*****The Official Canon 5DMK3 Thread*****

jonneymendoza said:
7d i leaning more towards
Click to expand...

I'm going the other way tbh. I was shooting sports recently with my 50D and any problems I had with AF where purely user error. Even fast moving I didn't have many issues. I had a keeper rate of 2 in 4 which being ruthless I knocked down to 1 in 4 despite using high speed burst.

I was pleasantly surprised how good this 'old' AF system was and I used outer points from time to time.

95% of my photography is slow moving, yes the new AF on a 5d3 would be excellent but tbh I wouldn't use it often.

Where as the ISO abilities of the sensor compared to the frankly crap 50D and 7D would be far more useful.

In another month or so a 5d2 will probably be available for £1100 from Kerso and that is becoming seriously tempting for me. The only thing I will regret is losing the frankly superb 17-55. :(
 
lol, I'm sure the reviews will reveal all.

jonneymendoza said:
better weather selaing because canon told you so? wait till we see proper user reviews to see how well this camera stands when its pouring down in rain.

Better in low light? proof? because many of the test samples shows that this camera is only "marginally" better in low light.

Also, tell me why is the d800 £400-£600 cheaper then this? the d800 has far more MP, only "slightly slower then the mk3" but has great AF , metering and low light features just like the mk3 but for a lot less money

You can buy a 7d and a 5dmk2 together rigth now cheaper then a single 5dmk3 and still have money left to book yourself a holiday somewhere abroad and take pics with your two bodies



+1. this is a 5dmk2.5. if i had a 5dmk2 i would feel more ripped off as all they are giving me and all 5dmk2 owners is a slightly faster camera and better AF system and for the price of two of my 5dmk2's?
Click to expand...
 
dannyjo22 said:
I'm going the other way tbh. I was shooting sports recently with my 50D and any problems I had with AF where purely user error. Even fast moving I didn't have many issues. I had a keeper rate of 2 in 4 which being ruthless I knocked down to 1 in 4 despite using high speed burst.

I was pleasantly surprised how good this 'old' AF system was and I used outer points from time to time.

95% of my photography is slow moving, yes the new AF on a 5d3 would be excellent but tbh I wouldn't use it often.

Where as the ISO abilities of the sensor compared to the frankly crap 50D and 7D would be far more useful.

In another month or so a 5d2 will probably be available for £1100 from Kerso and that is becoming seriously tempting for me. The only thing I will regret is losing the frankly superb 17-55. :(
Click to expand...

25% keeper rate isn't that great though. From when I was shooting Rugby I found the 40D/50D similar around 50% although I found the tracking slightly better on the 50D, the 7D hit around 85% and the 1D3 around 95%. All depends what you are happy with really.

It'll be interesting to see what happens with 5D2 prices, especially second hand prices. If they do start going new for £1100, second hand prices around £900 maybe less? Not sure they'll drop that far so soon, it'd be nice though!
 
Rojin said:
25% keeper rate isn't that great though. From when I was shooting Rugby I found the 40D/50D similar around 50% although I found the tracking slightly better on the 50D, the 7D hit around 85% and the 1D3 around 95%. All depends what you are happy with really.!
Click to expand...

Oh yeah granted, what I'm saying is this is just about the first time my camera has been off oneshot and certainly the first time I've had it on high speed continuous tracking at 100-200mm :D

TBH I was happy with what I ruthlessly scaled it down to :D

As I said it was my first attempt and all my focus errors where user error. I was surprised how good it was :)
 
dannyjo22 said:
Oh yeah granted, what I'm saying is this is just about the first time my camera has been off oneshot and certainly the first time I've had it on high speed continuous tracking at 100-200mm :D

TBH I was happy with what I ruthlessly scaled it down to :D

As I said it was my first attempt and all my focus errors where user error. I was surprised how good it was :)
Click to expand...

You want to be careful, it can get addictive and expensive. Although that goes for photography in general! :D
 
I now think that's the idea. Cheap entry into FF. Drop the 7D and have the crop continuing along the 70D line in a cheaper body. I would rather they did bring out a 7d2 but I don't think it's likely considering the age of the 7d we have heard nothing.
 
