My 5D Successor Wish List and RANT!

[M24]

Greetings all, just thought I might stir the 5D successor pot some more now that we have a D700 from the dark side.


Here are my thoughts, call it a rant if you will, on what I believe Canon's recipe for success needs to be, along with what I hope you will find to be an interesting backstory.


My hopes for the 5D's successor:

Full frame sensor (obviously) in the 14-16 megapixel range
D300/D700/D3-like 3 inch hi-res display (If Nikon can do it, so can Canon! I'm tired of not knowing if I nailed the focus out in the field, damn it!! -a built in screen cover would be nice too!)
Better weather sealing
Competitive frame rate (minimum 6 fps)
All alloy body AND alloy battery grip, no more plastic battery grips, please!
Discard that damn cursed "print" button -->How about an MLU button instead!? (or at least make the button programmable?)
The kind of HDR and noise reduction we are used to with Canon, but better (maybe a little...?)
ISO range equal to the D700 (though I doubt I'll ever use the insanely high ISO -but it sells)
Last but not least: it NEEDS to be under 3000 USD

A couple of months ago, I had a rather unpleasant conversation with a Canon Sales Rep at a local show who was not too pleased when I told him, as politely as I could (while wearing a 40D on my neck), that I thought Canon had made a big mistake by introducing the XSI/1000D before the successor to the 5D. In addition, I stated that I have worked with some hard-core Pro-photogs who also shared my disappointment that the G9, 40D, the FLAGSHIP 1Ds MKIII, and now the XSI/1000D share the same mediocre LCD that doesn't come close to the current Nikon LCD. The Canon Rep seemed indignant and stated that the sharing of and long-term need for replacement parts across different bodies was necessary and implied that it was something a consumer “wouldn't understand..” When it came to talking price, the Canon Rep stated he was very sure that the 5D's successor would be somewhere between 3000 and 4000 USD.


Quite frankly, I reeled in horror at that statement. I tried to suggest to the Rep that an over 3000 USD price-point would be too close to the available lineup (from all vendors) of current professional-grade, full-sized, ruggedized, and weather-sealed bodies. I suggested that Canon would be making a monumental mistake if they introduced a successor to the 5D that was anything less than what would be essentially a D300 with a F/F sensor. As it turned out, the Rep I was speaking with got distracted and ended up in conversation with another would-be customer for a few moments while I drooled over a 1Ds MKIII on display. More on this story later.

So why have I decided on what I think Canon's recipe for success for the successor to the 5D will be?


Well, given the current Nikon offerings, D700 most especially, aside from the afore-mentioned encounter with the somewhat righteously indignant Canon Rep several months ago, I believe Canon will have to introduce a successor to the 5D that is under 3000 USD and is everything and then some of the upstart D700. If they don't, Canon will simply be shooting themselves in the foot, and will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt in my mind, that Canon has been the top of the heap for so long that they have quit listening to what their customers want.


I have long had a running bet on how Canon needs to introduce the 5D's successor with several of my Canon loyalist friends. Many of them have disagreed, but with the release of the D700, most have come to agree with me on my price-point and desired features. With the release of the D700, it is now clear that what my Canon loyalist friends and that Canon Rep have said cannot be done CAN be done!


Do I need to say “D700” ?


The question is: will Canon listen to their customers, or will they yet again, include that damn "print" button? :p

Flash back to the encounter with the man from Canon: later on in the conversation, I told the Canon Rep that if all Canon did was to take a 40D and add better the weather sealing, a better LCD, a F/F sensor, and keep it under 3000 USD, (more like $2500) they would sell them like hot-cakes. The Rep seemed almost irritated by my suggestion and remained recalcitrant in his position. Well, I'm sticking by mine!!! Do I need to say “D700” again!? I'd like to see that Canon Rep's face now; I wonder how he would rationalize his position?


Let me ask you all: if Canon offered what was essentially a F/F version of the 40D with a few upgrades, would you plunk down 2500 to 3000 USD for one?

I would! Although, I must say, I would much prefer to be offered a camera with my above list of features, even at 3000 USD.

Hey Canon... are you listening? Are you listening to what your customers want? Are you taking notice of what features are selling cameras?


