Should Canon make 2 or 3 versions of the 5D

[RGF]

Should Canon make 2 or 3 versions of the 5D series camera

1. High megapixel camera - I count the 5Ds and 5Ds R as one version with a minor difference.

2. Update to the beloved 5D M3. 25-30 MP, reasonable ISO range, ...

3. (NEW) Low resolution (12-16 MP?), high ISO camera. Perhaps there would be limited demand for this camera but it would fill a niche (just like the 2M ISO video camera does).

Thoughts?

 

[privatebydesign]

I have said for a long tome three versions makes sense.

1: 5DS/R for the resolution, changing to a unified 5DSR II.
2: 5D MkIV, the next iteration of the best general purpose camera ever made.
3: 5DC, low resolution optimised for video and simple interpolation. There is a big video DSLR market with many people owning large systems based on the DSLR format and limitations, cages, monitors, mics etc. It could also double as a low resolution high iso stills camera.

 

[unfocused]

I doubt there would be a large enough market for a 12 mp camera.

I rely heavily on higher ISOs, but I would not be interested in a 12 mp camera. The same situations that require me to go for higher ISOs usually limit my access as well, so I need to be able to crop if necessary. I'd rather Canon keep the 5DIV at 24-26 mp and make modest improvements in high ISO and dynamic range.

Given what they have done with the 7DII and the 5Ds, I fully expect the next generation 5D IV to pick up about a stop's worth of noise and dynamic range improvement. I am completely happy with such incremental improvements, given how well Canon cameras already perform.

I could, however, see a video optimized camera. Whether it should be a 5D or the next generation of 70D, I don't know.

 

[Hjalmarg1]

Given what they have done with the 7DII and the 5Ds, I fully expect the next generation 5D IV to pick up about a stop's worth of noise and dynamic range improvement. I am completely happy with such incremental improvements, given how well Canon cameras already perform.

I agree that what Canon 5D3 users want is to get the whistles already in the 7D2 included in the 5D4, better ISO performance and better dinamic range.

 

[StudentOfLight]

1) 5D Mark-IV - (JAN/FEB-2016)
Standard DSLR form factor
25.4 MP DPAF CMOS (6168x4112)
7.5 fps
85pt AF system
Full Frame, 10bit, (4:2:2), DCI 4K (4096x2160) @30/25/24p
APS-C crop, 10bit, (4:2:2), 4K (3840x2160) @30/25/24p

2) 5D-C (APR-2016)
DSLR with articulating touch LCD
20.2MP DPAF CMOS (5508x3672)
7.5 fps
85pt AF system
Full Frame, 10bit, (4:2:2), 5K (5120x2880) @24p
Full Frame, 8bit, (4:2:2), QHD (2560x1440) @60/50/30/25/24p
APS-H crop, 10bit, (4:2:2), 4K (4096x2160) @30/25/24p
APS-H crop, 10bit, (4:2:2), 2K (2048x1080) @120/100/96/60/50/48/30/25/24p

3) 6D Mark-II (SEP/OCT-2016)
DSLR with articulating touch LCD
22.4 MP DPAF CMOS (5796x3864)
6.0 fps
61pt AF system
Full frame, 8bit, (4:2:0), QHD (2560x1440) @30/25/24p
Full frame, 8bit, (4:2:0), FHD (1920x1080) @96/60/50/48/30/25/24p
Full frame, 10bit, (4:2:2), FHD (1920x1080) @30/25/24p

 

[drmikeinpdx]

Since the form factor and control layout of the 5D bodies is popular and familiar to many photographers, I think it makes a lot of sense to get as much mileage out of it as possible. The more versions the better!

So far I agree with most of the suggestions/requests for improvements, however I have no use for more megapixels. I'm a pretty high volume shooter and handling all those big image files is definitely an issue for me. Very, very few of my images are ever made into prints. Most are viewed on electronic screens of various sizes and on websites with image size limits.