The sensor is not cheap to make. I have heard numbers such as $400-500 for a FF sensor vs $50-100 for a crop sensor. Once you have added everything else (metering, AF, processor, LCD, body) you don't have much profit margin on a sub 1000GBP FF camera.
 
Yea but it will sell loads and make them a lot of money. look at console game machines. they sell at a massive lost early on and gain loads of profit afterwards.

Plus buying FF sensors in bulk can reduce cost a lot.
 
It doesn't work that way. The cost of the FF wont get much cheaper when ordering more. They are already priced at bulk. The sensor costs arise due to manufacturing defects that occur scholastically with the probability of errors increasing with the sensor surface area and pixel count.

This is why all early DSLR had crop sensors and why compact cameras have small sensors.

The economic model of consoles does not match cameras. the console model works because every sale of a new game nets ms/sony money, and there are often charges for the SDKs and additional licensing charges to release a game. The profit margin on a game sold is quite high and the raw manufacturing costs almost non existent (the development cost is a separate issue which the console makers have nothing to do with).

The profit margin on lenses is also quite small, about 15% or so I've heard. you need to sell a lot of lenses to recoup any costs. Sigma/Tamron/Tokina don't license anything so any 3rd party lens sold nets the camera manufacturer nothing. And lenses have a long life time and there is a huge secondhand market.


The only way a camera could realistically be sold at a loss is if the user had to pay a user license, so basically lease the camera.
 
jonneymendoza said:
Yea but it will sell loads and make them a lot of money. look at console game machines. they sell at a massive lost early on and gain loads of profit afterwards.

Plus buying FF sensors in bulk can reduce cost a lot.
Click to expand...

FF Sensor reportedly cost 20x more to make than a crop.
As DP said there isn't much margin, so even if they sell loads and loads of them, the 7D will still be far more profitable.
For example, if your margin is £0, you could sell a billion camera's and still not make any money...

If you want a cheap FF camera that is 90% of what the 5Dii is, then you can get a 5Di for under £600...
 
D.P. said:
It doesn't work that way. The cost of the FF wont get much cheaper when ordering more. They are already priced at bulk. The sensor costs arise due to manufacturing defects that occur scholastically with the probability of errors increasing with the sensor surface area and pixel count.

This is why all early DSLR had crop sensors and why compact cameras have small sensors.
Click to expand...

If they are able to improve yields, then we could realistically see 'consumer' level FF cameras at 7D prices.
If they improve yields enough, we may even see MF begin to take off.
Apparently it's rumoured Canon is considering MF if they lose too much market share by not having a high resolution body.
 
They do, it's called the 5DII. I would imagine it's either too much of a compromise sticking an FF sensor in an **D body, it's not economically viable or they'd cannabalise sales of more profitable bodies and/or the 1 series. Likely a mix of all three.

jonneymendoza said:
God knows why Canon dont make a entry level FF camera!
Click to expand...
 
The thing is the yields are mostly dictated by physics. The error rate is something like proportional to area^2 * pixels. Twice the sensor area will give 4 times the error rate, twice the pixels will make twice the error. A sensor twice as big with twice as many pixels gives 8x the error rate as the smaller sensor.

Better processes will mostly just lower the base error rate per unit area/pixel, but the yield of the larger sensor will always be much lower.

Sensors are getting more and more complex so it is also getting harder to improve the manufacturing process.
Certainly with time prices will slide down and MF sensor will undoubtedly start to become more affordable. But then we have already seen a large drop in cost for high end sensor, the D3x compared well to MF cameras http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings , the D800 is going to push that to a whole new level and yet the D800 costs nearly 1/3rd of the price of the D3x. That is progress!
 
^^^
If you get close to a 100% yield rate at 35mm or even on crops, then the error rate isn't a huge concern.
The biggest cost difference will then be the silicon itself, and the fact you get 2.5x less die candidates from 35mm dies vs crop.
 
And said:
They do, it's called the 5DII. I would imagine it's either too much of a compromise sticking an FF sensor in an **D body, it's not economically viable or they'd cannabalise sales of more profitable bodies and/or the 1 series. Likely a mix of all three.
Click to expand...

But the 5dmk3 is suppose to replace it and at 3k? not very entry level friendly!
 
Looks like it could be shipping Friday in the states, that'll make for an interesting next week review wise...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom