D600 with full fat AF system!

if your pushing nearly 2k for a entry level ff, wouldnt that eat away d3/d800 sales? cant see it happening.

the 5d3/d800 are IMO entry level ff. their will never be a actual entry level ff IMO.

You would need to seriously gimp it in order for the 5d3/d800 not to be effected.

maybe putting a ff sensor on a 650d would be the solution for canon anyway



A 24Mp sensor with the D7k AF in a smaller body separate the D600 and D800 nicely and justified 1200 price difference. The D800 has the best sensor of any SLR to date, people will pay for that alone. Remember, people paid over 8,000 for a D3x since it had the bets high res sensor of any DSLR, the D800 blows that out of the water for a fraction of the cost. hence the D800 can always have a larger margin over lower end FF cameras.


What canon can do I don't know, but a 7D with the 5dMKIII sensor is most likely. Canon messed up with the 5DMkIII sensor, it should have used the 1D-X sensor, then there would be a nice product separation for an entry level FF.
 
As it would massively damage the sales of the 5D mk iii if they used the same sensor, regardless of the AF system. They'll only realistically use the 45 point system from the 7D/1D mk iv or the new 61 point from the 5D mk iii/1Dx as nikon give 51 point autofocus on all bodies above the D300.

You also can't go much smaller in terms of physical body size when using a FF sensor either. From a canon point of view, you can't even limit the stuff on the camera, as the people who develop magic lantern would find a way to enable it all anyway without any real issues, destroying the sales of the new 5D mk iii.

State of the art crops make far more sense from a business point of view as both companies don't have a recent high end crop camera below the professional 1D series up to mark iv, which is still a few thousand to buy, even second hand.

Metal body, 61 point AF, superb ISO performance and 1.6 crop would have an amazing following with wildlife photographers, just as the 7D does.


Canon will have to use the 5DMKIII sensor in their entry level FF, I see no other way. The problem is Canon didn't push the 5DMKIII sensor far enough, they kept the resolution about the same which is fine but the ISO and DR barely meets and is far behind the competition, respectively. Therefore they will find it hard to make a camera with a lower spec and price point. TBH, the 5DMKIII is basically what the 5DMKII should have been, we are still waiting for a true 5DMKIII camera. Plenty of rumours of a 32-42MP high-res canon FF coming along, that is the 5DMKII successor in my eyes.

EDIT:
bang on cue another high res canon
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/08/canon-eos-3d-x-cr1/rumour:


EDIT 2: I am not having a go at the Canon 5DMKII, it is a fantastic camera and resolved the biggest issue with the5DMKII. It is just not what the 5DMKII camera was all about, high IQ and resolution. Landscape and studio togs don't really have an upgrade
 
Last edited:
The emergence of the 3D make sense as there of a EOS3 in the past.

Sensor aside, It'll be full size body like the 1 series and almost as good weather sealing, basically 95% of the 1 series with half the price tag.

Which means if this comes out, it'll likely sit around £3,500 easy with the 1D at nearer £5k at the moment.

You can almost get two 5Dmkiii with that! I'm not sure one would get it unless they want the MP or DR (if it becomes reality).

Then it will also bring the question of the debate vs D800 into question as it'll be £1,000 more.

Then again, it wont be in the same category if it is full size and arguably MF kind of pixel count.

P.s. can we drop this AA filter stuff lol, I'm so sick of it. Avoided mentioning the D800E on purpose. Please?

I mean what if it comes with a wafer thing AA filter that gives as good performance as the D800E? Anyway......this is all in the thin air as it does not exist.
 
Damn, the mere mention of an AA filter set's you off. Raymond, it' a feature that affects performance. Please find a way to deal with that.
Personally I'm sick of you trying to bicker with me every chance you get, you almost derailed the 'post your pictures' thread the other day. Whatever chip is on your shoulder, whether it have an AA filter or not, just let it go...
 
Last edited:
Raymond, I thought you asked to drop it, then you continue?
Jeez man, I respect you and your work, I know we disagree sometimes, but why you keep going out of your way to knock me?

Poor child has to play all by herself !

On a serious note...holy CA batman ! (/resist making Nikon makes amazing lenses joke :p)


Lol,I remember a few times where other posters have picked you up on strong CA! :p

But yeh it is bad in this example, will be fixed for final hand edit's though, these are just raw output's from a batch action.

Below was uncalled for imo.

It's funny to me that you of all people - pixel peep and read into every detail of a lens performance post a photo like that that's all.

I would've thought you either:-

1 - return the lens
2 - fix it in software before posting it online.

No means I am saying we haven't all done it, I have !

