Why can't Canon make a decent full-frame body that's quite a bit cheaper than the 5d Mk II?

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>As a few people said above. Canon is a business, and the aim of a business is to make money. It probably does not make much business sense for them to do that right now.</p>

<p>But who knows what the future holds? Remember, not long ago that Nikon said DX sensors are good enough. </p>

[tudor_apmadoc]

<p>I think Tim wants what we would all love to have - a Mercedes for the price of a Ford. Dreams are nice, but reality is way different. </p>

<p>The reality is that there isn't enough labor / material cost difference between a Ford and Mercedes to cost justify the retail price difference. However Mercedes charges what they do BECAUSE the consumer is willing to pay for it.</p>

 

[pete-croft]

<p>I think Canon have done a pretty good job with the 5d mkii even with the current UK prices, its not much more than my first D60.<br>

You don`t have to use the video option, and it takes nothing away from the cameras capabilities by having it onboard, along with live view.<br>

I think you will have to get used to it, because in a couple of years I doubt you will be able to buy a new body without video et al, and that will probaly include the pro bodies.<br>

Sounds like you should be looking for a low mileage 1Ds mkii :-)</p>

[dan_south]

<p>I'm a Nikon guy, and I think the 5d mkII is an amazing value. In Nikonland we'd have to pay more than twice the 5DII's price to get a 20+ MP body, and that body won't have any video or sensor cleaning abilities. I almost bought a 5DII but decided to hold off in hopes that Nikon will introduce 20+MP at a lower price point before too long. Yeah, we have the D700, and it rocks in ways the the 5DII doesn't quite match (AF, weather sealing), but I'd still like to have those extra pixels. Consider yourselves fortunate.</p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>I was hoping that Canon would keep the original 5D, give it a minor face lift, make it an entry level fullframe and sell it for about $1800. Basically keeping everything the same, adding a newer LCD, AF microadjustment and live view to keep up with today trend.</p>

[tim_klimowicz]

<p>Apologies if I came off pompous by using the word "crap" to describe features that many people (obviously) desire in a camera. As was mentioned, I'm sure there's plenty of people who'd consider my own desires "crap".</p>

<p>And I understand that there's already a camera available that fits my description (the original 5D)...but what seriously confuses me is that it's no longer being produced. There's a healthy market out there for used 5Ds, and I'm frankly surprised they're selling for as much as they still are even used...but I assume that's because there's still a relatively strong demand for the camera (plus it's still damn good), and being that there's still such a strong demand despite the release of the MkII and the passage of 3-4 years of time, I'm really surprised that Canon doesn't still manufacture them and sell them like hotcakes for quite a bit less. I understand that would eat into their competitive MkII sales (which I agree is a great value, it's just a bit beyond my means as a serious non-pro), but I figured there *has* to be a large part of the market that would eat them up, thus making it worthwhile.</p>

<p>Or I could just be wrong.</p>

[hjoseph7]

<p>I still think Canon threw in the Video at the eleventh hour.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Tim, do your homework again before making stuff up. I suspect Canon can make anything they want at any price point.</p>

<p>That extra stuff is not "crap" and the 5D2 is not all that fast in frame rate. Come back soon though.</p>

<p>Canon may be phoning you as I doubt they have a marketing dept.</p>

[alec_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>but I figured there *has* to be a large part of the market that would eat them up, thus making it worthwhile.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Reality suggests that the marketing guys at Canon figure differently to you, and they're the ones who are best placed to know.</p>

[sandysocks]

<p>This is how it works: Sony announces it. By time it is available, Nikon and Canon have announced it as well, so after a little wait, you can buy it. So that is when. About a year after Sony announces an economy ff, you will be able to buy a Rebel Xff.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>In the world I live in, my like-new 5D cost me considerably less than it cost before the 5D mk ii was "announced" only a short time back. I'm taking pictures and enjoying myself waiting on the 5D mk iii or 6 D, waiting on my daughter to finish college, and waiting for the pets to pass on, yes and "waiting on the Robert E. Lee, it never was there on tiiiimmme...."</p>

