What does the introduction of the 5DIII and 1DX tell about Canon's future plans

<p>And for that matter Nikon's future plans evidenced by the 800. Canon designed a new mirror mechanism for the 5DIII so they may think mirrors will be around for a while. I own a mirrorless and there is a slight lag on the EVF. Not much but enough to be a bit of a problem for tracking so maybe they have that in mind. Canon improved the sensor but did not significantly raise the number of megapixels. Nikon went to 36 MP. As others have said maybe Canon has found the compromise between MP size and clogging the workflow with more MP. It looks like the Canon engineers went after significant improvement in high ISO capability. Maybe this now is more important than an MP race. It appears there is at least a two stop improvement in high ISO performance. This appears to be an important area for even more improvemnt over the long term although there has to be a theoretical limit somewhere. What have they done at Canon with dynamic range? at Nikon? I have not seen the statistics yet. Where they spent the development effort it looks like to be in significantly better metering and auto focus and increased frame rate. They also appear to have adopted 7D ergonomics to a degree. So there are really two major DSLR developers in Canon and Nikon who have stayed the course with mirrors while Sony a lesser player has departed from the moveable mirror model to move in another direction. What does this say about their efforts? i will have to control my baser urges to keep from getting the new 5D. OMG. What do these two new cameras tell us about the future? I notice Canon has introduced in camera HDR. What does that say about transferring more processing functions to the camera?</p>

It tells us that Canon listened to customers who requested improved autofocus and noise performance, The D800 also has in camera HDR, as do some of the new EVF cameras from Sony, et al. That will be a common feature going forward.

<p>Dan. I have a Sony 5N, EVF and lenses. There are several other in camera processes also. I think Sony is ahead in this area. For instance, they have a feature that on still photos allows a significant improvement in ISO by merging six exposures. I also own a Canon 5D. My question was about broader applications than HDR in camera specifically in Canon and Nikon. Picture below Anti motion blur 6400 ISO</p><div></div>

<p>I think in camera HDR is an excuse to not improve native sensor dynamic range for a few generations. It only works in jpegs (as far as I can tell so far) so is useless for most people currently doing quality work in HDR. It is essentially a gimmick.</p>

<p>I think Canon and Nikon are committed to the SLR design and I am very happy, I don't want EVF. It doesn't preclude them from bringing in EVF bodies, or hybrids, if they feel there is a market, but they are both camera behemoths and are not in the radical vein of product design that, say, Apple, are. They don't want to change the products they know and make because they feel, no doubt due the the market research they do, that the customer base wants what they make.</p>

<p>The camera market has changed radically over the last fifteen years, cash cows like the point and shoots and entry level DSLR's are feeling real pressure from phones and an interesting array of formats and body styles, but they both feel the top end cameras design is fundamentally sound. Years ago most enthusiasts, who must make up a large portion of camera sales, had one or two bodies in the same format. Now few do, it is not this body or that body, it is one of those formats and a complimentary one. Many own crop and full frame, many more own 4/3 and EOS etc. </p>

<p>Very interesting times, massive choice and two superb new bodies, I feel this is a golden age of cameras, in times to come as model ranges and formats sort themselves out we will get fewer choices.</p>

<p>I think that these introductions tell the consumer "Be prepared to pay for what you ask", and tells the trades-person "Canon delivers the tools you ask for". The blurring occurs at the nexus of these two points where fetishists like those who occupy these forums believe that corporations like Canon have some moral or social obligation to deliver particular technologies faster than a drip-feed to satiate our 'illness'. How many consumers are going to sign-up for a new credit card so they can buy one of these cameras, and how many tradespeople who are barely making their margins in the current economy are going to add another new tool to their chest, is what Canon must be asking. Innovators like Conorus with their ef/nex adapter start becoming the big winners as we become deviant and mix brands and technologies, like the EF mount has allowed for twenty-five years already. I have been using slrs my whole life, my parents used them and then me, and four decades later I don't really see brand loyalty or real innovation being the determinants of what I will consume, I am more interested in affordability and versatility now and I look forward to small groups making the software and hardware that the large corporations aren't willing to. Canon's future plans are keep selling across markets and ride out the tough times, if DSLrs take a dive to mirrorless or SLT, then maybe this cycle their business machines will sustain revenues and they come back to the fetishists in another cycle when they are more willing to spend and/or their credit is better. </p>

<p>I believe Canon was taken somewhat by suprise by the D800, too late for them to change the 5DIII to a higher pixel count. While one can argue about the benefit of the higher pixel count of the D800, consumer response is not necessarily rational (otherwise Porsche would not exist). I bet a Canon equivalent to the D800 will come out sooner than the regular upgrade cycle for the 5D would suggest. I would not jump to the conclusion that Canon miscalculated but they probably did--sales numbers will tell.</p>

<p>Remember that Nikon needed an "affordable" high resolution camera - now they have one. Canon didn't need that so they improved the one they had. It's logical. Canon may or may not produce a higher res camera, but I doubt it unless their share shows a disastrous downturn. After all only 3 years or so ago Nikon users were trumpeting that the D700 was the "best" camera, and it has been a great success for them even with "only" 12MP.</p>

