3D

http://www.canonrumors​.com/2013/06/is-this-the-eos-3d/

If they were trying to keep the prototype a secret, creating a strap that announces it seems counter-productive.

My thought's exactly.

This reminds me of the pre-production automobile-camouflage manufacturers use, with oddly-shaped vinyl and tape to obscure the shape and lines of the vehicle.

Why not [doesn't Canon] hand out these test-cameras with a different strap (blank-strap, L3 strap, Rebel/non-body-labeled strap, EW-100dbIII)? They went through the trouble of blurring the photo so we can't see the camera... but Canon let it out of their possession with a big billboard neck strap advertising what it is. Whoever blurred the photo is trying to hide the body, but Canon clearly isn't.

Regardless, I am always excited to see a new Canon SLR. I wonder if the NSA could tell us the specs?

I hope not. I hate 1D-type bodies.

I'm trying to imagine what there is room for spec wise between the 1DX and 5D Mark III. What would this thing be? A weatherproof 5D3? A 1DX limited to 8 fps? That's splitting hairs in the market.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16039812
I'm trying to imagine what there is room for spec wise between the 1DX and 5D Mark III. What would this thing be? A weatherproof 5D3? A 1DX limited to 8 fps? That's splitting hairs in the market.

The rumor site says huge megapixel.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16039812
I'm trying to imagine what there is room for spec wise between the 1DX and 5D Mark III. What would this thing be? A weatherproof 5D3? A 1DX limited to 8 fps? That's splitting hairs in the market.

You fail to realize that Canon creates cameras, weasel words, and specifications to increase sales.
Expect things like Cloud Networking and Mirror Migration ..

tkbslc wrote in post #16039830
The rumor site says huge megapixel.

Hmmmm....It used to be the high pixel camera was the high end spec (1Ds) and the high speed camera (1D) was a step down in price.

The 1DX is clearly the high speed camera. If they make a 30-50 MP but slower version of the 1DX, is that camera really the cheaper, lower grade (3D) option?

Could be a 2D as well, although that seems less likely.

koala yummies wrote in post #16039409
Why not [doesn't Canon] hand out these test-cameras with a different strap (blank-strap, L3 strap, Rebel/non-body-labeled strap, EW-100dbIII)? They went through the trouble of blurring the photo so we can't see the camera... but Canon let it out of their possession with a big billboard neck strap advertising what it is. Whoever blurred the photo is trying to hide the body, but Canon clearly isn't.

It seems staged. Why would some Leica weenie be testing out Canon cameras and why would his little lightmeter or whatever strap be so strategically placed?

Osiriz wrote in post #16039438
I hope not. I hate 1D-type bodies.

I hope so. I love 1D-type bodies. They're great.

Numenorean wrote in post #16039903
I hope so. I love 1D-type bodies. They're great.

If by "great" you mean big, bulky, heavy and that they take up too much space in the bag, then you are spot on.

JeffreyG wrote in post #16039812
I'm trying to imagine what there is room for spec wise between the 1DX and 5D Mark III. What would this thing be? A weatherproof 5D3? A 1DX limited to 8 fps? That's splitting hairs in the market.

Resolution and sensor improvement. By that I mean an actual bump in general IQ and dynamic range. There is also room for a cure against Canon's trademarked banding.

Canon can add these improvements while crippling speed and AF. Then we'll have an awesome camera that won't be a threat against the 1DX, nor the 5D3.

I wouldn't mind if they integrated a vertical grip but made it significantly smaller than the 1D, something like the Kodak DCS-14n or smaller.

There's really no reason for a camera to be as big as the current "pro" models - it's not like they have film motors to allow for, which is why film cameras with vertical grips got that size. Somewhere along the way that archaic form-factor became de facto size for professional bodies. It's a design that could use an update.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #16040147
I wouldn't mind if they integrated a vertical grip but made it significantly smaller than the 1D, something like the Kodak DCS-14n or smaller.

There's really no reason for a camera to be as big as the current "pro" models - it's not like they have film motors to allow for, which is why film cameras with vertical grips got that size. Somewhere along the way that archaic form-factor became de facto size for professional bodies. It's a design that could use an update.

If you're a tripod-only shooter, then sure. But I prefer the current size of the DSLR bodies. They balances well with the lenses. Chicken-winging portrait photos aren't fun, is not ergonomic and likely bad for the wrists/arms in the long run.

Indecent Exposure wrote in post #16040147
I wouldn't mind if they integrated a vertical grip but made it significantly smaller than the 1D, something like the Kodak DCS-14n or smaller.

There's really no reason for a camera to be as big as the current "pro" models - it's not like they have film motors to allow for, which is why film cameras with vertical grips got that size. Somewhere along the way that archaic form-factor became de facto size for professional bodies. It's a design that could use an update.

I think the current grip size is more dictated by ergonomics, rather than what fits inside that space. I'm not sure if you've ever owned a 1D, but they feel amazing. I sold mine (in part because it's too big/too heavy/too look-at-me for the stuff I do), but it's the best-feeling camera I've ever handled.

jwcdds wrote in post #16040219
If you're a tripod-only shooter, then sure. But I prefer the current size of the DSLR bodies. They balances well with the lenses. Chicken-winging portrait photos aren't fun, is not ergonomic and likely bad for the wrists/arms in the long run.

The range of Canon lenses differ in weight by pounds.

Considering that there is a lot of empty space inside 1D bodies, removing that space would make it smaller, but not significantly lighter - less magnesium is essentially what it comes down to. Any balancing advantage you've convinced yourself exists should still exist with a shorter 1D.

Anyway, it's just an idea. The current form factor is a throwback to a time when that size was a necessity, not necessarily preferred. That's not the case anymore. An integrated grip in a smaller form factor should please more people than it puts off - and those that want something bigger can always add weight or size to bulk it up. You can't, however go in the other direction.