More Full Frame Cameras on the 2012 Horizon? [CR2/CR1]

[briansquibb]

More realistic will be a 7D mk2 with a APS-H sensor and 20-24 MP ( to compete with Nikon budget ff body and preserve the wildlife capabilities and extra reach reputation of the actual 7D).... move a little bit up the new 70D to compete with Nikon d300S replacement.

An APS-H 7D is a nice idea, but the big problem is that it would lack wide-angle coverage (21mm equivalent with a 16-35 and no EF-S). Manufacturing an APS-H body to compete directly with a Nikon FF body would likely lose Canon a lot of market share for this very reason.

Recent 5D mk II customers no doubt include lots of landscape/nature/architecture photographers who want full frame coverage and good IQ at a reasonable price but don't really mind the 5D II's ancient AF system. There's no reason why they would buy a 1.3x crop and lose critically important wide-angle coverage, so the new Nikon FF would be the logical upgrade path for them.

How many sports shooters need more width than 18mm (14mm lens)?

If you are into UWA then ff is the way ahead

 

[moreorless]

I'v not seen it disucssed much recently but might one alternative be that Canon are looking to release a Foveon like sensor for the high resolution market? there was some talk about a pantent last year if I remmeber correct.

That would seem to explain a few things I'd say. If Canon tested and then ditched the idea of a high MP conventional bayer sensor in the last 2-3 years then its easy to see them failing somewhat behind Sony in the resolution stakes. Equally I'd say it would explain the 5D3 specs given multi leyaer sensors problems with video.

wouldnt a lot of still photographers buy a good sensor even if it did not have video?

Yeah I'm sure they would, my point was that if the high resolution body did not feature video then it makes more sense to target the 5D3 which does more at the video market, hence the 22MP ideal for pixel binning and the strong AA filter.

 

[plutonium10]

More realistic will be a 7D mk2 with a APS-H sensor and 20-24 MP ( to compete with Nikon budget ff body and preserve the wildlife capabilities and extra reach reputation of the actual 7D).... move a little bit up the new 70D to compete with Nikon d300S replacement.

An APS-H 7D is a nice idea, but the big problem is that it would lack wide-angle coverage (21mm equivalent with a 16-35 and no EF-S). Manufacturing an APS-H body to compete directly with a Nikon FF body would likely lose Canon a lot of market share for this very reason.

Recent 5D mk II customers no doubt include lots of landscape/nature/architecture photographers who want full frame coverage and good IQ at a reasonable price but don't really mind the 5D II's ancient AF system. There's no reason why they would buy a 1.3x crop and lose critically important wide-angle coverage, so the new Nikon FF would be the logical upgrade path for them.

How many sports shooters need more width than 18mm (14mm lens)?

If you are into UWA then ff is the way ahead

I used the example of a 16-35 because the 14mm is a rather specialized and uncommon lens not really targeted at an "entry-level" market. Secondly, sports shooters may not need UWA, but many wildlife shooters also shoot landscape.

Anyway, the discussion was about replacing Canon's current "budget" FF camera (the 5D mk II) with an APS-H camera. This would leave a big gap in Canon's lineup for the reasons outlined in my previous post.

 

[briansquibb]

More realistic will be a 7D mk2 with a APS-H sensor and 20-24 MP ( to compete with Nikon budget ff body and preserve the wildlife capabilities and extra reach reputation of the actual 7D).... move a little bit up the new 70D to compete with Nikon d300S replacement.

An APS-H 7D is a nice idea, but the big problem is that it would lack wide-angle coverage (21mm equivalent with a 16-35 and no EF-S). Manufacturing an APS-H body to compete directly with a Nikon FF body would likely lose Canon a lot of market share for this very reason.

Recent 5D mk II customers no doubt include lots of landscape/nature/architecture photographers who want full frame coverage and good IQ at a reasonable price but don't really mind the 5D II's ancient AF system. There's no reason why they would buy a 1.3x crop and lose critically important wide-angle coverage, so the new Nikon FF would be the logical upgrade path for them.

How many sports shooters need more width than 18mm (14mm lens)?

If you are into UWA then ff is the way ahead

I used the example of a 16-35 because the 14mm is a rather specialized and uncommon lens not really targeted at an "entry-level" market. Secondly, sports shooters may not need UWA, but many wildlife shooters also shoot landscape.

Anyway, the discussion was about replacing Canon's current "budget" FF camera (the 5D mk II) with an APS-H camera. This would leave a big gap in Canon's lineup for the reasons outlined in my previous post.

Without a aps-h camera there is already a big gap in Canon's lineup. The 7D would continue in the same way as the 5DII so that gap would not happen.

PS Never seen a BIF taking landscapes with a 1D4 - they have a 5DII as a second body ......

