New Canon full frame?

[jonneymendoza]

That's the problem.

How do you make an entry level Full Frame DSLR that doesn't steal sales from the MK3, but isn't so gimped that people choose the XXXD line because its better featured.

Thats the million doller question.

for me a canon entry level would be this:

9 point all cross type AF
Touch screen swival like teh 650d
12/18mp FF sensor
60dish build

price at launch £1300

That way, a 5d3 is still a far better camera offering better ergonics, AF, more MP etc

 

[a1ex2001]

I'm more interested to see what they manage as a non L kit lens personally I'd love to see a refresh of the old 28-70mm f3.4-4.5 its still a really good lens in terms of sharpness and colour but is let down by it's old school focus motor and dodgy moving front element. If they refreshed it with a non-rotatinf filter ring, usm and possible IS it would be a killer piece of kit.

 

[jonneymendoza]

maybe but for me, when i look at a canon body, i dont care much about the kit lens.

the kit lens on my 400d was rubbish but better then nothing.

Now used as a coaster

 

[An Exception]

I'm not expecting a full frame D7000 and 7D, I think they would be too good for the price.

It depends what prototype they go with.
It seems Nikon have been a bit crafty with the D800 and created a whole different segment (high res).
Now it can release a FF equivalent of a D7000, yet still maintain clear product separation without having to gimp the camera.
Rumoured spec's here

Will Canon give you a FF 7D?
Apart from the body, I think they will.
A low cost FF camera will be a high volume product, so good business decisions here are critical.
The D600 looks like it can compete with the 5Diii at rumoured half the cost.
When Canon weighs up it's options, I expect them to realise it should not be so concerned about their entry FF stealing sales from the 5Diii. Instead it should be scared of the D600 stealing sales of the 5Diii. The latter is considerably more damaging to Canon.

Also, let's not forget that Canon also has plenty of room to discount the 5Diii to make it more attractive. I think it will have to do that anyway once supply of the D800 can keep up with demand. Although from looking at the past, Canon may try to avoid this considering it has previously tried a little too hard to stop internal product cannibalisation. However with the 5diii they didn't do much gimping, which is why I think it got a big price hike over what people were expecting or what the competition were offering.

 

[a1ex2001]

maybe but for me, when i look at a canon body, i dont care much about the kit lens.

the kit lens on my 400d was rubbish but better then nothing.

Now used as a coaster

Yes but Canon have not released a decent consumer grade full frame standard zoom in years this is an oppertunity for them to release a serious update of some very good classic optics at price which might make them very attractive to those who can't aford the L series lenses or don't want the weight.

It depends what prototype they go with.
It seems Nikon have been a bit crafty with the D800 and created a whole different segment (high res).
Now it can release a FF equivalent of a D7000, yet still maintain clear product separation without having to gimp the camera.
Rumoured spec's here

Will Canon give you a FF 7D?
Apart from the body, I think they will.
A low cost FF camera will be a high volume product, so good business decisions here are critical.
The D600 looks like it can compete with the 5Diii at rumoured half the cost.
When Canon weighs up it's options, I expect them to realise it should not be so concerned about their entry FF stealing sales from the 5Diii. Instead it should be scared of the D600 stealing sales of the 5Diii. The latter is considerably more damaging to Canon.

Also, let's not forget that Canon also has plenty of room to discount the 5Diii to make it more attractive. I think it will have to do that anyway once supply of the D800 can keep up with demand. Although from looking at the past, Canon may try to avoid this considering it has previously tried a little too hard to stop internal product cannibalisation. However with the 5diii they didn't do much gimping, which is why I think it got a big price hike over what people were expecting or what the competition were offering.

If the rummoured D600 can compete directly with the 5D Mkiii then it can clearly also compete directly with the D800 which would seem to be a crazy move from Nikon.

Certainly interesting times ahead but I wouldn't believe anything until it's announced we've all seen similar rumours before!

 

[jonneymendoza]

i'd love if thed600 to compete with a 5d3 so that the 5d3 can down in price even more!

 

[An Exception]

If the rummoured D600 can compete directly with the 5D Mkiii then it can clearly also compete directly with the D800 which would seem to be a crazy move from Nikon.

Certainly interesting times ahead but I wouldn't believe anything until it's announced we've all seen similar rumours before!

5diii can compete well with the D800 as a general camera, it can't however compete in genres where resolution, DR and general IQ are paramount.
The D600 will likely not be able to compete with the D800 either, but will be able to compete with 5Diii by beating it in IQ and possibly AF performance, especially in low light.

Even if it does compete with the D800, I don't see how selling more lenses and gaining market share is a huge concern. If it ever does become a concern, it's not like they can't put the price up, as already seen with the D800.

 

[Photogaz]

Yeah, the 5D3 needs to come down in price.

 

[Raymond Lin]

5diii can compete well with the D800 as a general camera, it can't however compete in genres where resolution, DR and general IQ are paramount.

How come you don't ever use that argument to steer people away from the D700?

