The Canon 5D line and AF...

[jrista]

So with all the rumors about the Canon 5D III, there is obviously a lot of speculation about what features it may have. I've noticed that when people post their ideas about what they expect in a 5D III body, they inevitably contain some form of "7D AF". I'm curious where that idea comes from. Personally, I see the 5D III positioned very differently, and as far as I can tell very appropriately, in the canon lineup compared to the 1D X and the 7D lines. I see the 5D line as a camera primarily (but not solely) tuned for landscape, weddings, studio, amateur astrophotography (know or know of a fair amount of people who use the 5D II for this), extreme macro (100mm f/2.8 and MP-E 65mm stuff...where low noise large pixel really helps gather the necessary light at necessarily tight apertures) and DSLR video work. In pretty much all of those cases, and many of the more fringe use cases, there does not appear to be a strong need for high FPS and super-awesome AF. When it comes to landscape, astrophotography, and video/cinematography, and macro autofocus is pretty much useless in any respect...manual focus really reigns king. The need for AF for other kinds of photography that you might use a 5D III for such as weddings, generally don't involve the kind of crazy high speed action you might find in motorcross; ski and snowboarding; baseball, football, soccer, etc; even wildlife and bird photography.

Granted, the bottom-rung AF system the 5D II has is definitely not worthy of a professional-grade camera, and NEEDS to be replaced...however is a top of the line AF system designed for AI Servo type continuous tracking of high speed subjects really necessary? Am I missing something in thinking that the 5D III needs an improvement to its AF system, but nothing on the level of the 7D? Am I not fully realizing the primary ways that the 5D II is used that would warrant a high speed AF system, and why a 1D X wouldn't be used instead? I'm mostly just curious, but also wondering if Canon has positioned the 5D line incorrectly according to the people who are interested in buying one and expect a top notch AF system like the 7D's.

 

[Jim K]

Are you saying that an AF move up to the level of the 50D would be OK with the market when the 7D AF has been around for a few years now? I would NOT expect to see 1D level AF in the 5D3 but something better than 9 cross points would be nice and probably expected by many purchasers.

 

[Loswr]

Am I missing something in thinking that the 5D III needs an improvement to its AF system, but nothing on the level of the 7D? Am I not fully realizing the primary ways that the 5D II is used that would warrant a high speed AF system, and why a 1D X wouldn't be used instead?

I think you're essentially correct, but to be blunt, what you're 'missing' is human nature. People want a Porsche Carrera for the price of a Honda CR-V. People want a 5,000 sq. ft. house on three acres close to the city for the price of a condo in the suburbs. People want a 1D X for the price of a 5DII...or a T3 if they could get it. They hedge it back to sound reasonable - '5 fps is fine' or 'I'll even accept the now-outdated 1DsIII AF' or 'how about only 4,000 sq. ft. and one acre' but I think the rationale is the same.

And let me go on record as saying that I'm certainly not opposed to any of that! But nor do I think it's realistic, and I am prepared to pay the 1D X price for the 1D X features. Now...where's my $400 24-70mm f/2.8 II kit lens to go with that 1D X? :

 

[jrista]

@neuroanatomist: Hah! Yeah, it may be as simple as human nature. I have always tried to be realistic in my expectations...and perhaps that itself is not particularly realistic...it certainly doesn't seem "normal".

 

[Axilrod]

So with all the rumors about the Canon 5D III, there is obviously a lot of speculation about what features it may have. I've noticed that when people post their ideas about what they expect in a 5D III body, they inevitably contain some form of "7D AF". I'm curious where that idea comes from. Personally, I see the 5D III positioned very differently, and as far as I can tell very appropriately, in the canon lineup compared to the 1D X and the 7D lines. I see the 5D line as a camera primarily (but not solely) tuned for landscape, weddings, studio, amateur astrophotography (know or know of a fair amount of people who use the 5D II for this), extreme macro (100mm f/2.8 and MP-E 65mm stuff...where low noise large pixel really helps gather the necessary light at necessarily tight apertures) and DSLR video work. In pretty much all of those cases, and many of the more fringe use cases, there does not appear to be a strong need for high FPS and super-awesome AF. When it comes to landscape, astrophotography, and video/cinematography, and macro autofocus is pretty much useless in any respect...manual focus really reigns king. The need for AF for other kinds of photography that you might use a 5D III for such as weddings, generally don't involve the kind of crazy high speed action you might find in motorcross; ski and snowboarding; baseball, football, soccer, etc; even wildlife and bird photography.

