split the 5d series like the 1D series please!

[that1guy]

I just don't care what the name is, but a 5D size FF camera with 12-16 MP and 6 FPS would be my ideal camera too.

I agree, I could care less what you call it (heck, you could call it the Barbie Cam, and I'd buy it ), but something like that sounds awesome. I've always maintained that I would have gotten the current 5dII if it would've had better AF, but adding some of the other goodies would be nice as well.

I will be very interested to see what FF offerings Canon comes out with next.

i just picked a naming convention i thought canon would be most likely to bite on. if it wants to be the 3D, so be it. But i think we can all agree a fast, medium-low mp FF camera would be amazing

If the 5Ds3 was (say) $3300 and the 5D3 was (say) $2200, would that be what you were looking for?

Yeah, I could go for that. The 5D (both versions I believe) went for about $2,700 when released, so that would be a reasonable premium for the extra features, and a reasonable discount for the toned down version.

I believe someone had mentioned that they thought the 7D was the "other" 5D, and I guess that could be true, but there is another way to look at it that could make a branching of the 5D seem possible (maybe it is just my own twisted logic wanting it to happen : ) And I could be wrong on this, but I look at the 7D as the slightly better 50D, and the new 60D is the slightly more affordable camera in that range. As dilbert had stated in another post, the 20D came out and was priced higher than the new 60D is expected to be, and that would make the 60D a relative bargain. I guess I look at it as them splitting that line (xxD) a bit; one camera (7D) added some nice features and moved up a bit in price, the other (60D) went down a bit in price (but really only seems like it lost the metal body).

So, my thinking was that there might be room to add a slightly higher end 5D (or whatever you want to call it) for a slight price premium, and then have another 5D (again, insert your preferred name here) that still sees an improvement in specs (which isn't too unreasonable since technology always improves) but maybe takes away the metal body, for a slight price discount. Again, I don't work for Canon, so I don't know how feasible this is. Based on other stuff they have done though, it certainly wouldn't be a shock to me, and I would really enjoy a cheaper FF camera.

Either way, it is fun to talk about it ;D

 

[muteteh]

I expect none-L primes to be at least as sharp as L zooms.

Can't explain what changed in that link, but do note Canon's 15mm diagonal fisheye is still in a good #40 position. I'll admit Sigma might be making circular fisheyes for the 'we can' effect, but I'll put my money on Nikon, Sigma, and Tokina making money on APS-C diagonal fisheyes.

 

[nzmargolies]

i do agree that less effort needs to be put into bodies and more into lenses. Heck, the new 29mp 1ds will have a hard time finding lenses that can take advantage of that resolution. Although, i think this should not be at the pro-sumer and up where people have very specific needs, but rather at the entry level. 4 entry level dslrs (xsi, xti, t1i, t2i) is simply too much

 

[MadButcher]

It seems there is a shortage in the world of 5D mk2 in stores?
At least in Holland is since June.

Could there come a new line of full-frame camera's from Canon?
I don't mean the 5D mk3, that will last next year.
But a new line because maybe they don't want to have much 5Dmk2's on stock?

I also think there is more room for more fullframe-camera's.
Canon only has 2 now.

I want to replace my 40D for a FF.
I guess it's wisely to wait one month for Photokina to see what will come.

p.s.
I'm a bit affraid they 'ruin' the 5Dmk3 with a double anti-aliasing-filter (lowpass) just as the 7D.

 

[backshot_especiale]

It sounds like you are describing what many want the mythical 3D to be. I really don't see them making a subset of the 5D line, the nomenclature of the cameras is already confusing enough as is.

If anything, the camera you want would cost more than the current 5D mk II, not less. Sure it may have fewer MP's but the cost associated with making a full sized mirror and shutter do 7 to 8 movements a second are not insignificant.

bulls**t most of the cost is r&d which has been paid for, unless you are saying the mirror apparatus is made from/gold/titanium/enriched uranium. The cost in manufacture is clearly marginal.

 

[ronderick]

It seems there is a shortage in the world of 5D mk2 in stores?
At least in Holland is since June.

Could there come a new line of full-frame camera's from Canon?
I don't mean the 5D mk3, that will last next year.
But a new line because maybe they don't want to have much 5Dmk2's on stock?

