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

[moreorless]

Same problem you would have with a entry level FF body. Nowadays you can buy a 5D2 body for about 1700€, but the AF alone keeps me (and many others, I guess) from buying it. The 5D2 looked already "old" in 2009 when the 7D came out with its significant better specs,

I have no problem with autofocus on my 5D Mark II, maybe that means I'm doing something wrong ???

Despite this woefully inadequate autofocus, it was a popular SLR for event photography, weddings, portraits, and landscapes. It wasn't the best sports or bif photographers camera, but then it was never really marketed for that. If autofocus was really important for wedding photography, the market could have bought the D700 and got a more advanced AF system at a comparable price.

There are several applications for which one shot autofocus with the center point works really well. I really wouldn't want to allow the camera to choose the AF point for most of the shooting I do, because I seldom have enough depth of field for that to work very well (if I did have enough dof for indiscriminate selection of focal point to work, I could also get the focus near enough with single point / one shot)

I suppose it could be due to ignorance on my part as I don't use the camera for anything that requires top of the line AF, but I have the sneaking suspicion that many of the AF complainers are unfamiliar with the AF system on the 5D -- the complaints are generally short on specifics. What subject matter, with what mode/settings are they shooting in that fails to deliver results ? What do they expect from the AF system on their cameras?

The issue there was surely that the D700 offered inferior resolution with the difference between 12 and 21 MP being very relivant for the print sizes many event photographers produce. If Canon were giving up both resolution and AF performance to Nikon I'm guessing the end result would be very different.

I'd guess that the biggest issue for many 5D mk2 users wasnt nesserally the camera being unable to deal with sports or wildlife but rather the spacing and accuracey of the AF points. If a new high resolution FF body had an AF system with say 20ish AF points spread over the same area as the pro system I'm guessing alot of people would be more than happy with it.

If Canon have a higher resolution sensor to use putting it in a body like that at a lower price seems to make more sense than producing a "budget 5D mk3" which could potentially cannibalize its sales.

To me having a cheaper high resolution body and a more expensive all rounder seems to make better business sense than Nikon potentially doing the reverse. Pros will be willing to pay to have everything in one box where as amatures will be willing to put up with having to work around some weaknesses if it saves them money.

 

[azmanms]

canon recently have design 120MP sensor. Could it be FF 120MP monster?
http://www.canon.com/technology/pdf/tech2011e.pdf Page 65

 

[Positron]

canon recently have design 120MP sensor. Could it be FF 120MP monster?
http://www.canon.com/technology/pdf/tech2011e.pdf Page 65

It's not even that recent, I believe they said it was APS-H, and I'm about 99% certain they demoed it for marketing purposes/to scare competitors. They've never revealed a sensor before actually going and using it, as far as I know.

 

[Marsu42]

and I'm about 99% certain they demoed it for marketing purposes/to scare competitors. They've never revealed a sensor before actually going and using it, as far as I know.

Sounds like water-cooled cpus @10ghz or two dual-gpu cards in a pc ... there is no doubt any high-tech company can design impressive things, but really producing them at a competitive price and putting them in a product that is working in the real world is another thing. Canon can show off what they want, the impression that they are lacking innovations and are on the loosing side vs. Nikon/Sony will stick unless they either compete with lower prices or a surprising 70d & ff entry level body.

 

[elflord]

The issue there was surely that the D700 offered inferior resolution with the difference between 12 and 21 MP being very relivant for the print sizes many event photographers produce. If Canon were giving up both resolution and AF performance to Nikon I'm guessing the end result would be very different.

OK, I buy that the market liked the extra megapixels. However, I maintain that if autofocus was terribly important, they had several other options. Apparently, autofocus took a back seat not only to megapixels, also to sensor size, and cost (you could have had both for a little more money).

I'd guess that the biggest issue for many 5D mk2 users wasnt nesserally the camera being unable to deal with sports or wildlife but rather the spacing and accuracey of the AF points. If a new high resolution FF body had an AF system with say 20ish AF points spread over the same area as the pro system I'm guessing alot of people would be more than happy with it.

Yes, the placing does make them less useful -- they are all pretty close to the middle. They also don't work very well besides the center point.

The part I don't really get though is how someone taking portraits, street, family or wedding pictures would take advantage over the enhanced AF capabilities. You can manually select an AF point with the joystick but the interface is a bit cumbersome -- I find focus and recompose more convenient (though maybe that's because I'm more proficient to focus and recompose). So the advantage is reduced to being able to avoid inaccuracy that may be introduced by focus and recompose -- a plus, but not a make-or-break.

