"Two New FF Bodies in 2014" - if 5DM4, would you jump in?

[Loswr]

No, it puts me in a group that is "probably a minority" (your definition) unless you have numbers to show otherwise? Furthermore, there is nothing to say that this group of people are all buying Nikon/Sony. They might have, but they may not. What I argue is that those that do care about IQ/DR haven't bought a 5D3 because it offers them no benefit over the 5D2.

Sure, espouse what ever fallacy you like. I'm sure Canon has such numbers, and for years they've apparently chosen to do nothing to substantially improve low ISO DR. The sales numbers clearly show people buying Canon dSLRs more than any other brand, despite a lack of substantial improvement in low ISO DR.

You're still stating two sophisms: first, that low ISO DR defines IQ - maybe it does for you, but it doesn't for everyone (there's that minority thing, again). Canon has more DR at high ISO, a fact you choose to ignore. Second, you are arguing that 'people who care about IQ/DR' care about that only, to the exclusion of all other aspects of camera performance. A specious argument, at best.

I didn't think even you could be that dilbert-y, but I admit I was wrong about that.

 

[unfocused]

It's all about conversion costs.

Well, Sigma are working towards making it easier with lenses that can be adapted.

You misunderstand. I'm not talking about converting from one camera system to another. I'm talking about converting a potential customer into a paying customer. All companies have to do a cost-benefit analysis to determine if a category of potential customers is worth the cost of converting them into paying customers.

The point is that it isn't cost-effective for Canon to try to convert you. You're just not worth it to them.

Would Canon like for you to buy a 5DIII. Well, in an ideal world yes. But they have to look at what it will take to do that. You take way too long to make a decision, you don't spend very much and after the sale you are likely to be a high maintenance customer.

There's a lot of speculation and comment there with no basis for fact.

Not really. You've been posting on this site for years. More than 2,000 posts. It's pretty easy to sketch your profile.

So, it's basic business sense that it's better to concentrate on customers who want to make a purchase, are going to make that purchase in the near future, are likely to make additional after-sales purchases and are likely to be content with their purchase decisions.

They're called "fan-bois" and will do whatever Canon says and buy whatever Canon makes.

Just more proof of my previous point. To you they are "fan-bois." Canon calls them "loyal customers." What Canon knows is that I will open my wallet for their products. So, what I want in new products is going to carry more weight than trolls who seldom if ever actually purchase Canon products.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Any worthwhile improvement to the 5D would put it in the league of the 1DX and therefore would be a bad idea for Canon.

riiight so they can just keep selling the 5D3 forever while everyone else moves on just to protect the old 1DX. great way to go out of business. that would be too conservative and internal segment protecting even for them.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Funny that not too many people speak about Improved DR,

Now you have it ... see the above post from M.S.T ;D

It was top of my list.

mine too, funny how it was on the top of half the posts that guy posted

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Or people like me that care about DR and IQ just haven't bought a 5D3 because it doesn't add any value over the 5D2 ...

People like you...who are in the minority. :

And you know this because...?

Because Nikon/Sony sensors have had better low ISO DR than Canon sensors for several years/camera generations now, and Canon continued to outsell Nikon during those years...and is still doing so today. Clearly, the majority of consumers are making buying decisions where low ISO DR isn't the priority.

or maybe it's not so simple as that?

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

I don't really need better high ISO performance. Lifting shadows could work better for low ISO shots. The D800 works nicely with bright backgrounds, whereas with 5D3 you choose to get the background or the subjects in front of it.

... or use Magic Lantern's dual_iso module to lift the dr of iso 100 to 14ev+ which solves exactly the situation you described.

it also has various problematic issues along with loss of resolution so it's not the greatest solution

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

hope the 5D4 gets 4 k video and native raw video mode , if it gets that , I will get it.

Canon already said they don't believe RAW video should be on lower end cameras (relative to their Cinema range) so no Canon endorsed RAW video for you, especially not 4K.

maybe they can still wake up though, if they read the forums, especially the video ones

but they are probably too conservative and would rather play it the old way than keep charging forward with their past and future potential golden goose

 

[wayno]

Or people like me that care about DR and IQ just haven't bought a 5D3 because it doesn't add any value over the 5D2 ...

People like you...who are in the minority. :

And you know this because...?