Granted, the bottom-rung AF system the 5D II has is definitely not worthy of a professional-grade camera, and NEEDS to be replaced...however is a top of the line AF system designed for AI Servo type continuous tracking of high speed subjects really necessary? Am I missing something in thinking that the 5D III needs an improvement to its AF system, but nothing on the level of the 7D? Am I not fully realizing the primary ways that the 5D II is used that would warrant a high speed AF system, and why a 1D X wouldn't be used instead? I'm mostly just curious, but also wondering if Canon has positioned the 5D line incorrectly according to the people who are interested in buying one and expect a top notch AF system like the 7D's.

Hmmm, you don't have a 5DII in your sig, interesting that you bash and marginalize the camera's AF system. Is that all based on stuff you've read from other people? It's going on 4 years old, so sure it could be better, but it really isn't that bad. I think more of the problem is user error, using the wrong setting or combination of settings.

Think about how many people bought 5DIIs that had barely any photography experience (I was one of them, although I had a T2i for 8 months beforehand). Now think about how easily those people may have overlooked something and how quick they may have been to judge. Plus you have a bunch of fools on the internet telling them "oh it sucks," so they go take 3 pictures and 1 is out of focus and they figure "oh well the internet said it sucks so it must suck, couldn't be me."

That's pretty much what happen to me, I played around with it, remembered that everyone had said that it sucked, and figured that it must have. But then months later I played around with the settings some more and realized that it really wasn't bad at all (and this was shooting my dogs running full speed).

And I'm sure tons of those people went out and tried to shoot sports and other fast-moving stuff, and that's setting yourself up for disappointment. The 5D was never marketed as a fast sports camera, not at all. Sure the 5D may not be the best, but if you're doing studio work it does absolutely fine.

Neuro is right, people take the best aspects of multiple cameras and smash them all together and hope that they get one cure-all camera, but it just doesn't work like that. All of them are fantasizing and they all want a single, dirt cheap camera to come out that does everything that they personally want it to do.

 

[Loswr]

I wonder...do Hassleblad users complain about the number of AF points and fps (or is that spf)?

 

[danski0224]

I don't shoot sports or birds and for me, the 5DII AF system seems to work OK so far.

If I did shoot sports or birds, it sure seems that the +1.6x on my EF lenses would be nice on the 7D, which has a nice AF system (that I do not know how to use about 90% of).

Something between the current 5D and the 7D would be nice.

One thing I am sure of, is that it will take a LOT for me to move to the 5DIII and even more to move to the 1Dx.

New AF by itself won't do it.

It would take a new AF system and weather sealing at a minimum for me to move up. Even then, it needs to be priced no more than 1/2 of a 1Dx.

The 7D and 5DII take some pretty damn good pictures as they are right now.

I would really like a split focusing screen for the 5DII...

$.02

 

[Picsfor]

OK, i'm one of the biggest complainers of the 5D2 AF, i've had it for 3 years and was definitely shown how to use maximise it to its fullest - courtesy of Experience Seminars (they really are wizards where Canon are concerned).

I do not expect it to give me sports/ wildlife quality AF or AI Servo. I didn't buy it for those purposes.
I used it a kids football event last year and for the most part it handled the event very well.

What i always say, and i do not think it is unreasonable, is that ALL 9 points should be full cross type. If they could be spread out a fraction more, then i would be happy, but i'm realistic in how difficult it is to spread the AF points to the corners of the lens.

