A 21 MP 5DII, I can see it now - forums filled with cries of 'soft' images from folks slapping their xxxx L zoom on their new baby and wondering where the hell the resolution went.
21MP in a 5D replacement would make a lot of sense. No pro AF or weather sealing to compete with the 1Ds III. Not enough frames per second to compete with the 1D III or its replacement (which will likely be a lower MP full frame model). It would also compete well with the D700 without the need for pro AF or weather sealing.
If they skinny-out the AA filter, etc, etc it might work. What I am assuming is that we will see the current tech as per the 1Ds3. Given that C and N seem emotionally attached to AA filters, my expectations aren't high.
So far the 50D doesn't look like they've reacted (or had time to react) as many would have hoped (e.g. radically) to the 'new' Nikon.
I do think they need to be a tad careful releasing a vastly new & improved 21MP sensor at a pro-sumer price to soon after the 1Ds3. I don't think a lot of natives would take that well ;> This is of course assuming it's a 21MP sensor in the first place...
That said, ya never know. And, as you say, it will take months before we know if the various packages work as advertised - and within what limits.
Last edited by robmac; 26th August 2008 at 06:22.
Canon makes the 1 series for pros, and most working pros already own the latest 1's. While the market is not saturated, it is likely 90% of the folks who were ever going to buy a new one already have. Thus, the delayed release of the new 5 makes sense; fill the pipeline with the runner-up...
However, Canon arrogance finally bit them in the butt --- the mistake they made was waiting too long, as they have clearly lost a significant share of the market to Nikon, a share they will have a tough time recovering unless the new 5D is something spectacular in terms of ISO, AA filter and improved IQ...
Personally I waited so am not affected, and will go with the new 5D regardless simply because the lenses both mount and manual-focus in the correct direction. In 25 years of shooting Nikon, I *never* really overcame those two issues... My dyslexic right-brain I guess.
PS: My bet is on 18MP or thereabouts, being less than 20 for marketing reasons against the 1DS3. The practical difference in 18 and 22 on full-frame DSLR is going to be insignificant since few lenses are good enough anyway...
I guess you're right.
I find it fascinating that Canon set so much store of making sure that a camera doesn't compete with it's bigger brother (no weather sealing on the 50D for instance).
Nikon on the other hand really do seem to bring out the best camera they can for the money. I think that's probably where they have done so well in the last year.
The focusing issue is interesting - I hear what you say, but maybe us brits are so used to having to swap everything around everytime we drive in another country - it seems to me like very much the same sort of transition.
Just this guy you know
Of course with that much resolution you run into serious diffraction issues. Might be worth keeping at least one of my original 5D's just for when I have to stop down past f11!
Again, this may or may not be the case. With the past and existing sensors and how they were configured with different microlenses, we could see diffraction limits kicking in, especially with overaggressive AA filters. If Canon, and this is a big if, went to a newer sensor design (like placing the electronics beneath the photosites rather than inside as most CMOS sensors are built), and if the microlenses are reconfigured to better match the photosites on the sensors, it may be very possible to reduce some of those diffraction issues the kick in hard on some smaller pixel sensors now.
Until we start to see actual results, it may be premature to dismiss what this newer camera may or may not be able to do. I am not being a fanboy or anything like that here, as that is not my nature by a long shot. I just think that folks may want to hold judgment and decisions a bit longer until they actually see what some of the newer tech really is able to deliver. It may not amount to anything different, or it could be a very significant improvement that starts to rewrite some of our "rules" about how capable some things may be. My first inclination is to agree that diffraction could become a player, but I am not convinced it will be until we start to see actual shots. Even on the MF side of things where they have a lot more sensor real estate to work with, pixels are getting smaller, and IQ is not getting worse.
Despite all the well deserved fanfare over the recent Nikon releases, I have not sold my R to EOS adapters or my C/Y to EOS adapters yet!
