Will Canon Answer the D4s? [CR2]
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
CarlTN said:
The 1Dx doesn't need replacing yet. It's still as fresh as the day it was anounced. The 5DIII is in the same situation really, it has no direct rival. I think that Canon could easily build a high mega pixel camera around a 5DIII body and call it something like a 5Dx and I'm sure it'll sell and sell. There really is no need in putting this sensor into a 1D series camera body.
Upvote
0
GMCPhotographics
Canon Rumors Premium
But a camera isn't judged by IQ alone...it's just one feature. The 5DIII is a very rounded camera and probably the most versatile currently available. But there's a die hard group who only want the very top tier IQ, with the rest of the camera lacking...ie 5D / 5DII.
Upvote
0
The 5D 3 really is nothing more than a 5D 2 with - at long last - a decent af-system in it. Hardly any improvement in IQ and resolution. Blatant lack of connectivity (not even wifi which canon manages to put into any 200 dollar powershot). It should really have been called 5D 2N.
The 5D 3 is really dated in every respect.
By now i've lost interest in the 5d line and bulky dslrs. Just waiting until a really good ff milc comes to market. Af issues in mirrorless are getting ironed out. The fuji xt1 seems to be tracking moving subjects @ 8 fps. Soon enough decent af performance will also be available in ff-sensored mirrorless cams. Looking forward to it. Sony A8R could already be the real winner.
The 5D 3 is really dated in every respect.
By now i've lost interest in the 5d line and bulky dslrs. Just waiting until a really good ff milc comes to market. Af issues in mirrorless are getting ironed out. The fuji xt1 seems to be tracking moving subjects @ 8 fps. Soon enough decent af performance will also be available in ff-sensored mirrorless cams. Looking forward to it. Sony A8R could already be the real winner.
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
AvTvM said:
The 5DII delivered excellent IQ and resolution, the only real lacking features were AF performance and perhaps frame rate. The 5DIII dramatically improved AF and also improved fps, weather sealing, etc.
AvTvM said:
Sure, that's why it's selling so poorly, and all those 'modern' cameras in that class are outselling it. Except...they're not.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
You REALLY don't know what the 5D III is, man. The 5D III was a complete and total overhaul of the 5D II. New body, better sealing, RADICALLY improved AF, improved metering, significantly bumped frame rate, improved ergonomics, etc. etc.
Use of wireless options like WiFi and GPS requires punching holes in the magnesium body...something that compromises ruggedness and sealing. So it isn't a cut and dry point there, and I would suspect that currently, more pros prefer to have the rugged body and sealing rather than the WiFi (otherwise, Canon would have stuffed a WiFi chip in it already.)
The 5D III is current and advanced in EVERY respect EXCEPT the image sensor. Get your facts strait, bub!
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
So a 2012 camera is dated in every respect because some non-existing future camera might have decent autofocus performance?
With that kind of logic your opinion is irrelevant in every way because some non-existing future opinion might have decent intellectual performance.
I'm looking forward to it. ;-P
Upvote
0
Love it!neuroanatomist said:jrista said:
Facts, meet dilbert and AvTvM. AvTvM and dilbert, this is Facts.
There, I've made the introductions. Maybe they'll get to know each other, and even become friends.
Fun thing is the fact that some now have started to bash the 5DIII for its lack of connectivity. That's a new one. It used to be the other stuff that I don't care to mention as we all know what they are.
I have my 5DIII almost since introduction and it's still awesome.
Upvote
0
Wifi is such a cheap feature to implement and it does not compromise wheathersealing or structural stability of a camera at all. those, who dont need it, can switch it off.
And it is not for the facebook / instagram crowd, since they will not bother lugging around a big old mirrorslapper. It is for those photograühers who have to shell out 300 bucks for cam ranger - simply because canon refuses to put a 5 dollar wifi chip + antenna into a 2012 camera for 3 grand.
Luckily its getting cheaper to make up for canons marketing differentiation ploys ...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19342.msg363433;topicseen#new
And it is not for the facebook / instagram crowd, since they will not bother lugging around a big old mirrorslapper. It is for those photograühers who have to shell out 300 bucks for cam ranger - simply because canon refuses to put a 5 dollar wifi chip + antenna into a 2012 camera for 3 grand.
Luckily its getting cheaper to make up for canons marketing differentiation ploys ...
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=19342.msg363433;topicseen#new
Upvote
0
F
flowers
Guest
AvTvM said:
Maybe because there are Canon shooters that would rather pay the $300 extra to NOT have wi-fi than to have it? You can count me as one! If you need wi-fi just transfer the images onto your laptop or tablet in the field and use the wi-fi of those devices!
