New Full Frame Camera in 2014? [CR1]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
sanj said:
But only if they
a) manage to keep the level of quality&performance up despite the lower price, otherwise expect backlash.
b) keep the air of exclusivity&luxury that makes the car covetable in the first place.
..think NEX in Hasselblad clothing, though the current state of affairs in that department could be worse.
Something to keep in mind about the 5D800-story: is it just a question of sensor resolution? Or rather a matter of being in an existing ecosystem, or the added effort that has to be made to make actual use of the potential resolution? And then there is the field of pictures in motion, if thats even part of your job description Canon wins more or less by default.
Upvote
0
.These threads always polarize the forum community, but I do think there is a market for high-resolution sensors. And I believe Canon is aware of this, and are trying to develop such a system (Zeiss mentions the word "high-resolution sensors" multiple times in their Otus announcement, and they cater to both Canon and Nikon). However, given Canon's recent trend towards bringing out the absolute top products in their class, it is more than likely that they are spending the extra time and effort to create something great rather than settling for good. After all, with good sales on their existing products they don't need to push out something before it's ready.
Upvote
0
unfocused said:
Even in the face of this rumor which is contrary to some of your predictions, you're still falling back on them? The main thing I notice in this rumor, is that the "3D" will have 4k video capability. That is not "the same basic functionality" as a 5D3. This model is obviously intended to be upmarket from the 5D3. Slower frame rates for stills, no doubt...but it's going to be able to do a lot more video-wise.
Upvote
0
ecka said:
That would be a 2:1 aspect ratio, not much love here. And It would require odd blending/skipping patterns to capture standard video. Not much love either.
The first fitting, in tradition of the 5760px of the 5D3, resolution would be 1920*2*2 - to get full RGB for 4k-video and 39.3MP stills. going for the slightly larger 4096 flavor would net you 44.7MP. Current OTS cores can handle that resolution up to about 30fps; in a dual config. that should work even with continuous AF. no line skipping also implies less moire and less noise at higher ISOs. Dual photodiodes allow for higher low ISO DR. Who could argue against such a machine?
Upvote
0
Lawliet said:
Yes, 39.3MP would be nice for 3840*2 and 1920*2*2 (or 1920*2 crop mode). I just have this feeling, that Canon wants to bring something exclusive to the market. Something the competition can't match any time soon.
Upvote
0
Dual Pixel, hybrid viewfinder (much like the Fuji implementation + the EVF features of the XT1), touch screen, and they could keep the 6D sensor. I would gladly pay 3500-4000 for that right now.
Upvote
0
dslrdummy said:
I don't mind at all.
1. It's not a "completely incompatible" system; they overlap. Whether they overlap enough for your purposes I can't say, of course. I would also say that for many people a complete switch to Sony wouldn't be sensible or desirable, and that I have no intention of doing so. For me it's a marvelous adjunct which, in some situations, would be my go-to camera - at least until Canon comes up with a close substitute (high resolution, mirrorless, no loss of EF performance, etc. - preferably with IBIS...).
2. The light leak applies under very limited circumstances, apparently (very long exposures in near-total darkness but with a bright light hitting part of the lens mount), and doesn't only apply to Sony cameras. Check out Roger Cicala's blog post on the subject at lensrentals. I never shoot in such conditions, so it's simply not an issue for me (or, I suspect, for 99.9% of people 99.9% of the time). The shutter-shock problem is far more real (see below).
3. AF performance with EF lenses is unquestionably inferior in terms of speed - it's not *that* slow, but if you're used to the near-instantaneous focusing you get with the best Canon lens/body combinations it will seem slow (rather comical too - it ambles towards the subject, pauses, goes a bit beyond and then comes back); and it's slow compared to native FE lenses, of course. But it's probably not inferior in terms of accuracy; in some respects it's superior: one benefit of a mirrorless body is that with on-sensor focusing there's no need to worry about back/front focusing. If you plan to use it to photograph things that don't move, it's not an issue. But don't even consider it if you want to photograph sports, children running around, herons-catching-fish, etc. and rely on AF to do so.
4. As for IQ, I've used these EF lenses: 24-105L, 28mm 2.8 IS, 40mm, 85mm 1.8, 100 L (no AF with this, but the other electronic connections work) and 70-200 f4 IS. I haven't performed anything resembling a scientific comparison of these lenses on the A7R vs 5DIII or 6D, but I feel confident in saying that not only is the image quality not inferior on the Sony body it's probably superior (I was shocked by the superb image quality I was able to get from the 85mm 1.8 when I first attached it).
At the time I decided to buy an A7R I had used one exclusively with Canon lenses - it was because the results were so good that I wanted one, and it was not until I had owned it for a while that I bought the two native FE primes; they're superb too, especially the remarkable 55mm 1.8.