 

[sanj]

I would be surprised if there were 3 versions. Don't see it happening.

 

[Haydn1971]

I'm kinda thinking you may see two models over the current 5Ds pair - first a bells and whistles has everything, fired shots like a machine gun mini 1Dx with say mid 22-24mpx and state of the art AF called the 5Dx, then in a similar package, something that slots into a more enthusiast mindset, improving on the 5D3 AF slightly, perhaps 28-36mpx range, called simply, the 5D4 - Three 5D's all with the same controls, perfect for buyers to mix and match to suit their needs.

 

[mb66energy]

I would be happy with a "slow" 5D which shares the universality of good resolution, high ISO capability, very good ergonomics for - let's say 1000 $/EURO off the price of the 5D mark iv. Roughly 20 GOOD and WIDESPREAD and ILLUMINATED AF points and dual pixel AF would be enough for me. If the per pixel quality will be the same like that of the attached example ... perfect!
EDIT: Just read your comment Haydn1971: Your idea of a 5D mark iv is what I meant ...

I choose two 5D classic cameras 2nd hand for my entry into full frame (glad I done it): I like the joystick separated from the thumbwheel and the soft shutter release button much more than the 6D ergonomics. To have two identical cameras is great for using two lenses "simultanously" without changing lenses. 3kEURO (3k$) per camera is prohibitive for me.

So far I am enjoying my "slow 5D"s ... which give me great IQ (see attached example, 100% crop, image corner, DPP slight sharpening (+3))

 

[privatebydesign]

I would be surprised if there were 3 versions. Don't see it happening.

Yeh, but we didn't see a 50MP 5D happening or an 11mm rectilinear zoom lens!

There is no doubt that the 5 series name is a big sales draw so Canon would be silly to not leverage it, it is also becoming increasingly apparent that one camera to do everything as well as it can be done is not possible now.

The other big one for Canon is unit cost, now I don't claim to know anything about camera manufacturing, but it seems logical that one body with different internals makes a cost per unit sense and saving, the 5DS/R using the basis of the 5D MkIII, yet with with several major revisions, points to that being true. We know Canon are very mindful of unit costs too.

These simple ideas give strong support the the idea that a wider range of 5 series could be coming. We have the high resolution, we have the generalists tool, it really seems to me the video crowd are the market with the money and interest to support a third line.

 

[beforeEos Camaras]

I love to see the 5d as the one that can be put in a slot as needed one for high mega pixels etc a basic controls all the same just different insides to meet the demands of the slot needed to be filled

 

[privatebydesign]

So far I am enjoying my "slow 5D"s ... which give me great IQ (see attached example, 100% crop, image corner, DPP slight sharpening (+3))

Same imagequality as my 5d3.

Maybe, if you are blind.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-eos-5d-mark-i-vs-ii-vs-iii-review-comparison-19775

 

[H. Jones]

Personally, as someone who loves his 5D3 and is saving for a 5D4, I would really like Canon to continue to produce an all-around excellent camera like the 5D3, and package as much as they can into a single camera. I can see why a video version might be needed, since I really don't want to pay extra for 4K video as I shoot basically only 10 seconds of video a year-- if they release a higher priced version like the 1DC with 4K, that's okay with me, I'd buy the cheaper stills-oriented one. That said, I have no problem if they include 4K with the 5D4, as long as it doesn't increase the price.

I really want a single 5D4 with flicker detection, around 8 FPS, 28.8 MP with a 18 MP 1.6x crop mode, better dynamic range/on-chip ADC(confirmed by Canon to be on most(all?) future cameras), newspaper-usable 51,200 ISO, and a wider, illuminated AF point spread. If Canon can make that without compromising any features into a lower-spec'd camera, I would do anything to buy it. Hell, increase the FPS to 15 and make it the 1DX II and I'll buy it at a 1D price point.

Maybe I'm just a dreamer though.