This leaves me suspecting that most of the AF complainers are either expecting to bang away on the shutter button with all points enabled and have the camera choose what to focus on (at which point AF is pretty much guaranteed to have limited accuracy, unless camera can read your mind) or are simply complaining for the sake of complaining.

 

[moreorless]

OK, I buy that the market liked the extra megapixels. However, I maintain that if autofocus was terribly important, they had several other options. Apparently, autofocus took a back seat not only to megapixels, also to sensor size, and cost (you could have had both for a little more money).

Yes I wouldnt disagree there, I think it was more a case of Canon putting the cash into the sensor rather than "crippling" the AF.

Yes, the placing does make them less useful -- they are all pretty close to the middle. They also don't work very well besides the center point.

The part I don't really get though is how someone taking portraits, street, family or wedding pictures would take advantage over the enhanced AF capabilities. You can manually select an AF point with the joystick but the interface is a bit cumbersome -- I find focus and recompose more convenient (though maybe that's because I'm more proficient to focus and recompose). So the advantage is reduced to being able to avoid inaccuracy that may be introduced by focus and recompose -- a plus, but not a make-or-break.

This leaves me suspecting that most of the AF complainers are either expecting to bang away on the shutter button with all points enabled and have the camera choose what to focus on (at which point AF is pretty much guaranteed to have limited accuracy, unless camera can read your mind) or are simply complaining for the sake of complaining.

Its not something that cannot be worked around in many situations I agree but if a rival camera is offering a superior sensor AND better AF why put yourself though that?

I do think that the D800 once again prooves that the largest market at FF is for high resolution, espeically with amatures. If Canon could offer a high resolution sensor at a lower price they could perhaps get away with using the 5D AF again although as I said I think a slightly upgraded system with more widely spaced points would be a better option.

40 MP sensor.
5D3 body.
100% viewfinder.
20ish point AF more widly spaced.
Single card slot.
3 FPS.

Offer that for $500 less than the D800 and I think it would potentially sell very well.

 

[plutonium10]

40 MP sensor.
5D3 body.
100% viewfinder.
20ish point AF more widly spaced.
Single card slot.
3 FPS.

Offer that for $500 less than the D800 and I think it would potentially sell very well.

If they had the tech for a $2500 camera with a high-performance 40mp sensor, they would have put something a little more special than a slightly improved 5D II sensor in the 5D III.

 

[briansquibb]

40 MP sensor.
5D3 body.
100% viewfinder.
20ish point AF more widly spaced.
Single card slot.
3 FPS.

Offer that for $500 less than the D800 and I think it would potentially sell very well.

If they had the tech for a $2500 camera with a high-performance 40mp sensor, they would have put something a little more special than a slightly improved 5D II sensor in the 5D III.

A slightly improved 5DII sensor in the 5DIII?

I think you need to do your homework before you make statements like that

 

[plutonium10]

40 MP sensor.
5D3 body.
100% viewfinder.
20ish point AF more widly spaced.
Single card slot.
3 FPS.

Offer that for $500 less than the D800 and I think it would potentially sell very well.

If they had the tech for a $2500 camera with a high-performance 40mp sensor, they would have put something a little more special than a slightly improved 5D II sensor in the 5D III.

A slightly improved 5DII sensor in the 5DIII?

I think you need to do your homework before you make statements like that

Well yeah, maybe that was badly worded. But compared to the evolution from D700 to D800, the 5D III's improvements do seem quite lack-luster, especially in DR.

 

[briansquibb]

Well yeah, maybe that was badly worded. But compared to the evolution from D700 to D800, the 5D III's improvements do seem quite lack-luster, especially in DR.

I think you are a victim of the DR brainwashing brigade.

I suspect you also need to look at the specs of the D700 and D800 when you will find the D800 is not in the same market segment as the D700

 

[plutonium10]

I had recently seen samples of the DR the D800 can produce on several websites and it seems to be a fair improvement over the 5D III. Has DxO been giving me the wrong ideas?

... And I was under the impression that the D700 competed directly with the 5D II and was very much in the same market segment. Is this not the case?

 

[briansquibb]

I had recently seen samples of the DR the D800 can produce on several websites and it seems to be a fair improvement over the 5D III. Has DxO been giving me the wrong ideas?

