Canon Need to come up with a new 5D MKIII?

[Arkady]

Edit: being more serious while Nikon undoubtedly pulled masterstroke with the D3 and all that followed from that, and a lot of pros swapped over because of it, many of them will now be looking ruefully at the Canon lens range and also the new 1D4. Nikon are just second best on the lens front, no two ways about it.

I think that while Canon have a wider range of lenses, their range of Pro 'fast' glass is no better or worse than that offered by Nikon...
Anyone who buys a D3 or D3x and then asks about 'slow' f/4 lenses when there's an f/2.8 or faster equivalent is missing the point...

Nikon have always said their emphasis is on Pro equipment and the trickle-down effect to prosumer and hobbyist equipment is a happy by-product that they'll cater to as long as it generates enough profit.

I spoke to the Nikon major accounts manager a couple of years ago and he told us that Nikon's stated aim is to get a Nikon camera into the hands of every pro-togger on the planet...
They never will and accept that they never will, but it doesn't mean they're not going to try...

 

[unclened]

I think this is the fact that Canon owners are or should i say were faithful to the name, it was only when they realised how far behind canon were that they started jumping ship.

I think those switching over are a very small minority. It's just that they are little more noticeable, because of the whole Canon vs Nikon lark.

 

[gnom]

Yes with a 5D MKII AF tracking is impossible, so i had to buy a 7D for my BIF.

I am not sure what you were "tracking" to render the AF impossible to use; but have yet to see it falter. I've used it for both high-speed shooting, and normal landscape stuff.

But for arguments sake; say it is so, and you bought a 7D instead because you deemed that better for your needs. Surely all is Bob's Uncle then? The fact that Canon (and Nikon) offeres different models geared towards slightly different needs doesn't render them useless, right?

Of course, this whole debate is pointless as there's just one answer: use the camera that works for you and suits your needs, be it Canon or Nikon, or whichever. You do have a choice afterall, so little need for complaining.

 

[CT]

I am not sure what you were "tracking" to render the AF impossible to use; but have yet to see it falter. I've used it for both high-speed shooting, and normal landscape stuff.

You can shoot high speed birds in flight with any model in the Canon range and get excellent results. The 7D will just produce those sort of results more consistently.

 

[gnom]

You can shoot high speed birds in flight with any model in the Canon range and get excellent results. The 7D will just produce those sort of results more consistently.

Ah, yes; this I wont argue against. But to use that and claim that the 5D2 AF is useless, as the OP did, I find rather silly.

 

[HoppyUK]

You seem to forget the sensational D3 and its evolutions are long due for a complete overhaul and it has taken an age for canon to catch up, the D4 could do what the D3 did for Nikon some 3 or 4 years ago and have the Cannon bods committing hari-kari.......... upped MP, stupidly high ISO and a new auto focus system to name a few. The games only just started

Just buy a D700

I think it is great that there is choice between resolution and other features between the manufacturers to be honest. That leads to more options for the consumer. So much better than the same basic product being available from multiple manufacturers and less choice.

The 5D3 will come, but not before the 1Ds4

I agree. Choice and competition, and the general game of leapfrog that Canon and Nikon have been playing forever is really good.

My only sadness is that most of the big names from the film era never really made it to digital and Canikon have a virtual duopoly now.

Sony had a go, and all credit to them, but they haven't made much of an impact in the serious end. In fact I think they'd almost quite like to exit the DSLR side if they could do so without losing face massively. So I can't see them making the huge investment necessary to compete with eveything that Canikon have got, and they'll just tick over while investing heavily in the new mirrorless NEX camera style market.

And that is surely good too That seems to me to be a much better way of making a digital camera, without all that clunky (and expensive) machinery smashing up and down all the time, but it'll take a few years yet for that technology to both evolve sufficiently and then migrate up to an acceptable level for enthusiasts and pros. I've no doubt it'll happen though

 

[CT]

Ah, yes; this I wont argue against. But to use that and claim that the 5D2 AF is useless, as the OP did, I find rather silly.

Well I've not used a 5D2, but I've no doubt the AF is capable enough, but just with a slower frame rate. It all comes down to getting the right tool for the bulk of your jobs.

I'll keep out of the Canon/Nikon wars.

 

[Anorakus]

Still photography is only half the story though. Canon might be losing out to Nikon in the 'still' stakes, but with video it's a different story. The 5D2 has a reputation as THE amauteur-level SLR that can turn out pro-quality HD video. Try Googling "5D video" to see what I mean. This is why Canon have been putting out firmware updates to improve the video functionality of the 5D2.

