The Canon 5D line and AF...

[tooslick2k]

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.

I agree, getting a 1DX AF would NEVER happen. However when the only argument about the 5D2 not being perfect is that it has an outdated AF.

I think if the price went up to account for a 19pt AF in the 5D3, I dont think it would affect anyone from not spending the extra money. After all its what everyone wants.

 

[jrista]

I agree, getting a 1DX AF would NEVER happen. However when the only argument about the 5D2 not being perfect is that it has an outdated AF.

I think if the price went up to account for a 19pt AF in the 5D3, I dont think it would affect anyone from not spending the extra money. After all its what everyone wants.

Possibly. I guess it would depend on how much it affected price. A $3500 5D III is a significant increase over $2500-$2800. If you factor in a new 7D-style AF unit, an improved sensor, and other improvements (fix all the small things people complain about on a regular basis) and some significant improvements to video, maybe its not such a hard sell to most people...

 

[tooslick2k]

I agree, getting a 1DX AF would NEVER happen. However when the only argument about the 5D2 not being perfect is that it has an outdated AF.

I think if the price went up to account for a 19pt AF in the 5D3, I dont think it would affect anyone from not spending the extra money. After all its what everyone wants.

Possibly. I guess it would depend on how much it affected price. A $3500 5D III is a significant increase over $2500-$2800. If you factor in a new 7D-style AF unit, an improved sensor, and other improvements (fix all the small things people complain about on a regular basis) and some significant improvements to video, maybe its not such a hard sell to most people...

haha! could not agree more!

 

[Loswr]

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.

Am I wrong?

Yes and no. There is no technical reason why Canon cannot put a better AF system in the 5DIII, such as the AF system from the 1DsIII, now that it has been supplanted by the 1D X.

But...answer me this - if there's no reason WHY the 5DIII shouldn't have a better AF system, WHY should the 5DII not have gotten a better AF system? There was the 1DsII AF, which had been supplanted by the 1DsIII. Heck, even the original 1Ds AF system was far better than the 5D's, and relatively old by then.

So...WHY not? Market-driven segmentation of the camera lines. Those reasons applied then, and they apply now.

Put another way, Canon is looking at the entire dSLR market as a whole, and seeking the way to extract the maximum amount of revenue from that market with the minimum investment - i.e. the most profit they can make. That's going to result in complaints from many people...but as long as the shareholders are not the ones complaining, Canon can turn a deaf ear to everyone else. You and me included.

 

[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.

Am I wrong?

Yes and no. There is no technical reason why Canon cannot put a better AF system in the 5DIII, such as the AF system from the 1DsIII, now that it has been supplanted by the 1D X.

But...answer me this - if there's no reason WHY the 5DIII shouldn't have a better AF system, WHY should the 5DII not have gotten a better AF system? There was the 1DsII AF, which had been supplanted by the 1DsIII. Heck, even the original 1Ds AF system was far better than the 5D's, and relatively old by then.

So...WHY not? Market-driven segmentation of the camera lines. Those reasons applied then, and they apply now.

Put another way, Canon is looking at the entire dSLR market as a whole, and seeking the way to extract the maximum amount of revenue from that market with the minimum investment - i.e. the most profit they can make. That's going to result in complaints from many people...but as long as the shareholders are not the ones complaining, Canon can turn a deaf ear to everyone else. You and me included.

I figured that back when the 1Ds and 1D lines were still existent they wouldnt want to get all their lines so close together. Now that the lines merged its more practical to give it a much better AF so that the close the gap left by the 1Ds.... sort to speak. But maybe not.

 

[waving_odd]

I think if the price went up to account for a 19pt AF in the 5D3, I dont think it would affect anyone from not spending the extra money. After all its what everyone wants.

Willing or not to spend the extra money is subjective.

A $3500 5D III is a significant increase over $2500-$2800.

Again, significant or not is really subjective.

So...WHY not? Market-driven segmentation of the camera lines.

Bang on.

All of us just plays a small part in the market. Obviously Canon must have done some analysis of what the market wants. A lot of different people with different opinions make up the market. Canon won't satisfy each one of them, but aggregate them. Therefore there are trade-offs (features, prices, availability, competition). And the product with trade-offs is what they announce.

If they sell nicely, their analysis works and they will stick even closer. This might be the case of the 5D line.

If they sell poorly, they will re-work on the next model with different approach on the market analysis.

 

[danski0224]

I would disagree.

I would suspect that there are many people sitting on the fence for a 5DII purchase, waiting for the 5DIII.

If/when the 5DIII comes out, one would assume that there needs to be enough differentiation between the two models to push people to buy the III. People are still buying the 5DI.

If the III is plenty more $$$ than the II, then there needs to be a reason why.

For those that own the II, there needs to be a reason to buy the latest one, unless money isn't part of the decision making process.

Even if the 5DIII is given the 7D AF system, there is still the 1.6 crop thing. I can take pictures with a 7D + 200mm, but I would need at least 320mm with the 5DII. Others have said it before, the 7D is like a really nice teleconverter. Wide angle shots do not look "right" to me on the 7D, so there is the "need" for a full frame. Selling both and replacing both with a single FF body doesn't really work the same. I use my 5DII much more than the 7D, but I see no need to sell it right now (big hit on the used market).

Buying one of those $10k lenses isn't an option for me, either.

So, unless the 5DIII is a game changer, I'm keeping what I have until the next product cycle. I suspect I am not alone. I hope that someone at Canon feels the same.

My 20+ year old film camera works just fine. As a hobbyist, I can't justify $2 to $3k every few years unless there is a *really* big improvement in the product or my wallet.

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.

 

[Loswr]

If/when the 5DIII comes out, one would assume that there needs to be enough differentiation between the two models to push people to buy the III. People are still buying the 5DI.

People aren't buying the 5D from Canon, and Canon makes no profit from 5D sales today. It's not a meaningful factor for them. If they stop producing/selling the 5DII, people won't be on the fence between the models (from Canon's perspective), they will be on the fence about buying the 5DIII or not.

Does the used market cut into sales? Not significantly - principally, only to the extent that people quit photography znd dump their gear onto the market. If, after the 5DII is discontinued and the 5DIII comes out (and judging by other releases, that is the correct order of events), if you decide the 5DIII isn't differentiated enough and just go get a 5DII, odds are you'd be buying it from someone who bought a 5DIII or 1D X - which means Canon still gets some of your money, albeit indirectly.

 

[danski0224]

Maybe we'll all find out in a couple of weeks, eh?

 

[tooslick2k]

People aren't buying the 5D from Canon, and Canon makes no profit from 5D sales today. It's not a meaningful factor for them. If they stop producing/selling the 5DII, people won't be on the fence between the models (from Canon's perspective), they will be on the fence about buying the 5DIII or not.

Does the used market cut into sales? Not significantly - principally, only to the extent that people quit photography znd dump their gear onto the market. If, after the 5DII is discontinued and the 5DIII comes out (and judging by other releases, that is the correct order of events), if you decide the 5DIII isn't differentiated enough and just go get a 5DII, odds are you'd be buying it from someone who bought a 5DIII or 1D X - which means Canon still gets some of your money, albeit indirectly.

+1

I love it when you post things that I want to say saving me the time of having to type it!

 

[jrista]

A $3500 5D III is a significant increase over $2500-$2800.

Again, significant or not is really subjective.

In some sense, yes. However were talking about prices that range from $500 to $7000. There is a finite cap on price when it comes to Canon (or pretty much any brand) DSLR cameras. In that respect, $3500 vs. $2500 is a 40% increase in price, and that is meaningful to more people than its not meaningful to. Subjective, yes, but meaningful.

 

[Maui5150]

As much as Canon makes money selling bodies, they also make a heck of a lot selling lenses, etc.

So while Canon may not "make" money of 5D sales today, they will make money on the person who "upgraded" their body, as well as they will make money from the person who bought they 5D and buys lenses from them.

While some may look at the used market as cutting into sales, it also allows the early adopters to to recycle their gear at a faster and greater rate than they could otherwise.

 

[gmrza]

Yes and no. There is no technical reason why Canon cannot put a better AF system in the 5DIII, such as the AF system from the 1DsIII, now that it has been supplanted by the 1D X.

But...answer me this - if there's no reason WHY the 5DIII shouldn't have a better AF system, WHY should the 5DII not have gotten a better AF system? There was the 1DsII AF, which had been supplanted by the 1DsIII. Heck, even the original 1Ds AF system was far better than the 5D's, and relatively old by then.

So...WHY not? Market-driven segmentation of the camera lines. Those reasons applied then, and they apply now.

Put another way, Canon is looking at the entire dSLR market as a whole, and seeking the way to extract the maximum amount of revenue from that market with the minimum investment - i.e. the most profit they can make. That's going to result in complaints from many people...but as long as the shareholders are not the ones complaining, Canon can turn a deaf ear to everyone else. You and me included.

I think also, when Canon launched the 5DII, it was easy, from a marketing point of view, for Canon to argue that the 5DII had the edge on the D700 in terms of resolution. Canon probably felt that it had enough of an edge having a 21MP sensor, as opposed to the D700's 12.1MP sensor, not to have to worry about developing a new AF system for the 5DII. (My understanding is that the AF system is exactly the same as in the 5D - I stand open to correction however.)

Given the state of play, in terms of sensors, it will probably be much harder for either Canon or Nikon to argue that one of them has a significant edge in terms of IQ of their sensors now. If Nikon does introduce a 36MP D800, and Canon a 22MP 5DIII, in the consumer market (i.e. non-Pro users) Canon will need to find a different way to differentiate the 5DIII. In the semi-pro and pro market, 80% of users may not even care about the difference between 22MP and 36MP - a niche will prefer 36 over 22.
That would be one argument why Canon might not be able to stick with an AF system that harks back to the 5D. Just how much Canon might think it is necessary to improve the AF in the 5DIII, if Canon believes it is necessary, is an entirely different story.

The 5DII is often bought as a kit (with the 24-105 f/4L IS USM) - because it serves as an "entry level" camera for those moving to either serious enthusiast or professional photography. That means it is often purchased by people who do not already have a big investment in EF lenses. For those purchasers, there is no inertia caused by having an existing investment in glass to protect - they buy mainly on the camera specs. That means a direct comparison to whatever Nikon has to offer is a significant factor. Both Canon and Nikon will be looking to get the "overall recipe" right to win those customers - since they have a high probability of investing significantly in lenses in the future. For that reason, I think Canon will need to reconsider the AF system in the 5D series, and do something which comes closer to competing with Nikon, but at the same time still leaving significant differentiation from the 1DX.

 

[K-amps]

As much as Canon makes money selling bodies, they also make a heck of a lot selling lenses, etc.

So while Canon may not "make" money of 5D sales today, they will make money on the person who "upgraded" their body, as well as they will make money from the person who bought they 5D and buys lenses from them.

While some may look at the used market as cutting into sales, it also allows the early adopters to to recycle their gear at a faster and greater rate than they could otherwise.

Well said, they made little money from me on the 5D, but I paid over $4k in lens purchases to dress up the 5D.

EDIT: >4k

 

[unfocused]

Well said, they made little money from me on the 5D, but I paid over $4k in lens purchases to dress up the 5D.

Sadly, if I include Canon strobes, I'm just about there with my 7D. (Don't tell my wife, please.)

 

[bvukich]

Well said, they made little money from me on the 5D, but I paid over $4k in lens purchases to dress up the 5D.

Sadly, if I include Canon strobes, I'm just about there with my 7D. (Don't tell my wife, please.)

Tell her what?

 

[danski0224]

People aren't buying the 5D from Canon, and Canon makes no profit from 5D sales today. It's not a meaningful factor for them. If they stop producing/selling the 5DII, people won't be on the fence between the models (from Canon's perspective), they will be on the fence about buying the 5DIII or not.

Does the used market cut into sales? Not significantly - principally, only to the extent that people quit photography znd dump their gear onto the market. If, after the 5DII is discontinued and the 5DIII comes out (and judging by other releases, that is the correct order of events), if you decide the 5DIII isn't differentiated enough and just go get a 5DII, odds are you'd be buying it from someone who bought a 5DIII or 1D X - which means Canon still gets some of your money, albeit indirectly.

True, and also that "used gear" is good enough for someone.

Good enough to not buy new, if new is an option financially and if the product is available.

 

[AprilForever]

Well said, they made little money from me on the 5D, but I paid over $4k in lens purchases to dress up the 5D.

Sadly, if I include Canon strobes, I'm just about there with my 7D. (Don't tell my wife, please.)

Your secret is safe, mate. 8)

 

[simonxu11]

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.

+1000000000
Cannot believe someone is still saying"5D was Never intended for sports",so anything more than 9 point AF is intended for sports???
Then Nikon d3000, d5000, d80 and d90 are all for sports(11 point AF)
Then Nikon d7000 is for super sports(39 point AF)
Then Nikon d300, d300s, d700, d3, d3s and d4 are for Mega sports(51 point AF)

Most of us are not insanely craving for a 1DX focus system not even the 1Ds Mark III's. We just want something close to the 7D's, isn't that too much for a $2500 camera which Nikon can get it done around $1500?????
Remember this 9 point AF was introduced in 2004 on 20D(if I am not wrong), then Canon used it on 20D-60D, 400D-600D, 5D and 5D Mark II(with certain updates of course, but still the basic is the same).
Don't We Deserve Something Better In 2012 Before THE END OF THE WORLD

Sorry for my poor English, I am a Chinese

 

[necator]

My ideal AF-system

My whish for a ideal AF-System would be:
9 points, all cross-type, all relieably focos on stills, and also in AF-Servo (So to say: 9 times the middle focus point of the current 5D/5DmkII)
Those 9 Points spread out to the thirds.

That would be Ideal for me, even on a 1D. I do not like those high numbers of focus-points, since changing them takes too long (I own also a 1Ds MK II and also only use the center-point, since changing takes to long).