For example, a typical zoom might be diffraction limited at f/8. The Canon 5D user won't notice the diffraction effects until f/16, whereas a 1Ds III user will notice detail loss at f/11 only because they had the higher detail to begin with! At the higher f-numbers, one loses some of the resolution advantage of the smaller pixel pitch, but at no point does it become a resolution disadvantage.
Last edited by asabet; 26th August 2008 at 12:41.
Agree that sensor tech will obviously keep moving fwd to try and squeeze the best balance of resolution vs noise vs DR, etc on a given chunk of sensor real estate.
That said, I do wish C would spend more effort improving the non-sensor aspects of their DSLRs (ergonomics, switchology, ease of MLU, customizable function buttons, etc) - and on their shorter glass (and QC of same).
That said, when you look at where the AVERAGE customer apparently puts THEIR priorities (a.k.a. $$$): ever more MP on same sensor (even though never need them) + noise-free, flash-free, images of black cats in coal cellars at midnight using wide-range IS zooms, one could also argue they are focused where they should be - from a sales perspective.
Last edited by robmac; 27th August 2008 at 04:27.
I agree, but how hard would it be to offer a firmware hack that allowed us to use the print button as a user programmed button? I've never met a single person to have used the print button, nor read of it in consumer forums, flickr groups, etc. Sure I'm probably missing something, but literally hundreds of people ask for it to be programable as MLU.
I'm thinking (hoping) that between Photokina and the show in Feb. '09 that Canon will shake off the fog and step up on several issues.
I have to agree with you here. My personal thoughts about why Canon is so brickheaded about the "Print" button go to some odd internal agreement within the company or something between the printer division and the camera division. All of the cameras have or get this button that I have yet to see anybody outside of a Canon printer commercial use.
If they insist on its presence, then offer the user programable option for another button, or just put a new button on just for that purpose so folks could program it to MLU, or whatever else they wanted/needed that could be programmed.
Here is what I've heard...
Canon EOS 7D
16-21MP FF sensor
9-point AF (all cross-type)
Also shoots HD video!
1.5 stops improvement in noise over 5D
All the other "goodies" from the 50D (new LCD, live-view modes, micro AF adjustments, etc)
I believe we'll see this camera announced on Tuesday, September 16th.
I hear that Canon also has another D-SLR to be announced this fall. I don't think it's a 1-series, but don't know any more details.
Sony A99, RX1, RX100
The DP button on the 50 can be programmed, but if they weren't so $%^ idiotic, you could be programmed (in combo with a second key press) for more than 1 function. It's progress, but that has to be the least used button in Canon camera history. Still don't think it can be used for MLU, though I think you cna move MLU further up the menus stack.
5DII -- Sounds like they're using the gapless micro lenses. Will be interesting to see what they do re: the AA filter. As for the AF system - we'll have to see.
Sidebar: Jono --- *LOVE* the "Strawberry Moose" avatar!!!
Hope your specs and dates are right. With respect to the HD movies.....if true, let's hope they get it a bit more right than Nikon with the D90, with respect to frame rate and audio capture (stereo mics, or at least a stereo jack). I really do NOT expect that, but it would be a definite nice touch. This is a high end still camera, so that SHOULD be the focus, and not try to do everything with respect to movies. However, folks are picking up things like the Canon S5 and using that, since it takes very nice stills, and is able to record very good quality video with stereo sound, all in a more modest package and price range. Not 35mm FF image capture for sure, but a nice mix of still and good video for casual use.
While it is interesting to see the melding of the two media (still and video) into one device, and as some predict, that may become the way of the future, personally, I am happy carry two separate devices that each does a great job, rather than one device that does two "O.K." jobs. Just my opinion. (I have found that it takes a completely different "headset" to shoot each, and combining them into a single device, though convenient, does not really change the capture/composition planning and such. The RED camera can do an outstanding job on the video while each frame is usable as a good still also, but at a huge cost. At the prices we are quibbling over for DSLRs, we should not be expecting that same sort of capability for a long time to come.)