[bsd230]

<p>It will come in time I'm sure. Right now the technology is still expensive. I would imagine that at some point the full size sensor will become the standard.</p>

[acarodp]

<p>I wonder whether the answer to your question is market placement. In other words, Canon does not make it because Nikon makes it and is called D700. On the current market, the only two cameras (I mean between Canon and Nikon) who go one against the other on essentially the same set of strong points and limitations are the 1DsMk III and D3x. Below, that, if you notice, neither one does exactly what the other one does. The D700 and 5D2 are in the same price range, bu they push on different strengths. The 50D is still no match for the D300, but it is cheper than the D300 and superior to the D90 which is again somewhat cheaper... and so on. This has been a deliberate strategy by both, pursued for years now. For the first time buyer this is great because he can get the right camera in any case. But since most advanced buyers are already locked into one system or the other, there are always on both sides some unhappy people whose only real solution, if they want to get exactly what they want, is to switch. If you assume that the 5D2 attracts more or less the same percentage of Nikon shooters to switch as the D700 does for Canon shooters, you see that both brands are happy, because switchers buy lenses, and increase the used gear market. And the used market strength is one of the big plus of Canon and Nikon over the others. The two top-of-the-line cameras, at the same time, do not move enough market to break this strategy, while providing the "aura" to the brand.<br>

According to this logic, it is unlikely I believe Canon will make the D700 competitor, and I'm not sure either thath Nikon will make a D700x with the D3x sensor... we will see.</p>

<p>L.</p>

[Brian]

<p>You can get sucked in to the idea of full frame as a sort of nirvana of digital cameras, but it seems to me like you are mixing your criteria, and you are fixated on one (dimensional) criterion which is getting more and more obsolete year on year. And the idea (voiced above) of the 24x36mm sensor eventually becoming standard is frankly laughable.<br>

Sure, in the early days of digital SLRs, users had a bag full of lenses from 35mm SLRs and wanted a digital body that preserved the FOV of their lenses. Also, noise performance wasn't that good so the bigger sensor was attractive for that reason.<br>

Now, there are a lot of dSLRs to choose from, they have their own dedicated lenses, and noise performance of the smaller sensors is much improved. And there are initiatives like the micro 4/3, which proposes a new solution to the through-the-lens viewing interchangeable-lens camera.<br>

If you want to be able to pay a discount price for a concept that's rooted in yesterday's technology in order to secure an arbitrary sensor dimension, so be it. But don't be surprised if even a relatively conservative company like Canon doesn't share your view.</p>

[jpo3136b]

<p>" . . . Why Can't Canon Make a Full Frame Body That's Quite a Bit Cheaper Than the 5d MK II?"</p>

<p>"It's called a Pentax," is what I thought when I read over the OP. I know that would be a bit contentious, but that's what I thought. I feel that the whole "full frame" thing is a bunch of marketing. Many of these sensor sizes are pretty close to the aspect ratios of a lot of common computer monitors. And, cropping for exclusion in composition or protection of the original image also has it's advantages.</p>

<p>Since cropping from the original is one of the main forms of copyright protection advocated over at copyright.gov, why would you want to sell someone a copy of every pixel recorded? </p>

<p>Since you could probably use your Canon lenses on a Pentax with a K mount adapter, you might be able to save some money there. It would go back to the technical specifics of the fit, but it's not entirely impossible.</p>

<p>Unless there's some commercial demand for a specific camera model on the part of a client, I'd say, Why not? And, what's wrong with the other Canon camera bodies mentioned by other posters? Also, there are probably a lot of other brands with models that might be close to what you need. If you are really dissatisfied, why purchase a camera model based on its brand name?</p>

<p>And, you know, I would go back to application. I submit that there are many cameras out there that are doing just fine. Take this blog, for example: http://itsjusthowiseethings.blogspot.com/ I stumbled upon that one a few weeks ago, and while I'm not engaged by a lot of the material, the whole thing is written by someone who is <em>actually using</em> a point and shoot camera. It's a Canon Powershot, she wrote. Written by a person with some experience in design, and willing to do the writing, she's done not too bad, considering that the equipment wouldn't make the "elite" list.</p>