It's funny how 23mp isn't enough these days lol Show me how many people out there actually need 38 mega pixels. Those that do probably have MF gear.

To be really honest, the user's short comings will be evident way before resolution, DR and IQ come into places in a majority of cases.

Funny how Nikon now has a higher pixel count camera the fanboys are using it as a reason to get one where as a year ago they didn't dare touch those waters.

 

[Ksanti]

5diii can compete well with the D800 as a general camera, it can't however compete in genres where resolution, DR and general IQ are paramount.
The D600 will likely not be able to compete with the D800 either, but will be able to compete with 5Diii by beating it in IQ and possibly AF performance, especially in low light.

Even if it does compete with the D800, I don't see how selling more lenses and gaining market share is a huge concern. If it ever does become a concern, it's not like they can't put the price up, as already seen with the D800.

That's debatable.

The D800 is undeniably better than the 5D3 for resolution, DR and general IQ. However, whether it's noticeably better is a different matter entirely. It might be noticeable to the photographer, but looking at normal sized prints or at images on the internet, there are much more important factors to what an image looks like than what full frame camera took it. I'd be very surprised if, without knowing the age of an image (or being able to tell it from stylistic changes), you could tell much of a difference between a photographers work using a 5D2, 5D3, D700 or D800, bar the occasional thing like a low light image.

All the current full frame cameras are more than good enough for pretty much every stills application, perhaps bar sports. The only lagging one was the 5D2's autofocus; now everything is pretty much superlative when you add more to the cameras. You might have a larger margin for error/operating window with the IQ of the D800, but that's not something you see in a final image.

 

[An Exception]

How come you don't ever use that argument to steer people away from the D700?

I'v never had reason to, and if you remember, resolution was where I said the 5Dii was obviously strongest and thus suitable for specific genres despite lacking other important features. Unlike the D800 though, the 5Dii isn't so great as a 'do everything' camera, so the situation is very different.

It's funny how 23mp isn't enough these days lol Show me how many people out there actually need 38 mega pixels. Those that do probably have MF gear.

Not everyone who wants that kind of resolution can afford or wants to pay high end MF money. The D800E already beats the lower end MF like pentax.

To be really honest, the user's short comings will be evident way before resolution, DR and IQ come into places in a majority of cases.

Of course, but allot of the time it's not even about the quality of the final image, but how much easier it is to obtain that image in the first place.

Below is a quote from another forum that I think sums it up well.

"Having owned a pair of 5D II bodies, and used pretty extensively a 5D III, I can say that I dont regret the switch to Nikon. I do a lot of heavy post work and the DR of the D800 is everything it is cracked up to be and then some. The range is simply unreal, I am pulling off shots that would have taken 2-3 exposures with my 5dII. Spent some time editing a few 4th of july pictures the other night in LR4 and accidentally bumped the shadows to max on one of the images and it went from a pitch black sky to day time. We are not talking about a kind of dark sky with some detail being turned into a noisey brighter version of the same thing. I am flat out saying almost a 5-6 stop exposure pull with full detail and very little additional noise.

My landscape work as changed tremendously. The amount of work it takes for me to get the images I want now is nothing compared to the effort I would put in on 5dII files.

The biggest change for me though has been lenses. I went from a line up of 14 2.8L, 17-40L, 24L, 50 1.4, 24-105L, 135L, 70-200 F4 L IS, 300 F4 L IS. To the one I have in my signature. My total invested lens cost with nikon has been significantly less, and yet the quality has been the same or better in terms of optics. What I love is that with Nikon you can get top end image quality out of their mid range equipment at the sacrifice of build quality and aperture. The 28 1.8 blows the canon version I had a long time ago out of the water. The 50mm 1.8G is better than both of canon's low end 50s. The 85 1.8G is simply amazing. The 24-120 F4 VR not only has a greater range than the 24-105, but it is sharper wide open. The 70-200 2.8 VR is as sharp as my 70-200 F4L and I considered it to be Canon's sharpest 70-200. I do miss the 135L, but rumor is nikon will be updating theirs soon and thankfully they dont seem to have gotten on the insane price wagon that canon is on."

Funny how Nikon now has a higher pixel count camera the fanboys are using it as a reason to get one where as a year ago they didn't dare touch those waters.

The ironic thing about that word.. is the person using it is usually every bit of a fanboy as the person it's directed at.

I'm not one of those resolution whores personally, although I can see the benefit even if it's not currently critical for what I shoot, however I am beginning to get into landscapes now.
From my first camera, it has been a downward trend in terms of mega pixels of subsequent camera's.

550D 18mp
50D 15mp
D7000 16mp
D700 12mp

 

[Ksanti]

Of course, but allot of the time it's not even about the quality of the final image, but how much easier it is to obtain that image in the first place.

Entirely fair enough, particularly in landscape work where I'd find the 5D dynamic range occasionally frustrating if not necessarily limiting. I think a lot of it comes down to the fact Raymond and I shoot almost entirely portraiture, where dynamic range and the like are much less important than in landscape work, and the extra operating windows of the D800 are more luxuries than necessities.