This is one area in which Nikon is playing catchup to Canon.

A.

 

[specialman]

Its not what youve got its how you use it

Yep - there's a lot of crap shot with top end gear to prove that point for sure....

 

[Davie]

This kinda reminds me of the processor war between Intel and AMD. Intel went hell bent on increasing mhz while AMD moved ahead making there lower mhz more efficient, in the end though Intel won out but only by learning from AMD....so far. The real winner was the consumer.

 

[whiteflyer]

The 5D mk II kills the D700 in a few ways. A mate of mine who shoots for Grazia has just switched from Nikon to Canon. Horses for courses.

This i have to hear,,,, How?
Video is the only thing i can think of.

I did hear that Canon sell 3 5DII to videographers the every 1 to a photographer, so maybe commercially canon have got it spot on.

 

[HoppyUK]

I did hear that Canon sell 3 5DII to videographers the every 1 to a photographer, so maybe commercially canon have got it spot on.

That sounds like the kind of impossibly daft statistic that is characteristic of internet rumours.

 

[Jayst84]

That sounds like the kind of impossibly daft statistic that is characteristic of internet rumours.

Agreed. Though of course it would be skewed anyway by the 5D being the first product of it's kind available to serious videographers. Not sure how you'd track and classify buyers anyway..

 

[HoppyUK]

Agreed. Though of course it would be skewed anyway by the 5D being the first product of it's kind available to serious videographers. Not sure how you'd track and classify buyers anyway..

It could come from anywhere. The "local Canon rep" seems to be guilty of many crazy stories like that, which might mean something like three out of four buyers that filled in the user survey on the back of the warranty card said they would try the video feature

 

[kiteninja]

It could come from anywhere. The "local Canon rep" seems to be guilty of many crazy stories like that, which might mean something like three out of four buyers that filled in the user survey on the back of the warranty card said they would try the video feature

I have a 5DII, what video feature

j/k

Not having used many nikon, I would just like to say.



I prefer Macs over PCs .

 

[whiteflyer]

That sounds like the kind of impossibly daft statistic that is characteristic of internet rumours.

I'll remember never to post again unless I can back-up every statement with a 100% cast iron guarantee and reams of triple verified statistics.

 

[sophos9]

Its the person behind the camera that matters. Someone holding the camera with a good eye will produce better results with a piece of crap than someone else with a top end pro DSLR...

Choose your desired outcome, then choose the tool to deliver it...

 

[grum]

It could come from anywhere. The "local Canon rep" seems to be guilty of many crazy stories like that, which might mean something like three out of four buyers that filled in the user survey on the back of the warranty card said they would try the video feature

Don't know how you would come up with such a stat but the 5D II is massive at the moment in the video world, especially since the firmware upgrades. There isn't a HD video camera with a sensor that big for anywhere near the same price. It's bigger than some of the RED cameras that cost many many times more

 

[Radiohead]

I think that while Canon have a wider range of lenses, their range of Pro 'fast' glass is no better or worse than that offered by Nikon...
Anyone who buys a D3 or D3x and then asks about 'slow' f/4 lenses when there's an f/2.8 or faster equivalent is missing the point...

Nikon have always said their emphasis is on Pro equipment and the trickle-down effect to prosumer and hobbyist equipment is a happy by-product that they'll cater to as long as it generates enough profit.

I spoke to the Nikon major accounts manager a couple of years ago and he told us that Nikon's stated aim is to get a Nikon camera into the hands of every pro-togger on the planet...
They never will and accept that they never will, but it doesn't mean they're not going to try...

And with the imminent release of the new 85/1.4 and 24-120/4 any lens gaps is about to get a lot smaller. Stick in a 35/1.4 and 105 or 135/2 and it's done. So by mid-2011 then.

I know a lot of pro shooters in my area who moved from Canon to Nikon and, despite what HoppyUK might like to think, I don't know one who has looked back once.

Having used both systems my take is this. Nikon take longer getting there, but they generally do it right.

 

[texfoto]

Nikon is cleeearrly better than Canon.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Just kidding folks. ;-)

 

[Skyline On Fire]

I think for the average bloke on the street 21 is not required.
If you run a PC that can render your 100 mps through CS4 good luck to you.

