No Finalized 5D Mark III Yet [CR2]

[DoesNotFollow]

...doesn't anyone's wish list include a *** chip for geo-tagging photos or wi-fi or 3G/4G for transferring files?...

I have been waiting for a *** for quite awhile now. Canon has included the feature in it's point and shoot line (the recent SX230), and I'd be surprised if it isn't found in the 5D mkIII or the new 1D.

 

[WarStreet]

I don't think there is such a thing as a video dedicated FF sensor. A sensor that can be used for video can be used for stills

Yes, they can be used for both video and stills, but they are optimised for their main usage. A video sensor will be low res to avoid line skipping as an example ? The Reds, and the other dedicated video cameras have a video specialised sensor and I am claiming that they are more expensive due to this.

Pretty much no one has replied about an alternative. I think I was right in what I have claimed on the previous posts.

 

[awinphoto]

...doesn't anyone's wish list include a *** chip for geo-tagging photos or wi-fi or 3G/4G for transferring files?...

I have been waiting for a *** for quite awhile now. Canon has included the feature in it's point and shoot line (the recent SX230), and I'd be surprised if it isn't found in the 5D mkIII or the new 1D.

To be honest as a working professional, I have never really needed to ever have ***... I know where I shoot and dont have a need to know EXACTLY where I was... The few iphone photos I have taken have the *** feature and Iphoto (which i use for my iphone stuff) records that data but I cant recall ever re-looking at the *** map to find out where this or that photo was taken. Built in wifi could be interesting if they can make it so it doesn't slow down the camera or make it hack-proof so some nerd down the corner can hack into my camera and take my photos.

 

[x-vision]

Yes, they can be used for both video and stills, but they are optimised for their main usage. A video sensor will be low res to avoid line skipping as an example ?

Video sensors are no different than stills sensors but video sensors need to support much higher read-out speeds (60-120 fps for video vs 10-12 fps for stills).
One way to cope with the data throughputs at such speeds is of course to have a lower resolution sensor or to do line skipping (or 'thinning', as I've seen it called).

This is something that technology will definitely solve in the future, though.
A hi-res sensor designed to do pixel-binning (or some other trick) instead of line skipping will avoid many of the aliasing issues that current DSLR sensors have for video.

The Reds, and the other dedicated video cameras have a video specialised sensor and I am claiming that they are more expensive due to this.

I disagree with that.
Economies of scale surely play a role in sensor costs but the REDs are so expensive mostly for business/marketing reasons.
RED are establishing themselves as the Ferrari/Lamborghini in their market.
So, you will never see low cost cameras from them.

 

[Loswr]

RED are establishing themselves as the Ferrari... in their market.
So, you will never see low cost ... from them.

Don't be so sure. You can get a Ferrari for just over $10K...

 

[awinphoto]

Yes, they can be used for both video and stills, but they are optimised for their main usage. A video sensor will be low res to avoid line skipping as an example ?

Video sensors are no different than stills sensors but video sensors need to support much higher read-out speeds (60-120 fps for video vs 10-12 fps for stills).
One way to cope with the data throughputs at such speeds is of course to have a lower resolution sensor or to do line skipping (or 'thinning', as I've seen it called).

This is something that technology will definitely solve in the future, though.
A hi-res sensor designed to do pixel-binning (or some other trick) instead of line skipping will avoid many of the aliasing issues that current DSLR sensors have for video.

The Reds, and the other dedicated video cameras have a video specialised sensor and I am claiming that they are more expensive due to this.

I disagree with that.
Economies of scale surely play a role in sensor costs but the REDs are so expensive mostly for business/marketing reasons.
RED are establishing themselves as the Ferrari/Lamborghini in their market.
So, you will never see low cost cameras from them.

Regarding economics and price, it kinda reminds me of a seminar I saw recently about professional photographers prices and perceived worth... If 1 photographer charges more than another, all being equal, the customer will tend to think that there is a higher value or perception of the higher priced photographer. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will chose the higher priced person or not, but the reputation or pecking order will be established accordingly... If someone undercuts on price, the customer will think it's a great price, but there has to be a REASON why they're cheaper, hence a compromise or lower quality or service. That's kinda how camera prices work... The red may or may not cost the manufacturer the same to produce as canon does for the 1ds, however, they charge the higher price because they can... In fact, 10 years ago if Canon and Nikon wanted to put their flagships at $16000 or higher instead of 7000-8000, people wouldn't have thought anything of it and would be paying that for them. Perhaps people wouldn't upgrade as often but you see where i'm getting that. Heck it would make me cringe to think where then the 5d and 7d and xxd cameras would be priced then. Maybe it would be better cause it would differentiate pros from non-pro's more and thin the heard a bit, but then other starting up photogs who are making great photos with xxd cameras or rebels wouldn't be able to get into the game as easily.

 

[WarStreet]

I disagree with that.
Economies of scale surely play a role in sensor costs but the REDs are so expensive mostly for business/marketing reasons.
RED are establishing themselves as the Ferrari/Lamborghini in their market.
So, you will never see low cost cameras from them.