 

[K]

IF ...giving up mexapixels leads to improved DR / ISO performance - I would take that trade off in a 5D series camera with limits though.

I would want the lower end to be about 20.2MP. This is judging by my 6D that produces incredible detail of which I rarely find any use for more. I'd rather have a 20.2 low light beast than a 28-36MP sensor that gives up a little ISO/DR for a little bit more res.

Folks, we now have the 5DS line. If you need insane detail or cropping ability - there's your camera. With 20MP, I only miss the extra megapixels a tiny percentage of the time (maybe 1 in 800 keepers for an event) when I find a nice composition within a scene and it is a real deep crop where too much detail is lost. Almost all the time, I can go in pretty far and still end up with enough detail to make perfect photobook sized prints. It is rare to the point of being pointless to worry about.


What we need now is for Canon to again become the leader in low-light. Some more DR would be welcomed too. But not as important as the Exmorites make it out to be. I'm not in the business of underexposing everything by shooting at ISO 100 or 200 then doing 5-7 stop lifts.

Unfortunately, practicality does not rule the day. Marketing dictates that Canon must up the pixel count. Even if it is a small amount, it must be more - or else they will face the wrath of all the blogosphere and web reviewers out there. Especially the specs-driven COMPUTER and electronics review and info sites. These sites all comment and do light weight summary reviews on all camera bodies, and they are not photo experts. They simply focus on published specs the same way they do for computer hardware. These big name sites reach a LOT of viewers and readers.

For this reason alone, the MP count will go up, never down.


Since megapixels are going up - there's no point whatsoever in having a low MP, super high ISO camera. I strongly doubt Canon is going to follow what Sony did.

 

[RGF]

I really want a single 5D4 with flicker detection, around 8 FPS, 28.8 MP with a 18 MP 1.6x crop mode, \

Maybe I'm just a dreamer though.

18 MP in a 1.6 crop is 18 *1.6*1.6 or 46 MP, no 29 MP.

Yes you are a dreamer ;D

 

[AcutancePhotography]

I wonder if there will ever be a Canon 3D series taking some of these suggestions.

 

[scyrene]

IF ...giving up mexapixels leads to improved DR / ISO performance - I would take that trade off in a 5D series camera with limits though.

I would want the lower end to be about 20.2MP. This is judging by my 6D that produces incredible detail of which I rarely find any use for more. I'd rather have a 20.2 low light beast than a 28-36MP sensor that gives up a little ISO/DR for a little bit more res.

Folks, we now have the 5DS line. If you need insane detail or cropping ability - there's your camera. With 20MP, I only miss the extra megapixels a tiny percentage of the time (maybe 1 in 800 keepers for an event) when I find a nice composition within a scene and it is a real deep crop where too much detail is lost. Almost all the time, I can go in pretty far and still end up with enough detail to make perfect photobook sized prints. It is rare to the point of being pointless to worry about.


What we need now is for Canon to again become the leader in low-light. Some more DR would be welcomed too. But not as important as the Exmorites make it out to be. I'm not in the business of underexposing everything by shooting at ISO 100 or 200 then doing 5-7 stop lifts.

Unfortunately, practicality does not rule the day. Marketing dictates that Canon must up the pixel count. Even if it is a small amount, it must be more - or else they will face the wrath of all the blogosphere and web reviewers out there. Especially the specs-driven COMPUTER and electronics review and info sites. These sites all comment and do light weight summary reviews on all camera bodies, and they are not photo experts. They simply focus on published specs the same way they do for computer hardware. These big name sites reach a LOT of viewers and readers.

For this reason alone, the MP count will go up, never down.


Since megapixels are going up - there's no point whatsoever in having a low MP, super high ISO camera. I strongly doubt Canon is going to follow what Sony did.

This is a general question - for anyone to answer, and I genuinely would love to know - but related to what you say. With each generation of cameras, MP counts go up, low light performance also improves. So in principle, more MP does not mean worse low light performance, right? Either they are not linked the way some people think, or else other improvements are made that offset any problems. So why do people keep assuming that the only way for future cameras to improve low light performance is to reduce MP counts, or at least keep them where they are now?