Hey Canon... I sure hope you are listening, because it is clear that Nikon is.

Okay, rant over.


Best regards to my fellow forum members,

Michael


P.S. to Canon

Rant back on for a second: an 18-200L IS couldn't come any sooner! Sure, it might trump some sales of the entry level kit lenses and EF-S lenses (I'm thinking F/F body here!), but then again, it might just raise the Canon bar back to where it should be: the top. Then that bar would be the next bar for Nikon to reach for, because as I'm seeing it now, aside from the 1Ds MKIII, Nikon is kick'n your butt!

:p:p:p

[rang]

I would by the next Canon body that _didn't_ have that damn print button just because it would be a signature ground breaking model. A pradigm shift in thinking for Canon.

;-)

[gjl711]

Needs to have fine focus adjustment per lens. I am getting tired of sending every lens back to Canon for calibration when a simple feature like focus adjust would have solved the problem easily.

In fact, Canon, if your listening, it will save you $$$ thus increasing your profits. Having to service all these lenses on warranty has to get expansive.

BTW, Canon full frames are on a 36 month replacement schedule. That said, the 5D MkII is due out at Photokina.

[JeffreyG]

Let me ask you all: if Canon offered what was essentially a F/F version of the 40D with a few upgrades, would you plunk down 2500 to 3000 USD for one?



No, I would simply keep my 5D.

I do agree with your general assessment. If Canon wants to even approach $3000 (let alone go above it) then the D700 has set the bar for the minimum feature set. A FF 40D simply isn't going to cut it.

IMO if Canon wants to offer a warmed up 5D (aka the FF 40D) then Nikon has just limited them to about $2300 with the D700. Anything close to $3000 for a FF 40D starts to look like a joke vs. the D700.

[gooble]

I was inspired by your post to send Canon an email on their contact page about the print button and some other problems I have with the 40D ( low res LCD with amber tint, no weather sealing etc)

I bet if everyone on the forum that hates the print button contacted Canon you'd see some changes.

As for the price of the 5D successor, I highly doubt if it'll be less than $3,000 or even at $3,000. I'd guess it'd be in the $3500 range. But for that price it'd have to be more than a FF 40D.

[M24]

I would by the next Canon body that _didn't_ have that damn print button just because it would be a signature ground breaking model. A pradigm shift in thinking for Canon.

;-)


LOL!



Are you listening Canon??

[M24]

Needs to have fine focus adjustment per lens. I am getting tired of sending every lens back to Canon for calibration when a simple feature like focus adjust would have solved the problem easily.

-Couldn't agree more!!! Here-here!


In fact, Canon, if your listening, it will save you $$$ thus increasing your profits. Having to service all these lenses on warranty has to get expansive.-Go figure! Couldn't agree more!


BTW, Canon full frames are on a 36 month replacement schedule. That said, the 5D MkII is due out at Photokina.Not so sure I agree with this even if it is Canon's official word. Any company, regardless of product, needs to react to market forces to stay competitive. I don't believe Canon, in the 5D's case, should stick to a rigid timeline on new models. They are losing market share.

Just this past weekend, a buddy of mine who has been dying to own a DSLR, picked up the D300/18-200VR kit. I tried to get him to get a 40D, but I had to admit that if I didn't have money in L glass and was starting out in the DSLR world and ~2300 USD was my budget, I would have bought the D300.


Are you listening Canon?

[scokar]

...Let me ask you all: if Canon offered what was essentially a F/F version of the 40D with a few upgrades, would you plunk down 2500 to 3000 USD for one?

No.

even if Nikon had gone under trying to get the D3/D300/D700 out the door, still -- no.

the "40.5D" would come in at $2999 US, and offer no overwhelming reason to forego the existing 5D which would drop even further in price and look like a steal.

No.

[M24]

No.

even if Nikon had gone under trying to get the D3/D300/D700 out the door, still -- no.

the "40.5D" would come in at $2999 US, and offer no overwhelming reason to forego the existing 5D which would drop even further in price and look like a steal.

No.

Well, it is clear that Nikon is not going under; they are selling a lot of high-end cameras these days. For the first time in many years, when I'm out shooting, I'm seeing a lot of Nikon gear strapped on other shooters' necks.