Just spoke to one of the engineers ( his a mate and client of mine ) of the upcoming 3d & 7d's ( the 5d replacements ) he said they will look into adding HD video to the next generation.. ie: way too late now to add a major feature like this to the units pitty as I had a whole list of 'must haves' I wanted added to the video feature.. and the res is about 16mps. just relax for another two weeks okays.
Interesting that you are using plural replacements. That's one thing that might be a surprise.
Interesting, the interest in video in a mid to upper-range DSLR... I guess I'm really out of the loop. I would cheerfully forfeit any video feature and add $500 or more to get a camera with better design and engineering details for still photography. If I want VDO I'll buy a competent VDO camera. I really am at a loss to understand this direction. On an entry level/mid-consumer camera... okay, but on a $3,000 or higher still camera? Please, give me weather sealing, MLU, fantastic view finder, great AF (wider placement and more AF points, plus accuracy)... Yes, a 12 to 16 MP 1Ds3 without the ginormous form-factor and a few intelligent improvements still. Oh, and lighten up on the AA a bit, would ya? Charge $5,000 if you want, Canon, and quit worrying about cannibalizing 1Ds3 sales because other makers (read "Nikon") are doing the cannibalizing for you. Make it up in volume.
Heehee. Sometimes I get a little ramped up. Sorry.
Looking forward to the new releases.
yes sir, a basic budget one and one we actually will want to use not sure if they both get released the same time, that's up to the marketing dept. The 3d will be a higher spec'd model. I won't say much more ok.. Just wait another two weeks
BTW they monitor all these forums very closely.. and boy do they have a good laugh at some of the threads and comments haha.
Just as we will laugh at them if the 5D mkII is about as revolutionary and badly priced as the 50D. Laugh all the way to the Nikon bank.
Assuming that the 5D replacement is 21MP and great at high ISO, there's one more thing Canon can do to make it a smash hit. Release a great 24-70/2.8 IS version for the same price or less than the non-stabilized Nikon version. I would buy the Nikon today, but I can't see paying $1700 for a non-stabilized, huge standard zoom.
No point in bashing Canon in favor of Nikon on this forum, as folks are not of that nature here. We all have our preferences. Some of us are gear agnostic. Some of us have a lot invested in some systems and lines of gear, so there may be some cheering in one camp a bit more/less than another. If folks want to constantly be switching out gear for what they think is the latest and greatest, that is their choice. Personally, I like seeing the competition among manufacturers, as it does bring about better offerings for all of us, most of the time. In the end, if the gear does not meet your needs, do not bother buying it. Nice to have choices.
Can CANON ever catch up to NIKON now ?
hasn't the canon mystique been blown to smithereens w/ the D3, & D700
Cheers - H
Sure Canon can catch up to Nikon!
1) If they manage to build a similar good AF system as in D3, D300, D700.
2) If they really manage to build and manufacture their next gen CMOS sensors paired with DIGIC4 and DIGIC5 processing - should bring immense pixel density paired with lowest noise at high ISO, something we only can dream about today...
3) If they bring finally some good wide angle zooms, like the 14-24 from Nikon
4) If they manage to make their cameras as robust and weatherproof as Nikon, especially in the mid range
In general I think Canon has much better cards for the future of digital, because they already develop their own sensors since many years. So their potential for groundbreaking improvements is there and I hope they will leverage that. One example would be here the possibility to skip AA filters totally, because they can do processing in their DIGIC5 engines. Plus DR, plus partial ISO, etc. Who else will be there in the next years? No other vendor I see.
More than a ultra wide zoom, I want to see Canon come up with a fast prime wide at about 20 to fill the gap they now have there. New 14/2.8 is outstanding as it the over looked 24/1.4 but I would like a Canon replacement for my Zeiss 21/2.8 Distagon that used all the AF mount features.