<p>Dick, I think you're asking some very sensible questions. Good on you.</p>

<p>Now, as for the answers? I wish I knew.</p>

<p>I remember when Canon upgraded the 20D to the 30D. Everybody was upset because Nikon had already come out with the D200 the "darling" of the 35mm pros-summer digital cameras back then.<br>

Canonites were so upset that the 30D only offered 8 megapixels that they demanded more so out came the 40D about 2 years later with 10 mega pixels. The 30D which was a very good camera for it's time was over shadowed by all of this.<br>

So it looks like deja-vu all over again except this time it's the Nikon D800. As far as mirrorless cameras, I'm sure Canon and Nikon are working on these, but the market is not yet ready for such a drastic change. Sheesh, we just got over the film vs digital wars and now we are heading for another one ? </p>

 

<p>If you think Nikon have jumped way ahead of Canon with the 36MP D800, then ask yourself why their brand new Flagship camera, the $6000 D4 "only" has 16MP? Did they make a mistake with that one?</p>

<p> .</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>As far as mirrorless cameras, I'm sure Canon and Nikon are working on these</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pretty safe bet since Nikon launched their Nikon 1 mirrorless camera line last year.</p>

<p>Well, the engineers certainly weren't responsible for this mess that Canon has put themselves in. It was left up to the marketing department and in all their wisdom they chose to release cameras designed for speed and ultralowlight photography that accounts for an extremely small percentage of actual photography.</p>

<p>Canon lead the way over Nikon for about 10 years and the tide is certainly changing now. I hope Canon takes cues from the engineers and can right the ship over the next 3 years.</p>

The problem with the 30D wasn't that it was 8mp like the 20d.

 

The problem with the 30D was that it used the *same* sensor as the 20D..

 

If canon had improved dynamic range, or low ISO performance, the users would not have been nearly as upset.

<p>S. Grant and Scott. After well over twenty years of exclusive ownership of Canon gear (save about ten years of parallel Bronica ownership) i have jumped ship to buy the NEX-5N system. I had specialized wedding use for the medium format. I have longed for years to find a camera about the size of my old Miinolta One post WWII Leica knock off that I destroyed when it flew out of my motorcycle saddlebag in Thailand. The Sony has come close. It, three lenses and EVF cost about the same as my Canon 100-400L. Yet as I get older the NEX satisfies about eighty per cent of my photo needs and my camera bag only weighs about three and a half pounds. It is a 1.5 crop that makes very good looking 19x13 prints. I still use my Canon 5D when I need my L lenses because of light and because I need tracking AF for action or bigger pictures. The Sony goes wherever I go so I take more pictures than ever. As you all stated I think one of the growing trends may be dual format ownership as the mirrorless quality nears or equals crop dslr quality. It does open a market for cameras like my NEX 5N but I think some of the competing sizes in this genre will get shaken out in the long run as the whole mirrorless interchangeable lens market needs competition driven clarification. I still will have ongoing fantasies about owning the 5DIII because as Scott said and I agree this is the "Golden Age".</p>

<p><em>If you think Nikon have jumped way ahead of Canon with the 36MP D800, then ask yourself why their brand new Flagship camera, the $6000 D4 "only" has 16MP?</em></p>

<p>The D4 is a sports/action camera, with 10fps it would be something of a problem to move 76MB RAW files to cards at that rate. And buffer size would have to be humongous.</p>

<p>The D800 is the replacement to Nikon's flagship D3X.</p>

<p><em>Nikon launched their Nikon 1 mirrorless camera line last year</em>.</p>

<p>That's true, but the products were designed to give their DSLRs as little competition as possible. Nikon's <em>real</em> mirrorless cameras with decent sized sensors, I am sure, will be some years off.</p>

<p>IMO software/firmware/conectivity is the next big development spearheaded by camera phone apps, Oly and Sony... </p>

<h1 >What does the introduction of the 5DIII and 1DX tell about Canon's future plans?</h1>

<p>Perhaps there is a 1Ds IV coming yet:</p>

<p>(1) 5D --> 5D II --> 5D III</p>

<p>(2) 1D --> 1D II --> 1D III --1D IV --> 1D X (This interpretation of the 1D X could be argued for.)</p>

<p>(3) 1Ds --> 1Ds II --> 1Ds III -- 1Ds IV (?)</p>

<p>Does anyone really believe that Canon is going to stop at 22 mp? Well, it might, but, then again, it might not.</p>

<p>Just a thought. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The D4 is a sports/action camera, with 10fps it would be something of a problem to move 76MB RAW files to cards at that rate. And buffer size would have to be humongous.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The V1 that you deride can shoot and record full resolution 10MP RAW files at 60fps. Each RAW file is about 11MB in size. It has a 1GB RAM buffer.</p>