<p>It's a case of a point and shoot camera doing just fine because the photographer is carrying through the project to completion and actually producing. So, what's wrong with that? I know the OP didn't imply there was, but I mention it because that's the kind of thing I think of when I hear about "is a camera model good enough?"</p>

<p>Is it about that the camera model that everyone says is great today, or is it about the picture? I'd suggest that there is so much that you have to do to build a good picture, and also so many things that could go wrong, that the influence of the equipment is often a lot less than what people seem to give it credit for.</p>

<p>If that unit is not meeting your needs, or looking like it would not meet your needs, then stick with what you've got, or get something else. What's wrong with that?</p>

[carl smith]

<p>I'm not sure you're likely to see all those features extracted just to make a body cheaper. For one I don't tend to think the video adds greatly to the cost of the camera although any expense due to it is likely due more to development than cost of individual components since the components in the camera have been marching towards video capability for years but the actual controls and processing to save video is new.<br>

The resolution is more or less set, coming up with another lower resolution sensor could actually end up costing more. They could revive the 1Ds or 1DsII sensors but those would be pretty outdated and Canon would likely want to do some updating to bring them up to modern spec. If they didn't they'd take a beating from the photo community at large.<br>

Personally I think that the 1.5/1.6 crop range is the new "standard" as far as what most consumers and many working/professional photographers will likely be happy with. Full frame does have its advantages and for some people going full frame is like returning home. I've never been completely comfortable with my 1.3 or 1.6 crop cameras. They do a great job but the full frame is just more natural to me, plus the larger viewfinder makes things easier for some things like using my tilt-shift lenses.<br>

Beyond that there's still the noise advantage of the full frame sensor and the fact that you can compose for the same effective scene with a wider focal length and put more resolution on scene without pushing a lens as hard. The 5D2 has effectively the same pixel density as the 30D and that pays off in its ability to render a great deal of edge to edge detail as compared to the 50D for example. If the sensors used identical technology the 5D2 would also have the noise advantage over the 50D just due to the size of the pixels alone although there are other factors that come in to effect since the sensors are not identical in all technical specifications.<br>

There <em>are</em> advantages to full frame, but they're not earth shattering differences that make it some standard everyone should strive for. It costs more, requires bigger and more costly lenses and realistically for many people I don't think the advantages that do exist matter and are possibly outweighed by the other factors such as size & cost. <br>

To say that the equipment doesn't matter though is about as unhelpful as saying it is all that matters. Depending on your end goal the equipment can matter, depending on what you want to accomplish and how you want to capture photographs it can matter. At the same time equipment envy and just lusting after the lastest camera because it's shiny and new won't likely do anything to improve your photography.<br>

I do agree with Luca that Canon & Nikon tend to avoid stepping on each others toes with cameras that compete directly. If Canon came out with another lower end full frame it would probably slot in well below the 5D2 and D700 and be fairly stripped of features & capabilities. I just don't see that selling or being that appealing though. The people willing to do without any of the advanced features or ergonomics probably don't care or think much about FF vs crop anyway.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>I would imagine that at some point the full size sensor will become the standard.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This has been beat to death in many, many posts here over the last several years. I'll just say that, as much as I love my 5D, it is not a replacement for the APS-C cameras, it is merely a different format. As <em>Popular Photography</em> has pointed out in its most recent issue, the design of "digital only" (meaning APS-C only!) lenses has benefited the design of "full-frame" lenses too. The real point is that that the main confusion here is caused by the historical accident of cheap cine film being available in the 1920s, and the subsequent industry built around that particular format. Speaking of a 1.5x or 1.6x "factor" is only a crutch for old 35mm film shooters, and it is only confusing for people new to photography who have no idea in their head that a 50mm lens is a "normal" lens. It would have been much more accurate from the beginning to have simply noted that on an APS-C camera a 28mm lens IS "normal". 50mm as "normal" is screwy and parochial anyway.</p>