Not sure if this will help on the wide end, but it looks like Zeiss may be supporting the EOS mount soon:
Personally, I think Canon and Nikon will continue to avoid directly competing products except for at the 1D/D3 level where the D3 will compete with the 1D and D3x with the 1Ds. A $3,000 21MP 5D II with great image quality will compete well in this market even without a better AF system and weather sealing.
LJ, I've always shot canon, own a couple of 5D's. If the replacement is what most think it will be then I will seriously think about changing. My comment was based on the above mention of canon execs laughing at our discussions, if they are still as arrogant as we can assume they are then I will have no problem changing over for a better camera as I think will many people. I have absolutely no brand loyalty whatsoever, whoever provides the tool better suited to my purposes gets my money, period. Given that the founders here, especially Guy, are among the pioneers of this philosophy in todays digital world, I rather think that this is exactly the nature of the folks here. Personally I and many others here think that 'The 5D has been a very venerable offering for quite a long time, and any upgrade will most likely be substantial, and probably offer quite a bit of interesting things.
' is rather optimistic and I will put my money where my mouth is. I can't see that any one could fault me for that.
On an aside, and someone mentioned the 24-70L, I'm about to sell my third copy, all three have had significant focus shift (NOT focus innaccuracy) which is horribly apparent in fluorescent light. I've lost count of the times I've sent these lenses back to CPS. I've taken to shooting most everything that needs critical sharpness with primes and during a wedding that is a serious pain. I'm going to wait till after photokina then either swap to the Nikon camp completely, see if there is an interesting replacement for the lens or swop for a 24-105L.
Well Canon has had lens problems for a long time and years of bitching has really not totally solved it. No question they have some good lenses but they also have some very bad ones even in the L cabinet. I guess the scary part is one day I looked in my bag and had 8 leica R lenses to compensate for what canon did not have going on. That was the day I bought a DMR. But since those days until present they have improved but in my mind not enough. They want to sell 22 mpx camera's than they need the glass to support it. They have gotten better but the whole alternative lens thing started with a few folks and has grown quite large. Certainly a signal to canon there lenses are not preforming to folks tasks. My issue with them is they still have yet to fully fix the issue. Sure the have had replacements and such new 85mm , 16-35 and so on but today as they keep trying to market MPX to people as the marketing tool . They still are left short with lenses that won't handle the MPX race well . Sure there are a few and there long stuff is great but still no wide angle primes that really sing as well as the 35 1.4 or better. I think the interesting thing we are seeing is Nikon is really trying to up the ante and it does have some if not a lot very interested back in Nikon. Now the new 5d will come out and of course will be better but there still not addressing the lenses and the world of alternative glass will prosper again. I guess we wait once again for announcements on new product but the rumors for glass is still pretty null. Now there is talk of Zeiss joining the Canon line and such , so things hopefully are improving for the end user. But getting Leica R lenses and old Zeiss lenses to bolt on the new Canons will eventually dry up. So hopefully there is new life coming and Canon actually listened to there customer base.
I've been making a list of reasons not to stay with my present 5D's. What is comes down to is two things, Pro AF and weather sealing. These are the two only reasons that I would upgrade as a necessity. Shot two weddings in the rain this week and during one the lens wasn't communicating properly, I think a tiny bit of moisture got in. I shoot a lot in the rain and eventhough it's not for long periods I'm fed up of risking that kind of investment. The other point is that I want my cameras to focus f4 lenses as fast as it presently does f2.8, i.e. AF as fast as the 1 series. If neither of these things happen then I'll either stick with what I have and use primes more or see if a few niggling but important things about nikon are enough to stop me switching.
Your point was a bit lost in your post, hence my question about your response.
With respect to changing over to another camera....that may be easy for some folks, especially if they do not mind losing a fair amount on selling their old gear and replacing with new. If you only have a few lenses and such, might not be an issue. But, as you mention, if you have shot Canon for some time, you may have a lot more tied up in glass, and that always costs to replace.