 

[plutonium10]

Without a aps-h camera there is already a big gap in Canon's lineup. The 7D would continue in the same way as the 5DII so that gap would not happen.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea of a 7D mk II possibly being APS-H. The gap in the lineup I'm describing is the one that would be left if this new APS-H *REPLACED* the 5D mk II, and the MK II stopped being sold. What camera would people then buy if they wanted an affordable FF body?

PS Never seen a BIF taking landscapes with a 1D4 - they have a 5DII as a second body ......

Once again, we are talking about entry-level. Most people in the prosumer segment probably don't want to buy a second camera body for wide-angle.

 

[briansquibb]

Without a aps-h camera there is already a big gap in Canon's lineup. The 7D would continue in the same way as the 5DII so that gap would not happen.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the idea of a 7D mk II possibly being APS-H. The gap in the lineup I'm describing is the one that would be left if this new APS-H *REPLACED* the 5D mk II, and the MK II stopped being sold. What camera would people then buy if they wanted an affordable FF body?

PS Never seen a BIF taking landscapes with a 1D4 - they have a 5DII as a second body ......

Once again, we are talking about entry-level. Most people in the prosumer segment probably don't want to buy a second camera body for wide-angle.

I am suggesting that the 7D and the 5DII continue

The 7DII would sit alonside the 5DIII

If an entry level ff is coming in then it would be a 5DII replacement

 

[plutonium10]

I am suggesting that the 7D and the 5DII continue

The 7DII would sit alonside the 5DIII

If an entry level ff is coming in then it would be a 5DII replacement

Yeah, that makes sense, except in my personal opinion that would be one too many cameras in the lineup, which is why I like the idea of the 7D line staying APS-C and just being remade as the 7D mk II. I wonder what they will call the entry level FF camera though... 6D? 7Ds?

 

[briansquibb]

I am suggesting that the 7D and the 5DII continue

The 7DII would sit alonside the 5DIII

If an entry level ff is coming in then it would be a 5DII replacement

Yeah, that makes sense, except in my personal opinion that would be one too many cameras in the lineup, which is why I like the idea of the 7D line staying APS-C and just being remade as the 7D mk II. I wonder what they will call the entry level FF camera though... 6D? 7Ds?

6D sounds good for the entry level ff
3D for the supersports 7DII?

 

[plutonium10]

Sure, but a 3D would cost more than a 5D3 and less than a 1DX. Are you sure about that?

Yeah, that's true. And 3D just sounds goofy for some reason. I think the only fitting names left are 2D, 4D (maybe for a high MP studio camera) and 6D (maybe for an entry level FF cam). After that all that's left is sticking "x", "s", "n", or some other noodle of of the alphabet soup on the end of a pre-existing model name.

 

[plutonium10]

IMHO, it was a mistake of Canon to call the 7D a 7D but then Canon's product numbering scheme for its DSLRs is in a world of hurt because they're fast running out of numbers that fit their prior pattern.

It is a crowded field right now, but sort out the new entry-level FF (6D?), replace the 7D (7D mk II) and 60D (70D) and then I don't think many new models are needed in that crowded little segment. They do, however, need to figure something out with the xxD names. What happens after 90D?

 

[moreorless]

Sure, but a 3D would cost more than a 5D3 and less than a 1DX. Are you sure about that?

Yeah, that's true. And 3D just sounds goofy for some reason. I think the only fitting names left are 2D, 4D (maybe for a high MP studio camera) and 6D (maybe for an entry level FF cam). After that all that's left is sticking "x", "s", "n", or some other noodle of of the alphabet soup on the end of a pre-existing model name.

The arguement I heard in the past was that the number 4 was considered unlucky in Japan, Nikon has just used it I spose but not on a comsumer level camera.

3D does sound a little goofy but then again 3D films are currently in vogue so it would play into that, if we did seen a Forevon like sensor that had 3 layers that would play into the name aswell.

 

[plutonium10]

The arguement I heard in the past was that the number 4 was considered unlucky in Japan, Nikon has just used it I spose but not on a comsumer level camera.

Yes, I forgot all about that. I think the word "four" sounds like the word "death" in Japanese. T4i anyone?

 

[moreorless]

The arguement I heard in the past was that the number 4 was considered unlucky in Japan, Nikon has just used it I spose but not on a comsumer level camera.

Yes, I forgot all about that. I think the word "four" sounds like the word "death" in Japanese. T4i anyone?

Thats only the monkier in the US, in the rest of the world it'll be the 650D.

I'd argue that using 2 has some negatives aswell given that its makes it clear that its NOT #1.

 

[briansquibb]

Sure, but a 3D would cost more than a 5D3 and less than a 1DX. Are you sure about that?