What average bloke on the street buys a 5DmkII anyway? If they buy that camera they obviously are into photography in a big way and appreciate the professional camera they brought.

As for running a PC that can render a 100mps? Did you mean megapixels or megabytes? Either one doesn't make much sense... But yes I do run a computer capable of pushing multiple very large files through CS5. It cost me around 600 to build myself, far less than the camera! Your points don't seem to make any sense.

 

[Anorakus]

What average bloke on the street buys a 5DmkII anyway?

Indeed. I've got talking about my hobby a few times at work, and when you get to mentioning that you've spent nearly £2k on a camera, plus another couple of lenses at £900 each, jaws start hitting the floor

A.

 

[trencheel303]

Don't get me wrong the D700 looks like a great camera and I almost bought one but neither one is a clear winner.

When it comes to AF I would say the Nikon is streets ahead. As usual Canon have just concentrated on megapickels - had they reduced the number of them on the 5D (and left high MP to the 1Ds combined with its great AF performance) I think the 5D would be better.

What Canon really need to realise is that not everyone needs or wants 23 million jiggapixels - if people wanted to print that big, use a Hasselblad or something... :nuts:

 

[HoppyUK]

When it comes to AF I would say the Nikon is streets ahead. As usual Canon have just concentrated on megapickels - had they reduced the number of them on the 5D (and left high MP to the 1Ds combined with its great AF performance) I think the 5D would be better.

What Canon really need to realise is that not everyone needs or wants 23 million jiggapixels - if people wanted to print that big, use a Hasselblad or something... :nuts:

Nikon D3x has 24mp

Do keep up Bacon Chops

 

[existent]

When it comes to AF I would say the Nikon is streets ahead. As usual Canon have just concentrated on megapickels - had they reduced the number of them on the 5D (and left high MP to the 1Ds combined with its great AF performance) I think the 5D would be better.

What Canon really need to realise is that not everyone needs or wants 23 million jiggapixels - if people wanted to print that big, use a Hasselblad or something... :nuts:

The way I see it is that, if you are buying 5D, then you want the extra detail you get from the larger sensor compared to the crops. Then why not have that extra mps to complement that extra detail.

Otherwise a xxD or 7D (even xxxD) is more than capable producing decent size prints...

I have no experience with nikon slrs so I am curious what makes their AF so much better compared to canon... 7D for example? I understand that the other canon cameras have a basic AF system but it is more than capable for your average user I think. And the fact that 5D is considered as portrait/landscape lens, you don't need a very fancy AF system...

 

[Arkady]

Nikon D3x has 24mp

Do keep up Bacon Chops

...and it's a bit poo at anything other than 100iso...
I almost wish I hadn't bought one as I hardly ever use it outside the studio...


mmm...bacon....

 

[gnom]

This discussion is fun.

As a basic business strategy each camera maker has different models with different features, that suits different needs. The consumer then have a choice of buying the camera that most suits his or her needs.

The hilarious bit in all this is that people complain about a certain model that doesn't fit their needs, making them having to buy another model that does fit the needs. Logic, anyone?

And often, these needs doesn't seem to be actual needs; but rather the lust for the technical abilities read about somewhere else. Come on, PP on camera? Yeah, I wish I had one of those because the 3" LCD would be perfect for that... Sigh.

I don't know why, but all this sounds like a Seinfeld episode.

 

[Arkady]

This discussion is fun.

As a basic business strategy each camera maker has different models with different features, that suits different needs. The consumer then have a choice of buying the camera that most suits his or her needs.

The hilarious bit in all this is that people complain about a certain model that doesn't fit their needs, making them having to buy another model that does fit the needs. Logic, anyone?

And often, these needs doesn't seem to be actual needs; but rather the lust for the technical abilities read about somewhere else. Come on, PP on camera? Yeah, I wish I had one of those because the 3" LCD would be perfect for that... Sigh.

I don't know why, but all this sounds like a Seinfeld episode.

I hate Seinfeld...

 

[Starastin]

...and it's a bit poo at anything other than 100iso...
I almost wish I hadn't bought one as I hardly ever use it outside the studio...


mmm...bacon....

common ! can't be that bad ! :|

 

[Arkady]

common ! can't be that bad ! :|

About the same as the D2x in terms of noise above 400iso...
Which is about right as the pixel-density is comparable (12.2Mpi on DX as opposed to 24Mpi on FX).