You are actually agreeing with me. They are specialised cars and their production cost and R&D is difficult to get covered with low number of sales. I guess you know that Lamborghini sold their cars at a loss to compete with Ferrari. The prices are not high for no reason !

Regarding economics and price, it kinda reminds me of a seminar I saw recently about professional photographers prices and perceived worth... If 1 photographer charges more than another, all being equal, the customer will tend to think that there is a higher value or perception of the higher priced photographer. It doesn't necessarily mean that they will chose the higher priced person or not, but the reputation or pecking order will be established accordingly... If someone undercuts on price, the customer will think it's a great price, but there has to be a REASON why they're cheaper, hence a compromise or lower quality or service.

I agree with the photographer pricing. We are talking about clients seeking a service which can't judge easily who is going to give the best service. If every photographer has been used for the job, and the client would choice himself the photos, the client won't even care about the price as a decision factor since now he has a better educated decision criteria. For example how would I know how technically good a doctor is ? I will choice a doctor depending on how he express himself and how comfortable he make me fell, but he might not necessary be the best technical doctor.

That's kinda how camera prices work...The red may or may not cost the manufacturer the same to produce as canon does for the 1ds, however, they charge the higher price because they can... In fact, 10 years ago if Canon and Nikon wanted to put their flagships at $16000 or higher instead of 7000-8000, people wouldn't have thought anything of it and would be paying that for them. Perhaps people wouldn't upgrade as often but you see where i'm getting that. Heck it would make me cringe to think where then the 5d and 7d and xxd cameras would be priced then. Maybe it would be better cause it would differentiate pros from non-pro's more and thin the heard a bit, but then other starting up photogs who are making great photos with xxd cameras or rebels wouldn't be able to get into the game as easily.

What I don't agree with you is that technology market is not going to be necessary similar to the photographer/doctor examples. As I said about the Lamborghini, due to market and competition they had to sell at a loss. Market will always dictate the price with the exception of monopoly. Especially if the market is very educated and full of aggressive competition. Camera customers are educated of what they are buying, as this is going to be the tool for their own service, and they will buy the tool that suits them best allowing them to gain money, rather than just buying the most expensive camera. I doubt people but the $58,000 EPIC just because it is expensive. I don't think the 5DII would have the same success if it was priced twice the D700, That's because every little detail gets explored and people are really educated today thanks to the internet.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Also, ten years ago Canon and Nikon were just getting their DSLR bodies ready - Kodak (and Fuji had already put out a camera based on a Nikon body back then, I think) was the competition for Canon and Nikon, in a strange sort of way (it's complicated).

 

[UncleFester]

At the risk of sounding stupid- doesn't anyone's wish list include a *** chip for geo-tagging photos or wi-fi or 3G/4G for transferring files? With the latter, someone could be post-processing while the photog is still shooting. Or, you could call and locate your camera if it is lost or stolen.

The geo tagging I could care less about, but *** sounds like a great idea for anti-theft or recovery of stolen equipment. The "Where's my camera?" iPad app.

 

[wellfedCanuck]

I do some aerial and real estate photography in a wilderness area. It's easy to lose track of exactly where a particular photo was taken and geo-tagging would be a nice feature. It's not as important as the primary capabilities of the camera, but if a $200 iPod or iPhone has the capability...

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There are tons of things that could be in a camera, ***, WiFi, Bluetooth, radio flash transmitter, and so on. They all take space and power(read larger battery). At the same time many users are wanting smaller cameras, they also want features that will make them bigger and heavier.

I'd certainly like to have all the things I listed above, even if it takes a 1D sized body. I do not expect to get them all in the near future.

A add-on grip that did them all might be acceptable, if it powered them separately so that it did not drain the main camera battery.

 

[Redreflex]

There are tons of things that could be in a camera, ***, WiFi, Bluetooth, radio flash transmitter, and so on. They all take space and power(read larger battery). At the same time many users are wanting smaller cameras, they also want features that will make them bigger and heavier.

I'd certainly like to have all the things I listed above, even if it takes a 1D sized body. I do not expect to get them all in the near future.

A add-on grip that did them all might be acceptable, if it powered them separately so that it did not drain the main camera battery.

A very interesting lateral thought - an add-on grip with bolt-on functions. I wonder how technically feasible that is.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

There are tons of things that could be in a camera, ***, WiFi, Bluetooth, radio flash transmitter, and so on. They all take space and power(read larger battery). At the same time many users are wanting smaller cameras, they also want features that will make them bigger and heavier.

I'd certainly like to have all the things I listed above, even if it takes a 1D sized body. I do not expect to get them all in the near future.

A add-on grip that did them all might be acceptable, if it powered them separately so that it did not drain the main camera battery.

A very interesting lateral thought - an add-on grip with bolt-on functions. I wonder how technically feasible that is.

Canon already offers a grip with Wifi and bluetooth, adding *** and radio flash should be possible. BTW, I believe you can link a bluetooth *** that way.

