The Canon 5D line and AF...

[jrista]

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.

Certainly can't disagree on that point, and its an excellent point.

 

[awinphoto]

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.

+1 well actually +100. For the price bracket, it needs to at least be able to keep up with my 4 year old... I'm not asking for it to keep up with pro athletes running at me in my direction. When a newly married coupld is slow dancing on their first dance and the AF locks on the grooms ear and not the eye... stuff like this needs to be fixed. I'm not asking for them to reinvent the wheel... Just give me 7d af, levels, custom button programming and maybe flash command or 7d sealing... the rest I'm willing to compromise to give the 1d flagship status.

 

[jrista]

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.

Good arguments, and I agree that the AF is probably the only thing that has kept me from just biting the bullet buying a 5D II. It really is bottom of the barrel. I'm still curious why it has to be 7D AF though. Is there not some kind of happy medium that would satisfy the "pro grade", without also being top end? I mean, 19 CROSS-TYPE AF points, with all the zone and expansion selections, is fairly expensive...not as expensive as 40, but expensive nonetheless. How would a more advanced AF system like that affect the cost of a 5D III? I am really hoping for a $2800 price tag...I don't want to have to spend $3200 or $3500 for all the extra features like high end AF that I already have on my 7D (which, coincidentally, is better for the action stuff anyway given its cropped sensor and greater "reach".)

 

[unfocused]

I'm still curious why it has to be 7D AF though.

Candidly, I'm just using the 7D autofocus as shorthand for any improved system. I only referenced the 7D system because it's already developed and would probably be cheap to graft onto a 5D. Same could be said for the 1D autofocus I imagine. Or, it could be some hybrid.

 

[awinphoto]

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.

Good arguments, and I agree that the AF is probably the only thing that has kept me from just biting the bullet buying a 5D II. It really is bottom of the barrel. I'm still curious why it has to be 7D AF though. Is there not some kind of happy medium that would satisfy the "pro grade", without also being top end? I mean, 19 CROSS-TYPE AF points, with all the zone and expansion selections, is fairly expensive...not as expensive as 40, but expensive nonetheless. How would a more advanced AF system like that affect the cost of a 5D III? I am really hoping for a $2800 price tag...I don't want to have to spend $3200 or $3500 for all the extra features like high end AF that I already have on my 7D (which, coincidentally, is better for the action stuff anyway given its cropped sensor and greater "reach".)

That's the problem... for them to reinvent a new AF such as 13 or whatever would be a whole new R&D and possibly new costs for doing such... 7D, all they need it to do is work for a FF sensor and bobs your uncle, it's good to go. Plus, those who are prior 7D users wont want to go from a 19 point AF to 13 let alone 9. I've made the jump/drop depending on how you look at it and it's a big jump/drop. Thank god I still have my 7d, but i'm holding on to that sucker until the 5d produces a product where I dont need the 7d any more.

 

[K-amps]

I believe Sony, in particular, has the resources to eventually make them pay for this approach.
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.

+1: I have said it before, once Sony can release good lenses at reasonable prices, there will be a shift. I hope Canon is proactive about this.

 

[jrista]

And this "the 5D was never intended for sports" argument is B.S.

I very much beg to differ! I think its been clear since the 5D that Canon is purposely positioning the 5D line to fill other markets, and they are intentionally protecting the market segment for their 1D line. Its not surprising, its expected, and responsible for the company to do that as well. The advanced AF features of the 1D line are incredibly expensive to design, develop, and manufacture. A single high precision diagonal cross-type sensor is no simple feat, and when there are 20, 40, or 60 of them in a system, that definitely increases cost. They need at least one market segment to help fund those advanced features, and the market segment that most needs them is the logical choice.

So yes, I strongly believe that the 5D was NEVER intended for sports. If it was, it would either be much more expensive, or the 1D sales would have disappeared.

 

[awinphoto]

And this "the 5D was never intended for sports" argument is B.S.

I very much beg to differ! I think its been clear since the 5D that Canon is purposely positioning the 5D line to fill other markets, and they are intentionally protecting the market segment for their 1D line. Its not surprising, its expected, and responsible for the company to do that as well. The advanced AF features of the 1D line are incredibly expensive to design, develop, and manufacture. A single high precision diagonal cross-type sensor is no simple feat, and when there are 20, 40, or 60 of them in a system, that definitely increases cost. They need at least one market segment to help fund those advanced features, and the market segment that most needs them is the logical choice.

So yes, I strongly believe that the 5D was NEVER intended for sports. If it was, it would either be much more expensive, or the 1D sales would have disappeared.

Just the way the D700 and D300 and D300s made the D3, D3s and D4 disappear right? Different companies but just saying.

 

[briansquibb]

I would suggest the 1Ds3 AF system - already developed and has 45 points. Works very well

 

[well_dunno]

Hello all,

Even though product crippling is a common way of market segmentation in the markets where there are huge amount of customers and only a few suppliers, it takes only one of the suppliers to "do otherwise" to change the rule of the game. Now DSLR market has an investment piece in it due to the interchangeable lenses which would slow down any change (yes, there are other marketing terms that could be added in favour of the slow down but change it would be nevertheless).