<p>Do we speak of a conversion factor for 6x6cm film cameras? Is the 50mm lens really a 0.625X version of an 80mm normal lens there?</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>More to it than just scaling everything up in size. For example, no Pentax full frame yet. And Olympus went even smaller for sensor size than Nikon, Canon, and Sony.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<p>The very use of the term "full frame" to describe the 35mm format carries an implicit assumption that a smaller format is something <strong>less than full</strong>, which is why when comparing the formats, I make a conscious effort not to use "full frame" to describe 35mm, as I also avoid using the term "crop sensor" to describe APS. Ideally, these terms should be dropped from the photographic lexicon, but old ways die hard.</p>

<p>The reason why you have these feisty discussions comparing 35mm to APS formats in dSLRs is because the overwhelming majority of such cameras <strong>share the same lens families.</strong> I don't mean you can put a Canon lens on a Nikon body or vice versa (although there do exist Canon body to non-Canon lens adapters), but that within each mount type, APS bodies accept lenses originally designed for 35mm. And the clear reason for the manufacturers to do this was so the smaller formats would gain traction in the marketplace. They would cost less but still retain compatibility. The point is, nobody talks about so-called "crop factors" between 35mm and MF because you can't really stick a MF lens onto a 35mm body. (Though I bet now someone is going to pipe up and say "but there's such-and-such an adapter so you're wrong!" I'm not talking about obscure adapters.)</p>

<p>We did not have these raging debates back in the film days because there were no APS film SLRs, much less compatible mounts. The debate was over whether the APS emulsion was superior to 35mm, and APS film was almost universally panned as being a consumer-level, P&S product, which was precisely what it was designed for. And yet some people wished that some of its features (e.g. ease of mid-roll switching) could have found their way to 35mm. APS film did not last long. Digital P&S killed it for good, even with the crappy 1 MP quality.</p>

<p>But the format itself never really died, and that's a good thing, as is the continuation of medium and large formats. Let's not kid ourselves, though--the real reason for the use of APS format in digital is ease of manufacture and the subsequent lower cost to the consumer. It's not because the manfacturers thought, "Oh, these smaller sensors would be great for wildlife and air show photographers!" That's not to say they don't have their uses--they absolutely do. But such talk is very much after the fact, a consequence of the resourcefulness of the photographer to find ways to maximize the use of whatever tools they have at their disposal. So in a rather indirect way, saying that digital APS formats exist to serve a particular style of photography is giving too much credit to equipment manufacturers and not enough to the photographers.</p>

<p>APS is not going away. Neither is 35mm. The two need each other, their lens families are largely overlapping. I think the jury is still out on Four Thirds, but it clearly shows potential. Each has its uses. More choice and more interoperability is better. Maybe not better for reducing arguments on photo.net, but definitely better in terms of the available tools for the photographer. Keep shooting.</p>

[anov]

<p>Peter:<br>

The manufacturer uses that exact term "full frame" in their literature. Why can't we?<br>

<a href="http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17662">http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=139&modelid=17662</a><br>

I see nothing wrong with using that term, as is using the term crop sensor.<br>

If you want to be accurate it is actually 36mm not 35mmm and of course APS-C to differentiate APS-H and APS-P.<br>

As for the OP, such is life. In my experience after getting a EF-S 10-22mm, my desire for a full frame digital Canon greatly diminished. Might work for you too.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>No No, A.<br /> It is the <em>format</em> that is 35, from the 35mm film which had a <strong>double frame</strong> image size of 24x36mm, exactly double the 18x24 motion picture frame in 35mm.</p>

<p>Just so, we call the 15x22.5mm an APS-C sized sensor from its coincidental, I think, resemblance to that film size.</p>

<p>My daughter on the West Coast in a photography program says that most of her instructors use the term "35mm" to refer to the 1D and 5D <em>digital</em> cameras. (need I add that her school is standardized on Canons and Macintoshes?)</p>

<p> </p>

[peter_wang6]

