF than the 5DII but not equal to the 5DIII, FPS equal to the 5DII, stick it in a 7D body so the buttons are the same and no video for ~$1500.00 USD, I'd be all over it.

 

[daniemare]

I like this rumor. Drop a full frame sensor in a 70D body (assuming the 70D will be the usual evolutionary upgrade from the 60D, i.e. Digic 5 etc) and I will buy it in an instant. Do not really care whether its the 1Dx or 5DIII sensor.

Smaller body, built in flash, similar quality AF and weather sealing. Price $2,500 with usual kit lens. Thus $1,700 body only - heck do not even sell it body only, and get those Rebel users to upgrade. I see only minor need to rework the sizing of the view finder (doesn't even need to be 100%) and AF point spread.

Who said full frame must be pro or semi pro lumps of metal with the submersive abilities of a submarine. I use a Rebel, would love to gain the advantages of a full frame sensor, but as a pure amature and hobbyist, blazing frame rates, perfect AF tracking etc. isn't really necessary if it means I can save a bunch

I will not mind a price point engineered full framer. Canon did that with the Rebel, why not shake up the full frame market.

I cannot afford/justify a 5DIII, nor do I like the idea of a brand spanking new 3.5 year old product. In any case the 5DII & 5DIII is too big and lack a pop up flash for my uses.

The "extra" functionality from Rebel to 60D or 7D is not enough to warrant an upgrade for me. I know the 7D is fundamently different, but that is just it, I have no need for that which sets it apart. Now a REBEL FULL FRAME - that will be something I can upgrade to.

 

[itsnotmeyouknow]

Well everyone says here that this "entry-FF" should be more or less the same quality as the 5DmkII so you can't really compare : Apple just made a nice "four-times" multiplication on its screen resolution ... !

Anyway I think globally I just don't see the point of an entry FF who'd be about the same thing as a 5DmkII but re-designed, that's all.

And that's all Apple provided is a nice screen. Worthwhile to some? Sure. The added processing speed and battery are directly related to the screen requirements. Apple did NOT include Siri in the New Ipad, for example. So, other than the display and the stuff to run the display, there is (gasp) nothing new, yet people are lining up to buy it. (glad the smite thing is gone )

But, I do believe you missed my iPad point. The prices range from $499 to $829. The only changes are internal memory and Wi-Fi or Wi-Fi + 4G.

Do you really think there is $330 in extra parts in there? (hell no)

Do you really think they are making 6 different physical versions? (possible, but not likely)

Canon could do the same thing with a "re-vamped" "entry level" "5D" lineup.

They have the sensor. They have a current camera body. Different features enabled by processing can be disabled or locked out.

So yes, I really believe Canon could offer a stills oriented "new 5D" for $1499 if they wanted to. If the firmware side was upgradeable to enable video stuff, people would buy it. Same for AF features available within a given module.

Where would be the advantage for Canon creating a weak link enabling people to hack into the firmware enabling it to shoot video? Surely there is no point having the ability if you weren't going to use it anyway? The best way to stop the hackers getting access is not to give access in the first place.

 

[AJ]

If this is true - the 5D3/1Dx sensor with its gapless microlenses in a tuned-down body with less AF capability and single card slot (5D2)

then

the 5D3 should have been called 5Dx or 3D, and the new entry-level camera the 5D3.

Something seems wrong....

 

[darryl]

Lots of rumors on where a new FF would fit in. Here is my take.

FF sensor in a mirrorless - Most likely of all the rumors

FF sensor in a rebel with rebel specs - Plausible but not likely

FF sensor in a 7DII - No way. You'd lose burst rate and reach. Two things that make the 7D popular today.

FF 5DMII makover - Nope... would start tredding into 5DMIII territory

FF dumbed down version of 5DMIII - Lets talk a little about this one


Initially I thought no way. This is stupid. You would definitely take sales away from the 5DMIII. Then I started to think about it. The choice of upgrading to the 5DMIII is either a yes I will or no I'll wait for something else. When people wait canon doesn't make money. You want people to upgrade. Especially if it took you 3.5 years to put out an upgrade. That is alot of time and many people would look at that and say its time for an upgrade. While I think this is more plausible than origanally I know they certainly wont release it any time soon. Right now we are still in the "early adopter" stage. Still too soon to tell how well the 5DmIII is going to do. If it doesn't do well, there is going to be a very large market that wants to upgrade their gear but doesn't have an outlet. Thats where something like a dumbed down version of 5DMIII comes in. Or you cut your prices and take a hit that way. Could be interesting.

 

[stabmasterasron]

I think that if Canon brings an entry level FF body to the line up, it will be significantly crappier than even the 5DmkII. Since the 5DmkIII is obviously the successor to the 5DmkII, then an "entry level" body should logically be placed at a bar below the 5D line in performance and build quality. I wouldn't get my hopes up that this new entry level FF camera will be all that impressive. I'd expect disappointments in ISO performance, resolution, image quality, continuous shooting, and AF system at the minimum compared to the 5DmkIII. I also wouldn't be surprised if it is even set a bar below the 5DmkII in terms of ISO performance, resolution, and image quality. It also would make sense for Canon to price the camera lower than $2000. Maybe this will fill the 7D price point and the 60D successor will inherit the 7D's strengths and come in at a price point just under the new entry level FF camera?

How could it be crappier than the 5dmkii? This new entry level ff will either have the sensor of the 5dmkii (unlikely) or from the 5dmkiii or 1dx(also unlikely, i think), or it will have a completely new sensor. So if it has one of the other, current sensors and digic 5, it will be at least equal in iq to those corresponding cameras. If canon makes a new sensor, why would they make a sensor crappier than the 4 year old sensor from the 5dmkii? I don't see how any new ff camera, entry level or not would take a step backwards from the 5dmkii.

It makes sense for it to be crappier than a 5DmkII if it is an "entry-level" FF camera. The term "entry-level" means exactly that. The "5D" line is not "entry-level" right? So it would be outlandish to think that the "entry level" FF camera would outperform the 5DmkII. Although the 5DmkII is 4 years old, it is still only 1 generation old so it is impossible for Canon to add another FF camera to the lineup that is deemed "entry level" but yet outperforms a higher end FF body that is likely still widely used by many many photographers. Let me put it this way... think back on all the technological advances in the overall DSLR lineup. Did a T3i have better image quality than a 40D? No because the T3i is "entry level" and the 40D is 1 generation older but yet one step higher in the lineup of APS-C bodies. In fact even the 20D would beat out a T3i in image quality and that's even further back in tech! So it seems like wishful thinking for an "entry level" FF camera to be equal to or better than a 5DmkII right?

So let me get this straight. 40D and 20D have higher iq than t3i. This is because t3i is an "entry level" cam and 40D and 20D are the next level up. Dont mean to poke a hole in your logic, but 60D and even 7D have the exact same sensor as the t3i. And I have seen many reviews, and even dpreview, says the iq between these 3 cameras are essentially identical - same sensor, so makes sense. So if I follow your logic then the 20D has better iq than the 7D. I am not saying you are wrong - maybe it does, but the 7D is certainly not bellow the 20D in the pecking order of Canon cams.