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
I think you are gravely underestimating the cost of adding WiFi. It isn't simply some chip you just buy and stuff into the camera. It has to be integrated into the camera! It requires changes to the body design to ensure the signal can get through without requiring that the user point a specific part of the body directly at a wifi access point and without encountering interference issues (all while still complying with FCC regulations regarding RF and all that!), it requires specific design changes to integrate it into the main boards along with all the other far more critical electronics, it requires updates to firmware to ensure it can be controlled and configured appropriately, etc. Adding WiFi to a camera isn't just a "simple" $5 cost...there is the part cost, as well as the increase in manufacturing cost of the whole camera, as well as increases to firmware development and testing costs, as well as increases to testing costs (testing WiFi would be somewhat time consuming...having to enter in access point information, let it connect (and twiddle your thumbs while it does), make sure information can be transferred reliably, rinse & repeat for verification, then finally ship it. All that stuff, all those various stages of a lengthy design, manufacture, assembly and testing pipeline, add cost! Adding WiFi costs more than $5.
This is a common mistake with people asking for new features in software & web development: "Oh, but it's 'just' an extra menu item!" or "Oh, but it's 'just' an extra button!" No! It's NEVER just an extra menu item or an extra button! You have to plan for the new menu item, make sure it fits into the design of the application or web site, you have to add the additional UI code and styling, then you have to add code to make it function, then you have to TEST that code, then you have to redeploy the application. Nothing is ever "just" as simple as a clever individual can whittle things down and make them seem. (As a software developer of over 15 years, I swear that every company I've ever worked for carefully hired people who had special training in the art of VASTLY OVERSIMPLIFYING to decide what features were necessary for the ridiculously overcomplicated products they wanted to develop... :
)NOTHING is as simple as it "sounds". EVERYTHING is more complex when you factor in the reality of its design, development, and integration into a complete product.
You also seem to forget that TODAY, wifi and gps are becoming more common in most portable consumer devices...but that research and design on the 5D III probably started not long after the 5D II was released! That was a long time ago. It takes a long time to design new technology, and design it as well as Canon designed the 5D III and 1D X. As subtle as some of it may seem (and really, that's to Canon's credit!), there was quite a lot of new technology in those two cameras. It was probably in prototype stage a good year or so before it was released, and it was released a couple of years ago now. The 5D III is older than the 6D, which really did not need all that much R&D in the first place, as it is basically a glorified 5D II with a newer sensor, and GPS & WiFi.
It's naive to bash on the 5D III, which required some significant redesign, much of which was probably done alongside design for the 1D X (as it inherited much of the 1D X's functionality), as some radically inferior product just because it doesn't have WiFi. In all the years I've done photography and moderated photo.stackexchange.com, or for that matter all the years I've been reading CR...WiFi NEVER even came up as the most important thing that Canon just HAD to add to the 5D III. I don't even think it was on anyone's radar to even request in the first place...certainly not before the 6D anyway. The things people were asking for with the 5D III were less noise, and better AF. Well, we got a hell of a lot less noise at high ISO with the 5D III, and the AF is mindblowingly good when compared to the 5D II AF system. Given that, Canon delivered exactly what their customers asked them to deliver...
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
And how many DSLRs that came out before the 5D 3 had wifi? Into a bit of revisionist history, aren't you?
Upvote
0
jrista said:
JRista, I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you may be overstating the complexity. The reason it needs so much advance planning is likely due to the internal space constraints of SLRs. We know it's not "hard" because P&S and lower-end SLRs have it. The magnesium body, even on a 1DX is not 100% coverage: you could sneak a wire through that and put the antenna outside the magnesium, e.g. under the rubber grip material or on the prism bump. Hey, why not shoot for the moon and integrate WiFi, GPS and radio flash control in all future xD and xxD models! Of course it must be integrated, and it's probably more than $5 total cost per unit, but I'd have a hard time believing it's more than $25 per unit. Seriously, if Eye-Fi can put WiFi in an SD card, it shouldn't be that difficult. Any future SLR, even the next 1-series, really ought to have WiFi and GPS, even though they're not features I crave.
Upvote
0
Jrista is big enough to answer on his own, but I still like to fill in. Obviously it's not too complicated for Canon as they've done it in several models already. But not until after the 5DIII which was probably delayed so it was probably never planned for that. I think there's a parallell here to when first network cards and then wifi cards started to make their way into PCs. It took a few years before it was considered to be standard. Eventually it will be considered standard in all cameras too.Orangutan said:jrista said:
JRista, I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you may be overstating the complexity. The reason it needs so much advance planning is likely due to the internal space constraints of SLRs. We know it's not "hard" because P&S and lower-end SLRs have it. The magnesium body, even on a 1DX is not 100% coverage: you could sneak a wire through that and put the antenna outside the magnesium, e.g. under the rubber grip material or on the prism bump. Hey, why not shoot for the moon and integrate WiFi, GPS and radio flash control in all future xD and xxD models! Of course it must be integrated, and it's probably more than $5 total cost per unit, but I'd have a hard time believing it's more than $25 per unit. Seriously, if Eye-Fi can put WiFi in an SD card, it shouldn't be that difficult. Any future SLR, even the next 1-series, really ought to have WiFi and GPS, even though they're not features I crave.