In spite of the wonderful images that the 5D creates, in technology terms, it is a dinosaur. It feels old and clunky compared to its modern competitors. I hate to say that about a Canon, but even my die-hard 5D shooter friends agree. If you don't agree, go shoot for a weekend with a D300 with the battery grip and the 18-200VR. It'll take some getting used to, but a shooter is a shooter; put a camera in his hand and he takes pictures.

I've found myself at a stage in life where I don't want to jump ship and am ever so hopeful that Canon will LISTEN TO THEIR CUSTOMER BASE.

If it is indeed a 5D MKII, I sure hope it AT LEAST matches the D700 in features and price-point. If not, if the damn print button and mediocre LCD is still there, I might just have to put my love of Canon aside and jump the proverbial ship to suit my needs. As for my current gear list, it just scratches the surface of what is lurking about, so if you judge my opinions by my gear list, you'll be missing the point.

The point is that Canon needs a good kick in the arse and needs to show us loyal customers that they can not just match, but better what their competitors are offering.

I hope the successor to the 5D will be Nikon's worst nightmare... I guess we'll see one of these days.

Best,

Michael

[kcbrown]

If Canon produces a 40D on steroids with a killer (and I mean killer, with high ISO capabilities at least matching the D700's) full-frame sensor and sells it for, say, $2200, then I would buy that in a flash (direct print button or not :-) ). And so, I expect, would a lot of 40D shooters looking for better high-ISO capability and image quality (though the 40D is no slouch on either front).

But if the successor is $3500 then I won't buy it -- it'll be too expensive for me to justify it, and in any case, if they price it that high, then what compelling reason would anyone have to buy it when they can get killer high-ISO performance and killer high-performance shooting capability by going straight for the 1DmkIII?

No, I think a $3500 5DmkII would be a dud. It either wouldn't sell, or it would be so good that it would cause the 1DmkIII to stop selling. There's no way Canon could make it better than the D700 without also making it a 1DmkIII killer.

Which leaves us with a 40D on steroids with a killer full-frame sensor. How much could they sell it for? Anything approaching $3k and people will laugh at it while heading straight for the D700. So that means at most something like $2400.

No, I think Nikon's got Canon boxed nicely into a corner, and the low to mid $2k range for a 40D on steroids is the only good play Canon can really make at this point.

[birdfromboat]

The one thing they need to do to make an 'advanced amateur' body worth the price of a 'pro' body is seal the thing up tight. That would make it worth the price of admission IMHO. My Dream list would also include a removeable prism/viewfinder, (like the old Nikon bodies) that could be replaced by a larger "sport finder' . Talk about Live view! does anyone else remember how great it was to have one of these? easier to clean all the surfaces, at the cost of easier to get dirty, but still a very nice feature for macro and for sports. That would definitely peak my interest in spending another 3k. Not much else would.

[kcbrown]

The one thing they need to do to make an 'advanced amateur' body worth the price of a 'pro' body is seal the thing up tight. That would make it worth the price of admission IMHO.


But the "pro" bodies are already sealed like that. If you're going to pay the price of a "pro" body, why not actually get a pro body, with everything that comes with it (top-of-the-line autofocus system, superb image quality, unparalleled responsiveness, etc.) for your money?

Additionally, the D700 essentially gives you all that anyway, for a $3k price tag. If you're going to be spending that kind of money, wouldn't you want to get the high-end autofocus system and other goodies on top of the full-frame sensor and weathersealed body?

Canon may have planned on producing a full-frame body with 40D features and a killer full-frame sensor (and maybe weathersealing) and pricing it in the $3k range, but Nikon has just slammed the door hard on that idea. Canon might be stupid enough to try it anyway, but it won't work. People who have that kind of money and who need to stay in the Canon system will just pay the extra money for the 1DmkIII. People who don't need to stay in the Canon system will go straight for the D700 without even giving the Canon a longing look. Such a body will hardly sell at all at that price, weathersealing or not.