Because Nikon/Sony sensors have had better low ISO DR than Canon sensors for several years/camera generations now, and Canon continued to outsell Nikon during those years...and is still doing so today. Clearly, the majority of consumers are making buying decisions where low ISO DR isn't the priority.

For a scientist, you either have very poor English comprehension skills or you just like to troll because you and I both know that your paragraph above has nothing to do with what I said to which you said I was in the minority.

In fact, you either have very poor metacognition or you just like to insult people (or perhaps both).

My statement has quite a bit to do with yours, considering your entire statement and not just the first clause. I'd say a large majority of dSLR users care about IQ. I'd also say that a majority of dSLR users care about DR (at least, a majority of those who know what DR is...but frankly, that's probably a minority of dSLR users).

But...you state that since the 5DIII does not improve on the (low ISO) IQ or (low ISO) DR of the 5DII (which are already very good, just not the best available), it adds no value. Since the 5DIII improves upon the 5DII in nearly every other way (AF, fps, build, card slots, etc.), that indicates that the only aspect of camera performance you care about is low ISO IQ/DR, and that puts you squarely in the minority.

No, it puts me in a group that is "probably a minority" (your definition) unless you have numbers to show otherwise? Furthermore, there is nothing to say that this group of people are all buying Nikon/Sony. They might have, but they may not. What I argue is that those that do care about IQ/DR haven't bought a 5D3 because it offers them no benefit over the 5D2. A better question to ask is what percentage of 5D2 owners haven't bought a 5D3 and if so, is it because of this. Maybe it is time for a new poll...

I resisted buying a 5d3 for ages based on the IQ/DR argument. And I maintain the 5d3 is no better: in fact, I think the 5d2 has fractionally more image 'oomph' but I could well be subjectively skewed. That said, the 5d3 is a lot better practically in terms of usability than the 5d2. And then there's the better AF which ultimate leads to better images anyway...

 

[alexanderferdinand]

My wishlist is not long:
a faster SD- interface or double CF.
and an increase of the buffer size. 6 or 7 with RAW + jpeg is a joke.
combined with the slow SD a real PITA.

 

[Marsu42]

it also has various problematic issues along with loss of resolution so it's not the greatest solution

No, I hope I didn't imply that - of course 14ev native dr would be 1000% preferable. The issues with dual_iso are loss of resolution in far highlights and shadows (where only one interlaced line covers it), you need to set the wb manually and you need to run an utility on every dual_iso shot... but that's about it.

Still, much more preferable than clipped highlights, noisy shadows w/o resolution or extreme postprocessing hassle (single-image hdr), I'm extremely happy dual_iso is around because I like to shoot back-lit scenes.

 

[Niki]

maybe just a few firmware updates…turning the 5d3 into a 5d4

 

[Loswr]

On the topic of image sharpness as a result of using autofocus, if the testing from dpreview is anything to go by then the AF in the 70D (using the dual-pixel thing) is better again than that in the 5D3 and that using live-view mode on either the 5D2 or 5D3 is better than traditional AF.

Again you intentionally miss the point, or fail to comprehend it. CDAF on a dSLR can't even keep up with a bride wedding-marching slowly down the aisle, much less any real action. PDAF on the 5DIII is vastly superior to the 5DII.

But I guess DRones don't shoot anything that moves very fast and/or always shoot at the hyperfocal distance, since you've already said you believe the AF improvements are irrelevant.

Then there are very few "loyal customers" as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that upgrades with every iteration from a manufacturer like "fan-bois" posting on the 'net do.

Then there are very few people who "believe low ISO DR is the only important feature" of a dSLR as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that makes camera choices based solely on low ISO DR like the "DRones" posting on the 'net do.

 

[Traktor]

I can't help but feel that Canon have targetted the Wedding photographer specifically with the 5D3. For weddings, 22 megapixels is enough for PQ without having massive files that take up storage, like with the D800. Six frames per second vs 4 from a D800 and a better autofocus will give more usable shots. This is the feedback I've heard from a couple of guys.

Unfortunately I do mainly landscapes, so haven't seen a reason to upgrade from my 5D2 bought in 2009. I don't believe that Canon will upgrade the 5D line next year, but I do think there is room for a high resolution camera with another stop of DR, a lower frame rate and maybe the 19 point AF system from the lower spec cameras.
The 5D3 would be weddings/events, the 1DX for rugged/sports/outdoors and another line for landscapes/studio work? I can only hope.