... And I was under the impression that the D700 competed directly with the 5D II and was very much in the same market segment. Is this not the case?

DxO testing is debatable

D700 is 12mp only

 

[plutonium10]

DxO testing is debatable

Fair enough.

This is the article which has led me to "bash" Canon today. (I dont make a regular habit of it.)
http://nikonrumors.com/2012/04/19/dxomark-verdict-nikon-d800-95-canon-5d-mark-iii-81.aspx/

 

[elflord]

I had recently seen samples of the DR the D800 can produce on several websites and it seems to be a fair improvement over the 5D III. Has DxO been giving me the wrong ideas?

The D800 and more generally, newer Sony sensors have delivered big performance improvements at low ISOs. This is only relevant if the performance of the Canon sensor at ISO 100 is not good enough for you.

If you do a lot of your shooting at ISO800 or higher, the difference is largely academic.

In particular, if you don't keep your ISO set to 400 or less (make that 200 if you're using an APS-C body) for fear of degrading the image quality, those differences are largely academic.

I'm not dismissing the DxO results or trying to say that there's anything wrong with them, just that they get blown way out of proportion, and people jump on the numbers too quickly without looking at what the implications are to realistic shooting scenarios.

 

[plutonium10]

I had recently seen samples of the DR the D800 can produce on several websites and it seems to be a fair improvement over the 5D III. Has DxO been giving me the wrong ideas?

The D800 and more generally, newer Sony sensors have delivered big performance improvements at low ISOs. This is only relevant if the performance of the Canon sensor at ISO 100 is not good enough for you.

If you do a lot of your shooting at ISO800 or higher, the difference is largely academic.

In particular, if you don't keep your ISO set to 400 or less (make that 200 if you're using an APS-C body) for fear of degrading the image quality, those differences are largely academic.

I'm not dismissing the DxO results or trying to say that there's anything wrong with them, just that they get blown way out of proportion, and people jump on the numbers too quickly without looking at what the implications are to realistic shooting scenarios.

Actually, I do shoot all of my landscapes at ISO 100 or 200 except on the rare occasion where the light isn't good enough and I haven't brought a tripod. That gives you an idea of how bad a pixel peeper I am!

 

[Neeneko]

Actually, I do shoot all of my landscapes at ISO 100 or 200 except on the rare occasion where the light isn't good enough and I haven't brought a tripod. That gives you an idea of how bad a pixel peeper I am!

*nod* I tend to do my landscape work at 100 or 200 also.

I am starting to think the 'high ISO' has become the new megapixel war.

 

[Marsu42]

I am starting to think the 'high ISO' has become the new megapixel war.

This would make sense, seeing that the aps-c/lens combination is about to be maxed out sooner or later when it comes to mp. The improvement potential on noise (low or high iso) is still large. And marketing needs something to distinguish products.

But I think there's a difference to mp. Every little mp increase is nice but not really that important (yes, computing power rises, yes, I've read in the 5d3 threads I'm not supposed to want more mp in spite of shooting macro and cropping a lot). But a little iso noise decrease is nothing, you don't notice it after pp. What would make a difference is a bigger, real leap ahead, diminishing the need for the current heavy and expensive "low light" 2.8 zooms.

 

[plutonium10]

This would make sense, seeing that the aps-c/lens combination is about to be maxed out sooner or later when it comes to mp. The improvement potential on noise (low or high iso) is still large. And marketing needs something to distinguish products.

Yes. I'm excited to see what effect Digic V will have on APS-C image noise.

 

[Marsu42]

Yes. I'm excited to see what effect Digic V will have on APS-C image noise.

My prediction: none, at least in raw. And I can do smarter, adaptive denoising in pp just fine... A faster cpu is nice for more fps (see dual 7d digic4 with its problems) and hopefully better video contrast af - but imho that's about what you can expect from it.

 

[Neeneko]

This would make sense, seeing that the aps-c/lens combination is about to be maxed out sooner or later when it comes to mp. The improvement potential on noise (low or high iso) is still large. And marketing needs something to distinguish products.

I keep hoping that they will take all this new tech and cheaper manufacturing and focus it towards larger sensors with lower pixel density instead. The MF/LF market is just itching for something competitive that drags prices down to something sane.... and there are still very few affordable view camera solutions which I suspect eventually people are going to rediscover and want to work with again.

Though I suspect instead, next year, we are going to see 'well, OUR camera can go up to 1M ISO!' 'well, OUR camera can go to 1.2M ISO!'.