But Canon might be stupid enough to try it anyway. Never underestimate the stupidity of a corporation. :-D

[narlus]

No, I think a $3500 5DmkII would be a dud. It either wouldn't sell, or it would be so good that it would cause the 1DmkIII to stop selling. There's no way Canon could make it better than the D700 without also making it a 1DmkIII killer.

which is kinda the same strategy noink implemented w/ the D700...there are *not* many differences between it and the D3, so figure you drop whatever it costs for the grip, you are still easily 1.5K ahead. the features you lose (dual card slots, 5x4 crop mode, some others) wouldn't matter to me.

[Jimmer411]

[SIZE=2]Let me ask you all: if Canon offered what was essentially a F/F version of the 40D with a few upgrades, would you plunk down 2500 to 3000 USD for one?






Nope. Im barely able to justify $1000+ for a lens, let alone MANY of them. As for a camera there is no way I would spend more than $1500 on a body alone.


Ive got no need for FF as Ive never shot film. Us "Croppers" are pretty well taken care of with the EF-S line. Now if only Canon would release something like a EF-S 10-20 f/2.8 Id be set.

[birdfromboat]

[quote=kcbrown;5902341]But the "pro" bodies are already sealed like that. If you're going to pay the price of a "pro" body, why not actually get a pro body, with everything that comes with it (top-of-the-line autofocus system, superb image quality, unparalleled responsiveness, etc.) for your money?

Frankly, I never really considered any of the current pro bodies, one of them because of the crop sensor, both of them because of their size and heft. It would be nice to get the weather sealing on a 'normal' sized, full frame body, and that might be enough to get me to sell my 5d and upgrade, but I am happy with my current autofocus and IQ. upgrading the 5d with better software and higher megapixel counts alone won't get me excited. Not this time around anyway. Give me better hardware, better sealing, and keep it in a package I can wear around my neck without pain.

[PhotoJourno]

The next Full frame will be:

- Prosumer oriented (as 1DsMkIII took care of the High Enders)
- Higher Resolution (maybe 18-20mpixels) not sure it will hit 22 like the Ds3
- Digic III
- 6 fps
- Enhanced Battery System (Probly the newer compact type)
- Still no built in Flash
- Improved Auto Focus
- Liveview? (Not sure, remember they cannot sell you a Ds3 for the price of a 5D, so they will have to leave some key features out). Definitely no Liveview with AF or anything that advanced.
- MicroCalibration? Nope, I don't think so. Not yet. We're still a whole generation behind that feature. We're still barely implementing sensor cleaning. So,
- Sensor cleaning

Either way, the new Full Frame Replacement is going to hit the US Market at over 2000 dollars, perhaps even 2500 for a Body with Kit lens (28-135 IS? Something comparable in EF?).

[fr3d]

Good points. I would however prefer a fullframe camera that is the equivalent of the
40D but with high res lcd and maybe fewer fps. The MP count doesn't interest me,
nor does the sealing. All I want is a state of the art affordable full frame camera under
2000$.

[ulrikft]

I want a d700 with a canon lens mount...

[Albedo]

Interesting thread. I have a question for you all though:

Imagine the 5D Mk II is priced at $3500 for, what is essentially, a FF 40D.

Would any of you REALLY jump ship to Nikon?

The thing is, once you buy into a lens system you're surely more tied in than just to hop across like that. I mean, for the cost of half a dozen L lenses you're talking about the price of a top-end camera...

Just a hypothetical question at the moment!

[kcbrown]

Interesting thread. I have a question for you all though:

Imagine the 5D Mk II is priced at $3500 for, what is essentially, a FF 40D.

Would any of you REALLY jump ship to Nikon?


Nope. But people who don't have ties to the Canon system and who want a full-frame camera would almost certainly go with Nikon under those circumstances.

Those of us who are tied to the Canon system would skip the $3500 5DmkII entirely and would instead either wait or simply buy the original 5D, used if necessary.

If Canon releases a FF 40D for $3500, expect the used prices on the 5D to stay exactly where they are, if not rise (perhaps by quite a bit).

[AeroSmith]

Honestly I love the current 5D. What wonderfully rich and creamy images it produces. What fabulous high ISO perfromance. At $1,900 it's a steal.