I also think there is more room for more fullframe-camera's.
Canon only has 2 now.

There seems to be no problem with the supply of 5D2 here in Taiwan... plenty of boxes sitting at store windows.

I really doubt that there will be signs of 5D3 replacement until sometimes in 2011 (my guess would be mid or late 2011, if the current cycle remains the same). But who knows? If Nikon releases a D800 that sells like hot cakes, we might see the 5D line new member much sooner.

However, noticing the new kit box of D700 + 24-70 f2.8, maybe we can see a similar 5D2 + 24-70 f2.8 IS if the new lens makes a debut either this year or in 2011. :-*

 

[pedro]

Does anyone else agree that splitting the 5D series would be a good idea? I mean into a 5D and 5Ds. The 5Ds, like the 1Ds could be the higher mp version, and the 5D ( i guess still pick up with mk III) could become a lower mp, much faster fps camera.
Dear canon,
if you do this, i will buy the 5D III immediately.

Sounds a bit like good fiction, but anyway. I am in. Great idea! Saving up for a 5D III with high hopes that it won't surpass 24 MP. Best regards. Peter

 

[Edwin Herdman]

You know, I would give a damn about the AF performance if I could get a working split-prism screen for my 5DII or any other Canon camera < 1D.

I'd rather get an articulated screen for live view, myself. Focusing screens wouldn't be terribly helpful with my tilt-shift lens.

If you have manual non-TS lenses, then I could definitely see wanting a better focusing screen. The Zeiss manuals strike me as being rather rare and exotic, but maybe not as exotic as some of the TS lenses.

 

[Grendel]

I use my TS quite a bit w/o T or S, that's actually why I want the split prism. W/ T/S I use a 5x viewfinder on the LCD.

 

[Rattle]

While this would suit many persons pocket book what does it accomplish that they don't already offer. Canon brought out the 5D to appease the many that wanted a FF camera but with the smaller footprint and cost. If they take this body too close in technical aspects to that of the 1 series it will only hurt the sales of the 1 series. I see this concept as a non starter.

The 1 series is split for very good reasoning. The 1D hits the sports and wildlife shooters and the crop factor in this body is an added bonus, imo. The 1Ds with its full frame and higher resolution works better for the commercial shooter. I have both of these in the II, III and the 1DmkIV. By and large they serve different markets and serve them well.

I already feel that there is too much commonality between the 1 series and the so called prosumer bodies to the point where it is diluting the sales of the 1 series bodies. I have owned a number of crop bodies as well as the 5D original and there is still nothing like the 1 series to stand up to continued use.

 

[Artisttt]

No needs to split anything. Many people wants more pixels, let them have it in 5D III.
It`s obvious, Canon line is missing camera like Nikon D700. Canon just need to fill this hole and make it little bit better, not to be always behind Nikon.

Let`s call it 3D:

Small body (like 5D)
FF
12-16mp
5-6 fps
Good AF
Clean ISO 6400 or even 12800 (not just acceptable, but CLEAN!)
Could be without video if it helps to make it cheaper
Could be plastic body (like 60D) if it helps to make it cheaper
Price $2000

This camera will not compete with 1D or 1Ds or 5D, because it`s different.

1D - for sport;
1Ds - in studio; large prints;
3D - weddings, events;
5D - landscapes

 

[DetlevCM]

No needs to split anything. Many people wants more pixels, let them have it in 5D III.
It`s obvious, Canon line is missing camera like Nikon D700. Canon just need to fill this hole and make it little bit better, not to be always behind Nikon.

Let`s call it 3D:

Small body (like 5D)
FF
12-16mp
5-6 fps
Good AF
Clean ISO 6400 or even 12800 (not just acceptable, but CLEAN!)
Could be without video if it helps to make it cheaper
Could be plastic body (like 60D) if it helps to make it cheaper
Price $2000

This camera will not compete with 1D or 1Ds or 5D, because it`s different.

1D - for sport;
1Ds - in studio; large prints;
3D - weddings, events;
5D - landscapes

Why do people always want a fast full frame camera?
That's what the 1D or 7D are for - one a 1,3 crop the other a 1,6 crop.

I cannot see the point of having a lower resolution FF camera in Canon's lineup.