I think we should also keep in mind that Sony and Panasonic have a lot of experience in this kind of markets - probably more than the other players in the DSLR market. I would not be surprised if they are just trying to close the tech gap in different areas and waiting for the "opportune moment" to take the lead. With that in mind, it would make sense for the usual DSLR players to play on the confidence of their customers, basicly, because that confidence might provide some additional time before people change brands and mean survival in the market ultimately.

Thus, I am hopeful about less crippled models in the near future. After all, didn't Canon state they would change the market segmentation this year?

Just my thoughts...

Cheers!

 

[K-amps]

Just the way the D700 and D300 and D300s made the D3, D3s and D4 disappear right? Different companies but just saying.

I would suggest the 1Ds3 AF system - already developed and has 45 points. Works very well

+1 to both.

 

[K-amps]

Thus, I am hopeful about less crippled models in the near future. After all, didn't Canon state they would change the market segmentation this year?

Just my thoughts...

Cheers!

I hope you are right on less crippled models. Like I would not mind a $3.4k body like the 1dx with only life of 200k shutters instead of 400k... heck they could even reduce the fps to 6-7 and AF points form 61 to 30.5

But on a serious note: Do you guys think 4 lines on the APS-C side is a bit too much? Either the xxx or the xx model needs to go.

 

[briansquibb]

Thus, I am hopeful about less crippled models in the near future. After all, didn't Canon state they would change the market segmentation this year?

Just my thoughts...

Cheers!

I hope you are right on less crippled models. Like I would not mind a $3.4k body like the 1dx with only life of 200k shutters instead of 400k... heck they could even reduce the fps to 6-7 and AF points form 61 to 30.5

But on a serious note: Do you guys think 4 lines on the APS-C side is a bit too much? Either the xxx or the xx model needs to go.

Make the 70D replace the 7D
Add a 6D with APS-H with 22mp (for video)
Dump the 7D as an APS-C sensor will be left behind so not be a semi pro camera

 

[waving_odd]

I remember people whined a lot about AF when they were expecting 5D2 to replace the old 5D.

5D2 is still a big blockbuster.

Now people are asking for 7D AF or similar (or even 1Ds3 AF or similar) on 5D3.

I guess there's nothing wrong to be wishful especially in the rumor lands. But don't be too optimistic since Canon is reading consumer behavior quite differently.

 

[tooslick2k]

Is there any reason WHY the 5D3 should NOT have a 7D AF? Everyone is commenting about how we dont need it or how its not a sports camera, but nobody has come out with a good reason it should not receive an already developed AF which is doing a great job; but instead 7D users seem to want canon to develop one that is better than the 5D2 but not as good as the 7D. Everyone has their reasons for selecting their camera, however just cause you really like something thats on yours does not mean it cant be integrated into the next camera up.

Am I wrong?

 

[waving_odd]

People want a Porsche Carrera for the price of a Honda CR-V.

Since the OP is not mentioning the price concern, I guess a closer analogy would be like that people love a Porsche Carrera for its performance (as IQ in case of 5D2) but think it will be more all-around if it can have 4 doors and better comfort for rear passengers (as AF in case of 7D / 1D)

So Porsche makes the Panamera.

And BMW makes a 4-door M3.

That's why I said Canon is reading consumer behavior or market demand differently either on purpose (by marketing analysis) or unintentionally (by ignorance).

 

[briansquibb]

Is there any reason WHY the 5D3 should NOT have a 7D AF?

Because they can have a better one?? 8) 8)

 

[jrista]

Is there any reason WHY the 5D3 should NOT have a 7D AF? Everyone is commenting about how we dont need it or how its not a sports camera, but nobody has come out with a good reason it should not receive an already developed AF which is doing a great job; but instead 7D users seem to want canon to develop one that is better than the 5D2 but not as good as the 7D. Everyone has their reasons for selecting their camera, however just cause you really like something thats on yours does not mean it cant be integrated into the next camera up.

Am I wrong?

For one, the 7D AF is designed for an APS-C sensor, mirror, and viewfinder. I don't believe it would work without modification on a full-frame sensor camera, given point spread and mirror size/design and the like. From what I understand about AF units, they have to be designed for the size of the sensor and mirror unit. Given that, I don't think its quite as simple as simply using an already-designed AF unit from an APS-H or APS-C camera and just stuffing it inside of a 5D. It would take some development effort to develop a 7D-like AF unit for the 5D III to make sure it has the right frame spread, works with the larger 5D mirror, etc. Thats ultimately where my confusion boils down...sure, it would be nice to have 7D AF...for a 5D II price...but they would have to design something 7D-like FOR THE 5D III.

The only other high-speed full-frame AF unit that I know of from Canon is the 1D X unit...so the options are fairly limited... You either develop a new 7D-style 19-point unit for the 5D, or suck in a far more advanced and considerably more expensive model from the 1D X (which would never happen, but for arguments sake). Either way, you increase the cost of the 5D III by a fairly considerable amount.

 

[waving_odd]

The only other high-speed full-frame AF unit that I know of from Canon is the 1D X unit...so the options are fairly limited...

There is the 1Ds III too.

 

[briansquibb]

The only other high-speed full-frame AF unit that I know of from Canon is the 1D X unit...

The 1Ds3 is ff and 21mp and has 45 point AF