My only gripes (and the reasons I'm waiting for a mkII) are that it is rather prone to dust on the sensor, the AF system is out-dated and the LCD is too small and outdated. I'd be perfectly happy if they would just improve the dust/weather sealing, give the thing sensor cleaning, give it more AF points with more cross hair points and spot metering on any AF point, and give it a hi-res 3" LCD. More megapixels? The camera doesn't need it but I'm sure Canon will feel the need to give it more from the mere standpoint of marketing.

Frankly, the current 5D sensor rocks. I'd hate to see anything with a much higher pixel density. High ISO performance should be the priority for any 5D sensor. That said I could see them getting better high ISO performance out of the 1Ds2 sensor with more advanced processing (D!GiC III).

From the AF and spot metering standpoints, a FF 40D would not cut the mustard for this "prosumer."

[birdfromboat]

Yep, better hardware for a camera that has wonderful, not amazing, software. give me a more durable 5d for 3k, or watch me cling to my current camera and maybe pick up a spare body for under 2k. Some of us are still quite happy with our 5d's, just wishing we could abuse them a little and get away with it like those pros we see with the obviously hammered 1's hanging around their necks. I just can't bang on my 5d, first cause I like it too much, and second cause I know it isn't as robust as it should be. Maybe canon knew that if they made it too stout I would never have to or want to buy another.

[fr3d]

Interesting thread. I have a question for you all though:

Imagine the 5D Mk II is priced at $3500 for, what is essentially, a FF 40D.

Would any of you REALLY jump ship to Nikon?

The thing is, once you buy into a lens system you're surely more tied in than just to hop across like that. I mean, for the cost of half a dozen L lenses you're talking about the price of a top-end camera...

Just a hypothetical question at the moment!

Those people who don't know much about the Canon lens lineup
will have an easy time going for a Nikon. Those people deserve
it :) I am really surprised sometimes how much people are concerned
about a camera body and how they come to think about lenses
only afterwards. Camera bodies are like computers and will
continue to evolve feature/sensor wise in the future. But lenses
will stay almost the same. I take a good lens in favor of a good
camera body any day.

[ulrikft]

Those people who don't know much about the Canon lens lineup
will have an easy time going for a Nikon. Those people deserve
it :) I am really surprised sometimes how much people are concerned
about a camera body and how they come to think about lenses
only afterwards. Camera bodies are like computers and will
continue to evolve feature/sensor wise in the future. But lenses
will stay almost the same. I take a good lens in favor of a good
camera body any day.

Well, that goes both ways, Nikon has a few quite nice lenses avilable too. I almost exclusively shoot 24, 50 and 85mm on a crop body, a d700 with a 14-24 2.8, 35 f/2, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 would fit my style quite well.. And i DO know both the canon and nikon lens lineup quite well :P

I suspect that people like Rørslett and Hogan would laugh at us webrumorers trying to mock the nikon lens lineup :P

[PhotoJourno]

I do believe many brands out there have very competitive products. Some absolutely better than Canon, as this manufacturer is not perfect.

I also believe that any photographer must re-think their toolbox everyonce in a while, simply because we carry names such as Canon, Nokin, Sigma, etc. so long as they make our craft of photography more pleasant. With a couple of exceptions, nobody is making a profit by simply mentioning one brand over another. And even in such a case, the end result is always the same "how can I make my photos better?".

Under such a statement, I think it is valid to wonder all options.

What I have gotten tired of, is the usual rant about "Well, if Canon cannot do anything better, I will go Nokin", almost like a threat we make to our local video store when they fail to give us scratch-free DvDs for rental. Does it work with multi-national corporations?.. Well, tell you what. I will buy all your Canon gear, and send you a Good Luck Card.

Sorry, I had to get it out of my chest. All the latest speculations of Canon's latest releases has got me sick of a few -in general, not alluding to this thread- who can't seem to keep their cool about it.

No brand is perfect, no camera solves every photography problem, and no matter what, who or when, companies will outdo one another. It is healthy competition, and only a matter of time.

Cheers y'all. :)

[bbbig]

Those people who don't know much about the Canon lens lineup
will have an easy time going for a Nikon. Those people deserve
it :) I am really surprised sometimes how much people are concerned
about a camera body and how they come to think about lenses
only afterwards. Camera bodies are like computers and will
continue to evolve feature/sensor wise in the future. But lenses
will stay almost the same. I take a good lens in favor of a good
camera body any day.