And before someone says noise - the current 7D does quite well with noise, the 1D MK IV is even better, noise is not a significant problem.

Adding another camera would be a problem - simply because producing another sensor would be expensive.

 

[Artisttt]

Why do people always want a fast full frame camera?
That's what the 1D or 7D are for - one a 1,3 crop the other a 1,6 crop.

Where did you see "fast full frame camera"???
5-6 fps is not 8-10 fps

I cannot see the point of having a lower resolution FF camera in Canon's lineup.

Many people can see this point.
They do not need huge files, that`s why 12-16mp is enough.

And before someone says noise - the current 7D does quite well with noise, the 1D MK IV is even better, noise is not a significant problem.

Your "someone" is wrong. 7D and 1D MK IV are not good enough.
Not 7D or 1D can produce clean ISO 6400 or even 12800

Adding another camera would be a problem - simply because producing another sensor would be expensive.

This camera would be a dream for wedding/event photography, it will be bestseller ever

 

[DetlevCM]

Why do people always want a fast full frame camera?
That's what the 1D or 7D are for - one a 1,3 crop the other a 1,6 crop.

Where did you see "fast full frame camera" ???
5-6 fps is not 8-10 fps

I cannot see the point of having a lower resolution FF camera in Canon's lineup.

Many people can see this point.
They do not need huge files, that`s why 12-16mp is enough.

And before someone says noise - the current 7D does quite well with noise, the 1D MK IV is even better, noise is not a significant problem.

Your "someone" is wrong. 7D and 1D MK IV are not good enough.
Not 7D or 1D can produce clean ISO 6400 or even 12800

Adding another camera would be a problem - simply because producing another sensor would be expensive.

This camera would be a dream for wedding/event photography, it will be bestseller ever

There is something called sRAW if you cannot handle a 21MP file - although my 2 years old laptop does fine on them. (2,5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM)

And ISO - there is something called post processing

Nobody on photography on the net is constantly whining for a fast FF camera from Canon.
On that note - 5-6fps, take the 1Ds - it's been around for quite a while.

It's only on here that people whinge about it - and why? Because their Nikon cameras don't resolve enough detail or what? At least I don't see people on a Canon forum calling for a low pixel count FF sensor.
Some people will ask for better dynamic range, maybe the odd one asks for better high ISO performance - but nobody is constantly whinging for a low pixel count FF camera.
It's only here.

And for Nikon users - complain to Nikon - your company decided to take a different approach - don't complain about Canon users liking their detail.

And on performance - the 5D MK II apparently is favoured by a lot of wedding photographers
And to get back to ISO - I'm not sure where you live - but I cannot imagining you needing ISO 12800 for anythng planned like a wedding - it would have to be near total darkness.
Now if you are shooting for news stories going to accidents etc. I can see the point - but anything like a wedding - there is more than enough light for current cameras.

And about selling numbers - I'd doubt it - the extra sensor development costs would make it rather high-priced - possibly in the 1D range would be my guess.

 

[Stone]

No needs to split anything. Many people wants more pixels, let them have it in 5D III.
It`s obvious, Canon line is missing camera like Nikon D700. Canon just need to fill this hole and make it little bit better, not to be always behind Nikon.

Let`s call it 3D:

Small body (like 5D)
FF
12-16mp
5-6 fps
Good AF
Clean ISO 6400 or even 12800 (not just acceptable, but CLEAN!)
Could be without video if it helps to make it cheaper
Could be plastic body (like 60D) if it helps to make it cheaper
Price $2000

This camera will not compete with 1D or 1Ds or 5D, because it`s different.

1D - for sport;
1Ds - in studio; large prints;
3D - weddings, events;
5D - landscapes

Why do people always want a fast full frame camera?
That's what the 1D or 7D are for - one a 1,3 crop the other a 1,6 crop.

I cannot see the point of having a lower resolution FF camera in Canon's lineup.

And before someone says noise - the current 7D does quite well with noise, the 1D MK IV is even better, noise is not a significant problem.

Adding another camera would be a problem - simply because producing another sensor would be expensive.

The 7D does well at high ISO with it's cropped sensor but that comes at the expense of noise in the lower ISO ranges. There are many examples out there of noise showing up in 7D shots at ISO 800 and below where virtually no noise has become the norm and is expected. The 1DIV has excellent noise handling but it's a $5K body and a larger sensor so noise handling SHOULD be better, it's still noisier than the best FF sensors.

Honestly, I don't care if producing another sensor is expensive. Last I checked Canon is a multi-billion dollar company so I don't feel sorry for them if they have to come out of pocket to produce something that their customers want. Canon has no love for you or for me, ultimately we are just entries on a balance sheet so make them earn your business. To believe Canon is doing the absolute best that they can for their customers is laughable. They could have made a fast, FF camera several years ago but were quite happy letting their customers buy 2 bodies instead and if the D700 hadn't crashed the party, they would be just as happy to continue the status quo.

I want

-- 8+ fps for my kids sports and any other fast moving action I might want to shoot
-- FF for wide-angles, better DOF at smaller apertures and IQ that still can't be matched by a cropper
-- Cleaner high ISO because I shoot often in low light and spraying speedlites all over the place is getting LESS acceptable

My current company of choice is Canon as I have been using their products for years. I'm giving them time to give me what I want as a consumer even though they could have done it long ago. If they don't, I'll support the company that tries to do so. When it comes to my wallet, loyalty to any manufacturer is a losing proposition........

 

[Artisttt]

There is something called sRAW if you cannot handle a 21MP file - although my 2 years old laptop does fine on them. (2,5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM)

And ISO - there is something called post processing

Nobody on photography on the net is constantly whining for a fast FF camera from Canon.
On that note - 5-6fps, take the 1Ds - it's been around for quite a while.

It's only on here that people whinge about it - and why? Because their Nikon cameras don't resolve enough detail or what? At least I don't see people on a Canon forum calling for a low pixel count FF sensor.
Some people will ask for better dynamic range, maybe the odd one asks for better high ISO performance - but nobody is constantly whinging for a low pixel count FF camera.
It's only here.

And for Nikon users - complain to Nikon - your company decided to take a different approach - don't complain about Canon users liking their detail.

And on performance - the 5D MK II apparently is favoured by a lot of wedding photographers
And to get back to ISO - I'm not sure where you live - but I cannot imagining you needing ISO 12800 for anythng planned like a wedding - it would have to be near total darkness.
Now if you are shooting for news stories going to accidents etc. I can see the point - but anything like a wedding - there is more than enough light for current cameras.

And about selling numbers - I'd doubt it - the extra sensor development costs would make it rather high-priced - possibly in the 1D range would be my guess.

Did I ask to stop making 5d with hi pixel count? 5D III will have even more pixels, especially for you, I don`t mind.
I was talking about DIFFERENT, inexpensive full frame camera with the main feature as excellent ISO performance. In my opinion it`s better to have variety of FF cameras then variety of Rebels.
Now 5D for wedding is a compromise, because there is no better suited camera from Canon.
In 10-15 years every entry level DSLR will have clean ISO 12800 and I`m sure Canon can do it in today's FF cameras.
And please, don`t tell me about post-processing

 

[DetlevCM]

There is something called sRAW if you cannot handle a 21MP file - although my 2 years old laptop does fine on them. (2,5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM)

And ISO - there is something called post processing

Nobody on photography on the net is constantly whining for a fast FF camera from Canon.
On that note - 5-6fps, take the 1Ds - it's been around for quite a while.

It's only on here that people whinge about it - and why? Because their Nikon cameras don't resolve enough detail or what? At least I don't see people on a Canon forum calling for a low pixel count FF sensor.
Some people will ask for better dynamic range, maybe the odd one asks for better high ISO performance - but nobody is constantly whinging for a low pixel count FF camera.
It's only here.

And for Nikon users - complain to Nikon - your company decided to take a different approach - don't complain about Canon users liking their detail.

And on performance - the 5D MK II apparently is favoured by a lot of wedding photographers
And to get back to ISO - I'm not sure where you live - but I cannot imagining you needing ISO 12800 for anythng planned like a wedding - it would have to be near total darkness.
Now if you are shooting for news stories going to accidents etc. I can see the point - but anything like a wedding - there is more than enough light for current cameras.

And about selling numbers - I'd doubt it - the extra sensor development costs would make it rather high-priced - possibly in the 1D range would be my guess.