In that regard, a lot also depends on what you shoot. I use a lot of longer glass for sports stuff, and from what I have seen, Canon still excels in the long glass. I also have an use the 24-70 f2.8 a lot. It is not a perfect lens, but it has not failed me yet shooting on a 1DsMkII at 16+MP. Could always be better, and there are alternatives, if you do not mind giving up AF and sometimes metering functions. Not something I can afford to give up with a lot of my subjects.
I shot Nikon for 25 years, and have never lost my fondness for their stuff, but until very recently, they just could not deliver what I needed for my work. I am still looking hard at things like their D3 and D700, plus any D3x they may offer, but Canon still does a pretty decent job of delivering images. I do wish for improvements in the lens line-up as mentioned, but that always seems to be the case for both Nikon and Canon. If somebody like Zeiss does enter the picture making Canon compatible glass that is able to function with AF, for example, a lot of folks might be heading that way. Hard to believe Canon would not react to that also.
In the end, both Canon and Nikon are turning out decent gear. It may not excel in every aspect, but they do tend to cover a lot more ground as systems. The 5D replacement will probably NOT be a dud. I really do have no way of knowing that until it is out and in the hands of folks, but the original 5D held its own for nearly three years before Nikon put something similar into the market. I have to look at the entire line-up of offerings before I start jumping from one system to another, not just one camera. Presently Nikon is impressing a lot of folks, but not everywhere in their lens line-up either, both for IQ and price. Nether of these guys have it all worked out yet, so what is the harm in waiting a few more weeks to see what else comes to market?
Anders Uschold in BJP makes it pretty clear that putting IS into lenses DOES sacrifice quality. With the fantastic high ISO on the D3/D700, I don't think it would be worth sacrificing any of the quality for the sake of IS, which would be of questionable value - if you need more shutter speed, just stick up the ISO.
I like IS . .. but it won't be REALLY useful until it manages to stop subject movement as well as camera movement
Just this guy you know
As pixels bet smaller, it takes less handshake to sacrifice a bit of quality at the pixel level. To make the most of 21 megapixels on a 24x36mm sensor, handshake has to be neutralized, even on the wide side. So yes, I'd like stabilization even with a wide lens. On a lens that ventures into short tele as the 24-70 does, its a clear benefit for the way I shoot.
With a non-IS lens, I can handhold a sharp photo of a static subject at 70mm and 1/100s perhaps 90% of the time. The shot I need may be in the other 10%, and I can get it with an IS lens.
Last edited by asabet; 6th September 2008 at 05:29.
I have IS on several Canon lenses, and frankly, it does not get used all that much. Might just be the subjects I am shooting that does not have me using it much. For me it tends to slow down the entire AF process, but then I am mainly pointing at things that are moving around and sometimes rather fast. I have even gone to the point of taping over the controls with IS off on my 70-200 f2.8L IS lens, mainly so I do not accidently engage it.
In agreement with Amin, I have not found any degradation of images from IS versus non-IS lenses that I have used. There may be a few cases where folks are seeing things, but I think them few and far between.
While IS is a very nice feature to have, it is not needed or useful in a lot of shooting situations, especially anything where the subject is moving. In those cases, a higher shutter speed is the preferred choice. I can see that it may have some utility on a lens like the 24-70 for more static subjects (group shots, and things like that), and I would probably use it for many of the failing light, post-match sports awards I shoot, but right now, I am augmenting those with fill flash, so it may no matter as much. It does seem to do a very good job at lower shutter speeds, handheld, and where the subject is not moving, but I tend to kick the ISO up a stop, if needed, and that gets me there most of the times. (There are times when the ISO is already high, and then the IS really does help gain a bit more steadiness.)
On balance, the Canon IS does seem to work quite well on their lenses. It does add a significant cost to the lens, and some weight, but if needed, it does the job well. I do not see it degrading the resolving capabilities or introducing any other problems on glass that I have shot. I just do not think it needs to be on all lenses, or used all the time, but it does the job when needed.