Should Canon make 2 or 3 versions of the 5D

[jeffa4444]

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

Would broadly agree with all of the above but I dont think Canon will add articulating screen to 6D MKII if moving it up-market. I still think they will do a full-frame version of the 80D which they could give the 8D monika too. That gives them direct competitors to the Nikon D810, D750, D610 and within the 5D line to Sony A7RII and A7SII.

 

[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.

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?

I get your arguement but the sweetspot is likely a camera with 28MP and a pixel pitch around 5um or just over. The sensor size is locked by 36x24mm. Getting better light efficiency will allow more DR which is why Sony is moving to BSI and the BSI technology has been driven by smart phones.

 

[H. Jones]

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

Whoa, my bad. I thought it was just 1.6x, but it makes total sense now that I realize that, thanks for correcting me. Yikes, that's a tough one.

 

[Sporgon]

I'd certainly be interested in a 12 MP 5D version if it condenses all the latest efficiency into those 12 MPs. Imagine the IQ up to reasonable enlargements and speed at which that camera would operate ! Heaven. Of course I'm stitching for most serious work, so perhaps not typical, but the Sony A7s seems to be getting a fair bit of exposure as a stills camera.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

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?

I think they already have.
5DIII a general and versatile camera with a balance of pro features
5DIII S/R An ultra high resolution camera with a balance of pro features
6D A budget full frame camera with an eye on the cost conscious...similar in ethos to the original 5D.

 

[M_S]

No. One body, that's it.

 

[arthurbikemad]

They already so.

Seems most people want a 5 grand camera for 2 grand.... :-X

 

[AvTvM]

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.

+1

Furthermore:
* Video-centric 5DC shall as expensive as hi-rez 5DS R - sames as Sony A7S vs. A7R II vs. A7 II 8)
* 5D IV should be a truly stills-centric camera with "as little video stuff as possible" and be priced considerably lower than 5D III ... not a cent more than Nikon D820 or D900 (whatever their D810 successor might be called).