When it's good, it's very good, but that's pretty much only at 100-200 iso...
The D3 is far more versatile and for the price of one D3x, I've bought two second-hand mint D3 bodies and an 85mm f/1.4...

And I've not yet needed to enlarge any images bigger than A2.
At the most commonly used sizes I output, there's no difference between the images taken on my D3 and D3x.

 

[Starastin]

About the same as the D2x in terms of noise above 400iso...
Which is about right as the pixel-density is comparable (12.2Mpi on DX as opposed to 24Mpi on FX).

When it's good, it's very good, but that's pretty much only at 100-200 iso...
The D3 is far more versatile and for the price of one D3x, I've bought two second-hand mint D3 bodies and an 85mm f/1.4...

And I've not yet needed to enlarge any images bigger than A2.
At the most commonly used sizes I output, there's no difference between the images taken on my D3 and D3x.

you got lucky with the 1k+ price didn't you. but well - makes sense, that you don't need the mp. I hope they lower the mp for the future models.

 

[Arkady]

you got lucky with the 1k+ price didn't you. but well - makes sense, that you don't need the mp. I hope they lower the mp for the future models.

I only got one for £1138, the other for £2100...
Still less than the £4.9k I paid for my D3x...

They won't lower the Mp on an existing camera or its replacement, they'll just make less of them if they don't sell as well...

Just buy the D3s instead...

 

[trencheel303]

Nikon D3x has 24mp

Of course but that's its specific purpose - to have high MP for large prints, surely.

ALL of Canon's high end SLRs have loads of MPs - 7D, 5D2, 1Ds, 1D - not a single one of them has a lower MP count so it can be given awesome high ISO performance - instead, its trying to be a jack of all trades. On the other hand the Nikon D3, D3s and D700 have roughly the same MP count as my 7 year old original 1Ds, and in turn for it have phenominal high ISO.

 

[Arkady]

Of course but that's its specific purpose - to have high MP for large prints, surely...

Well you say that - and that's the percieved wisdom, but what's the reality?
Mostly the images are viewed online - at 72dpi screen resolution...

When was the last time anyone had to make a print any bigger than A0?

And if you did, what's the recommended viewing distance for a print of that size? About 3m or more, that's what. From that distance you can't tell the difference.

Nikon hyped the D3x as the be-all and end-all camera for editorial and advertising use, but look at the images that are routinely reproduced: A4 or double-A4 magazine spreads for the most part.
Any differences between shots taken on a D3 and a D3x would be swamped by the magazine's printing process.

About the only time you'll see the difference is with large-scale gallery prints made by a custom print process. And only if you stand close.

 

[HoppyUK]

Of course but that's its specific purpose - to have high MP for large prints, surely.

ALL of Canon's high end SLRs have loads of MPs - 7D, 5D2, 1Ds, 1D - not a single one of them has a lower MP count so it can be given awesome high ISO performance - instead, its trying to be a jack of all trades. On the other hand the Nikon D3, D3s and D700 have roughly the same MP count as my 7 year old original 1Ds, and in turn for it have phenominal high ISO.

I think the old adage that more pixels automatically equals more noise may not be true. Certainly less true that it used to be, given that if you can get truly gapless pixels/microlenses then there's as much light collected by 20mp sesnor as there is by 10mp, and hence no more noise. And the 5D2 which is the subject of this thread proves that a high pixel count and good high ISO performance are not necessarily mutually exclusive. This trend is certain to continue.

On the other hand, some of the new lenses that Nikon is missing (they were mentioned earlier in this thread I think) have just been announced In particular, FX 24-120 4 VR and 85 1.4 look fantastic. Just a 70-200 4 to go and I think that would answer most of the Nikon lens range critics. Details here http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/content_page.asp?cid=7-10054-10866

 

[jerry12953]

My only sadness is that most of the big names from the film era never really made it to digital and Canikon have a virtual duopoly now.

RIP Contax!

 

[corny]

As a bit of a magpie, I have had to good fortune to use both Nikon and Canon high end cameras D700, D3x, 1D mkIII 5D etc.

It all comes down to personal preference. I think most know the strengths and weaknesses of both brands and choose a format to suit the photographs they want to take.

All of the cameras are stella performers compared with 5 years ago. All have at least reasonable focus, low noise, fast accurate AF, good WB, and options for personalisation that would take years for most to fathom and only ever use 5%.

As long as the glass is good D700 or even 5D mark 1 can take great pictures.

There are no wrong choices, just good ones and better ones!