Did I ask to stop making 5d with hi pixel count? 5D III will have even more pixels, especially for you.
I was talking about DIFFERENT, inexpensive full frame camera with the main feature as excellent ISO performance. In my opinion it`s better to have variety of FF cameras then variety of Rebels.
Now 5D for wedding is a compromise, because there is no better suited camera from Canon.
In 10-15 years every entry level DSLR will have clean ISO 12800 and I`m sure Canon can do it in today's FF cameras.
And please, don`t tell me about post-processing

Different and inexpensive don't go hand in hand.
Neither do inexpensive and full frame.

If Canon made another full frame camera it would be in the price range of a 1D.

 

[Artisttt]

There is something called sRAW if you cannot handle a 21MP file - although my 2 years old laptop does fine on them. (2,5GHz Core2Duo, 4GB RAM)

And ISO - there is something called post processing

Nobody on photography on the net is constantly whining for a fast FF camera from Canon.
On that note - 5-6fps, take the 1Ds - it's been around for quite a while.

It's only on here that people whinge about it - and why? Because their Nikon cameras don't resolve enough detail or what? At least I don't see people on a Canon forum calling for a low pixel count FF sensor.
Some people will ask for better dynamic range, maybe the odd one asks for better high ISO performance - but nobody is constantly whinging for a low pixel count FF camera.
It's only here.

And for Nikon users - complain to Nikon - your company decided to take a different approach - don't complain about Canon users liking their detail.

And on performance - the 5D MK II apparently is favoured by a lot of wedding photographers
And to get back to ISO - I'm not sure where you live - but I cannot imagining you needing ISO 12800 for anythng planned like a wedding - it would have to be near total darkness.
Now if you are shooting for news stories going to accidents etc. I can see the point - but anything like a wedding - there is more than enough light for current cameras.

And about selling numbers - I'd doubt it - the extra sensor development costs would make it rather high-priced - possibly in the 1D range would be my guess.

Did I ask to stop making 5d with hi pixel count? 5D III will have even more pixels, especially for you.
I was talking about DIFFERENT, inexpensive full frame camera with the main feature as excellent ISO performance. In my opinion it`s better to have variety of FF cameras then variety of Rebels.
Now 5D for wedding is a compromise, because there is no better suited camera from Canon.
In 10-15 years every entry level DSLR will have clean ISO 12800 and I`m sure Canon can do it in today's FF cameras.
And please, don`t tell me about post-processing

Different and inexpensive don't go hand in hand.
Neither do inexpensive and full frame.

If Canon made another full frame camera it would be in the price range of a 1D.

Without video, in small plastic body, 5fps - price like 1D??? I don`t think so.

 

[nzmargolies]

i can't see why this camera doesnt make sense:
16-18mp
6.5 fps
full frame
body like 5D II
quality iso, comparable to what the nikon d700 offers, (hopefully better, that camera is aging)
the af system of the 1d, scaled down to 19 points
$2700-2800 body only

this makes all the sense in the world, and the d700 has proven such a camera can be successfull
(if anything, make these numbers better or the price lower)

people know how to pp out a lot of noise, but taking a picture you know is going to require a lot of work is never fun (or, not as fun as knowing it will be perfect SOOC)

 

[Stone]

i can't see why this camera doesnt make sense:
16-18mp
6.5 fps
full frame
body like 5D II
quality iso, comparable to what the nikon d700 offers, (hopefully better, that camera is aging)
the af system of the 1d, scaled down to 19 points
$2700-2800 body only

this makes all the sense in the world, and the d700 has proven such a camera can be successfull
(if anything, make these numbers better or the price lower)

people know how to pp out a lot of noise, but taking a picture you know is going to require a lot of work is never fun (or, not as fun as knowing it will be perfect SOOC)

Other than MP and video capabilities Canon is playing catch up to the D700. Those aren't bad specs, but they will almost certainly be beaten by the D700 replacement which will up the MP and add video. FPS & AF seem to be the things Canon is trying to keep exclusive to their 1 series cameras and this simply won't fly anymore. I'm noticing that the Nikon bodies also seem to have better weather sealing across their advanced amateur/professional product line as well. I hate to keep beating up Canon, as I love their bodies and would prefer not to learn a new system, but this is getting ridiculous, the 60D just got pimp slapped by the D7000. Come on Canon!!!