Raymond please, don't keep trying to bicker

What's good for the goose is good for the gander :D

Anyway, CA aside.

Are these processed? It looks very flat?

Phew, I thought this thread was turning:



Suddenly!
 
Last edited:
Most of those are jokes, note the :p, the goose comment.

Can you not see that?

As for the CA, it is valid as there is CA, it is also valid that is also my believe you wouldn't show people unfinished work, unless you overlooked somethng but you admit it being unfinished?

I don't really see it as bicker, in my head are light hearted comments! If that doesnt translated well, Note the :p and :D smilies! That's what they are for?
 
Yes I thought it was light hearted which was why I responded with :p

Below had no :p, and was clearly personal.

It's funny to me that you of all people - pixel peep and read into every detail of a lens performance post a photo like that that's all.

I would've thought you either:-

1 - return the lens
2 - fix it in software before posting it online.

No means I am saying we haven't all done it, I have !

As for not posting unfinished work, it was a bit of CA, it wasn't anything fundamental, so who really cares...
 
Last edited:
Right, I am not knocking your review, it is valid as any.

Now, I like to begin by saying that if you think I have said anything false and lied in any way then I apologise and will retract such statement, it is not my intention to be offensive as illustrated by the many use the smilies. My attempt was humour, even if it does not translate as well over the written form (thus the smilies).

Second, if you take this offence to this post, then I also apologise as it is not my intention.

Now, it is clear, at least to me, in the past month, to me, you have gained a reputation of a person who put technical brilliance of camera gear above all else, or at least on a VERY high regard. I do too, but to me, you have taken it on a completely whole different stratosphere with your many many links to articles, tests, videos, on topics such as AA, DR, weather sealing, shutter noise and the list goes on. So it was surprising to me, to see a photo from you, with that much CA. Not because there is anything wrong with that, as I said it in that post, we've all posted photos with CA, one not so long ago and mrk pointed out to me. But coming from you was a big surprise.

Unless you don't venture into General Discussion forum on this board, for example, a person who is a grammar nazi and if he or she corrects someone's grammar in GD, he or she better watch his posts with the strictest scrutiny as it will be picked apart by others. It is expected.

Thus the line of "What is good for the goose must be good for the gander".

When you have illustrated to everyone that you hold technical perfection to such high regard, and then follow with a photo with a technical fault that can be fixed so easily in software, you open yourself up to criticism. Not just in grammar or photography, so many walks of life this takes place.

In that post I even tried to do it with humour, by admitting myself have also posted photos with CA, admitting that I am also no means perfect. The post are merely "yanking your chain", "pulling your leg", joking with you. There may not be a smilie in that post but it also wasn't a lie, there is CA in that photo.

I am sorry you took offence. It was not my intention Rhys.

Water under the bridge?
 
You also can't go much smaller in terms of physical body size when using a FF sensor either.

Hmmm, yes you can. The internals themselves really don't take up much room at all, it just comes down to the prism size and sensor size. Most stuff outside of that doesn't really matter and size just comes down to what customers want at each price point. You could put a full frame sensor in 1100D or D3200 sized bodies if you wanted as they all have full frame sized mounts, which is the main size determinant of bodies.
 
Canon will have to use the 5DMKIII sensor in their entry level FF, I see no other way. The problem is Canon didn't push the 5DMKIII sensor far enough, they kept the resolution about the same which is fine but the ISO and DR barely meets and is far behind the competition, respectively. Therefore they will find it hard to make a camera with a lower spec and price point. TBH, the 5DMKIII is basically what the 5DMKII should have been, we are still waiting for a true 5DMKIII camera. Plenty of rumours of a 32-42MP high-res canon FF coming along, that is the 5DMKII successor in my eyes.

EDIT:
bang on cue another high res canon
http://www.canonrumors.com/2012/08/canon-eos-3d-x-cr1/rumour:


EDIT 2: I am not having a go at the Canon 5DMKII, it is a fantastic camera and resolved the biggest issue with the5DMKII. It is just not what the 5DMKII camera was all about, high IQ and resolution. Landscape and studio togs don't really have an upgrade

The ISO and DR are absolutely fine on the 5D mk iii compared to the D800. Sure neither of them are comparable to say a hasslebrads DR, yet the ISO performance on both is exceptionally similar. DxO mark also state that the DR on the 5D mk iii at higher iso levels is higher than the D800 so thats a seriously mute point anyway.

As for whoever mentioned the availability of D700 and 5D mk ii cameras in the coming months, you do need to remember that people are continously upgrading to the mk iii and D800/e models from these cameras and classifieds like on TP are full of them!
 
Back
Top Bottom