Oooh, split focusing - that was nice - and is available for the 5D2 - just buy the split focusing AF screen...

Now, human nature aside, am i asking too much? Especially on a 5D3/X or 3DXs Ultra Ti - what ever its called?
Furthermore, if, as seems to be the thinking, the 5D2 replacement is gonna stick at 22mp, then it needs something to get the likes of me to part with my cash, cos 1mp and an extra stop in ISO and DR ain't gonna do it! Even that wonderful battery grip (nice though it is), ain't gonna do it either.

 

[danski0224]

An OEM Canon split screen is what I would like. Far as I know, this is only available through 3rd party vendors.

The 5DIII will need to be a game changer. I don't envision many people upgrading for incremental improvements "just because".

It will be interesting to see what is released.

 

[Loswr]

The 5DIII will need to be a game changer. I don't envision many people upgrading for incremental improvements "just because".

Will it? Playing devil's advocate here - I woner what percentage of 5DII sales came from 5D upgraders? Probably high at first, but sales of the 5DII have been strong since its release. I would think the 5D owners who were chomping at the bit (similar to many 5DII owners here) got their orders in fairly quickly, given the limited initial supply. At this point, how many people who don't own a 5DII are just waiting around for the newest 'affordable' FF camera rather than buying one that was released in 2008? Even if it's only a little better, they'd likely buy it. Plus, many people seem to still be buying the 5DII! In other words, there may not be a tremendous desire/need on the part of Canon to make the 5DIII a game changer.

 

[awinphoto]

Yes, human nature is all fine and good, but the point is, amongst the professional photographer inner circle, the 5D2's AF is the butt of all jokes, especially looking at competition... Know how many conferences and seminars I go to in which the presenter shooting with a 5d2 has to throw in a slight that they cannot lock focus because of the cameras AF... As any wedding photographers how many times they wanted to take a photo in a dim room just to have the canon's AF hunt and miss the shot. Heck, I used the camera in a family fun center and the AF struggled in one shot AND continuous... And it's not like we're asking for all new R&D considering the 7D has it and even the even older 50D has a slightly better AF in that all points are cross sensors. If the 7D didn't have it and nikon did, well we can talk about tradeoff's MP vs AF and the dark side, etc... But now that the 7D has it, It'd be like the bottom of the line mustang having a stronger faster engine than the models above it.

 

[traveller]

I think that the argument that 5D users don't need and don't really want a top-of-the-line AF system because they mainly shoot static subject is a case of the tail wagging the dog. 5D users don't tend to shoot action with it because it's a pretty poor tool for this task when compared to most of the Canon prosumer range. If you read a lot of members signatures who own the 5D MkII, they often also own the 7D; my guess is that they're using the latter for action photography. The argument is often made that Canon makes more money pursuing this strategy because people buy two cameras. This may be true, but the other way of looking at it would be to ask how many people who only own a 7D would have bought a 5D if it had a better AF system?

The other famous line is that we shouldn't expect a pro quality AF system in a non-pro camera; presumably this privilege is now reserved for Nikon shooters only! I find it interesting that the price charged for these 'non-pro' bodies now exceeds what a film era pro body used to cost. I know that we're paying for a sensor and associated electronics, but the affordability point remains. In the film era there were many 'serious amateurs' that could afford to buy the top of the line camera, but these days the vast majority of photographers that don't earn a living from their art, simply cannot afford or cannot justify the enormous price tags associated with the 1D X and D4 etc.

 

[K-amps]

What about the D800 effect

 

[jrista]

I think that the argument that 5D users don't need and don't really want a top-of-the-line AF system because they mainly shoot static subject is a case of the tail wagging the dog. 5D users don't tend to shoot action with it because it's a pretty poor tool for this task when compared to most of the Canon prosumer range. If you read a lot of members signatures who own the 5D MkII, they often also own the 7D; my guess is that they're using the latter for action photography. The argument is often made that Canon makes more money pursuing this strategy because people buy two cameras. This may be true, but the other way of looking at it would be to ask how many people who only own a 7D would have bought a 5D if it had a better AF system?

Sure, it does indeed seem to be common, and as soon as the 5D III/X comes out, I'll be another one in that camp. But, that also begs the question...if you are willing to spend $2800 on a 5D II and $1800 on a 7D, plus a few hundred bucks to get a battery grip for each...your nearing $5000 in list price cost. For such individuals, wouldn't just buying a 1D IV or a 1D X give them everything they need in a single package...and one that is likely to have a much longer lifespan, for $6000-$6800? If you really NEED it all, and regularly switch back and forth between the two bodies, a more capable camera that actually does meet all your needs seems more logical than pining away for the end-all, be-all solves-every-problem 5D III.

The other famous line is that we shouldn't expect a pro quality AF system in a non-pro camera; presumably this privilege is now reserved for Nikon shooters only! I find it interesting that the price charged for these 'non-pro' bodies now exceeds what a film era pro body used to cost. I know that we're paying for a sensor and associated electronics, but the affordability point remains. In the film era there were many 'serious amateurs' that could afford to buy the top of the line camera, but these days the vast majority of photographers that don't earn a living from their art, simply cannot afford or cannot justify the enormous price tags associated with the 1D X and D4 etc.

I never claimed that the 5D line did *not* need a better AF system. I think I made an explicit point about stating the current 5D AF is indeed bottom of the barrel, and needs some improvement. My curiosity is about why, when I look at the "wish lists" of everyone who is dying for a 5D III...7D AF (not 7D-esqe or 7D like, but 7D actual) is always on the list. In the cases where its not the 7D AF, its the 1DsIII AF, or something similar. YES, the 5D III/X needs better AF...but does anyone who is "predicting" what they think the 5D III will be REALLY believe that it will get a TOP of the line (not just Pro grade, but best pro grade) sports-ready AF system?

Just doesn't seem logical to me. And I think neuro nailed it...its just human nature to want everything for the price of nothing.

 

[K-amps]

I respect Neuro's views in the analogy of people expecting wine on a beer budget, however it must also be appreciated that Canon cripples functionality in some models to protect other models.... it is this spread that at least I refer to where Canon can offer more for the same price. We have given Canon our business,our support and our loyalty... we should be able to expect that which the competition gives out in similar models ... and what some people give out for free without thinking we are not getting treated fairly. I will probably upset a couple of folks here, but I just hold Canon to a slightly higher standard.

 

[Loswr]

I respect Neuro's views in the analogy of people expecting wine on a beer budget, however it must also be considered that Canon cripples functionality in some models to protect other models.... it is this spread that at least I refer to where Canon can offer more for the same price.

+1 on that. Of course they do - they have to, from a marketing standpoint (do I beat that horse too hard?).

Consider - the 1Ds series and 5 series are both FF cameras. For almost any component, once it's been developed for a 1Ds-line body, that component could be dropped into a 5-series body design with little or no additional R&D effort, and in many cases, such as the AF sensor and microlens arrangement, probably almost no additional production cost that would need to be passed along in the final price. They could have taken the 1DsII AF system and used it in the 5DII pretty easily, I would think.

Consider firmware - I would think that firmware for a new camera would not be developed from scratch, but rather modified from the predecessor - if that's the case, they had to exert resources to remove AFMA from the 50D's firmware when updating it for the 60D.

So...Canon can offer more for the same price - whether or not they actually do depends on their estimate of how particular features will affect sales, both against their other models and against other manufacturers.

 

[thepancakeman]

For such individuals, wouldn't just buying a 1D IV or a 1D X give them everything they need in a single package...and one that is likely to have a much longer lifespan, for $6000-$6800?

Except for a backup camera, which IMHO is not a minor consideration for most shooting ops outside of landscape and chasing the kids around the house.