Having said all that, there may well be Canon lenses that don't work as well on the two Sony A7s - I have no first hand knowledge one way or another - but based on what I've read the main problems are with wide angle Leica lenses due to a design that simply doesn't apply to Canon lenses. I would also add that if you want to use old Canon MF lenses, it's far easier to manually focus on a mirrorless camera (thanks to magnification and focus peaking) than it is on any dslr, especially if you use wide apertures; and Sony's focus peaking and magnification work at least as well as anyone else's.
5. One flaw you didn't mention is the much-discussed shutter-shock. This is real, and, in my experience, shows up if your shutter speed is 1/100-1/125, regardless of the lens (apparently it's worse if you use a tripod, but I don't and thus can't comment). It doesn't seem to be a problem at other speeds, including slower speeds (though you may encounter the usual too-slow-shutter problems if you're not using a lens with IS; IS has no effect on shutter-shock, of course); I've taken plenty of sharp photos at 1/60 (a speed these cameras seem inordinately fond of if you let them decide the shutter speed). If you avoid 1/100-1/125 you'll be fine.
I hope some of this helps. Far more competent/savvy/knowledgeable people than I have written about all of this, though, so don't rely too much on what I've written!
Upvote
0
Always interesting to see what people would like in a new camera body, video, small size, etc etc.
For myself I can't see Canon wanting to compete with the likes of Phase One, Mamiya & Haselblad, even with the new 50MP CMOS Sensor developed by Sony, this is a small and crowded enough market.
What I could see Canon developing would be something +/- 40MP, that can utilise their current AF system (61 Point), possibly something in the order of 4/5 fps.
I can't comment on video because I'm one of those that still feels if you want video, buy a video camera.
The ONLY issues I see with Phase One IQ280 is iso max at 800, .75 fps and what amounts to a single centre AF point (they do have 3 small off set from centre points but they are pretty well useless) but for anyone to argue against the IQ of the Files is ridiculous, as a Photographer who wants less then the best IQ ?? The issue for me (excluding price of course) with the Phase One, is usability in my chosen field of Photography, Wildlife, the IQ 280 is unbeatable today in portrait, landscape, still life, the IQ250 goes someway to resolving for the "action" photographer some of these issues, better ISO performance out to 6400, 1.5 fps, both systems on Phase One with a Leaf Shutter Lens give you synced flash @ 1/1600th, impossible in todays dslr cameras and non leaf shutter lenses.
If Canon can produce a sensor of +/- 40MP, current AF system, 4-6 fps, resolve the issues current with banding in the shadows (sorry, Canon's sensors suck in this area compared to Nikon let alone a Phase One system), then I believe there's a real Market for this type of Camera, and Nikon/Sony are proving that right now with their D800/D800E & a7r, unlike many on CR I don't agree that these Cameras are selling poorly, I think they sell to People that want this type of Camera (i.e.. Larger Sensor, better Files), not the Mass Market.
For myself I can't see Canon wanting to compete with the likes of Phase One, Mamiya & Haselblad, even with the new 50MP CMOS Sensor developed by Sony, this is a small and crowded enough market.
What I could see Canon developing would be something +/- 40MP, that can utilise their current AF system (61 Point), possibly something in the order of 4/5 fps.
I can't comment on video because I'm one of those that still feels if you want video, buy a video camera.
The ONLY issues I see with Phase One IQ280 is iso max at 800, .75 fps and what amounts to a single centre AF point (they do have 3 small off set from centre points but they are pretty well useless) but for anyone to argue against the IQ of the Files is ridiculous, as a Photographer who wants less then the best IQ ?? The issue for me (excluding price of course) with the Phase One, is usability in my chosen field of Photography, Wildlife, the IQ 280 is unbeatable today in portrait, landscape, still life, the IQ250 goes someway to resolving for the "action" photographer some of these issues, better ISO performance out to 6400, 1.5 fps, both systems on Phase One with a Leaf Shutter Lens give you synced flash @ 1/1600th, impossible in todays dslr cameras and non leaf shutter lenses.
If Canon can produce a sensor of +/- 40MP, current AF system, 4-6 fps, resolve the issues current with banding in the shadows (sorry, Canon's sensors suck in this area compared to Nikon let alone a Phase One system), then I believe there's a real Market for this type of Camera, and Nikon/Sony are proving that right now with their D800/D800E & a7r, unlike many on CR I don't agree that these Cameras are selling poorly, I think they sell to People that want this type of Camera (i.e.. Larger Sensor, better Files), not the Mass Market.
Upvote
0
I'd like to see quad-pixel technology come out... with a sensor where you can bin all four sub-pixels together and have a 10Megapixel FF sensor with kick-ass low light capacity or access the sub-pixels and have a 40Megapixel high resolution sensor....
Upvote
0
Similar threads