The A7s is an interesting camera, but do we know for sure that its high ISO capabilities are actually down to the MP count, or is something else going on here?

 

[K]

IF ...giving up mexapixels leads to improved DR / ISO performance - I would take that trade off in a 5D series camera with limits though.

I would want the lower end to be about 20.2MP. This is judging by my 6D that produces incredible detail of which I rarely find any use for more. I'd rather have a 20.2 low light beast than a 28-36MP sensor that gives up a little ISO/DR for a little bit more res.

Folks, we now have the 5DS line. If you need insane detail or cropping ability - there's your camera. With 20MP, I only miss the extra megapixels a tiny percentage of the time (maybe 1 in 800 keepers for an event) when I find a nice composition within a scene and it is a real deep crop where too much detail is lost. Almost all the time, I can go in pretty far and still end up with enough detail to make perfect photobook sized prints. It is rare to the point of being pointless to worry about.


What we need now is for Canon to again become the leader in low-light. Some more DR would be welcomed too. But not as important as the Exmorites make it out to be. I'm not in the business of underexposing everything by shooting at ISO 100 or 200 then doing 5-7 stop lifts.

Unfortunately, practicality does not rule the day. Marketing dictates that Canon must up the pixel count. Even if it is a small amount, it must be more - or else they will face the wrath of all the blogosphere and web reviewers out there. Especially the specs-driven COMPUTER and electronics review and info sites. These sites all comment and do light weight summary reviews on all camera bodies, and they are not photo experts. They simply focus on published specs the same way they do for computer hardware. These big name sites reach a LOT of viewers and readers.

For this reason alone, the MP count will go up, never down.


Since megapixels are going up - there's no point whatsoever in having a low MP, super high ISO camera. I strongly doubt Canon is going to follow what Sony did.

This is a general question - for anyone to answer, and I genuinely would love to know - but related to what you say. With each generation of cameras, MP counts go up, low light performance also improves. So in principle, more MP does not mean worse low light performance, right? Either they are not linked the way some people think, or else other improvements are made that offset any problems. So why do people keep assuming that the only way for future cameras to improve low light performance is to reduce MP counts, or at least keep them where they are now?

The A7s is an interesting camera, but do we know for sure that its high ISO capabilities are actually down to the MP count, or is something else going on here?

No assumption. Nearly all sensors have improved ISO while going up in MP, except the 5DS (sort of). The only assumption I suppose is, that even more ISO performance could be had if the MP count stays the same or is lower with the newer manufacturing process.

 

[jeffa4444]

IF ...giving up mexapixels leads to improved DR / ISO performance - I would take that trade off in a 5D series camera with limits though.

I would want the lower end to be about 20.2MP. This is judging by my 6D that produces incredible detail of which I rarely find any use for more. I'd rather have a 20.2 low light beast than a 28-36MP sensor that gives up a little ISO/DR for a little bit more res.

Folks, we now have the 5DS line. If you need insane detail or cropping ability - there's your camera. With 20MP, I only miss the extra megapixels a tiny percentage of the time (maybe 1 in 800 keepers for an event) when I find a nice composition within a scene and it is a real deep crop where too much detail is lost. Almost all the time, I can go in pretty far and still end up with enough detail to make perfect photobook sized prints. It is rare to the point of being pointless to worry about.


What we need now is for Canon to again become the leader in low-light. Some more DR would be welcomed too. But not as important as the Exmorites make it out to be. I'm not in the business of underexposing everything by shooting at ISO 100 or 200 then doing 5-7 stop lifts.