 

[moreorless]

1. Split the 5D line into a still camera and an advanced video feature camera.

On my opinion, the advantage of video in DSLR is the ability to use the FF DSLR technology to add video as a 'free' bonus. Creating a 5D version with video as a priority sounds odd. Why 5D ? Why not a specialised video camera with FF sensor and EF lens compatibility ? I think the rumor is false and that it is just a guess, not from a real informed person.

2. A camera between the 5D Mark III and 1D

This makes much more sense, resolution / speed priority

They could I spose both be the same thing, a bare bones 5D mk3 that lacks video and keep the old 9 point AF then a new model between the 5D and ID that includes video and a 7D standard AF system.

Perhaps they feel that the 5D mk2's sucess is partly down to its recently relatively low price point and they want to offer something new at the same kind of level while still making some profit and not effecting sales of the more expensive models?

 

[Edwin Herdman]

I don't see Canon trying to foist that old 9-point AF on pros/semipros again - at least, I certainly hope they don't. Then again, where's our eye tracking?

 

[awinphoto]

Then again, where's our eye tracking?

Personally I don't see them releasing the eye control option again any time soon and I'll tell you why...

1. The simplest reason is liability. People already are griping about the 45 pt af and more options such as eye controll can be a bigger backlash. The amount of calibration, testing... People moan that they need to do the microadjust let alone calibration... If it doesn't work perfect out of the box be prepared to read floods of forums... This af is horrible. Part b to this answer if professional photogs don't JUST look at the subject matter in the view finder, were looking at the scene, the background blur, the composition, looking for anything that would detract... If a photog looks off subject consciously or unconsciously for a split second before clicking the shutter, you just lost your focus assuming you didn't lock ur focus. Even if it was user error, people will still slam canon and NO one will accept responsibility. In this saturation of pro photogs not seen by any other time history of Photography, it's a huge liability.

Second, with digital, with high mp, focus needs to be perfect. Any flaw will be magnified since people are pixel peeping more than ever, so unless it is perfect, forget it. Too much of a risk. At least with af points you can select 1 point and keep it on subject to eliminate equipment failure from the poss why your shot is OOF.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

I haven't used an eye tracking EOS camera yet, but what I've read is that it tracks your eye to select an AF point. For the EOS 3, 11 of the 45 points can be selected. So in that sense it's really no different from using a control pad, stick, or wheel to manually select a point. Depending on how you have the AF mode set you also should be able to consciously lock the AF point with a shutter half press.

I guess all those years playing FPS games on PC means that I have better peripheral vision than some people; I don't need to look at things directly to tell if the whole frame is decent. When I'm shooting wildlife I am looking directly at them for any sign of movement or anything that could be interesting. None of this really precludes people who work differently from using their cameras in the more basic fashion.

I'll grant that I don't think the eye tracking would work quite as well in AI Servo mode or when shooting sports. In that case yes, you don't really want the AF point selection going haywire; nobody stares at just one point forever.

I'm not really swayed by a liability argument, and I'm not swayed by a "it has to be perfect or else it can't be used' argument either. I think Canon just wants to save money on a feature that could easily just be disabled so it is no problem for folks who won't use it. They were apparently making big strides from the EOS 5 to the EOS 3, and with some years of development I wonder if it could have gone further (and perhaps it has, in Canon's labs). Really, if it is a problem to use it in AI Servo, I think it would be fairly simple to allow a custom function to have it enabled or disabled in that mode.

 

[awinphoto]

I'm not really swayed by a liability argument, and I'm not swayed by a "it has to be perfect or else it can't be used' argument either. I think Canon just wants to save money on a feature that could easily just be disabled so it is no problem for folks who won't use it. They were apparently making big strides from the EOS 5 to the EOS 3, and with some years of development I wonder if it could have gone further (and perhaps it has, in Canon's labs). Really, if it is a problem to use it in AI Servo, I think it would be fairly simple to allow a custom function to have it enabled or disabled in that mode.

Fair enough, but by liability, i'm getting at it could be a bad PR hence liability in regards to corporate image and so on and so forth. It has to be nearly perfect because, lets face it, on the film cameras, the highest most pro's were willing to print on 35mm film was 8x10. 11x14 if using ISO 100 film or under because of grain and the picture really started falling apart and clients wouldn't buy it. Pro's knew if they really wanted 11x14 or bigger, medium format was a must. Focus on an 8x10 has to be good, but focus on a 11x14 or even 16x20 which the 5d mark II can pump out natively without interpolation (almost) ANY mistake in focus will be magnified let alone those pixel peepers who would tear apart the focusing system on the internet. You remember all the noise when the 7D first came out with the 19pt focus system... people complaining how it wasn't as good as advertised on fast action... Those complaints quietly died away but to come out with this system which undoubtedly would be dubbed as Canon's best/fastest/most accurate/throw-in-adjective AF Ever, they would have to get it perfect on the flagships in order to keep good PR... Let anyone forget what happened to what was it, the 1d 3 focus system that was shakey and needed to be fixed post release. That brought Canon bad PR and they dont want a repeat by hastily releasing this.

Kinda like apple who claims they wont release a product unless it's "perfect" or "done right", Canon wouldn't/shouldn't release this system until they know beyond a shadow of a doubt it is nearly perfect.