<p>Rob Galbraith's web site says they could shoot 20 14-bit lossless RAW files on the D800 w/ a fast CF card. At 76MB each that would imply a 1.5GB RAM buffer. DRAM is cheap but the card interface can be a problem. Some of the high end 4K (~12MP) video cameras interleave their writes to multiple cards. He also reported that the D4 could write to XQD cards at 92MB/s. It's possible for Nikon to do far more but the cost would go through the roof and the market for it is tiny like the market for 4K cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>If you think Nikon have jumped way ahead of Canon with the 36MP D800. . . .</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure that Nikon has jumped ahead with the D800 over the 5D III.<em> </em> I am going to have to see more full-sized files from both before I really conclude that the Nikon images are superior.<em> </em> I suspect that the D800 has a <strong>per pixel</strong> image quality not much better than the D7000--good camera, yes, but definitely not a great low-light camera.<em> </em>After all, the pixel density of the D800 sensor is about the same as that of the D7000.<em></em></p>

<p>5D III sample:</p>

<p>http://cweb.canon.jp/camera/eosd/5dmk3/samples/downloads/13.jpg</p>

<p>D800 sample:</p>

<p>http://mansurovs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Nikon-D800-Image-Sample-1.jpg<br>

(Shot at ISO 100. The resolution is admittedly impressive, but what would it be like at higher ISOs?)</p>

<p>--Lannie<em><br /></em></p>

<p>Canon introduced their 45-point AF system in the EOS-3 in, IIRC, 1998. One of its features was standard-precision AF at F/8 and high preceision AF at f/4 at the central AF point. Although the EOS-3 was an exciting camera for its time, it was what we would now call a prosumer rather than a professional body – that came a couple of years later with the EOS-1V, which used an incrementally improved version of the same AF system. That system endured for several generations of 1D cameras, but never found its way back into a prosumer body. f/8 AF is certainly of great interest to natural history photographers, especially birders. f/4 HP AF is of interest to anyone using the f/4 L-series zooms, and lack of it on the 5D and then the 5DII was seen by many users or potential users as a significant shortfall.</p>

<p>In the 5DIII, Canon are doing us proud by offering a close approximation to the new AF system of the 1DX, lacking only some of the enhanced tracking capability associated with the metering system of the 1DX, whereas the 5DIII has a metering system based on that of the 7D. That's welcome to me as a potential 5DIII buyer, but the bad news is that f/8 AF has been dropped from the AF system of the 1DX (and now 5DIII), a matter that has already caused considerable comment. I am not yet clear what happens about f/4 HP AF.</p>

<p>By contrast, Nikon offer f/8 AF on the D800 at the central AF point and several adjoining points. I wonder how much of an issue this is going to become. Of course, the introduction of contrast-detect AF in Live View, which is not subject to any specific limitation (it is just allowed to stop working when it chooses), is very welcome, but it does not solve all the problems, because it is pretty much limited to static subjects. Canon claim that retaining f/8 AF would have compromised AF performance with lenses down to f/5.6. Are we to understand that Nikon have a compromised AF system in the D800 (by comparison with the 1DX/5DIII system), or have they found some way of providing f/8 AF without compromise?</p>

"It was left up to the marketing department and in all their wisdom they chose to release cameras designed for speed and ultralowlight photography that accounts for an extremely small percentage of actual photography."

 

Increased sensitivity and lower noise frequently benefit wedding, event, documentary, sports, and news photography. The improvements on the new 5D3 will make it a better tool for most professional and amateur photography, not just "an extremely small percentage." It's extremely-high resolution that benefits only a small percentage of photographers.

<p><em>"What does the introduction of the 5DIII and 1DX tell about Canon's future plans?"</em><br>

<em></em> <br>

It could mean that Canon does not want to Tech itself into extinction like Kodak did...</p>

<p>A Canon rep a year ago told me that the wave of the future for their DSLR's was "video." I take Canon at their word. Many of us regret that. I'd buy the 5DIII without video at $2,500 in a heartbeat. What are the chances Canon might still offer that soon, say in 2012?</p>

Canon isn't going to offer a DSLR without video for a substantially lower price. Video capability doesn't require additional hardware--it utilizes hardware that's already needed for still capture. Deleting the software that adds video capability isn't going reduce the cost of the camera.

<p>Mike, software <em>only</em>? Are you sure? I'll take your word for it. Still, even a company with deep pockets has a limited R&D budget and I'd prefer they put those funds into advances for still photography, or "rebate" them to the customer in the form of lower prices. Video has to come with an opportunity cost.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like the EOS-1D X, the EOS 5D Mark III has 61 AF points, of which up to 41 points function as cross-type points. These 61 points are spread over a wide area allowing flexibility in AF point selection. However, not all lenses will provide an adequate light flux across the entire focusing area, so, with some lenses, only the centre AF point will function.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Further to my previous post about AF, this is a quote from Canon material about the 5DIII. I am puzzled. The last sentence certainly cannot refer simply to an f/5.6 lens, so what does it mean? </p>