 

[Picsfor]

Neuro made the point that 5D owners were chomping at the bit to upgrade to the 5D2 because...

Come on, let's be honest here - the 5D2 was as much a game changer as the 5D upon its release.
21mp FF - same sensor size as a £5k+ 1Ds3. HD Video. A usable 6400 ISO (remember, at this point the D3 was still fresh out the stable - D3s hadn't even been thought of as a rumour let alone released) - extending to 25k (which was the D3's range...).

As said, 3 years down the line, and in all fairness no one has still managed to match it.

So, to say that the 5D2 replacement has to be a game changer is not exactly an unfair expectation.
No, we do not expect 32mp, we do not expect 408k ISO, nor do we expect 14 fps and 1Dx focusing.

But their are a lot of areas that require small improvements that would make you think, 'sod it, i've had enough i'm trading up to a 5D3 cos i want this issue fixed and it is in the 5D3'

Improved AF would help, that battery grip with duplicated joystick would also be another factor for those of us who have our 5D2's bolted to one. Just examples - not the definitive list or argument.

 

[unfocused]

I'm going to be kind of disappointed when the 5DIII comes out and I have to go back to threads that endlessly debate megapixels, sensor size, and ISO noise.

Really though, I Keep thinking that all Canon really needs to do with the next 5D to make still photographers happy is put the 7D autofocus system in it and call it good. Oh...and put out a new battery grip that has a wheel on it. Which means they need to change the specs enough so that the old grip won't work with the new model and maybe you need new batteries as well. (Yes, they may throw in a few other bells and whistles, but no "game changers")

I can hold firmly to this position until the 5DIII is announced and I'm proven wrong. But, here is my logic:

• Hardly anyone complains about anything except the autofocus;
• There has to be enough room between the 5DIII and the 1Dx to justify the cost differential;
• Ultra-high ISO speeds are a necessity for the 1Dx market, but an option for most 5DIII users;
• Bomb-proof construction and weather-sealing is a necessity for the 1Dx market, but an option for most 5DIII users.
  

If Canon is truly interested in moving APS-C customers up to full frame, this offers an affordable path, since the price can be kept at or close to the 5DII's price.

I still think that any big changes in the 5DIII will be concentrated in the video realm. I think Canon sees video as the growth market. (Their recent product releases indicate that). I firmly believe Canon had no idea how popular the 5DII would be for video. They are now watching the massive growth in internet and independent video and comparing that to the anemic growth in DSLR sales. They know that they currently own the DSLR video market and want to protect that market. (Face it guys: we still DSLR photographers are dinosaurs)

So, my logic: give the still photographers the minimum that they want: better autofocus; and give videographers more than they hoped for.

 

[t.linn]

This is a frustrating conversation to me, this "wine on a beer budget" analogy, because the analogy limps badly. As others have correctly pointed out, many features are not missing because of cost but because of positioning. Auto-ISO in manual mode, for example, is not missing because of cost.

I understand the importance of positioning and its relevance to profitability. But taken to the extreme it becomes the opposite of competing for a customer's business. It becomes a process of holding back as much value as possible in order to parcel it out in small portions at the customer's expense. Canon, more than any other camera company, seems to think it has enough momentum and market share to focus on maximizing profitability rather than customer satisfaction. Maybe they are right in the short term but I think this will cost them in the long term. I believe Sony, in particular, has the resources to eventually make them pay for this approach.

And this "the 5D was never intended for sports" argument is B.S. I shoot landscapes and wildlife but I'd also like to occasionally shoot my son's football games. It is NOT too much to expect a $2700 camera body to do both. When cheaper Canon DSLR's offer demonstrably superior AF systems, it is positioning rather than cost that is driving design. Nikon is certainly able to put their pro-AF system in a body at a 5DII price.

But let's say price is no object. I should just buy a 1DX, right? No, I don't want to hike 10 miles into the backcountry with a cinder block in my pack. It's not just a question of wanting wine on a beer budget. It's about wanting the right tool for the job.