Actually, I've looked at Nikon's lineup, and they don't look bad at all, especially for zooms and telephoto primes. For me, it's not enough to stay over in Canon camp forever, if they don't do the right things very soon. Only thing that's holding me back from going D700 is its resolution... had it been at least 14Mpx, I would've dropped my 1DsMkII in a heartbeat.

[Nightcrawler]

I am getting tired of Canon sitting on their laurels while Nikon is releasing what people want.

[fr3d]

Nikon lenses are more expensive, less have AF-S (USM) and VR (IS).
The current 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR vignettes even at f11 on fullframe,
and the D300 plays dead with that lens form time to time. I guess the grass
is always greener on the other side. But the truth is that you can shoot
amazing pictures with what you own right now ... isn't it?

[ulrikft]

Well, as long as i stay out of rain, snow, concerts where people throw beer... etc :P

[JeffreyG]

Nikon lenses are more expensive, less have AF-S (USM) and VR (IS).
The current 70-200/2.8 AF-S VR vignettes even at f11 on fullframe,
and the D300 plays dead with that lens form time to time. I guess the grass
is always greener on the other side. But the truth is that you can shoot
amazing pictures with what you own right now ... isn't it?

Nikon does have the 200-400 /4 VR though.

And their price for the 200/2 VR is roughly 2/3rds the Canon price.

There is also the Nikon 14-24.

I think each lens line has its strengths and weaknesses. Overall I think Canon is better largely because they offer the f/4 line of 'affordable' L lenses. Supertele shooters will also find Canon to be more affordable with a better selection....the above mentioned 200-400 and 200/2 notwithstanding.

[hai]

nikon's 14-24 and 24-70 are sick! never thought nano coating is that good

[Epix]

I'd like to see 5 shot AEB from +-3 stops.

[Ztilb]

- 14-16MP
- 14-16bit processor
- Lens fine focus adjustment
- Weather sealing
- 3" LCD hi-res display
- Live view w/contrast AF (macro is my business)
- 5-6fps
- Better ISO range
- Sensor Cleaning

And I'll be buying one!
My actual 5D would be sold and I would buy a 40D as a second body.

If they miss any of these items, I will probably stay with my 5D and wait for a couple years more...

[bbbig]

Hmmm, should I sell my 1Ds Mark II now?

[fr3d]

Hmmm, should I sell my 1Ds Mark II now?
Sell it when the new 5D is announced, not everyone hears about it as fast like us ...

[shadowcat]

I think I paid at least $3000 for my 5D so that much for a MK2 seen reasonable to me especially since the rumors say it;'s going to a 1D style body.

[davidwegs]

I would think the only survival option would be more MP's and high ISO's that look better than the D3.

I have two of the originals and still love the files for some work, but will not get the MKII if it does not (at least) better the D700. Especially if its at the same price.

[davidwegs]

Interesting thread. I have a question for you all though:

Imagine the 5D Mk II is priced at $3500 for, what is essentially, a FF 40D.

Would any of you REALLY jump ship to Nikon?


Well, though you don't see that happening, I got a D300 when they hit the shelves and a couple months later, dumped the 3 40D's I had for a couple more D300's.

I have glass for both systems (and some for Minolta from an age ago, haha) and will continue to maintain that position as my glass stays for many many years.

Watching what is happening with the up coming D700, Canon will be needing a winner to keep their share in this segment for sure.

Love competition.

[SOT]

I have the D3, it is a P&S in a grown up body that is all. The Nikon guys are still WAY behind the Canon folks...overall. I mean there might be some leapfrogging here and there but Nikons flagship is a mere toy compared to Canons flagship.

[SOT]

I wish they would have a digital level in the viewfinder.

[NickSimcheck]

I have the D3, it is a P&S in a grown up body that is all. The Nikon guys are still WAY behind the Canon folks...overall. I mean there might be some leapfrogging here and there but Nikons flagship is a mere toy compared to Canons flagship.


Be happy you are protected in the arms of Canon users, the Noinks would be calling for a hanging right now!