Why is that? Same body as 5DIII but with cheaper sensor. As the current 1D4 is only slightly more than the 5DIII I would say they would be about the same, if not a bit cheaper.

 

[Marsu42]

I'd be fine with aps-c for the time being, but unfortunately aps-c is no equivalent alternative because the eos ecosystem is more geared toward ff - historically and marketing-wise. A lot of aps-c users who are ok with their sensor but want more sharpness or better lens build use ef lenses. While it is a strange side effect that ef lenses have an extended reach on aps-c, you can only use their full potential of on ff.

I find this a little perplexing because I agree that it's probably true for wide angle lenses, but it seems you only own tele lenses ? What is the extra potential you get from projecting your image onto a larger sensor with a tele ? If canon's long teles are capable of projecting an image onto a larger sensor still, does that mean that full frame doesn't use the lenses to their full potential either ?

I don't list all lenses I have in my profile, just the ones current discussion might be about. Concerning "full potential": I don't know if a ff sensor uses a ef lens to the max, there is certainly unused space because the lens is round and the sensor is 2:3 - so 1:1 might be better, and Sony is rumored to do just that.

But I find it a little frustrating that I've paid for good ef glass whose weight I carry around that isn't used by my camera. Since the iq and the reach of the 70-300L + 18mp is very good, this may sound indeed perplexing, but it's my feeling and I guess I'm not the only one.

 

[plutonium10]

Yes, I forgot all about that. I think the word "four" sounds like the word "death" in Japanese. T4i anyone?

Thats only the monkier in the US, in the rest of the world it'll be the 650D.

I'd argue that using 2 has some negatives aswell given that its makes it clear that its NOT #1.

I guess we're both wrong. I had in my mind that Japan was also using the Rebel moniker but it's actually Kiss. The Rebel T3i is called the Kiss X5 in Japan. interestingly, the T2i WAS in fact called "Kiss X4" in Japan.

 

[moreorless]

Yes, I forgot all about that. I think the word "four" sounds like the word "death" in Japanese. T4i anyone?

Thats only the monkier in the US, in the rest of the world it'll be the 650D.

I'd argue that using 2 has some negatives aswell given that its makes it clear that its NOT #1.

I guess we're both wrong. I had in my mind that Japan was also using the Rebel moniker but it's actually Kiss. The Rebel T3i is called the Kiss X5 in Japan. interestingly, the T2i WAS in fact called "Kiss X4" in Japan.

Ah yes I forgot about the Japnese label although even then the 4 is somewhat buried rather than being the main brand the camera is sold on. If there is an issue I'm guessing marketing rather than giant corperate superstition is where it lies.

 

[elflord]

But I find it a little frustrating that I've paid for good ef glass whose weight I carry around that isn't used by my camera.

But I don't see how the fact that the tele lens is built for full frame makes it that much heavier or more expensive. Most of the weight is needed because of the required size of the front element. You might be paying (money and weight) for unneeded extra optics to ensure that the image quality is up to scratch full frame corners, but I think the "bulk" of it largely goes to the necessary large size of a lens that long (even though that one isn't especially fast).

For a wide angle lens, I'd be more inclined to agree with you, because you're basically paying your money to get a reasonably bright and sharp image in full frame corners -- for example, it doesn't make sense to pay for 24mm f/1.4 optics, and get a lens that has a 38mm-equivalent field of view.

Also with shorter teles, a full frame will give you a shallower dof -- you effectively make all those primes a stop faster (in dof terms)

But with a long tele, few would complain about the narrower fov.

but it's my feeling and I guess I'm not the only one.

One thing is for sure -- you're not the only one who wants a full frame as evidenced by the fairly robust demand. The good news is that there are three generations worth of 5D series bodies to choose from, so there's almost certainly something at a price you can afford. It really boils down to whether or not you think it's worth what the rest of the market thinks its worth.

 

[briansquibb]

Sure, but a 3D would cost more than a 5D3 and less than a 1DX. Are you sure about that?

Why is that? Same body as 5DIII but with cheaper sensor. As the current 1D4 is only slightly more than the 5DIII I would say they would be about the same, if not a bit cheaper.

Are you really that naive about Canon's product naming strategy for SLRs?

Smaller the number, better the camera, bigger the price.

The 1D4's price is what it is because that is a prior generation of camera (thus it is an old product now), meaning it is no longer sold at the original MSRP.

The prices drop on most products well before they could be classified as old. MSRP is just used as an opening price.

The street price of the 1D4 hasn't significantly changed since June 2010, apart from the tsunami blip

http://www.camerapricebuster.com/Canon_EOS_1D_Mark_IV_Body_pc.html

 

[moreorless]

At the end of the day if naming conventions and pricing the camera to its market come into conflict I'm pretty certain the latter is going win out.