But the new argument against the 5DIII not having wifi is simply desperate. Why spend years on an internet forum taking aim at one of the obviously greatest cameras ever produced?
Upvote
0
Orangutan said:jrista said:
JRista, I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you may be overstating the complexity. The reason it needs so much advance planning is likely due to the internal space constraints of SLRs. We know it's not "hard" because P&S and lower-end SLRs have it. The magnesium body, even on a 1DX is not 100% coverage: you could sneak a wire through that and put the antenna outside the magnesium, e.g. under the rubber grip material or on the prism bump. Hey, why not shoot for the moon and integrate WiFi, GPS and radio flash control in all future xD and xxD models! Of course it must be integrated, and it's probably more than $5 total cost per unit, but I'd have a hard time believing it's more than $25 per unit. Seriously, if Eye-Fi can put WiFi in an SD card, it shouldn't be that difficult. Any future SLR, even the next 1-series, really ought to have WiFi and GPS, even though they're not features I crave.
In terms of per-unit manufacturing cost, sure, I wouldn't expect it to be much more than that either. My point is you don't just drop in a wifi chip and be done with it. You have to design the camera with all these various factors in mind from the getgo, and for each additional feature you add, like WiFi, and GPS, etc. you increase the overall complexity of the product as a whole. The up-front R&D cost increases, the prototyping/testing phase increases, and the extra money spent on R&D has to be recouped somehow. So, maybe you do only have $25 in additional manufacturing costs...but the extra costs in R&D ultimately weigh on the final product price. Everyone complained about the $3400 list price of the 5D III when it first hit...but it really isn't surprising. A hell of a lot of thought and engineering went into making it (more so than the D800...Nikon farmed out the sensor to a third party, and based on the rash of complaints about ergos/button layout apparently really didn't put as much thought or money into layout as Canon did), and the price reflected that.
All I am saying is, the design and construction of complex devices like the 5D III tend to be much more complex than people inevitably reduce them to. Maybe it is just a natural trait of humanity, to greatly simplify things in their minds. Regardless, there is more to including WiFi in a new camera design like the 5D III than simply slapping a chip on a board somewhere and threading an antenna through a hole somewhere. It isn't just $5, it isn't just $25...it's part of a much more complex process involving years and dozens if not hundreds of people working thousands of man hours to research, design, and build the whole entire camera...and every single feature adds another order of complexity.
Upvote
0
AvTvM said:
Owner of a 6d and a 5d3 here. In regards to wifi ---when i got the 6d I thought the wifi was kind of neat. I used it here and there (via the remote app). It took taking selfies to a new level! that, and every once in a while, like on vacation or something I'd use the remote transfer app to upload something to facebook. LOL...other than that, I have barely used the wifi. It has stayed in the off mode for like 98% of the time I have had the body.
Upvote
0
Arctic Photo said:Jrista is big enough to answer on his own, but I still like to fill in. Obviously it's not too complicated for Canon as they've done it in several models already. But not until after the 5DIII which was probably delayed so it was probably never planned for that. I think there's a parallell here to when first network cards and then wifi cards started to make their way into PCs. It took a few years before it was considered to be standard. Eventually it will be considered standard in all cameras too.Orangutan said:jrista said:
JRista, I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you may be overstating the complexity. The reason it needs so much advance planning is likely due to the internal space constraints of SLRs. We know it's not "hard" because P&S and lower-end SLRs have it. The magnesium body, even on a 1DX is not 100% coverage: you could sneak a wire through that and put the antenna outside the magnesium, e.g. under the rubber grip material or on the prism bump. Hey, why not shoot for the moon and integrate WiFi, GPS and radio flash control in all future xD and xxD models! Of course it must be integrated, and it's probably more than $5 total cost per unit, but I'd have a hard time believing it's more than $25 per unit. Seriously, if Eye-Fi can put WiFi in an SD card, it shouldn't be that difficult. Any future SLR, even the next 1-series, really ought to have WiFi and GPS, even though they're not features I crave.
But the new argument against the 5DIII not having wifi is simply desperate. Why spend years on an internet forum taking aim at one of the obviously greatest cameras ever produced?
+1
5d m3 is a great camera…best purchase
Upvote
0
Similar threads