<blockquote>

<p>Peter:<br />The manufacturer uses that exact term "full frame" in their literature. Why can't we?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because it's marketing-speak. When you see "I Can't Believe it's Not Butter!" on the grocery store shelves, do you actually agree that you can't believe it's not butter?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I see nothing wrong with using that term, as is using the term crop sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's not about "right" or "wrong"--it's about loaded versus neutral language.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you want to be accurate it is actually 36mm not 35mmm and of course APS-C to differentiate APS-H and APS-P.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know perfectly well the different APS sub-formats. I did not specify which ones applied in my previous post because not all APS dSLRs use the same format. Nikons are different from Canons, and even within the Canon EOS line, you have the 1D series with APS-H, and then the 20/30/40/50D and Rebels with APS-C. Therefore, when I spoke of APS, I referred to the entire family of such formats.</p>

<p>I am currently using a 5DmkII. It serves my needs quite well. In the future I may consider a smaller sensor as a backup body, but that depends on the direction the technology goes, as well as my anticipated future needs. There is nothing wrong with either format and there is no shame in owning a smaller size sensor. But at the same time, people would do well not to make strange statements about how the 1.6x focal length multiplier gives you more reach and therefore "pro" bodies should always be APS-C. That reach doesn't come for free.</p>

[brucecahn]

<p>I agree with you. They can make it, but refuse. I have been after Nikon about this. They don't want to hear it. I won't call all the features "crap", but I dislike them and wish there were a simple high megapixel body available from someone who makes decent lenses.</p>

[acarodp]

<blockquote>

<p>"It's called a Pentax," is what I thought when I read over the OP. I know that would be a bit contentious, but that's what I thought. I feel that the whole "full frame" thing is a bunch of marketing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, if one assumes to go down (in size) to APS-C, it could be called many things. Pentax K20 or K7, Sony A700, or the most obvious choice: Nikon D300. Also Canon 50D although the OP mentioned weather sealing. But the statement that FF is just marketing is not contentious, is just false. Mind you, I use APS-C, and when it will come the time to upgrade my beloved D200, I am not really sure I will go FF. DX (shorter to write than aps-c) allows you a lighter gear, smaller lenses, is generally cheaper. You may want the pixel density for the reach and all this stuff. The quality of DX is quite adequate for me, 12 MP (likely the best resolution in this format) is all I need.<br>

But to claim there is no advantage in FF you should never have tried it. Noise levels are simply in another league, but more generally the whole behavior at high iso is another story, color fidelity, DR degrade much more slowly. This at least is my experience trying a D3, I suspect that most of it translates to Canon or SonyFF. Then there is resolution. I don't have a need for it personally (nor does the OP it seems), but I have seen properly shot D3x RAWs and they are scary. You might not want to pay the price of that baby, but you surely see where it comes from.<br>

I'm happily shooting with a D200, which means I don't need clean 6400 ISO nor 24 MP. I might even say that the DX advantage outweight either FF advantage for me, but I definitely see why one might want FF, and I'm pretty sure I would find a use for cleaner high ISO in my kind of photography.<br>

What the OP asks makes sense, as it is shown by the fact that Nikon is selling the D700 pretty well, to what I hear. I also share to some extent his lack of interest for video, although I don't see video as a problem while nobody forces me to use it. Proper video is hard to make, requires much more infrastructure than photography, specific knowledge, postproduction skills and knowledge of its specific narration mechanisms and "syntax" if you want. A good photographer is not a good videographer (and vice versa), and becoming a good photographer already takes time and effort. I personally prefer to learn one thing well than two in a so-so way. I'm sure there is people who can put the video capabilities of the 5D2 to good use. I have no doubt, on the other hand, that the majority of those who crave after the "need" for video in DSLR will never manage to take footage as good as the photos they can take, and waste their time with what they don't know how to do intead that with what they know how to do. </p>

<p>L.</p>

[rogerjporter]

<p>I'm sure they can make one, but they won't. Why sell 2 or more half-featured pro models when you can sell one that does it all? From a marketing and sales standpoint it would be a nightmare, you would have 1 satisfied customer (you) and a million unhappy ones who want a different feature set. </p>