 

[Raymond Lin]

But I have never once seen you tell someone (remember that thread last week with the guy looking for portraits AND landscapes?) to go for any other camera than Nikon.

Even then you were steering him towards a D700 ! When the choice was 7D or 5Dmkii as he has a Canon set up and not starting from scratch.

That's my point, I can see the facts between the lines in your posts but it is so bias all the time that it is hard to take it as an objective comment.

You are saying you are not a resolution whore but the other post you are going on about the D800's resolution...

The reason it's a downward trend in your history has nothing to do you consciously wanting to get a lower resolution...it's simply how it came about from upgrading to the next model up. Be honest, if you can get the D800 for free tomorrow and it comes with a 10mp or 36mp sensor, tell me you won't pick the 36mp one.

EDIT - I don't dislike Nikon, there are things that I like Canon to take a leaf from but as a whole, I have no regrets where I am.

Would I like a 14-24? sure
Would I like to lose the 85/1.2? Never
Would I like cheaper lenses (new ones)? sure
Would I like some features in the D800 while retaining the colour pallet of the 5D? yes
Would I like a system where some bodies don't have motors and some lenses doesn't work on it? Absolutely not. (this part baffles me...)

 

[An Exception]

But I have never once seen you tell someone (remember that thread last week with the guy looking for portraits AND landscapes?) to go for any other camera than Nikon.

Even then you were steering him towards a D700 ! When the choice was 7D or 5Dmkii.

That's my point, I can see the facts between the lines in your posts but it is so bias all the time that it is hard to take it as an objective comment.

I honestly think the D700 would still have been the better choice for him, especially for portraits (because yes you can photograph people moving). And also while it lacks the resolution, it doesn't have nearly as many issues with banding, even if its DR isn't in the same league as D7000/D800.

Is there some bias?

Yes, I prefer the system as a whole, you know simple things like auto ISO that isn't gimped, popup flash, af-assist lamp etc. so I take things like that into account when making recommendations.

You are saying you are not a resolution whore but the other post you are going on about the D800's resolution...

A lesbian once told me that while she preferred women to full-fill her needs, she could still appreciate a good looking man.

Yes the resolution, or rather the overall IQ is stunning, but personally I don't crop much or print gigantic prints (yet), but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate the huge performance that the sensor provides. As I begin to do more landscapes unlike before, a 36mp is beginning to make allot more sense to me.

The reason it's a downward trend in your history has nothing to do you consciously wanting to get a lower resolution...it's simply how it came about from upgrading to the next model up. Be honest, if you can get the D800 for free tomorrow and it comes with a 10mp or 36mp sensor, tell me you won't pick the 36mp one.

Come on Raymond! are you actually trying to miss the point of my posts?
What I was simply trying to illustrate was that for my needs MP's was not a deal breaker, and that there are other things I value more. I was not trying to suggest I was actively trying to avoid mega pixels.

 

[An Exception]

Would I like a system where some bodies don't have motors and some lenses doesn't work on it? Absolutely not. (this part baffles me...)

+1
Doesn't make sense to me either. Although it was somewhat easier for me than some, as I new my bodies were able to focus all AF lenses.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I just find it incredibly difficult to distinguish between facts and bias in your posts.

That's the problem for me.

 

[An Exception]

My apologies, perhaps you could point me to where I have stated something as fact that actually wasn't?

FYI, you should be able to spot my bias by looking for 'in my opinion' or 'imo' and the text that follows. It is my opinion, while mostly decided by fact, I wouldn't be arrogant enough to think it isn't biased to some degree no matter how impartial I try to be.

 

[Nexus]

I just find it incredibly difficult to distinguish between facts and bias in your posts.

That's the problem for me.

Agreed, An Exception is really starting to come across incredibly Nikon fanboy. Sorry An Exception, its just the way I see it too.

 

[An Exception]

^^^
No offence taken Nexus, however before you write off what I have said, consider taking something like a D7000 or 700 out for a spin to see if I'm talking BS.
Things like customisable auto ISO are now invaluable to how I work, which obviously was never the case before I made the switch.

 

[Ksanti]

^^^
No offence taken Nexus, however before you write off what I have said, consider taking something like a D7000 or 700 out for a spin to see if I'm talking BS.
Things like customisable auto ISO are now invaluable to how I work, which obviously was never the case before I made the switch.

I'm pretty sure canon has customisable auto ISO now, though I'm never shooting stuff frantically enough to require auto ISO at all so it's never been a big part of how I shoot.

Also it's important to distinguish between stuff that is actually invaluable to the way you work, and stuff that is just symptomatic of having chosen a particular system.

I'm not challenging you, but do you think you actually need the dynamic range, auto ISO and autofocus abilities of the Nikon system, and that they're truly indispensable, or do you just use them because they're available?

I don't dispute for a second that the D800 is a better stills camera than the 5D3, but a better body alone won't always produce a better image.