I am certainly very envious of the Sony/Nikon sensor, particularly with what can be done with the shadows - it really is astonishing. I am very close to ordering an A7R, especially as they are offering a free metabones adapter in Australia. That Sony sensor matched with the Canon TSE lenses would be a dream!

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

On the topic of image sharpness as a result of using autofocus, if the testing from dpreview is anything to go by then the AF in the 70D (using the dual-pixel thing) is better again than that in the 5D3 and that using live-view mode on either the 5D2 or 5D3 is better than traditional AF.

Again you intentionally miss the point, or fail to comprehend it. CDAF on a dSLR can't even keep up with a bride wedding-marching slowly down the aisle, much less any real action. PDAF on the 5DIII is vastly superior to the 5DII.

But I guess DRones don't shoot anything that moves very fast and/or always shoot at the hyperfocal distance, since you've already said you believe the AF improvements are irrelevant.

Then there are very few "loyal customers" as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that upgrades with every iteration from a manufacturer like "fan-bois" posting on the 'net do.

Then there are very few people who "believe low ISO DR is the only important feature" of a dSLR as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that makes camera choices based solely on low ISO DR like the "DRones" posting on the 'net do.

The thing is that if it had stayed Canon with the crippled bodies and best sensors then you'd be going on about the AF/body performance drones and telling everyone what a joke they are because obviously it's the sensor that counts since this is photography.

 

[Loswr]

The thing is that if it had stayed Canon with the crippled bodies and best sensors then you'd be going on about the AF/body performance drones and telling everyone what a joke they are because obviously it's the sensor that counts since this is photography.

The thing is that you don't know what the heck you're talking about, but I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth, especially since it only serves to make you look foolish.

My point has consistently been than what matters is camera system performance - sensor + AF + frame rate/buffer + lenses + flashes + ergonomics and operability + etc. Viewed in that light, I find it completely unsurprising that Canon has dominated the market and continues to do so.

Nice to see you finally acknowledge that, sensor notwithstanding, Nikon and Sony bodies are crippled. Apologies if I've misrepresented your opinion as blatantly and egregiously as you did mine. :

 

[jrista]

On the topic of image sharpness as a result of using autofocus, if the testing from dpreview is anything to go by then the AF in the 70D (using the dual-pixel thing) is better again than that in the 5D3 and that using live-view mode on either the 5D2 or 5D3 is better than traditional AF.

Again you intentionally miss the point, or fail to comprehend it. CDAF on a dSLR can't even keep up with a bride wedding-marching slowly down the aisle, much less any real action. PDAF on the 5DIII is vastly superior to the 5DII.

But I guess DRones don't shoot anything that moves very fast and/or always shoot at the hyperfocal distance, since you've already said you believe the AF improvements are irrelevant.

Then there are very few "loyal customers" as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that upgrades with every iteration from a manufacturer like "fan-bois" posting on the 'net do.

Then there are very few people who "believe low ISO DR is the only important feature" of a dSLR as outside of the Internet, I don't know or see anyone that makes camera choices based solely on low ISO DR like the "DRones" posting on the 'net do.

The thing is that if it had stayed Canon with the crippled bodies and best sensors then you'd be going on about the AF/body performance drones and telling everyone what a joke they are because obviously it's the sensor that counts since this is photography.

The argument Neuro is making is that sensor is not the sole, nor necessarily most important, thing that "counts" for photography. The argument Neuro (and myself) have often made is that other components matter more than the sensor for a majority of forms of photography. AF system, for example, often along with frame rate, are frequently the single most important things that count for IQ in a very broad range of types of photography...I mean, in anything that involves action, it doesn't matter if you have 12 stops or 14 stops of DR...if you can't nail focus, nail it perfectly, and nail it every time, then the most significant upgrade you could make would be to a camera with a better AF system.

That is most certainly NOT to say that more DR is meaningless. Of course not. DR is always useful in the circumstances where you can benefit from it. I personally can't wait for Canon to release a camera with improved low ISO read noise and more megapixels, because as far as I am concerned, when it comes to my landscape photography, sensor IS the single most important thing, and I always manually focus for it. But landscape photography accounts for a relatively small fraction of photography in general...sports and other forms of action photography, wedding photography, portrait/studio photography account for a much more significant portion of photography where nailing focus, as perfectly as possible as often as possible, is really the single most important thing. More DR is useful, more megapixels are useful, but focus...focus is truly essential.

It isn't like this argument hasn't been made clearly in the past, either. It is a relatively simple point, one that is difficult to misinterpret, but one that seems to be frequently twisted and misrepresented. Sure, DR is useful, megapixels are useful, we always want more...but they are more often than not not the most important thing to producing the best image quality. In this respect, Canon has served their customers well, and delivered on exactly what their customers asked for. As a result, Canon's business has continued to thrive, because, far short of making a crappy or inferior product...they make a phenomenal product that is superior in almost every respect.

 

[jrista]

The ONLY thing I'd really want is a faster SD card slot.

I'd personally prefer the SD card slot be dumped for a second CF card slot. Mixing and matching card types has always seemed like a bad idea to me. Either go with both SD, and the fastest and latest version at that...or go with both CF (and preferably the latest and fastest version of that, like CFast 2.0).

 

[jrista]

Funny that not too many people speak about Improved DR, while the fierce D800 vs 5D3 discussions and the numerous DxO mark discussions always claim Canon has much worse DR compared to competition. I may not be too bad after all

Or people like me that care about DR and IQ just haven't bought a 5D3 because it doesn't add any value over the 5D2 ...

If we look at just the RAW sensor IQ, the 5D III is most definitely an improvement over the 5D II. I created this GIF out of Roger Clark's (of clarkvision.com) 5D II and 5D III noise tests:

(See full size here: http://i.imgur.com/Upt5Qhi.gif)

There are several improvements in IQ with the 5D III over the 5D II:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Far less vertical and horizontal banding (horizontal effectively eliminated)
[*]More natural random grain look thanks to less hatching
[*]Less "popcorn noise", as there are fewer hot pixels, especially at higher ISO
[*]ISO 6400 on the 5D II is no better than ISO 1600, there is CLEARLY an improvement on the 5D III
[*]Total noise from ISO 400 onward has dropped relative to the 5D II
[/list]



You can also see, from the comparison in this link, that the 5D III exhibits practically ZERO color noise at higher ISO, where as the 5D II was riddled with it:

http://bydawnlight.zenfolio.com/p470233883/h4F3F6310#h4f3f6310

So, sorry, but the visual evidence says otherwise...there IS an IQ improvement between the 5D II and 5D III, in many ways a significant improvement. Combine the improved IQ with the vastly improved AF system and faster frame rate, and the 5D III is a very worthwhile upgrade.

 

[Ellen Schmidtee]

A big enough subjset of:

* Improved AF, e.g. illuminated AF points & improved coverage.

* Improved IQ, e.g. in high ISO performance.

* Built in RT transmitter.

* GPS.


Bonus:

* Interchangeable focusing screens, compatible with the 5Dmk2's focusing screens..

* Faster SD slot, supporting UHS-1.


What would set me off is:

* A new 5D is plenty expensive, I don't want to spend more on new batteries and new memory cards.

* >24MP. I don't really need more than that, extra pixels come with a price, esp in lenses that can actually sharp enough. I'll have to save for a while to upgrade to the 5DmkIV, the only way I'll buy a Zeiss Otus 55mm f/1.4 is if I win the lottery.

 

[Marsu42]

So, sorry, but the visual evidence says otherwise...there IS an IQ improvement between the 5D II and 5D III, in many ways a significant improvement.

Thanks for doing these gifs, it's interesting and I think I can spot the 5d2's banding - but maybe I'm just looking for it.

Having said that, *significant* in a non-scientific context is very subjective, as far as I remember the context then was the horrendous price jump to $3500 that caught many people off guard and created higher expectations towards the sensor than Canon currently can (you'd probably say: wants to) deliver.

What doesn't show up in the gif and what I have to admit I'm guilty of underestimating: The newer ff sensors react *much* better to postprocessing either in nr or sharpening, multiplying the seemingly moderate step up in noise pattern. Esp. with DxO's prime nr it's stunning how iso 6400 looks on the 6d, if only it wouldn't take my laptop 30 minutes to denoise a single picture ...