Unfortunately, practicality does not rule the day. Marketing dictates that Canon must up the pixel count. Even if it is a small amount, it must be more - or else they will face the wrath of all the blogosphere and web reviewers out there. Especially the specs-driven COMPUTER and electronics review and info sites. These sites all comment and do light weight summary reviews on all camera bodies, and they are not photo experts. They simply focus on published specs the same way they do for computer hardware. These big name sites reach a LOT of viewers and readers.

For this reason alone, the MP count will go up, never down.


Since megapixels are going up - there's no point whatsoever in having a low MP, super high ISO camera. I strongly doubt Canon is going to follow what Sony did.

This is a general question - for anyone to answer, and I genuinely would love to know - but related to what you say. With each generation of cameras, MP counts go up, low light performance also improves. So in principle, more MP does not mean worse low light performance, right? Either they are not linked the way some people think, or else other improvements are made that offset any problems. So why do people keep assuming that the only way for future cameras to improve low light performance is to reduce MP counts, or at least keep them where they are now?

The A7s is an interesting camera, but do we know for sure that its high ISO capabilities are actually down to the MP count, or is something else going on here?

The Sony A7s and its brothers are definately primarily due to the different pixel pitches employed. Larger pixels, more light less resolution, small pixels less light & more resolution. However other factors such as BSI are allowing Sony to get better light gathering from smaller pixels. Love or hate Sony they have pumped billions into sensor development & manufacture its why they have 40% currently of the global CMOS market.

 

[scyrene]

IF ...giving up mexapixels leads to improved DR / ISO performance - I would take that trade off in a 5D series camera with limits though.

I would want the lower end to be about 20.2MP. This is judging by my 6D that produces incredible detail of which I rarely find any use for more. I'd rather have a 20.2 low light beast than a 28-36MP sensor that gives up a little ISO/DR for a little bit more res.

Folks, we now have the 5DS line. If you need insane detail or cropping ability - there's your camera. With 20MP, I only miss the extra megapixels a tiny percentage of the time (maybe 1 in 800 keepers for an event) when I find a nice composition within a scene and it is a real deep crop where too much detail is lost. Almost all the time, I can go in pretty far and still end up with enough detail to make perfect photobook sized prints. It is rare to the point of being pointless to worry about.


What we need now is for Canon to again become the leader in low-light. Some more DR would be welcomed too. But not as important as the Exmorites make it out to be. I'm not in the business of underexposing everything by shooting at ISO 100 or 200 then doing 5-7 stop lifts.

Unfortunately, practicality does not rule the day. Marketing dictates that Canon must up the pixel count. Even if it is a small amount, it must be more - or else they will face the wrath of all the blogosphere and web reviewers out there. Especially the specs-driven COMPUTER and electronics review and info sites. These sites all comment and do light weight summary reviews on all camera bodies, and they are not photo experts. They simply focus on published specs the same way they do for computer hardware. These big name sites reach a LOT of viewers and readers.

For this reason alone, the MP count will go up, never down.


Since megapixels are going up - there's no point whatsoever in having a low MP, super high ISO camera. I strongly doubt Canon is going to follow what Sony did.

This is a general question - for anyone to answer, and I genuinely would love to know - but related to what you say. With each generation of cameras, MP counts go up, low light performance also improves. So in principle, more MP does not mean worse low light performance, right? Either they are not linked the way some people think, or else other improvements are made that offset any problems. So why do people keep assuming that the only way for future cameras to improve low light performance is to reduce MP counts, or at least keep them where they are now?

The A7s is an interesting camera, but do we know for sure that its high ISO capabilities are actually down to the MP count, or is something else going on here?

The Sony A7s and its brothers are definately primarily due to the different pixel pitches employed. Larger pixels, more light less resolution, small pixels less light & more resolution. However other factors such as BSI are allowing Sony to get better light gathering from smaller pixels. Love or hate Sony they have pumped billions into sensor development & manufacture its why they have 40% currently of the global CMOS market.

What about the old 'sensor size not pixel size' argument? And when normalised to the same size (as is often done in real life in my experience), don't the higher resolution cameras offer similar, if not better, performance?